Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News: Goldstone Report

Showing posts with label Goldstone Report. Show all posts

Thursday, July 04, 2019

What you need to know about J-Street's "Birthright" style trip (Daled Amos)

By Daled Amos

The Birthright program is often in the news, mainly because of the tremendous work it does to strengthen the Jewish sense of identity of young Jews by creating the opportunity for them to visit Israel for free.

The Birthright trips have expanded over the years and now you can choose your own theme/itinerary:

o Active: Dive-in to the ultimate outdoor adventure and get ready to hike, bike, and climb your way through Israel
o Professional: Delve deeper into your professional industry by experiencing the best of Israel through an occupational lens
o Culinary: Savor the flavor of Mediterranean cuisine and develop your palate and culinary skills alongside some of Israel's finest chefs
o Spiritual: Embark on a meaningful quest through mystical Israel. Connect with the land, the people and yourself
o Cultural: Get lost in Israel's thriving city centers and explore music, theatre and award-winning film
o LGBTQ: Join like-minded peers on a curated tour of Israel's thriving LGBTQ culture
Study Abroad: Make the country your classroom and travel Israel for 12-14 days. You will experience all the best parts of our Classic trip and master a topic of your choosing earning 3 credits in the process

The goal of Birthright is

Birthright Israel seeks to ensure the future of the Jewish people by strengthening Jewish identity, Jewish communities, and connection with Israel via a trip to Israel for the majority of Jewish young adults from around the world.

Our hope is that our trips motivate young people to continue to explore their Jewish identity and support for Israel and maintain long-lasting connections with the Israelis they meet on their trip. We encourage our alumni to take active roles in Jewish organizations and to participate in follow-up activities worldwide.

But Birthright also gets into the news because of the attempt by left-wing groups to politicize what the program does. These groups offer suggestions -- if not outright demands -- that the Birthright 10-day program includes a 'balanced' introduction to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

J Street is among those left-wing Jewish groups, under J Street U, that want to tinker with the program

The J Street U campaign emphasizes that it is important for American Jewish students to be well-informed and to receive a full and nuanced picture of the challenges facing Israel today, including the threat that the occupation presents to its long-term future as a democratic homeland for the Jewish people. The petitions warn against the damaging consequences of excluding and omitting Palestinian voices and narratives from the conversation.

So now J Street has started its own alternative to Birthright trips.

Why is this a concern?

Because of J Street's controversial agenda to use the US to impose its politics on Israel.

As J Street puts it:

Israel’s supporters have the right and the obligation to speak out when the policies or the actions of the Israeli government are hurting the long-term interests of Israel and the Jewish people.

J Street presents itself as a more liberal alternative to AIPAC. But it is more than that. Unlike AIPAC, which advocates for Israeli policy independent of politics and who leads the Israeli government, J Street actively pushes its own agenda in the US in order to influence the policy in Israel. For example, unlike AIPAC, J Street actively involves itself in US elections and supports only Democratic candidates. Considering how Democratic candidates are moving the left and are less supportive of Israel, that is a major concern that needs to be addressed.

As the J StreetPAC site puts it on their About Us page:

While J Street notes the overwhelming Jewish support for the Democratic party, that does not explain J Street support for anti-Israel Democrats.

o On its website, J Street supports Representative Mark Pocan, who in 2017 anonymously reserved official Capitol Hill space for an anti-Israel forum organized by pro-BDS groups.
o  J Street supports Representative Hank Johnson, who referred to Israelis living in Judea and Samaria as 'termites'.
o  J Street also supports Dan Kildee, who along with Pocan and Johnson met with Shawan Jabarin, a member of the terrorist group PFLP.
o  Just last year, J Street endorsed Rashida Tlaib, despite her support for Palestinian terrorist Rasmea Odeh and criticism of Kamala Harris for discussing cooperation between California and Israel on water management, agriculture, and cyber security. J Street did eventually withdraw its support for Tlaib -- but only because Tlaib withdrew her support for a two-state solution.
o  All this is consistent with past J Street activities, such as actively supporting the biased Goldstone Report, working for the Iran deal alongside the pro-Iranian group NIAC and bringing "Breaking the Silence" to speak at Princeton in 2017 during Yom HaZikaron and Yom Haatzmaut.

While J Street U has put together its own "Birthright trip, this is not the first time J Street has tried this.

The blog Mystical Politics has a copy of the original press release from J-Street posted by J Street U director Daniel May on January 25, 2011, announcing a trip in conjunction with Birthright. (The press release has been removed from the J Street site):

J Street U is very happy to announce that we will be leading a free, ten-day Taglit-Birthright trip this summer titled, "Explore Israel: Progressive Zionism and Social Justice."

This trip is an incredible opportunity to connect with the Israel that isn't on the front page or in the guide books. Move beyond the headlines, and see what's really happening on the ground.

If you're Jewish, age 18 - 25, and have yet to take a peer group trip to Israel, we strongly encourage you to sign up and be the first to know when registration opens.

The trip is a chance to appreciate the vibrancy of Israel's history, culture and landscape from a perspective that acknowledges your Jewish and progressive values.

The best way to discover the richness of Israeli society and the full contours of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is to travel around Israel and meet people from the diverse groups of the region. There is simply no substitute for seeing the land and connecting with the people.

On the trip, we'll speak with members of Israeli civil society working to advance the goals of democracy and human rights. Our itinerary will provide a cross-section of Israeli opinion.

