Capital Research Center reproduced some Instagram posts by "free.palestine.1948," an account that Rashida Tlaib followed until the story broke.
The interesting thing about the offensive images is that they generally were about "Israel" and not officially about Jews.
So I would like to ask J-Street, Jewish Voice for Peace, Rashida Tlaib, Omar llhan and her apologists: Which of these images, if any, are antsemitic and which are merely "legitimate criticism of Israel?"
If anyone on the Democratic side that supported the watered down condemnation of all bad things could honestly answer, it would be very illuminating.
And if their answer depends on whether the images were shown on a "pro-Palestinian" or a white supremacist site, that speaks volumes as well.
We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.
Elizabeth Warren:We have a moral duty to combat hateful ideologies in our own country and around the wortd--and that includes both anti-Semitism and Islamophobia. In a democracy, we can and should have an open, respectful debate about the Middle East that focuses on policy. Branding criticism of Israel as automatically anti-Semitic has a chilling effect on our public discourse and makes it harder to achieve a peaceful solution between Israelis and Palestinians. Threats of violence -- like those made against Rep. Omar -- are never acceptable.
Bernie Sanders:“Anti-Semitism is a hateful and dangerous ideology which must be vigorously opposed in the United States and around the world. We must not, however, equate anti-Semitism with legitimate criticism of the right-wing, Netanyahu government in Israel. Rather, we must develop an even-handed Middle East policy which brings Israelis and Palestinians together for a lasting peace. What I fear is going on in the House now is an effort to target Congresswoman Omar as a way of stifling that debate. That's wrong.”
Kamala Harris:We all have a responsibility to speak out against anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, homophobia, transphobia, racism, and all forms of hatred and bigotry, especially as we see a spike in hate crimes in America. But like some of my colleagues in the Congressional Black Caucus, | am concerned that the spotlight being put on Congresswoman Omar may put her at risk. We should be having a sound, respectful discussion about policy. You can both support Israel and be loyal to our country. I also believe there is a difference between criticism of policy or political leaders, and anti-Semitism. At the end of the day, we need a two-state solution and a commitment to peace, human rights, and democracy by all leaders in the region -- and a commitment by our country to help achieve that.
As far as I can tell, there is no Jew or Zionist that suggests that all criticism of Israel is antisemitic, the way that J-Street and these candidates are saying or implying.
Even the most right-wing Zionists accept the IHRA Working Definition of antisemitism. from the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance. It was adopted by the US State Department. It says this about criticism of Israel:
Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.
...Contemporary examples of antisemitism could include:
Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.
Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.
The IHRA defines legitimate criticism of Israel as the type that would be leveled at any other country. This is quite fair.
The question is, who would oppose this definition?
Who wants to say that singling out Israel for special criticism when other countries are worse is not a form of antisemitism? Who wants to defend an Electronic Intifada/Mondoweiss worldview where obsessive focus on Israel out of proportion to its actions is considered legitimate debate? Who wants to claim that boycotting Israel, and only Israel, is not antisemitic in practice?
Who wants to say that accusations of dual loyalty is not antisemitism?
Who wants to say that equating Jewish self-determination with racism is not antisemitism?
Either these candidates accept the definition set here, or they don't. If they don't, they should explain the exact problematic part of the definition that they believe is not true - and be prepared to defend that.
No one, and I mean no one, is shutting down debate over Israel when the criticism is legitimate according to this definition. Which means that these candidates, and J-Street, have a completely different definition of what "legitimate criticism" than the IHRA.
What is it?
When politicians talk about how much they are against antisemitism, they aren't saying what that means to them. If the IHRA definition is not to their liking, they must explain what specifically they disagree with.
The Democratic Party can make all this mess go away by adopting the eminently reasonable standard that the IHRA created. And if they did, it is obvious that Ilhan Omar really did spout Jew-hatred and must be censured.
If they don't want to do that, then it is their responsibility to come up with their own definition - and to defend it.
The IHRA should be the baseline for the discussion. It would add clarity to everyone's positions. And that is exactly why the Democratic Party will stay away from it - because it would expose a small but vocal minority of their members as engaging in antisemitic speech, and the party is too frightened to do anything to rein them in.
We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.
J-Street styles itself as "pro-Israel, pro-peace."
The first part is obviously not true, since J-Street's political positions are consistently on the side of the Palestinian positions and against that of the elected Israeli government, and even most Israelis who identify as centrist or left wing.
But what about the second part? Is J-Street pro-peace?
The answer can be seen in what is - and what is not - on its website.
The most remarkable achievement under Netanyahu's leadership has been Israel's improving relationships with nations around the world, including Muslim-majority countries in Africa and the Arab world.
Yet when Netanyahu met with Oman's Sultan Qaboos bin Said in Oman, a stunning event, J-Street was silent.
When Netanyahu met directly with Arab leaders and top ministers in Warsaw this month, J-Street was silent.
When pressure forced the UAE to allow Israeli athletes to participate in events there, and an Israeli minister sang Hatikva when Israel won a gold medal and publicly toured the nation, J-Street was silent.
