Jeremy Ben-Ami

Jeremy Ben-Ami is Executive Director of J Street and JStreetPAC, the new "political voice of the pro-Israel, pro-peace movement" (I wrote about J Street here).

Ben-Ami has nearly twenty-five years of experience in government, politics and communications, in the United States and internationally. In 2003-4, he was Policy Director for Howard Dean's presidential campaign; in 2001, he was one of the managers of Mark Green's Mayoral campaign in New York City; and, from 1992 through 1996, he worked for former President Bill Clinton, serving for two years as the President's Deputy Domestic Policy Advisor.

Ben-Ami has also been actively involved in Israeli politics and communications. In 1998, he started a consulting firm in Israel which worked with Israeli non-profit organizations and politicians. He also has served as Director of Communications and Regional Director in New York for the New Israel Fund, a foundation supporting civil rights, social justice and religious pluralism in Israel and is on the Board of Americans for Peace Now.

We will discuss the new J Street project, and readers, as usual, can send their questions to rosnersdomain@haaretz.co.il.

Dear Jeremy,

Had a bunch of readers asking essentially the same questions - so I'll
try to make it into two last questions:

1. Which of the presidential candidates do you support - or which one
expresses views most similar to the policies you pursue?

2. Can you give an example of one or two legislators that you'd like
to support. and if you can't give a name, can you be more specific on
the criteria (not just pro-peace, but more nuanced).

Thank you,

Shmuel

JStreetPAC won't endorse specific candidates for a few weeks so I can't answer either question concretely. I can, however, list some criteria on which we will make our decisions.

Members of Congress and Senators don't have a large number of opportunities to vote on issues directly related to peace in the Middle East so there isn't the kind of voting record to evaluate that there is for environmental groups or the gun lobby. We'll look more at written statements, speeches, and letters to get a sense of a candidate?s overall approach to foreign policy and to the Middle East. Let me tick off a few things we'll be looking for specifically:

* A firm commitment to the security and survival of Israel and to the deep and special relationship between the two countries. We?ll look for that commitment to be supported by a willingness to speak openly and forcefully about the importance of resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to the future of the region and to the interests if the United States, Israel and its neighbors.

* An approach to foreign policy that is sophisticated enough to understand the background to the various conflicts in the Middle East, to draw distinctions between the various actors and states in terms of their motivations and intentions, and to articulate the importance of exploring diplomatic options for dealing with conflicts, not simply saber-rattling and military threats.

* Courage. Condemning terrorism and rocket attacks against civilians is easy - as is condemning incitement to violence and textbooks that teach hatred of Israel. What's harder is to recognize that not all conflicts in the region are part of one apocalyptic battle between good and evil. We'll expect our candidates to move beyond simplistic slogans and to address tough questions like settlements, Jerusalem, and borders in a sophisticated manner.

If you'll permit me, I'd like to close our dialogue with a final thought. I've greatly appreciated the opportunity to engage in this discussion and to field questions from readers. I know from the comments that there are many readers who disagree with the views that J Street represents. I respect that. In my view, this is all part of a healthy debate about how best to support and promote the best interests of a country we hold dear. I hope that J Street does in fact help spark such an open and spirited discussion in the best tradition of not only American democracy but of the Jewish people.

I do have to add, however, a word directed to those whose comments cross the line from substantive criticism to simple name calling and personal attacks. For instance, the critic who stooped so low as to assert as fact that my wife is not Jewish and that J Street is a front for those who seek the assimilation of American Jews.

It just so happens that my wife's father was born in Petah Tikva - his grandparents, like my great-grandparents, part of the first aliyah from Russia, founders of Petah Tikva in 1882. My father-in-law fought in the Palmach in 1948 and again in the Sinai in 1956. He emigrated to this country and became a cantor, training me and hundreds of other young people for their bar and bat mitzvahs in nearly four decades as a member of the clergy.

What purpose is there to spreading lies anonymously ? be it about my wife, about others with whom we disagree, or about political candidates as is happening in our community about Barack Obama in particular? The online smear campaigns regularly emerging from our community spreading baseless lies and deception demean our people and diminish the important substance of conversations we really need to have.

