Oren Smiles at J-Street: So?

Michael Oren, Israel’s ambassador to Washington, is making nice with J-Street. Good for him, I guess. Given that Oren snubbed the group’s inaugural conference, this is a big deal for J-Street, but the action indicates that the organization has some severe problems to overcome.

So far, much of J-Street’s rhetoric has been used to set themselves up in opposition to the mainstream Israel lobby, chiefly represented by AIPAC. By labeling themselves “pro-Israel, pro-peace,” they have freed themselves to take almost any position they want about Israel except a pro-war stance. The very reason that Oren is now showing signs of willingness to engage with J-Street is that the group is becoming more “mainstream.” Because the organization disagrees with Iran and Goldstone, J-Street is gaining credibility among more powerful Israelis.

The argument can easily be made that this is a good sign for those who take a more liberal position about Israel. Since J-Street is actively recognizing Israel’s security needs and the UN’s rather harsh treatment of the embattled country, they could gain enough clout to actively lobby for better diplomatic alternatives to war. Indeed, the positions the group has adopted are not highly controversial. You don’t need to love Israel to think that Iran is governed by dangerous people. Additionally, it’s hard to deny the benefit that J-Street would gain from becoming a little bit less radical.

However, the homogenization of J-Street’s message might harm the group. The organization is jumping on the bandwagon on easy issues to support; they do not necessarily present an actual alternative to more powerful groups like AIPAC. Since J-Street is a grassroots organization, this could be detrimental. From a donor’s perspective, there’s no reason to pledge support to a new group that holds essentially the same positions as the current, more powerful lobby. Moreover, J-Street’s basic philosophy contradicts Israel’s position on Iran. The safety and continued existence of Israel might one day depend on IDF action in Iran, which is something that J-Street cannot legitimately support.

The issues with Israel and J-Street are highlighted by Oren’s statements. Because the group needs to concentrate more on expanding its coffers than on good philosophy, they take positions which contradict each other; a time may come in the near future where advocating a diplomatic solution to the Iranian conflict is absurd. Furthermore, the idea that a group would have to tout a specific line in order to be recognized by Israeli diplomats is disturbing. It’s easy to disagree with J-Street’s methods, but to ignore them until they kowtow to a specific set of beliefs reveals that Israel may not be all that interested in honest ideological struggles.