Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News: J Street

Showing posts with label J Street. Show all posts

Monday, February 29, 2016

"Pro-Israel" J Street U withdraws sponsorship of Bassem Eid because he won't blame Israel

Palestinian human rights activist’s tour of Chicago-area college campuses ended on a sour note this week, after he was heckled and threatened by students and anti-Israel protestors.

Bassem Eid, an East Jerusalem Palestinian who is the founder and director the Palestinian Human Rights Monitoring Group, cancelled his planned lecture at Northwestern University Hillel after experiencing unpleasant encounters with protestors at previous events he held at the University of Chicago and DePaul University that week.

Eid’s February 19 talk at the University of Chicago quickly turned contentious as members of the audience took issue with Eid’s opposition to boycotting Israel and with his focus on wrongdoings of the Palestinian Authority, not of Israel.

“Dr. Bassam, do not dare talk about us [Palestinians] anymore,” a member of the audience shouted toward Eid in Arabic. “You have shamed our God… you’ve shamed us, disgraced us, you are a traitor, you are a traitor, in the name of God you are a traitor… You are worse than the Jews and we will hunt you down and find you in every place, be prepared…”

Eid’s presentation, with its shift away from the Israeli occupation, also disturbed the dovish Israeli lobby, J Street.

J StreetU, the group’s campus organization, initially agreed to co-sponsor Eid’s lecture at Northwestern. But after hearing from students who attended his talk at the University of Chicago, the group withdrew its co-sponsorship. “We found some of the things he said troubling and not in line with our core values,” said Jacqueline Soria, co-president of Northwestern J StreetU. She noted Eid’s comment that Americans do not have a role in solving the Israeli – Palestinian conflict, which runs counter to J Street’s agenda of encouraging U.S. government involvement. Eid, she said, also “spoke exclusively about Palestinian responsibility” without talking Israel’s role.

Now you see how "pro-Israel" J-Street is. A belief that real peace cannot be imposed from outside is enough to drop sponsorship of an otherwise stellar human rights activist, but especially the idea that Palestinians are primarily responsible for Palestinian suffering. Even though there are scores of groups that excoriate Israel at colleges every month, J-Street U cannot stand sponsoring a lecture that doesn't.

Keep in mind that J-Street U insists that Hillel allow anti-Israel viewpoints to be hosted there, but it cannot countenance sponsoring any opinions that are not adequately anti-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.

J-Street's curious stance on Soviet refuseniks

J-Street sent an email to its supporters about three members of Congress that they want to replace, and mentioning credentials of those they want instead.

What’s better than unseating one Congressman who voted to block the Iran deal? Unseating three.

And what’s even better than that? Replacing them with three pro-diplomacy women with strong ties to the Jewish community.

Replace Carlos Curbelo with J Street endorsee Annette Taddeo in South Florida (FL-26).
Replace Bruce Poliquin with Emily Cain in the largest district east of the Mississippi (ME-2).
And send Mike Coffman packing by electing Morgan Carroll in Denver (CO-6).

This is real. The DCCC just added all three of these endorsees to their "Red-to-Blue" program, meaning their numbers are showing a high chance of these seats flipping. Given that Obama carried each district in 2012, we're liking the odds too.

We're also loving the candidates. It's not just that they support the Iran agreement while their opponents tried (or are still trying) to sabotage it. Morgan Carroll lived on a Kibbutz and traveled to the Soviet Union with her mother to support Refuseniks. And, if elected, Annette Taddeo would be the first Hispanic Jewish Member of Congress.

According to J-Street, supporting Soviet refuseniks is a great metric for establishing one's Jewish bona-fides.

But there is something a little jarring about using that fact to help elect a woman who stands for what most former Soviet Jews in Israel would bitterly oppose.

Natan Sharansky, the most famous of all refuseniks, has passionately campaigned against the Iran deal.

Ida Nudel was against the disengagement from Gaza.

Yuli Edelstein is a member of Likud and against a Palestinian state that could endanger Israel.

Perhaps Morgan Carroll could give a little more respect to the actual opinions of the people she and her mother fought to free, rather than spit in their faces by supporting giving hundreds of billions of dollars to those who want to destroy the nation that these people risked their lives to live in.

