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. It's nothing less than an attempt to revive the old canard that Israel stands athwart U.S. interests in the Middle East and beyond. “As Americans, we worry about the impact of Israeli policies on vital U.S. interests in the Middle East and around the world”
2. 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.
3. 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. 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.
5. 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.
6. J Street's agenda thus 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.
7. How far left is J Street? President Obama has no trouble describing Israel as Jewish state. J Street does.
8. 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
9. 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. 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.
10. 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.
11. One member of the J Street Philly Host Committee “compared Israel's treatment of Gaza with the genocide in Sudan.
12. "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.”
13. Ruined Israel Arab negotiations :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.
14, Raising money for Congrespeople 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.
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. Wrong on ceasefires -J Street asserts that ceasefires are “positive first steps in the long road to a lasting two-state solution.” The organization deliberately overlooks that three ceasefires between Hamas and Israel have all contributed to the strengthening of the Islamic government regime in Gaza, since Hamas came to power in 2006.
17. Distort the Middle East reality to fit their left-wing agenda.
18. 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
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Friday, January 22, 2010
Obama still believes it is all israel's fault
By Noam Shelef on January 21, 2010 10:53 AM | No Comments
In an interview published today by Time Magazine, President Barack Obama spoke about some of the obstacles he's faced in his efforts to pursue peace for Israel:
I'll be honest with you. A: This is just really hard. Even for a guy like George Mitchell who helped bring about the peace in Northern Ireland. This is as intractable a problem as you get. B: Both sides--I think the Israelis and Palestinians--have found that the political environment, the nature of their coalitions, or the divisions within their societies were such that it was very hard for them to start engaging in a meaningful conversation. And I think that we overestimated our ability to persuade them to do so when their politics ran contrary to that. From Abbas' perspective, he's got Hamas looking over his shoulder and I think an environment generally within the Arab world that feels impatient with any process.
And on the Israeli front, although the Israelis I think after a lot of time showed a willingness to make some modifications in their policies, still found it very hard to move with any bold gestures. And so what we're going to have to do--I think it is absolutely true that what we did this year didn't produce the kind of breakthrough that we wanted and if we had anticipated some of these political problems on both sides earlier, we might not have raised expectations as high. Moving forward, though, we are going to continue to work with both parties to recognize what I think is ultimately their deep-seated interest in a two-state solution in which Israel is secure and Palestinians have sovereignty and can start focusing on developing their economy and improving the lives of their children and grandchildren.
(Note: not one demand has been placed on the Palestinians; Netanyahu has frozen settlements; accepted a two-state solution; is removing one security measure after another in the West Bank; is facilitating the rapid growth of the economy in the West bank and helping build Palestinian institutions there).
In an interview published today by Time Magazine, President Barack Obama spoke about some of the obstacles he's faced in his efforts to pursue peace for Israel:
I'll be honest with you. A: This is just really hard. Even for a guy like George Mitchell who helped bring about the peace in Northern Ireland. This is as intractable a problem as you get. B: Both sides--I think the Israelis and Palestinians--have found that the political environment, the nature of their coalitions, or the divisions within their societies were such that it was very hard for them to start engaging in a meaningful conversation. And I think that we overestimated our ability to persuade them to do so when their politics ran contrary to that. From Abbas' perspective, he's got Hamas looking over his shoulder and I think an environment generally within the Arab world that feels impatient with any process.
And on the Israeli front, although the Israelis I think after a lot of time showed a willingness to make some modifications in their policies, still found it very hard to move with any bold gestures. And so what we're going to have to do--I think it is absolutely true that what we did this year didn't produce the kind of breakthrough that we wanted and if we had anticipated some of these political problems on both sides earlier, we might not have raised expectations as high. Moving forward, though, we are going to continue to work with both parties to recognize what I think is ultimately their deep-seated interest in a two-state solution in which Israel is secure and Palestinians have sovereignty and can start focusing on developing their economy and improving the lives of their children and grandchildren.
(Note: not one demand has been placed on the Palestinians; Netanyahu has frozen settlements; accepted a two-state solution; is removing one security measure after another in the West Bank; is facilitating the rapid growth of the economy in the West bank and helping build Palestinian institutions there).
