Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News: J Street

Showing posts with label J Street. 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.

To counter Bahrain economic conference, J-Street chooses a BDS supporter

Next week, J-Street will hold an online event to counter the Bahrain economic conference for helping Palestinians, featuring Palestinian/American businessman Sam Bahour to describe why Kushner's vision for economic prosperity for Palestinians is wrong and his is correct:

This Tuesday, as the Kushner workshop gets underway in Bahrain, Palestinian-American businessman and economic advocate Sam Bahour will join J Street members for an online briefing, directly from the West Bank. He’ll speak about his analysis of the Bahrain workshop and Trump administration policy, the barriers to business thrown up by the occupation and how the US can more constructively engage with the Palestinian economy to help lay the groundwork for peace.

J-Street claims that it is "pro-Israel, pro-peace." It claims that it is against BDS.

But when it wants to create counterprogramming to an American initiative to discuss helping Palestinians economically, it turns to a BDS supporter.

Meaning that Bahour is not going to present any ideas where Israel and Palestinians cooperate on peace or economic prosperity. He can't - he wants Palestinians to boycott Israel. And like all BDS leaders, whether he says it out loud or not, his endgame is to destroy Israel.

This is who J-Street wants to cozy up to.

In any conceivable peace plan or two state plan, Palestinians will have to cooperate with Israel economically. J-Street is against that.

Clearly, J-Street is not as against BDS as they claim to be.

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 uncovers a secret about Netanyahu and Trump (Vic Rosenthal)

Vic Rosenthal's Weekly Column

I think my interest in J Street could once have been called “obsessive.” I wrote numerous blog posts a few years ago, pointing out that the supposedly “pro-Israel, pro-peace” organization received financing from George Soros, mysterious billionaires in Hong Kong, and people associated with Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and the Arab-American Institute. I noted – along with then Ambassador Michael Oren – that it consistently (one could say always) took positions opposed to almost any reasonable interpretation of Israel’s interests. I objected to its guiding principle, which seemed to be that it knew what was good for Israel far better than Israelis did, especially since following its recommendations would negatively impact Israel’s security. I wondered at the close coordination between J Street and the Obama Administration, which tried to anoint it as the voice of American Jewry toward Israel. And more.

Since I moved back to Israel in 2014, I’ve been less concerned with J Street, which is, after all, an American phenomenon. We have plenty of “interesting” politics right here. But recently I became aware of a new J Street initiative, targeting PM Netanyahu, just before the election:

WASHINGTON, DC — The pro-Israel, pro-peace group J Street launched a new series of videos today highlighting the dangerously similar rhetoric and ideology shared by President Trump and Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu. Released as targeted digital ads just a week before the two leaders are expected to meet in Washington, DC on the sidelines of the AIPAC conference, the videos urge pro-Israel Americans who are opposed to Trump to also speak out against Netanyahu’s similar bigotry and anti-democratic tendencies.

“By attacking democratic institutions and targeting vulnerable minorities, Trump and Netanyahu are borrowing from the same far-right playbook — undermining the core values and interests of both the US and Israel,” said J Street’s president Jeremy Ben-Ami. “Patriotic Americans have mobilized impressively against Trump here at home. Those of us who care about Israel’s future need to speak out against Netanyahu’s destructive leadership as well.”

Over the past two years, both the president and the prime minister have incited against vulnerable minorities, attacked the free press and de-legitimized the judiciary and the rule of law. Both face serious investigations into alleged criminal conduct. …

There’s no doubt that liberal and progressive American Jews hate Trump passionately, and there’s no better way to attack Netanyahu among that group than by associating him with their bête noire. The first J Street video is here. It’s very professional and probably didn’t come cheap. The question is, why did J Street spend a considerable sum of money on such a campaign? Americans don’t vote in Israeli elections (although J Street probably wishes they did). Why attack Netanyahu in the USA?

It’s not a simple question and I don’t have a simple answer. Unfortunately, the position papers of J Street’s psychological warfare experts aren’t public. But I have some ideas.

J Street’s primary goal, like that of the numerous other anti-Israel organizations in the US, including the nominally “Jewish” If Not Now and Jewish Voice for Peace, as well as explicitly antisemitic ones like If America Knew, is to create antipathy and distrust for Israel, so that Americans will oppose pro-Israel actions by the US government – for example, the recognition of Israel’s possession of the Golan Heights that is rumored to be on the table now.

In the event of war, they want to prime Americans to believe Palestinian atrocity propaganda against Israel, to make it more difficult for a pro-Israel administration to support Israel, or easier for an anti-Israel one to criticize her or even cut off critical supplies – as Obama did during the 2014 Gaza war.

How does attacking PM Netanyahu accomplish this? The answer has several parts.

First, J Street presents Netanyahu as anti-democratic and dictatorial, as if he is entirely responsible for Israeli policy; so it becomes possible for an American Jew who still feels some loyalty to Israel to separate the country from its Prime Minister, and blame him for supposedly anti-democratic or racist policies, without being forced to make the jump to disliking Israel the nation.

