MORE J STREET

COULD ANYBODY DEMONSTRATE MANY POSITIVE ASPECTS OF J STREET POLICIES? IS THE JEWISH WORLD LARGE ENOUGH TO DEMONSTRATE TO THE WORLD THAT JEWS REALLY SPEAK WITH A STRONG LARGELY UNIFIED VOICE?
///////////////////////////////////////
Last update - 04:34 27/10/2009
In shadow of Israeli 'boycott,' J Street meets in D.C.
By Natasha Mozgovaya, Haaretz Correspondent
Tags: U.S. Jews, J Street

The pro-Israel lobby J Street kicked off its first national conference on Sunday with more than 1,500 guests at the Grand Hyatt Hotel in Washington, D.C. Despite controversy and tension surrounding the convention, organizers said the attendance exceeded expectations.

Numerous peace activists, politicians, diplomats, lobbyists, male and female rabbis, political advisers, artists, students and journalists filled the halls. Participants who spilled out from over-crowded panel rooms sat in a circle on the lobby carpet, heatedly discussing the state of left-wing activists in Israel and the United States, religion and the new media.

"We couldn't be more thrilled," said J Street executive director Jeremy Ben-Ami. "The numbers of participants far exceeded our expectations - 148 congressmen supported the event, 250 students and reporters from 17 countries came. This is truly the birth of a movement. It demonstrates the vacuum and the desire to promote peace now, when it's more urgent than ever... Our vision for peace is very clear - two states based on '67."

"Violence might break out, there are extremists on both sides," he continued. "But we can't allow the extremists to prevent a better future for both sides."

A reporter asked Ben-Ami how J Street could be pro-Israel when Israeli ambassador to the United States Michael Oren had boycotted the event. "The Israeli ambassador is making a serious mistake. This is part of the Jewish community and to refuse to engage with us is a serious mistake, as it is to refuse to engage with those seeking to promote peace. I wish he were here even to express his disagreement. We do love Israel, we do support Israel. [But] we have questions regarding its policy," Ben-Ami said.

Asked about the Goldstone report, he said "The process by which the international community addresses these issues is flawed. But that doesn't mean Israel doesn't need to deal with the substance."

Opposite the hotel, Bob Kunst, of the rightist group Shalom International, held a one-man protest against the conference with a poster that read: "J St. Nazis."

MK Meir Sheetrit (Kadima) said he had no compunction whatsoever about attending the conference. "I attended AIPAC's conference and now I'm here. The government is making a mistake in not attending. We appear at all kinds of forums that oppose Israel as well as in Arab states - so not coming to a pro-Israel conference? I'm of the impression that [J Street's] support in Israel is real and serious."

Participants will throng to Capitol Hill today and tomorrow for more than 200 meetings in Congress. They intend to explain to the congressmen and their aides that the Jewish American community has more than one voice, that active involvement in the peace process is a basic interest of both the United States and Israel, and that the preferred solution to the Iranian issue is the diplomatic process.

Five families from the Jerusalem neighborhood of Sheikh Jarrah had their own agenda on the hill. "They came to tell their story, they want the American administration to help them return to their homes and prevent the imminent eviction of 500 more people," said Angela Godfrey-Goldstein of the Israel Committee Against House Demolitions, who accompanied them.

"It was very exciting," said Colette Avital, a former Labor MK, "standing before a young crowd who said they love Israel and want to advance peace. I haven't seen such fervor in a long time, neither in Israel nor here. While we're getting thrown out of all the campuses, here there's huge potential."

Pollster and political adviser Jim Gerstein said Israel was not boycotting J Street. "It's not an Israeli boycott, it's Netanyahu's boycott. You have welcoming letters from the president and Tzipi Livni... 150 congress members are co-sponsoring this event. If Obama's administration is taking it seriously, what does it say about the prime minister?"
////////////////////////THE TRUTH COMES OUT////////
J Street: Jews Can Be 'Pro-Israel and Pro-Palestinian

J Street's campus branch drops pro-Israel slogan
By HILARY LEILA KRIEGER, JPOST CORRESPONDENT IN WASHINGTON
Print Subscribe Listen to this article. Powered by Odiogo.com
E-mail Toolbar

+ Recommend:
facebook twitter del.icio.us reddit fark
What's this?


