 |
| How much do you think the Obama administration's new attitude toward the Arab world contributed to the poor performance by Hezbollah in last week's elections in Lebanon? |
Micha
London, England |
|
| Jeremy Ben-Ami: |
| That's obviously impossible for me to know. What we do know is that the Obama presidency has already begun to improve the very low image of the United States around the world and in the Middle East in particular - and that means that rabid anti-Americanism is less likely to be successful as a campaign strategy for extremist candidates and parties. |
|
 |
|
|
| In the hypothetical scenario that Israel ignores U.S. objections and launches air strikes against Iran nuclear targets, would J Street condemn such a development? |
Guy G.
Netanya, Israel |
|
| Jeremy Ben-Ami: |
| Unilateral military action by Israel against Iran against the objections of the United States would be a serious strategic mistake. I hope that we never find ourselves having to deal with this question. |
|
|
|
|
| President Obama's speech in Cairo has created high expectations for this administration. Is there a danger that the failure to live up to those expectations will result in a third intifada and/or regional war? |
Pierre
Paris, France |
|
| Jeremy Ben-Ami: |
There are real dangers ahead - no question. But they're not created simply by the expectations created by the President's speech. They are real. What will set them off is a failure to create a viable Palestinian state, a failure to define Israel's borders and to get international recognition for them and a failure by all of the regional and international actors with a stake in avoiding failure to do their part.
The speech was an amazing and inspirational call on all of us to do our utmost to end the conflict. The fulfillment of that call is up to us. |
|
|
|
|
| What can Obama learn from previous presidents' efforts to reach a peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians? For example, Bill Clinton's disastrous last minute push at Camp David and Bush's total lack of interest in a peace deal. |
Anat
New York, New York |
|
| Jeremy Ben-Ami: |
| The single most important lesson, we believe, is not to leave the effort for the last minutes of the Presidency. We were urging all through the end of last year that the new President should make good on his promise to engage on this issue from day one. And he has. So I think the primary lesson was absorbed and is being applied. |
|
|
|
|
| Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas told the Washington Post that Netanyahu will fall as a result of pressure from Obama and that the Palestinians should wait for that to happen. Hawkish Jews seized on this as proof that the Palestinians themselves are not serious about peace, doesn't this undermine your argument and doesn't this vindicate Netanyahu's position that Israel should not be asked to make concessions if the Palestinians aren't serious? |
Orna
Kansas City, Kansas |
|
| Jeremy Ben-Ami: |
Israel should do what is in Israel's best interest. In my view, freezing settlement construction is absolutely in Israel's interests - and shouldn't be viewed as a "concession."
If the Israelis continue to expand settlements, it will soon become impossible to create a viable Palestinian state. When that happens, the dream of a democratic state that is a home for the Jewish people dies with it.
I hope that the Palestinian people are serious about peace. I hope that they have the leadership to negotiate and deliver an agreement. But even if they are not, the further expansion of West Bank settlements is counterproductive to Israel's long term security. |
|
|
|
|
| How long should Obama give dialogue with Iran before tougher sanctions - or even a military option - are considered? |
Mati
Johannesburg, South Africa |
|
| Jeremy Ben-Ami: |
| I would not support a strict deadline for diplomacy. I liked the President's answer in his recent news conference when he said, on the one hand, that there can't be a stopwatch on diplomacy while, on the other, we should have a good sense by the end of the year whether the Iranians are really pursuing this seriously. |
|
|
|
|
| Why isn't Obama pushing harder for Israel to talk to Syria? Surely the best way to move things along peace-wise is to cut Syrian ties with Hezbollah and Iran? |
Aliyana
Melbourne, Australia |
|
| Jeremy Ben-Ami: |
| Our view is that there needs to be a regional and comprehensive approach to all of the issues. There shouldn't be this dynamic of one track vs. the other. A deal with Syria can be a critical piece of a strategy to ensure Israel's acceptance into the region and its ultimate security. But not at the expense of achieving a two-state solution with the Palestinians. |
|
|
|
|
| Do you think the Gaza withdrawal has failed? What incentive do Israelis have for more withdrawals from the West Bank when all they got was rockets for their pains? |
Maxwell
Manchester, England |
|
| Jeremy Ben-Ami: |
| Yes, the Gaza withdrawal demonstrates the failure of a unilateral, non-negotiated approach. The only way to take further steps is in a negotiated manner in which specific responsibilities are assigned and commitments made. Successful peace (Jordan, Egypt) happens through negotiations and agreements not unilateralism. |
|
|
|
|
| Do you think that Hamas would ever sign up for a peace agreement with Israel? What would Israel have to do to reach an agreement with them? |
Jacob
Memphis, Tennessee |
|
| Jeremy Ben-Ami: |
To really understand what the options are, someone would first have to be talking to and listening to them. So the first thing we need to figure out is whether a policy of refusing to talk or listen to anyone associated with Hamas - even through third parties - is in the best interests of the United States.