Second, and conversely, Netanyahu has been PM since 2009 and – at least as of today – it is likely that he will receive yet another term. He is Israel in the minds of many Americans, just as Stalin was the Soviet Union and Hitler the Nazi regime. An attack on Netanyahu as racist and anti-minority, and in other ways that particularly resonate in America, also creates negative perceptions of the state of Israel herself.

Third, attitudes in America, as expressed in the media, do have some influence on Israeli elections. There is no doubt that the forces behind J Street would like to see Netanyahu defeated in the coming election. Netanyahu’s political opponents can point to anti-Netanyahu expressions in the US and say, “look, Netanyahu has wrecked our relationship with the US.” J Street’s theme that Netanyahu and Trump are both corrupt, anti-democratic racists will find a fertile field in the progressive media such as NPR and the NY Times that are favored by J Street’s constituency. Because the campaign bashes both Trump and Netanyahu, it will certainly be amplified in those media, which are always ready to take a swipe at Trump.

Fourth, closely associating Trump with Netanyahu minimizes the significance of Trump’s pro-Israel actions like moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem, cutting funds to the Palestinian Authority, downgrading the East Jerusalem consulate, and – I devoutly hope – recognizing Israel’s annexation of the Golan Heights.

J Street’s attack on both Trump and Netanyahu is couched in the universalist, anti-nationalistic (and therefore anti-Zionist) language that finds favor with the progressive Left:

The politics of these two leaders is part of a broader global challenge to liberal democracies rooted in respect for civil society and tolerance of ethnic diversity. Now, the world faces a wave of rising right-wing ethnonationalism with anti-democratic tendencies.

The xenophobia and authoritarianism that the two leaders are fanning is anathema to millions of Americans and American Jews. “While Netanyahu, Trump and their allies may get standing ovations at AIPAC, their views and actions couldn’t be more out of touch with most of the American Jewish community,” Ben-Ami said.

This exposes the true agenda behind J Street, which is actually only one piece of a much larger enterprise opposing nationalism and ethnic particularism, favoring open borders and multiculturalism, and proudly trumpeting extreme cultural relativism. If you think that agenda is a positive one for civilization, look at the ongoing destruction of native European societies like Sweden, for example.

Netanyahu – and Israel, an ethnic nation-state – represent the precise opposite of the agenda, and as such have drawn down upon themselves the wrath of J Street and other such groups, which tendentiously accuse them of being “undemocratic,” “authoritarian,” “racist,” and more. But in fact the “ethnonationalism” that J Street so decries stands opposed to a non-ethnic but much more vicious Islamofascism, which is far less democratic, more authoritarian, and viciously bigoted along religious lines.

The “global challenge to liberal democracies” does not come from nationalism, either in Israel or Eastern Europe, or from Americans who support Trump. It comes from Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, the Muslim Brotherhood, and so on. Netanyahu has a sense of history, and understands all this. And I think that Trump, for all his flaws, does too.

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 challenge for the "woke" crowd: Antisemitic or "just" anti-Zionist?

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.

The IHRA definition of antisemitism could solve this entire mess

J-Street tweeted this:

No to anti-Semitism. No to efforts to silence legitimate debate about #Israel. Strong statements from 2020 contenders @BernieSanders @KamalaHarris @ewarren

__
statements via @aterkel & @danielmarans pic.twitter.com/u56GKDtjW1
— J Street (@jstreetdotorg) March 7, 2019

Here's what the candidates said:

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 is Anti-Peace

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.

The antisemites know that J-Street isn't pro-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.

However, that number is deceptive, because it includes J-StreetPAC as "pro-Israel." And J-StreetPAC was by far the largest contributor to the category.

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, which gave more to candidates than real pro-Israel PACs, says it is concerned over giving money to candidates

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.

Is 'Democratic Majority for Israel' Intended To Clean Up J Street's Mess? (Daled Amos)

By Daled Amos

Get the popcorn: J Street is getting some competition.

The Democratic Majority for Israel (DMFI) is a new group, presenting itself as "the pro-Israel voice of Democrats."

How new is DMFI?

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.

Here is their introductory video:

According to the Democratic Majority for Israel website, their mission is to:

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?

Mark Mellman, CEO of Democratic Majority for Israel, and Jeremy Ben-Ami of J Street recently addressed this question with the JTA.

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.

Gregg Roman, Director of Middle East Forum, wrote in a piece for The Hill already in 2017 about J Street's Dead End:

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."

This past year, J Street endorsed Rashida Tlaib, who

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.

But an article written by Ron Kampeas for JTA in 2006 paints a different picture, noting the involvement of Soros in the early meetings that year that led to the start of J Street.

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.

J Street claims that it opposes the new group because they see DMFI as an ally of AIPAC and the pro-Israel mainstream, and The Forward quotes an unnamed source that goes one step further, claiming that AIPAC is behind DMFI:

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.

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.

J-Street's leaders embraced man who provided money and explosives for deadly 2002 attack

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.