Decrease text size Decrease text size
Increase text size Increase text size
Talkbacks for this article: 123

J Street's university arm has dropped the "pro-Israel" part of the left-wing US lobby's "pro-Israel, pro-peace" slogan to avoid alienating students.

That decision was part of the message conveyed to young activists who attended a special weekend program for students ahead of J Street's first annual conference, which began on Sunday.


Students are seen as a key component of the 18-month-old organization's constituency base and the conference itself. The multi-day event has incorporated new technology and interactive forums to harness their energy and garner feedback from the audience, which swelled to 1,500 on Monday and created overflow plenary and breakout sessions.


At their earlier weekend session, the 250 participating students mapped out strategies for bringing J Street's approach to college campuses and encouraging students to join in the effort.
RELATED

* J Street's spiritual conceit
* Q&A: Roberta Seid on why J Street is bad for Israel

"We don't want to isolate people because they don't feel quite so comfortable with 'pro-Israel,' so we say 'pro-peace,'" said American University junior Lauren Barr of the "J Street U" slogan, "but behind that is 'pro-Israel."


Barr, secretary of the J Street U student board that decided the slogan's terminology, explained that on campus, "people feel alienated when the conversation revolves around a connection to Israel only, because people feel connected to Palestine, people feel connected to social justice, people feel connected to the Middle East."


She noted that the individual student chapters would be free to add "pro-Israel," "pro-Israel, pro-Palestine," or other wording that they felt would be effective on this issue, since "it's up to the individuals on campus to know their audience."


Yonatan Shechter, a junior at Hampshire College, said the ultra-liberal Massachusetts campus is inhospitable to terms like "Zionist" and that when his former organization, the Union of Progressive Zionists (which has been absorbed into J Street U), dropped that last word of its name, "people were so relieved."


Shechter said that J Street U allows students who support Israel to have an address on his campus, adding that nothing more to the right exists or would be sustainable and the only other Jewish student group "is decidedly not political... they won't go beyond having felafel on Independence Day."

J Street Executive Director Jeremy Ben-Ami said that when it came to his organization's work with the student groups, "If the way to engage the young part of our community is to give them space to work through their relationship with Israel, then we're going to do that. We're not going to shut them out, because the only way to keep them in the community is to give them the space to work that out."


J Street itself has repeatedly emphasized the pro-Israel aspect of its identity, stressing its stand in support of Israel and the need for a two-state solution in the face of criticism that it doesn't squarely support the Jewish state.

Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren declined an invitation to the conference after a spokesman said some of J Street's policies "could impair Israel's interests," though several Kadima and Labor MKs have flown in to attend the Washington convention.


Ben-Ami described himself as "concerned but realistic" about the students' choice to leave out the pro-Israel piece of J Street's slogan.

He added, "Some in the community might not want to hear that this is where a lot of young people have come to, but we have to deal with people where they're at and address their concerns."


The student sessions included activism training on using the media, building campus organizations and lobbying political leaders. They also addressed issues of concern, including "Anti-Semitism and Israel," a session described as focusing on the fact that "anti-Semitism does exist, even within

progressive communities we often consider our allies" and asking how open conversations can still be promoted. Another event was titled "Reckoning with the Radical Left on Campus: Alternatives to Boycotts and Divestment," and called for "developing alternative methods for change."

One participant, though, expressed surprise when the latter session shifted from the advertised topic of countering divestment to a discussion of how to effectively call for divestment from products made in settlements without a broader call for divestment from all of Israel.

The participant, who spoke anonymously because J Street only authorized J Street U's board members to speak to the media, said the students at the panel were brainstorming ways to make the nuance of their position clear from broader divestment campaigns.

