[S.T.D.]

http://www.jstreetjive.com/2009/10/s...-j-street.html

Among our concerns are the following:

We are concerned because J Street echoes many of the charges in Walt and Mearsheimer's The Israel Lobby, and denigrates mainstream Jewish organizations across the political spectrum.

We are concerned about many of J Street's funders and advisors who have opposed Israel or have ties with Arab governments that have been consistently hostile to Israel. They include one board member who donated $10,000 and is on the National American Iranian Council, widely viewed as the unofficial lobby in America for the current Iranian regime. [1] Others include Zahi Khouri, a wealthy Palestinian businessman, who considers AIPAC and Netanyahu "enemies of peace" [2] Another J Street donor is a board member of Human Rights Watch, an organization that targets Israel [3] for unfair criticism, and was recently exposed because its "military expert" was obsessed with Nazi memorabilia, and because it solicited funds from the Saudi government, enticing them by promising to continue its biased investigations of Israel. J Street advisor Judith Barnett worked for the Egyptian Ministry of Foreign Trade, and became a registered agent for Saudi Arabia. [4]

We are concerned because J Street draws a moral equivalence between Israel and Hamas. During Israel's recent war against Hamas, J Street said it could not identify "who was right or who was wrong," proclaiming that "we recognize that neither Israelis nor Palestinians have a monopoly on right and wrong." [5] We are deeply disturbed that J Street would equate the moral principles of Israel and Hamas, whose founding document calls for the murder of Jews and the destruction of Israel, and includes sections that echo The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

We are most concerned because J Street frequently endorses anti-Israel, anti-Jewish narratives. J Street claimed that Israel's response in the war against Hamas was "disproportionate;" accepted the discredited claims of the UN Goldstone report on Israel's conduct during the Hamas war; [6] launched letter writing campaigns to support a "60 Minutes" show demonizing Israeli settlers; [7] supported the staging of "7 Jewish Children," a play with such strong anti-Semitic messages that the BBC wouldn't air it, [8] and praised Jimmy Carter whose biased views have been so damaging to Israel. [9]

We are concerned because J Street lays equal blame on Israel and the Palestinians for the ongoing conflict, ignoring the long history of Palestinian rejectionism, the extremism of Palestinian organizations like Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and the Fatah-funded Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, and the unfortunate results of Israel's concessions for peace, such as the withdrawal from Gaza in 2005. We are disturbed when we read statements blaming both sides equally for the failure of past peace efforts, such as, "It is J Street's position that the parties themselves have proven incapable of reaching a resolution to the conflict." [10]

We are concerned because J Street frequently opposes the positions of the Israeli government and its electorate, and urges America to oppose center piece Israeli policies that have wide public support in Israel and the U.S. J Street opposed Israel's war against Hamas, supported the U.S. administration's call for a settlement freeze without comparable demands put on the Palestinians, rejects stronger sanctions against Iran, and calls for the U.S. and Israel to negotiate with Hamas. J Street seems to belittle or ignore official Israeli policy and the realities on the ground in the region.

[Beerinkol]

http://www.jstreetjive.com/2009/10/l...e-oil-and.html
From news article:

Does J Street espouse positions that, given all the current evidence, are most likely to lead to a just and lasting peace?

For years Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has repeatedly threatened to wipe Israel off the map, denied the Holocaust as a trick to justify the establishment of Israel, and has predicted the end of Israel and of the United States. President Barack Obama recently revealed that Iran has been lying for years about a secret underground nuclear plant. Iran is closer to its goal of nuclear weapons than officials previously thought. Obviously any entity so publicly and enduringly committed to death, destruction and deception is a major obstacle to global peace. Surely any pro-peace organization would support every possible means of ensuring that this country, nominally headed by a highly volatile dictator (whose strings are pulled by fanatical mullahs waiting for the 12th Imam to come up out of a well on Judgment Day), would be prevented from completing its race towards nuclear weapons.

But even after Obama revealed Iran's secret nuclear plant, J Street's position remains unequivocal: it is "strongly opposed to any consideration at this time" of "further sanctions" against Iran, and it is of course categorically opposed to "the use of military force by Israel or the United States to attack Iran's nuclear infrastructure." As the peace window is closing, J Street opposes swift, decisive action to prevent it from slamming shut.

Now let's look at whether J Street's positions concerning Israel are calculated to ensure a real and lasting peace between Israel and its enemy neighbors.

The raison d'etre of the terrorist group Hamas is the annihilation of Israel (and the Masons and the Rotarians -- who knows why?). The Hamas charter says this in black and white -- there's no costume in use here. Hamas's sole modus operandi is murderous violence and intimidation.

In January, 2009, Israel deployed a military response intended to eliminate the continuation of years of violent attacks by Gazans against Israeli civilians. Surely the cessation of attacks on its people is a necessary part of ensuring a country's existence. J Street claims that "it recognizes the unquestioned right of Israel to take action to answer acts of terror and violence." But it came out strongly against Israel's efforts at self-defense. Better, apparently, so far as J Street was concerned to let the rockets continue to fall, as they have for years, on Israeli towns.