This trip is a gift of Taglit-Birthright Israel and will be provided by The Israel Experience, Ltd. [emphasis added]

The intended focus of the trip was political -- from a 'progressive' perspective, focusing on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and meeting representatives of human rights groups -- as opposed to Jewish identity and connection to Israel. That was, and is, their prerogative. However, the description does not seem like it would mesh with the Birthright goals of identity and connection

And mesh it didn't.

The blog FresnoZionism sounded the alarm: Action alert: Don’t let J Street exploit Birthright:

In other words, the phony ‘pro-Israel’ organization J Street, a group that takes money from people associated with Saudi Arabia, the Arab-American institute, Iranian interests, anti-Israel billionaire George Soros, a mysterious woman associated with the guy who beat the Hong Kong horse-racing track, and the Turkish producer of anti-Israel propaganda films; whose co-founder [Daniel Levy] called the creation of Israel ‘an act that was wrong’; and which facilitated meetings between members of Congress and Judge Richard Goldstone, author of the notorious Goldstone report that accused Israel of deliberately murdering civilians in the Gaza war — this organization has the chutzpah to use funds provided by Taglit-Birthright to sabotage its purpose!

He contacted Birthright and encouraged others to as well, and in the end, the Birthright trip was canceled.

Moriel Rothman, President of the J Street U student board, issued a statement which read in part:

J Street U had planned our trip in order to forge an avenue through which liberal-minded college students – who may otherwise not engage – could develop a deep and lasting relationship with the Jewish homeland. The trip was to include the traditional highlights of a Taglit-Birthright experience – visits to Masada, the Kotel, and Yad Va’Shem – as well as opportunities for students to engage with Israeli human rights advocates, journalists, and politicians involved in the struggle to preserve the democratic future of the Jewish homeland.

...Despite their initial approval for a trip that would provide just such an experience, Birthright’s leadership has now decided that it is inappropriate for JStreetU to organize a trip because we are politically oriented. Nonetheless, comparable organizations with different politics than ours participate and help organize trips every year. For instance, AIPAC’s “Capital to Capital” Birthright trip is designed for Jewish political activists who are “significantly involved in the American political process.” Given that other such trips are regularly offered, we were surprised and saddened that our trip was suddenly deemed inappropriate. [emphasis added]

Again, there are politics and there are politics. FresnoZionism in the same post makes reference to the politics of Moriel Rothman:

What is J Street U? Its National Board President U is a Middlebury College student named Moriel Rothman. Here is how he explains the controversy around the Sheik Jarrah / Shimon haTzadik neighborhood in East Jerusalem. Pay attention not only to his words, but his tone:

…the Jerusalem municipality has been bending to the will of fanatic Jewish settlers, and producing - based on archaic documents from the Ottoman period and manufactured Israeli law - eviction notices to a number of Palestinian families, and in some cases - such as with three families in Sheikh Jarrah- acting on those eviction notices by force and removing those Palestinian families from their homes. The municipality’s actions are hugely problematic from a moral standpoint: not only are Jews buying up and/or stealing Arab land in East Jerusalem, but Arabs are moreover unable to buy land in the primarily Jewish West Jerusalem… These policies are also hugely problematic from the standpoint of peace, as East Jerusalem must be the capital of the future Palestinian state, and the Clinton Parameters, which state that Palestine will get control of Arab neighborhoods and Israel will control Jewish neighborhoods, are made harder and harder to implement with each infiltration of Jewish settlers into Arab neighborhoods like Silwan and Sheikh Jarrah. [emphasis in the original]

This is the example set by a head of J Street U at the time.

In the end, it appeared that the provider J Street U was working with, Israel Experience, did not clear the arrangement with Birthright in advance.

J Street U's statement gave a hint of things to come:

J Street U students are petitioning Birthright CEO Gidi Mark to “provide more Birthright trips that speak to the values of social justice, democracy, and peace that are so important to young, progressive Jews. [emphasis added]

An article from the Jewish Telegraphic Agency at the time explained the Birthright position on politically oriented trips and why trips coordinated with AIPAC are different from what J Street proposed:

“We said such a trip, as described in a brief conversation with the Israel Experience, would likely be out of keeping with our longstanding policy of not conducting trips with a political orientation,” Birthright said in a statement.

A spokesperson for Birthright subsequently confirmed that the policy was adopted in 2009, when the organization decided not to partner any longer with groups that are “overtly political.”

Prior to 2009, Birthright trips were run in conjunction with the Zionist Organization of America and the Union for Progressive Zionists, the precursor to J Street U.

Birthright continues to partner with AIPAC, though references to the pro-Israel lobby group were scrubbed recently from the website of the Israel Experience. Birthright said AIPAC did not fall under the 2009 policy change because the organization does not generally seek to influence Israeli policy. [emphasis added]

Birthright further explained the

For years, we have run a Capital-to-Capital trip through another trip provider, which focuses on the Israeli political system. The provider has been running this trip, with input from AIPAC, a mainstream Israel advocacy group, long before JStreet was established. It focuses on Israel’s political structure, with an approach similar to a political science class; the trip has never been tilted to one side of the political spectrum. [emphasis added]

In the end, J Street went on the trip on their own.

How did it go?

In a J-Street U mailing no longer online, Daniel May, Director, J Street U, wrote on June 21, 2011

I can tell that these two weeks are making a life-long impact on the participants. And amidst the painful stories of this conflict, that fact is giving me tremendous hope. But I don't want you to hear it from me. I want you to hear it directly from the students...