Ultimately there will have to be some form of political reunification among the Palestinians for there to be progress - and Hamas as a significant political force in that society isn't going away. I found it very compelling that we were talking to a Lebanese government that included Hezbollah representation. Why wouldn't we do the same with a Palestinian government that includes Hamas and is willing to engaged in negotiations and abide by the results? Don't forget 69% of Israelis support the Israeli government talking to Hamas. |
|
|
|
|
| How much contact do you have with the Obama administration? What words of advice what you give the president if you had five minutes of his time? |
Samuel
Long Beach, California |
|
| Jeremy Ben-Ami: |
We have a great deal of contact with members of the administration. This administration has been very good about seeking a wide range of divergent opinions from within the Jewish community.
If I had five minutes with the President, I'd present the results of the poll of American Jews that J Street conducted, so that he understands that the majority of American Jews support a two-state solution, oppose expanding settlements, and back his assertive diplomatic agenda to end the conflict. I don't want him to be derailed from his agenda by loud voices on the right that represent only one view within our community. |
|
|
|
|
| In what scenario would you support a bi-national state? |
David
Skokie, Illinois |
|
| Jeremy Ben-Ami: |
| I believe in the idea of a homeland of the Jewish people. It's what my great-grandparents fled from Russia to build. It's what my grandparents hoped to create when they founded Tel Aviv. It's what my father fought for as a member of the Irgun. And it's that vision that I'm working to fulfill today. |
|
|
|
|
| How come I hear very little about the Jews who had to flee the Arab countries? What about their right of return of lost and stolen assets? Should that not be part of any give-backs? |
Sean
Oceanside, New York |
|
| Jeremy Ben-Ami: |
| There are important issues relating to Jews who left Arab lands and these could be discussed as part of a regional, comprehensive solution. As the rights of Palestinian refugees are recognized and compensated, there is no reason why this issue can't be on the table as well. |
|
|
|
|
| One of the biggest Mideast myths is the theory of linkage in this theory, if the Israeli-Arab conflict was solved, everything else would be dandy. J Street is the loudest supporter of this within the U.S. and I am very interested to know how the Shia-Sunni conflict be would resolved or an end to the Iranian nuclear program be solved by applying more pressure on the Israelis? |
Matt W.
New York, USA |
|
| Jeremy Ben-Ami: |
J Street supports a two-state solution and immediate action by Israel and the United States to end the conflicts with the Palestinians and the broader Arab community first and foremost because it's essential for Israel's security and survival as a democracy and Jewish homeland.
The resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not a silver bullet for solving all the regions' other woes. However, the plight of the Palestinians unquestionably is a key recruiting tool for extremists not just in the region but around the world and stands as a serious obstacle to broader American interests in the region as a whole. |
|
|
|
|
Does J-Street accept the Arab Peace Initiative? What is the biggest flaw with this proposal? Why has this been kept out of the press?