J Street did not respond to a question about the session by press time, but did note that the student workshops were closed door sessions.

Ben-Ami specifically welcomed students at the opening session on Sunday night, at which Barr spoke, though the crowd was dominated by older activists, many of them long advocates of an end to the Israeli occupation of Palestinians and in favor of active American diplomacy in the region.

Later, Ben-Ami described his organization's goal as one that includes changing the nature of the debate about Israel in America to one of a big-tent approach where different viewpoints and perspectives were welcomed.

"It is our goal to change traditional conversations when it comes to Israel and to broaden the notion that there is only one way to express love and concern for it," Ben-Ami said to applause. "We are here to redefine and expand the very concept of being pro-Israel. No longer should this 'pro-' require an 'anti-.'"

He read letters of support from President Shimon Peres and opposition leader Tzipi Livni, neither of whom were able to attend but both of whom expressed support for including a wide swath of American Jews in the issues connected to Israel.

"For too long, our voice - the voice of mainstream progressive Jews on Israel - has been absent from the political playing field in Washington and around the country," Ben-Ami told the crowd, noting that many have focused on other issues.
////////////////////////////////////////////
Roberta Seid- Education/Research Director of StandWithUs

Posted by SHMUEL ROSNER
JPOST.COM

Roberta P. Seid.

Seid earned her doctorate at UC Berkeley in European Social History, taught Gender Studies and European history at the University of Southern California, and currently teaches a course on Israel at UC Irvine. She is Education/Research Director of StandWithUs, an international Israel education organization, and was a member of the America Israel Demographic Research Group (AIDRG) which analyzed Palestinian and Israeli demography. Dr. Seid has authored and co-authored books and articles in these fields in both the scholarly and non-scholarly press.

She was answering my questions on the way to J Street's conference - she's there to follow and protest, not to show support. Here we go:

1. How is J Street "frequently endorses anti-Israel, anti-Jewish narratives"?

In StandWithUs' extensive experience covering anti-Israel events, speakers, and organizations, we have found certain patterns: they exclude context, draw moral equivalencies, defend defamations and one-sided narratives under the banner of free speech, use half-truths and outright lies to stain Israel and Jews, or promote speakers who delegitimize Israel. Unfortunately, J Street has exhibited a pattern of doing some or all of these things.


Some examples: J Street:

Refused to condemn the bias and misrepresentations of the UN Goldstone Report, faulted the Israeli government for not cooperating with the investigation, and urged "the Israeli government to establish an independent state commission of inquiry to investigate the accusations, something Israel has done on several occasions in the past."


"7 Jewish Children" J Street endorsed Washington DC's J-Theater production of "7 Jewish Children" in March, 2009, claiming it would stimulate "rigorous intellectual engagement.”" Even the BBC would not air the piece after British Jewish leaders condemned it for historical distortions and for portraying "Israeli parents as inhuman triumphalists who care littleabout anything except their children's feelings and who teach them that Arabs are sub-human and must be hated."

Launched a public letter campaign to support programs with anti-Israel bias, such as Bob Simon's "60 Minutes" biased view of the settlements in January, 2009. J Street launched a campaign to defend Simon against CAMERA and Abe Foxman's criticisms. Foxman called the show a "hatchet job on Israel."


Adopted the anti-Israel interpretation of why Charles Freeman did not get appointed to a top intelligence post in the Obama administration. J Street refused to take sides in this controversy, but afterwards objected to the outcome, writing that "It cannot be a litmus test for service in the American government that you have never criticized Israel or its policies publicly." In fact, the Freeman appointment was scuttled because of Freeman's apologia for China’s brutal crackdown in Tianamen Square in 1989, his position as president of MEPC, an Arab lobby group partially funded by Saudi Arabia and the Bin Laden family, and because he did not "criticize" Israel, but rather fulminated against it in a series of screeds that repeated false anti-Israel charges.