Perhaps J Street simply cannot condone a "stronger" nation imposing its will on one that seems weaker? That would be in concert with the au courant policy of cultural authenticity and moral relativism.

No, that won't work either. There is one area where J Street comes down very harshly, very decisively against the local populations and on which it seeks to impose the will of outside super powers in order to achieve the results other than what the native populations wants. That local population is -- contrary to what most would think given J Street's professed "pro-Israel" position -- the Israeli one, and, -- here we have a surprise! -- also the Palestinian one.

In its hegemonic insistence on the immediate creation of a Palestinian state, J Street is President Obama's self-described "blocking back" determined to impose a two-state solution on the Israelis and the Palestinians in the shortest possible timeframe.

[brraverishhh]

http://www.bluetruth.net/2009/09/oba...-j-street.html


From news article:
During its short history, J Street has built up an extensive list of positions detrimental to Israel. With respect to Iran, they have defended Iran’s nuclear weapons program, and lobbied Congress not to place new sanctions on Iran, claiming that the President’s use of diplomacy was preferable to any timelines or new round of sanctions. They have urged ending sanctions against Syria also, and have favored pressuring Israel to return the Golan Heights to Syrian control,

They have lobbied Congress to oppose an initiative calling on Obama to pressure Arab governments to normalize relations with Israel, They favor negotiating with Hamas. They support the “Arab Peace Initiative ”, a one-sided plan that requires Israel to accept the right of return of the descendants of the Palestinian refugees who left Israel 60 years ago.

On the domestic front, they have endorsed the anti-Semitic play, “Seven Jewish Children”. And when the President awarded the Medal of Freedom to Mary Robinson, a poorly chosen action causing many to wonder why the President would further court the ire of Jewish organizations, it was J Street that was tasked with defending the indefensible.

But their most controversial action relates to Operation Cast Lead. Last December, after several months of deadly rocket and mortar attacks from Gaza, Israel finally took military action against Hamas to defend its citizens. J Street opposed this action, calling for an immediate cease fire on the first day, claiming that Israel's actions were contrary to the interests of peace. Rabbi Eric Yoffie, president of the Union of Reform Judaism and an early supporter of J Street, broke with them over this issue, calling it a mistake that “misjudged the views of American Jews”. According to Rabbi Yoffie, J Street “is showing signs of moral deficiency and appalling naïveté”.

J Street’s strategy is deceptively simple. No matter how damaging to Israel a particular position might be, they follow with the mantra “and we are pro-Israel”. For example, J Street responded to the criticism by Rabbi Yoffie with the statement “Our position on the crisis reflects our support for Israel” Thus we have a simple syllogism; If J Street is pro-Israel and if J Street gives its seal of approval to Barak Obama then Obama is pro-Israel.

That J Street takes positions in opposition to Israel’s welfare and survival should be obvious, but it disguises its anti-Israel bias behind repeated declarations of support for the State of Israel. Since there is much disagreement about how best to help Israel, J Street’s repetitive claim that they are a pro-Israel organization offering an enlightened and liberal view, in contrast to the “right wing” views of the Israeli government and the mainstream American Jewish organizations, has credibility. The media and most individuals, lacking sufficient knowledge to recognize this deception, have rarely questioned the pro-Israel appellation. In the world of both J Street and Barack Obama, they claim to know better than the Israeli elected leadership what is good for Israel

This Orwellian deception permits Obama to take steps inimical to the security of Israel while incurring minimal criticism from those who are increasingly alarmed about his growing hostility to Israel There is no other Jewish organization so aligned with the positions of this President on the foreign policy and security issues of the Middle East. Like Obama, J Street believes that the settlements are the major obstacle to peace. Like Obama, J Street believes that mainstream American Jewish organizations are less relevant, and future developments and political inroads will come by way of progressive Jews and their organizations. Like Obama, J Street believes that the current government in Israel is right-wing and will not take steps toward peace unless pushed.

[HedgeYourBets]

http://www.jstreetjive.com/2009/09/s...n-and-zoa.html

From news article:
The J Street official Jeremy Ben-Ami is quoted as saying: “We’re trying to redefine what it means to be pro-Israel. You don’t have to adopt the party line.”

Suddenly there is a “party line,” whereas in fact a spectrum of views have been represented for years by mainstream Jewish organizations, and that spectrum has not included the positions espoused by J Street. For example, left-of-center and right-of-center Jewish groups supported Israel’s Gaza operations against Hamas in January, but J Street did not.

This is apparent when one considers the results of a Global Marketing Research Services poll in July of self-identified American Jewish Democratic Party supporters, which found that 55 percent believe President Obama is naïve to try to set up a Palestinian state, whereas only 27 percent take the opposite view. Moreover, they believe by a margin of 52 percent to 37 percent that Jews should be allowed to build homes and move into existing communities in eastern Jerusalem and the West Bank.

