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.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
J Streeet lies
yalon: J Street lied
The Jerusalem Post reports:
The American "pro-Israel, pro-peace" lobby group J Street made "untrue assertions" about an alleged boycott of the congressional delegation it recently brought to Israel, and about Israel allegedly apologizing to the group for the slight, a senior Foreign Ministry official told The Jerusalem Post on Sunday.
"[Deputy Foreign Minister Danny] Ayalon did not prevent the delegation from meeting with senior Israeli officials," as claimed by J Street last week, said Barukh Binah, Foreign Ministry deputy director-general and head of its North America Division.
"Ayalon was never part of the delegation's schedule and talk of boycotting meetings with congressman has no basis in fact. On the contrary, the deputy foreign minister is always willing to meet with elected officials from any friendly country, especially the United States of America, and [with] Jewish organizations which represent a range of diverse views from across the political spectrum."
Binah also rejected the "subsequent assertion that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs apologized in hastily arranged meetings," which he said was simply not true.
READ MORE
The Jerusalem Post reports:
The American "pro-Israel, pro-peace" lobby group J Street made "untrue assertions" about an alleged boycott of the congressional delegation it recently brought to Israel, and about Israel allegedly apologizing to the group for the slight, a senior Foreign Ministry official told The Jerusalem Post on Sunday.
"[Deputy Foreign Minister Danny] Ayalon did not prevent the delegation from meeting with senior Israeli officials," as claimed by J Street last week, said Barukh Binah, Foreign Ministry deputy director-general and head of its North America Division.
"Ayalon was never part of the delegation's schedule and talk of boycotting meetings with congressman has no basis in fact. On the contrary, the deputy foreign minister is always willing to meet with elected officials from any friendly country, especially the United States of America, and [with] Jewish organizations which represent a range of diverse views from across the political spectrum."
Binah also rejected the "subsequent assertion that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs apologized in hastily arranged meetings," which he said was simply not true.
READ MORE
Monday, February 22, 2010
54 Dem US reps and J Street hurt Israel again
Serious Words, Serious Consequences
by Matthew Brooks, Executive Director, Republican Jewish Coalition
The 54 Democrat members of Congress (no Republicans) who signed the January 21, 2010 letter to President Barack Obama initiated by Reps. Jim McDermott (D-WA) and Keith Ellison (D-MN) presumably wanted to make a thoughtful, serious statement of concern and a specific request for action. They were concerned for the plight of the Palestinians in Gaza and their request was that American government pressure be brought to bear on Israel to ease the restrictions on Israel's border with Gaza.
The Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC) took the letter and its words seriously. We saw that the 'Gaza 54' called for the loosening of security measures that Israel put into place to stop terrorism and reduce the ability of Hamas to launch attacks on Israel. The letter acknowledged that "the Israeli government has imposed restrictions on Gaza out of a legitimate and keenly felt fear of continued terrorist action by Hamas and other militant groups." But the congressmen did not make any mention of the potential consequences for Israel, or what alternate measures would provide equal protection for Israel's citizens against attacks initiated from Gaza.
The letter simply asserted, without foundation, that: "Easing the blockade (sic) on Gaza will not only improve the conditions on the ground for Gaza's civilian population, but will also undermine the tunnel economy which has strengthened Hamas... Most importantly, lifting these restrictions will give civilians in Gaza a tangible sense that diplomacy can be an effective tool for bettering their conditions. Your Administration's overarching Middle East peace efforts will benefit Israel, the Palestinians, and the entire region."
One in five Democrats in Congress signed a letter asking the president to pressure Israel to take unilateral actions that its leaders believe would undermine its security, with no concomitant expectation of concrete action on the Palestinian side to assure the safety of Israeli citizens. They are willing to bet that if American diplomacy forces Israel to make "tangible" changes to its policies, that will somehow "benefit Israel" in the long run.
This is at best, naïve. Israel can't afford to relax its security measures just because someone in the US says it will all be okay. Its enemies' commitment to its destruction has not waned. Loosening the "blockade" will not persuade Hamas to change its goals nor deter it from attacking.
THE DEMOCRATS' letter effectively demonstrates a mind-set all too typical of the Left, which we are seeing increasingly in more "mainstream" discourse: that Israel is doing wrong, Israel must make concessions, Israel is not acting morally except when it gives in. Unfortunately, history teaches us that appeasement leads to more violence, not less. The fact that so many Democrats signed the letter is troubling in and of itself.
The RJC (generously) called the letter signers "misguided." Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY) agrees, telling The Jerusalem Post's Shmuel Rosner in a recent interview that the Gaza 54 are "misinformed" legislators.
The RJC decided to take action because we were troubled that 54 Democratic congressmen would call on the president to pressure Israel in this way. We asked our members to express their view on the letter. Within hours, a strong grassroots showing from across the country had signed the petition on our web site, calling for the letter signers to "take a firm stand against terrorism by disassociating yourself from this dangerous letter and upholding America's commitment to Israel's security in the future."
There are simple facts missing from the Gaza 54 letter about Israel's actions to help the residents of Gaza. The same facts were missing from remarks by one of the 54, Rep. Brian Baird (D-WA), who last week told students in Gaza that the US should bring in ships to the coast to break the Israeli "blockade" on the Gaza Strip.
As RJC wrote in our own letter to President Obama, asking him to repudiate Baird's remarks: Egypt also has a blockade of Gaza in place and is constructing a wall, similar to Israel's, to stop the smuggling of people and weapons across its border with Gaza; Israel allows huge quantities of food, medicine, and other humanitarian supplies into Gaza each day; Israel has prohibited only building supplies from coming into Gaza, to prevent them from being diverted by Hamas to military use. Israel has taken necessary and justifiable steps to stop terrorism originating from Hamas-controlled Gaza.
THE TRUTH is that the Palestinians are victims of their leaders and of their choices. For decades they have been taught to hate Israel (and Jews), to demand retribution and reparations, and to never compromise - by leaders who pocketed the funds meant to help them, corrupted the political system meant to lead them, and used them as foot soldiers against a reluctant enemy, Israel. Sadly, the lessons of hatred have been well-learned. Palestinian voters chose Hamas in the election of January 2006, giving them 74 of the 132 parliamentary seats and leading to the June 2007 Hamas coup in Gaza that split the Palestinian proto-polity in two. Afterward, hundreds of rockets were launched from within Gaza. The "blockade" of Gaza is a direct result of all these events.
The 54 Democrats who wrote to President Obama should understand this history and the Israeli security measures required to guarantee Israel's continued existence and safety. They paid lip service to Israel's security needs, but without confronting the hard question, which Israel faces daily, of how to keep Israeli citizens safe.
Lacking that important element, the letter was just another outrageous political attack on Israel and it deserved the condemnation of RJC and other friends of Israel. We stand by our characterization of the letter and by our statements about it.
###
by Matthew Brooks, Executive Director, Republican Jewish Coalition
The 54 Democrat members of Congress (no Republicans) who signed the January 21, 2010 letter to President Barack Obama initiated by Reps. Jim McDermott (D-WA) and Keith Ellison (D-MN) presumably wanted to make a thoughtful, serious statement of concern and a specific request for action. They were concerned for the plight of the Palestinians in Gaza and their request was that American government pressure be brought to bear on Israel to ease the restrictions on Israel's border with Gaza.
The Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC) took the letter and its words seriously. We saw that the 'Gaza 54' called for the loosening of security measures that Israel put into place to stop terrorism and reduce the ability of Hamas to launch attacks on Israel. The letter acknowledged that "the Israeli government has imposed restrictions on Gaza out of a legitimate and keenly felt fear of continued terrorist action by Hamas and other militant groups." But the congressmen did not make any mention of the potential consequences for Israel, or what alternate measures would provide equal protection for Israel's citizens against attacks initiated from Gaza.
The letter simply asserted, without foundation, that: "Easing the blockade (sic) on Gaza will not only improve the conditions on the ground for Gaza's civilian population, but will also undermine the tunnel economy which has strengthened Hamas... Most importantly, lifting these restrictions will give civilians in Gaza a tangible sense that diplomacy can be an effective tool for bettering their conditions. Your Administration's overarching Middle East peace efforts will benefit Israel, the Palestinians, and the entire region."
One in five Democrats in Congress signed a letter asking the president to pressure Israel to take unilateral actions that its leaders believe would undermine its security, with no concomitant expectation of concrete action on the Palestinian side to assure the safety of Israeli citizens. They are willing to bet that if American diplomacy forces Israel to make "tangible" changes to its policies, that will somehow "benefit Israel" in the long run.
This is at best, naïve. Israel can't afford to relax its security measures just because someone in the US says it will all be okay. Its enemies' commitment to its destruction has not waned. Loosening the "blockade" will not persuade Hamas to change its goals nor deter it from attacking.
THE DEMOCRATS' letter effectively demonstrates a mind-set all too typical of the Left, which we are seeing increasingly in more "mainstream" discourse: that Israel is doing wrong, Israel must make concessions, Israel is not acting morally except when it gives in. Unfortunately, history teaches us that appeasement leads to more violence, not less. The fact that so many Democrats signed the letter is troubling in and of itself.
The RJC (generously) called the letter signers "misguided." Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY) agrees, telling The Jerusalem Post's Shmuel Rosner in a recent interview that the Gaza 54 are "misinformed" legislators.
The RJC decided to take action because we were troubled that 54 Democratic congressmen would call on the president to pressure Israel in this way. We asked our members to express their view on the letter. Within hours, a strong grassroots showing from across the country had signed the petition on our web site, calling for the letter signers to "take a firm stand against terrorism by disassociating yourself from this dangerous letter and upholding America's commitment to Israel's security in the future."
There are simple facts missing from the Gaza 54 letter about Israel's actions to help the residents of Gaza. The same facts were missing from remarks by one of the 54, Rep. Brian Baird (D-WA), who last week told students in Gaza that the US should bring in ships to the coast to break the Israeli "blockade" on the Gaza Strip.
As RJC wrote in our own letter to President Obama, asking him to repudiate Baird's remarks: Egypt also has a blockade of Gaza in place and is constructing a wall, similar to Israel's, to stop the smuggling of people and weapons across its border with Gaza; Israel allows huge quantities of food, medicine, and other humanitarian supplies into Gaza each day; Israel has prohibited only building supplies from coming into Gaza, to prevent them from being diverted by Hamas to military use. Israel has taken necessary and justifiable steps to stop terrorism originating from Hamas-controlled Gaza.