I hope that, in the dialogue begun over the past month by J Street about the best interests of Israel, the United States and the Jewish people, we can find a way to air our disagreements in a manner befitting the heritage and history of our people. If not, I fear that much more than the physical security of a country that is at risk, but the moral and spiritual well-being of our three thousand year old community.

Dear Jeremy,

In an interview with Newsweek you were asked this:

You'll have to face, I imagine, Israelis who will say, 'wait a second,
you don't live here, you don't send your children to the military
here, you don't pay taxes. What right do you have to dictate or even
to influence the debate?'

Your response:

I think that's extremely fair [to argue]. But I think as long as the
situation in Israel and Palestine is directly related to recruitment
by extremist forces, by Al Qaeda, of the terrorists who then come
here, I think it is an issue that has ramifications here. And I think
it also has ramifications for the American-Jewish community and the
perception of its role in the creation of foreign policy here is
important. To the extent that we quietly stand back and allow policy
to be driven in a certain direction, in the long run that's not going
to be good for the American-Jewish community either.

My follow-up question is this: You talk about "ramifications here" -
namely in the US - and about "ramifications for the American Jewish
community". These are legitimate, important, concerns, but one might
argue that if these are the things you worry about - you're not
exactly a pro-Israel lobby.

Please respond.

Thank you,
Shmuel

There is no reason why a pro-Israel lobby can't advocate policies that
promote the best interests of the United States and the American Jewish
community as well. That's why we established J Street.

It's true, J Street is not an "Israel right or wrong" lobby. For us, the
centerpiece of a "pro-Israel" strategy is getting both the US and Israel to engage seriously in the hard diplomacy necessary to reach a negotiated end to Israel's conflicts with its neighbors. An Israel living within defined, internationally recognized borders is a secure Israel - a country that can survive for the long run in a dangerous, unstable neighborhood. Essential to that survival is a strong relationship between Israel and the United States, and a US commitment to helping Israel maintain the qualitative military edge it needs for its security.

A real pro-Israel strategy that ends Israel's conflicts with its neighbors
peacefully would eliminate a prime recruiting tool for Al-Qaeda and other
extremists, not only in the region but around the world - thereby making all Americans safer. The inverse is also true: pursuing military resolution to political problems damages America's standing in the world, undermines its relationships with a broad range of states and in the end makes all Americans - Jews and non-Jews - less secure. As we've already seen, an America that is bogged down militarily in Iraq and less able to either inspire or intimidate in the region and the world is bad news for both America and Israel.

We've seen the failure of the neocon approach not only in Iraq but in the
invasion of southern Lebanon in 2006. Both of these should be strong object lessons in understanding the ramifications of their approach to conflict resolution - particularly as we consider the appropriate path to dealing with Iran and to resolving the Palestinian issue.

I'd like to delve a little deeper, however, into the negative ramifications for the American Jewish community of the current path being pursued by those who claim the "pro-Israel" mantle. For a very long time, the American Jewish community has been a pillar of progressive activism in the United States. We have been at the forefront in civil rights, labor organizing, preserving the environment and fighting poverty. Many young Jewish Americans are engaged in organizing, advocacy and even partiisan politics - living out the core values on which they were raised (tikkun olam - improving the world) - and drawing on our history as an oppressed minority that has faced discrimination in this country and persecution abroad.

To the extent that acceptance of the far right's definition of what it means to be "pro-Israel" becomes a litmus test or admission criterion for
involvement in the organized American Jewish community, we run the risk of
driving away large numbers of young Jews from the organized American Jewish community and from their Jewish identity.

To me, personally, this is one of the most serious ramifications of how the "pro-Israel" debate plays out in the States. The issue is most blatant on campuses where young Jewish students are often faced with the choice of engaging with established organizations which call for "standing with Israel" right or wrong or with growing anti-Israel activism. Many choose to disengage from the issue and the community completely - because neither mindless "pro Israel" or "anti Israel" positions accord with their values or their predisposition to ask difficult questions.

