Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Thursday, April 8, 2010
J Street's grave dangers
Thursday, January 28, 2010
5 main dangers of J Street
5 Main Dangers of J Street taken from various sites
1. J Street aims to distance US from Israel and undermine US support for Israel
a. Their own statements demonstrate it: “As Americans, we worry about the impact of Israeli policies on vital U.S. interests in the Middle East and around the world”
b. Ben-Ami is so intent on driving a sharp wedge between Israeli and U.S. interests that he totally ignores multi-layered security ties that bind Washington and Jerusalem -- from missile defense to intelligence sharing to thwarting terrorist threats from Hezb'allah and Hamas.
c. Not content to peddle a fictional incompatibility between U.S. and Israeli interests, Ben-Ami then goes on to depict Israel as a threat to "the health and vitality" of the U.S. Jewish community. This is nothing but another attempt to revive baseless fears that, if Israel exercises its right to self-defense, American Jews will be at risk. .
d. J Street is a very non-pacific front organization for Arab designs on Israel . It has issued a call for "forceful" opposition to Israel . Here's their language “J Street Calls for Stronger American Engagement to Stop Provocative Actions in Jerusalem . ...J Street urges the U.S. government to forcefully oppose provocative, unilateral actions …J Street condemns .....We urge the United States and American political leaders to seek an end to actions “
2. J Street policy effect would be the end of Israel.
a. If Israel were to deviate from its current path and shape its security according to J Street and world opinion, Israel definitely would be a goner.
b. J Street's agenda is to turn Israel into a state in which Jews might find a home -- leaving plenty of room for a "right of return" for Palestinian refugees and a bi-national state that dare not identify itself as Jewish.
c. How far left is J Street? President Obama has no trouble describing Israel as Jewish state. J Street does.
d. The Israeli ambassador to the United States blasted J Street, saying the organization was "fooling around with the lives of 7 million people." Among the policies Oren pointed to as problematic were J Street 's criticism of Israel 's attack on Gaza last winter, its refusal to reject the Goldstone report
e. J Street Refused to accept Israel ’s right of self-defense in Gaza
In regard to the recent Gaza conflict, it is J Street ’s address of Israel ’s side that truly casts some doubt on its “pro-Israel” stance. J Street ’s website features a section titled “ J Street ’s Response to the Gaza Crisis” (note, the word, crisis). The organization lists a number of statements and articles condemning Israel ’s military response to the rocket attacks, calling it “disproportional,” “counterproductive” and “deepening the cycle of violence.” No such criticism exists for Hamas’ rocket warfare and even more disturbing is the website’s lack of information about the destructive impact of the Gaza rockets on Israeli civilians. It appears that for J Street , the issue of the Gaza conflict is not even about Gaza but Israel ’s military response to Palestinian rocket terrorism. Not once does J Street point out that Palestinians who commit terror acts against Israel adhere to a radical Islamic ideology that teaches them to do so, nor that key players, like Iran and Syria , are heavily involved in supporting the terror war against Israel . Of course, J Street also refrains from mentioning that Hamas’ charter calls for the complete destruction of Israel .
3. J Street interferes in sovereign democratic government of Israel. What moral right do they have to interfere? As the far-left voice of J Street, Ben-Ami takes dead aim at Netanyahu's government, even though its diplomatic and security agenda does not differ materially from that of the previous centrist-led Kadima government of Ehud Olmert.
4. J Street has deep ties to enemies of Israel.
a. Iranian ties J Street conspiring with an organization run by an Iranian national -- an organization that Congress has asked AG Holder to investigate for violations of the Foreign Agents Registration Act and lobbying disclosure laws -- to kill that legislation? Parsi was invited to speak at J Street 's conference. Mohsen Makhmalbaf, the unofficial spokesman for Iran 's Green Movement. "I think Trita Parsi does not belong to the Green Movement. I feel his lobbying has secretly been more for the Islamic Republic," Makhmalbaf said. It seems J Street isn't just redefining "pro-Israel" -- they're redefining "pro-Iran" as well.
b. Others According to the US Federal Election Commission, donors to J Street ’s political action committee hail from forums aligned against Israel . J Street’s donors are affiliated with the National Iranian American Council, “Stop the Occupation”, AMIDEAST, the US State Department and the Arab American Institute -establishments not exactly known for pro-Israel views. Among the many private Jewish and Christian donors to J Street , there are also a number of Islamic and pro-Iranian activists, as well as Palestinian and Arab American businesspeople. One such example is Zahi Khouri, a major Palestinian businessman with a Coke franchise in the West Bank . Khouri actually decried Israel ’s attempts towards economic peace with the Palestinians in an article he wrote in the New York Times on September 9.