THE TRUTH is that the Palestinians are victims of their leaders and of their choices. For decades they have been taught to hate Israel (and Jews), to demand retribution and reparations, and to never compromise - by leaders who pocketed the funds meant to help them, corrupted the political system meant to lead them, and used them as foot soldiers against a reluctant enemy, Israel. Sadly, the lessons of hatred have been well-learned. Palestinian voters chose Hamas in the election of January 2006, giving them 74 of the 132 parliamentary seats and leading to the June 2007 Hamas coup in Gaza that split the Palestinian proto-polity in two. Afterward, hundreds of rockets were launched from within Gaza. The "blockade" of Gaza is a direct result of all these events.
The 54 Democrats who wrote to President Obama should understand this history and the Israeli security measures required to guarantee Israel's continued existence and safety. They paid lip service to Israel's security needs, but without confronting the hard question, which Israel faces daily, of how to keep Israeli citizens safe.
Lacking that important element, the letter was just another outrageous political attack on Israel and it deserved the condemnation of RJC and other friends of Israel. We stand by our characterization of the letter and by our statements about it.
###
Friday, February 19, 2010
Dems, J Street anti-Israel
From Richard Baehr
Every day it becomes harder for Democrats or liberals who claim to love Israel and support a strong U.S, Israel relationship to defend the actions of members of their Congressional delegation, who now openly side with Israel's enemies. It is telling that the NJDC now chooses to honor David Axelrod, who is Jewish, but has been conspicuously absent from pro-Israel, or Jewish community endeavours in his long professional career. But Axelrod was part of the White House team, along with Rahm Emanuel, who encouraged President Obama to go public with his pressure campaign against Israel over settlements, a policy that resulted only in stiffening Palestinian resolve not to deal with Israel, and instead let Obama deliver the goods to the Palestinians.
J-Street and its Congressional friends visit Israel: http://tinyurl.com/ybctjjq
J-Street has big problems with Christians who support Israel, but find it easy to get along with Christian groups who trash Israel. Let us not forget that Barack Obama is the one who brought J-Street into the inner sanctum of the Whie House as one of the key Jewish groups who deserved to be heard, and has appointed members of its leadership to White House and ambassadorial jobs. He has legitimized a far left group whose sole advocacy is to blame Israel, and get the U.S. government to pressure Israel : http://tinyurl.com/yerrn6j
It is past time for the official Jewish organizational world to sever ties to J-Street , as they have done with groups like Not in My Name, or Students for Justice in Palestine.
For the record, there are today and there have always been pro-Israel and Judaeophile Democrats. One of them was LBJ: http://tinyurl.com/ygkfj59
Every day it becomes harder for Democrats or liberals who claim to love Israel and support a strong U.S, Israel relationship to defend the actions of members of their Congressional delegation, who now openly side with Israel's enemies. It is telling that the NJDC now chooses to honor David Axelrod, who is Jewish, but has been conspicuously absent from pro-Israel, or Jewish community endeavours in his long professional career. But Axelrod was part of the White House team, along with Rahm Emanuel, who encouraged President Obama to go public with his pressure campaign against Israel over settlements, a policy that resulted only in stiffening Palestinian resolve not to deal with Israel, and instead let Obama deliver the goods to the Palestinians.
J-Street and its Congressional friends visit Israel: http://tinyurl.com/ybctjjq
J-Street has big problems with Christians who support Israel, but find it easy to get along with Christian groups who trash Israel. Let us not forget that Barack Obama is the one who brought J-Street into the inner sanctum of the Whie House as one of the key Jewish groups who deserved to be heard, and has appointed members of its leadership to White House and ambassadorial jobs. He has legitimized a far left group whose sole advocacy is to blame Israel, and get the U.S. government to pressure Israel : http://tinyurl.com/yerrn6j
It is past time for the official Jewish organizational world to sever ties to J-Street , as they have done with groups like Not in My Name, or Students for Justice in Palestine.
For the record, there are today and there have always been pro-Israel and Judaeophile Democrats. One of them was LBJ: http://tinyurl.com/ygkfj59
Obama backwards on Iran and Israel-Palestinians
The Obama team had it backwards claiming the centrality of the Israeli Palestinian conflict to resolving Iran's nuclear program: http://tinyurl.com/yh3pxsb
Fatah are terrorists too
Fatah is not a moderate organization. They have fought a continuing war against Israel through the courts-both international courts and U.N bodies, and the court of public opinion. They honor the murderers of Jews, and never stop for a day with their media and mosque incitement.
http://tinyurl.com/ygvov59
http://tinyurl.com/ygvov59
Thursday, February 18, 2010
J Street partners with anti Israel Churches
http://www.solomonia.com/blog/archive/2010/02/j-street-teams-up-with-leftist-christian/index.shtml
Author: SolomonJ Street Teams up With Leftist Christian Group to Cause Israel Diplomatic Trouble
J Street, in cooperation with anti-Israel Churches for Middle East Peace (CMEP), is hosting a delegation of Congressmen from the US to Israel. Who is this CMEP that the "pro-Israel" J Street is running with? NGO Monitor has a good rundown:
Analysis: Churches for Middle East Peace and the BDS Movement
Churches for Middle East Peace (CMEP), which is J-Street's partner in sponsoring the visit of a US Congressional delegation to Israel, is a US-based political advocacy organization. Like many other such NGOs, CMEP's rhetoric and its activities are not always consistent, and some of its constituent groups are centrally involved in the political war against Israel.
A number of CMEP partners take an active role in promoting BDS - the boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign - as part of the 2001 Durban NGO agenda which calls for the total international isolation of Israel. For example, Friends of Sabeel North America (www.fosna.org) is a fundraising and publicity branch of the Palestinian NGO Sabeel. This organization, headed by Naim Ateek, is a leader of the church divestment campaign, and in his speaking tours around North America, Ateek employs antisemitic themes and imagery in sermons promoting his "Palestinian Liberation Theology." In promoting this agenda, his rhetoric includes references to "the Israeli government crucifixion system".
CMEP's website also features the "KAIROS Palestine Document", which was written by a group of Palestinian Christians, including Ateek. KAIROS Palestine calls for action designed to create "a system of economic sanctions and boycott [and divestment] to be applied against Israel," echoing Sabeel's efforts. CMEP also quotes Bishop Mark Hanson of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, referring to the document as "a word of hope in a time of pessimism that could lead to despair."
This adoption of the Palestinian narrative of victimization, perhaps a reflection of the close ties to Sabeel and other Palestinian groups, was also evident in a January 21, 2005 full-page New York Times ad sponsored by CMEP. The text read, in part, "With each news report of Palestinian suffering...popular support in Arab and Muslim countries for terrorism grows and the threat of attacks directed at the United States increases."
A number of CMEP's board members also reflect the goal of demonization, under the façade of promoting peace. For example, Helena Cobban, a fierce anti-Israel ideologue and member Human Rights Watch's Middle East board, sits on CMEP's Leadership Council.
Thus, while much of the media coverage of this delegation has focused on the involvement of J-Street angle, this is only half of the story. CMEP is an equal partner, and deserves equal scrutiny.
The fact that J Street would partner with a group like CMEP is simply and straightforwardly another nail in the coffin of J Street's pro-Israel bona fides. How out to lunch do you have to be to partner with this group and give them credibility before a group of Congressmen? Here, BTW, is a search on "CMEP" at CAMERA's site. Lots of material there.
J Street's handling of the event is already causing trouble, as the Foreign Ministry is refusing to meet the delegation with J Street as an intermediary: US congressman demands explanation for chilly reception in Israel
A visiting U.S. congressman lashed out at Israel's number two diplomat Wednesday, saying he was snubbed by the Foreign Ministry and demanding an official clarification.
Rep. William Delahunt, a Democrat from Massachusetts and a member of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, is heading a congressional delegation to the region. The trip is hosted by J Street, a liberal Jewish lobbying group that presents itself as an alternative to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee -- one of Washington's most powerful lobbies.
J Street, which supports President Barack Obama's push for a Palestinian state alongside Israel, says it sought a meeting for the U.S. representatives with Israeli diplomats but was turned down.
The Foreign Ministry dismissed the complaint, saying in response that it did not need mediators to set up meetings with U.S. officials.
The snub appeared aimed at J Street. Israel's government has been critical of the group's programs, which are more dovish than those of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's hawkish government.
Speaking to reporters in Tel Aviv, Delahunt said he was surprised and disappointed to read an Israeli newspaper report that he was being boycotted by the Foreign Ministry for his affiliation with J Street and identified Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon as the culprit.
"We were puzzled that the Deputy Foreign Minister has apparently attempted to block our meetings with senior officials in the Prime Minister's office and Foreign Ministry -- questioning either our own support of Israel or that we would even consider traveling to the region with groups thatthe deputy foreign minister has so inaccurately described as 'anti-Israel'," Delahunt said.
"In our opinion this is an inappropriate way to treat elected representatives of Israel's closest ally who are visiting the country."
Delahunt asked the Israeli government "for a clarification of its stance toward this and future delegations."
Ayalon's office said the deputy minister was prepared to meet any elected officials, especially from the U.S. Congress, but he "didn't need mediators."...
...Four other U.S. representatives were traveling with Delahunt -- Democrats Donald Payne of New Jersey, Lois Capps of California, Bob Filner of California and Mary Jo Kilroy of Ohio...
All five of the Congresspeople now assisting J Street in redefining what it means to be "pro-Israel" were signatories to the Ellison/McDermott sponsored letter on the Gaza "siege."
Here's more on J Street's latest self-inflicted wound: J Street blasts Ayalon's 'boycott'.
This is what a pro-Israel group does? Partners with one of the worst of the anti-Israel Christian groups and causes a diplomatic incident with the government? Once again we see that J Street is more about leftist politics than about support for Israel. Leftism is the only thing a group trying to claim it was pro-Israel in any meaningful sense could possibly have in common with CMEP. They partner with CMEP yet denounce John Hagee. They bring Bill Delahunt on a trip to Israel and instigate a row putting Danny Ayalon on the spot, as though he doesn't have enough to worry about.
This is about Jeremy Ben-Ami's ego, fundraising and leftist politics. It has nothing to do with supporting Israel.
Update: See Hillel's post above for even
Author: SolomonJ Street Teams up With Leftist Christian Group to Cause Israel Diplomatic Trouble
J Street, in cooperation with anti-Israel Churches for Middle East Peace (CMEP), is hosting a delegation of Congressmen from the US to Israel. Who is this CMEP that the "pro-Israel" J Street is running with? NGO Monitor has a good rundown:
Analysis: Churches for Middle East Peace and the BDS Movement
Churches for Middle East Peace (CMEP), which is J-Street's partner in sponsoring the visit of a US Congressional delegation to Israel, is a US-based political advocacy organization. Like many other such NGOs, CMEP's rhetoric and its activities are not always consistent, and some of its constituent groups are centrally involved in the political war against Israel.