Praised Jimmy Carter without denouncing the misrepresentations and pernicious influence of Carter's book that claimed Israel had instituted apartheid vs the Palestinians. J Street posted and urged distribution of Nancy Kaptur's (D-OH) speech which called for Jimmy Carter's op ed against Israel actions in Gaza to be entered in the Congressional Record. Jeremy Ben-Ami, J Street's executive director, praised Jimmy Carter in 2009: "You have to respect him, which I don't think everybody has done... And he deserves more respect and more thanks than he has gotten."

Blamed Israeli policyfor Palestinian terrorism instead of recognizing the existence of extremist terrorist groups and strategy among Palestinians, portraying Palestinians solely as helpless victims instead of active agents in their policy choices. "But we're not doing a very good job at creating a secure home by conducting ourselves in this manner towards another people that are a minority, and that are powerless, and treating them in a way that forces them essentially to become terrorists, and leads to us being again in danger" (Ben-Ami in Salon interview).

2. Do you think criticizing Israel is necessarily "anti-Israel"? if not - where do you draw the line?


Of course criticizing Israeli policy is not inherently anti-Israel. Israelis do it all the time. There clearly will be different policies heatedly debated as Israel tries to deal with the difficult situation it is in today. I think Sharansky did an excellent job clarifying when criticism of Israel crosses the line from being reasonable to unreasonable.


The line between what is legitimate criticism of Israel and anti-Israel positions are those I mentioned in answer 1 above. I think Sharansky's "3 D's" are a good litmus test: Delegitimization of Israel; Double standards when judging Israeli actions; Demonization of Israel, particularly misrepresenting all it has done for peace and to improve the condition of its minorities. To his 3 D's, I would add "decontextualization" - ignoring the context for Israel's actions and drawing moral equivalencies between Israel and terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah which would probably fit in Sharansky's "demonization."


More specifically: 1) Forcing Israel to adopt policies that are against the will of its democratically elected government; 2) Blaming Israel alone for the ongoing conflict and calling for pressure only on Israel to change policy, as J Street does; 3) Ignoring context, particularly the serious security threats Israel faces and could face in an imposed solution, and ignoring the failures of the PA and the problematic reality of it being able to be a peace partner when it is a divided between Hamas and Fatah.

3. J Street seems to be quite successful - do you agree with this assessment, and how do you explain this success?


J Street has gotten a lot of publicity. It's well funded and well connected, and has used a lot of major PR to get widespread attention. But how successful it will be remains to be seen. That's why our work is so important: Americans need to know what this organization actually stands for and whom it does or doesn't represent. Then they can make their decisions. Because so many American Jews oppose the policies they advocate, I tend to believe they will not be very popular in the Jewish community, though they very likely will continue to gather support from organizations and individuals who have generally been hostile to Israel.


4. You're "concerned because J Street echoes many of the charges in Walt and Mearsheimer's The Israel Lobby, and denigrates mainstream Jewish organizations across the political spectrum". But J Street's founder, Jeremy Ben-Ami had said (in an interview with Jeffrey Goldberg, referring to Walt and Mearsheimer) that "when the analysis of that lobby veers over a line and essentially says that all of American foreign policy is controlled by this one lobby and this one interest group, to me, personally, this does smack of the kind of conspiracy theories contained in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. This notion that somehow Jews control this country, they control our foreign policy, that there is some diabolical conspiracy behind the scenes, this is when you cross that line." So, can we now delete one concern from the list?


I read the Goldberg interview. Ben-Ami has tried to distance himself from the Walt-Mearsheimer book with good reason. But he cannot deny that he echoes many of its themes, and many of his claims do make it sound like there is a "diaboloical" conspiracy out there. It is no accident that Walt is so pleased J Street was founded.


After all, the whole raison d'etre for the founding of J Street is their claim that mainstream Jewish organizations do not represent mainstream young Jews or liberal Jews, that these Jews have had no voice or are silenced, and that there is a need for a new direction in America's relationship with Israel.

But Ben-Ami goes even further.