To J-Street, the refuseniks are not heroes to be emulated, but pawns to be used to gain political points.

Carroll's opponent, Mike Coffman, on the other hand, has unquestioned pro-Israel credentials. He was part of a rally supporting Israel during the 2014 Gaza war.

J-Street was nowhere to be found at that rally as far as I can tell.

He has said, "Being a supporter of Israel in Congress means that I will fight those who believe that Israel should return to its ‘67 borders. Only Israel can determine what borders it needs for its own security and the United States should never dictate to Israel what its security requirements are.”

J-Street disagrees.

There is one thing that is unquestioningly Jewish about J Street, though. It has the chutzpah to claim that those who want to go around Israel's democratically elected leaders are "pro-Israel" and those who support them are anti-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.

J-Street U wants some Jews to die

I received this fundraising appeal from J-Street:

...[T]ax-deductible donations from the United States are helping build Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank. This, despite the fact that every US president since Lyndon Johnson -- Republican and Democrat alike -- has opposed settlement expansion.

We know that settlements are immensely damaging to peace efforts, and ultimately endanger the prospects of a two-state solution, which is so vital for Israel’s future as a secure, democratic homeland for the Jewish people.

Yet Blau has uncovered that at least $220 million in US donations have flowed to the settlements in the past five years.

Where does this money come from?

For the past year, that's what my fellow J Street U students been trying to find out. Make a gift now to help support our work in the Jewish community.

For months, we've been meeting with American Jewish federation officials across the country, asking that -- at a minimum -- they make their funding policies and practices in Israel fully transparent. We need to understand where and why our donations are being spent -- and if any of it is going to projects across the Green Line. That way, we as donors will be better able to make informed decisions and ensure that our money is being used to support, and not undermine, Israel’s democratic and Jewish future.

J Street U’s efforts are leading many in our community to consider these vital questions. We can’t let up now -- we have to remain persistent and insistent.

As I have shown, some of the money from America that J Street and J Street U opposes goes towards ambulances, medical facilities, and rehabilitation centers as well as schools. I have spoken to victims of terror attacks in Judea and Samaria who have turned around and created innovative and creative ways to help other victims - music therapy, animal therapy, physical rehabilitation - and they specifically built them in the territories so people wouldn't have to make the trip to Jerusalem to get the help they needed. Of course, emergency medical services must be located as close as possible to where people live in order to save the most lives.

J-Street opposes all of these worthy services. They want US Jews to divest from helping out Jews whom J-Street finds distasteful.

It is one thing for J-Street to choose to support Meretz or B'Tselem or Breaking the Silence. But they are insisting that some Jews do not deserve medical and social services because of where they choose to live.

In the disgusting logic of of J-Street and J-Street U, there are two classes of Jews - those who are "righteous" in insisting that parts of historic Israel become Judenfrei and the others that John Mearsheimer calls the "New Afrikaners." Some Jews deserve support and others, if they should be in a car accident or terror attack, deserve to die rather than receive life-saving medical aid that might be paid for by some American Jews.

I agree that the disbursement of funds from Jewish Federations be transparent - and American Jews should insist that these federations do not distinguish between Jew and Jew. They should not support the J-Street lie that some Jewish lives are more valuable than others.

I believe that Jews who choose to live in their historic homeland, despite the dangers involved in doing so, are heroes and deserve our support. But whatever your feelings about the settlements, the Jews who live there deserve to live and receive life-saving services as well as social support just like any others. Demanding that these services be defunded goes way beyond political activism - it is bigotry and it is contemptible.

Call your local Federation today and tell them that you certainly hope that they do not buy the argument that some Jews don't deserve our support. Actively trying to divide the Jewish community is not acceptable behavior.

We are doing everything we can to fight for Israel with hard work, research and - above all - the truth. We need your help. Please donate today. If you have other skills you can volunteer for EoZ, send an email to volunteer@elderofziyon.com

The only "Jewish value" at J-Street is its chutzpah

Israeli NGO Im Tirtzu just released a video that names specific Israelis who lead NGOs that defend terrorist human rights.