A number of CMEP partners take an active role in promoting BDS - the boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign - as part of the 2001 Durban NGO agenda which calls for the total international isolation of Israel. For example, Friends of Sabeel North America (www.fosna.org) is a fundraising and publicity branch of the Palestinian NGO Sabeel. This organization, headed by Naim Ateek, is a leader of the church divestment campaign, and in his speaking tours around North America, Ateek employs antisemitic themes and imagery in sermons promoting his "Palestinian Liberation Theology." In promoting this agenda, his rhetoric includes references to "the Israeli government crucifixion system".
CMEP's website also features the "KAIROS Palestine Document", which was written by a group of Palestinian Christians, including Ateek. KAIROS Palestine calls for action designed to create "a system of economic sanctions and boycott [and divestment] to be applied against Israel," echoing Sabeel's efforts. CMEP also quotes Bishop Mark Hanson of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, referring to the document as "a word of hope in a time of pessimism that could lead to despair."
This adoption of the Palestinian narrative of victimization, perhaps a reflection of the close ties to Sabeel and other Palestinian groups, was also evident in a January 21, 2005 full-page New York Times ad sponsored by CMEP. The text read, in part, "With each news report of Palestinian suffering...popular support in Arab and Muslim countries for terrorism grows and the threat of attacks directed at the United States increases."
A number of CMEP's board members also reflect the goal of demonization, under the façade of promoting peace. For example, Helena Cobban, a fierce anti-Israel ideologue and member Human Rights Watch's Middle East board, sits on CMEP's Leadership Council.
Thus, while much of the media coverage of this delegation has focused on the involvement of J-Street angle, this is only half of the story. CMEP is an equal partner, and deserves equal scrutiny.
The fact that J Street would partner with a group like CMEP is simply and straightforwardly another nail in the coffin of J Street's pro-Israel bona fides. How out to lunch do you have to be to partner with this group and give them credibility before a group of Congressmen? Here, BTW, is a search on "CMEP" at CAMERA's site. Lots of material there.
J Street's handling of the event is already causing trouble, as the Foreign Ministry is refusing to meet the delegation with J Street as an intermediary: US congressman demands explanation for chilly reception in Israel
A visiting U.S. congressman lashed out at Israel's number two diplomat Wednesday, saying he was snubbed by the Foreign Ministry and demanding an official clarification.
Rep. William Delahunt, a Democrat from Massachusetts and a member of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, is heading a congressional delegation to the region. The trip is hosted by J Street, a liberal Jewish lobbying group that presents itself as an alternative to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee -- one of Washington's most powerful lobbies.
J Street, which supports President Barack Obama's push for a Palestinian state alongside Israel, says it sought a meeting for the U.S. representatives with Israeli diplomats but was turned down.
The Foreign Ministry dismissed the complaint, saying in response that it did not need mediators to set up meetings with U.S. officials.
The snub appeared aimed at J Street. Israel's government has been critical of the group's programs, which are more dovish than those of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's hawkish government.
Speaking to reporters in Tel Aviv, Delahunt said he was surprised and disappointed to read an Israeli newspaper report that he was being boycotted by the Foreign Ministry for his affiliation with J Street and identified Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon as the culprit.
"We were puzzled that the Deputy Foreign Minister has apparently attempted to block our meetings with senior officials in the Prime Minister's office and Foreign Ministry -- questioning either our own support of Israel or that we would even consider traveling to the region with groups thatthe deputy foreign minister has so inaccurately described as 'anti-Israel'," Delahunt said.
"In our opinion this is an inappropriate way to treat elected representatives of Israel's closest ally who are visiting the country."
Delahunt asked the Israeli government "for a clarification of its stance toward this and future delegations."
Ayalon's office said the deputy minister was prepared to meet any elected officials, especially from the U.S. Congress, but he "didn't need mediators."...
...Four other U.S. representatives were traveling with Delahunt -- Democrats Donald Payne of New Jersey, Lois Capps of California, Bob Filner of California and Mary Jo Kilroy of Ohio...
All five of the Congresspeople now assisting J Street in redefining what it means to be "pro-Israel" were signatories to the Ellison/McDermott sponsored letter on the Gaza "siege."
Here's more on J Street's latest self-inflicted wound: J Street blasts Ayalon's 'boycott'.
This is what a pro-Israel group does? Partners with one of the worst of the anti-Israel Christian groups and causes a diplomatic incident with the government? Once again we see that J Street is more about leftist politics than about support for Israel. Leftism is the only thing a group trying to claim it was pro-Israel in any meaningful sense could possibly have in common with CMEP. They partner with CMEP yet denounce John Hagee. They bring Bill Delahunt on a trip to Israel and instigate a row putting Danny Ayalon on the spot, as though he doesn't have enough to worry about.
This is about Jeremy Ben-Ami's ego, fundraising and leftist politics. It has nothing to do with supporting Israel.
Update: See Hillel's post above for even
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Now New Israel Fund goes after Israel
New Israel Fund Grants Spark Human Rights Brouhaha
Locking horns over Goldstone: An ad sponsored by the Im Tirzu Zionist group depicted Naomi Chazan, president of the New Israel Fund, with a horn on her head.
Locking horns over Goldstone: An ad sponsored by the Im Tirzu Zionist group depicted Naomi Chazan, president of the New Israel Fund, with a horn on her head.
by Stewart Ain
Staff Writer Jewish week
Charges that the New Israel Fund supports Israeli civil rights groups that played a key role in providing information highly critical of Israel’s role in the Gaza war last year have sparked a spirited, and nasty, debate over the proper role for civil and human rights groups in a democratic state.
A 131-page report, commissioned by a three-year-old Zionist group active on Israeli campuses, called Im Tirtzu, found that 16 Israeli human rights organizations provided 92 percent of the critical information used in the UN report written by South African jurist Richard Goldstone. All 16 are funded by the New Israel Fund (NIF) and include such groups as Breaking the Silence, B’Tselem and the Association for Civil Rights in Israel.
NIF, founded in
Inbal 300X250
1979, is a philanthropy that funds mostly left-of-center human rights groups (as well as groups addressing other social issues) in Israel. Supporters say it promotes equal rights for all Israeli citizens; critics have accused it of supporting Israeli Arab groups that in turn encourage insurrection against the Zionist state.
“At the end of the day, we have a situation where Israelis are blaming their brothers of committing war crimes without any proof,” said Ronen Shoval, a graduate student and founder of Im Tirtzu. “They are lying. ... And the NIF stands behind the Goldstone report. I can’t tell you how important it is that Jewish people in the United States understand that at the end of the day their money [to the NIF] helps Hamas.”
A spokeswoman for the New Israel Fund, Naomi Paiss, said that although her group took no position on the Goldstone report, it “is very proud of the groups we have supported. ... Their reports were carefully documented and in some instances were the only available information out of Gaza because the international press and the Israeli press were kept out.
“Those human rights organizations are there to do a job,” she continued. “They reported on their concerns about the Gaza operation and were the first to declare that the Israeli government should launch an independent inquiry into the events of Gaza. Had that been done, perhaps there would not have been a Goldstone report.”
But Jacques Berlinerblau, director of the Program for Jewish Civilization at the Georgetown School of Foreign Service, said he believes there is a time and a place for self-criticism, and this might not be it.
“The perennial danger of Jewish self-criticism is that it gets used in a lopsided manner,” he explained. “If you have a completely imbalanced critical apparatus that only features criticism of Israel — and Israel as a nation can be criticized — it may not behoove these groups [to continue their criticism] when they are the only voices out there being critical. When you find critical Palestinian voices, they become useful. But if they are criticizing alone and their work is used in a skewed manner, I don’t know how much good they are doing for Israel.”
Paiss insisted that these organizations “were acting out of love for Israel and loyalty to the values on which the state was founded. ... They took a reasoned and thoughtful look at what happened in Gaza and put out reports that were then used as sources for Goldstone’s report.”
Shoval stressed the serious implications of the Goldstone report, noting that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said two months ago that the three major dangers facing Israel were the Iranian nuclear threat, the missile threat from Hamas and Hezbollah and the Goldstone report.
“Goldstone has become code for a much broader phenomenon: the attempt to negate the legitimacy of our right to self-defense,” Netanyahu said at the time.
Asked her reaction to claims that the Goldstone report is being used by Israel’s enemies to delegitimize the Jewish state, Paiss replied: “We are acutely aware that Israel has real enemies and that the work of human rights groups are used for their propaganda. ... [But] you lose much more in a democracy when you shut down internal criticism out of fear that it would be used by people who hate you. If Israel gives in on basic democratic values, then it is really lost.”
The Im Tirtzu study found that without the NIF-funded NGOs’ reports, “Goldstone would have nothing on which to base most of the claims” he made against Israel.
“In recent years Israel has been increasingly accused of war crimes, and this allegation has become a type of new weapon among leftist organizations,” the study said. “In effect, a small group of leftist organizations that is financed by identical foreign sources has created international pressure that is seriously harming Israel in the diplomatic arena and challenges Israel’s legitimate right of self-defense in the future.”
Hamas is also claiming Israel committed war crimes in its 22-day Gaza incursion, Shoval said, in order to get the international community to put such pressure on Israel that it won’t dare respond the next time Hamas fires missiles at civilians.
He said he plans to bring his report to the Knesset with the hope that it investigates these human rights groups “because they are helping Hamas, and the State of Israel should check to see who is giving them money and whether it is legal or not.
Yisrael Hasson, a member of the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, told The Jewish Week he is inclined to call for an investigation, “but I don’t want to say for sure because I’m still learning the issue.”
In the United States, Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, called the Im Tirtzu charges “an outrageous broadside,” telling The Jewish Week “it is absurd to blame Goldstone on NIF.”
He said there might be legitimate questions for NIF to respond to about standards for its recipient organizations, ensuring that they not support violence, as was the case with the Ford Foundation. But he said it was unfair to accuse NIF “of undermining Israeli security. Lots of people aided and abetted Goldstone.”
The charges exchanged between Im Tirtzu and the New Israel Fund also became personal attacks when Im Tirtzu took out an ad depicting Naomi Chazan, NIF’s president, with a horn on her head. Chazan is a former deputy speaker of the Knesset and a former member of the Knesset from the Meretz Party.