When Israel openly works with Qatar to bring aid in to Gaza, J-Street is silent.
While Israel improves relationships with Sudan, Chad, Bahrain and many other nations, J-Street is silent.
Shouldn't a "pro-peace" organization be jubilant at each one of these stories?
The irony increases when you see that J-Street does say positive things about regional peace initiatives - but only in context of the Saudi driven Arab peace initiative, in a section of its site written during the Obama administration:
Even more broadly, the Arab Peace Initiative still provides a potential game-changing template for conflict resolution yielding dividends not just for Israel, but for the region as a whole in trade, commerce, security and more. Given the perception of the weakness of the political leadership on both the Israeli and Palestinian sides and the fact that so many of the issues (security, Jerusalem, refugees) that are on the table actually have regional dimensions, reconceiving the effort to resolve the conflict in a broader regional context seems to us an important new approach to consider.
Accordingly J Street highlights for policymakers the benefits of adopting a regional approach to resolving the conflict and works with partners in Israel and in the Arab world to explore the possibilities of building on the Arab Peace Initiative.
What happened to J-Street's support of adopting a "regional approach" to peace?
Ah, that was only when it seemed impossible to have regional peace without the Palestinian issue being solved first, which was the conventional wisdom for decades.
Netanyahu, and Trump, have shown that there is another avenue to regional peace. They have shown that it was the Palestinians that are the roadblock to regional peace, not the prerequisite. The Arab world knows that Palestinians could have had a state when it was offered to them in 2000, 2001, 2008 and they rejected it. The Arab world knows this and it is finally dispensing with the conventional wisdom of first a Palestinian state and only then regional peace.
J-Street hates this idea. They built their entire organization on the failed approach of Israel giving more and more concessions to those who want to destroy it in the name of "peace."
J-Street also hates Trump. They hate Netanyahu. Their fundraising emails are based on that hate, getting funds from likeminded haters.
And the idea that under Netanyahu and Trump, Israel is friendlier with the Arab and Muslim worlds than it ever was under Obama just disgusts them.
If J-Street was "pro-peace," it would have shown cautious support for the Trump peace initiative when it was announced. It didn't. On the contrary, they have been trying to sabotage the Trump peace initiative before anyone knew what it was going to be.
J-Street ignores the many positive moves towards peace that occurred in recent years - even while they defend the rights of Israel boycotters.
The conclusion: J-Street is not pro-peace.
We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.
I've been looking a lot at statistics about the pro-Israel lobby over the past couple of days. The major database that follows the money, OpenSecrets, provides a wealth of information about all lobbies, lobbyists, lobby groups, contributors and more.
In 2018, OpenSecrets ranks the pro-Israel lobby as #50 among all categories in amounts contributed to politicians, with nearly $15 million given.
OpenSecrets categorizes J-Street and J-StreetPAC as "pro-Israel" since it doesn't fit under any other category and claims to be pro-Israel.
Antisemites know that it isn't. More on that below.
J-Street has, to my knowledge, never supported a single bill in Congress that was also supported by the State of Israel.
The entire calumny against the "Israel lobby" is that Jews are more interested in supporting Israel than the US, that Jews have dual loyalties, that Jews dance to the tune of the Israeli government and Zionist leaders. But no one accuses J-Street of doing any of that.
This means that the pro-Israel lobby isn't even close to the top fifty of all interest groups that contribute to politicians. And OpenSecrets only tracks about 80 interest groups!
The pro-Israel lobby is not important at all compared to the hundreds of millions that are thrown around candidates to office.
Don't take my word for it that J-Street isn't pro-Israel.
Alison Weir and her organization "If Americans Knew" ("What every American Needs to Know about Israel/Palestine") are antisemitic. Even Jewish Voice for Peace and the main US BDS group have distanced itself from Weir for her bigotry.
Her site has an article she wrote, updated in 2017, called "Introduction to the Israel Lobby." It is a scattershot article listing not only pro-Israel political organizations but also general pro-Israel and Jewish organizations (like Bnai Brith) that she considers to be part of this insidious "lobby." Israeli-owned companies are listed. Even journalists like Jeffrey Goldberg are listed there as part of this insidious "Israel lobby."
But J-Street is nowhere to be seen on her list.
The single largest "pro-Israel" contributor to influence American policy in Congress is not listed by an organization that is dedicated to exposing Jewish and Israeli influence on American politics.
That tells you all you need to know about J-Street's "pro-Israel" credentials.
We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.
J-Street issued a press release over the Ilhan Omar kerfuffle, and showed itself to be even more hypocritical than we knew. It says that, sure, "elected official" should be careful with their words... but Omar sort of had a point:
Elected officials should be particularly sensitive and careful on the question of the role played by campaign contributions in influencing US policies toward Israel and the Middle East. There is no doubt that money often plays a major role in our political system.
Since the only group Omar specifically mentioned in her offensive tweet was AIPAC, it is obvious that J-Street is agreeing with her that traditional lobbying for Israel is problematic and potentially could cause officials to change their positions to follow the money.
