This muslim anti_israel congressman is supported by Jews in minnesota!!
And he got a great deal of support from the Jewish community in Minnesota…
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29030.html
Read Goldstone's report on Gaza
By: Rep. Keith Ellison
November 3, 2009 05:11 AM EST
Who is afraid of Richard Goldstone? No one should be. Not even the U.S. Congress — yet it is poised on Tuesday to condemn the United Nations Human Rights Council’s Goldstone report on violations of international law related to the Gaza war of late 2008.
Why the fear? Judge Goldstone is no Israel basher. He is famous for apprehending Nazi criminals in Argentina, for serving as chief prosecutor for the U.N. International Criminal Tribunals and for chairing the Independent International Commission on Kosovo. He is motivated by his struggle against apartheid in South Africa. A self-described Zionist, he serves as a trustee of The Hebrew University of Jerusalem and has said that “bringing war criminals to justice stems from the lessons of the Holocaust.”
At the outset, note that four sections of the Goldstone report deal with abuses by Hamas, including the launching of rockets into civilian towns in Israel. The report explicitly states that these rocket attacks are war crimes.
Yet despite Goldstone’s stellar reputation, the veracity of the report — and his motives — has been challenged. The detailed Goldstone report concludes that “the Israeli military operation was directed at the people of Gaza as a whole, in furtherance of an overall and continuing policy aimed at punishing the Gaza population, and in a deliberate policy of disproportionate force aimed at the civilian population.”
I agree with my congressional colleagues — and with Goldstone — that the initial U.N. resolution of Jan. 12, 2009, calling for an investigation of abuses committed during the Gaza crisis was one-sided, focusing exclusively on Israel. That resolution was used by some countries to criticize Israel without acknowledging the abuses by Hamas. Goldstone initially refused to lead the investigation because of the original flawed mandate.
But Goldstone pushed back. He succeeded in expanding the scope of the mission to include an examination of the actions of both Hamas and Israel.
Israel, however, refused to cooperate with the investigation because of the original “one-sided mandate.” What if Israel had participated from the beginning? It could have pointed out that the U.N. Human Rights Council has a history of unfairly singling out Israel for criticism. It could have described Hamas’s abuses, and it could have elaborated on the context of the Israeli invasion of Gaza, which includes a long history of attacks on civilians. Israel could have observed the difficulties of combat in urban areas. But instead, Israel condemned the effort and then attacked the final product.
I visited Sderot in southern Israel and saw the havoc and trauma created by Hamas rocket fire. Israelis there live with fear. I have condemned these attacks as war crimes and will continue to do so.
I also visited Gaza and witnessed the devastation wreaked by the recent war. I toured an American school and medical clinics devastated by Operation Cast Lead. A blockade keeps out items such as paper for textbooks and nutritious food. Gazans live in poverty, and most cannot drink their own water. These are cruel violations against the people of Gaza, 56 percent of whom are children.
The Goldstone report does not assign blame. It lays out the facts, as best as Goldstone could ascertain them, and offers recommendations for the future. Congress should use this report as a resource to understand a critical part of the world and to grasp fully the devastating human costs of the status quo.
Instead, Congress is poised to oppose the Goldstone report without holding a single hearing on a document that few members of Congress, if any, have read.
This is a mistake. The stance of this Congress will erode U.S. credibility in the post-Obama world, and it will tarnish our commitment to the principle that all nations must be held to the same standards. Rather than undermine the report or Goldstone, we are at risk of undermining Congress’s and President Barack Obama’s reputation as honest brokers.
Israel can still pursue its own investigation, and critics of the Goldstone report should recognize that Israel is strong enough to withstand inquiry. Self-reflection is one of the hallmarks of a strong democracy. In fact, Israel has investigated itself in the past in connection with the Sabra and Shatila incidents. When nations like the United States, Israel, South Africa and others have pursued the truth through investigations — however uncomfortable — their people and politics have emerged stronger.