Simone Zimmerman, Berkeley ‘13 – Read her whole post here.

As aspiring peacebuilders, we have already been given so much to challenge us, and we have barely chipped the surface. I feel a tremendous amount of responsibility already, and a tremendous amount of privilege for being able to participate in this journey with J Street U. I’ve been to Israel many times in many different capacities, but this is my first trip where I am finding that I can, without contradiction, bring together my deep love for this country with my deep commitment to exploring the toughest challenges facing Israel today. [emphasis added]

Here is a picture of Simone Zimmerman from during the J Street U trip

From J Street U Facebook Page

Zimmerman has since made a name for herself in expressing that "deep love" and "commitment":

Bernie Sanders staffer fired for anti-Netanyahu rant hired to run B’Tselem USA

After Zimmerman, a former J Street student activist, was hired by the Sanders campaign, it was discovered she previously wrote on Facebook, “Bibi Netanyahu is an arrogant, deceptive, cynical, manipulative asshole,” according to the Washington-based Free Beacon.

She continued: “F— you, Bibi, for daring to insist that you legitimately represent even a fraction of the Jews in this world, for your consistent fear-mongering, for pushing Israel in word and deed, farther and farther away from the international community, and most importantly, for trying to derail a potentially historic diplomatic deal with Iran and thus trying to distract the world from the fact that you sanctioned the murder of over 2,000 people this summer.”

She edited the post on March 3, 2015, changing “asshole” to “politician” and the second expletive to “shame on you.” She was dismissed by the Sanders campaign after being its Jewish outreach coordinator for only two days.

Simone Zimmerman. Screengrab from Haaretz video on YouTube

Considering the example of J Street's past activities against Israel, the attitude demonstrated in the past by J Street U leaders like Moriel Rothman and the activities of the products of J Street U leadership such as Simone Zimmerman -- who is one of the founders of the virulently anti-Israel If Not Now -- suspicions of J Street "Birthright-style" trips are natural.

According to the itinerary of the current 9-day J Street trip:

Day 6: The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict and the Occupation 101
Morning: Settlement Tour and Palestinian Village
Afternoon: Hebron
Evening: Group conversation
Overnight: Jerusalem

Day 7: Israel and Palestinian Perspectives Over the Green Line
Morning: Ramallah–Palestinian self-rule under occupation.
Afternoon: Conversation with Settlers
Evening: Israeli and Palestinian Peace Activists
Overnight: Ein Gedi

There is nothing wrong with criticism of Israel.

The issue is not criticism but rather J Street's record of undercutting Israel and its subversion of support for it.

o  We see it reflected in J Street statements
o  We see it reflected in J Street's actions.
o  We see it reflected in J Street's support for anti-Israel Democratic candidates
o We see it reflected in J Street 'graduates'

J Street is a special interest group with its own agenda.

It is a political agenda that contrasts with AIPAC, just as its politicized idea of an Israel trip contrasts with Birthright trips that encourage Jewish identity and connection with Israel.

Neither AIPAC nor Birthright have a particular agenda that it imposes or politics it is trying to push onto others.

The same is not true of J Street.
The goal of its trip is just one more way for J Street to push its agenda.

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.

Security and Insecurity (Vic Rosenthal)

Vic Rosenthal's Weekly Column

Last week my Masorti shul hosted a visiting group of Americans, members of a Conservative synagogue. One of the subjects for discussion was “what’s the issue that you are most concerned with at your synagogue?” The answer was not declining and aging membership, providing Jewish education for children (and grandchildren), mixed marriage, Israel, or any of the usual issues. It was security. “Ask anybody. Security is the top issue,” they said. “Who wants to join a shul or send their children to a school where they might get shot?”

The traditional position of liberal Jews in the US has always been that security was for someone else. It was sort of a badge of honor for liberals to insist that they didn’t need to protect themselves. They really liked themselves, so why shouldn’t everyone else like them? The Reform Temple in my home town built a beautiful new suburban structure for themselves in 1990, to replace the old fortress-like building downtown. The new one was invitingly open, with acres of glass, lots of doors, and expansive grounds without serious fencing – and it will cost them a small fortune to secure it.

Liberal Jews disliked guns and favored limiting access to them. They trusted the state to protect them. Now they are happy to have the “paranoid” gun owners with carry permits among them. Now they are having “active shooter drills” and taking self-defense courses too, because they are in danger on the street as well as in the synagogue.

This is just one aspect of the end of a golden age. There is no going back. As economic conditions get worse – and they will, thanks to the massive, crushing debt which will leave the increasingly incompetent government no choice but to inflate the currency – both the disenfranchised former blue-collar workers and the revolutionary Left will continue to blame the Jews, as will the blacks, who have been taught since the 1960s that anything bad that happens to them is a result of institutional white racism, and who have also come to believe – thanks to almost every important black “leader” after MLK – that the power behind the racist institutions is The Jew. The increase in the Muslim population, which is already close in number to the diminishing Jewish one, is another reason for an increase in antisemitism. Many Muslim immigrants bring with them the Jew-hatred that is common in the Muslim world, even apart from tensions relating to Israel. The security problem is a new reality, not a temporary problem.