Is it possible to have a more generous offer on the table than what was proposed in 2000 at Camp David? |
Jonathan Sussman
New York, USA |
|
| Jeremy Ben-Ami: |
Yes, we support the idea behind the Arab Peace Initiative - which is that resolution of the conflict needs to be regional and comprehensive. It should be possible for Israel to make peace not simply with its neighbors but with all 22 Arab nations and the broader Muslim world.
The proposal is itself not a "peace plan" or a resolution of the conflict. It is an offer that lays out the basis for ultimate resolution to the conflict - which still leaves a lot to be negotiated.
The consensus is that not only was what was offered at Taba in 2001 more generous than what was on the table at Camp David - so are the terms that were being discussed under Prime Minister Olmert during his last months in office. |
|
|
|
|
| Will America be ready to stop aid in case Israel refuses to freeze settlements? Do you think Obama is that serious about the peace process? What is needed from the Palestinian and Arab sides at this particular time in your opinion? |
Nizar
Beirut, Lebanon |
|
| Jeremy Ben-Ami: |
Three very separate questions. One, I think President Obama is very, very serious about ending the conflict - not about a process, but about peace. Two, neither the deep and unshakeable friendship between the U.S. and Israel - nor the aid package itself - need to be called into question as part of this effort.
Third, it is critical for the Palestinians to speak and act clearly against violence and incitement. It is also essential to make progress on Palestinian reunification because there needs to be a political structure on the Palestinian side that can speak for the Palestinian people as a whole. Finally, Arab nations could advance the process now by making more explicit the benefits and relationships that could happen once peace is achieved. |
|
|
|
|
| How do you feel regarding the Old City of Jerusalem and the Western Wall which are in post-1967 land? Or the Mount of Olives which strategically overlooks the Old City and has a large Jewish cemetery on it? |
Danny
Toronto, Canada |
|
| Jeremy Ben-Ami: |
I'm really glad you asked that question. Both my parents and my great grandparents are buried on the Mt. of Olives. So I have a deep personal connection to the area and obviously a serious personal stake in what happens with the Mt. of Olives and in Jerusalem, where I lived for several years.
Agreement between the Palestinians and the Israelis that ends the conflict will have to include compromise on Jerusalem. At the end of the Clinton administration, the outgoing President laid out the idea that the Jewish neighborhoods of Jerusalem would be the capital of Israel and the Arab neighborhoods would be the capital of the new Palestinian state. There will be - and there must be - a way to share this amazing city with respect for each other's historical and personal connection to this area.
This will be among the most sensitive and difficult areas for negotiation and believe me no one will feel a more personal stake than I do in ensuring there is a peaceful arrangement for sharing this incredible, holy area. |
|
|
|
|
| Did your group aggressively lobby the Obama administration to pressure Israel regarding any building, including natural growth, in all post-1967 land even though Israel's officials do not feel secure about this? |
Ben
New York, USA |
|
| Jeremy Ben-Ami: |
| We do not lobby for pressure on Israel, period. We do believe, however, that close allies and friends can and should have open and frank conversations when they disagree without threatening the strength of the friendship. We have lobbied for the enforcement of standing American policy that the Israeli government should not be expanding settlements because we believe it is in America's and Israel's interest. |
|
|
|
|
| Can you please explain why Israel should make compromises and concessions before the Palestinian Authority ceases incitement in schools/mosques or while Hamas repeatedly attempts to attack the civilian population? |
Aaron Grobman
Atlanta, America |
|
| Jeremy Ben-Ami: |
Israel should take actions that are in Israel's interests. We believe it is absolutely counter to Israel's long-term interests to continue to expand settlements and to make it more difficult for there ever to be a Palestinian state. So no matter what the Palestinians or Arab nations do - Israel should immediately freeze settlement expansion for its own sake. Frankly, the entire occupation of the West Bank - not simply the settlements - is counter to Israel's long-term interests and the sooner that Israel establishes its actual borders with international recognition, the better.
