J Street

No simple dichotomy

Amna Farooqi speaks at Temple Sholom during her March 13-14 visit to Vancouver. (photo by David Berson)

Amna Farooqi, a rising peace activist who aims to transcend the division between being pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian, was in Vancouver March 13-14 to speak at Temple Sholom and at the University of British Columbia.

Last year, Farooqi, a Muslim-American woman from a Pakistani family, made international headlines when she was elected head of J Street U, the student organizing arm of J Street, which calls itself “the political home for pro-Israel, pro-peace Americans.” She presents a unique perspective: she is against the boycott, divestment and sanction movement and is pro-Zionist, while also being against the occupation, critical of settlements and deeply concerned for Palestinian dignity and human rights. Temple Sholom, the Progressive Jewish Alliance, Or Shalom, Ameinu Canada and JSpaceCanada sponsored her visit to Vancouver.

Farooqi, who finished her term at J Street U as she graduated from the University of Maryland, continues to be active in J Street and spoke at their annual conference last month, which also included Bernie Sanders as a speaker.

Farooqi told the Jewish Independent that she grew up in a religious but progressive Muslim home where politics were a constant topic of discussion. “Have tea and talk politics,” she said. “Very much like Israelis.”

After 9/11, the topics shifted from things happening in India, Pakistan and throughout the Muslim world to American politics and the condition of American Muslims, she said. “In middle school, I began wearing a headscarf to school. I liked wearing the hijab to provoke conversation, and to say that one can be Muslim and American, one does not have to choose one or the other.”

In high school, Farooqi, who had been raised with a concern for Palestinians, began learning more about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and fiercely sided with the Palestinians. In 2011, when the Palestine Liberation Organization made a bid for statehood at the United Nations, Farooqi supported it and found herself in an emotional fight with a Jewish friend that came to raised voices and tears. “I realized then that I did not know enough about the conflict,” she said.

Farooqi took Israeli studies courses in college, heeding her parents’ advice that the situation was complex and she should refrain from becoming involved in the debate unless she first studied it in detail. Farooqi’s turning point came when one of her professors had students take part in an involved role-playing exercise, where pro-Palestinian students studied and defended a Zionist (hers was David Ben-Gurion) and pro-Israel students the opposite. This was the beginning, she said, of her “falling in love with Zionism,” without losing her deep concern for the Palestinians.

Over time, Farooqi got more involved with the J Street U chapter at her university, and she spent a semester abroad in Israel studying at Hebrew University, as part of an international student exchange program; the first of several trips.

“My first trip to Israel was an emotionally intense experience from start to finish,” she told the Independent. “There is not a moment in Jerusalem where you are not exposed to diverse perspectives. Everywhere you go there is history, tragedy and beauty.”

She had a Passover seder with a settler family and dined with families in the West Bank. “I remember one visit to the West Bank with some Jews concerned about Palestinian human rights. We visited one family bringing gifts. A young Palestinian child approached my Jewish friends with wonder, and said, ‘You are Jews?’ Bewildered, the child pointed to a nearby house of settlers. ‘But they are Jews.’”

Asked what she perceives as the way forward in today’s increasingly volatile climate, Farooqi said, “It’s a difficult moment. I think the path forward lies in investing in civil society on all sides. None of the governments involved is in a position to show real leadership at the moment.”

Farooqi said the key will lie in building relationships on the ground and in looking at a holistic picture of what drives people on both sides whose behaviour is bstructing peace. “You cannot understand settlers unless you understand the need for affordable housing in Israel,” she said, “and you cannot understand Palestinians who join Hamas unless you understand it may be the only way for them to put food on the table.”

Farooqi said she is excited by the rise of a new Sephardi left in Israel, which she hopes will help inspire a “new, young left” in the country, with ideas that go beyond those of previous generations. And she would like to see more done to help younger Palestinians understand that many Israelis value their rights. “Younger Palestinians need to know that,” she said. “It will change the elections of the future. Palestinians need economic opportunity, and they need real vision and hope. They must be given a real political and economic horizon.”

Speaking of the international Jewish community, Farooqi said, “If you are a pro-Israel, pro-peace, two-state solution person, invest in communal support for that and be careful [about] who we host, who we support, what message are we sending out.”

Even though she is against BDS, she disagrees with the recent Israeli travel ban of BDS supporters. “I oppose the travel ban because going to Israel and actually talking to Israelis made me more pro-Israel,” she said.

She added, by way of warning, that “Diaspora Jews underestimate the far-right in Israel. Many moderates have become disengaged on Israel, whereas big supporters on the far-right have not.”