I have to admit that I am lucky in that I have almost never experienced insecurity by virtue of being a Jew. I could say I have lived a charmed life. I lived in America at a time when being a Jew was almost as safe as being anything else. I did not live in Israel during the wars of 1948, 1967, and 1973, when her existence was threatened. I was in California when Saddam was firing Scuds at Tel Aviv. I missed the Second Intifada, with its exploding buses and restaurants, and the recent Knife Intifada never came to Rehovot. I didn’t live in the North in 1981 when missiles from the PLO were landing, nor in 2006 when Hezbollah was launching them. I don’t live in the South now, which periodically comes under fire from Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

One exception was in California in January, 2009. It was during Operation Cast Lead, the first of the “mowing the grass” operations in Gaza. After Israel absorbed thousands of rockets and mortars on the southern part of the country, Israel’s government decided to end the threat. In air, ground and naval attacks, Hamas installations were pounded, with buildings, tunnels, and of course rocket manufacturing and storage sites destroyed.

The operation started on December 27, 2008, and lasted 22 days before officials of the incoming Obama Administration ordered Israel to get the IDF out of Gaza before the inauguration. In the meantime, Hamas and supportive NGOs launched a vicious and effective propaganda attack, in which Israel was portrayed as deliberately trying to injure and kill civilians (the ultimate product of this was the tendentious Goldstone Report). At the same time, the Al Jazeera satellite channel showed continuous violent footage, much of it from wars in other places at other times, inflaming the world against Israel.

The local Islamic Center and “Peace” organization organized an anti-Israel demonstration at a main intersection. Several hundred demonstrators, many of them Muslim teenagers bused from other cities in California, stood on three corners of the intersection, facing a handful of pro-Israel demonstrators. Muslim demonstrators crossed the street and threatened the counter-demonstrators; at one point I called the police and told them that verbal confrontations were escalating and might become violent. They responded that the Muslims had promised that they would control their people. Shortly thereafter, one of the leaders of the demonstration came across and placed himself in front of the counter-demonstrators, protecting us from their more aggressive members.

This was an object lesson in dhimmitude and in diaspora life. We Jews were shown that Muslims would protect us, assuming of course that we were properly subservient; and we saw that the goyishe authorities could not be depended on. Not strong enough to protect ourselves, we were at our enemies’ mercy. My wife commented that it was time for us to move back to Israel (it took five more years).

The Jews of Europe have been insecure for some time now. I was in the UK in 2001, and the synagogue in North London that I visited already had the kind of precautions that Americans are only needing to implement today. Once-safe Germany is warning Jews to keep their kippot in their pockets. Forget France or Sweden.

Insecurity is unpleasant. Someone wants to hurt you, maybe kill you. You look over your shoulder. You cluster together with your own people, in ghettos or “Jewish neighborhoods,” because there’s safety in numbers (sometimes). You look for exits, make contingency plans. You try to make alliances with your non-Jewish neighbors, and to keep on the right side of the authorities in case you need their help.

This is humiliating, dishonorable. It harms your self-respect when your people can’t stand up for themselves. This is life in the diaspora.

Israel is the world’s biggest Jewish neighborhood, with the world’s most powerful security patrol, the IDF. Sometimes we would like the government to get a little tougher with our enemies. After all, this is the Jewish state, not the diaspora. There is still insecurity in Israel, but it is usually collective insecurity, in which the whole country worries about the same things. But personally speaking, I feel much more secure as a Jew in Israel than I ever did in California.

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: From Blocking Back to Quarterback? (Daled Amos)

"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 supports the policy of whoever is elected to lead Israel. In order to do that, AIPAC backs the idea of bipartisan support:

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.

Also, as part of their agenda, J Street has deliberately discarded the idea of bipartisan support for Israel in favor of support for their agenda, by supporting only Democrats in Congressional elections.

The one-sided approached has, of course, resulted in some lopsided endorsements.

For example, there is Rashida Tlaib, whom J Street endorsed despite the fact that Rashida Tlaib

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.

In their statement about withdrawing support for Tlaib, entitled "J Street Will Not Endorse Candidates Who Do Not Endorse a Two-State Solution," J Street makes clear what their priorities are:

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.

And what was J Street's reaction?

J Street president Jeremy "blocking back" Ben-Ami wrote an email to supporters that:

"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.

But this is the same J Street that

o despite their repeated denials to the contrary, in 2008 and 2009 received funding from George Soros,

o in 2009, claimed it "refuses to embrace" the Goldstone Report, which criticized Israel on its conduct during Operation Cast Lead. Yet when a resolution was sponsored in Congress condemning the report, and Goldstone circulated a document defending it, the source of the report was traced back to Mort Halperin of the J Street advisory council. In fact, J Street went so far as to facilitate visits for Goldstone to the Hill

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.

o brought "Breaking the Silence" to speak at Princeton University during Yom HaZikaron and Yom Haatzmaut.

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.

The J-Street Agenda is anything but pro-Israel (Daled Amos)

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.

J Street Support for The Iran Deal

o In 2009, long before there ever was an Iran Deal, Jeremy Ben-Ami, president and founder of J Street, co-wrote an article, How Diplomacy with Iran Can Succeed with Trita Parsi, president of National Iranian American Council (NIAC)
o  A US District Court found that the work of NIAC president and founder Tritra Parsi was "not inconsistent with the idea that he was first and foremost an advocate for the [Iran] regime."
o  J Street was paid $576 million by Soros' Ploughshares Fund to advocate on behalf of the Iran Deal
o In the months leading up to the Iran Deal, Ben-Ami was a frequent visitor to the White House, where he met with Ben Rhodes and with Morton Halperin, the Senior Advisor for the George Soros' Open Society Institute.
o  J Street put up a website defending the Iran Deal without any hesitation about possible consequences or dangers for Israel

Jeremy Ben-Ami. Credit: Joe Mabel

J Street Support for Democrats Only

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

There actually are Republican candidates listed here: 2 out of 41.
One of them, Representative Charles Boustany, voted against a Congressional resolution to neither endorse nor consider the Goldstone Report. But on the other hand, in 2009 Boustany distanced himself from J Street, writing:

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.