c. One member of the J Street Philly Host Committee “compared Israel's treatment of Gaza with the genocide in Sudan .
d. "Another Host Committee member is involved with ICAHD, a radical group which interferes with Israeli efforts to stop terrorism and which advocates "Boycotts, Divestment and Sanctions against Israel .”
e. J Street is Raising money for Congress people who blast Israel “from the Arabist New Day”: J Street Raises $15,000 for Donna Edwards in 240 Minutes | TPMCafe By Issandr El Amrani New Day: J Street Raises $15,000 for Donna Edwards in 240 Minutes | TPMCafe Donna Edwards, another African-American representative who did not endorse Israel's Gaza brutalities, now defended by J Street.
5. J Street Influences Obama to ruin negotiations with Israel and the Palestinians
a. :Obama took the great advice of “progressive” geniuses like Rashid Khalidi and J Street. J Street , when not bad-mouthing AIPAC behind closed doors, spent much of the year openly bragging about their White House influence. According to Time, here are the results. Nothing pushed Israel and the Palestinians further away from negotiations than Obama doing what J Street suggested: making harsh demands on Israel, insisting on a total freeze on ‘natural growth,’ treating even Jerusalem as if it was a hilltop settlement, demanding that Israel give in on just about everything prior to negotiations. (Why even negotiate? Obama made all his dictates – exactly as J Street advised — in lieu of Israel and the Palestinians actually negotiating these things themselves.) Obama once pretended to be an “honest broker” only to expose himself as a Jimmy Carter-type advocate for the bad guys. And he did it in record time. Good job, J Street . Maybe that’s what “J” stands for: Jimmy
b. This is the reality- Obama brought J-Street into the center of the Israeli Palestinian issue, appointing their people to his Administration, and allowing J-Street a place at the table. Put simply, Obama is the face of J-Street. And J-Street is not pro-Israel
5 main dangers of J Street
5 Main Dangers of J Street taken from various sites
1. J Street aims to distance US from Israel and undermine US support for Israel
a. Their own statements demonstrate it: “As Americans, we worry about the impact of Israeli policies on vital U.S. interests in the Middle East and around the world”
b. Ben-Ami is so intent on driving a sharp wedge between Israeli and U.S. interests that he totally ignores multi-layered security ties that bind Washington and Jerusalem -- from missile defense to intelligence sharing to thwarting terrorist threats from Hezb'allah and Hamas.
c. Not content to peddle a fictional incompatibility between U.S. and Israeli interests, Ben-Ami then goes on to depict Israel as a threat to "the health and vitality" of the U.S. Jewish community. This is nothing but another attempt to revive baseless fears that, if Israel exercises its right to self-defense, American Jews will be at risk. .
d. J Street is a very non-pacific front organization for Arab designs on Israel . It has issued a call for "forceful" opposition to Israel . Here's their language “J Street Calls for Stronger American Engagement to Stop Provocative Actions in Jerusalem . ...J Street urges the U.S. government to forcefully oppose provocative, unilateral actions …J Street condemns .....We urge the United States and American political leaders to seek an end to actions “
2. J Street policy effect would be the end of Israel.
a. If Israel were to deviate from its current path and shape its security according to J Street and world opinion, Israel definitely would be a goner.
b. J Street's agenda is to turn Israel into a state in which Jews might find a home -- leaving plenty of room for a "right of return" for Palestinian refugees and a bi-national state that dare not identify itself as Jewish.
c. How far left is J Street? President Obama has no trouble describing Israel as Jewish state. J Street does.
d. The Israeli ambassador to the United States blasted J Street, saying the organization was "fooling around with the lives of 7 million people." Among the policies Oren pointed to as problematic were J Street 's criticism of Israel 's attack on Gaza last winter, its refusal to reject the Goldstone report
e. J Street Refused to accept Israel ’s right of self-defense in Gaza
In regard to the recent Gaza conflict, it is J Street ’s address of Israel ’s side that truly casts some doubt on its “pro-Israel” stance. J Street ’s website features a section titled “ J Street ’s Response to the Gaza Crisis” (note, the word, crisis). The organization lists a number of statements and articles condemning Israel ’s military response to the rocket attacks, calling it “disproportional,” “counterproductive” and “deepening the cycle of violence.” No such criticism exists for Hamas’ rocket warfare and even more disturbing is the website’s lack of information about the destructive impact of the Gaza rockets on Israeli civilians. It appears that for J Street , the issue of the Gaza conflict is not even about Gaza but Israel ’s military response to Palestinian rocket terrorism. Not once does J Street point out that Palestinians who commit terror acts against Israel adhere to a radical Islamic ideology that teaches them to do so, nor that key players, like Iran and Syria , are heavily involved in supporting the terror war against Israel . Of course, J Street also refrains from mentioning that Hamas’ charter calls for the complete destruction of Israel .