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Why have Muslim nations given 0 vs Israel's amazing response
a 'teabagger' »
Email Friend | Print Article | 30 Comments | Share
January 18, 2010
Israel's Disproportionate Response
Peggy Shapiro
In the midst of the tragedy and chaos in the Haitian capital, Israeli doctors, part of IsraAID -F.I.R.S.T. (the Israel Forum for International Aid), delivered a healthy baby boy in an IDF field hospital. When the baby's grateful mother, Gubilande Jean Michel saw her newborn son, alive and well, she named him Israel in gratitude to the people and nation who brought her this blessing.
Little Israel is one of the hundreds who have been saved by Israeli doctors or rescue teams. A search and rescue team from the ZAKA Israel's International Rescue Unit pulled eight Haitian college students from a collapsed eight-story university building. Despite its small size, Israel sent a large contingent of highly-trained aid workers to quake-stricken Haiti. Two jumbo jets carrying more than 220 doctors, nurses, civil engineers, and other Israeli army personnel, including a rescue team and field hospital, were among the first rescue teams to arrive in Haiti. In fact, they were the first foreign backup team to set up medical treatment at the partially collapsed main hospital in Port-au-Prince. Yigal Palmor, Israel's Foreign Ministry spokesman said, "It's a large delegation and we're prepared to send more."
The international agencies that condemn Israel for its "disproportionate response" when it is attacked are not mentioning Israel's disproportionate response to human suffering. The U.S. has pledged 100 million and sent supplies and personnel. The U.K. pledged $10 million and sent 64 firemen and 8 volunteers.China, a country with a population of 1,325,639,982 compared to Israel's 7.5 million sent 50 rescuers and seven journalists. The 25 Arab League nations sent nothing.
Israel's "disproportionate" response stems from Jewish memory and tradition. Mati Goldstein, head of the ZAKA International Rescue Unit delegation managed described the scene, "Everywhere, the acrid smell of bodies hangs in the air. It's just like the stories we are told of the Holocaust - thousands of bodies everywhere. You have to understand that the situation is true madness, and the more time passes, there are more and more bodies, in numbers that cannot be grasped. It is beyond comprehension." At the start of Sunday's regular Cabinet meeting, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced that the Israeli team had already treated hundreds of patients. "I think that this is in the best tradition of the Jewish People; this is the true covenant of the State of Israel and the Jewish People," he said. "This follows operations we have carried out in Kenya and Turkey; despite being a small country, we have responded with a big heart. The fact is, I know, that this was an expression of our Jewish heritage and the Jewish ethic of helping one's fellow. "
In the rubble and suffering of Haiti, Israelis are relentlessly searching for and saving lives. It is this "disproportionate response" that rankles their enemies the most, for it shines a light on their failings.
Email Friend | Print Article | 30 Comments | Share
January 18, 2010
Israel's Disproportionate Response
Peggy Shapiro
In the midst of the tragedy and chaos in the Haitian capital, Israeli doctors, part of IsraAID -F.I.R.S.T. (the Israel Forum for International Aid), delivered a healthy baby boy in an IDF field hospital. When the baby's grateful mother, Gubilande Jean Michel saw her newborn son, alive and well, she named him Israel in gratitude to the people and nation who brought her this blessing.
Little Israel is one of the hundreds who have been saved by Israeli doctors or rescue teams. A search and rescue team from the ZAKA Israel's International Rescue Unit pulled eight Haitian college students from a collapsed eight-story university building. Despite its small size, Israel sent a large contingent of highly-trained aid workers to quake-stricken Haiti. Two jumbo jets carrying more than 220 doctors, nurses, civil engineers, and other Israeli army personnel, including a rescue team and field hospital, were among the first rescue teams to arrive in Haiti. In fact, they were the first foreign backup team to set up medical treatment at the partially collapsed main hospital in Port-au-Prince. Yigal Palmor, Israel's Foreign Ministry spokesman said, "It's a large delegation and we're prepared to send more."
The international agencies that condemn Israel for its "disproportionate response" when it is attacked are not mentioning Israel's disproportionate response to human suffering. The U.S. has pledged 100 million and sent supplies and personnel. The U.K. pledged $10 million and sent 64 firemen and 8 volunteers.China, a country with a population of 1,325,639,982 compared to Israel's 7.5 million sent 50 rescuers and seven journalists. The 25 Arab League nations sent nothing.