According to his spokesman Paul Coussan, Boustany was put off by J Street lying about the money it received from George Soros.

Geoff Davis, the other Republican backed by J Street, was supposed to appear on a panel at a J Street Conference but did not show up.

At the same time, it was reported that a number of other Congressmen also distanced themselves from J Street:

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.

J Street Support for The Goldstone Report

o I've noted in earlier posts that Jeremy Ben-Ami claimed that J Street was "refusing to embrace" the Goldstone Report.
o In fact, Mort Halperin on the J Street advisory council also wrote the letter that Goldstone circulated as his own on Capitol Hill last year, defending his anti-Israel report against a House resolution condemning it. This is the same Halperin, mentioned above, who was the Senior Advisor for the George Soros' Open Society Institute.
o J Street went so far as to facilitate visits for Goldstone to the Hill. Ben Ami said Goldstone met only 2 or 3 Congressmen; Goldstone said it was 10 or 12.

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.

Where Is All This Leading?

In a recent article, Caroline Glick notes the growing influence of identity politics in the Democratic Party, and what it means for Israel:

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 "Great March 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.

Judging J-Street By The Candidates They Support (Daled Amos)

J Street, founded back in November 2007, made no secret of its agenda in its beginnings. In 2009, co-founder Jeremy Ben-Ami admitted to New York Times journalist James Traub:

Our No. 1 agenda item is to do whatever we can in Congress to act as the president’s blocking back.

Back then, there was also no secret about what kind of candidates J Street was going to support -- all you had to do was check their website.

o  In 2010, J Street endorsed 61 candidates - all Democrats
o  In 2012, J Street endorsed 41 candidates - all Democrats
o  In 2014, J Street endorsed 71 candidates - all Democrats
o  In 2016, J Street endorsed 73 candidates - all Democrats

That's 246 candidates J Street has endorsed during that time, and all of them Democrats.

So much for the importance of bi-partisan support for Israel.

Instead, when J Street claims it is "The Political Home for Pro-Israel, Pro-Peace Americans" -- it should admit that only Democrats need apply!

That page no longer exists.

Instead, these days there is a separate site, J Street Pac, which lists J Street Pac candidates. It lists the candidates according to name, state and office -- but unlike the obsolete page on the J Street site, this page does not list the party of the candidate.

So what kind of candidates is J Street going to support?

Since J Street claims to be pro-Israel, one would naturally suppose that J Street will make a point of supporting only those candidates whose pro-Israel bona fides are impeccable.

But then again, J Street's pro-Israel bona fides are themselves far from impeccable.

True, J Street claims to support Israel, that it is "pro-Israel, pro-peace".

But look at their record:

o Despite their repeated denials to the contrary, in 2008 and 2009 J Street received funding from George Soros, who is on nobody's list of top supporters of Israel.

o In 2009, Ben Ami claimed J Street "refuses to embrace" the Goldstone Report, which criticized Israel on its conduct during Operation Cast Lead (December 27, 2008 - January 18, 2009). But when a resolution was sponsored in Congress condemning the report, Goldstone circulated a document to defend it. The source of the report traced to Mort Halperin of the J Street advisory council. In 2011, Goldstone himself repudiated his own report.

o In fact, J Street went so far as to facilitate visits for Goldstone to the Hill

o Already in 2009, there were connections between JStreet and NIAC, a pro-Iranian advocacy group that would become instrumental in pushing the Iran deal -- which J Street still supports.

o More recently, last year J Street brought "Breaking the Silence" to speak during Yom HaZikaron and Yom Haatzmaut.

So if this is the kind of organization J Street is, we can expect that the candidates it supports reflect J Street's own anti-Israel animus.

Here is a recent example that proves the point.

On April 25, a letter signed by 3 Congressmen was sent to Ron Dermer, Israeli ambassador to the US to oversee the use of US tax dollars for humanitarian aid in Gaza:

Among the points the letter claims:

o There is a decade-old blockade of Gaza - not mentioning that the blockade was instituted as a response to the bloody Hamas coup that led to the increased threat of rockets and terror attacks. Also not mentioned is the millions of tons of food and supplies provided by Israel, a fact that challenges the claim that there is a "blockade"

o The threat to the water and electricity is mentioned generally, as if Israel is to blame for shortages, with no mention that the government is run by a terrorist organization, which should be held responsible for its actions -- but is not.

o Aid through UNRWA is referred to as having a security function, despite the numerous examples of the anti-Israel bias of UNRWA, as documented by Elder of Ziyon

o Israel denied their request in June 2016 to enter Gaza, a request they claim was without justification. It would be convenient for Israel to give a reason and justification for refusing the request, but the fact remains it is Israel's border and it has the right to refuse.

o The letter suggests that in refusing the request, Israel does not want them to see the worsening conditions in Gaza -- again implying that Israel is responsible for them.

The 3 Congressmen who signed the letter -- Pocan, Kildee and Johnson -- are supported by J Street. What else do we know about them?