3. J Street interferes in sovereign democratic government of Israel. What moral right do they have to interfere? As the far-left voice of J Street, Ben-Ami takes dead aim at Netanyahu's government, even though its diplomatic and security agenda does not differ materially from that of the previous centrist-led Kadima government of Ehud Olmert.
4. J Street has deep ties to enemies of Israel.
a. Iranian ties J Street conspiring with an organization run by an Iranian national -- an organization that Congress has asked AG Holder to investigate for violations of the Foreign Agents Registration Act and lobbying disclosure laws -- to kill that legislation? Parsi was invited to speak at J Street 's conference. Mohsen Makhmalbaf, the unofficial spokesman for Iran 's Green Movement. "I think Trita Parsi does not belong to the Green Movement. I feel his lobbying has secretly been more for the Islamic Republic," Makhmalbaf said. It seems J Street isn't just redefining "pro-Israel" -- they're redefining "pro-Iran" as well.
b. Others According to the US Federal Election Commission, donors to J Street ’s political action committee hail from forums aligned against Israel . J Street’s donors are affiliated with the National Iranian American Council, “Stop the Occupation”, AMIDEAST, the US State Department and the Arab American Institute -establishments not exactly known for pro-Israel views. Among the many private Jewish and Christian donors to J Street , there are also a number of Islamic and pro-Iranian activists, as well as Palestinian and Arab American businesspeople. One such example is Zahi Khouri, a major Palestinian businessman with a Coke franchise in the West Bank . Khouri actually decried Israel ’s attempts towards economic peace with the Palestinians in an article he wrote in the New York Times on September 9.
c. One member of the J Street Philly Host Committee “compared Israel's treatment of Gaza with the genocide in Sudan .
d. "Another Host Committee member is involved with ICAHD, a radical group which interferes with Israeli efforts to stop terrorism and which advocates "Boycotts, Divestment and Sanctions against Israel .”
e. J Street is Raising money for Congress people who blast Israel “from the Arabist New Day”: J Street Raises $15,000 for Donna Edwards in 240 Minutes | TPMCafe By Issandr El Amrani New Day: J Street Raises $15,000 for Donna Edwards in 240 Minutes | TPMCafe Donna Edwards, another African-American representative who did not endorse Israel's Gaza brutalities, now defended by J Street.
5. J Street Influences Obama to ruin negotiations with Israel and the Palestinians
a. :Obama took the great advice of “progressive” geniuses like Rashid Khalidi and J Street. J Street , when not bad-mouthing AIPAC behind closed doors, spent much of the year openly bragging about their White House influence. According to Time, here are the results. Nothing pushed Israel and the Palestinians further away from negotiations than Obama doing what J Street suggested: making harsh demands on Israel, insisting on a total freeze on ‘natural growth,’ treating even Jerusalem as if it was a hilltop settlement, demanding that Israel give in on just about everything prior to negotiations. (Why even negotiate? Obama made all his dictates – exactly as J Street advised — in lieu of Israel and the Palestinians actually negotiating these things themselves.) Obama once pretended to be an “honest broker” only to expose himself as a Jimmy Carter-type advocate for the bad guys. And he did it in record time. Good job, J Street . Maybe that’s what “J” stands for: Jimmy
b. This is the reality- Obama brought J-Street into the center of the Israeli Palestinian issue, appointing their people to his Administration, and allowing J-Street a place at the table. Put simply, Obama is the face of J-Street. And J-Street is not pro-Israel
Thursday, March 25, 2010
these Chicago area Rabbis for J Street
Host Committee:
Rabbi Sam Gordon, Rabbi Debra Newman-Kamin, Rabbi Andrea London, Rabbi Aaron Petuchowski
cordially invite you to
a reception and meeting for Chicago-area rabbis with Jeremy Ben-Ami, Executive Director of J Street.