J-Street is stunningly hypocritical.
J-Street absurdly styles itself as being "pro-Israel" even though there is very little daylight between its positions and those of the PLO. And the J-StreetPAC page brags that the largest "pro-Israel lobby" in the US is - J-StreetPAC!
Not only that, it brags about its money influencing Congress!
In the 2018 midterm election, J Street successfully worked to shift the balance of power in Washington by electing a diplomacy-first Congress that will act as a check on President Trump’s dangerous agenda and ideology. JStreetPAC shattered its own records in the 2018 cycle, distributing nearly $5 million for 163 congressional candidates, including nearly $2.3 million for House challengers, 30 of whom were victorious. JStreetPAC reaffirmed its status as the nation’s largest pro-Israel PAC, raising over 53 percent of all pro-Israel PAC money distributed this cycle. The success of diplomacy-first candidates in some of the country’s most competitive districts confirmed a major shift in the politics of foreign policy.
If pro-Israel PACs are problematic for the amount of money they give to candidates, then J-StreetPAC - which gave more to its candidates than all the real pro-Israel PACs combined in 2018 - must be worse!
So which is it, J-Street? Is money to candidates a good thing or is it evil?
Obviously, their money is kosher. Actual money from Zionists is immoral.
________________________
J-Street continues on with its slander:
Elected officials should also refrain from labeling all criticism of Israeli actions or policies as “anti-Semitic,” in a transparent effort to silence legitimate discussion and debate. Such attacks only undermine the vital effort to counter the actual scourge of anti-Semitism in the United States and around the world.
NO ONE DOES THAT. No elected official has ever said that all criticism of Israel is antisemitic. No leader of any Zionist organization has ever said that.
Criticism of Israel is antisemitic when it violates the 3D test that Natan Sharansky posited back in 2004 - when Israel is demonized, delegitimized or subjected to double standards. The test is pretty easy to understand and is the best definition of when criticizing Israel is crossing the line out there.
It is the people who want to violate the 3D test who are the only ones who complain that "all" criticism of Israel is considered antisemitic.
J-Street obviously does not subscribe to the 3D test of what is antisemitic. In fact, J-Street seems to consider no criticism of Israel - or even calls to boycott the Jewish state - to be antisemitic. while I see lots of charges on its site that Republicans are antisemitic, I cannot find a single time where J-Street admits that Arabs have said a single antisemitic thing. Equating the Jewish state with Nazi Germany - silence. Calling Israel an 'apartheid state" - silence.
This press release where J-Street pretends to be "nuanced" shows, when analyzed, that J-Street's position towards Israel is indeed perilously close to those of the antisemites who are obsessed with destroying the Jewish state.
We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.
So new, that when I did a search by name to find their website -- it showed up at the bottom of the first page of hits -- and that was a paid advertised link.
o Maintain and Strengthen Support for Israel Among Grassroots Progressives and Democratic Leaders o Advance Policies to Ensure a Peaceful and Secure Israel o Defend Israel’s Legitimacy o Promote a Two-State Solution and Arab-Israeli Peace through Diplomacy and Partnership o Encourage American Global Leadership o Promote Progressive Values o Educate and Support Democratic Leaders
The group even supports the 2 state solution, which leaves the question: what does DMFI aim to do that J Street has not been doing?
Mellman stated that “a central thrust for us is making sure the Democratic Party remains pro-Israel” at a time when Israel is facing increasing attacks by some within the Democratic party.
Mark Mellman, President and CEO, Democratic Majority for Israel. Screen capture from YouTube video
In his response, Jeremy Ben-Ami did not claim to be defending Israel form these attacks. Instead, he charged that the DMFI website lacked substance and asked, "would they have supported the Iran deal, do they support two states, would they support Democrats who want to reinstate funding for UNRWA."
But the group does support the 2 state solution, and as far as the Iran deal goes, Mellman responded that the deal was "old news".
It's hard not to think that to some extent, the apparent need for The Democratic Majority for Israel is an indictment of the failure of J Street.
For eight years J Street supported Obama's destructive policies toward Israel like the unilateral settlement freeze, nuclear détente with Iran, and his allowance for international condemnation of Israeli communities in the West Bank.
Roman goes so far as to say that considering the influence they had during the Obama years, J Street shares some of the responsibility for the failure to get peace talks off the ground during those 8 years.
Last year, David M. Weinberg , vice president of the Jerusalem Institute for Strategic Studies, went a step further - asking the question: Is J Street Still Pro-Israel?
J Street has become something else altogether: an organization that spends almost all its time and money besmirching Israel, smearing the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and other leading American Jewish organizations, boosting US-Iran relations, and backing political candidates for whom promoting the boycott, divestment, and sanctions movement is a badge of honor.
Even granting that J Street endorses Democratic candidates for Congress, as DMFI will do, the question remains: which Democrats has J Street been supporting?
J Street has supported allegedly "pro-Israel" Democrats such as Representative Mark Pocan, who in 2017 anonymously reserved official Capitol Hill space for an anti-Israel forum put together by organizations that support boycotts and Representative Hank Johnson, who referred to Israelis living in Judea and Samaria as 'termites.'