“She was the head of the campaign against the IDF,” Shoval said in explaining the caricature of Chazan. “She has a major part in deciding where the money is going, and I want to make sure that everyone knows that this is the person standing behind it.”
Asked why a horn was put on her head, he said the word for “horn” in Hebrew also means “fund,” “so it was a funny to put a horn on her head.”
In addition, he said his group staged a protest demonstration outside her Jerusalem home Saturday night.
Paiss said Chazan was in New York at the time and that the protesters mistakenly targeted a neighbor’s home and not Chazan’s.
Jeremy Ben-Ami, executive director of J Street, a Washington-based pro-peace-process lobby group, issued a statement expressing grave concern about the “vicious” attacks against the NIF and Chazan. He said it used “style reminiscent of propaganda from the darkest days of recent Jewish experience, depicting Chazan with a horn on her head and holding her personally responsible for the contents of the Goldstone Report.”
Ben-Ami said also that Im Tirtzu’s political leanings are clear from the fact that it accepted $100,000 from the John Hagee Ministries, a group run by Pastor John Hagee, a major supporter of Israel who has made controversial remarks in the past. Hagee is also founder and president of Christians United for Israel.
Paiss said she believes this attack on her organization is but the latest in a “coordinated attempt to delegitimize Israeli civil society and repress human rights groups and tolerance for dissent and honesty” in Israel. She cited the recent arrests of Anat Hoffman of the Israel Religious Action Center for her activities in support of women praying at the Kotel, and of Hagai el-Ad, executive director of the Association for Civil Rights in Israel, as he was monitoring a demonstration protesting the seizure of Palestinian land in Jerusalem.
“We think it’s a suppression of free speech and that they want the human rights community in Israel to be defunded and defeated,” Paiss said.
But Gerald Steinberg, a professor of political science at Bar-Ilan University and a founder of NGO Monitor, charged that the NIF is guilty of a similar attack against him. He claimed it has been distributing a “finger” painting against him, even though his organization has never engaged in personal attacks.
“It’s an example of how NIF plays rough and dirty in attacking its critics, but is outraged when they are treated in the same way,” he said. “NIF is extremely closed and hostile to any criticism and independent analysis, and they have outraged the Israeli center by their funding of some of the most radical organizations.
“They collect most of their money from outside of Israel, and there is a demand that the Knesset demand transparency from government-funded NGOs,” Steinberg added. “Do NIF-funded NGOs discriminate against Israel when they encourage boycotts of Israel and encourage Israelis to reject the draft? This is part of a wider awareness effort going on in Israel. It is not right wing but centrist.”
Paiss denied that the NIF was behind a “finger” poster directed against Steinberg, whom she called a “voice and outlet for those who believe that any criticism of Israel is anti-Israel.”
“We think that loving examination of Israel’s real problems and proposing solutions is the best way to love Israel,” she added.
Locking horns over Goldstone: An ad sponsored by the Im Tirzu Zionist group depicted Naomi Chazan, president of the New Israel Fund, with a horn on her head.
Locking horns over Goldstone: An ad sponsored by the Im Tirzu Zionist group depicted Naomi Chazan, president of the New Israel Fund, with a horn on her head.
by Stewart Ain
Staff Writer Jewish week
Charges that the New Israel Fund supports Israeli civil rights groups that played a key role in providing information highly critical of Israel’s role in the Gaza war last year have sparked a spirited, and nasty, debate over the proper role for civil and human rights groups in a democratic state.
A 131-page report, commissioned by a three-year-old Zionist group active on Israeli campuses, called Im Tirtzu, found that 16 Israeli human rights organizations provided 92 percent of the critical information used in the UN report written by South African jurist Richard Goldstone. All 16 are funded by the New Israel Fund (NIF) and include such groups as Breaking the Silence, B’Tselem and the Association for Civil Rights in Israel.
NIF, founded in
Inbal 300X250
1979, is a philanthropy that funds mostly left-of-center human rights groups (as well as groups addressing other social issues) in Israel. Supporters say it promotes equal rights for all Israeli citizens; critics have accused it of supporting Israeli Arab groups that in turn encourage insurrection against the Zionist state.
“At the end of the day, we have a situation where Israelis are blaming their brothers of committing war crimes without any proof,” said Ronen Shoval, a graduate student and founder of Im Tirtzu. “They are lying. ... And the NIF stands behind the Goldstone report. I can’t tell you how important it is that Jewish people in the United States understand that at the end of the day their money [to the NIF] helps Hamas.”
A spokeswoman for the New Israel Fund, Naomi Paiss, said that although her group took no position on the Goldstone report, it “is very proud of the groups we have supported. ... Their reports were carefully documented and in some instances were the only available information out of Gaza because the international press and the Israeli press were kept out.
“Those human rights organizations are there to do a job,” she continued. “They reported on their concerns about the Gaza operation and were the first to declare that the Israeli government should launch an independent inquiry into the events of Gaza. Had that been done, perhaps there would not have been a Goldstone report.”
But Jacques Berlinerblau, director of the Program for Jewish Civilization at the Georgetown School of Foreign Service, said he believes there is a time and a place for self-criticism, and this might not be it.
“The perennial danger of Jewish self-criticism is that it gets used in a lopsided manner,” he explained. “If you have a completely imbalanced critical apparatus that only features criticism of Israel — and Israel as a nation can be criticized — it may not behoove these groups [to continue their criticism] when they are the only voices out there being critical. When you find critical Palestinian voices, they become useful. But if they are criticizing alone and their work is used in a skewed manner, I don’t know how much good they are doing for Israel.”
Paiss insisted that these organizations “were acting out of love for Israel and loyalty to the values on which the state was founded. ... They took a reasoned and thoughtful look at what happened in Gaza and put out reports that were then used as sources for Goldstone’s report.”
Shoval stressed the serious implications of the Goldstone report, noting that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said two months ago that the three major dangers facing Israel were the Iranian nuclear threat, the missile threat from Hamas and Hezbollah and the Goldstone report.
“Goldstone has become code for a much broader phenomenon: the attempt to negate the legitimacy of our right to self-defense,” Netanyahu said at the time.
Asked her reaction to claims that the Goldstone report is being used by Israel’s enemies to delegitimize the Jewish state, Paiss replied: “We are acutely aware that Israel has real enemies and that the work of human rights groups are used for their propaganda. ... [But] you lose much more in a democracy when you shut down internal criticism out of fear that it would be used by people who hate you. If Israel gives in on basic democratic values, then it is really lost.”
The Im Tirtzu study found that without the NIF-funded NGOs’ reports, “Goldstone would have nothing on which to base most of the claims” he made against Israel.
“In recent years Israel has been increasingly accused of war crimes, and this allegation has become a type of new weapon among leftist organizations,” the study said. “In effect, a small group of leftist organizations that is financed by identical foreign sources has created international pressure that is seriously harming Israel in the diplomatic arena and challenges Israel’s legitimate right of self-defense in the future.”
Hamas is also claiming Israel committed war crimes in its 22-day Gaza incursion, Shoval said, in order to get the international community to put such pressure on Israel that it won’t dare respond the next time Hamas fires missiles at civilians.
He said he plans to bring his report to the Knesset with the hope that it investigates these human rights groups “because they are helping Hamas, and the State of Israel should check to see who is giving them money and whether it is legal or not.
Yisrael Hasson, a member of the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, told The Jewish Week he is inclined to call for an investigation, “but I don’t want to say for sure because I’m still learning the issue.”
In the United States, Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, called the Im Tirtzu charges “an outrageous broadside,” telling The Jewish Week “it is absurd to blame Goldstone on NIF.”
He said there might be legitimate questions for NIF to respond to about standards for its recipient organizations, ensuring that they not support violence, as was the case with the Ford Foundation. But he said it was unfair to accuse NIF “of undermining Israeli security. Lots of people aided and abetted Goldstone.”
The charges exchanged between Im Tirtzu and the New Israel Fund also became personal attacks when Im Tirtzu took out an ad depicting Naomi Chazan, NIF’s president, with a horn on her head. Chazan is a former deputy speaker of the Knesset and a former member of the Knesset from the Meretz Party.
“She was the head of the campaign against the IDF,” Shoval said in explaining the caricature of Chazan. “She has a major part in deciding where the money is going, and I want to make sure that everyone knows that this is the person standing behind it.”
Asked why a horn was put on her head, he said the word for “horn” in Hebrew also means “fund,” “so it was a funny to put a horn on her head.”
In addition, he said his group staged a protest demonstration outside her Jerusalem home Saturday night.
Paiss said Chazan was in New York at the time and that the protesters mistakenly targeted a neighbor’s home and not Chazan’s.
Jeremy Ben-Ami, executive director of J Street, a Washington-based pro-peace-process lobby group, issued a statement expressing grave concern about the “vicious” attacks against the NIF and Chazan. He said it used “style reminiscent of propaganda from the darkest days of recent Jewish experience, depicting Chazan with a horn on her head and holding her personally responsible for the contents of the Goldstone Report.”
Ben-Ami said also that Im Tirtzu’s political leanings are clear from the fact that it accepted $100,000 from the John Hagee Ministries, a group run by Pastor John Hagee, a major supporter of Israel who has made controversial remarks in the past. Hagee is also founder and president of Christians United for Israel.
Paiss said she believes this attack on her organization is but the latest in a “coordinated attempt to delegitimize Israeli civil society and repress human rights groups and tolerance for dissent and honesty” in Israel. She cited the recent arrests of Anat Hoffman of the Israel Religious Action Center for her activities in support of women praying at the Kotel, and of Hagai el-Ad, executive director of the Association for Civil Rights in Israel, as he was monitoring a demonstration protesting the seizure of Palestinian land in Jerusalem.
“We think it’s a suppression of free speech and that they want the human rights community in Israel to be defunded and defeated,” Paiss said.
But Gerald Steinberg, a professor of political science at Bar-Ilan University and a founder of NGO Monitor, charged that the NIF is guilty of a similar attack against him. He claimed it has been distributing a “finger” painting against him, even though his organization has never engaged in personal attacks.
“It’s an example of how NIF plays rough and dirty in attacking its critics, but is outraged when they are treated in the same way,” he said. “NIF is extremely closed and hostile to any criticism and independent analysis, and they have outraged the Israeli center by their funding of some of the most radical organizations.
“They collect most of their money from outside of Israel, and there is a demand that the Knesset demand transparency from government-funded NGOs,” Steinberg added. “Do NIF-funded NGOs discriminate against Israel when they encourage boycotts of Israel and encourage Israelis to reject the draft? This is part of a wider awareness effort going on in Israel. It is not right wing but centrist.”