I think the video goes a bit too far; one can and should criticize these NGOs but this goes over the line by using individuals' names and photos. It can easily appear to be inciting against them. But J-Street is seizing on this to insist not on taking the video down or asking for an apology - they want to use this as an excuse to shut down Im Tirtzu altogether!

Their statement is incredibly disingenuous:

Let us be clear: J Street condemns incitement in all of its forms and over the past couple of months has repeatedly called on Palestinian leadership to refrain from incendiary statements that seek to fuel or justify violence.

Indeed, J-Street's site has a couple of pages that condemn Palestinian incitement, but they have no audience for this message. It is a smokescreen to make them look even-handed, but J-Street is not lobbying Congress to pass bills to punish Palestinian incitement, for example. Its J-Street U division talks about incitement, though - it accuses Jews, including American Jews, of doing most of the incitement!:

When we read reports of this incident, we were deeply disturbed that such violence had unfolded on a street many of us knew so well. Yet many of us were not surprised. While our Jewish community regularly speaks out against incitement against Jews within Palestinian society – as we should – when it comes to Palestinians, we often hear rhetoric of broad generalizations and even prejudice, racism, and dehumanization. We hear this language on the streets of Jerusalem. And we hear it too often in our day schools and synagogues.

J-Street's statement concludes with a call to shut down Im Tirtzu:

There is a democratic and Jewish way to conduct the vital debate we need to have at this critical juncture for Israel, the US and the world. But the hateful way in which Im Tirzu pursues its agenda should have no place and no support from the Jewish community here or in Israel.

Isn't it wonderful that J-Street is now pretending to care about Israeli democracy, when its entire purpose is to subvert an Israeli democracy that consistently votes for leaders that J-Street hates?

J-Street believes that giving a platform to those who say that Israel engages in genocide and who compares Israel to ISIS is perfectly OK.

J-Street believes that supporting politicians who give political cover to terror groups is perfectly OK.

J-Street's co-founder says that maybe the entire idea of a Jewish state in the Middle East isn't a good idea, and it thinks that is perfectly OK.

A J-Street speaker and member of their advisory panel goes further and says that Israel should not exist and Jews should live as a minority in a hostile Arab Palestine - and that is perfectly OK, with no one on the stage challenging it.

When J-Street U members are told that Zionism is racist, they don't bother to disagree - and that is perfectly OK.

Act against how Israeli citizens vote, promote those who want to destroy the Jewish state and demonize those who support it - those maxims must be the "democratic and Jewish ways" of J-Street.

This blog may be a labor of love for me, but it takes a lot of effort, time and money. For over 11 years and over 22,000 articles I have been providing accurate, original news that would have remained unnoticed. I've written hundreds of scoops and sometimes my reporting ends up making a real difference. I appreciate any donations you can give to keep this blog going.

J Street U - Vassar refuses to counter "Zionism=racism" canard

Something very interesting happened at Vassar over the past couple of days. From the J Street U Vassar Facebook:

Earlier this week, Matt Kolbert, J Street U Vassar co-chair, and our treasurer, Ben Rothman, attended a meeting with the VSA [Vassar Student ssociation] finance committee. The committee was reviewing our application for funding to attend the HaaretzQ conference, a major conference in New York City next Sunday that seeks to address questions of peace and democracy in Israel and Palestine. Our understanding of the discussion that occurred at this meeting was that some members of finance committee raised the concern that the VSA, as an explicitly anti-racist organization should not fund our attendance of the conference. The logic of this concern was based on the belief that Zionism is an inherently racist ideology, and multiple speakers at the conference identify as Zionists, so supporting our attendance of this conference would be contradicting the VSA's anti-racist stance. Because of this concern, the committee decided they would table the application and allow the greater VSA to discuss and vote on it.

The concerns raised by the finance committee trouble us deeply for two reasons. First, because we disagree with the notion that this conference is contrary to the VSA's anti-racist values. Second, because our own anti-racist ideologies are the very reason we exist as an organization: to oppose the occupation of the West Bank and fight for a two-state solution. Attending this conference will enable us to advance those goals.

We will seek to convince the VSA to fund our application. The HaaretzQ conference is educational, and all Vassar students have the right to be informed about all sides of world issues. As J Street U, we intend to remain fully independent in our thinking, and hope that we will be able to bring back knowledge will help us in our effort to end the occupation of the West Bank and forge a two-state solution.