J Street has endorsed Keith Ellison, despite his ties to Farrakhan - and has defended Ellison, claiming that criticism of Ellison was actually "a concerted and transparent smear campaign driven by those whose true objections may be to the Congressman’s religion, strong support for the two-state solution or concern for Palestinian rights."
o supported Palestinian terrorist Rasmea Odeh o supported Islamic Relief, which has links to the Muslim Brotherhood. o retweeted a post from Linda Sarsour supporting Ahed Tamimi, who was jailed for incitement and assaulting an IDF soldier -- and upon release voiced support for suicide bombing.
Later, J Street withdraw their endorsement -- but only because Tlaib reneged on her support of J Street's precious 2 state solution.
This problem with J Street goes back to its origins.
According to a video they put out in 2018, J Street's beginnings go back to Howard Dean's presidential campaign in 2004, when Ben-Ami defended Dean, who advocated a balanced role for the US that supported both Israel and the Palestinian Arabs:
The video itself uses articles dating back to the last few months of 2003.
A meeting in September included, in addition to Morton Halperin, a director of Soros’ Open Society Institute and Ben-Ami, members of Israel Policy Forum, Americans For Peace Now and Brit Tzedek. Those 3 groups are credited with the lobbying efforts at the time that derailed the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act, legislation that would have cut off US aid to the Palestinian Authority unless it renounced terrorism and recognized Israel.
One can already see the source of J Street's current agenda.
The article noted that a second meeting was scheduled for the following month, but the goals were not clear:
Some participants speak of wrapping together a number of the existing groups at some future date; others speak of a support structure that would back the groups as they continue to operate separately.
But there are hints of other groups secretly supporting The Democratic Majority for Israel as well.
For years, even before this last election, AIPAC has been discussing credibility problems with progressives at the highest level,” a pro-Israel Democrat familiar with AIPAC’s works, who asked not to be named so they could speak freely, told the Forward. “And they have been exploring the possibility of creating a Democratic group that would push AIPAC policy and fight the pro-Israel fight within the Democratic Party. That’s something they’ve been discussing for years.
Out of DMFI's 15 board members, 11 of them have either worked or volunteered for AIPAC, or have donated to it or spoken at its events. Also, the company that made DMFI’s announcement video has a long working relationship with AIPAC, and designed their Policy Conference app.
Whether there is any truth to a direct connection between the 2 groups or not, there seem to be forces at work that may be trying to create an anti-J Street, just as J Street was conceived as an anti-AIPAC.
2019 will not be a boring year.
We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.
"Our No. 1 agenda item is to do whatever we can in Congress to act as the president’s blocking back." J Street co-founder Jeremy Ben-Ami, "The New Israel Lobby," September 9, 2009
And in order to do whatever they could in Congress to support Obama, J Street took -- and continues to take -- a different approach than AIPAC.
AIPAC is not a political action committee (PAC) and we do not rate or endorse candidates for elected or appointed office. AIPAC members in all 50 states are encouraged to be politically active and develop relationships with their members of Congress to help educate them about the importance of U.S.-Israel ties.
J Street is different on both counts:
o J Street does not support the policy of Israel's elected leaders. Instead, they follow their own agenda o J Street has their own Political Action Committee, supporting only Democrats - Democrats who support the "two-state" solution:
JStreetPAC was established in 2008 as the first-ever federal political action committee (PAC) to explicitly promote American leadership to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
o supported Palestinian terrorist Rasmea Odeh o supported Islamic Relief, which has links to the Muslim Brotherhood. o criticized California’s Kamala Harris for discussing cooperation between California and Israel on water management, agriculture, and cyber security o accused Harris of “racism” for meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. o retweeted a post from Linda Sarsour supporting Ahed Tamimi, who was jailed for incitement and assaulting an IDF soldier -- and upon release voiced support for suicide bombing.
Rashida Tlaib. Public Domain
J Street did end up withdrawing their support for Tlaib.
Why?
Not because of her anti-Israel views or support for terrorists.
While we have long championed the value of a wide range of voices in discussion of the conflict and related issues, we cannot endorse candidates who conclude that they can no longer publicly express unequivocal support for a two-state solution and other core principles to which our organization is dedicated.
The statement then continues:
Rashida Tlaib’s election as the first Palestinian-American woman Member of Congress will be a historic milestone for the Palestinian-American community and for the United States as a whole. We strongly support and are encouraged by her commitment to social justice, and we are inspired by her determination to bring the voice of underrepresented communities to Capitol Hill. We wish her and her campaign well, and we look forward to a close working relationship with her and her office when she takes her seat in Congress next year.
Other questionable Democrats that J Street has supported include Representative Mark Pocan, who last year anonymously reserved official Capitol Hill space for an anti-Israel forum organized by organizations that support boycotts and Representative Hank Johnson, who referred to Israelis living in Judea and Samaria as 'termites'
But at least they supported J Street's two-state solution!