Israel's "disproportionate" response stems from Jewish memory and tradition. Mati Goldstein, head of the ZAKA International Rescue Unit delegation managed described the scene, "Everywhere, the acrid smell of bodies hangs in the air. It's just like the stories we are told of the Holocaust - thousands of bodies everywhere. You have to understand that the situation is true madness, and the more time passes, there are more and more bodies, in numbers that cannot be grasped. It is beyond comprehension." At the start of Sunday's regular Cabinet meeting, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced that the Israeli team had already treated hundreds of patients. "I think that this is in the best tradition of the Jewish People; this is the true covenant of the State of Israel and the Jewish People," he said. "This follows operations we have carried out in Kenya and Turkey; despite being a small country, we have responded with a big heart. The fact is, I know, that this was an expression of our Jewish heritage and the Jewish ethic of helping one's fellow. "
In the rubble and suffering of Haiti, Israelis are relentlessly searching for and saving lives. It is this "disproportionate response" that rankles their enemies the most, for it shines a light on their failings.
Sunday, January 17, 2010
Israel in haiti
updates of IDF Medical and Rescue Team in Haiti: @IDFinHaiti
The Israel Project offers its condolences to the victims of the earthquake in Haiti.
Israeli and Jewish groups continue their efforts to provide relief to the people of Haiti.[1]
On Jan. 15, the Israel Defense Forces’ emergency aid team arrived in Haiti, consisting of a medical mission and search and rescue teams.[2] The team has established a major field hospital adjacent to Port-au-Prince’s soccer stadium, which is reported to be one of the largest medical facilities currently operating in Haiti with the capacity to treat up to 500 patients per day.[3] The field hospital is equipped with:
•Operating rooms
•An intensive care ward
•A maternity ward
•Pediatrics ward
•Incubator units
•Pharmacy
•X-ray equipment
•10 tons of medical equipment
•90 beds, 66 intensive care beds and two delivery beds
•Approximately 250 personnel, including 40 doctors and specialists, 20 nurses and several paramedics.[4]
The IDF search and rescue teams include about 30 operators and dozens of operations personnel including logistics IT, communications and canine units.[5]
The IDF rescued a 52-year old man from the ruins of a government office building Jan 17 after he communicated his location by SMS.[6] The Israeli team worked for six hours before finally freeing him.[7]
On Sunday, (Jan. 17), a baby boy was delivered inside the Israeli field hospital. The mother of the child said she would call him Israel. [7]
Israeli emergency response service (ZAKA) volunteers on the ground in Haiti rescued eight students from the rubble of a flattened university building in Port au-Prince, Haiti, on Saturday (Jan. 16).[8] Deploying a six-man team, ZAKA worked for 38 hours with a Mexican military team to rescue the students.[9]
The team is comprised of observant Jews who continued with their life-saving activities over the Jewish Sabbath because Jewish law instructs that Sabbath can be broken to save a life. “With all the hell going on outside, even when things get bad, Judaism says we must take a deep breath and go on to save more people" said Commander of the ZAKA mission to Haiti Mati Goldstein in an interview with Israeli news outlet YnetNews.[10]
The Israel Project offers its condolences to the victims of the earthquake in Haiti.