We stand for the values of democracy, truth and justice. There is no reason for Congress, Israel or any other party to fear an honest judge. Richard Goldstone is such a judge, and his report should be studied, not dismissed.
Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) is a member of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
From Martin peretz New republic editor-stunned disbelief
Indeed, the Israeli political system watched in utter (but almost comic) disbelief as the president attempted to get fundamental concessions from Jerusalem while letting the Palestinians off the hook. Which is, as you know, just how they took it. They did nothing. And suddenly the president and secretary Clinton, who had been so frosty with the Israelis and Hillary really frosty, as only she can be, had to change not only their tune but their very line to find some stasis for themselves. You are back where you started. And, by the way, did the Saudis help any?
Monday, November 2, 2009
Of course Clinton/Obama backtrack on anything good for israel
By ROBERT BURNS, AP National Security Writer Robert Burns, Ap National Security Writer – 1 hr 35 mins ago
MARRAKECH, Morocco – Trying to mute Arab criticism that the Obama administration had retreated from its tough stance on Israeli settlements, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton on Monday softened her praise for Israel's offer to restrain new housing in Palestinian areas.
While Israel was moving in the right direction in its offer to restrict but not stop the settlements, Clinton said, its offer "falls far short" of U.S. expectations.
MARRAKECH, Morocco – Trying to mute Arab criticism that the Obama administration had retreated from its tough stance on Israeli settlements, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton on Monday softened her praise for Israel's offer to restrain new housing in Palestinian areas.
While Israel was moving in the right direction in its offer to restrict but not stop the settlements, Clinton said, its offer "falls far short" of U.S. expectations.
J Street's anti-Zionist conference
http://www.examiner.com/x-7095-NY-Israel-Conflict-Examiner~y2009m10d31-J-Street-holds-antiZionist-conference#
J Street holds anti-Zionist conference
Street removed “pro-Israel” from its student affiliates’ slogan, let it embarrass them. The conference was notably anti-Zionist.
“Indeed, some J Street Conference attendees openly said they had problems describing themselves as Zionists.”
An invited panelist, Hillary Mann Leverett, denounced criticism over Iran’s nuclear negotiating tactics [of delay, changed mind, non-commitment or raising demands after an agreement, arranging to boost weapon-making capability] as “fundamentally racist,” because it is “reinforcing stereotypes of Iranian duplicity.”
“Also addressing the Conference was Salam Al-Marayati, the executive director of the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), despite the fact that he has called for Israel’s destruction and blamed Israelis for 9/11. Leaders of MPAC have also praised both Hamas and Hizballah.”
Union for Reform Judaism’s Rabbi Eric Yoffie, himself a prominent leftist, criticized the Goldstone U.N. report on Gaza as distorted. Earlier, Rabbi Joffie had criticized J Street for not joining most Jews in the U.S. and in Israel in supporting the Gaza military. The audience loudly booed him.
Some attendees proposed conditioning U.S. aid to Israel on new concessions, but did not propose the same for the Palestinian Authority, “despite its not having fulfilled its obligations to end terrorism and incitement to hatred and murder.”
The Jewish Telegraphic Agency reported, “References to the creation of a Palestinian state frequently garnered loud applause at sessions, though talk of a Jewish homeland received little crowd reaction.”
Rep. Bob Filner (D-CA) said he was proud to have refused to vote for a Congressional resolution “to condemn a hateful 1994 anti-Semitic speech by an official of Louis Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam, Khalid Abdul Muhammad.
ZOA National President Morton A. Klein said, “Have matters really come to this pass where a mainly Jewish group is opposed to condemning anti-Semitism? No less absurd and perturbing is the reason given for opposing condemning an anti-Semitic speech – that one must protect the right to free speech. Since when has the right to free speech meant that one may not express one’s own view – if it is one’s own view – that the speech…” merits condemnation?
Can J Street still pretend to be a pro-Israel organization? Does it? (10/29 press release from ZOA, headquartered in New York City, and of which I am a member.)
As J Street tears off its pro-Israel mask, will it be able to complete with AIPAC?