In last weeks midterm elections, the Democrats regained control of the House, helped in part by the $5 million dollars that J Street used for Democratic candidates.
"After last night's victories, we can finally begin to retake the reins of America's foreign policy and make gains in our fight for a better future for Israelis and Palestinians."
Jeremy Ben Ami. From YouTube Video
That's one statement you will not hear from AIPAC.
o already in 2009, had connections with NIAC, a pro-Iranian advocacy group that would become instrumental in pushing the Iran deal -- which J Street still supports.
And now J Street blatantly tells its supporters that their goal is to control foreign policy?
J Street is not pro-Israel.
J Street is not pro-Peace.
J Street is just pro-J Street.
We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.
A couple of weeks ago, I reported that J-Street's leaders, including Jeremy Ben Ami, had met with Mahmoud Abbas and other Palestinian leaders, including one whose statements showed that he supported terrorism.
It turns out that that member of the Fatah central committee, Hussein al-Sheikh, is a terrorist himself.
Stephen Flatow, father of a terrorist victim, writes:
Thursday, March 21, 2002, was a pleasant early spring morning in Jerusalem. King George Street, in the heart of the city, was packed with shoppers. Suddenly, a Palestinian suicide bomber struck. The explosion left three people dead, and more than 100 wounded. One of the fatalities was Tzippi Shemesh, who was five months pregnant with twins.
Among the wounded were a number of Americans. The force of the explosion hurled U.S. citizen Alan Bauer 20 feet. Two screws that were packed into the bomb ripped clear through his left arm. His 7-year-old son, Jonathan, suffered severe shrapnel wounds and fell into a coma. Jonathan subsequently underwent numerous operations to remove nails and screws from his head, including one that was lodged in his brain. Needless to say, he was left with permanent injuries.
The Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, which is the military arm of Abbas’s Fatah movement, openly claimed responsibility for the bombing. In fact, it was that bombing that moved the U.S. State Department to finally put the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade on its official list of terrorist groups.
Members of the Shemesh family filed suit against the PA and, as a result, details of those who were involved in the attack became public. Earlier this year, the Jerusalem District Court ruled that the PA was responsible for the bombing. In its ruling, the court cited closed-door testimony provided by Israeli intelligence officials who named names—including “senior Fatah official Hussein al-Sheikh, who met the suicide bomber and two other operatives and gave them money and two hand grenades to carry out the bombing.”
So Al-Sheikh literally put hand grenades into the hands of the bomber and his assistants, in order to murder innocent people, and financed their attack. Which, according to American and Israeli law, makes Al-Sheikh equally guilty of the murders and maiming of their victims.
Al-Sheikh's involvement in terror has been known for years:
Even before the Jerusalem court ruling, the American government was aware of Al-Sheikh’s terrorist background. Several years ago, a scheduled meeting between Al-Sheikh and U.S. diplomats at the American Consulate in Jerusalem was canceled when U.S. officials realized Al-Sheikh’s connection to the bombing.
Hussein al-Sheikh should be extradited and tried in the US for his role in shedding the blood of Americans. But to J-Street, he is someone to be embraced as someone who supports peace.
Jeremy Ben Ami must be forced to answer why he chose to embrace a terrorist with Jewish and American blood on his hands.
(Al-Sheikh is also a known sexual harasser. Since J-Street doesn't give a damn about Israeli and American lives, perhaps Jeremy Ben Ami will apologize for that.)
We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.
On Tuesday, J Street joined with a broad coalition of Jewish organizations to oppose the detention and possible expulsion of American student Lara Alqasem by telling the Israeli government to #LetHerStay.
Today, we have some good news to report. Lara Alqasem has won her appeal and will be allowed to study human rights at Hebrew University.
By making calls to Israeli diplomatic missions, tweeting to diplomats and showing your support online and in the streets, YOU stood up for Israel’s democracy and helped to protect the education of a future human rights advocate in the region.
Does J-Street think that Israel's Supreme Court was swayed by a bunch of left-wing American Jews?
Perhaps J-Street doesn't want to give any credit to Israel's Supreme Court as looking at the case with an unbiased view based on only the facts and the law.
Recently, in a very controversial move, the Israeli Supreme Court gave the Netanyahu government the green light to demolish the Palestinian village of Khan al-Ahmar. The move would displace 180 Palestinians and clear the way for Israel to expand settlements into the contentious E1 Area, thereby forming a block that would separate East Jerusalem from the rest of the West Bank.
If J-Street would admit that Israel's Supreme Court makes decisions based on the law, including human rights law, then it cannot complain that Israeli policies that are upheld by the court are wrong, as it likes to do.
When Jews are forcibly removed from their homes based on High Court decisions, J-Street applauds and agrees that the homes were built illegally. When Arabs are to be removed from homes that Israel's High Court say were built illegally (with compensation and with new towns built for them!) J-Street complains that it is immoral.
J-Street doesn't care about the law or morality or consistency. It wants to push its far-left agenda under the pretense of caring about "justice."
Justice is the least concern of J-Street.
We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.
