Once again J Street’s positions fail to significantly distinguish it from AIPAC. Today J Street joined with AIPAC and broke with Americans for Peace Now in applauding new sanctions on Iran. To its credit, J Street made one distinction from AIPAC — in calling for continued diplomacy and warning against war:
We believe that a dual track approach that combines meaningful diplomatic engagement with broad-based sanctions is necessary to convince Iran to clarify its nuclear intentions. We commend the President for his efforts in strengthening the resolve of the international community on Iran. […]
We reiterate that nothing in this bill should be taken as authorizing or encouraging the use of military force against Iran. We are opposed to the use of military force by Israel or the United States against Iran.
While J Street joined with AIPAC in welcoming the sanctions, it broke with APN and Gush Shalom. Americans for Peace Now, on whose board J Street’s Jeremy Ben Ami also sits, condemned the sanctions. APN’s Deborah Lee issued a statement which contained this critique of sanctions — any sanctions:
APN’s core concern about this bill remains unchanged: imposing sanctions the goal of which is to ‘cripple’ the civilian economy and inflict misery on the population — in the hopes that this population will rise up against its government — is a flawed and in all likelihood counterproductive approach. It is an approach that has failed for decades in Iran. It failed in Iraq and Haiti. It has failed in Cuba and North Korea. And it is an approach that only last week Israel abandoned in Gaza, recognizing that squeezing the population of Gaza with a blockade on civilian goods had not only failed to force Hamas out of power, but had enabled Hamas (and the world) to blame Israel for all the misery the people of Gaza were facing. It took Israel three years to recognize the error of this approach. It is regrettable that Congress did not draw the obvious lesson from these experiences.
While J Street has taken it on the chin from mainstream Jewish organizations and the Israeli Lobby for its unwavering support of a Two State solution, many of its recent positions — endorsing supplemental military aid for Israel and sanctions on Iran — seem designed to blunt right-wing criticisms and win supposedly “moderate” Jewish support.
But aside from a position truly supportive of two states, J Street is beginning to look much like AIPAC. J Street has adopted the Obama approach: position yourself as a progressive, but consistently make tactical political calls that sell out progressive principles. Positions on the Goldstone report, BDS, sanctions, supplemental military aid, slamming the UN — all have been disappointing echoes of AIPAC.
Today J Street took the additional step of distancing itself from even the progressive Zionist peace movement.
J Street has a short window in which to establish itself as a voice for something new in the Middle East.
Where is that voice?
Comments are closed.