A side benefit of Israeli action now to freeze settlements and move toward ending the occupation might well be that Arab states or the Palestinians take steps in return that improve the chances of peace. |
|
|
|
|
| Unlike most Jewish groups here in America, J Street failed to come out in support of the IDF during the recent operation in Gaza. How do you believe a nation should react when they are bombarded with rockets from a terrorist organization? |
Jared Slater
NYC, America |
|
| Jeremy Ben-Ami: |
We had reservations about the Israeli response in Gaza because we felt that, while military action was justifiable and understandable, the action as carried out was not in Israel's long-term interest.
Certainly a nation under military attack has every right to respond militarily, but we felt that the overwhelming military force used and the consequent devastation that it caused did not advance Israel's interests. Hatred in Gaza was only deepened and anger in the broader Arab community heightened. Meanwhile, Israel's standing in the broader international community sunk even further. In return, none of the stated objectives of the operation were achieved as rocket fire wasn't stopped and Hamas remained in charge. |
|
|
|
|
| Unlike AIPAC, which appears to be apolitical, lobbying for the U.S.-Israel relationship irrespective of who is in power in Jerusalem or in Washington, you appear to have a clear "left" agenda. If so, how can you allow your organization to be an "alternative" to AIPAC? |
Adriel Ross
Miami, USA |
|
| Jeremy Ben-Ami: |
J Street has a policy agenda, it's true. We believe that a negotiated end to the Israeli-Palestinian and Arab-Israeli conflicts is essential to Israel's survival and security - and is an essential American interest. We didn't set up J Street as an alternative to any existing organization. We established it to fill a gaping vacuum - the need for a political voice representing the views of mainstream American Jews and other friends of Israel in the political and policy process who support a two-state solution.
We'll support other organizations, politicians and policy makers who share our views and we'll have a robust, but respectful debate with those with whom we disagree. |
|
|
|
|
Dear Mr. Ben Ami,
What United States demand on Israel would you consider to be a red line that would make you suggest Israel refuse? For example, the three million palestinian refugees to move into the State of Israel?
Thank You, God Bless |
Harry Smith
New York, USA |
|
| Jeremy Ben-Ami: |
To start with, I find it hard to imagine the United States under President Obama asking Israel to do anything that endangers its security or approaches a red line that threatens its very nature as a Jewish homeland. The President has made clear that he too views Israel's security as sacrosanct - and we certainly share the President's commitment on that principle.
Also ? as you ask ? there is no way that Israel can be expected to resettle the 3 million Palestinian refugees within the ultimate borders of the state of Israel ? though there has been talk that a very limited number might return, for instance through a family reunification program. |
|
|
|
|
Jeremy,
What do you see as the potential implications for peace in the Middle East stemming from the March 14th coalition's recent victory in Lebanon? Will Lebanon perhaps take a stronger role as a partner in the peace process? Or will the status quo in which Hezbollah dictates much of Lebanon's external policy remain, despite their defeat at the polls? Along that vein, what will be the implications for peace if Mousavi wins the Iranian presidential elections this week?
Mori Rothman
Middlebury College, Class of 2011 |
Moriel
Rothman, USA |
|
| Jeremy Ben-Ami: |
The results from Lebanon are encouraging, particularly as so many had expected Hezbollah and its allies to emerge victorious. However, the real impact on the next steps in moving toward a resolution of the conflict is limited.
Perhaps, as some have said, it's a vote of confidence in Barack Obama and the new approach he is bringing to America's policy toward the Middle East. That could have real implications for his ability to successfully lead the way to peace and security for the region as a whole.
In terms of Iran, the elections this weekend will be important symbolically as well. But real decisions - regarding the nuclear and other key issues - rest more with the Supreme Leader than with the President, so the elections, while symbolically important, will have more impact on rhetoric than reality, I suspect. |
|
|
|
|