J Street U members had the chance to say that they disagree with the notion that Zionism is racism - and it failed. Instead, they said that the HaaretzQ conference isn't racist, but as for Zionism altogether, well....let's not go there.

A truly pro-Israel organization would have been offended and angry at the equation of Zionism and racism, and would have condemned those words in no uncertain terms. Instead, J-Street U chose to ignore that canard altogether - because these proud, idealistic young people felt that the few hundred dollars they wanted is more important that standing up for their purported principles.

How proud they must be!

It is also interesting that the organization couches its opposition to Jews having equal rights to live in Judea and Samaria, and their support for a Judenrein "Palestine," as "anti-racist."

Then came this:

Thank you to the VSA for enabling us to take further steps in ending the occupation by voting unanimously in favor of accepting our fund app to attend the upcoming Haaretz Peace conference. While we are troubled that our app was tabled at all, we are gracious that we now have the opportunity to attend the conference.

We would like to address two misconceptions that the wider community may have about what has taken place over the past few days. First, prior to tonight’s meeting, the VSA finance committee did not approve nor deny our request for funds to attend this conference, instead they tabled the application so that the wider VSA council could vote on it.

Second, we are under no impression that the decision to table our application for funding was anti-semitic in nature. We understand that it may have had anti-Zionist implications, but J Street U Vassar does not assume that correlates to anti-semitism.

Explicitly saying that Zionists are racists "may have anti-Zionist implications"? wow, what brave fighters they are for Israel!

Moreover, J Street U had the chance to proudly stand up for the right for Jews to have their own homeland - and instead their members cowered and refused to say anything negative about the people who want to deny Jews that right. Instead, they cravenly go out of their way to say that they can fully understand why people want to deny Jews any self-determination, and in no way see that as a problem, just another valid opinion that must be respected (as opposed to, of course, those who feel that Jews have the right to live in their ancestral lands, which is completely unacceptable and, according to them, racist.)

The reason that J-Street U cannot proudly say they support a Jewish state is because - they don't support as Jewish state. They support an "Israeli" state. This is JSU-Vassar's Facebook header graphic:

Jews don't have the right to self-determination according to J-Street U. "Israelis" do.

Does that mean that on May 13, 1948, there was no right for Israel to exist? Sure sounds like this is J-Street U's position.

We have seen before that parent organization J-Street also refuses to say that Jews have a right to a Jewish state in their stated principles.

There is a little bit of schadenfreude in this episode where J-Street U felt what it was like to be accused of racism at the same time that they accuse so many other Jews of the same. Yet they clearly didn't learn any lessons from this. Instead, they want to ingratiate themselves with those who want to destroy the Jewish state - for funding.

Now you know what J-Street means when they say they are "pro-Israel."

(h/t JW)

Bibi demolishes J-Street and Peace Now's central claims

At Binyamin Netanyahu's appearance at the Center for American Progress, he said that the settlements were not an obstacle to peace.

He answered that "There have been no new settlements built in the past 20 years.The additions have been in existing communities. The map has not materially changed."

I'm not sure if that is 100% true; I know of three formerly illegal outposts that became legal, and I cannot imagine that there haven't been more illegal outposts in 20 years that have escaped being demolished. But the larger point is true - there has been essentially no new settlements, as opposed to how they are characterized. and Netanyahu said this:

By the way, Google this. Because this is just repeated, ad nauseum, so it assumes the cachet of self-evident truth, that we're 'gobbling up land' and so on. We're not gobbling up land....I mean the total amount of built up land is just a few percent. And the addition, if you look at it over time, it's got to be a fraction - maybe one tenth of one percent? Maybe I'm off, maybe it's 3/10ths of one percent. That's the land that's being "gobbled up." That's a factual question. That is not something that should be debated. And yet it's become an axiom, that we are gobbling up land. We're not.

This statement is driving the "progressives" like J-Street crazy. Because their entire existence, and their entire funding, is dependent on the lie of the ever-expanding settlements that make a two-state solution impossible.