No amount of spinning can conceal the fact that, on these two major issues, clear majorities of Jewish Democratic supporters disagree with Obama. J Street is entitled to its views, but not to its pretension that it represents a large slice of liberal Jewish opinion on Israel. Clearly, it doesn’t.

MORTON A. KLEIN
National President
Zionist Organization of America
New York

[Lillie_Steins]

Ayelet Waldman is very hateful.

[brraverishhh]

Recently J-street invited Israeli Ambassador to the US, Michael Oren to a meeting. Oren declined and wrote why he declined as J-street and some of its supporters are hostile to Israel. Fair enough. Ben-Ami responded in an open letter to Oren in Jpost. Here's JsJ's fisking of that response.

http://www.jstreetjive.com/2009/10/l...en-letter.html

[radikal]

agreed rc. nothing would be as effective at this stage, as Israel branding them a hate group.

[doctorzlo]

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/showdown-on-j-street/

[tgs]

http://www.jewishjournal.com/opinion...yati_20090921/
From news article:

Is J Street a pro-Israel group? The lobbying organization never tires of claiming it is., Yet what pro-Israel group would invite a man to speak at its forthcoming conference who has called for Israel’s destruction, stating that “the establishment by force, violence and terrorism of a Jewish state in Palestine in 1948” was “unjust” and “a crime, ” and vowed to “work to overturn the injustice”?

The man who signed this Sept. 17, 1993 statement by the Muslim Public Affairs Council was its executive director, Salam Al-Marayati, who will be speaking next month at J Street’s Oct. 25-28 conference.

Marayati and MPAC have made numerous other hateful anti-Israel and anti-American statements: * A few hours after the 9/11 attacks, Marayati said on a radio show in Los Angeles, “We should put the State of Israel on the suspect list” of possible 9/11 perpetrators.
* After a suicide bombing at a Jerusalem pizzeria on Aug. 8, 2001, his organization issued a statement calling the attack “the expected bitter result of the reckless policy of Israeli assassination that did not spare children and political figures.”
* Marayati’s group condemned the U.S. strikes against al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Sudan following the bombings in 1998 of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania as “illegal, immoral and illogical.”
* He has likened Israel’s supporters to Hitler.Marayati also has condemned France’s fining of Roger Garaudy for Holocaust denial as “persecution of his right to express an opinion” and in 1997 gave a chilling, anticipatory justification for anti-American terrorism, saying, “Where Israel goes, our government follows. ... What is important is whether the American people are aware of and ready for the consequences.”

Some of these statements caused Marayati’s 1999 appointment to a U.S. congressional committee on terrorism to be rescinded.

J Street’s invitation to Marayati makes one wonder whose side the organization is on.

[9mm_fan]

http://www.jstreetjive.com/2009/10/j...-in-water.html

As the linen and the dollars roll in in preparation for J Street's gala Washington conference and dinner at the end of October attended by no fewer than 160 members of Congress, a large ice cube has been dropped onto the tablecloth. Yesterday, U.S. Israeli Embassy spokesperson Yoni Peled said, referring to J Street:

"while recognizing the need for a free and open debate on these issues, it is important to stress concern over certain policies that could impair Israel's interests."

Since the founding of Israel sixty years ago, the Foreign Ministry has scrupulously avoided entering the dangerous waters of internecine American Jewish organizational feuding. As a result of J Street's staunch opposition to sanctions on Iran, among other issues, mirroring President Obama's positions, Ambassador Michael Oren's office decided to take the unprecedented step of rebuking a group that is clearly antithetical to the interests and security of Israel.

J Street spokesperson, Amy Spitalnick, in full damage control mode, replied:

"It's not a surprise that we disagree with certain Israeli government policies," J Street spokeswoman Amy Spitalnick said. "Our bottom line is that we always support the State of Israel and its future as a democracy."

The Foreign Ministry's statement comes on the heels of what appears to be the non-appearance (and ultimate snub) by Ambassador Oren at the conference, to which he was invited. The invitation was more a a gauntlet thrown down by J Street. If Oren had accepted, his presence would no doubt have been exploited by the J Street PR machine as tacit approval of its radical agenda. Were he to decline, J Street would similarly use the occasion to reinforce their characterization of the Netanyahu government as "obstructionist" and "hawkish".

The embassy spokesperson's statement served to preempt J Street by providing the full weight of the Israeli government (which has recently endorsed the two-state solution) in identifying J Street as a dangerous, fringe group that, at its basis, endorses the borderline, antisemitic Walt/Mearsheimer thesis. (see JStreetJive's exclusive interview with Stephen Walt who has endorsed J Street).

Now, the foremost anti-Israel organization must find a fill-in for Israel itself. Watch for a surprise guest appearance by the marginalized Yossi Beilin or his lieutenant, Dan Levy.

Oren's move was brilliantly timed and courageous. If you listen carefully, you can hear the wind rushing out of Ben Ami's sail.

[Lillie_Steins]

If Oren, of all people, decided not to attend....

[Fegasderty]

Now I know why they are horrid writers. They are horrid people.

http://www.jstreetjive.com/2009/10/y...ilemma_13.html