Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News: J Street

Showing posts with label J Street. Show all posts

Wednesday, March 23, 2011

J-Street in Congress: EPIC FAIL

Here's a letter written by Representatives Steve Rothman and Steve Austria to President Obama:

President Barack Obama

The White House

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue

Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President,

We live in an increasingly complex world. Recently, we have been bombarded by news and images from around the globe about the popular uprisings in Egypt, Libya, Bahrain, and throughout the Middle East. We have seen the effects of yet another devastating earthquake, which struck Japan just days ago, leaving hundreds of thousands of people without homes and countless others dead. And we continue to live with the constant threat posed by North Korea's and Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons as well as the danger of nuclear proliferation at the hands of terrorists. We write to request that, while all of these events are consuming the daily news coverage, we not take our eye off of working toward a goal that is close to all of our hearts: a peaceful and secure Jewish State of Israel.

We are sure that you share our disappointment in President Mahmoud Abbas's decision to withdraw from peace talks in October of last year and his stubborn refusal to reengage as a willing partner for peace with Israel. The continued intransigence of the Palestinian leadership is both hurtful to the prospect for a two-state solution and to a final resolution of the conflict that still plagues the Israeli and Palestinian people. Unfortunately, we live in a time when the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades will rush to take credit for the horrific, inhuman, and brutal attack in Itamar against the Fogel family, including three of their children, an 11-year-old, 4-year-old, and 3-month-old. This must serve as a wakeup call that the current state of affairs is dangerous and unacceptable. In that regard, we respectfully request that you do everything possible to urge President Abbas to root out terrorism, return to negotiations without preconditions, earnestly work toward peace with Israel, and slam the door on any effort to deal with final status issues at the United Nations.

As part of that, President Abbas must fully renounce any and all Palestinian incitement against Israel and the Jewish people. On March 8, 2009, a number of us sent President Abbas a letter calling on him ³to truly end anti-Israel and anti-Jewish incitement,´ but clearly there needs to be further pressure. However, Palestinian incitement continues and there is almost no effort by them to promote coexistence and peace. We would like to bring to your attention a report recently released by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's office entitled ³Culture of Peace and Incitement Index,´ that unfortunately shows that Palestinian incitement continues. Television programs run by the Palestinian Authority and textbooks in government schools continue to praise martyrdom and terrorists and call for an armed struggle against the Israelis. Incitement,especially by official institutions, damages the prospects of reaching a peace agreement betweenthe Palestinians and America's strategic partner and indispensible ally, the Jewish State of Israel,and only encourages terrorism.

It is our hope that an independent Palestinian state can be realized, living in peace alongside the Jewish State of Israel. While the United States must not and cannot impose a solution, our country has an important role to play in encouraging the two parties to restart direct negotiations. We respectfully request that you and your administration do all in your power to insist that President Abbas reenters peace talks, without preconditions, and demand that President Abbas eliminate all vestiges of incitement coming from his government, Palestinian entities, or officials.

Sincerely

STEVEN R. ROTHMAN Member of Congress

STEVE AUSTRIA Member of Congress

The letter is perfectly accurate and reflects longstanding US policy.

Yet J-Street opposes it!

From JPost:

J Street’s opposition to a congressional letter criticizing Palestinian incitement has led more members to sign on, according to Hill sources tracking the issue.

The letter to US President Obama, written by Rep. Steve Rothman (D-New Jersey) and Rep. Steve Austria (R-Ohio) in the wake of the Itamar murders, charges that “Palestinian incitement continues and there is almost no effort by them to promote coexistence and peace.”

It calls for the White House to “do everything possible to urge [Palestinian Authority] President [Mahmoud] Abbas to root out terrorism, return to negotiations without preconditions, earnestly work toward peace with Israel, and slam the door on any effort to deal with final status issues at the United Nations.”

In response, J Street sent an email to members of the US House urging them not to sign it and issued a statement attacking the its contents as “containing material omissions and misrepresentations of fact and presenting a biased and inaccurate picture.”