Speaking of Sanders’ talk at the recent J Street conference, Farooqi said, “I thought it was a great speech, significant for lots of reasons. Sanders talked about 1948 in a beautiful way, talking of the progressive vision of Zionism and his experiences on a kibbutz, but also talking of the effect on the Palestinians. You can acknowledge both. It is rare for a U.S. politician to do that.”

Now that her term at J Street U is over, Farooqi is turning her attention to affairs at home and looking to get involved in organizing in the United States. “We have our own crisis of democracy to deal with,” she said.

Matthew Gindin is a freelance journalist, writer and lecturer. He writes regularly for the Forward and All That Is Interesting, and has been published in Religion Dispatches, Situate Magazine, Tikkun and elsewhere. He can be found on Medium and Twitter.

The JI wins two Rockowers

Earlier this month, the American Jewish Press Association announced the winners of this year’s Simon Rockower Awards for Excellence in Jewish Journalism, which honor achievements in Jewish media published in 2014. In its division (newspapers with 14,999 circulation and under), the Jewish Independent garnered two first places.

Publisher and editor Cynthia Ramsay won the first place award for excellence in writing about Jewish heritage and Jewish peoplehood in Europe for her article “World Musician at Rothstein” (Nov. 21, 2014), about the work of Lenka Lichtenberg. The group Art Without Borders was bringing Lichtenberg to Vancouver from her home base of Toronto for a solo performance at the Norman and Annette Rothstein Theatre. The article includes reviews of Lichtenberg’s three most recent CDs and how, in all of her music, “the memory and traditions of those who have lived before can be heard – they are celebrated, and merge with the memories, traditions and passions of Lichtenberg and the artists with whom she collaborates.”

The JI editorial board – Pat Johnson, Basya Laye and Ramsay – won the paper’s other award: first place for excellence in editorial writing. The three editorials that comprised the winning entry were “The message is universal” (March 7, 2014), about plans for the Canadian National Holocaust Monument to be constructed in Ottawa; “The spirit of Limmud” (Feb. 14, 2014), about how the vision and passion of one woman, Ruth Hess-Dolgin z”l, significantly enriched our community by initiating the movement to bring Limmud here; and “Uniquely set apart for exclusion” (May 9, 2014), about the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations decision to exclude J Street from the group.

The Rockower awards will be presented at AJPA’s annual conference, which, for the second year in a row, is scheduled around the Jewish Federation General Assembly being held in Washington D.C. Nov. 8-10. AJPA sessions will be held Nov. 9-11. The entire list of Rockower winners can be found at ajpa.org/?page=2015Rockower.

Critics peek under the Conference umbrella

President Barack Obama meets with leaders of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations in the state dining room at the White House on March 1, 2011. (Official White House photo by Pete Souza)

Since the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations voted April 30 to reject the membership application of the self-labeled “pro-Israel, pro-peace” lobby J Street, the umbrella group has come under siege with accusations of not being adequately representative of U.S. Jewry’s views and for being controlled by a faction of right-wing members.

Yet a closer look at the Conference’s makeup reveals the prevalence of politically centrist or apolitical organizations – particularly among its largest members – such as Jewish National Fund, Hadassah, Anti-Defamation League, American Jewish Committee, B’nai B’rith International, Jewish Federations of North America and American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee. Also included in the Conference are openly liberal groups such as Ameinu and Americans for Peace Now.

“A majority of the groups voting against J Street were secular, centrist groups, not religious or right-wing,” Zionist Organization of America national president Morton A. Klein suggested, noting that by his count there are no more than 11 religious or right-wing groups among the Conference’s 50 members.

“To say it’s not inclusive when you have Peace Now, Ameinu, [American Friends of] Likud and ZOA in the Conference, is an absurd statement,” Klein added.

J Street responded to the vote with a letter on its website addressed to Conference of Presidents executive vice-chairman/chief executive officer Malcolm Hoenlein, stating, “Dear Malcolm: Thank you for finally making it clear that the Conference of Presidents is not representative of the voice of the Jewish community. We recognize the need for an open and honest conversation on Israel in the United States. We appreciate you being honest. Now we’ll work on the openness.”

To gain membership in the Conference, J Street needed the support of two-thirds of the body’s members. Forty-two members showed up for the vote, whose final tally was 22 against J Street, 17 in favor and three abstentions.

J Street uniquely set apart for exclusion

The self-aggrandizingly and inelegantly named Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations last week voted to bar J Street from membership in the umbrella organization.

There are 50 full-fledged members of the Conference and four adjunct members, representing a wide swath of ideology, from American Friends of Likud to Workmen’s Circle and American Friends of Peace Now. But no J Street. One might think that the criteria for membership in the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations might simply be that the organization is American, Jewish, major and has a president. Not so.