Rabbi Sam Gordon, Rabbi Debra Newman-Kamin, Rabbi Andrea London, Rabbi Aaron Petuchowski
cordially invite you to
a reception and meeting for Chicago-area rabbis with Jeremy Ben-Ami, Executive Director of J Street.
J Street endorsed candidate rejects endorsement
In Turnabout, Politician Says 'No' to J Street
March 25, 2010 - Bryan Schwartzman, Staff Writer
http://www.jewishexponent.com/images/publications/mar252010/pike.jpg
Doug Pike
Two months after accepting an endorsement from J Street's political action committee, a local Democratic congressional candidate is disassociating himself from the upstart lobbying group.
Doug Pike -- a former editorial writer for The Philadelphia Inquirer who is now seeking to unseat U.S. Rep. Jim Gerlach (R-District 6) -- asked J Street officials this week to remove him from its list of 41 endorsed candidates, and said he's planning to return some $6,000 donated via the group.
Pike explained that when he first sought J Street's endorsement back in September, he had underestimated his policy differences with the group.
For instance, Pike said, he was "troubled" by J Street's recent stance that Israel halt construction in eastern Jerusalem. J Street has largely sided with the U.S. government in its latest diplomatic flare-up with the Jewish state over plans to build new housing in an eastern Jerusalem neighborhood.
"Belatedly, I got a clearer sense of the important points where J Street looks at things differently than I look at things," Pike said in an interview. "Also, people simply assumed when they heard that I was endorsed by J street that I agreed with them on everything. The endorsement was an impediment to my being able to explain my convictions about Israel's security."
The announcement comes as Pike is locked in a heated primary battle against Manan Trivedi, a physician and Iraq-war veteran from Berks County who has recently gained momentum, and been endorsed by the Democratic committees in both Chester and Montgomery counties.
The race has high stakes, as Gerlach's seat has long been a high priority target for Democrats, and party insiders are saying that Trivedi stands a better chance of getting the job done.
It's unclear what impact, if any, Pike's reversal will have on the outcome of the May 18 primary or his ability to attract Jewish support. But with Pike now seeing the endorsement as more of a liability than a help, the reversal raises questions about the influence of J Street and its ability to raise cash and support candidates who favor its more proactive approach to the Israeli/ Palestinian conflict.
It's just the latest twist on an ongoing debate about whether J Street, which has expanded its grass-roots efforts to the Philadelphia area, should be considered a mainstream Jewish organization, under the pro-Israel tent.
For its part, J Street took a swipe at Pike in response to the news. "We wish Doug Pike well, but are pleased to see him return the funds provided to his campaign, as it is our purpose only to support politicians with the courage of their convictions," J Street founder Jeremy Ben-Ami said in a statement.
"We are as little interested in providing support for someone who would walk away from what they believe under pressure as they may be in having our support," added Ben-Ami, who declined requests for an interview.
Agrees With Prime Minister
Pike, who traveled to Israel in November -- in part to visit a cousin who decades ago converted to Judaism and made aliyah -- said his positions have been clear from the start.
"The United States should encourage a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians, but ultimately, this must come from negotiations between the two sides," Pike wrote in a column addressing his decision. "I agree with Prime Minister Netanyahu: Negotiations should begin as soon as possible without preconditions."
The son of Otis Pike, a former New York congressman, Pike plans to return $6,375 -- $1,000 was a direct contribution from J Street's PAC, and the rest was donated by 10 individuals via the PAC.
Right now, he has significantly more money than his opponent. As of Dec. 31, Pike had $1.1 million in his war chest, compared to Trivedi's $123,381. But if Pike does beat his rival -- and the race is considered close -- he'll need more to wage a credible assault on Gerlach.
The GOP lawmaker is a vocal opponent of most of President Barack Obama's domestic agenda, most recently voting against health care reform.
But according to one pro-Israel fundraiser who did not wish to be named, a number of potential contributors walked away from Pike after the J Street endorsement became known, and after Gerlach -- considered a strong Israel backer -- decided not to run for governor.
More publicly, last week State. Rep. Josh Shapiro (D-District 153) rescinded his endorsement of Pike, citing concerns about Pike's approach to Israel, according to www.pa2010.com.
Marcel Groen, chairman of the Montgomery County Democratic committee, which has thrown its weight behind Trivedi, said that Pike's reversal should have little impact on the primary since relatively few voters are so heavily invested in the question of whether J Street is a legitimate political voice for American Jewry.
Richard Schiffrin, a Democratic fundraiser backing Pike, stated that the candidate's positions on Israel were well within the mainstream.