BOSTON GLOBE EDITORIAL:
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2009/11/01/irans_watchdogs_still_need_help/
J Street holds anti-Zionist conference
Street removed “pro-Israel” from its student affiliates’ slogan, let it embarrass them. The conference was notably anti-Zionist.
“Indeed, some J Street Conference attendees openly said they had problems describing themselves as Zionists.”
An invited panelist, Hillary Mann Leverett, denounced criticism over Iran’s nuclear negotiating tactics [of delay, changed mind, non-commitment or raising demands after an agreement, arranging to boost weapon-making capability] as “fundamentally racist,” because it is “reinforcing stereotypes of Iranian duplicity.”
“Also addressing the Conference was Salam Al-Marayati, the executive director of the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), despite the fact that he has called for Israel’s destruction and blamed Israelis for 9/11. Leaders of MPAC have also praised both Hamas and Hizballah.”
Union for Reform Judaism’s Rabbi Eric Yoffie, himself a prominent leftist, criticized the Goldstone U.N. report on Gaza as distorted. Earlier, Rabbi Joffie had criticized J Street for not joining most Jews in the U.S. and in Israel in supporting the Gaza military. The audience loudly booed him.
Some attendees proposed conditioning U.S. aid to Israel on new concessions, but did not propose the same for the Palestinian Authority, “despite its not having fulfilled its obligations to end terrorism and incitement to hatred and murder.”
The Jewish Telegraphic Agency reported, “References to the creation of a Palestinian state frequently garnered loud applause at sessions, though talk of a Jewish homeland received little crowd reaction.”
Rep. Bob Filner (D-CA) said he was proud to have refused to vote for a Congressional resolution “to condemn a hateful 1994 anti-Semitic speech by an official of Louis Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam, Khalid Abdul Muhammad.
ZOA National President Morton A. Klein said, “Have matters really come to this pass where a mainly Jewish group is opposed to condemning anti-Semitism? No less absurd and perturbing is the reason given for opposing condemning an anti-Semitic speech – that one must protect the right to free speech. Since when has the right to free speech meant that one may not express one’s own view – if it is one’s own view – that the speech…” merits condemnation?
Can J Street still pretend to be a pro-Israel organization? Does it? (10/29 press release from ZOA, headquartered in New York City, and of which I am a member.)
As J Street tears off its pro-Israel mask, will it be able to complete with AIPAC?
BOSTON GLOBE EDITORIAL:
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2009/11/01/irans_watchdogs_still_need_help/
Read this about J street and cry
1)The ZOA has the same opinion that Caroline Glick has.
http://blogs.jta.org/politics/article/2009/09/18/1007990/zoa-shock-and-dismay-that-j-street-apn-oppose-iran-sanctions
The Zionist Organization of America is expressing "shock and dismay" that J Street, Americans for Peace Now and Brit Tzedek v'Shalom have "taken a position to the left of leading Israeli leftists" on Iran by opposing further sanctions at this time.
2)http://www.jewishreview.org/opinion/Opposing-sanctions-on-Iran-shortsighted
J Street, a year-old left-wing Jewish lobbying group that describes itself as "pro-Israel and pro-peace," views sanctions-such as the bipartisan Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act recently introduced in Congress-as counterproductive. In an April e-mail sent to its supporters, J Street declared: "On Iran, the president is promoting tough, direct diplomacy.but the chances of [his] success won't be helped by Congress imposing tight timelines or a new round of sanctions."
J Street puts forward three arguments for its position: sanctions haven't worked; sanctions will undercut President Obama's diplomatic overtures to Iran; sanctions should be imposed only as a last resort if diplomacy fails.
J Street does claim to support additional multilateral sanctions if at some point diplomacy fails to lead to moderation on the part of the mullahs. What that point might be is anyone's guess. Indeed, J Street's unwillingness to advocate for a specific timeline for diplomacy to yield positive results is troubling, especially in light of the International Atomic Energy Agency report in February revealing that Iran may have enough enriched uranium to make a bomb.