So J-Street tweeted

Netanyahu at @amprog: Settlements are < 1% of West Bank. Truth: 40% of West Bank is under control of settlements. https://t.co/FgLj7c9jk3
— J Street (@jstreetdotorg) November 10, 2015

The link goes to Peace Now, which writes:

The "one percent argument" is a classic example of how supporters of the status-quo use a fraction of the truth to misrepresent the truth on the ground in the West Bank. Yes, the actual built-up area of West Bank settlements takes up only a little more than 1% of the West Bank. But the settlements' built-up area is just the tip of the settlements iceberg. The impact of the settlements goes far beyond this 1%.

Almost 10% of the West Bank is included in the "municipal area," or the jurisdictional borders of the settlements. These borders are so large that they allow settlements to expand many times over onto land that is completely off-limits to Palestinians.

In addition, almost 34% of the West Bank has been placed under the jurisdiction of the settlements' "Regional Councils." That is, more than an additional 1/3 of the West Bank has been placed under the control of the settlers, off-limits to Palestinians.

In total, more than 40% of the West Bank is under the direct control of settlers or settlements and off-limits to Palestinians, regardless of the fact that only a small portion of this land has been built on by settlers.

Let's say that this is 100% true. Then this means that Peace Now agrees that there has been no fundamental change in the West Bank map since the PLO rejected Israeli peace offers of 93%-95% of the land in 2001 and 2008!

Somehow, the 40% Israel controls didn't stop Barak and Olmert from offering nearly the entire West Bank for a Palestinian state. If they could offer it, so could the current Israeli government. So the 40% figure is a red herring, meant to obscure the fact that the intransigent party is the Palestinian side.

And according to Israeli media, Netanyahu was ready to offer nearly the same amount! (Netanyahu's office denied it, saying it was a US proposal.)

Peace Now and J-Street know this. If you read their literature you can see that they try very hard to distract their readers from these facts by mentioning things that aren't relevant. Their central claim to raise cash, that Israel - and especially the reviled Likud government of Netanyahu - is gobbling up land is shown to be a lie.

Yet this Peace Now and J-Street lie of Israel "gobbling up land" is repeated without any shame by the White House, by the New York Times, and by many other sources who don't even bother to read Peace Now reports with a critical eye. Because their own documentation proves their public lies!

I challenged J-Street with this tweet:

OK @jstreetdotorg, tell me EXACTLY how the ~1.7% of settlement land today makes peace so much harder than ~1.6% 20 years ago? @amprog
— ElderOfZiyon (@elderofziyon) November 10, 2015

Of course, they didn't answer.

Because they can't.

Because the truth exposes their anti-Israel campaigns against Israel are based on provable, checkable lies.

Here's the entire video. The section I am highlighting starts at about 23:00.

Poll indicates that J-Street Jews are JINOs (Jews In Name Only)

The American Jewish Committee just released a poll of US Jews' opinions on many subjects, including the Iran deal.

It finds that a small majority of American Jews support the deal, although those with strong opinions were far more against it:

Recently, the U.S., along with five other countries, reached a deal on Iran’s nuclear program. Do you approve or disapprove of this agreement?

Approve strongly
Approve somewhat
Disapprove somewhat
Disapprove strongly 16.4
34.2
19.8
27.4

But when asked about specifics, practically none felt that the deal would do what J-Street claims it would do:

How confident are you that this agreement will prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons?

11. Will Israel’s security be more threatened or less threatened by the Iran nuclear deal?

More Threatened
Less Threatened
Stay the same 42.8
17.9
37.8

12. How confident are you about the ability of the U.S. and the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) to monitor Iran’s compliance?

Very confident
Somewhat confident
Not so confident
Not at all confident 6.1
37.8
28.2
26.1

- See more at: http://www.ajc.org/site/apps/nlnet/content3.aspx?c=7oJILSPwFfJSG&b=8479755&ct=14759049#sthash.PgPHBBvQ.dpuf

Here's the interesting part, though.

Support for the deal plummets among Jews in direct proportion to how much they care about Judaism and Israel.

As the AJC press release says:

While 51 percent of total respondents approve of the deal and 47 percent disapprove, there is a significant split within the community on the issue: those who consider being Jewish very important, those who view caring about Israel as a key part of their Jewish identity, and those belonging to the traditional denominations of Judaism are far more likely to oppose the deal than others. It may, in fact, be appropriate, in light of the data, to speak of two diverging Jewish sub-communities.