Trivedi -- who is expecting to attend his first Passover seder next week at the home of supporter David Dormont -- declined to comment directly on Pike's endorsements. Trivedi said that, as an Indian-American, he can relate to Jews with relatives in Israel who live under the constant threat of terrorism. He has expressed interest in visiting there after the primary.
Gerlach's campaign had no hesitation about responding to the J Street incident.
"Pike's campaign for Congress is like the old Seinfeld sitcom; it's a campaign about nothing," said Gerlach spokesman Mark Campbell. "Pike's problem is that he staked out flaming liberal positions on the far left, and someone has finally told him he can't win by being a flaming liberal."
For his part, Pike rejected the assertion that he's changed his position: "I intend to better communicate my commitment to Israel as a candidate, and to demonstrate it by my words and deeds as a member of the next Congress."
March 25, 2010 - Bryan Schwartzman, Staff Writer
http://www.jewishexponent.com/images/publications/mar252010/pike.jpg
Doug Pike
Two months after accepting an endorsement from J Street's political action committee, a local Democratic congressional candidate is disassociating himself from the upstart lobbying group.
Doug Pike -- a former editorial writer for The Philadelphia Inquirer who is now seeking to unseat U.S. Rep. Jim Gerlach (R-District 6) -- asked J Street officials this week to remove him from its list of 41 endorsed candidates, and said he's planning to return some $6,000 donated via the group.
Pike explained that when he first sought J Street's endorsement back in September, he had underestimated his policy differences with the group.
For instance, Pike said, he was "troubled" by J Street's recent stance that Israel halt construction in eastern Jerusalem. J Street has largely sided with the U.S. government in its latest diplomatic flare-up with the Jewish state over plans to build new housing in an eastern Jerusalem neighborhood.
"Belatedly, I got a clearer sense of the important points where J Street looks at things differently than I look at things," Pike said in an interview. "Also, people simply assumed when they heard that I was endorsed by J street that I agreed with them on everything. The endorsement was an impediment to my being able to explain my convictions about Israel's security."
The announcement comes as Pike is locked in a heated primary battle against Manan Trivedi, a physician and Iraq-war veteran from Berks County who has recently gained momentum, and been endorsed by the Democratic committees in both Chester and Montgomery counties.
The race has high stakes, as Gerlach's seat has long been a high priority target for Democrats, and party insiders are saying that Trivedi stands a better chance of getting the job done.
It's unclear what impact, if any, Pike's reversal will have on the outcome of the May 18 primary or his ability to attract Jewish support. But with Pike now seeing the endorsement as more of a liability than a help, the reversal raises questions about the influence of J Street and its ability to raise cash and support candidates who favor its more proactive approach to the Israeli/ Palestinian conflict.
It's just the latest twist on an ongoing debate about whether J Street, which has expanded its grass-roots efforts to the Philadelphia area, should be considered a mainstream Jewish organization, under the pro-Israel tent.
For its part, J Street took a swipe at Pike in response to the news. "We wish Doug Pike well, but are pleased to see him return the funds provided to his campaign, as it is our purpose only to support politicians with the courage of their convictions," J Street founder Jeremy Ben-Ami said in a statement.
"We are as little interested in providing support for someone who would walk away from what they believe under pressure as they may be in having our support," added Ben-Ami, who declined requests for an interview.
Agrees With Prime Minister
Pike, who traveled to Israel in November -- in part to visit a cousin who decades ago converted to Judaism and made aliyah -- said his positions have been clear from the start.
"The United States should encourage a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians, but ultimately, this must come from negotiations between the two sides," Pike wrote in a column addressing his decision. "I agree with Prime Minister Netanyahu: Negotiations should begin as soon as possible without preconditions."
The son of Otis Pike, a former New York congressman, Pike plans to return $6,375 -- $1,000 was a direct contribution from J Street's PAC, and the rest was donated by 10 individuals via the PAC.
Right now, he has significantly more money than his opponent. As of Dec. 31, Pike had $1.1 million in his war chest, compared to Trivedi's $123,381. But if Pike does beat his rival -- and the race is considered close -- he'll need more to wage a credible assault on Gerlach.
The GOP lawmaker is a vocal opponent of most of President Barack Obama's domestic agenda, most recently voting against health care reform.
But according to one pro-Israel fundraiser who did not wish to be named, a number of potential contributors walked away from Pike after the J Street endorsement became known, and after Gerlach -- considered a strong Israel backer -- decided not to run for governor.
