When J-Street first came out, I was pretty much on the fence. Though I didn't agree with some of its actions and platforms, I had to admit that it seemed to appeal to the  younger generation. That accomplishment covers a multitude of sins in my book: capturing the imagination and attention of the next generation is just so very important. Though I never joined the organization, I have defended them to their detractors on the fairly solid ground that supporters of the Middle East's only democracy need a wide spectrum of organizations to capture a wide spectrum of values. Importantly, I do not question the motives of ardent J-Street supporters. For the most part, I think their hearts are in the right place.

Nevertheless, my support for J-Street has eroded significantly in the past few weeks, a direct outcome of what transpired at their DC conference. A very "progressive" young person that I have a lot of respect for caught my attention by storming out of the conference after hearing one too many panel discussions. "They're not moderate any more. They've been hijacked" he said. So I went online and listened for myself to the ten videos on the J-Street web site. Please start here: go to http://conference.jstreet.org/What_about_Hamas  and fast-forward to 40 minutes. If you do, you will hear thunderous applause when one panelist expresses his disgust that Dennis Ross was invited to speak — Dennis Ross, the quintessential moderate who has done more to bring warring parties together than anyone else. You will hear the same panelist clearly and unequivocally state that the root cause of the problem is the existence of Israel: “Hamas, like the settlers, like Likud ... is a result of this framework, whether it’s as I said is Israel’s existence, Israel as a Jewish state, or Israel’s occupation and the Palestinian dispossession.”  

He wasn't alone. A platform was given to a variety of radicals, including the "Jewish Voices for Peace", a group listed by the ADL as one of the top 10 anti-Israel groups in the US. They argue for sanctions, divestment and boycott of all things Israeli, up to and including university professors.  Listen to the other videos as well. You will hear an Arab panelist cheered as she complains that fellow Arabs "for years have been suffocated and strangled by dictators supported by Israel". You will hear a radical Israeli say "I would like to see an Israeli uprising against our government, but unfortunately it won't happen" to thunderous applause. You will hear a UN representative defend endless UN condemnations against Israel, and you will hear a moderator wrap up a panel discussion with a lament about "the erosion of western values within Israel".  You will not hear about Palestinian terrorism, Palestinian corruption, the current missile buildup in Gaza, Gilad Shalit or how a unilateral withdrawal from Gaza led to over 6500 missile and mortar launchings. Of the forty or so lectures and discussions at the J-Street conference, not one dealt specifically with the need for democracy in Palestine. Talk about a lost opportunity: J-Street has totally avoided asking the tough questions about the lack of Palestinian democratic reform even though a peace treaty signed with a democratic Palestine is much more likely to last.

Though my support for J-Street has eroded in the last few weeks, my affection for typical J-Street supporters remains undiminished. They have an important role to play. They offer a complimentary alternative to the view of "old fashioned" pro-Israel advocates who believe it correct to support the democracy known as Israel regardless of who runs it. These “old fashioned” supporters argue that America's role is to support democracies, full stop. They contend that it is the role of each democracy to govern fairly as only their citizens see fit, not Americans or anyone else. J-Street supporters see things differently and are prepared to criticize Israel's government and citizens, and withhold support until such time that Israeli behavior lives up to their expectations. The first group supports the Middle East's one democracy no matter what, while the other treats both parties to the conflict equally, respecting the non-democratic form of Palestinian rule as something inherent to Arab culture, something which should be respected and not criticized publically in a patronizing way.

Which approach makes more sense? As much as I respect the good intentions of the typical J-Street supporter, I'll argue that the days of treating Arabs as being incapable of embracing democracy are over. This is an intensely bigoted view that is being disproven in real time by current events, seemingly everywhere in the Arab world except for Palestine. I would argue that J-Street leadership would do well to demand that Palestinians incorporate the institutions of democracy as a condition for J-Street support: under PM Salam Fayyad's inspired leadership, that day is much closer than many would think. But by refraining from criticizing Palestinian society while attacking only Israeli positions, J-Street ironically discourages the democratic revolution that is so needed for peace.

It is time for all sides of the American pro-Israel community to show some real creativity and intellectual courage. J-Street supporters must decide whether they want to continue to support an organization that has two utterly different sides, one of which gives voice to radicals that are clearly and unequivocally antagonistic to the continued good health and even existence of Israel. If that path disturbs them, then they need to consider other avenues by which to voice their criticisms of Israeli policies, ways that can bring peace to Israel and lasting peace and democracy to Palestine. AIPAC needs to consider how to embrace these people and their beliefs in novel and creative ways while also voicing support for Palestinian democratic institutions. I think it's time to talk. 

steve@switchingsides.com