[There was a considerable controversy over Michael Oren's refusal to either appear or speak at the national J Street conference. Many of J Street's detractors felt Oren should have gone to the conference and in effect read J Street the riot act. Here is one such imagined address. This was written by Yitzhak Sokoloff, founder of Keshet: The Center for Educational Tourism in Israel. (h/t to Fred for pointing Yitzhak in this direction.)]

The Speech The Ambassador Might Have Given at J Street

by Yitzhak Sokoloff

Michael Oren, the Israeli ambassador to the United States, chose to stay away from the J Street conference currently going on in Washington. He had good reasons not to attend; J Street was created to oppose the policies of the Israeli government and to lobby against them in Washington. Nevertheless, we are entitled to wonder what would have happened had the ambassador ignored the diplomatic niceties and instead elected to take on the true believers of J Street forthrightly, challenging directly the belief systems of those who automatically equate peace with Israeli territorial concessions, and whose use of the mantra "pro-peace" actually masks a dogmatic belief system that consistently disregards the strategic threats to Israel's existence. What follows is a suggestion for that speech.

"Good evening. I know that as the ambassador of the State of Israel I am among friends. But as a friend, it is incumbent for me to speak frankly. Anything less would be a betrayal of that friendship. The State of Israel is a proud democratic society. It is open to Jews from all over the world who wish to make it their home and to take an active part in determining the identity and policies of its government. The State of Israel also recognizes the right- and even the responsibility- of Jews all over the world to engage in intensive dialogue on its policies, principles and values. We have no interest in dictating our views to anyone, and it is not the place of an Israeli ambassador to tell you what you must believe. Nevertheless, it is my place to speak out against political activity that is intended to undermine the sovereign will of the citizens of Israel, no matter who undertakes it. We are a government that believes deeply in the value of achieving peace with our neighbors, and one willing to make significant concessions in order to do so. Peace is a fundamental interest of Israel. However in the turbulent and unpredictable realities of the Middle East and the international political arena we ignore the threats to our survival only at our peril. A border that is nine miles wide, a capital city surrounded on three sides by a hostile power, a near neighbor controlled by forces dedicated implacably to our destruction and a more distant neighbor grasped in the throes of religious fanaticism and in possession of nuclear arms all constitute grave threats to our national survival which at this point in our history is still not guaranteed.

Despite its many declarations of support, J Street has adopted an ideological position advocating an Israeli withdrawal to the ceasefire lines of 1949, those lines once described by Abba Eban as the borders of Auschwitz. This position certainly reflects a heartfelt desire for peace, but it also strategic error of enormous dimension. Believe me that the government and citizens of Israel want want peace no less than anyone in this room, and no less than anyone in this country. But we are charged to make peace with a deep sense of awareness of the dangers involved and responsibility for the decisions that we make. These decision can only be made on the streets of Israel, and with all due respect, they cannot be made in New York or even in Washington.

A second example of the problematic path chosen by J Street is the position it has taken on sanctions against Iran. I must believe that those who oppose such sanctions believe that this is the proper route to pursue the end of a non-nuclear Iran, but for the life of me I cannot understand why. The present government of Iran, according to all the information available to us, is resolutely set on a path of developing nuclear weapons with the purpose of terrorizing its neighbors, the State of Israel and the world at large. There are two ways available to prevent such a calamitous event from taking place- either by the Iranians agreeing on their own to stand down following economic and political pressure or for them to be forced to do so by military action. As no one here, I'm sure, believes that a military attack on Iranian nuclear facilities is the preferred option, I can only conclude that the threat of economic and political sanctions are the only other way of bringing about the same result. The cost of miscalculation is perhaps too great to be imagined, for the world and in particular for the citizens of Israel. And yet on this issue as well this organization has taken upon itself to undermine years of diplomatic efforts whose purpose is to prevent an Iranian nuclear device. The success of J Street in this endeavor would only bring us closer to the very military confrontation that no sane person could prefer to a diplomatic solution.

Last February the citizens of Israel elected a government with very clear positions regarding these two most critical issues on the agenda of our national security- future borders with the Palestinians and Iran. It is not the place of anyone who describes him or herself as a supporter of Israel to act against the sovereign will of its people. Of course there are Israelis who believe that we would be better off having lost the Six Day War, or at least not winning it. There may also be Israelis who believe that the Iranians will be less likely to pursue nuclearization if the international community were to take sanctions off the table- although I don't know any. We are a democracy and the expression of such views is completely legitimate. Those who hold them know the risks that we face if their ideas prove wrong and they will share those risks with other citizens of the State of Israel if advocates of these ideas win power through democratic means and adopt such policies. For those who do not share the risks I counsel a modicum of humility, based on the assumption that Israelis should have the right to chart their own course in the exceedingly dangerous waters of the Middle East.