He paints all the mainstream Jewish organizations as right wing, and as imposing "one voice" on the Jewish community - despite the bipartisanship of AIPAC and the different alignments of different Jewish organizations. He even has argued that being "hawkish" on Israel is a litmus test for acceptance by mainstream Jewish organizations. Consider his comments to Salon:

"And it greatly disturbs me and it greatly disturbs a very large number of progressive American Jews, who believe very strongly in Israel but feel that the way in which the American Jewish community's voice has been expressed on these issues doesn't reflect our values or opinions. Only the voices of the far right have been heard. They've really hijacked the debate when it comes to Israel." Ben-Ami in Salon interview said.

"Another key reason that J Street is urgently needed, Ben-Ami said, is to heal a dangerous and growing schism in the Jewish community... If we say that in order to be tied to the established Jewish community, either through federations or synagogues or any institutional entity, you have to go through a litmus test of 'do you stand with Israel right or wrong on everything' before we'll let you feel comfortable in our institutions, we're going to drive all these people away. We're going to lose an entire generation."

For his part, Ben-Ami said politicians on the Hill had reacted extremely positively to J Street's launch. "About the only thing that we can do to drive America away from Israel is to press our luck too far, keep on saying 'Is it pro-Israel enough?,' keep demanding that we have 32 preamble clauses that say how bad the Palestinians are." Ben-Ami said the politicians he spoke to wanted to make sure that the U.S.-Israel relationship was not damaged by such overkill, and were grateful that a new organization would "give them a little bit of relief from this constant pressure."

Similarly, in the issue about Charles Freeman's appointment, J Street expressed views that could have come from Walt and Mearsheimer - that "it cannot be a litmus test for service in the American government that you have never criticized Israel or its policies publicly," when in fact Freeman's rejection was not just because of his Israel positions, and when his "criticism" of Israel in fact included defamatory tirades that demonized and delegitimized Israel.

All these arguments resemble those of Walt and Mearsheimer.

5. Your Walt-Mearsheimer accusation is just an example to what many people might see as criticism too aggressive in tone and not properly nuanced when it comes to accuracy. Did you not cross a line when you've turned your legitimate criticism of J Street's into war of words that is hardly productive?


J Street is the group guilty of an aggressive tone and a total lack of nuance. It has painted mainstream American Jewish organizations with one brush as "right wing," and demanding "group think" for acceptance, and has made the preposterous claim that J Street alone is pro-peace, suggesting all these other groups are pro-war. That is nonsense and frankly dishonest.


I'm not sure what you're referring to when you say we are "too aggressive" in tone. Our press releases, statements, and ads simply laid out J Street's positions with documentation. We consider these positions and methods harmful for Israel, but all we did was explain what those positions were. Readers can then make informed decisions. J Street never denied that it advocates these positions. Nor did we attack J Street's founders. We pointed out that J Street has donors and supporters who have been affiliated with groups or countries that have historically been hostile to Israel, from Human Rights Watch to a member of the NIAC. J Street didn't deny these affiliations. It defended them. But it is certainly legitimate to ask why such individuals would support a pro-Israel organization - or whether they would influence it in ways that could be harmful to Israel. We are not engaged in a war of words with J Street. We just have very serious concerns about their positions, and we wanted to educate the public about J Street's positions.


6. Please explain your strategy: you think J Street is harmful, you think its ideas are wrong - how do you intend to try and oppose it in an effective way?

We are fulfilling our mission: education about Israel and issues related to Israel. We and others who are concerned about J Street have already succeeded because the problems with J Street's self-portrayal and its positions are now open and on the table, and being vigorously debated, as they should be.


7. Is there a danger that you're seen as "conservative" (namely, tend to be supportive of the Republican Party) - and that's effectively preventing you from being effective with most Jewish Americans? How can you convince the perplexed that your organization is not in the business of political character-assassination?