Not that J Street's hedging should surprise us. Notably, J Street also claims to support Israel's right to defend its citizens from terrorism. Yet, less than a day after Israel launched Operation Cast Lead inside Gaza in late December, J Street issued a statement calling for an immediate ceasefire and brashly asserting that "only diplomacy and negotiations can end the rockets and terror."
http://www.jewishreview.org/opinion/Opposing-sanctions-on-Iran-shortsighted
Read the JSt statement on sanctions.
http://www.jstreet.org/blog/?p=638
The imposition of unilateral sanctions, without UN approval or the support of allies, should be, as the Chairman himself says, a last resort.
As we have said before, J Street does not oppose the imposition of sanctions per se. We prefer, as do Chairman Berman and President Obama, attempting to achieve the desired result through diplomatic engagement and multilateral action.
More important is that J St wants a freeze on all jewish settlements. If you agree, then support J St. If you want Israel to stop all building in Judea, Samaria, and Jerusalem, then, by all means, support J St.
http://jstreet.org/campaigns/a-freeze-means-freeze
As Caroline Glick points out in her important article:
J Street asserts that Israel must freeze all Jewish construction beyond the 1949 armistice lines; that Israel should withdraw to the 1949 armistice lines, including in Jerusalem and expel all Jews now living beyond the 1949 armistice lines; that the absence of peace is due to the absence of a Palestinian state; that Israel used excessive force in Operation Cast Lead and the Goldstone Report is legitimate. J Street also opposes both sanctions on Iran and military strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities.
If you believe all of this, then by all means, support JSt.
http://blogs.jta.org/politics/article/2009/09/18/1007990/zoa-shock-and-dismay-that-j-street-apn-oppose-iran-sanctions
The Zionist Organization of America is expressing "shock and dismay" that J Street, Americans for Peace Now and Brit Tzedek v'Shalom have "taken a position to the left of leading Israeli leftists" on Iran by opposing further sanctions at this time.
2)http://www.jewishreview.org/opinion/Opposing-sanctions-on-Iran-shortsighted
J Street, a year-old left-wing Jewish lobbying group that describes itself as "pro-Israel and pro-peace," views sanctions-such as the bipartisan Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act recently introduced in Congress-as counterproductive. In an April e-mail sent to its supporters, J Street declared: "On Iran, the president is promoting tough, direct diplomacy.but the chances of [his] success won't be helped by Congress imposing tight timelines or a new round of sanctions."
J Street puts forward three arguments for its position: sanctions haven't worked; sanctions will undercut President Obama's diplomatic overtures to Iran; sanctions should be imposed only as a last resort if diplomacy fails.
J Street does claim to support additional multilateral sanctions if at some point diplomacy fails to lead to moderation on the part of the mullahs. What that point might be is anyone's guess. Indeed, J Street's unwillingness to advocate for a specific timeline for diplomacy to yield positive results is troubling, especially in light of the International Atomic Energy Agency report in February revealing that Iran may have enough enriched uranium to make a bomb.
Not that J Street's hedging should surprise us. Notably, J Street also claims to support Israel's right to defend its citizens from terrorism. Yet, less than a day after Israel launched Operation Cast Lead inside Gaza in late December, J Street issued a statement calling for an immediate ceasefire and brashly asserting that "only diplomacy and negotiations can end the rockets and terror."
http://www.jewishreview.org/opinion/Opposing-sanctions-on-Iran-shortsighted
Read the JSt statement on sanctions.
http://www.jstreet.org/blog/?p=638
The imposition of unilateral sanctions, without UN approval or the support of allies, should be, as the Chairman himself says, a last resort.
As we have said before, J Street does not oppose the imposition of sanctions per se. We prefer, as do Chairman Berman and President Obama, attempting to achieve the desired result through diplomatic engagement and multilateral action.