The statement specifically criticizes the letter for not acknowledging the PA leadership’s efforts to end incitement and blaming incitement for the impasse in peace talks.

“Contrary to the letter’s accusations, the current Palestinian Authority leadership has taken great political risks and shown real willingness to end the conflict,” J Street states.

While the letter was originally circulated only among members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and House appropriations foreign operations subcommittee, J Street’s email was circulated more widely and prompted many additional representatives to express interest in the letter. A final count isn’t yet available because the deadline for signatures has not yet passed.

“J Street’s opposition to the Rothman-Austria letter has only increased the willingness of members to sign on. It begs the question of what are J Street’s goals,” said one congressional staffer. “If J Street’s goals are to have fewer people sign onto the letter, they’ve already failed.”

J-Street's opposition to the letter also shows how hypocritical the group is. They oppose the letter in part because it isn't balanced - it shows a "biased ...picture" and doesn't mention the other side of supposed PA moves to end incitement.

Yet J-Street supported the one-sided, anti-Israel Security Council resolution on the settlements. It had no problem with bias then! To J-Street, the only party that has to compromise, and the only party that needs to be pressured by the US, is Israel. Not exactly how friends of Israel act!

Not only that, but the letter is correct. The PA continues to incite through its own media, as abundantly documented by Palestinian Media Watch. J-Street's refusal to acknowledge that shows, once again, that it is not a "pro-Israel" organization.

The good news is that Congress has caught onto J-Street's facade.

(h/t My Right Word)

J-Street Baby-in Chief whines that Netanyahu won't meet him

From Ha'aretz:

Ben-Ami added that although he has asked to meet with Netanyahu during his stay in Israel "to introduce ourselves and explain how we can work together as allies," he was rejected.

"Yet, as you may have read, while the Prime Minister doesn’t have time to meet a movement that now represents over 170,000 pro-Israel, pro-peace supporters, he has time to host Sarah Palin for dinner Monday night," Ben-Ami wrote.

As Yaacov Lozowick points out:

I don't know in what way J-Street represents 170,000 people, and he doesn't explain; nor am I convinced they're all pro-Israel in any recognizable way. So far as I can tell, however, there are tens of millions of pro-Israel people who listen approvingly to much of what Sarah Palin says, and will be eager to hear her tell about her trip, including the meeting she had with Netanyahu.

So who's the numerically-challenged one in the story?

I also have no idea how Ben-Ami came up with 170,000 people who feel that he represents them, but for fun I just compared J-Street's and Elder of Ziyon's traffic.

According to Alexa, J-Street's site is ranked 551,962 of all Internet sites, and Elder of Ziyon is ranked 172,095. (Within the United States, J-Street is slightly ahead of me, 112,217 vs. 118,793. In Israel, J-Street ranks 11,801 and EoZ ranks 2,457.)

I get roughly three times the number of global readers that J-Street does.

So, I guess I have triple the right to visit Binyamin Netanyahu the next time I'm in Israel. Hell, I think he should make a stop to the Elder Manor the next time he comes to the US! I demand a one-on-one meeting!

I really need to learn how to whine better, like Ben-Ami. It could do wonders for my traffic. Maybe Ha'aretz will quote me as well!

I have a piece of advice for Ben-Ami: When the leader of Israel doesn't think you are pro-Israel, perhaps you aren't pro-Israel.

J-Street co-founder: Maybe Israel isn't a good idea if Arabs reject it

From Lori Lowenthal Marcus at The American Thinker:

"Maybe, if this collective Jewish presence" -- that is, the Jewish State in the Middle East -- "can only survive by the sword, then Israel really ain't a good idea." So said Daniel Levy, one of J Street's founders, at the 2011 J Street Conference. You can hear him, and the lack of any objection from even one of the 2000-strong audience, here, at 1:26:15 on the J Street Conference video, on J Street's own website.

