Rabbi Gordis Speaks With J Street

J Street founder, Jeremy Ben Ami, and other J Street members met in Jerusalem with Rabbi Dan Gordis, Senior Vice President of Shalom Center. J Street may have sought this meeting because no one else, not associated with leftist or Palestinian causes, would do so. In fact, Gordis had been counseled by others not to meet with the J Street people.

Gordis ignored the advice -- something J Street may have soon have had cause to regret. Gordis told the J Street people that while he disagreed with much of what they have been doing, he believed it was important to meet even with those with whom he differed. Israel needed a "big tent" of supporters. He now hoped to find out whether J Street could be seen as being in, or out, of the tent.

Gordis explained that if there were one state, between the Jordan and the Mediterranean, it would mean the eradication of Israel. For him, that was unacceptable. However, keeping Palestinians under an Israeli thumb, or simply expelling them, was, on moral grounds, equally unacceptable. As he saw it, living side by side in peace was the only way forwards. He trusted that he and J Street could agree on this objective.

However, in following what J Street had been quoted as saying, it seemed to Gordis that J Street believed that this goal could be reached only by Israel making broad territorial concessions. J Street seemed to believe that anyone disagreeing with this was "not serious." It seemed that J Street believed that Israel had to "give up the store." Those not willing to do this, according to J Street, were "bluffing" or were "liars," or were "misguided."

Such an attitude, in the opinion of Rabbi Gordis, showed arrogance. Did J Street believe that they had greater moral clarity than Israelis? Published reports showed J Street taking great exception to those who argued that divisions separating Hamas from Fatah made a peace agreement at this time impossible. In J Street's opinion, only those opposed to a peace agreement would make this argument. It was obvious, according to J Street, that a reconciliation at this time between Fatah and Hamas reduced the obstacles to peace.

"Obvious?" asked Rabbi Gordis. J Street didn't seem to have figured it out. Gordis pointed out that the only thing truly obvious was that those who opposed to Israel's existence were Israel's enemies. For Abbas to have reconciled with Hamas was indeed an obstacle to peace.

BDS (boycott, disinvest, sanction) groups were cited by Gordis as people truly opposed to Israel's existence. How then, he asked, could J Street invite them to its conferences?

Dr. Gordis also reminded J Street that they had called on Israel to end the IDF's Cast Lead operation on the very first day of its launching when clearly it was far to soon for it to have achieved any of its objectives. Wasn't it obvious to J Street that Sderot was still not safe from the rocket and mortar attacks it had sustained in the days, weeks and months prior to Cast Lead. And, when exactly was it, asked Gordis, that J Street spoke out against Hamas's shelling of Israeli towns and cities?

Gordis noted that he had seen J Street spend freely to influence public opinion in the States. Suppose such sums had been directed towards influencing he attitudes of Israelis? Gordis doubts it would have had much of an impact. And, why would that have been? Did Israelis enjoy seeing their children go off to counter persistent Arab attacks? Did they take pleasure in attending the funerals of Israeli soldiers?

Why does J Street see it as a good thing for the U.S. to be twisting Israel's arm when Israel stands so alone in a toxic international arena?

Rabbi Gordis challenged J Street: "Show us you're pro-Israel. Let us see you apply pressure against others."

In the question-and-answer period, Ben Ami of J Street said he was "astonished" that no one had mentioned "occupation of another people." The answer to Ben Ami's comment came some days later in the issue of "Globes" where Verel Kellner, who had been traveling with the J Street group, observed that, in a meeting between J Street and Salem Fayyed, not once had Fayyad mentioned "occupation." An "occupation conversation" seems to hold little interest for any of the parties central to this conversation observed Kellner. Why then would this be an issue framed by J Street?