The Washington Free Beacon reported that Representative Mark Pocan was identified as the member of Congress who last year anonymously reserved official Capitol Hill space for an anti-Israel forum organized by organizations that support boycotts. In the end, Pocan did not attend the anti-Israel forum he sponsored. A senior Congressional official was quoted as saying

[Pocan] chose to facilitate a pro-BDS smear campaign using taxpayer dollars without even showing his face at the event...As millions of Jews and non-Jews alike celebrate the 50th anniversary of the reunification of Jerusalem, Congressman Pocan and his J-Street lackeys are spending their time working to undermine the state of Israel.

Senator Mark Pocan official photo

Another of the 3 Congressmen, Representative Hank Johnson, referred to Israelis living in Judea and Samaria as...termites:

There has been a steady [stream], almost like termites can get into a residence and eat before you know that you’ve been eaten up and you fall in on yourself, there has been settlement activity that has marched forward with impunity and at an ever increasing rate to the point where it has become alarming.

Johnson's 2016 statement of "increasing" se ttlement activity is easily refuted by the facts. Keep in mind that Johnson is the one who claimed in 2010 that stationing 8,000 Marines on Guam would cause the island to "become so overly populated that it will tip over and capsize."

As an apology for his dehumanizing comment, Johnson said his comment was a:

Poor choice of words – apologies for offense...Point is settlement activity continues slowly undermine 2-state solution.

Senator Hank Johnson official photo

As for Congressman Kildee, he was one of 3 Congressman in 2016 who met with Shawan Jabarin, an Arab terrorist affiliated with the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. Mark Pocan and Hank Johnson were among them. Such a meeting implies sloppy vetting - or worse.

Senator Daniel Kildee official photo

When you compare the statements and actions of J Street with those of Senators Mark Pocan, Hank Johnson and Daniel Kildee they do seem to be a good fit -- they all undermine 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.

Irony alert: Terrorist groups upset at being the target of a suicide bomber

Times of Israel reports:

A suicide bomber killed a Hamas guard in southern Gaza early Thursday when forces tried to stop him from infiltrating into Egypt, members of the terror organization said, in what sources described as a rare attack against the Islamist group.
“Early this morning security forces stopped two people approaching the southern border (with Egypt),” an interior ministry spokesman in the Hamas-run territory said in a statement.
“One of them blew himself up,” it added.
Later a medical source confirmed a member of Hamas had died in the attack.
The source named the man as Nidal al-Jaafari, 28.

Here is the late Mr. Jaafari.

Notice that he is a member of the Al Qassam Brigades, Hamas' "militant wing." But he is also a guard - which means according to the Goldstone report and the PCHR, he is a civilian.

Hamas doesn't distinguish between civilians and their "militants." Yet the world keeps pretending that there is a distinction.

Another thing to keep in mind is that the Rafah crossing is open now for the first time in four months, as Egypt is allowing Hajj pilgrims to leave. Practically no one has been reporting on the actual siege by Egypt on Gazans for four long months - months during which Israel allowed thousands to pass through its own Erez crossing.

More interesting is the reaction of other terror groups to this suicide bombing, apparently by a Salafist.

Islamic Jihad condemned the bombing in Rafah as "outside religion, culture and morality."

The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine stressed that it is "against the use of weapons, abuse and assault" describing the suicide attack as a "dangerous violation."

Fatah called it a "terrorist act."

The Popular Struggle Front called this a "dark act that must be combatted"

Yes, the Islamists who innovated suicide bombings as suddenly aghast at the idea of becoming the victims of Islamist suicide bombings. It's so immoral!

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.

These Greens Are Poisonous (Daphne Anson)

We all want to save this planet, we all want a life that’s free

So we voted for the Greens, ‘cause they stood for equality.

But as soon as they got power, it went right to their head,

Now they’re not supporting freedom, but racism instead.

Greens, Greens, your paint’s peeling off, you ain’t what you were at the start,

Greens, greens, your paint’s peeling off, revealing your racist heart.

There are human rights abuses in most countries you could name

But there’s just one tiny country that the Greens would like to blame,

A country known as Israel where citizens walk free,

Muslims, Jews and Christians – the region’s lone democracy.

Greens, Greens, your paint’s peeling off, you ain’t what you were at the start,

Greens, Greens, your paint’s peeling off, revealing your racist heart.

Israel’s fought in seven wars, not one did it start,

Rockets launched each day from Gaza still tear children’s lives apart.

But to the Greens they’re the aggressors, not entitled to their views –

How dare Israel defend itself, those stubborn bloody Jews.

Greens, Greens, your paint’s peeling off, you ain’t what you were at the start,

Greens, Greens, your paint’s peeling off, revealing your racist heart.

Sure, Israel isn’t perfect, and it’s always in the news,

But would you fare any better, standing in their shoes?

If you call a country racist, while ignoring the great wealth

Of far greater wrongs around it, you’re just racist yourself.

Greens, Greens, your paint’s peeling off, you ain’t what you were at the start,

Greens, Greens, your paint’s peeling off, revealing your racist heart.

Greens, Greens, your paint’s peeling off, you ain’t what you were, that’s for sure.

Greens, Greens we now see who you are, and we won’t vote for you anymore.

That catchy ditty entitled “Racist Heart” whose words I decided to reproduce since they don’t seem to appear all together anywhere on the internet (to hear them go https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHPe04ZrVGY) is the work of a New South Wales singer-songwriter inspired by the utter hypocrisy, bigotry and double standards displayed by the New South Wales Greens in 2011 when they committed the council of Marrickville in Sydney to BDS, a mean and divisive move that outraged both Jews and non-Jews and has since been overturned.