Among those who consider their being Jewish “very” important, 61 percent disapprove of the agreement (37 percent “strongly”), while 38 percent approve it (12 percent “strongly”). In contrast, 55 percent of those for whom being Jewish is “fairly” important approve the deal (15 percent “strongly”), as do 59 percent of those for whom being Jewish is not important (22 percent “strongly”).

Similarly, a majority—54 percent—of those for whom caring about Israel is an important component of their Jewish identity disapprove of the deal, 19 percent “strongly,” while 66 percent of those for whom caring about Israel is not an important component agree with the deal, 27 percent “strongly.”

Fully 67 percent of Orthodox and Conservative Jews disapprove of the agreement, 45 percent “strongly.” Yet 54 percent of Reform and Reconstructionist Jews approve of it (19 percent “strongly”), as do 69 percent of those who identify as “just Jewish” (24 percent “strongly”).

Unfortunately, there are many more American Jews who are Jewishly ignorant than those who care about Judaism and Israel. 74% of those surveyed identified with being Reform, Reconstructionist or "just Jewish" - a plurality of 37% for the latter category. (While there are certainly some Reform Jews with strong Jewish identities, most Jews who know nothing about their religion but go to synagogue twice a year will self-identify as Reform.)

So this is how you can find absurd results like the responses to these two questions:

Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: “The goal of the Arabs is not a peaceful two-state agreement with Israel, but rather the destruction of Israel.”

Agree
Disagree 73.1
25.1

Do you favor or oppose the establishment of a Palestinian state?

Favor
Oppose 51.9
46.1

How can this be reconciled? Because so many Jews don't care about Israel.

And those are the Jews who support the Iran deal.

When J-Street claims to be representing the majority of American Jews, they are still lying - as the poll shows, a plurality of American Jews feel that the deal is dangerous and practically none buy into J-Street's argument that the Iran deal is actually good. But the Jews who most strongly support the deal are the Jews who don't give a damn about Israel or Judaism - Jews In Name Only, or JINOs.

And the Jews who don't give a damn about Israel and Judaism - the ignorant Jews or the Jews who are hostile towards Israel - are the ones who support J-Street's positions.

After summer of name calling, J-Street claims that it never called anyone names

J-Street's Rosh Hashanah email message to its supporters was even more hypocritical than usual:

Oh really? Their email from July called their opponents warmongers and an "out of touch Jewish establishment."

Even at the beginning of September, J-Street kept referring to outdated polls from July to pretend that Jews were supportive of the Iran deal. Most Americans are against it as well.

And as their absurd arguments fell apart, they became more and more dependent on ad hominem attacks. An early september mailing called those opposed to the Iran deal "opponents of diplomacy driven by partisan politics and hawkish ideology."

J-Street's entire existence is based on the goal of dividing the American Jewish community. To say that they want to heal the rifts now is just another J-Street lie.

Hillary and her team are fans of Max Blumenthal, Peter Beinart, J-Street

The Hillary Clinton emails that were just released show that she and her team are far more to the left, and far more interested in promoting the leftist J-Street view of Israel, than she lets on publicly.

Hillary was thrilled with Max Blumenthal's book "Republican Gomorrah," writing on September 11, 2009, "I just finished the book and it is great!."

Blumenthal's father, Sidney, often shared Max's articles with Hillary, including "The Great Islamophobic Crusade" where Blumenthal began his career of conflating all evils of the world to Jews and Zionists, blaming them for anti-Islamic initiatives and then moving on to pretend that all Jews in Israel support murdering Arabs for no reason. Hillary asked her staff to "Pls print for me."