More publicly, last week State. Rep. Josh Shapiro (D-District 153) rescinded his endorsement of Pike, citing concerns about Pike's approach to Israel, according to www.pa2010.com.
Marcel Groen, chairman of the Montgomery County Democratic committee, which has thrown its weight behind Trivedi, said that Pike's reversal should have little impact on the primary since relatively few voters are so heavily invested in the question of whether J Street is a legitimate political voice for American Jewry.
Richard Schiffrin, a Democratic fundraiser backing Pike, stated that the candidate's positions on Israel were well within the mainstream.
Trivedi -- who is expecting to attend his first Passover seder next week at the home of supporter David Dormont -- declined to comment directly on Pike's endorsements. Trivedi said that, as an Indian-American, he can relate to Jews with relatives in Israel who live under the constant threat of terrorism. He has expressed interest in visiting there after the primary.
Gerlach's campaign had no hesitation about responding to the J Street incident.
"Pike's campaign for Congress is like the old Seinfeld sitcom; it's a campaign about nothing," said Gerlach spokesman Mark Campbell. "Pike's problem is that he staked out flaming liberal positions on the far left, and someone has finally told him he can't win by being a flaming liberal."
For his part, Pike rejected the assertion that he's changed his position: "I intend to better communicate my commitment to Israel as a candidate, and to demonstrate it by my words and deeds as a member of the next Congress."
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
J Street on Obma's hurting Israel
Rep. Jan Schakowsky: Take a stand against the administration's attacks on Israel
This morning on the Don Wade & Roma show on WLS AM, Rep. Jan Schakowsky claimed that the Obama administration's attacks would not hurt the U.S.-Israel relationship. She the attacks were "not going to harm the long-term or even the short-term relationship between the United States and Israel," and she compared the argument to a marital dispute.
It is a completely inappropriate analogy, and one belied by the statement by Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren that "Israel's ties with the United States are in their worst crisis since 1975" and that this was "a crisis of historic proportions." Rep. Schakowsky is failing in her duty to speak truth to power on behalf of the residents of her district, who overwhelmingly support a strong U.S.-Israel alliance.
It is time for Israel's friends in the United States to stand up and be counted. I call on Rep. Jan Schakowsky to join me in condemning the Obama administration's ongoing attack on Israel, America's most steadfast ally. I urge her to denounce the dangerous posture of J Street, the far-left organization that she helped found in Chicago last month and which is backing the administration's hostile approach against the Jewish State.
Last week, the Obama administration attacked Israel for announcing that it would be building new apartments in a Jewish neighborhood in East Jerusalem-an area that the White House had agreed would not be part of the "settlement freeze," and which will be part of Israel in any peace agreement with the Palestinians. Despite apologies from the Israeli government, the administration has continued to attack Israel in the U.S. media.
Members of both parties have criticized the Obama administration for its overreaction, which amounts to incitement against Israel and has created the worst crisis in U.S.-Israel relations in 35 years, according to Israeli ambassador Michael Oren. There was no similar criticism from the administration when Palestinian leaders dedicated a public square in honor of a terrorist the day after Vice-President Joe Biden's visit.
In the wake of criticism from Biden, David Axelrod, Hillary Clinton and others, Hamas has sent violent protestors into the street to denounce Israeli construction in Jerusalem, including the reconstruction of a centuries-old synagogue that was destroyed by Jordan after 1948. The Obama administration has given Palestinian leaders a new precondition for negotiations, without demanding that they live up to their commitments to stop terror.
Rep. Jan Schakowsky has been totally silent. But J Street, the far-left organization she helped found and build, has gleefully celebrated the crisis, calling on supporters to sign a petition supporting the administration's stance against Israel. As Rep. Schakowsky told J Street at its Chicago opening last month: "I've been a supporter of J Street since its inception." She is also the #3 money recipient from J Street PAC this cycle.
The administration and J Street are wrong in their attacks on the Israeli government. Banning Jews from Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem smacks of bigotry and gives Palestinian leaders an excuse to avoid peace talks. The attacks also embolden Israel's enemies at a time when the U.S. and Israel must stand together against Iran. It is time for Rep. Schakowsky to decide: where does she stand-with J Street or with Israel?
I call on Rep. Schakowsky to join me in taking a stand. Speak up for America's 62-year relationship with the only democracy in the Middle East. Stop the rhetoric that is more vitriolic than anything the Obama administration uses against America's enemies. Stop public demands for unilateral Israeli concessions. Start focusing on Iran's nuclear program, instead of joining Iran in attacking the Jewish presence in Jerusalem.