Paiss denied that the NIF was behind a “finger” poster directed against Steinberg, whom she called a “voice and outlet for those who believe that any criticism of Israel is anti-Israel.”
“We think that loving examination of Israel’s real problems and proposing solutions is the best way to love Israel,” she added.
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
help Joel Pollak Ill. 9 to help israel
"Beverly Sandler" Joel Pollak - outstanding Pro Israel candidate for Illinois' 9th District has the opportunity to bring on Eric Cantor's fund raising team if he can raise an addition $14,000 by Friday morning. At all costs the incumbent Jan Schakowsky (JStreet) must be eliminated from elected office. Could you help out with this? Please help spread the word.
Contributions can be made on his website.
https://secure.piryx.com/donate/NbeJASm1/PollakForCongress/
Contributions can also be made by check.
Please make checks out to:
Pollak for Congress
Send to
P.O. Box 5027
Evanston , IL 60204-5027
So that we can keep track of how much more we need to raise please ask contributors to email me with the amount of their donations.
The US/Israel relationship is worth fighting for and the fight boils down to us!
Contributions can be made on his website.
https://secure.piryx.com/donate/NbeJASm1/PollakForCongress/
Contributions can also be made by check.
Please make checks out to:
Pollak for Congress
Send to
P.O. Box 5027
Evanston , IL 60204-5027
So that we can keep track of how much more we need to raise please ask contributors to email me with the amount of their donations.
The US/Israel relationship is worth fighting for and the fight boils down to us!
Friday, February 5, 2010
J Street pushed that anti-Israel Gaza piece to Congress
nethttp://www.forward.com/articles/124915/
Washington — In the strongest sign so far of pushback against dovish Jewish groups, a New York congresswoman representing an ultra-Orthodox constituency retracted her support from congressional initiatives meant to ease the pressure on Palestinians in Gaza.
Yvette Clarke, of New York’s 11th District, which covers large parts of Brooklyn, met February 1 with a group of local Jewish leaders, many ultra-Orthodox, to discuss their concerns about her decision to sign on to two congressional letters dealing with the plight of Palestinians in Gaza. One letter called for lifting travel restrictions on Palestinian students, and the other for easing the Israeli blockade on Gaza.
The Jewish leaders’ intervention produced an open letter to Clarke’s Jewish constituents in which she expressed her regret for supporting the congressional letters. “Unfortunately, these letters are uneven in their application of pressure and do not sufficiently present a balanced approach/path to peace,” Clarke wrote, adding that the letters have “a provocative and reactionary impact.”
A spokesman for Agudath Israel of America said that Jewish participants in the meeting with Clarke responded to her new letter with “cautious optimism” and expressed their hope that her future stance on the Middle East “will reflect the support for Israel she is voicing now.”
Dovish Jewish groups supported the congressional letters on Gaza, and while mainstream pro-Israel organizations were not supportive of them, they did not actively lobby against them.
Hadar Susskind, director of policy and strategy at J Street, a group that advocated in favor of the letters, said he understood Clarke’s wish “to balance her needs with the needs of her constituency,” but he called on the Jewish community to break with “the zero-sum game and understand that improving the situation in Gaza will help us all reach a solution.”
Clarke’s retraction of her support for the Gaza letters echoes similar pressure put on lawmakers in the run-up to J Street’s first national conference, in October 2009. Then, too, some members of Congress from strongly Jewish districts came under constituent pressure to withdraw from a list of sponsors for the eve
Washington — In the strongest sign so far of pushback against dovish Jewish groups, a New York congresswoman representing an ultra-Orthodox constituency retracted her support from congressional initiatives meant to ease the pressure on Palestinians in Gaza.
Yvette Clarke, of New York’s 11th District, which covers large parts of Brooklyn, met February 1 with a group of local Jewish leaders, many ultra-Orthodox, to discuss their concerns about her decision to sign on to two congressional letters dealing with the plight of Palestinians in Gaza. One letter called for lifting travel restrictions on Palestinian students, and the other for easing the Israeli blockade on Gaza.
The Jewish leaders’ intervention produced an open letter to Clarke’s Jewish constituents in which she expressed her regret for supporting the congressional letters. “Unfortunately, these letters are uneven in their application of pressure and do not sufficiently present a balanced approach/path to peace,” Clarke wrote, adding that the letters have “a provocative and reactionary impact.”
A spokesman for Agudath Israel of America said that Jewish participants in the meeting with Clarke responded to her new letter with “cautious optimism” and expressed their hope that her future stance on the Middle East “will reflect the support for Israel she is voicing now.”
Dovish Jewish groups supported the congressional letters on Gaza, and while mainstream pro-Israel organizations were not supportive of them, they did not actively lobby against them.
Hadar Susskind, director of policy and strategy at J Street, a group that advocated in favor of the letters, said he understood Clarke’s wish “to balance her needs with the needs of her constituency,” but he called on the Jewish community to break with “the zero-sum game and understand that improving the situation in Gaza will help us all reach a solution.”
Clarke’s retraction of her support for the Gaza letters echoes similar pressure put on lawmakers in the run-up to J Street’s first national conference, in October 2009. Then, too, some members of Congress from strongly Jewish districts came under constituent pressure to withdraw from a list of sponsors for the eve
Friday, January 29, 2010
J Strret and Dem Congresmen hurt Israel
54 Democrat Congressmen Told Obama to Pressure Israel -
Call Now! Tell them they're wrong!
By now, you've probably heard that 54 Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives (no Republicans) sent a letter to President Obama - a letter in which they urge him to pressure Israel to loosen security measures on Israel's border with Hamas-controlled Gaza.
This is outrageous. And we need to raise our voices to respond!
These security measures were implemented to counter the threat from terrorism originating from the Hamas-controlled Gaza strip.
Not a single Republican member signed on. But the fact remains that one in five Democrats in Congress have called on the President to pressure Israel. Unbelievably, they want him to demand an end to measures imposed to fight against terrorism.
These 54 Democrats expressed no concern whatsoever about the consequences their ideas might have for Israelis living under the threat of terrorism from Gaza!
RJC activists need to let these badly misguided Democrats know that their shameful act has been noticed and that Jewish Americans won't stand for it.
Call now and tell the "Gaza 54":
As Americans and supporters of Israel's right of self-defense, we reject your call for pressure on our beleaguered ally. And we demand that you take a firm stand against terrorism.
The 54 Congressmen who signed this letter are:
Arizona
Raul Grijalva: 202-225-2435
California
Lois Capps: 202-225-3601
Sam Farr: 202-225-2861
Bob Filner: 202-225-8045
Barbara Lee: 202-225-2661
Loretta Sanchez: 202-225-2965
Pete Stark: 202-225-5065
Michael Honda: 202-225-2631
Lynn Woolsey: 202-225-5161
Jackie Speier: 202-225-3531
Diane Watson: 202-225-7084
George Miller: 202-225-2095
Connecticut
Jim Himes: 202-225-5541
Indiana
Andre Carson: 202-225-4011
Iowa
Bruce Braley: 202-225-2911
Kentucky
John Yarmuth: 202-225-5401
Maryland
Elijah Cummings: 202-225-4741
Donna Edwards: 202-225-8699
Massachusetts
Michael Capuano: 202-225-5111
William Delahunt: 202-225-3111
Jim McGovern: 202-225-6101
John Tierney: 202-225-8020
John Olver: 202-225-5335
Stephen Lynch: 202-225-8273
Michigan
John Conyers: 202-225-5126
John Dingell: 202-225-4071
Carolyn Kilpatrick: 202-225-2261
Minnesota
Keith Ellison: 202-225-4755
Betty McCollum: 202-225-6631
James Oberstar: 202-225-6211
New Jersey
Donald Payne: 202-225-3436
Rush Holt: 202-202-225-5801
Bill Pascrell: 202-225-5751
New York
Yvette Clarke: 202-225-6231
Maurice Hinchey: 202-225-6335
Paul Tonko: 202-225-5076
Eric Massa: 202-225-3161
North Carolina
David Price: 202-225-1784
Ohio
Mary Jo Kilroy: 202-225-2015
Marcy Kaptur: 202-225-4146
Oregon
Earl Blumenauer: 202-225-4811
Peter DeFazio: 202-225-6416
Pennsylvania
Chaka Fattah: 202-225-4001
Joe Sestak: 202-225-2011
Vermont
Peter Welch: 202-225-4115
Virginia
Jim Moran: 202-225-4376
Glenn Nye: 202-225-4215
Washington
Jim McDermott: 202-225-3106
Adam Smith: 202-225-8901
Jay Inslee: 202-225-6311
Brian Baird: 202-225-3536
West Virginia
Nick Rahall: 202-225-3452
Wisconsin
Tammy Baldwin: 202-225-2906
Gwen Moore:202-225-4572
Call Now! Tell them they're wrong!
By now, you've probably heard that 54 Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives (no Republicans) sent a letter to President Obama - a letter in which they urge him to pressure Israel to loosen security measures on Israel's border with Hamas-controlled Gaza.
This is outrageous. And we need to raise our voices to respond!
These security measures were implemented to counter the threat from terrorism originating from the Hamas-controlled Gaza strip.
Not a single Republican member signed on. But the fact remains that one in five Democrats in Congress have called on the President to pressure Israel. Unbelievably, they want him to demand an end to measures imposed to fight against terrorism.
These 54 Democrats expressed no concern whatsoever about the consequences their ideas might have for Israelis living under the threat of terrorism from Gaza!
RJC activists need to let these badly misguided Democrats know that their shameful act has been noticed and that Jewish Americans won't stand for it.
Call now and tell the "Gaza 54":
As Americans and supporters of Israel's right of self-defense, we reject your call for pressure on our beleaguered ally. And we demand that you take a firm stand against terrorism.