It is time for the American Jewish community to accept that you can both
support Israel and ask questions - about the legitimate aspirations of the
Palestinian people, the downsides of prolonged occupation and whether
perpetual settlement expansion really benefits Israeli security. If simply raising these and other difficult questions calls into question one's
pro-Israel bona fides - then, yes, I am afraid the ramifications for the
American Jewish community and its long-term health and vitality will be
serious indeed.

J Street believes it is possible to be pro-Israel and to ask difficult
questions. J Street will provide not only students but all American Jews
with a middle ground where people can safely say, yes, we support Israel as a homeland for the Jewish people and we will stand up strongly for its right to exist and its security. But we believe its long-term survival and our collective soul as a people demand an agreement with the Palestinian people and an end to forty fruitless years of occupation, terror and violence.

Two from readers:

Dear Mr. Ben-Ami,

I understand that your position on Iran demands more negotiation with the country. I would like to ask two questions:

1. Do you believe this will help stop the Iranian nuclear program?

2. If negotiations will not work, what will be the next step (or maybe you'd be willing to tolerate nuclear Iran)?

Thank you,

Boaz,
Jerusalem

Dear Mr. Ben-Ami

In an interview in the Jerusalem Post last Friday, May 23, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi gave an answer which can only be interpreted that Israel should not launch a preemptive attack on Iranian nuclear sites, but should only respond after being attacked (and devastated in that nuclear attack), and that because of what a preemptive strike would do to the price of oil. What is your and your organization's position on this point? Would you support a preemptive Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear sites? Would you support an American one?

Sincerely,

Mladen Andrijasevic

Be'er Sheva

You'll get no argument from us that a belligerent, possibly nuclear Iran is a serious threat to Israel and to regional stability, not to mention to American troops stationed in Iraq. The question is how best to address the Iranian threat - since the current US approach clearly isn't working.

What we're doing now is only strengthening Iran's hardliners. Every time the Americans rattle their sabers, Ahmadinejad rallies more Iranians around the flag, distracting attention from his failing economic policies. Rather than see the world in purely black and white terms, a smart and tough foreign policy would recognize that the divisions within Iranian politics are real and that our policies are helping to push those divisions to the back burner while paving Ahmadinejad's path to re-election in next year's presidential elections. Further a sophisticated approach to Iran would recognize that - despite his public profile - Ahmedinejad is not the sole decision maker in Iran and there are other forces on the political scene there that should be engaged.

Worse, our current approach clearly isn't stopping Iran's nuclear program. Despite all the threats and rhetoric, the Iranians have made significant progress toward mastering the nuclear fuel cycle over the past few years and toward producing weapons-grade nuclear material.

All of this makes Israel less, not more, secure. The US-Iran standoff has encouraged more assertive Iranian behavior on Israel's doorstep - in Lebanon and in the Palestinian territories - with increased support for Hezbollah, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and Hamas. As Iran's nuclear enrichment program advances and the US shows no appetite for serious diplomatic engagement, Israel's options become more limited and less attractive. Israel may, in the near future, have to decide between allowing Iran to develop nuclear capability and face cold-war style nuclear confrontation or attacking Iranian nuclear facilities itself and bearing the brunt of the Iranian supported reprisals.

If what we're currently doing isn't working, what should we do? Some urge taking military action against Iran. That would actually be even worse for the US, regional stability, and for Israel. It is not at all clear that air strikes could actually cripple the Iranian nuclear program. What we do know is that military action would only further empower Iranian hardliners and accelerate their pursuit of nuclear capability.

The cost of any such attack would be high. An American military strike against Iran would put our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan in the crosshairs of Iranian reprisals and likely throw our ally Israel into bloody conflict with Hezbollah and Hamas. Oil prices would sky rocket with world-wide economic repercussions. Our Gulf allies would likely experience significant blowback from their citizens.