Are we there yet? Is this clear statement by one of J Street's founders -- that if the Arabs will force Israel to defend herself, then the Jews should abandon the Middle East -- enough to prove that J Street is not "pro-Israel" at all? Is this confession enough to enable (or force) people to see that it is this belief: that the Jews are simply wrong to defend themselves ever, including against Gazan terrorism or a nuclear Iran, that constitutes the foundation of J Street?

I clipped the quote itself from the much longer video:

Great report from the J Street conference

Wonderful insights from Z-Street's Lori Lowenthal Marcus:

While attending the J Street conference I wondered whether I had entered some alternative dimension, where facts known by the rest of the world, and basic principles of reasoning, just didn't operate in quite the same way as they do on the rest of planet Earth. I think I know what's operating.

Psychologists teach that an obsession is "a persistent disturbing preoccupation with an often unreasonable idea or feeling." There is a persistent theme on J Street: a Palestinian State must be created RIGHT NOW ("PSRN"), and it's almost as if there is a complete memory block about the refusals of varying forms of the state, including the original offer by the United Nations of yet another Arab State in 1947.

That PSRN is J Street's obsession is revealed by the fact that unanimity on that "solution" co-exists with radical disagreement about the nature of the problem. Here's an abbreviated list of the ideological positions you pass as you walk down J Street:

...Around the corner we learn from Knesset member Shlomo Molla that bilateral negotiations between Israel and the Arab Palestinians are the only way to move towards peace in the region. Two houses down on the same street, Tom Dine of Search for Common Ground tells us that bilateral movement is impossible, and instead a regional approach is the only possibility for peace. And that the only choice open to Israel is to create a PSRN.

Just across J Street from these guys is New York Times reporter Roger Cohen who insists that the unrest in the Middle East is actually weakening Iran, while down the block we learn from the Saban Center's Shibley Telhami that Iran is the main threat in the region. Iran is weaker, says Cohen, so now is the time to create a Palestinian State, and Iran is the major threat, says Telhami, so now is the time to create a Palestinian State. Polar opposite reasoning, yet naturally both ineluctably lead to the conclusion that the only possible answer is the immediate creation of a Palestinian State.

Hebrew University professor Bernard Avishai berated Dennis Ross for wimpishly claiming that "bilateral negotiations is the only mechanism" for achieving peace. Avishai instead called for an "Obama Blueprint" in which the US uses its bully pulpit to galvanize "international momentum and pressure" (on Israel, of course), to create a Palestinian State. In the same building but down a few flights we heard from the ubiquitous Egyptian journalist Mona Eltahawy that the "West has become irrelevant" and that rather than the West, the region demands freedom and dignity for the Palestinians. Both agreed about one thing -- wait, I'm trying to remember -- oh yes, the need to create a PSRN.

Read the whole thing.

Simple proof that J Street is not pro-Israel (UPDATED with poster!)

This past weekend, J Street held a conference. Plenty of bloggers and others covered the event, and there are some very good articles that discuss exactly how J-Street is not even close to being "pro-Israel."

Here is one simple proof.

Starting next week we will see the annual Israel Apartheid Week at colleges and universities worldwide. Every pro-Israel organization on campus is gearing up to counter the avalanche of anti-Israel vitriol and lies that attack the very legitimacy of the Jewish state.

But at the J Street U site, there is nothing but silence. No pro-Israel programming, no pamphlets to distribute, no flyers or posters to counter the hate. Nothing. (They do have some statements that are against BDS.)

When pressed, J-Street will mouth some words of support for the existence of Israel. But on their own, they do not do anything to actively defend Israel without carefully calibrating the message to equally defend "Palestine."

How can a supposedly pro-Israel organization not lift a finger to defend Israel when it is under the most withering attack?

(For an example of what a pro-Israel campaign looks like, check this out.)

UPDATE: A great poster idea from a a commenter:

ElderToons: J-Street

If you want to know that latest on J-Street....

I generally stay away from the J-Street topic because so many other bloggers are far more familiar with the issues than I am.