The 54 Congressmen who signed this letter are:
Arizona
Raul Grijalva: 202-225-2435
California
Lois Capps: 202-225-3601
Sam Farr: 202-225-2861
Bob Filner: 202-225-8045
Barbara Lee: 202-225-2661
Loretta Sanchez: 202-225-2965
Pete Stark: 202-225-5065
Michael Honda: 202-225-2631
Lynn Woolsey: 202-225-5161
Jackie Speier: 202-225-3531
Diane Watson: 202-225-7084
George Miller: 202-225-2095
Connecticut
Jim Himes: 202-225-5541
Indiana
Andre Carson: 202-225-4011
Iowa
Bruce Braley: 202-225-2911
Kentucky
John Yarmuth: 202-225-5401
Maryland
Elijah Cummings: 202-225-4741
Donna Edwards: 202-225-8699
Massachusetts
Michael Capuano: 202-225-5111
William Delahunt: 202-225-3111
Jim McGovern: 202-225-6101
John Tierney: 202-225-8020
John Olver: 202-225-5335
Stephen Lynch: 202-225-8273
Michigan
John Conyers: 202-225-5126
John Dingell: 202-225-4071
Carolyn Kilpatrick: 202-225-2261
Minnesota
Keith Ellison: 202-225-4755
Betty McCollum: 202-225-6631
James Oberstar: 202-225-6211
New Jersey
Donald Payne: 202-225-3436
Rush Holt: 202-202-225-5801
Bill Pascrell: 202-225-5751
New York
Yvette Clarke: 202-225-6231
Maurice Hinchey: 202-225-6335
Paul Tonko: 202-225-5076
Eric Massa: 202-225-3161
North Carolina
David Price: 202-225-1784
Ohio
Mary Jo Kilroy: 202-225-2015
Marcy Kaptur: 202-225-4146
Oregon
Earl Blumenauer: 202-225-4811
Peter DeFazio: 202-225-6416
Pennsylvania
Chaka Fattah: 202-225-4001
Joe Sestak: 202-225-2011
Vermont
Peter Welch: 202-225-4115
Virginia
Jim Moran: 202-225-4376
Glenn Nye: 202-225-4215
Washington
Jim McDermott: 202-225-3106
Adam Smith: 202-225-8901
Jay Inslee: 202-225-6311
Brian Baird: 202-225-3536
West Virginia
Nick Rahall: 202-225-3452
Wisconsin
Tammy Baldwin: 202-225-2906
Gwen Moore:202-225-4572
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
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
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Penn Hillel-undermines Israel with this
'Z Street' Crosses J Street-Hillel University Campaign
by Hana Levi Julian
Follow Israel news on and .
(IsraelNN.com) The Hillel Jewish student organization will welcome the strongly pro-Palestinian Authority ''J Street' lobby, which calls itself "pro Israel' into its building at the University of Pennsylvania campus to launch a new grassroots campaign next month. J Street executive director Jeremy Ben-Ami will broadcast a speech during the event, which will take place on February 4 at Steinhardt Hall, where the U Penn Hillel is located, in Philadelphia.
The J Street announcement is promoting the event as a “call to action live to thousands of supporters at local gatherings across the United States.” The announcement added, “Attendees will have the opportunity to learn more about J Street Philadelphia and join brainstorming groups to move forward our common pro-Israel, pro-peace agenda.”
The event is vehemently opposed by counter-protest groups, among them an organization calling itself “Z Street,” which noted that one member of the J Street Philly Host Committee “compared Israel's treatment of Gaza with the genocide in Sudan." 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.”
J Street strongly criticized the Jewish State for the counterterrorist Operation Cast Lead in Gaza last year that largely stilled the constant rocket and mortar fire which for eight years had rained down on civilians in southern Israel. It supported the Goldstone Report.
Israel's Ambassador the U.S., Michael Oren, has characterized the group as one that “not only opposes one policy of one Israeli government, it [also] opposes all policies of all Israeli governments. It is significantly out of the mainstream.” He refused an invitation to speak at the J Street convention several months ago.
'Z Street' added pointedly in an Internet posting, “If the local people associated with J Street have such extreme positions against Israel, what do you think college students will learn from J Street? Do we want Jewish college students to associate Hillel with J Street?”
The Hillel organization, known as The Foundation for Jewish Campus Life, promotes itself as the largest Jewish campus organization in the world and for decades has enjoyed a reputation as "the" address for Jewish students to turn to. On its website, the organization states that its mission is to help students "find a balance in being distinctively Jewish and universally human by encouraging them to pursue tzedek (social justice), tikkun olam (repairing the world) and Jewish learning, and to support Israel and global Jewish peoplehood."
Visitors to the Z Street site were encouraged to contact Hillel to express their views about the matter. An email address (halpert@pobox.upenn.edu) proved to be inaccessible when tried by Israel National News, but both the phone number (215-989-8265) and fax numbers (215-898-8259) were viable.
Hillel director Rabbi Howard Alpert has not replied to Israel National News after a message was left on his voice mail.
by Hana Levi Julian
Follow Israel news on and .
(IsraelNN.com) The Hillel Jewish student organization will welcome the strongly pro-Palestinian Authority ''J Street' lobby, which calls itself "pro Israel' into its building at the University of Pennsylvania campus to launch a new grassroots campaign next month. J Street executive director Jeremy Ben-Ami will broadcast a speech during the event, which will take place on February 4 at Steinhardt Hall, where the U Penn Hillel is located, in Philadelphia.
The J Street announcement is promoting the event as a “call to action live to thousands of supporters at local gatherings across the United States.” The announcement added, “Attendees will have the opportunity to learn more about J Street Philadelphia and join brainstorming groups to move forward our common pro-Israel, pro-peace agenda.”
The event is vehemently opposed by counter-protest groups, among them an organization calling itself “Z Street,” which noted that one member of the J Street Philly Host Committee “compared Israel's treatment of Gaza with the genocide in Sudan." 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.”
J Street strongly criticized the Jewish State for the counterterrorist Operation Cast Lead in Gaza last year that largely stilled the constant rocket and mortar fire which for eight years had rained down on civilians in southern Israel. It supported the Goldstone Report.
Israel's Ambassador the U.S., Michael Oren, has characterized the group as one that “not only opposes one policy of one Israeli government, it [also] opposes all policies of all Israeli governments. It is significantly out of the mainstream.” He refused an invitation to speak at the J Street convention several months ago.
'Z Street' added pointedly in an Internet posting, “If the local people associated with J Street have such extreme positions against Israel, what do you think college students will learn from J Street? Do we want Jewish college students to associate Hillel with J Street?”
The Hillel organization, known as The Foundation for Jewish Campus Life, promotes itself as the largest Jewish campus organization in the world and for decades has enjoyed a reputation as "the" address for Jewish students to turn to. On its website, the organization states that its mission is to help students "find a balance in being distinctively Jewish and universally human by encouraging them to pursue tzedek (social justice), tikkun olam (repairing the world) and Jewish learning, and to support Israel and global Jewish peoplehood."
Visitors to the Z Street site were encouraged to contact Hillel to express their views about the matter. An email address (halpert@pobox.upenn.edu) proved to be inaccessible when tried by Israel National News, but both the phone number (215-989-8265) and fax numbers (215-898-8259) were viable.
Hillel director Rabbi Howard Alpert has not replied to Israel National News after a message was left on his voice mail.
Monday, January 25, 2010
Street firmly in anti -Israel, pro Iran camp
Street firmly in anti -Israel, pro Iran camp
J Street: Not Really So Concerned About Israel's Security
Another fun email from the NIAC treasure trove...Given that J Street blasted Sarah Palin for her support for the official policy of the government in Jerusalem, and given that even ADL chief Abe Foxman is questioning J Street's "pro-Israel" bona fides as a result, it's worth taking a look behind the scenes of J Street's campaign to scuttle new sanctions on Iran -- a campaign that the group coordinated with NIAC. Here's J Street political director Joel Rubin congratulating the legislative director of the National Iranian American Council, Emily Blout, on their successful push to defeat new sanctions legislation in late 2008:
From: Joel Rubin
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 21:30:43 -0400
To: Emily Blout
Subject: Re: Hi - get together in mid-October?
I just got airtight confirmation that no 362 language will be included in the Iran sanctions subsection of the India nuclear bill. My bet is that that subsection will get dropped in conference, if it even gets that far. Of course, who knows if they'll be back in November and if the other side makes another play. In any event, you guys did great work this year. Really great
I don't think anybody would make the claim that NIAC is on the "pro-Israel" side, so when Rubin talks about "the other side," it's the genuine pro-Israel community he's talking about, right? Sanctions are the number one priority for Israel and the pro-Israel community in the United States. Why is 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 last month. At the time, I asked Hadar Susskind, J Street's director of policy and strategy, what he was doing there. "Some people say Parsi is the regime's man in Washington," I told him. "Those people are wrong," Susskind said. He insisted that Parsi "supports the Iranian people, he is not here on behalf of the regime." Maybe, but that isn't the way the Iranian people see it. When Eli Lake first broke this story, he closed with a quote from 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.
J Street: Not Really So Concerned About Israel's Security
Another fun email from the NIAC treasure trove...Given that J Street blasted Sarah Palin for her support for the official policy of the government in Jerusalem, and given that even ADL chief Abe Foxman is questioning J Street's "pro-Israel" bona fides as a result, it's worth taking a look behind the scenes of J Street's campaign to scuttle new sanctions on Iran -- a campaign that the group coordinated with NIAC. Here's J Street political director Joel Rubin congratulating the legislative director of the National Iranian American Council, Emily Blout, on their successful push to defeat new sanctions legislation in late 2008:
From: Joel Rubin
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 21:30:43 -0400
To: Emily Blout
Subject: Re: Hi - get together in mid-October?
I just got airtight confirmation that no 362 language will be included in the Iran sanctions subsection of the India nuclear bill. My bet is that that subsection will get dropped in conference, if it even gets that far. Of course, who knows if they'll be back in November and if the other side makes another play. In any event, you guys did great work this year. Really great
I don't think anybody would make the claim that NIAC is on the "pro-Israel" side, so when Rubin talks about "the other side," it's the genuine pro-Israel community he's talking about, right? Sanctions are the number one priority for Israel and the pro-Israel community in the United States. Why is 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 last month. At the time, I asked Hadar Susskind, J Street's director of policy and strategy, what he was doing there. "Some people say Parsi is the regime's man in Washington," I told him. "Those people are wrong," Susskind said. He insisted that Parsi "supports the Iranian people, he is not here on behalf of the regime." Maybe, but that isn't the way the Iranian people see it. When Eli Lake first broke this story, he closed with a quote from 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.
why is Chicago's Temple Emanuel hosting this anti-Israel group?
call and omplain
or email them
Contact us: Info@emanuelcong.org
5959 N. Sheridan Rd.
Chicago, Illinois 60660
Telephone: 773-561-5173
or email them
Contact us: Info@emanuelcong.org
5959 N. Sheridan Rd.
Chicago, Illinois 60660
Telephone: 773-561-5173
Israeli ambassador blasts J Street
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
J street dangerous for Israel-Oren
Oren blasts J Street
December 10, 2009
WASHINGTON (JTA) -- The Israeli ambassador to the United States blasted J Street, saying the organization was "fooling around with the lives of 7 million people."