Last week, while the Jewish community celebrated one of our most sacred holidays with friends and family, the Trump administration was busy continuing its assault on the prospects for Israeli-Palestinian peace.
By announcing that the US will close the Palestinian diplomatic office in Washington, Trump and his team sent yet another clear signal that they are committed to bullying the Palestinians and advancing the agenda of the Israeli far-right -- not to mediating this intractable conflict.
Furthermore, we learned this week the appalling news that the administration has decided to cut funds to coexistence organizations that build people-to-people relationships between Israelis and Palestinians and foster coexistence -- groups like Kids4Peace and the Peres Center for Peace. That’s not just an attack on Palestinians -- it’s an attack on the very concept of peacemaking and reconciliation.
Whatever the wisdom of cutting aid to co-existence programs, J-Street doesn't mention a couple of salient facts that the media also ignores:
* As far as I can tell every single such coexistence program is initiated by Jews. I have yet to see one that was created by Palestinian Arabs, although there are some individuals who do care about real peace, like Bassem Eid. I have never seen J-Street mention this huge disparity, nor have I ever seen J-Street ever say a word of support for human rights activists like Eid.
* There are some coexistence programs, formal and informal, between Jewish "settler" and their neighboring Palestinians. J-Street does not support those programs. Their pretense to be "pro-peace" is a sham.
So spare us your lies that you support real peace and coexistence programs, Jeremy. You're only animating emotion is hate for those you disagree with, not the love that you pretend to support.
We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.
Jared Kushner talks a good game about the Trump administration’s deep commitment to achieving peace in the Middle East.
Last week, Kushner again traveled to the Middle East to talk with Prime Minister Netanyahu and with Arab leaders. While there, Kushner gave a rare interview to a prominent Palestinian newspaper. The aim was presumably to convince the Palestinian people to embrace his soon-to-be-released proposal -- but he spent the interview lambasting President Abbas and the Palestinian Authority’s leadership.
The interview exemplified all that’s wrong with this administration’s approach. While offering empty platitudes about the benefits of peace, Kushner refused to endorse the two-state solution or to promise that he is working toward full Palestinian statehood -- continuing President Trump’s disastrous walk-back of 25 years of US and international consensus.
And he failed to acknowledge that the actions of this administration have alienated Palestinian leadership, empowered Israel’s right-wing rejectionists and shattered American credibility as a good-faith mediator.
So the absence of Kushner's saying certain words is what proves to J-Street that the peace plan is worthless?
J-Street, supposedly pro-peace, is pushing for a peace plan that has failed in 2000, 2001, 2008 and 2013. The not-yet-released deal is already, according to reports, gaining support in Jordan, Egypt, and most Gulf countries - more enthusiasm from Arabs than for anything Obama ever said.
No Arab state would accept a peace plan where the Palestinians don't end up with a state of some type. Yet they are willing to be more flexible in search of peace than J-Street.
Think about that for a minute.
If J-Street was really pro-peace, it would act cautiously. It might express misgivings but it would wait for the details for a true regional peace plan to be released. Instead, it is lobbying against a plan it doesn't know anything about.
That is not pro-peace!
Luckily, J-Street has an ally: Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah movement is now making posters that neatly complement J-Street's fact-free attack on Jared Kushner:
J-Street's position is aligned with Fatah's, and Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt are more interested in a peace plan than J-Street.
We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.
Those who watched The West Wing may remember that my character, Will Bailey, played a minor role in brokering Israeli-Palestinian peace.
The West Wing, alas, is a fictional universe. Here in the real one, our president — unlike Jed Bartlet — is not a Nobel Prize-winning scholar with an unfailing moral compass and an exceptional command of statecraft — or even someone who, you know, reads books.
Nor has our president helped achieve the dream of Israeli-Palestinian peace.
But, like Will Bailey, I am working toward that goal. I’m supporting J Street — and I hope that you will too...
Elder of Ziyon brought this out into the open on Twitter:
Disappointed to see @JoshMalina supporting @jstreetdotorg.
J-Street doesn't just "support two states" as it claims, it is against Israeli democracy and it tries to divide US Jews. Read @AlanDersh, a liberal who understands J-Street's dangerous lies. pic.twitter.com/QmFMJaSgCL
A number of people then joined in, responding to Malina.
So did I:
@joshmalina On the question of @jstreet:
From the beginning, J Street was less than honest about the involvement of George Soros (not known for his enthusiasm for the State of Israel) as far as his initial funding of J Street.https://t.co/ttUfnTFcaE
But that was not my question. The question I asked was whether J Street had come out recently in defense of Israel during the riots. Contrary to the narrative the media readily propagates, not all those involved are in fact peaceful, unarmed protesters. Instead, many are rioting and attempting -- and in some cases succeeding -- in infiltrating into Israel.
It would be nice to have help pointing that out on social media.
J Street's two-paragraph condemnation of "incendiary' comments by Abbas is irrelevant to the point.
I responded
Fair enough, but you do see the irony if @jstreetdotorg condemns "incendiary" remarks but fails to condemn the "incendiary" kites.
