Israel Matzav

J Call, J Street and trust

The JPost's Haviv Rettig Gur makes what is probably an inevitable comparison between J Call and J Street.

Drawn largely from the French-speaking world, it has faced criticism from many Francophone Jewish groups, including the French and Belgian communal umbrella organizations, the CRIF and the CCOJB.

Worse, it has faced “praise” from some of Israel’s avowed enemies, such as the Iranian regime’s Press TV Web site’s glowing report about the group’s “stand against Israel.”

Since its message is similar to J Street’s, the criticism has also been roughly the same: While perhaps well-meaning, the group besmirches Israel by placing the onus for the failure of peace talks on the Jewish state.

Chemla excuses this focus by noting that, as Jews, the petition signatories are merely speaking to their Jewish brethren.

Yet, say critics, as actors in an international arena where Israel is often made the pariah among the nations, doesn’t the group have a responsibility to also speak about Palestinian responsibility for the failure of peace talks? Does it truly believe that Israel alone controls the pace or success of the negotiations? And tactically, critics complain, the group’s dire warnings are counterproductive, since they convince the Palestinians that time is on their side.

The JCall petition argues that peace negotiations are “urgent,” and failing to pursue them could be “disastrous” for Israel. Why, if you were on the Palestinian negotiating team, would you want to help the Israelis out of that jam?

As with J Street, the answer to these questions does not lie in what the group says, but in the question it doesn’t quite answer.

Rettig Gur goes on to argue that J Street is a 'serious supporter of Israel.' I don't believe that and I doubt any of you do either. To the extent that J Street has brought itself more into line with Israeli government positions, that's been because failing to do so meant that it was shunned by the Israeli government and was completely ineffective.

But what's curious here is how Rettig Gur describes the difference between J Street and J Call, on the one hand and AIPAC on the other:

So what’s the difference? The difference is trust. At the end of the day, AIPAC, which supports the two-state position articulated by every Israeli and American government since 1992, generally views Israel’s leaders as honest in their pursuit of peace, while Palestinian leaders are seen as rejectionist.

J Street, on the other hand, does not trust Israeli intentions nearly as much. Asked if he trusted Binyamin Netanyahu’s declaration of support for Palestinian statehood, J Street director Jeremy Ben-Ami told the Post that Netanyahu himself “hasn’t answered that question... We will support this prime minister and every step he takes that supports the end of this conflict.”

JCall, too, is not innovative in its call for a two-state solution, but in its distrust of the Israeli government’s willingness to pursue that declared policy.

...

Israel, take note. The divide today between the large Diaspora “Right” and the newer, smaller Diaspora “Left” is not about policy, but about trust.

I would argue that mistrust is mutual. And with good reason.

I would argue that there's another difference. If Israel were to formally drop the 'two-state solution' (i.e. acknowledge the reality that it will never happen), the Diaspora "Right" would continue to support it. The Diaspora "Left" would not.

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 4:06 PM