Israeli and Jewish groups continue their efforts to provide relief to the people of Haiti.[1]
On Jan. 15, the Israel Defense Forces’ emergency aid team arrived in Haiti, consisting of a medical mission and search and rescue teams.[2] The team has established a major field hospital adjacent to Port-au-Prince’s soccer stadium, which is reported to be one of the largest medical facilities currently operating in Haiti with the capacity to treat up to 500 patients per day.[3] The field hospital is equipped with:
•Operating rooms
•An intensive care ward
•A maternity ward
•Pediatrics ward
•Incubator units
•Pharmacy
•X-ray equipment
•10 tons of medical equipment
•90 beds, 66 intensive care beds and two delivery beds
•Approximately 250 personnel, including 40 doctors and specialists, 20 nurses and several paramedics.[4]
The IDF search and rescue teams include about 30 operators and dozens of operations personnel including logistics IT, communications and canine units.[5]
The IDF rescued a 52-year old man from the ruins of a government office building Jan 17 after he communicated his location by SMS.[6] The Israeli team worked for six hours before finally freeing him.[7]
On Sunday, (Jan. 17), a baby boy was delivered inside the Israeli field hospital. The mother of the child said she would call him Israel. [7]
Israeli emergency response service (ZAKA) volunteers on the ground in Haiti rescued eight students from the rubble of a flattened university building in Port au-Prince, Haiti, on Saturday (Jan. 16).[8] Deploying a six-man team, ZAKA worked for 38 hours with a Mexican military team to rescue the students.[9]
The team is comprised of observant Jews who continued with their life-saving activities over the Jewish Sabbath because Jewish law instructs that Sabbath can be broken to save a life. “With all the hell going on outside, even when things get bad, Judaism says we must take a deep breath and go on to save more people" said Commander of the ZAKA mission to Haiti Mati Goldstein in an interview with Israeli news outlet YnetNews.[10]
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.”
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.”
Adminstartion uses faulty polls to pressure Israel
Here is an excerpt of the Q and A between Charlie Rose and George Mitchell:
q/
Charlie Rose: Why is President Obama's popularity so low in Israel? It's four percent.
George Mitchell: No, that's completely false...Several polls that I've seen in the past month show that he is—I'll give you the numbers, 49 favorable, 45 unfavorable, 43 favorable, 37 unfavorable; it's a reasonable. A plurality support him in Israel and a small plurality oppose him.
http://www.meforum.org/blog/obama-mideast-monitor/2010/01/interesting-george-mitchell-interview
q/
The poll Mitchell relies upon seems to be from the New America Foundation. As far as I have been able to determine, this has been the only one poll regarding the views of Israelis towards the administration that comes anywhere near matching Mitchell’s statements. Previous polls done by Israelis themselves have shown far more problematic views http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1244371037911&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull , including one that show only 6% of Israelis who see the administration as pro-Israel http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1245184872947&pagename=JPArticle/ShowFull and one that shows only 4% of Israelis Jews consider Obama pro-Israel. http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1251145138121&pagename=JPArticle/ShowFull
The New American Foundation is a left wing group, with a connection to Jonathan Soros, son of George Soros. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=New_America_Foundation . Steve Rattner is involved; Bernard Schwartz, Lew Cullman also involved-very generous donors to not just the Democratic Party but also strong supporters of Barack Obama. James Fallows is the Chairman-certainly leans to the left.
Ben Smith, of Politico, wrote this about the poll’s authors:
The surveys authors, who support robust Israeli and American engagement in the peace process, said in an analysis accompanying the poll’s findings that the numbers are encouraging, and that the responses leave Netanyahu room to maneuver toward peace, and Obama sufficient support to demand it.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30442.html#ixzz0cUoBhtkh
This poll was basically done by Jim Gerstein (founding VP of J Street-a group that its founder admitted served to have Barack Obama’s back on matters relating to Israel; that has connections to George Soros- a foe of Israel’s; that has been linked to Hamas supporters; has Arab donors; had a line-up of anti-Israel speakers scheduled for its first Washington conference, etc).
Below is one Commentary magazine writer’s view of the New America Foundation poll. Noah Pollak is the expert on J Street and he has critiqued J Street’s polling methods before http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/pollak/75641.
The moral of the story?
George Mitchell seems to be using a poll that should be viewed skeptically in order to give him leeway to influence Israel to comply with American plans. Domestically, will the administration rely on this quite useful poll to justify its actions to American Jews? That strategy may have been presaged by Mitchell’s views expressed during the Charlie Rose interview.
Is Mitchell relying on a poll concocted by political allies to rationalize predetermined policies regarding Israel?
Agenda Polling
Noah Pollak - 12.10.2009 - 12:25 PM
So J Street’s pollster, Jim Gerstein (who was also a founding VP of J Street), has done a poll of Israelis for the New America Foundation. It is being billed as a repudiation of the famous Jerusalem Post poll conducted in June that found that only 6 percent of Israelis consider the Obama administration to be pro-Israel. The new Gerstein poll is advertised by NAF as proving that “Israelis actually demonstrate a much more supportive and nuanced view of President Obama” than was the case in the previous poll.