Rep. Schakowsky is the voice for J Street in Chicago and across the nation. She hosted their first gala dinner and was a featured speaker at their first national conference. It is up to her to speak out against J Street's petition drive and against the anti-Israel attacks of the Obama administration. Her silence, as long as it continues, will stand as evidence of her true beliefs about Israel. She must take a stand, before more damage is done.
This morning on the Don Wade & Roma show on WLS AM, Rep. Jan Schakowsky claimed that the Obama administration's attacks would not hurt the U.S.-Israel relationship. She the attacks were "not going to harm the long-term or even the short-term relationship between the United States and Israel," and she compared the argument to a marital dispute.
It is a completely inappropriate analogy, and one belied by the statement by Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren that "Israel's ties with the United States are in their worst crisis since 1975" and that this was "a crisis of historic proportions." Rep. Schakowsky is failing in her duty to speak truth to power on behalf of the residents of her district, who overwhelmingly support a strong U.S.-Israel alliance.
It is time for Israel's friends in the United States to stand up and be counted. I call on Rep. Jan Schakowsky to join me in condemning the Obama administration's ongoing attack on Israel, America's most steadfast ally. I urge her to denounce the dangerous posture of J Street, the far-left organization that she helped found in Chicago last month and which is backing the administration's hostile approach against the Jewish State.
Last week, the Obama administration attacked Israel for announcing that it would be building new apartments in a Jewish neighborhood in East Jerusalem-an area that the White House had agreed would not be part of the "settlement freeze," and which will be part of Israel in any peace agreement with the Palestinians. Despite apologies from the Israeli government, the administration has continued to attack Israel in the U.S. media.
Members of both parties have criticized the Obama administration for its overreaction, which amounts to incitement against Israel and has created the worst crisis in U.S.-Israel relations in 35 years, according to Israeli ambassador Michael Oren. There was no similar criticism from the administration when Palestinian leaders dedicated a public square in honor of a terrorist the day after Vice-President Joe Biden's visit.
In the wake of criticism from Biden, David Axelrod, Hillary Clinton and others, Hamas has sent violent protestors into the street to denounce Israeli construction in Jerusalem, including the reconstruction of a centuries-old synagogue that was destroyed by Jordan after 1948. The Obama administration has given Palestinian leaders a new precondition for negotiations, without demanding that they live up to their commitments to stop terror.
Rep. Jan Schakowsky has been totally silent. But J Street, the far-left organization she helped found and build, has gleefully celebrated the crisis, calling on supporters to sign a petition supporting the administration's stance against Israel. As Rep. Schakowsky told J Street at its Chicago opening last month: "I've been a supporter of J Street since its inception." She is also the #3 money recipient from J Street PAC this cycle.
The administration and J Street are wrong in their attacks on the Israeli government. Banning Jews from Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem smacks of bigotry and gives Palestinian leaders an excuse to avoid peace talks. The attacks also embolden Israel's enemies at a time when the U.S. and Israel must stand together against Iran. It is time for Rep. Schakowsky to decide: where does she stand-with J Street or with Israel?
I call on Rep. Schakowsky to join me in taking a stand. Speak up for America's 62-year relationship with the only democracy in the Middle East. Stop the rhetoric that is more vitriolic than anything the Obama administration uses against America's enemies. Stop public demands for unilateral Israeli concessions. Start focusing on Iran's nuclear program, instead of joining Iran in attacking the Jewish presence in Jerusalem.
Rep. Schakowsky is the voice for J Street in Chicago and across the nation. She hosted their first gala dinner and was a featured speaker at their first national conference. It is up to her to speak out against J Street's petition drive and against the anti-Israel attacks of the Obama administration. Her silence, as long as it continues, will stand as evidence of her true beliefs about Israel. She must take a stand, before more damage is done.
Monday, March 15, 2010
J Street aids enemies of Israel
What a shocker-since they explicitly said in the NYT that they would have Obama’s back.
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/03/15/j-street-backs-obama-in-row-with-israel/
At least one Jewish-American organization is lining up behind the Obama administration it its intensifying feud with the Israeli government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
J Street, the newest Israel-focused lobby in Washington, broke Monday with more established Jewish-American bodies and publicly backed the White House’s sharp criticism of Netanyahu and Israel’s plans to continue building in contested east Jerusalem.
