How about a Canadian version of J Street?
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1158133.html
Alan Dershowitz attacks J Street for "dividing the Jewish community." I don't think this is fair. Not all Jews are unconditional supporters of the Netanyahu government, and liberal Jews could use an effective lobby.
In fact I think something like J Street would be good in Canada as well. I am pretty repulsed by a lot of the Israel lobby's tactics in Canada, frankly, and I consider myself to be a supporter of Israel. The problem is that many Jewish groups critical of the Occupation insist on being anti-Zionist - like Independent Canadian Jewish Voices, which is why I think they're having trouble making inroads among progressive Jews for these reasons.
Something like J Street however I think is needed to counter the pro-Likud lobby - and the point is achieving peace for Israelis and Palestinians without rigid ideological purity.
I think that is a great idea - I wonder if we could set up a chapter of J street in Canada or create something entirely Canadian etc... Of course the big difference between Canada and the US is that US foreign policy actually MATTERS in the Middle East and so groups like J Street have a role to play in future lobbying and negotiations etc... In contrast, Canadian foreign policy - when all is said and done - is totally irrelevant to any outcome in the Middle East - so who cares.
Creating a Canadian J street would be good as a PR exercise for the Jewish community just to demonstrate that there is a middle ground between the Likudniks that have taken over the CJC and B'nai B'rith and the anti-Zionist fanatics in IJV.
What a load of crap. First of all, the problem is not that the Israeli lobby and the supporters of Israel are "Likudniks." The Israeli "left" is a joke and part of the problem. Labour had just as brutal policies towards he Palestinians.
Nor is IJV an explicitly anti-Zionist group, they just don't use Zionism as a litmus test. And I agree. My approach isn't "Are you now or have you ever been a Zionist"? If you oppose housing demolitions, the Gaza blockade, the apartheid wall, etc., I don't care what you call yourself.
IJV is not made up of "anti-Zionist fanatics" - as Max rightly points out, there is no litmus test as to whether or not one calls oneself a Zionist. And unlike the CJC and Bnai Brith they don't claim to speak for the Canadian Jewish community as a whole (while at the same time using "support for Israel" as a litmus test).
where will this new group come from? i can not see it coming from the curent cjc, bnai brith or ijv supporters. so who are the disenfranchised jews and what policies will they support?
J street believes in an Israel as a Jewish state. so therefore it can only be assumed that a Canadian J street would stand for the same thing.
Interesting question JPJ. Seems to me given the wide diveristy of those aligned with CJC and UJA there very well may be some people who could staff and belong to such an organization. I for one would welcome such an organization.
Sure - why not have yet another Zionist organization? Then Jews who don't like what Israel is doing can feel even more marginalized, while Jews who don't think Israel is their homeland can be painted as "fanatics" by the likes of Stockholm. Great idea. Where do I sign up?
Why are American Jewish groups so intent on defending illegal Israeli settlements and other human rights violations
Yet it is their letter that is both dishonest and misleading.
The bill, available here (http://blogs.asuc.org/2010/03/18/announcements/sb-118-amended-passed), is based on extensive, footnoted research.
Yet this coalition of Jewish groups does not contest any of the facts. Without offering any evidence, they dismiss findings by reputable organizations like the Red Cross, Human Rights Watch, and Amnesty International. Instead of condemning these human rights violations, they prefer to misinform the public by suggesting that it is somehow wrong to “take sides” against universally recognized injustice. In so doing, they effectively defend illegal Israeli settlements and the Israeli military occupation that continues to disrupt everyday features of Palestinian life: education, health care, economic life, and art and culture.
Further, they claim that the Berkeley bill calls on the University "to divest exclusively from Israel." They imply that the bill calls for divestment "from any company doing business with Israel."
But this is simply not true.
The Berkeley bill focuses specifically on the Israeli occupation, not on Israel. While a vibrant and necessary debate on the merits of a total boycott and divestment from Israel continues around the world, it is not at issue here.