Michael Oren, responding to a question during an appearance Monday before the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism's biennial convention, described the left-wing pro-Israel group as "a unique problem in that it not only opposes one policy of one Israeli government, it opposes all policies of all Israeli governments. It's significantly out of the mainstream," The Forward reported.
"This is not a matter of settlements here [or] there," said Oren. "We understand that there are differences of opinion. But when it comes to the survival of the Jewish state, there should be no differences of opinion. You are fooling around with the lives of 7 million people. This is no joke."
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 and its failure to support additional sanctions on Iran. The same morning Oren spoke, J Street released a statement announcing that it now backed passage of Iran sanctions legislation in Congress.
Oren's remarks were much more critical than a statement from an Israeli Embassy spokesman in October, when Oren declined an invitation to address J Street's inaugural conference. At that time, the embassy said it would be "privately communicating its concerns over certain policies of the organization that may impair the interests of Israel."
J street dangerous for Israel-Oren
Oren blasts J Street
December 10, 2009
WASHINGTON (JTA) -- The Israeli ambassador to the United States blasted J Street, saying the organization was "fooling around with the lives of 7 million people."
Michael Oren, responding to a question during an appearance Monday before the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism's biennial convention, described the left-wing pro-Israel group as "a unique problem in that it not only opposes one policy of one Israeli government, it opposes all policies of all Israeli governments. It's significantly out of the mainstream," The Forward reported.
"This is not a matter of settlements here [or] there," said Oren. "We understand that there are differences of opinion. But when it comes to the survival of the Jewish state, there should be no differences of opinion. You are fooling around with the lives of 7 million people. This is no joke."
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 and its failure to support additional sanctions on Iran. The same morning Oren spoke, J Street released a statement announcing that it now backed passage of Iran sanctions legislation in Congress.
Oren's remarks were much more critical than a statement from an Israeli Embassy spokesman in October, when Oren declined an invitation to address J Street's inaugural conference. At that time, the embassy said it would be "privately communicating its concerns over certain policies of the organization that may impair the interests of Israel."
Obama, anti-semitism czar and undermining Israel
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Obama anti-Israel?
*By: Jim Meyers*
President Barack Obama’s anti-Semitism “czar” Hannah Rosenthal has been
castigated by Jewish leaders for publicly criticizing Israel’s
Ambassador to the U.S. Michael Oren.
The flap began when the Israeli embassy said Oren would not attend a
conference hosted by J Street, an advocacy group based in the U.S. that
promotes American leadership to end the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
The embassy asserted that Oren would not attend because J Street
supports positions that may “impair Israel’s interest.” In fact, the
American Israeli Action Coalition (AIAC) has stated that J Street is “a
radical, far left, anti-Israel, American organization funded by Arab and
radical sources" which "has been almost universally condemned by
mainstream Jewish organizations."
Rosenthal, a member of J Street’s advisory panel before being appointed
by Obama to head the Office To Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism, called
Oren’s decision “most unfortunate.” She also said he would have “learned
a lot” at the conference, and criticized him for pointing out to an
assembly of Jewish leaders that J Street was “fooling around with the
lives of 7 million people.”
The AIAC has responded to her criticism by calling for Rosenthal’s ouster.
Harvey Schwartz, AIAC’s chairman, stated: “As a high ranking member of
the Obama administration, Rosenthal’s criticism of the Israeli
Ambassador to the U.S. is beyond bizarre, and highly offensive in the
extreme. It is a virulent anti-Israel attack which AIAC interprets to be
anti-Semitic.
"That the State Department took the highly unusual step of announcing
its 'complete support' for Rosenthal confirms that she was expressing
the views of the Obama administration. Contrary to her duty to fight
anti-Semitism, Rosenthal used her bully pulpit to advance it. This is
deplorable.
“Even more deplorable is the Obama administration’s public slap at
Israel, utilizing Rosenthal as its mouthpiece,” Schwartz continued in
remarks reported by IsraelNationalNews.com.
“When coupled with the Obama administration’s numerous other slaps at
Israel, including its almost hysterical non-recognition of Israel’s
inalienable right to build civilian homes in its Jerusalem capital and
[U.S. peace envoy and former Senator George] Mitchell’s recent public
threat to withdraw U.S. loan guarantees from Israel, while at the same
time saying and doing nothing to the Palestinians to ‘encourage’ them to
return to the peace talks, the Obama administration has laid bare its
anti-Israel focus and has proven itself to no longer be an honest broker
for peace.”
Aaron Tirschwell, AIAC’s Executive Director, declared that “Rosenthal
has committed an unpardonable sin. She must go promptly. AIAC calls upon
all American Jewish organizations, as well as all Americans of good
will, to demand that the Obama administration dismiss Rosenthal forthwith.”
Posted by Jewu.info at 12:59 PM 0 comments
Obama anti-Israel?
*By: Jim Meyers*
President Barack Obama’s anti-Semitism “czar” Hannah Rosenthal has been
castigated by Jewish leaders for publicly criticizing Israel’s
Ambassador to the U.S. Michael Oren.
The flap began when the Israeli embassy said Oren would not attend a
conference hosted by J Street, an advocacy group based in the U.S. that
promotes American leadership to end the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
The embassy asserted that Oren would not attend because J Street
supports positions that may “impair Israel’s interest.” In fact, the
American Israeli Action Coalition (AIAC) has stated that J Street is “a
radical, far left, anti-Israel, American organization funded by Arab and
radical sources" which "has been almost universally condemned by
mainstream Jewish organizations."
Rosenthal, a member of J Street’s advisory panel before being appointed
by Obama to head the Office To Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism, called
Oren’s decision “most unfortunate.” She also said he would have “learned
a lot” at the conference, and criticized him for pointing out to an
assembly of Jewish leaders that J Street was “fooling around with the
lives of 7 million people.”
The AIAC has responded to her criticism by calling for Rosenthal’s ouster.
Harvey Schwartz, AIAC’s chairman, stated: “As a high ranking member of
the Obama administration, Rosenthal’s criticism of the Israeli
Ambassador to the U.S. is beyond bizarre, and highly offensive in the
extreme. It is a virulent anti-Israel attack which AIAC interprets to be
anti-Semitic.
"That the State Department took the highly unusual step of announcing
its 'complete support' for Rosenthal confirms that she was expressing
the views of the Obama administration. Contrary to her duty to fight
anti-Semitism, Rosenthal used her bully pulpit to advance it. This is
deplorable.
“Even more deplorable is the Obama administration’s public slap at
Israel, utilizing Rosenthal as its mouthpiece,” Schwartz continued in
remarks reported by IsraelNationalNews.com.
“When coupled with the Obama administration’s numerous other slaps at
Israel, including its almost hysterical non-recognition of Israel’s
inalienable right to build civilian homes in its Jerusalem capital and
[U.S. peace envoy and former Senator George] Mitchell’s recent public
threat to withdraw U.S. loan guarantees from Israel, while at the same
time saying and doing nothing to the Palestinians to ‘encourage’ them to
return to the peace talks, the Obama administration has laid bare its
anti-Israel focus and has proven itself to no longer be an honest broker
for peace.”
Aaron Tirschwell, AIAC’s Executive Director, declared that “Rosenthal
has committed an unpardonable sin. She must go promptly. AIAC calls upon
all American Jewish organizations, as well as all Americans of good
will, to demand that the Obama administration dismiss Rosenthal forthwith.”
Posted by Jewu.info at 12:59 PM 0 comments
Not Pro Israel for colleges
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/rubin/221906
J Street Is Ba-a-a-ck
Jennifer Rubin - 01.22.2010 - 10:48 AM
When last we left the J Street gang, they were enjoying their Washington confab — though with many fewer congressional “hosts” once it became clear what the group’s agenda really was and what sort of Israel-bashing “artists” planned to entertain the assembled crowd. Then the conference itself proved informative. We learned that the J Streeters didn’t fancy calling themselves “pro-Israel,” at least not on college campuses. And we learned that what really got their juices flowing was a healthy dose of anti-anti-Iranian-regime propaganda and good old-fashioned neocon-bashing. Alas, there’s not much of a market for that on Capitol Hill, so their “lobbying” devolved into some mushy nothingness in which lawmakers were asked to do something to show they favored a two-state solution. (Gutsy stuff from these J Streeters, eh?)
Soon afterward we learned that J Street and NIAC shared some interesting conference calls, the object of which seemed to be, among other things, to get Dennis Ross. J Street didn’t like any of the Iran-sanction measures floating around Congress but seemed powerless to influence the votes.
So now that our memories are refreshed (ever since “engagement with Iran” became a laugh line, they’ve been sort of quiet), we see this report that J Street will ”be increasing the number and amount of its contributions to US Congressional candidates by at least 50 percent in the coming year. The announcement comes a few weeks ahead of J Street’s first planned trip to bring members of Congress to Israel.” One wonders if Jimmy Carter and Mary Robinson are to be the tour guides.
And who are the recipients of the not-to-be-called-pro-Israel-if-it’s-inconvenient gang’s largesse? There are a bunch:
The 41 endorsees include one Republican, Rep. Charles Boustany of Louisiana, and one of the two Muslim members of Congress, Rep. Keith Ellison of Minnesota. Eight Jewish members also received JStreetPAC’s nod, including representatives Steve Cohen of Tennessee, Susan Davis of California, Barney Frank of Massachusetts and John Yarmuth of Kentucky, as well as the only senator on the list, Russ Feingold of Wisconsin.
Also on the list are Bob Filner of California, Jared Polis of Colorado, and Jan Schakowsky of Illinois.
Well, no one can excuse himself by pleading ignorance this time around, as did many of the “hosts” when confronted with J Street’s record in October. These lawmakers must be well aware of J Street’s anti-anti-Iran agenda and be quite enamored of its Israel-can-do-no-right rhetoric. One wonders if these lawmakers’ constituents share these views. That’s what elections are for, I suppose. We’ll find out soon enough whether there’s a market for Israel-bashing and Iran-sanction opposition.
J Street Is Ba-a-a-ck
Jennifer Rubin - 01.22.2010 - 10:48 AM
When last we left the J Street gang, they were enjoying their Washington confab — though with many fewer congressional “hosts” once it became clear what the group’s agenda really was and what sort of Israel-bashing “artists” planned to entertain the assembled crowd. Then the conference itself proved informative. We learned that the J Streeters didn’t fancy calling themselves “pro-Israel,” at least not on college campuses. And we learned that what really got their juices flowing was a healthy dose of anti-anti-Iranian-regime propaganda and good old-fashioned neocon-bashing. Alas, there’s not much of a market for that on Capitol Hill, so their “lobbying” devolved into some mushy nothingness in which lawmakers were asked to do something to show they favored a two-state solution. (Gutsy stuff from these J Streeters, eh?)