More important is that J St wants a freeze on all jewish settlements. If you agree, then support J St. If you want Israel to stop all building in Judea, Samaria, and Jerusalem, then, by all means, support J St.
http://jstreet.org/campaigns/a-freeze-means-freeze
As Caroline Glick points out in her important article:
J Street asserts that Israel must freeze all Jewish construction beyond the 1949 armistice lines; that Israel should withdraw to the 1949 armistice lines, including in Jerusalem and expel all Jews now living beyond the 1949 armistice lines; that the absence of peace is due to the absence of a Palestinian state; that Israel used excessive force in Operation Cast Lead and the Goldstone Report is legitimate. J Street also opposes both sanctions on Iran and military strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities.
If you believe all of this, then by all means, support JSt.
J Strret opposed action on goldstone
J Street, Peace Now want changes to resolution slamming Goldstone report
November 1, 2009
WASHINGTON (JTA) -- Several Jewish groups are backing a bipartisan congressional resolution condemning the Goldstone report, but J Street and Americans for Peace Now say they cannot support the measure as written.
AIPAC, the American Jewish Committee, American Jewish Congress, the Orthodox Union and the Zionist Organization of America are among the pro-Israel organizations that are supporting the legislation, which is co-sponsored by the chairman of the U.S. House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee, Rep. Howard Berman (D-Calif.), and a ranking member, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.).
The resolution calls the report on the Gaza war "irredeemably biased" and urges the Obama administration to oppose any endorsement or further consideration of the report in multilateral forums. The Goldstone report charged that both Israel and Hamas were guilty of war crimes during Israel's Operation Cast Lead last winter.
"Congress is sending a strong message that the United States will not stand for turning the victim into the perpetrator," said AIPAC spokesman Josh Block.
J Street said it was not urging Congress to oppose the resolution, but said it would instead support an amended version calling on the United States to "oppose and work actively to defeat one-sided and biased action" in the United Nations regarding the Goldstone report.
Among other things, J Street wants the resolution to include a call for both the Palestinians and Israelis to launch independent investigations into their conduct during the Gaza conflict. J Street also rejects the idea of opposing any further consideration of the report by the United Nations, saying the United States should oppose any U.N. resolution that "unfairly focuses" on Israel or refers charges against Israel to the International Criminal Court.
Americans for Peace Now also called on Israel to launch its own independent investigation of alleged human rights violation during the Gaza military operation and said it had "serious reservations" about the congressional resolution. It did not propose changes but, like J Street, also said it was not opposing the bill.
"We do not believe that Israel or the cause of peace is aided by a Congressional effort that, however well-intentioned, is focused solely on denouncing the Goldstone Report and its authors and dismissing its findings," Americans for Peace Now said in a statement.
November 1, 2009
WASHINGTON (JTA) -- Several Jewish groups are backing a bipartisan congressional resolution condemning the Goldstone report, but J Street and Americans for Peace Now say they cannot support the measure as written.
AIPAC, the American Jewish Committee, American Jewish Congress, the Orthodox Union and the Zionist Organization of America are among the pro-Israel organizations that are supporting the legislation, which is co-sponsored by the chairman of the U.S. House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee, Rep. Howard Berman (D-Calif.), and a ranking member, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.).
The resolution calls the report on the Gaza war "irredeemably biased" and urges the Obama administration to oppose any endorsement or further consideration of the report in multilateral forums. The Goldstone report charged that both Israel and Hamas were guilty of war crimes during Israel's Operation Cast Lead last winter.
"Congress is sending a strong message that the United States will not stand for turning the victim into the perpetrator," said AIPAC spokesman Josh Block.
J Street said it was not urging Congress to oppose the resolution, but said it would instead support an amended version calling on the United States to "oppose and work actively to defeat one-sided and biased action" in the United Nations regarding the Goldstone report.
Among other things, J Street wants the resolution to include a call for both the Palestinians and Israelis to launch independent investigations into their conduct during the Gaza conflict. J Street also rejects the idea of opposing any further consideration of the report by the United Nations, saying the United States should oppose any U.N. resolution that "unfairly focuses" on Israel or refers charges against Israel to the International Criminal Court.