So, to our mind the only approach that might work is the one approach George W. Bush and the neocons refuse to try: real diplomacy. Serious diplomatic engagement should include direct high-level negotiations with Iran to address all issues of mutual concern, covering, in addition to the nuclear issue, an end to Iranian opposition to the Arab-Israeli peace process and to its support to groups using violence against the US and Israel in Iraq, the Palestinian territories and Lebanon. Most important, the diplomatic track would need to offer Iran "carrots" - positive incentives for moving down this path in addition to the implicit "sticks" should the talks fail.

We all share the goal of avoiding - if possible - a nuclear-armed Iran. However, should the diplomatic offensive fail, the US could then pursue a policy of smarter and more effective containment coupled with strong, multilateral sanctions. First of all, a real attempt at diplomacy would put the US in a much better position to rally the international community to endorse and enforce a tough regimen of sanctions and other containment measures against Iran.

A smart containment policy would include (1) engagement with Syria to give them options other than Iranian collusion, possibly through peace with Israel; (2) supporting Lebanese efforts towards political reconciliation and make it harder for Hezbollah to take further actions to throw the country into political turmoil ? in particular by targeting Israel, and (3) supporting Saudi and Egyptian efforts to bring Hamas into a power-sharing agreement with Fatah in the Palestinian territories.

Dear Jeremy,

In the conference call you had when the new project was first presented to the public, former ambassador Samuel Lewis said that not every attempt at persuasion is "pressure" on Israel. "Pressure," he said, "is a scare word." So let's talk about pressure. Is it in your intention to try and convince the US the pressure Israel into doing things its government does not want to do. And if the answer is yes - why is it that you believe that J Street knows better than the Israeli government what's good for Israel?

Thanks

Shmuel

Of course J Street has opinions on what's best for Israel - it also has opinions about what's best for the United States and for the Jewish community in America. That's what advocacy organizations do! We intend to lobby both the US Congress and the Executive branch, presenting the arguments for our views and demonstrating the breadth of support for them.

Are we right? Far be it from me to be so presumptuous as to say that "we know better" and that our opinions are by definition correct - but we believe in them and we're going to make them heard. Since when does the fact that a government holds a position or makes a decision mean it must be right and no one should argue with it? That would seem to be the upshot of your implied surprise that we would disagree with the government of Israel - or for that matter the government of the United States.

One final thought: Does the same standard apply to right-of-center Jewish Americans? Many of them believe the Israeli government has no business negotiating with Syria. Others believe it has no business negotiating a possible division of Jerusalem as part of a final peace deal. I assume we have as much right as they do to question whether the Israeli government is wise to continue building new settlements, expanding road blocks and checkpoints, and refraining from serious efforts to address final status issues in the current talks.

Finally, a note on Ambassador Lewis's view that the opinions and words of the US President and US government matter to Israel. We believe the American President should express a clear intention to enforce existing U.S. policies - it might actually help the Israeli Prime Minister achieve the objectives he himself has laid out. Given the domestic Israeli political stalemate, it is very possible that forceful US engagement in the diplomatic process will help the Israeli Prime Minister overcome domestic political obstacles in order to lead the country toward a meaningful peace agreement that he himself has said is vital for Israel's future.

Dear Mr. Ben-Ami,

I'm a supporter of AIPAC and my concern with your organization is not so much the views, but rather the feeling that you are trying to damage AIPAC and make it less effective than it is. Can you please tell me why making AIPAC weaker will make Israel stronger?

Thank you for the interview,

Eli Gross

Thank you, Eli, for the question. I welcome the opportunity to clarify that J Street has not been started to be pro- or anti- any individual organization. AIPAC, through its history, has many important achievements ? not the least of which is a strong and enduring friendship between Israel and the United States that J Street is proud to support. The individual American Jews who support AIPAC are good people trying to do their part to stand with Israel and to protect the future of the Jewish people. We respect that impulse and the feelings that drive many of the individuals who support the organization.

J Street has been started, however, because there has not been sufficient vocal and political advocacy on behalf of the view that Israel's interests will be best served when the United States makes it a major foreign policy priority to help Israel achieve a real and lasting peace not only with the Palestinians but with all its neighbors.