Soon afterward we learned that J Street and NIAC shared some interesting conference calls, the object of which seemed to be, among other things, to get Dennis Ross. J Street didn’t like any of the Iran-sanction measures floating around Congress but seemed powerless to influence the votes.
So now that our memories are refreshed (ever since “engagement with Iran” became a laugh line, they’ve been sort of quiet), we see this report that J Street will ”be increasing the number and amount of its contributions to US Congressional candidates by at least 50 percent in the coming year. The announcement comes a few weeks ahead of J Street’s first planned trip to bring members of Congress to Israel.” One wonders if Jimmy Carter and Mary Robinson are to be the tour guides.
And who are the recipients of the not-to-be-called-pro-Israel-if-it’s-inconvenient gang’s largesse? There are a bunch:
The 41 endorsees include one Republican, Rep. Charles Boustany of Louisiana, and one of the two Muslim members of Congress, Rep. Keith Ellison of Minnesota. Eight Jewish members also received JStreetPAC’s nod, including representatives Steve Cohen of Tennessee, Susan Davis of California, Barney Frank of Massachusetts and John Yarmuth of Kentucky, as well as the only senator on the list, Russ Feingold of Wisconsin.
Also on the list are Bob Filner of California, Jared Polis of Colorado, and Jan Schakowsky of Illinois.
Well, no one can excuse himself by pleading ignorance this time around, as did many of the “hosts” when confronted with J Street’s record in October. These lawmakers must be well aware of J Street’s anti-anti-Iran agenda and be quite enamored of its Israel-can-do-no-right rhetoric. One wonders if these lawmakers’ constituents share these views. That’s what elections are for, I suppose. We’ll find out soon enough whether there’s a market for Israel-bashing and Iran-sanction opposition.
Dangers of J Street
Promoting organizations whose goals are inimical to the security of Israel is also the Newspeak definition of “pro-Israel.” That is why Rep. Jan Schakowsky said, “I see J Street (a lobbying group trying to displace AIPAC) as a pro-Israel organization." J Street “Pro-Israel” bonifides include: refusing to support House Resolution 867, which condemned the agregiously biased Goldstone Commission Report; opposing further sanctions on Iran; advocating for a freeze on all Jewish construction beyond the 1949 armistice lines, including Jerusalem; blaming Israel for the absence of peace; calling for increased U.S. pressure on Israel. The petition on the J Street Homepage reads: Click here to ask Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to redouble efforts to change Israel's behavior in Jerusalem.
Last October, when J Street rolled out its Washington conference line up, which included Israel bashers such as Salam al-Marayati, a proponent of the theory that Israel was the likely source of the attacks on the World Trade Center, the host list began to dwindle. Sen. John Kerry-D-MA), Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Sen. Thad Cochran (R-MS), Rep. Mike Castle (R-DE), Rep. Mike Ross (D-AR), Rep. Michael McCaul (R-TX), Rep. Leonard Boswell (D-IA), Rep. John Salazar (D-CO), and Rep. Ed Towns (D-NY) and Jane Harman (D-CA) decided that they had better things to do that day. Rep. Howard Coble (R-NC) said he was confused about the group's positions when he had accepted the invitation. "I have a consistently favorable pro-Israel voting record and if someone touts themselves as pro-Israel, I am very likely to join forces with them and that was my thinking with this group," he said. "Then I hear from my rabbi back home and others, and they assure me that this group is by no means on the same page with the mainstream Jewish community back in my district. And I didn't feel comfortable lending my name to that outfit."
Jan Schakowsky not only felt comfortable lending her “pro-Israel” name to “that outfit [J Street],” she also had no problem hosting the J Street gala or being its biggest backer in Congress. She appeared undisturbed by the rapturous applause and cries for, “Palestinian state! Now!” even though the Palestinians have refused for 61 years to acknowledge the existence of the Jewish State. She offered no objections to speaker after speaker, including General James Jones, the US national security adviser, who placed the responsibility for almost all of the world’s problems on Israel’s doorsteps. The audience erupted into applause when Jones called the Israel-Palestine conflict “the epicenter” of “many, many other problems around the world.” Nor did she question why a “Pro-Israel” conference made scarce mention of a neighboring regime which denies the Holocaust while it is aquiring the means of creating a second and final destruction of Jewry.
Unlike Jan Schakowsky, some commentators on the left were uneasy with J Street’s self description as “Pro-Peace and Pro-Israel.” Matthew Yglesias, Noam Pollak’s man of the year for moral equivalence, expressed doubt during the J Street Conference. “My J Street button said “Pro-Israel, Pro-Peace.” … “But when we moved to the Q&A time it became clear that a number of people in the audience really were quite uncomfortable self-defining as “pro-Israel” in any sense and that others are uncomfortable with the basic Zionist concept of a Jewish national state. Jonathan Chait, Senior Editor of the liberal New Republic (known during the Clinton years as the “in flight magazine for Air Force One), also had problems with the new meaning of “pro-Israel.” “…J Street had loosened the definition of "pro-Israel" to the point where it had virtually no meaning. As a result, the group has attracted the support of a lot of people who do not think of themselves as pro-Israel at all, some of whom oppose Israel's continued existence as a Jewish state. To accommodate students who may have animus towards Israel and not understand the new meaning of “pro,” J Street's university arm dropped the "pro-Israel" part of its slogan. Embracing the radically changed definition of “pro-Israel”, Jan Schakowsky addressed J Street, “I am always proud to join my many friends here today…I feel I share the goals of this organization…”
Apparently no one sent the Newspeak dictionary to Michael Oren, Israel’s Ambassador to the U.S. Thus Oren characterized J Street as “a unique problem in that it not only opposes one policy of one Israeli government, it opposes all policies of allIsraeli governments. It’s significantly out of the mainstream….This is not a matter of settlements here [or] there. We understand there are differences of opinion,” Oren said. “But when it comes to the survival of the Jewish state, there should be no differences of opinion. You are fooling around with the lives of 7 million people.” This is no joke.”
Oren does not understand what my congressional representative Jan Schakowsky knows: In the new progressive political world order, opposing all policies of all Israeli governments, sitting on one heals when Israel is in trouble, defending Israel’s enemies, providing forums for those who vilify Israel is the new meaning of “pro-Israel.” This new definition should give us all heart, for now the UN, the EU, and all the Arab states are pro-Israel.
Last October, when J Street rolled out its Washington conference line up, which included Israel bashers such as Salam al-Marayati, a proponent of the theory that Israel was the likely source of the attacks on the World Trade Center, the host list began to dwindle. Sen. John Kerry-D-MA), Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Sen. Thad Cochran (R-MS), Rep. Mike Castle (R-DE), Rep. Mike Ross (D-AR), Rep. Michael McCaul (R-TX), Rep. Leonard Boswell (D-IA), Rep. John Salazar (D-CO), and Rep. Ed Towns (D-NY) and Jane Harman (D-CA) decided that they had better things to do that day. Rep. Howard Coble (R-NC) said he was confused about the group's positions when he had accepted the invitation. "I have a consistently favorable pro-Israel voting record and if someone touts themselves as pro-Israel, I am very likely to join forces with them and that was my thinking with this group," he said. "Then I hear from my rabbi back home and others, and they assure me that this group is by no means on the same page with the mainstream Jewish community back in my district. And I didn't feel comfortable lending my name to that outfit."
Jan Schakowsky not only felt comfortable lending her “pro-Israel” name to “that outfit [J Street],” she also had no problem hosting the J Street gala or being its biggest backer in Congress. She appeared undisturbed by the rapturous applause and cries for, “Palestinian state! Now!” even though the Palestinians have refused for 61 years to acknowledge the existence of the Jewish State. She offered no objections to speaker after speaker, including General James Jones, the US national security adviser, who placed the responsibility for almost all of the world’s problems on Israel’s doorsteps. The audience erupted into applause when Jones called the Israel-Palestine conflict “the epicenter” of “many, many other problems around the world.” Nor did she question why a “Pro-Israel” conference made scarce mention of a neighboring regime which denies the Holocaust while it is aquiring the means of creating a second and final destruction of Jewry.
Unlike Jan Schakowsky, some commentators on the left were uneasy with J Street’s self description as “Pro-Peace and Pro-Israel.” Matthew Yglesias, Noam Pollak’s man of the year for moral equivalence, expressed doubt during the J Street Conference. “My J Street button said “Pro-Israel, Pro-Peace.” … “But when we moved to the Q&A time it became clear that a number of people in the audience really were quite uncomfortable self-defining as “pro-Israel” in any sense and that others are uncomfortable with the basic Zionist concept of a Jewish national state. Jonathan Chait, Senior Editor of the liberal New Republic (known during the Clinton years as the “in flight magazine for Air Force One), also had problems with the new meaning of “pro-Israel.” “…J Street had loosened the definition of "pro-Israel" to the point where it had virtually no meaning. As a result, the group has attracted the support of a lot of people who do not think of themselves as pro-Israel at all, some of whom oppose Israel's continued existence as a Jewish state. To accommodate students who may have animus towards Israel and not understand the new meaning of “pro,” J Street's university arm dropped the "pro-Israel" part of its slogan. Embracing the radically changed definition of “pro-Israel”, Jan Schakowsky addressed J Street, “I am always proud to join my many friends here today…I feel I share the goals of this organization…”
Apparently no one sent the Newspeak dictionary to Michael Oren, Israel’s Ambassador to the U.S. Thus Oren characterized J Street as “a unique problem in that it not only opposes one policy of one Israeli government, it opposes all policies of allIsraeli governments. It’s significantly out of the mainstream….This is not a matter of settlements here [or] there. We understand there are differences of opinion,” Oren said. “But when it comes to the survival of the Jewish state, there should be no differences of opinion. You are fooling around with the lives of 7 million people.” This is no joke.”
Oren does not understand what my congressional representative Jan Schakowsky knows: In the new progressive political world order, opposing all policies of all Israeli governments, sitting on one heals when Israel is in trouble, defending Israel’s enemies, providing forums for those who vilify Israel is the new meaning of “pro-Israel.” This new definition should give us all heart, for now the UN, the EU, and all the Arab states are pro-Israel.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)