For a party that was founded with the welfare of the environment and ecological issues in mind, the Greens in Australia, like the Greens elsewhere, have a disproportionate fixation with “Israel Palestine” and appear to have passed more “party resolutions” pertaining to that corner of the world than to any other foreign policy issue. Here’s their most recent resolution, one that allows no consideration of the pre-Six Day War 1949 ceasefire lines as they affect Israel’s security and which offers everything to the Palestinian Arabs on a platter, despite their decades-old rejectionism and with no responsibility on their part towards negotiation with Israel:

Resolution on Palestine, November 2015

That the Australian Greens National Conference:

1. Notes:

a) The state of Palestine is currently recognised by 136 states, representing 70.5% of the 193 member states and two non-member states of the United Nations;

b) The importance of recognition of the state of Palestine, alongside the state of Israel, as a contribution to securing a negotiated two state solution, based on 4 June 1967 boundaries with both states sharing Jerusalem as their capital;

2. Formally recognises the State of Palestine.

Motion passed by consensus

Since, as made clear by Greens politician Adam Bandt the other day (see below) they support the “right of return” for “Palestinian refugees” they are, quite obviously, unconscionably hostile to Israel.

Here’s a brief glimpse of their obnoxious attitude. In 2013 the New South Wales Greens, apparently spearheaded by David Shoebridge, member of the state Legislative Council and co-convenor of the NSW Parliamentary Friends of Palestine, announced support for the “Gaza’s Ark” project, “which will challenge the blockade by rebuilding a boat in Gaza using Palestinian shipbuilders, load the vessel with Palestinian goods and products, and sail to international waters with both Palestinians and internationals on board,” the aim being “ to challenge the ongoing, illegal Israeli blockade and focus worldwide attention on Gaza and the complicity of the governments that support it or look the other way.” This, despite the fact that in 2011 an inquiry under UN auspices declared Israel “fully within its rights to impose [the blockade] in order to prevent the import of weapons which will be turned against it.” To the ire of the then federal Greens’ leader Senator Christine Milne when she found out, a staffer in Shoebridge’s office invited notorious German-born South Australian Holocaust denier Dr Fredrick Töben to the “Gaza’s Ark” fundraiser (a cruise around Sydney Harbour), leading Shoebridge to have the invitation withdrawn.

That same year NSW Young Greens posted on Facebook a poll that asked whether respondents believed in “the rights and sovereignty of Palestine” or supported “the creation and continuance of the state of Israel”. Although the poll was later removed owing to pressure by the then party leadership, those who administered that Facebook page remained defiant in their outlook, leading the executive director of the Executive Council for Australian Jewry to observe: “Regardless of their personal views, their activities and rhetoric have time and again been magnets for gross expressions of antisemitism, both online and in public forums. The Greens … have a choice to make … They can speak and act as a party with mainstream voter appeal, or they can pander to the radical fringe of politics.”

Federal Senator Lee Rhiannon (born Lee Brown to hard left parents, and of part-Jewish extraction through her mother) is arguably the most infamous of the anti-Israel Greens. Her attitude can be discerned in a speech she made two and a half years ago in the Senate, in which she said, inter alia:

“There is a strongly growing case for the Australian government to adopt the Greens’ policy of no military cooperation and trade with Israel. This policy change is needed to ensure that Australia no longer supports crimes committed by the Israeli government…. Jake Lynch, Director of Sydney University's Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies, has pointed out that Israel is the only country which is guilty of the following four major transgressions. The first transgression is that it is illegally occupying foreign territory. The evidence for this is UN Security Council resolution 242 which calls on Israel to reinstate the 1967 borders. This violation is now in its 46th year. The second transgression is that Israel is the subject of well-founded allegations of war crimes, most recently the 2009 UN Goldstone Report into Operation Cast Lead. A third transgression is that it is a nuclear armed state yet has refused to admit this or join the non-proliferation treaty. This is surely one of the biggest obstacles to a peaceful and stable Middle East. The fourth transgression is that it is the subject of well-founded allegations of apartheid crimes, violating the 1973 International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid….”

Last month Senator Rhiannon, as readers of David Singer’s posts on my blog will be aware, authorised Israel-demonising leaflets, including that ubiquitous set of mendacious maps and other misleading material, to be issued by her office at public expense.

Senator Christine Milne’s successor as federal Greens’ leader, Dr Richard Di Natale, was praised by Jewish communal leaders in May 2015 when, was asked in an interview with the AJN “whether Abbas should recognise Israel’s existence as a Jewish state” he replied “Of course. How can you have a two-state solution when you refuse to acknowledge the right of one state to exist? It’s patently nonsense.” The ensuing furore in his party caused Dr Di Natale to backtrack. A fortnight after the interview was published, the AJN (4 June 2015) reported:

‘Ignoring the fact that the Jewish State has existed for almost 70 years and is recognised in international law, Greens leader Senator Richard Di Natale this week earned the ire of community leaders for declaring “absolutely” that he does not support the establishment of a Jewish state and does not believe it would be conducive to a two-state solution…. The backlash [from Greens regarding the answer he gave in the interview] prompted a clarification, in which his executive assistant stated that Di Natale was “concerned about the way in which his comments were reported” and that while he supports a two-state solution, “the establishment of a ‘Jewish state’ (as opposed to an ‘Israeli state’) is not conducive to that outcome”. When The AJN contacted Di Natale’s office, a spokesperson said they didn’t mean to imply there had been “an error in reporting”, explaining “it was just a misunderstanding”….