I believe they tweeted - and I RT-ed - about terror kites. I am trying to confirm that for you. They are tools of terror and should be called out as such. I have certainly tweeted about them.
From the beginning, J Street has attacked Trump, accusing him of racism and white supremacism, blaming him for an alleged increase in Antisemitism in the US and of causing instability both in the US and in the Middle East.
While there are reports of a small number of Palestinians attempting to breach the fence or otherwise attack Israeli soldiers, the vast majority of those who have gathered appear to be exercising their legitimate and important right to engage in nonviolent protest.
Good to know that the people at J Street read The New York Times.
But other than attempting to impose their view of a peace plan on Israel, do the members of J Street in the US actually see themselves as standing up for and defending Israel from the libels and slanders that come at it from all quarters?
J Street does not call itself "The Home for Pro-Israel, Pro-Peace Americans" -- it calls itself "The Political Home for Pro-Israel, Pro-Peace Americans," which is why nothing they say about Abbas, Hamas and the enemies of Israel ever come remotely close to J Street's ongoing over-the-top attacks on President Trump, David Friedman and Netanyahu.
We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.
Yahya Cholil Staquf, General Secretary of the world's largest Muslim organization, the Nahdlatul Ulama (NU) Supreme Council, led a team of people to Israel to discuss common issues and peace.
This included meetings with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the President Reuven Rivlin, and visits to the Al-Aqsa Mosque.
During the visit, the Indonesian delegation also participated in meetings in Jerusalem with Jewish and Muslim religious leaders and activists in order to "bring the views of the three heavenly religions closer together."
The Palestinian Foreign Ministry said in a statement that "the participation of the delegation contradicts the positions of the Indonesian government and the Indonesian people, who has always expressed its position rejecting the occupation and its policies."
Hamas said, "We appreciate Indonesia, its people, its religious leaders and its historical stands in support of our people's rights and struggles for freedom and independence. We condemn this disgraceful act. "
Fatah spokesman Osama al-Qawasmi said in a statement that the delegation's actions were "a crime against Jerusalem, the Palestinian people and Muslims in the world...The participation of Yahya Taqouf in this conference in occupied Jerusalem is a betrayal of religion, the Aqsa Mosque, the Palestinian people and the Arab and Islamic nations." He called on the Indonesian government and people to "hold accountable those who sold themselves to the devil and wanted to be a tool in the hands of the Zionists and Israel."
The question is: what do supposedly "pro-peace" organizations have to say? Will they support a leader of 50 million Muslims meeting Jewish and Israeli leaders as a way to bring peace and understanding, or will they accept that the PLO and Fatah and Hamas have veto power over anything any Muslim does, even when those Muslims represent tens of millions of people?
The answer is that J-Street will remain silent, because their positions are exactly those of the Palestinian Authority and they will never admit that a meeting with the supposedly evil Netanyahu government can ever be good thing. SJP and other BDS organizations will be against the visit because it violates their prime directive of no dealing with the Zionist entity.
Ironically, Arab nations' silence means their tacit support for the meeting, given their knee-jerk support for anything Palestinians demanded in the past.
We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.
J Street seems to have a habit of hurting Israel in the pursuit of its own agenda.
J Street Support for BDS
An article came out Monday in The Washington Free Beacon detailing how J Street Chapters Aiding BDS Campaigns on Campuses. While it is true that the deputy director of J Street U, Catie Stewart, claims that the organization does not support neither "Apartheid Week" nor BDS campaigns on college campuses, there are indications that J Street hedges on their position and do not necessarily oppose BDS per se:
o In response to a BDS referendum at the University of Minnesota in March, a pro-Israel coalition launched a campaign in opposition. J Street U released a statement opposing the referendum not because it was anti-Israel, but because "this resolution and others like it only serve to empower the Israeli far-right" and that you cannot "effectively oppose BDS without also actively opposing the occupation that fuels it." The BDS referendum passed at UMN in March.
o When a BDS resolution was proposed at Columbia University/Barnard, J Street U posted a statement, since revised, stating that it "opposes the International BDS Movement." But then it went on to decry "the conflation of anti-occupation with anti-Israel," accusing anti-BDS campaigns as being "government funded attacks" targeting "anti-occupation groups, like the New Israel Fund, B'tselem, and Breaking the Silence" while pretending to deal with "the handful of hardline anti-Israel activists." The Barnard BDS resolution passed.
o When a BDS resolution was brought up at George Washington University in April, the J Street U there did not oppose BDS per se, instead again used the familiar theme that "BDS legislation provides Israel's far-right government with the talking points they use to justify their fear-mongering tactics" and insisted that "one can be pro-BDS and not anti-Semitic." The BDS resolution at GW passed.
This disregard for Israeli seems to be part of a pattern.
Last month, I wrote about Judging J-Street By The Candidates They Support, that J Street consistently supports Democratic candidates over Republican ones -- as if they were the only ones who supported Israel. This was true in 2010 through 2016.