Americans for Peace Now also called on Israel to launch its own independent investigation of alleged human rights violation during the Gaza military operation and said it had "serious reservations" about the congressional resolution. It did not propose changes but, like J Street, also said it was not opposing the bill.
"We do not believe that Israel or the cause of peace is aided by a Congressional effort that, however well-intentioned, is focused solely on denouncing the Goldstone Report and its authors and dismissing its findings," Americans for Peace Now said in a statement.
J Street anti_Israel
'Pro-Israel,' my foot! J Street is an anti-Israel lobby
By HARVEY SCHWARTZ
Print Subscribe
E-mail Toolbar
+ Recommend:
What's this?
Talkbacks for this article: 88
Recently, this newspaper took a rather benign approach to J Street, recognizing its right to criticize Israel and its policies, and suggesting that Ambassador to the US Michael Oren should have consented to appear at J Street's current conference in Washington to "challenge the organization," rather than reject its invitation ("Miles from Main Street," editorial, October 23).
The homepage of J Street at www.jstreet.org
Photo: Screenshot
As chairman of the American Israeli Action Coalition (AIAC), an organization that seeks to represent the 250,000 Americans living in Israel, I know many who have firsthand knowledge of J Street and understand the havoc it intends to visit upon Israel. We most respectfully disagree.
Israel is a dynamic, democratic country with a well-established history of feisty internal political discourse and sharp internal criticism of its various governments and policies. Were J Street an Israeli organization which engaged in such battles within Israel, The Jerusalem Post's recognition of its right to do so would be eminently correct.
But that is not what J Street is or does. It is an American organization whose purpose is to vociferously criticize Israel and its policies (as well as lobby for the adoption of policies which are contrary to its best interests) before the US government. The American-Israeli community, having lived in the US, is keenly aware of the serious danger of such activities.
Most American-Israelis I have spoken to recognize J Street for what it really is - a radical, far left organization funded and supported by radical forces. A true wolf in sheep's clothing. Indeed, J Street's executive director, Jeremy Ben-Ami, just confirmed that truth by declaring at the J Street conference, "[w]e are here to redefine and expand the very concept of being pro-Israel." Israel's greatest enemies could not have articulated it any better.
J Street calls itself a "Washington-based Israel lobby group." However, it has not disclosed its client. Is it the State of Israel, which to date has - correctly - not identified itself with J Street? Hardly. Is it the Americans living in Israel? Ridiculous. Is it the knowledgeable American Jews who are vitally interested in the security and growth of Israel? Certainly not.
IN AN interview in this newspaper a number of months ago, Ben-Ami made numerous highly questionable assertions. For example, he stated:
1. That a State of Israel "accepted both internationally and in the [Middle East]" does not yet exist.
2. "The single most important thing that can be done to guarantee Israel's long-term survival" is to grant the Palestinian demands.
3. The Arab rejection of the 1947-48 partition plan and prime minister Ehud Barak's overly magnanimous offer in 2002 to Yasser Arafat of 97 percent of Judea and Samaria - each of which would have given the Palestinians the land they now claim to covet - are merely old history which is not relevant to solving today's "problems."
4. Although the Palestinian leadership is "corrupt" and has "squandered" the billions of dollars, euros and shekels in aid that has been poured into it, the PA is "not a democracy" and "the West Bank and Gaza are, in effect, like two warring states," Israel should nevertheless grant all of the Palestinian demands (while getting nothing in return).
5. J Street is foursquare against Israel taking any military action against Iran's nuclear threat - "even if it were effective" - on the ground that to do so would "give Iran [an] incentive to restart the program."
This sounds like Orwell-speak. Iran's nuclear activities pose a serious existential threat to Israel and much serious and realistic thought must be put into finding the correct Israeli response. Many in our community recognize that J Street's flippant response to Israel's most critical current issue belies its claim of true friendship with Israel.