Di Natale this week reiterated his position in correspondence with the Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ)…. “My comments in the AJN piece were intended to reflect that view and that view alone. I have never believed that the establishment of a ‘Jewish state’ (as opposed to an ‘Israeli state’) is conducive to this outcome and I absolutely do not support that goal.” …. Labelling Di Natale’s “about turn” as “profoundly disquieting”, Zionist Federation of Australia president Danny Lamm … noted the UN and Israel’s Declaration of Independence, as well as statements by US President Barack Obama as supporting its existence as the Jewish State. He added, “Senator Di Natale’s revised position on Israel should also be assessed in the light of Articles One and Four of the Palestinian Basic Law (2003) that respectively declare: ‘the Palestinian people are part of the Arab nation’; and ‘the principles of Islamic sharia shall be the principal source of legislation’. “It would be useful to ask whether Senator Di Natale’s objection to national ethno-religious identity applies solely to a Jewish Israel, or extends to an Arab/Muslim Palestine as well?”….’

The words of the “Racist Heart” song above are so pertinent to the despicable, discriminatory attitude of the Green Party in Australia towards Israel, and even, as recent events in the state of Victoria have reminded us, towards Jews. The latest whiff of Greens’ poison has emerged during the current federal election campaign, and it involves Greens candidate Steph Hodgins-May, who is hoping to wrest the seat of Melbourne Posts from the Australian Labor Party’s (ALP’s) Michael Danby, who has represented the seat in federal Parliament in Canberra since 1998. Mr Danby, who is Jewish, is and always has been a stalwart champion of Israel, and from his university days has been instrumental in building up support for Israel among trades unionists and others on the right of the party. On 22 June Mr Danby’s two main rivals, Liberal Party candidate Owen Guest and the Greens’ Ms Hodgins-May, were due to join him in a pre-election debate on issues raised by Jewish constituents (who comprise a not insignificant proportion part of the seat’s electorate). But as a result of Ms Hodgins-May’s sudden withdrawal, the debate will be between just Danby and Guest.

The debate, to be chaired by Australian Jewish News editor-in-chief Zeddy Lawrence, was first proposed to the three candidates on 26 May, and Ms Hodgin-May’s office that same day confirmed her participation. On 30 May Mr Lawrence emailed her to inform her that the event would be co-sponsored with the AJN by Zionism Victoria. On 7 June she told an enquiring journalist on Twitter that she was unaware of the involvement of Zionism Victoria, and on 8 June her office informed the AJN by email: “At the time of Steph accepting AJN’s invitation to participate in the candidate forum, it was our understanding that it was being independently hosted by your newspaper. Since the circumstances of the forum have changed, Steph won’t be participating.” That same day she informed the paper, in two separate conversations: “I’m not comfortable participating in a forum that is co-hosted by an organisation that isn’t an independent newspaper, so that’s my reason for withdrawal” and that she felt it was not “appropriate and right to speak at an event co-organised by a politically active organisation”.

On 9 June the AJN pointed out to her that the Greens member for Melbourne and former deputy leader of the party Adam Bandt would be speaking at an Australia Palestine Advocacy Network (APAN) (see, by the way, Bandt’s response to an APAN questionnaire (https://apan.org.au/party-positions-on-the-question-of-palestine/adam-bandt-mp-greens-member-for-melbourne/). Thus cornered, she offered this excuse: “I was unaware when I accepted that it was also being co-hosted by an organisation that holds strong political views, including in relation to the United Nations. As someone who worked at the UN and holds their work in high regard, I have chosen not to participate in the now co-hosted forum.” Yet, as the AJN notes, the description a “nuisance and a sham organisation,” which Hodgins-May attributes on her website to Zionism Victoria, emanated from the Zionist Federation of Victoria.

See Bandt’s shameful response when confronted at the APAN forum with this issue by David Schulberg: (http://jmedia.online/2016/06/14/australian-palestinian-advocacy-network-event/ )

Here is Bandt’s speech at the APAN forum, where he makes clear that the Australian Greens support the “Palestinian Right of Return” (something that, if effected, would spell the end of Israel):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cp81WxOOQnY

Ms Hodgins-May has behaved disgracefully, treating a section of her potential electorate with contempt. As excoriating articles in the current AJN make clear, she has caused deep offence and hurt to Jews in the constituency she hopes to represent. Not long ago she tweeted a photo of herself holding a loaf of challah on a Friday afternoon, together with appreciative comments. But elections are not won by bread and blarney and photo opportunities alone. The Greens are poisonous.

Editorialises the AJN:

“As a newspaper – albeit a Jewish, Zionist one – we don’t as a rule presume to tell our readers who to vote for. We may encourage them in a certain direction, but on the whole we present relevant information and allow them to make up their own minds. In this instance, however, we feel we have no choice. We not only opened our pages to Steph Hodgins-May, we invited her to take part in our panel. In turn, she has shown considerable disrespect towards our community. And that being the case, we would urge you not to give her your vote.”

Michael Danby goes further: “Approximately 71 per cent of Australian Jewish residents of Melbourne Ports have family in Israel. If she doesn’t want to represent our local Jewish community, or even speak to them, she cannot be their local member. Greens Leader Di Natale must sack her.” Excellent point.

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.