However, a lot has happened in the past week with this purportedly "pro-Israel" organization whose policies are in perfect congruence with people who describe themselves as Israel's enemies. If you want to catch up on the latest, you can do no better than to read Omri's latest tour de force along with his many supporting links.

Including the fact that J-Street's co-founder Daniel Levy declared that Israel's creation was "an act that was wrong" in front of an audience of like-minded people.

J-Street's polls are designed to elicit the answers they want

J-Street is trumpeting a poll that, they say, shows that American Jews agree with their politics. A short examination of their methodology shows that the poll itself was designed to generate the answers that the J-Streeters are looking for.

Since they do not give the exact methodology, it is hard to go into detail on the bias inherent in the poll, but one question they show in full:

Professional pollsters know that the order of the choices can influence results. The wording here shows that they always presented their own preference first for this question, and the "other" side last.

Since the poll shows pretty convincingly that most American Jews do not follow Israel closely, it means that the interviewees are especially prone to manipulation since they do not have strong views on the topic.

In this case, J-Street first presents a statement that sounds reasonable to an little-informed subject:

Some Jewish organizations in the United States say that America has a special relationship with Israel and we must support our democratic ally, but this latest incident that took place during Vice President Biden's visit to Israel was an insult to America and damages our interests in a region where we are fighting two wars. The relationship between the United States and Israel must be a two-way street that allows an honest public discussion, and even criticism, when our two countries disagree.

A person without strong opinions will hear that statement and will generally agree as it sounds reasonable. The question itself is a form of education for the person polled.

Then, J-Street talks about "others," meaning people who do not agree with the already established reasonable statement:

Other Jewish organizations in the United States say that Israel is America's closest ally in the Middle East, and the Obama Administration's recent statements regarding the U.S. relationship with Israel are a matter of serious concern. The Obama Administration should work closely with Israel in a manner befitting strategic allies, make a conscious effort to move away from public demands and unilateral deadlines directed at Israel, and take immediate steps to defuse tension with the Jewish state.

Now that the subject already has committed himself to the first statement, he will be reticent to change his mind so quickly when hearing the second, "other" statement.

I can guarantee you that if the two questions were reversed, switching "some" with "others," the results would be reversed as well.

It is also telling that J-Street doesn't bother finding out what Jews who are care the most about Israel feel. They rely on the ignorant, apathetic Jewish majority for their support. Which means that they rely on Jews they can manipulate.

J-Street supporter redefines Judaism

The Daily News Egypt reproduces an article by Bernard Avishai, who teaches business at Hebrew University:

During the first night of the J Street conference, when delegates were just getting settled, a half dozen speakers — activists, rabbis and students — unexpectedly poured their hearts out. The 1,500 people in the hall, the speakers insisted, were not only gathered to represent the majority of American Jews who think US policy should put its weight behind bringing about a two-state solution. We were gathered also to redeem “Jewish values”. You heard a good deal of the phrase “Tikkun Olam”, the repair of the world, that night. And I confess to cringing at times. Was social improvement a peculiarly Jewish desire? Could Tikkun Olam, a kabalistic concept turned into a leftist cliché, cancel out the fact that the Occupation is advanced by zealots of Jewish law, or that rightist, neoconservative ideas are particularly strong (so polls show) among the quarter of American Jews who attend synagogue at least once a month?

So, Avishai has established that Tikkun Olam is a very misused concept that has nothing to do with what leftist Jews claim it means, and that committed Jews tend towards the political right. But J-Street is an avowedly Jewish group, and it is a bit hard to jive these facts together.

What is a good leftist Jew who hates the trappings of religion but wants to use it as a cover for his ideas to do?

Why, just as he redefines Tikkun Olam to fit his preconceived notions, he redefines Judaism itself!