I was always skeptical of the original poll. The numbers just seemed too low to be credible, and the poll was conducted right after Netanyahu’s Bar-Ilan speech, when passions were high. But the way to credibly disprove those numbers is to sample a similar group and ask the same questions. Unsurprisingly, that’s not what Gerstein did.
The JPost poll was conducted among Jewish Israelis. Gerstein, however, polled everyone, including Arabs, who comprised 16 percent of his sample (an under-sampling, actually — almost 20 percent of Israelis are Arab). More important, he did not ask the same, or even a similar, question. He asked a question that was sure to make Obama look better than the previous poll: not whether the respondent thought that the Obama administration was pro-Israel, but whether the respondent had warm feelings toward Barack Obama personally.
This is where the poll found a 41 percent “favorable rating” for Obama. But having warm feelings toward a politician is not the same thing as approving of his performance in office. The exact same phenomenon has been documented in numerous polls of Americans, who consistently give Barack Obama higher approval marks than his policies.
It looks to me like the poll itself was conducted responsibly, and it has many interesting findings, including that more than twice the number of Israelis identify with the Right than with the Left. But the PR effort being waged on its behalf, however, is not being conducted all that honestly. There was no effort in the Gerstein poll to replicate, even vaguely, the question that the Jerusalem Post poll asked: Do you believe that the Obama administration is pro-Israel? Instead, Gerstein asked an Oprah Winfrey–style question about whether Barack Obama gives you warm fuzzies, and included the Israeli Arab population in his sample, which the JPost poll did not.
I have little doubt that another poll replicating the JPost’s questions and sample demographic would find that far more than 6 percent of Israeli Jews believe that the Obama administration is pro-Israel. It’s too bad that the New America Foundation didn’t take the opportunity to find out. The full poll can be read here.
q/
Charlie Rose: Why is President Obama's popularity so low in Israel? It's four percent.
George Mitchell: No, that's completely false...Several polls that I've seen in the past month show that he is—I'll give you the numbers, 49 favorable, 45 unfavorable, 43 favorable, 37 unfavorable; it's a reasonable. A plurality support him in Israel and a small plurality oppose him.
http://www.meforum.org/blog/obama-mideast-monitor/2010/01/interesting-george-mitchell-interview
q/
The poll Mitchell relies upon seems to be from the New America Foundation. As far as I have been able to determine, this has been the only one poll regarding the views of Israelis towards the administration that comes anywhere near matching Mitchell’s statements. Previous polls done by Israelis themselves have shown far more problematic views http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1244371037911&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull , including one that show only 6% of Israelis who see the administration as pro-Israel http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1245184872947&pagename=JPArticle/ShowFull and one that shows only 4% of Israelis Jews consider Obama pro-Israel. http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1251145138121&pagename=JPArticle/ShowFull
The New American Foundation is a left wing group, with a connection to Jonathan Soros, son of George Soros. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=New_America_Foundation . Steve Rattner is involved; Bernard Schwartz, Lew Cullman also involved-very generous donors to not just the Democratic Party but also strong supporters of Barack Obama. James Fallows is the Chairman-certainly leans to the left.
Ben Smith, of Politico, wrote this about the poll’s authors:
The surveys authors, who support robust Israeli and American engagement in the peace process, said in an analysis accompanying the poll’s findings that the numbers are encouraging, and that the responses leave Netanyahu room to maneuver toward peace, and Obama sufficient support to demand it.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30442.html#ixzz0cUoBhtkh
This poll was basically done by Jim Gerstein (founding VP of J Street-a group that its founder admitted served to have Barack Obama’s back on matters relating to Israel; that has connections to George Soros- a foe of Israel’s; that has been linked to Hamas supporters; has Arab donors; had a line-up of anti-Israel speakers scheduled for its first Washington conference, etc).
Below is one Commentary magazine writer’s view of the New America Foundation poll. Noah Pollak is the expert on J Street and he has critiqued J Street’s polling methods before http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/pollak/75641.
The moral of the story?