J Street went further in its statement Monday, calling on the Obama administration essentially to impose the terms for new negotiations with the Palestinians on Netanyahu. The lobbying group said the U.S. must make Israel’s 1967 borders as the base-line for the creation of a new Palestinian state, factoring in the potential for land-swaps between Israeli and Palestinian negotiators.
“We urge the United States to take this opportunity to suggest parameters to the parties for resuming negotiations,” J Street said in its statement.
The White House believes Israel’s government sought to humiliate Vice President Joe Biden during his visit to Jerusalem last week by announcing the building of 1,600 new Israeli homes in east Jerusalem. In response, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and other U.S. officials publicly upbraided Netanyahu last week and suggested the future of the U.S.-Israeli alliance could be imperiled.
Netanyahu appeared unfazed. “The building of those Jewish neighborhoods did not hurt in any way the Arabs of east Jerusalem and did not come at their expense,” he said on Monday.
J Street said Monday that its criticism was warranted. “The Obama administration’s reaction to the treatment of the Vice President last week and to the timing and substance of the Israeli government’s announcement was both understandable and appropriate,” it said.
Other leading Jewish American organizations, such as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and the Anti-Defamation League, have squarely backed Netanyahu in the squabble.
Late Sunday, Aipac called for the White House to defuse the battle with Netanyahu. “The Administration should make a conscious effort to move away from public demands and unilateral deadlines directed at Israel,” it said in a statement.
More airing of the tensions is expected next week when AIPAC holds its annual policy conference in Washington. Netanyahu, Clinton, and the leader of Israel’s political opposition, former Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, are all scheduled to speak.
J Street, meanwhile, says it will continue its campaign to back the administration.
Jeremy Ben-Ami, the organization’s executive director, said in an interview Monday that J Street had already gathered 20,000 signatures from its members and delivered a petition of support to the White House. The lobbying group also said that it was intensifying its dialogue with key U.S. lawmakers about their need to back the White House’s stance on Arab-Israeli peace talks.
“Our supporters are calling Congress and making it clear to the political establishment that there are two sides to this story,” Ben-Ami said.
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/03/15/j-street-backs-obama-in-row-with-israel/
At least one Jewish-American organization is lining up behind the Obama administration it its intensifying feud with the Israeli government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
J Street, the newest Israel-focused lobby in Washington, broke Monday with more established Jewish-American bodies and publicly backed the White House’s sharp criticism of Netanyahu and Israel’s plans to continue building in contested east Jerusalem.
J Street went further in its statement Monday, calling on the Obama administration essentially to impose the terms for new negotiations with the Palestinians on Netanyahu. The lobbying group said the U.S. must make Israel’s 1967 borders as the base-line for the creation of a new Palestinian state, factoring in the potential for land-swaps between Israeli and Palestinian negotiators.
“We urge the United States to take this opportunity to suggest parameters to the parties for resuming negotiations,” J Street said in its statement.
The White House believes Israel’s government sought to humiliate Vice President Joe Biden during his visit to Jerusalem last week by announcing the building of 1,600 new Israeli homes in east Jerusalem. In response, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and other U.S. officials publicly upbraided Netanyahu last week and suggested the future of the U.S.-Israeli alliance could be imperiled.
Netanyahu appeared unfazed. “The building of those Jewish neighborhoods did not hurt in any way the Arabs of east Jerusalem and did not come at their expense,” he said on Monday.
J Street said Monday that its criticism was warranted. “The Obama administration’s reaction to the treatment of the Vice President last week and to the timing and substance of the Israeli government’s announcement was both understandable and appropriate,” it said.
Other leading Jewish American organizations, such as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and the Anti-Defamation League, have squarely backed Netanyahu in the squabble.
Late Sunday, Aipac called for the White House to defuse the battle with Netanyahu. “The Administration should make a conscious effort to move away from public demands and unilateral deadlines directed at Israel,” it said in a statement.
More airing of the tensions is expected next week when AIPAC holds its annual policy conference in Washington. Netanyahu, Clinton, and the leader of Israel’s political opposition, former Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, are all scheduled to speak.
J Street, meanwhile, says it will continue its campaign to back the administration.
Jeremy Ben-Ami, the organization’s executive director, said in an interview Monday that J Street had already gathered 20,000 signatures from its members and delivered a petition of support to the White House. The lobbying group also said that it was intensifying its dialogue with key U.S. lawmakers about their need to back the White House’s stance on Arab-Israeli peace talks.
“Our supporters are calling Congress and making it clear to the political establishment that there are two sides to this story,” Ben-Ami said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)