In an oblique statement after the vote, the Conference said it would continue to represent the “consensus” viewpoint of American Jewry. But that consensus may be crumbling. Opinion polls suggest half of American Jews do not believe Israel is doing enough to hasten peace. And more significant are the congealing of attitudes of younger American Jews.

Formed just six years ago, J Street has leapt into the conversation about Israel, seeking an alternative position to the longstanding AIPAC. J Street has often been critical of Israeli policies and sympathetic to Palestinian initiatives. Generally perceived to be a left-leaning entity, J Street has flourished especially among young American Jews, with 60 campus-based chapters now in existence.

Jewish young people in North America do not subscribe to the circle-the-wagons and don’t-make-trouble strategies of their parents and grandparents. As indicated by the Open Hillel movement, among other recent developments, young Jews demand less fettered discussion on topics of importance to them and to Israel.

The Conference may have made a very short-sighted decision that risks alienating more than just the swath of Jews (however large they may be) who subscribe to J Street’s ideology. They risk alienating Jews who subscribe to a more basic and profoundly Jewish precept: free-flowing debate. This is arguably a far larger demographic.

For some Jews, there is plenty to disagree with in J Street’s platform, as there is in the philosophy of many of the member organizations. Yet J Street, despite the wide spectrum of religious and political voices included under the Conference umbrella, is uniquely set apart for exclusion.

The vote reinforces the stereotype that the (North) American Jewish community is insular in its ideology and unquestioning in its allegiance to the policies of the government of Israel. This is a stereotype that is belied, on the one hand, by the range of ideologies already reflected in the Conference and by the diversity of debate nurtured in these pages and forums like it. Yet it is a statement of intolerance and narrow-mindedness, perhaps also of fear and parochialism, that the diverse voices under the Conference umbrella could not tolerate the voice of J Street.

The vote also negates the wholly pragmatic possibility that engaging with J Street could draw them closer to what the Conference claims are the mainstream Jewish American values. After all, J Street wants to be a part of the organization that claims to be the voice of the Jewish consensus.

Just as the uproar was reaching its crescendo, an utterly bizarre thing happened. On Monday, the Conference ran full-page ads in the New York Times and USA Today marking Yom Ha’atzmaut, Israel’s 66th birthday as a state. The costly ads were funded by the Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust. Far be it for us to speak ill of the dead, but under the circumstances there was something delicious about the funding for this print media extravaganza. Leona Helmsley, who passed away in 2007, was a notorious and widely reviled New York hotelier dubbed by tabloids “The Queen of Mean.” In the 1980s, she was sentenced to 16 years in prison for more than 30 counts of tax fraud, mail fraud and other corruption offences. (She served 18 months.) During the trial, a former housekeeper reported that Helmsley had said, “We don’t pay taxes. Only the little people pay taxes.”

On her death, Helmsley left a $12 million trust fund to her Maltese dog, Trouble. The Helmsley Charitable Trust, which paid for Monday’s newspaper spreads, was estimated at her death to be worth between $5 and $8 billion and was to be allocated largely to the care of dogs.

It may seem a diversion to draw the dead hotelier into this debate, no matter how Cruella de Vil-lian she may have been. Yet under the circumstances, it speaks to the judgment of the Conference.

At the very moment when they are at the centre of a firestorm over their capricious determination of who and what constitutes “mainstream” American Jewish values, they make one of their most visible public pronouncements ever, in the process demonstrating their willingness to be associated in the broadest American public mind with the corrupt, notorious Leona Helmsley, but not with the “pro-Israel, pro-peace” J Street.

This is the consensus voice of Jewish America?

“Big tent” stays same – J Street rejected

J Street president and founder Jeremy Ben-Ami. (photo from J Street Facebook page)

In what many observers will see as the de facto expression of mainstream U.S. Jewry’s outlook on J Street, members of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations on April 30 voted 22-17 (with three abstentions) to reject the membership application of the self-labeled “pro-Israel, pro-peace” lobby. J Street secured the votes of only about a third of the Conference’s 50 members.

The 42 Conference members in attendance in New York exceeded the 75-percent quorum needed to hold the vote, but J Street fell significantly short of the required threshold of a two-thirds affirmative vote from the Conference’s full membership. The result that 25 organizations either voted against J Street or abstained meant that half of the Conference’s members declined to support J Street’s application.

“The Conference meticulously followed its long-established Process and Procedures Guidelines in considering J Street’s application…. The present membership of the Conference includes organizations which represent and articulate the views of broad segments of the American Jewish community and we are confident that the Conference will continue to present the consensus of the community on important national and international issues as it has for the last 50 years,” said Conference of Presidents chairman Robert G. Sugarman and executive vice-chairman/chief executive officer Malcolm Hoenlein.