George Mitchell seems to be using a poll that should be viewed skeptically in order to give him leeway to influence Israel to comply with American plans. Domestically, will the administration rely on this quite useful poll to justify its actions to American Jews? That strategy may have been presaged by Mitchell’s views expressed during the Charlie Rose interview.
Is Mitchell relying on a poll concocted by political allies to rationalize predetermined policies regarding Israel?
Agenda Polling
Noah Pollak - 12.10.2009 - 12:25 PM
So J Street’s pollster, Jim Gerstein (who was also a founding VP of J Street), has done a poll of Israelis for the New America Foundation. It is being billed as a repudiation of the famous Jerusalem Post poll conducted in June that found that only 6 percent of Israelis consider the Obama administration to be pro-Israel. The new Gerstein poll is advertised by NAF as proving that “Israelis actually demonstrate a much more supportive and nuanced view of President Obama” than was the case in the previous poll.
I was always skeptical of the original poll. The numbers just seemed too low to be credible, and the poll was conducted right after Netanyahu’s Bar-Ilan speech, when passions were high. But the way to credibly disprove those numbers is to sample a similar group and ask the same questions. Unsurprisingly, that’s not what Gerstein did.
The JPost poll was conducted among Jewish Israelis. Gerstein, however, polled everyone, including Arabs, who comprised 16 percent of his sample (an under-sampling, actually — almost 20 percent of Israelis are Arab). More important, he did not ask the same, or even a similar, question. He asked a question that was sure to make Obama look better than the previous poll: not whether the respondent thought that the Obama administration was pro-Israel, but whether the respondent had warm feelings toward Barack Obama personally.
This is where the poll found a 41 percent “favorable rating” for Obama. But having warm feelings toward a politician is not the same thing as approving of his performance in office. The exact same phenomenon has been documented in numerous polls of Americans, who consistently give Barack Obama higher approval marks than his policies.
It looks to me like the poll itself was conducted responsibly, and it has many interesting findings, including that more than twice the number of Israelis identify with the Right than with the Left. But the PR effort being waged on its behalf, however, is not being conducted all that honestly. There was no effort in the Gerstein poll to replicate, even vaguely, the question that the Jerusalem Post poll asked: Do you believe that the Obama administration is pro-Israel? Instead, Gerstein asked an Oprah Winfrey–style question about whether Barack Obama gives you warm fuzzies, and included the Israeli Arab population in his sample, which the JPost poll did not.
I have little doubt that another poll replicating the JPost’s questions and sample demographic would find that far more than 6 percent of Israeli Jews believe that the Obama administration is pro-Israel. It’s too bad that the New America Foundation didn’t take the opportunity to find out. The full poll can be read here.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Obama =J Street=anti-Israel
from Richard baehr Rick Richman comments on the Obama team's allowing its end of 2009 deadline for Iranian cooperation on its nuclear program to come and go. But the Obama team likes deadlines- now they want a deal on borders between Israel and the Palestinians in 9 months. And all final status issues must be resolved in 2 years. This is both ham-handed and stupid. Tell the Palestinians that the US wants a deal in 9 months, and they will hold up any progress for 9 months. After all, they are getting and Israel is giving in these negotiations. As the deadline appears, the US will put pressure on only one of the two parties for not giving enough, and preventing a breakthrough. George Mitchell has already laid out his hand on what pressure will be applied on Israel if they do not make a sufficient offer- a cut-off of loan guarantees and a cut in aid to Israel. Is it really difficult for American Jews to figure out where this administration stands on the Israeli Palestinian conflict ? This is the least friendly administration towards Israel since the modern state was established in 1948. This Administration has taken sides in the Israel Palestinian conflict since it came to office. Only Honduras has been treated as rudely, and no other nation has come in for as much public rebuke. I am looking for a list of all the times Administration people have made public comments critical of the behavior or statements of the Palestinian Authority. Obama came to office with a view that Israel was at fault, and the resolution of the conflict (Israeli concessions in all areas) was essential to improving US relations with the Muslim world. He is wrong on both counts, but some can not learn, and others refuse to. Among those who refuse to learn are the liberal Jews who profess to being pro-Israel and contributed to and voted for Obama and still stand by him. 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.
http://tinyurl.com/yg52v96
http://tinyurl.com/yg52v96
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