What does this have to do with the Republican party? We are looking at J Street's content and ideas, not their political affiliations. We have not used political labels, and this is the first time this question has been brought up in an interview. StandWithUs is non partisan. Our Board of Directors includes people from all parties and our students are a mix of liberal and conservative. We focus on correcting misconceptions and promoting education and information, not on endorsing political parties.


The issues about J Street are not about "conservative" and "republican" versus "democrat" and "liberal." They are about the American Jewish community and the best ways it can support Israel and further movement toward peace in the region. Unfortunately, J Street has tried to make this about liberal vs conservative in order to marginalize mainstream organizations and views, but support for Israel crosses party lines and the liberal-conservative divide. According to polls, 96% of Israelis feel the current U.S. administration's policies are not friendly to Israel. That result certainly crosses a wide political divide. The same is true here in the U.S.


We are certainly not in the business of "political character assassination." We are a non-partisan Israel education organization. J Street has every right to hold its opinions, express them, and form an organization to support them. Other American groups, both Jewish and non-Jewish, have an equal right to express their views and to challenge and debate J Street positions - and to inform the public about J Street positions that are cause for concern.


J Street isn't concerned about being seen as far left even though it recently affiliated with both the Union of Progressive Zionists and BrizTzedek. It seems rather that the groups that challenge J Street are from the mainstream though J Street has tried hard to marginalize them as "right wing" and "hawkish."


8. How can we measure your success or failure to achieve your goals?
The best way to measure our success or failure is by whether or not there is vigorous, thoughtful, and factual debate about J Street's positions and what it really represents. Our main goal is to bring clarity to the fact that the variety of groups under J Street's umbrella endorse positions that the vast mainstream of Israelis and supporters of Israel from other countries would find of grave concern and potentially harmful to Israel.
//////////////////////

BY CNAAN LIPHSHIZ
HAARETZ

Breaking with the cautious attitude of major Jewish institutions, a prominent pro-Israel group in the U.S. has launched a scathing verbal attack on J Street, the left-leaning U.S. lobby for Israel, ahead of its inaugural conference which begins Sunday.

In a recent statement, StandWithUs - a nonprofit working to counter anti-Israel and anti-Semitic phenomena on campuses - asserted that since its foundation last April, J Street has "echoed" the position of professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, who argue the "Israel lobby" is too powerful in Washington.

"One of the most dangerous things that can be said about Jews is that they control the world, or America, or American foreign policy," said Roz Rothstein from Los Angeles, who founded StandWithUs in 2001.

Rothstein, who visited Israel this week for the Presidential Conference, argued J Street "contributes to this way of thinking" with statements like the one made on June 9 by J Street 's executive director Jeremy Ben Ami, who wrote that "for decades, established pro-Israel groups have enforced right-wing message discipline on Israel in Congress."


Not worth a reaction


A spokesperson for the self-described "pro-Israel, pro-peace" lobby, Amy Spitalnick, told Anglo File on Monday that her organization had no comment on this and other accusations by StandWithUs "because they do not merit a reaction." One J Street supporter called the advocacy group's letter a "lie-filled dossier" and "smear sheet".


StandWithUs wrote its protest letter to the J Street conference's 160-person congressional host committee, which includes John Kerry, Henry Waxman and Dianne Feinstein. Israel 's ambassador to the U.S., Michael Oren, said he will not attend the J Street conference, set to take place next week in Washington D.C.

In a 2,000-word response to the 800-word letter by StandWithUs, Richard Silverstein, a writer known for his critical approach to Israel who will lead a discussion on blogging during the J Street Conference, wrote that the Walt and Mearsheimer reference was "so patently false it isn't even worth engaging [which]."

StandWithUs, which has an annual budget of roughly $4 million, also wrote that J Street , whose annual budget is $3 million, drew "a moral equivalence" between Israel and Hamas when the lobby group said during Israel's recent campaign in Gaza that "it could not identify who was right or who was wrong."


This claim, Silverstein argued, should be examined against J Street's full statement, which he says "bears no resemblance whatsoever" to what StandWithUs said. Referring to Israel's conflict with Hamas, J Street - which calls on U.S. and Israeli politicians to "find ways to engage Hamas" - went on to write in the petition that "there are many who recognize elements of truth on both sides."