Recently, J Street announced that it (along with its fellow travelers Americans for Peace Now, the Israel Policy Forum and Brit Tzedek v'Shalom, which J Street has just announced that it will mysteriously "absorb") calls on Israel to transfer Judea and Samaria to a PA which included Hamas, even if all of the PA government's members refused to recognize Israel or even renounce terrorism.
We cannot imagine any friend of the US suggesting that it agree to negotiate with al-Qaida. Similarly, they cannot imagine how J Street can have the chutzpah to claim that it is "pro-Israel" by advocating that Israel surrender to terrorists.
IF J STREET were truly pro-Israel, it would, at the very least:
1. Support the positions and policies of the duly-elected Israeli government, rather than work to undermine them;
2. Consult closely with Americans living in Israel;
3. Call for the international recognition of an undivided Jerusalem as Israel's eternal capital;
4. Call on the international community to more directly and forcefully confront Iran and its nuclear threat;
5. Call for all Arab nations to recognize the State of Israel as a Jewish state without preconditions;
6. Call for the adoption of democracy by all of the countries within the Arab world;
7. Call on the Arab world to itself solve the "Palestinian problem";
8. Call on the international community to condemn all terrorist organizations and activities, and undertake to do everything within its power to eliminate the scourge of terrorism;
9. Call on the international community to specifically designate Hizbullah and Hamas as outlaw terrorist groups;
10. Call on the international community to take the strongest possible action against the rising tide of anti-Semitism in the world.
Unfortunately, J Street has failed to do any of the above.
Indeed, the organization's leadership has never clearly explained why it felt the need to form as a separate and distinct American organization to further Israel's goal, rather than simply join one of the many existing pro-Israel American organizations. This is proof that J Street does not actually have Israel's interests at heart.
At its Washington conference, J Street had no moderate speakers. The Israelis whom it recruited to appear are part of the shameful lot of old leftists and self-promoters. On the other hand, many in the American-Israeli community are heartened by the numerous US elected political figures who, upon becoming apprised of J Street's true purposes, withdrew their support for the conference and refused to attend, notwithstanding the threat of the loss of J Street's financial support. Finally, AIAC congratulates the Israeli government for recognizing J Street's dangerous and nefarious goals and deciding not to lend its support to it.
The homepage of J Street at www.jstreet.org
Photo: Screenshot
The writer is chairman of the American Israeli Action Coalition
By HARVEY SCHWARTZ
Print Subscribe
E-mail Toolbar
+ Recommend:
What's this?
Talkbacks for this article: 88
Recently, this newspaper took a rather benign approach to J Street, recognizing its right to criticize Israel and its policies, and suggesting that Ambassador to the US Michael Oren should have consented to appear at J Street's current conference in Washington to "challenge the organization," rather than reject its invitation ("Miles from Main Street," editorial, October 23).
The homepage of J Street at www.jstreet.org
Photo: Screenshot
As chairman of the American Israeli Action Coalition (AIAC), an organization that seeks to represent the 250,000 Americans living in Israel, I know many who have firsthand knowledge of J Street and understand the havoc it intends to visit upon Israel. We most respectfully disagree.
Israel is a dynamic, democratic country with a well-established history of feisty internal political discourse and sharp internal criticism of its various governments and policies. Were J Street an Israeli organization which engaged in such battles within Israel, The Jerusalem Post's recognition of its right to do so would be eminently correct.
But that is not what J Street is or does. It is an American organization whose purpose is to vociferously criticize Israel and its policies (as well as lobby for the adoption of policies which are contrary to its best interests) before the US government. The American-Israeli community, having lived in the US, is keenly aware of the serious danger of such activities.
Most American-Israelis I have spoken to recognize J Street for what it really is - a radical, far left organization funded and supported by radical forces. A true wolf in sheep's clothing. Indeed, J Street's executive director, Jeremy Ben-Ami, just confirmed that truth by declaring at the J Street conference, "[w]e are here to redefine and expand the very concept of being pro-Israel." Israel's greatest enemies could not have articulated it any better.