AIPAC nominally supports the notion of a two-state solution, but I think it's fair to say that advocating for aggressive American leadership to achieve it is not high on its priority list. For us at J Street, it's the centerpiece of our agenda. We started J Street because we believe resolving Israel's conflicts diplomatically and quickly is essential not only to maintaining Israel's strength but to promoting American interests in the Middle East and around the world. Our motivation is not to weaken any institution - but to fill a gaping void in the political debate, both in Washington and in the American Jewish community.

Dear Jeremy,

Let's dive right into it. Last week, at The New Republic, James Kirchick wrote this: "given that J Street's founders are well outside the mainstream of Jewish public opinion, it's far from clear what, exactly, the new organization can realistically hope to accomplish".

Here's your chance to respond: are you out of the mainstream? What can you realistically achieve?

Best,
Rosner

Shmuel,

Thank you very much for the chance to engage in this dialogue. I'm also very pleased to have a chance to answer Jamie's Kirchik's critique.
Determining where J Street sits relative to the 'mainstream' of the American Jewish community depends on how you define the term. I don't claim that the entire community agrees with J Street's view of the world, the Middle East or Israel. Neither should Kirchik claim the community is
with the New Republic.

A large number of American Jews do hold right-of-center views. But a large number don't. Many of us believe in a smart, tough foreign policy for America that both defends its vital interests and provides a path to peace and security for Israel. This may put us squarely in opposition with Marty Peretz and Mort Klein, but it also puts us squarely within the range of views held by large numbers of American Jews.

Making clear the diversity of views among American Jews and their friends who care about Israel is the point of J Street. No one has a monopoly on speaking for this community when it comes to Israel - certainly not the neoconservatives who've driven American foreign policy into the ground for seven and a half years, and not their allies on the far-right of the Christian Zionist community or some of the farthest right-wing American Jewish community leaders.

Let's remember, as a starting point, that mainstream American Jews are, by and large, progressive Democrats - despite the best efforts of the Republican Jewish Coalition and their allies at the New Republic. They voted twice - and by increasing margins - against George W. Bush, the man some on the right would call "Israel's best friend." When it comes to Iraq, American Jews have consistently opposed the war (by 60-70% depending on the poll), which the New Republic ultimately had to apologize for supporting in 2004.

Now, American Jews oppose military action against Iran even to prevent it from developing nuclear weapons (57%-35%, according to the 2007 American Jewish Committee Annual Survey of Jewish Opinion). And, contrary to anecdotal news coverage from diners on Collins Avenue in Miami Beach, American Jews are favoring Obama over McCain by two to one (Gallup poll, May 7, 2008).

This strong progressive streak among American Jews in politics generally and Middle East policy in particular carries over into the sensible views that a large percentage of the community holds when it comes to Israel as well. The 2007 American Jewish Committee survey finds that a plurality (46% - 43%) of American Jews favor establishment of a Palestinian state "in the current situation" using the words of the survey. Other polls which put the two-state solution in a more positive context, say as part of a negotiated final status agreement, find support can run as high as 80 percent.

I'm not going to claim that Kirchik, the New Republic and its allies are outside the mainstream of the American Jewish community. But those who have started J Street, including senior American rabbis, former heads of major American Jewish organizations, former Members of Congress and the like, are certainly well within that mainstream. We just have a different take on what it means to be pro-Israel: we believe the single most important thing that the US can do to help Israel achieve long-lasting peace and security is to help it resolve its conflicts with its neighbors permanently, diplomatically and immediately.

Success for J Street will come when the political system recognizes the wide range of views within the American Jewish community on what it means to be "pro-Israel." Our hope is that this issue can - in a sense - become just like any other on the American political scene, marked by open debate and discussion of the issue on the merits. American politicians and policy makers will then be free to speak their minds and to make decisions based on the merits of the arguments after listening to the opinions of their constituents - rather than being told that there is "only one way to be pro-Israel."