The phrase “Jewish values”, you see, makes sense only to people who assume a world of free will. You have to believe that, generally, people have intellectual personality, individual sovereignty, and moral erudition — that more sacred than the Book is the right to interpret books. ...
So if Jews can be said to have stood for anything traditionally, was it not this allergy to dogma — this breaking of idols? Did we not see the democratic rights as, well, commanded? And, tragically, have not the land of Israel and Jewish military power themselves become idols for American Jews since 1967 — or at least for leaders who spoke for the “community”, while liberals remained aloof from its parochialism? Anyway, J Street says, “No more.”

See how easy it is? Just tell everyone who disagrees with you that they are not practicing Judaism, because you have changed Judaism from a religion and a belief system that has lasted quite well for a few thousand years into a squishy, sunny reflection of your own personality! Not only that, the Jews who did manage to hold on to the beliefs of their forefathers - Jews who hold on to the idea of living and dying for the land that they have cried over for millennia - are worshipping idols!

Voila, abracadabra, presto-change-o: J-Street is a new religion, and traditional Judaism is avoda zara!

Goldstone/J-Street/Soros connection?

OK, I'm not a big fan of conspiracy theories, but this is really interesting.

There is a House Resolution 867 that should be voted on tomorrow:

Calling on the President and the Secretary of State to oppose unequivocally any endorsement or further consideration of the "Report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict" in multilateral fora.

According to Michael Goldfarb at the Weekly Standard, Goldstone responded to the resolution with a memo detailing what he considered to be mistakes in the facts. Goldfarb gives a link to a Word document that he says is circulating around Capitol Hill that starts off this way:

FROM: RICHARD GOLDSTONE
TO: INTERESTED PERSONS
RE: HR 867

Here are some comments on this resolution in an effort to correct factual errors:

Here's where it gets interesting.

The Microsoft Word document properties do not show Richard Goldstone as the author, but rather "Morton H. Halperin." As Goldfarb notes, Morton Halperin "serves on the J Street advisory council and is a senior adviser at George Soros's Open Society Institute.

Is Goldstone working with J Street and Soros in defending his report? More importantly, is J Street really discreetly backing the report while it says publicly that it is not opposing the congressional resolution?

Right now, the only source for this Word document is Goldfarb's column. I found a different letter written from Goldstone to the sponsors of the resolution, dated two days later, that also addresses perceived mistakes in the text, but not as a Word document. I presume that Goldfarb received his memo from a congressional aide, but we don't know his source.

Either way, it is worth finding out whether there is any connection between Goldstone and Halperin.

(h/t EBoZ)

J-Street stops publicly pretending to be pro-Israel

J-Street is the anti-"Israel lobby" lobby and real-life anti-Israel lobby. Other blogs get more into discussing them that I do but this story is just too funny:

J Street's university arm has dropped the "pro-Israel" part of the left-wing US lobby's "pro-Israel, pro-peace" slogan to avoid alienating students.

That decision was part of the message conveyed to young activists who attended a special weekend program for students ahead of J Street's first annual conference, which began on Sunday.
At their earlier weekend session, the 250 participating students mapped out strategies for bringing J Street's approach to college campuses and encouraging students to join in the effort.
"We don't want to isolate people because they don't feel quite so comfortable with 'pro-Israel,' so we say 'pro-peace,'" said American University junior Lauren Barr of the "J Street U" slogan, "but behind that is 'pro-Israel.'"
Barr, secretary of the J Street U student board that decided the slogan's terminology, explained that on campus, "people feel alienated when the conversation revolves around a connection to Israel only, because people feel connected to Palestine, people feel connected to social justice, people feel connected to the Middle East."
She noted that the individual student chapters would be free to add "pro-Israel," "pro-Israel, pro-Palestine," or other wording that they felt would be effective on this issue, since "it's up to the individuals on campus to know their audience."
Yonatan Shechter, a junior at Hampshire College, said the ultra-liberal Massachusetts campus is inhospitable to terms like "Zionist" and that when his former organization, the Union of Progressive Zionists (which has been absorbed into J Street U), dropped that last word of its name, "people were so relieved."

And they seemed so proud of their purportedly pro-Israel positions!