I just found a list from 2008 in a J Street report
Unfortunately, within a few years of J Street’s establishment, I came to the realization that I had been deliberately misled and in a one instance lied to by the senior leadership of the organization. I refuse to work with any group that conducts itself in this manner.
The names of Reps. John Salazar (CO-03) and Ed Towns (NY-10) have been scrubbed from the list of congressmen serving on the host committee for J Street's inaugural conference. That brings to ten the number of congressmen, Republicans and Democrats, senators and representatives, who have bailed on J Street after learning that, contrary to their promotional materials, they are not a pro-Israel group...
o Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) o Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) o Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) o Sen. Thad Cochran (R-MS) o Rep. Mike Castle (R-DE) o Rep. Mike Ross (D-AR) o Rep. Michael McCaul (R-TX) o Rep. Leonard Boswell (D-IA) o Rep. John Salazar (D-CO) o Rep. Ed Towns (D-NY)
Since then, J Street has had the last laugh, gaining in legitimacy. But the fact remains that it has done so by openly declaring itself the "blocking back" for Obama and aligning itself with policies and groups that do not act in Israel's best interest, and by limiting itself to supporting only Democrats.
As a side note, in the same October 2009 interview with Jeffrey Goldberg for Atlantic Magazine where Ben-Ami claimed not to support the Goldstone Report, he also referred to "Jewish Voice for Peace and other groups that are consistently upset with us for backing Howard Berman's [Iran] sanctions plan." [emphasis added]
Earlier, in May of that year, J Street came out with a press release, praising Berman for supporting Obama's plan to pursue a diplomatic solution with Iran: "As Chairman Berman stated, the Administration should be given reasonable time to pursue serious and tough diplomacy with Iran." Seeing that J Street was already aligning themselves with NIAC, one has to wonder just how tough J Street thought that diplomacy should be.
Obama advanced policies and positions that empowered the radicals at the expense of the moderates.
Obama’s hostility towards Israel, his repeated intimations that Israel is a colonialist outpost while the Palestinians are the indigenous people of the land of Israel were part and parcel of his across-the-board effort to enable the radical Left to take over the party. Obama’s efforts laid the groundwork for socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders’ surprisingly strong challenge to Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton in the party’s presidential primaries. It also set the stage for the rise of radical leaders like Congressman Keith Ellison and Sen. Elizabeth Warren in the post-Obama Democratic party.
The left wing of the Democratic Party is clearly gaining influence, and J Street is part of that.
But to the degree that it has backed Obama, and continues to support how he framed the Middle East, J Street undermines Israel.
J Street's refusal to condemn BDS, except as a tool in the hands of the "right-wing"; its association with the likes of Soros and NIAC in supporting the Iran Deal; J Street's backing only for Democrats; its support for the clearly one-sided Goldstone Report and most recently J Street's support of the narrative of the "GreatMarch of Return -- these positions do nothing to support Israel.
There are many ways to support Israel, and no one says you cannot criticize it -- but the actions J Street takes demonize Israel and affect Israeli security.
In 2009, William Daroff, the Washington director of the Jewish Federations of North America told JTA that J Street was developing "better PR tactics", such as condemning Iran's Ahmadinejad for denying the Holocaust -- but:
these were easy calls. J Street, he said, has not yet defended Israel when it is unpopular to do so.
Don't hold your breath.
At the time, Daroff wondered aloud, "when and if the Obama administration shifts direction, would J Street still be relevant?”
J Street has proven that it is capable of staying relevant.
Just not relevant to the survival of Israel
We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.
This blog may be a labor of love for me, but it takes a lot of effort, time and money. For 20 years and 40,000 articles I have been providing accurate, original news that would have remained unnoticed. I've written hundreds of scoops and sometimes my reporting ends up making a real difference. I appreciate any donations you can give to keep this blog going.
Turkish blood libel display gets no condemnation
-
There has been no public condemnation from local authorities in Antalya to
an antisemitic public installation in Antalaya, Turkey. The absence of a
clear...
The BBC and the One-Sided Land Dispute
-
In the last two weeks the BBC has produced a large amount of coverage on
new Israeli legislation on land registration in Judea and...
The post The BBC an...
A Simple Truth
-
Shabbat Shalom. Here is a Dry Bones Cartoon by Yaakov Kirschen from 2015.
Shabbat Shalom!Wishes for health and happiness and prosperity and peace to
a...
Jabotinsky's 1935 'Band Wagon'
-
This is the first of a series of three articles by Vladimir Jabotinsky,
the Revisionist leader, written specially for the Jewish Daily Bulletin.
The secon...
Now What?
-
Today, Jews cannot walk down the street in North America, Europe, or even
Australia without the possibility of being spat on, beaten, or even
murdered. Cou...
Closing Jews Down Under Website
-
With a heavyish heart I am closing down the website after ten years.
It is and it isn’t an easy decision after 10 years of constant work. The
past...
‘Test & Trace’ is a mirage
-
Lockdown II thoughts: Day 1 Opposition politicians have been banging on
about the need for a ‘working’ Test & Trace system even more loudly than
the govern...
Sunday, March 10, 2019
Elder of Ziyon