J Street calls itself a "Washington-based Israel lobby group." However, it has not disclosed its client. Is it the State of Israel, which to date has - correctly - not identified itself with J Street? Hardly. Is it the Americans living in Israel? Ridiculous. Is it the knowledgeable American Jews who are vitally interested in the security and growth of Israel? Certainly not.
IN AN interview in this newspaper a number of months ago, Ben-Ami made numerous highly questionable assertions. For example, he stated:
1. That a State of Israel "accepted both internationally and in the [Middle East]" does not yet exist.
2. "The single most important thing that can be done to guarantee Israel's long-term survival" is to grant the Palestinian demands.
3. The Arab rejection of the 1947-48 partition plan and prime minister Ehud Barak's overly magnanimous offer in 2002 to Yasser Arafat of 97 percent of Judea and Samaria - each of which would have given the Palestinians the land they now claim to covet - are merely old history which is not relevant to solving today's "problems."
4. Although the Palestinian leadership is "corrupt" and has "squandered" the billions of dollars, euros and shekels in aid that has been poured into it, the PA is "not a democracy" and "the West Bank and Gaza are, in effect, like two warring states," Israel should nevertheless grant all of the Palestinian demands (while getting nothing in return).
5. J Street is foursquare against Israel taking any military action against Iran's nuclear threat - "even if it were effective" - on the ground that to do so would "give Iran [an] incentive to restart the program."
This sounds like Orwell-speak. Iran's nuclear activities pose a serious existential threat to Israel and much serious and realistic thought must be put into finding the correct Israeli response. Many in our community recognize that J Street's flippant response to Israel's most critical current issue belies its claim of true friendship with Israel.
Recently, J Street announced that it (along with its fellow travelers Americans for Peace Now, the Israel Policy Forum and Brit Tzedek v'Shalom, which J Street has just announced that it will mysteriously "absorb") calls on Israel to transfer Judea and Samaria to a PA which included Hamas, even if all of the PA government's members refused to recognize Israel or even renounce terrorism.
We cannot imagine any friend of the US suggesting that it agree to negotiate with al-Qaida. Similarly, they cannot imagine how J Street can have the chutzpah to claim that it is "pro-Israel" by advocating that Israel surrender to terrorists.
IF J STREET were truly pro-Israel, it would, at the very least:
1. Support the positions and policies of the duly-elected Israeli government, rather than work to undermine them;
2. Consult closely with Americans living in Israel;
3. Call for the international recognition of an undivided Jerusalem as Israel's eternal capital;
4. Call on the international community to more directly and forcefully confront Iran and its nuclear threat;
5. Call for all Arab nations to recognize the State of Israel as a Jewish state without preconditions;
6. Call for the adoption of democracy by all of the countries within the Arab world;
7. Call on the Arab world to itself solve the "Palestinian problem";
8. Call on the international community to condemn all terrorist organizations and activities, and undertake to do everything within its power to eliminate the scourge of terrorism;
9. Call on the international community to specifically designate Hizbullah and Hamas as outlaw terrorist groups;
10. Call on the international community to take the strongest possible action against the rising tide of anti-Semitism in the world.
Unfortunately, J Street has failed to do any of the above.
Indeed, the organization's leadership has never clearly explained why it felt the need to form as a separate and distinct American organization to further Israel's goal, rather than simply join one of the many existing pro-Israel American organizations. This is proof that J Street does not actually have Israel's interests at heart.
At its Washington conference, J Street had no moderate speakers. The Israelis whom it recruited to appear are part of the shameful lot of old leftists and self-promoters. On the other hand, many in the American-Israeli community are heartened by the numerous US elected political figures who, upon becoming apprised of J Street's true purposes, withdrew their support for the conference and refused to attend, notwithstanding the threat of the loss of J Street's financial support. Finally, AIAC congratulates the Israeli government for recognizing J Street's dangerous and nefarious goals and deciding not to lend its support to it.
The homepage of J Street at www.jstreet.org
Photo: Screenshot
The writer is chairman of the American Israeli Action Coalition
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