According to Rothstein, StandWithUs will send a delegation of observers - whose makeup and identity she would not disclose - to the J Street conference next week.
"Though it's probably made up of fine people, J Street's message can be dangerous," said Rothstein. "It has a very attractive-looking pitch that speaks of peace and love, which we all want, but that world view only works with those who share it. Hamas doesn't, Iran doesn't and many others don't share it either."
///soros' J Street////////////////
J Street 'thrilled' by turnout at first national conference
By Natasha Mozgovaya, Haaretz Correspondent
Tags: U.S. Jews, J Street




The pro-Israel lobby J Street kicked off its first national conference on Sunday with more than 1,500 guests at the Grand Hyatt Hotel in Washington, D.C. Despite controversy and tension surrounding the convention, organizers said the attendance exceeded expectations.

Numerous peace activists, politicians, diplomats, lobbyists, male and female rabbis, political advisers, artists, students and journalists filled the halls. Participants who spilled out from over-crowded panel rooms sat in a circle on the lobby carpet, heatedly discussing the state of left-wing activists in Israel and the United States, religion and the new media.

"We couldn't be more thrilled," said J Street executive director Jeremy Ben-Ami. "The numbers of participants far exceeded our expectations - 148 congressmen supported the event, 250 students and reporters from 17 countries came. This is truly the birth of a movement. It demonstrates the vacuum and the desire to promote peace now, when it's more urgent than ever... Our vision for peace is very clear - two states based on '67."
Advertisement


"Violence might break out, there are extremists on both sides," he continued. "But we can't allow the extremists to prevent a better future for both sides."

A reporter asked Ben-Ami how J Street could be pro-Israel when Israeli ambassador to the United States Michael Oren had boycotted the event. "The Israeli ambassador is making a serious mistake. This is part of the Jewish community and to refuse to engage with us is a serious mistake, as it is to refuse to engage with those seeking to promote peace. I wish he were here even to express his disagreement. We do love Israel, we do support Israel. [But] we have questions regarding its policy," Ben-Ami said.

Asked about the Goldstone report, he said "The process by which the international community addresses these issues is flawed. But that doesn't mean Israel doesn't need to deal with the substance."

Opposite the hotel, Bob Kunst, of the rightist group Shalom International, held a one-man protest against the conference with a poster that read: "J St. Nazis."

MK Meir Sheetrit (Kadima) said he had no compunction whatsoever about attending the conference. "I attended AIPAC's conference and now I'm here. The government is making a mistake in not attending. We appear at all kinds of forums that oppose Israel as well as in Arab states - so not coming to a pro-Israel conference? I'm of the impression that [J Street's] support in Israel is real and serious."

Participants will throng to Capitol Hill today and tomorrow for more than 200 meetings in Congress. They intend to explain to the congressmen and their aides that the Jewish American community has more than one voice, that active involvement in the peace process is a basic interest of both the United States and Israel, and that the preferred solution to the Iranian issue is the diplomatic process.

Five families from the Jerusalem neighborhood of Sheikh Jarrah had their own agenda on the hill. "They came to tell their story, they want the American administration to help them return to their homes and prevent the imminent eviction of 500 more people," said Angela Godfrey-Goldstein of the Israel Committee Against House Demolitions, who accompanied them.

"It was very exciting," said Colette Avital, a former Labor MK, "standing before a young crowd who said they love Israel and want to advance peace. I haven't seen such fervor in a long time, neither in Israel nor here. While we're getting thrown out of all the campuses, here there's huge potential."

Pollster and political adviser Jim Gerstein said Israel was not boycotting J Street. "It's not an Israeli boycott, it's Netanyahu's boycott. You have welcoming letters from the president and Tzipi Livni... 150 congress members are co-sponsoring this event. If Obama's administration is taking it seriously, what does it say about the prime minister?"