In reality, the bill divests only from two American companies that make money by equipping the occupation, General Electric and United Technologies – but no Israeli companies. It also announces an intention to divest from any company – whatever the nationality, and only after further research – that similarly profit from the occupation.
Trying to make one side out to be evil does not help.
The Arabs and Israelis both have legitimate claims and both are responsible for rectifying the Arab-Israeli conflict. Both sides are not fulfilling that responsibility. Abbas and Netenahu are both not furthering the peace process.
The Arabs and Israelis should negotiate a solution as the Irish and English did a decade ago. In a sane world, Israel, the Palestinians, Jordan. Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, the Arab League, the US, and the UN Security Council would reach a settlement to this never-ending conflict.
"The Arabs"?!? How did that very broad group suddenly pop up here?
Palestinians are people who live in Palestine, who mostly were born there, and/or whose parents, grandparents, and ancestors into the distant past were born there.
References to "the Arabs" always leave me with the uncomfortable feeling that some people are hinting that, oh well, they're all the same, you know, so it doesn't matter where you put them. That was kind of the problem in the first place, no?
Ulster is a totally different story, except in one regard. It definitely helped that the UK government learned to tone down historic racist neuroses about the Irish, which anyone who has lived in the UK knows are very real and have deep roots.
"The Arabs"?!? How did that very broad group suddenly pop up here?
Lebabnon and Syria are still at war with Israel. And many other Arab countries do not recognize Israel's right to exist. These issues have to be tackled before there can be peace in the Middle East. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is part of the greater Arab-Israeli conflict.
Gee, it didn't even take a dozen posts for the thread topic to be forgotten.
A Canadian version of J-Street is unnecessary because, thankfully, Canada has no use for American-style Political Action Committees (PAC's).
The main goal of an American PAC is to elect members of Congress who have the "right" kind of views and will vote "correctly."
To accomplish this, American PAC's give billions of dollars to politicians. Canada needs that like it would a nuclear war on Canadian soil.
PAC's by there very nature are too political.
I thought that you had kind of dismissed the thread topic some posts above, no? Does this mean I don't get to respond to JKR's persistence in linking all the Arabs? Sir?
How much influence does J Street command any way? Even very liberal Democrats like Alan Grayson take an identical position on Israel to Netanyahu and AIPAC.
I thought that you had kind of dismissed the thread topic some posts above, no? Does this mean I don't get to respond to JKR's persistence in linking all the Arabs? Sir?
Yes, yes, you're right - the thread drift proved my dismissiveness was well taken! Sorry if you thought I was being critical.
'sawright. I was just lookin' for a chance to do a little bickerin', and the bickerin' thread was awful quiet.
Looks like things might be headed that way...
Can Jewish-Canadian Groups Speak as One?
In order for this new organization to enjoy widespread legitimacy, it would have to apply the same civil-rights standards to Israel that the CJC has long advocated for in Canada. This would mean being willing to challenge the Israeli government on actions that compromise Israel’s democratic values and Jewish ideals. The new organization would have to be willing to accept that criticizing Israeli policies is no different than criticizing Canadian policies. It would have to admit that critiquing Israeli politics is not necessarily a betrayal of the Jewish state, but rather an expression of the democratic character of modern Zionism itself.
Any Israel advocacy organization trying to engage the generation of Jews for whom connection to Israel no longer means automatically supporting all of its policies needs to consider pressing Israel towards making critical concessions for peace, including on issues related to West Bank settlements.
One has to imagine that the leaders of CIJA have been closely following the Jewish political developments south of the border, where Abe Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League is losing his stature as a tireless civil-rights hero and gaining a reputation as a hardline supporter of Israel’s most stubborn and controversial actions, while, at the same time, organizations such as J Street that are offering a clear alternative are rapidly gaining supporters. If this experience has taught us anything, it is that domestic issues of concern to the Jewish community and uncritical advocacy efforts on behalf of Israel do not belong together.
The new CIJA-sponsored organization hopes to make a mark through a unified operational base. A big-tent approach certainly has its merits, but only if it is truly pluralistic. Given the mainstream Jewish community’s record on Israel advocacy, however, we have our doubts that this will be the case.