Sid also recommended to her Peter Beinart's article, "The Failure of the American Jewish Establishment," saying

H: I'm sure you are preoccupied with the adventures of Lula, et al. Nonetheless, the article below, just posted by the NY
Review, soon to be published, is a breakthrough piece that will have a large impact. It's worth reading, not least for Frank
Luntz's poll numbers. The hysterical tone of much of the Israeli leadership and US Jewish community is partly rooted in
this long-term and profound development. Sid

Sid also pushed hard the idea that American Jews are against the Israeli government, as another Sid Blumenthal memo says:

March 23, 2010
For: Hillary
From: Sid
Re: US Jewish and Israeli public opinion
Three new polls released: from AVO07 (all US), J Street (US Jews), and Ha'aretz (Israelis). I've
sent Lauren the whole J Street poll to print out for you; its internals are the most detailed,
relevant and suggestive. My reading of that poll is that the administration is in a pretty good spot
with US Jewish opinion and that the drag (about 10 points, I think) has less to do with the Middle
East and Israel than with the economy. Jewish opinion is far more solidly supportive of the
administration generally than the general population (except minorities). Those adamantly
opposed to the administration stance on Israel are preconceived to be against; they are
predictable, a minority of the US Jewish community and have reached their natural limits. The
institutional US Jewish position backing Bibi and against the administration does not have
majority support among Jews.

Sid also recommended that Hillary tell AIPAC that they are too right wing:

For: Hillary
From: Sid
Re: AIPAC speech
This memo does not address specific policy initiatives.
What I've written are options. Use what you like, or none at all. Here are some ideas:

1. Hold Bibi's feet to the fire, remind everyone he was at Wye, his key participant event in
the peace process, and that it was successful.

2. Reassure all players of our commitment to the process and the solution (whatever the
language is).

3. Perhaps most controversial, I would argue something you should do is that, while
praising AIPAC, remind it in as subtle but also direct a way as you can that it does not
have a monopoly over American Jewish opinion. Bibi is stage managing US Jewish
organizations (and neocons, and the religious right, and whomever else he can muster)
against the administration. AIPAC itself has become an organ of the Israeli right,
specifically Likud. By acknowledging J Street you give them legitimacy, credibility and
create room within the American Jewish community for debate supportive of the
administration's pursuit of the peace process. Just by mentioning J Street in passing,
AIPAC becomes a point on the spectrum, not the controller of the spectrum. I suggest a
way how to do this below.

1. On US national security interest, Israel's security and the peace process:
The reason the US has always supported Israel since the moment President Harry S. Truman
decided to recognize the State of Israel is that it is in the US national security interest and
consistent with our values. It is in our interest to support a thriving democracy in the Middle East
Only through the marketplace of ideas will sound policies to help resolve complicated and
seemingly intransigent problems be developed. This administration values everybody's views.
They are important. You are important. We welcome views across the spectrum, from AIPAC to
J Street. All these views are legitimate and must be heard and considered.

There's also a Martin Indyk email forwarded to Hillary that blames Bibi for not extending his 2010 settlement freeze, without a negative word about Mahmoud Abbas for refusing to negotiate:

From: Martin Indyk [mailto
Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2010 8:59 AM
To: George Mitchell; Feltman, Jeffrey D
Subject: Dealing with Netanyahu
The principle conclusion from a quick visit to Israel and Ramallah over the weekend is that Netanyahu is in a strong
position politically, with an unusually stable ruling coalition. Nobody I spoke with believed that the government would
have fallen if he had decided to extend the settlement freeze before its expiry, as a gesture to U.S. peacemaking efforts.
In their view, he could have easily garnered the support of a large majority of the people, for whom the settlers are a
marginal concern. And this would have given him leverage over his ministers to ensure their support or abstention in
the cabinet. ..

3. As his friend, paint a realistic picture of the strategic consequences of his negotiating tactics, particularly in terms of
what is likely to happen to the PA leadership if he worries only about his politics and not at all about Abu Mazen's
politics.
4. If all else fails, avoid recriminations in favor of a "clarifying moment." The world will of course blame Bibi. But you
should avoid any kind of finger-pointing in favor of a repeated commitment to a negotiated solution and a willingness to
engage with both sides in trying to make that happen, when they're ready. The Israeli public and the American Jewish
Community should know how far the President was prepared to go and they should be allowed to draw their own
conclusions

Based on the relatively narrow timeframe of last night's email dump the overall tone is that Israel is obstinate and not interested in peace, the Zionist American Jewish community must be marginalized, the Palestinians are victims and not responsible for any of their actions, and that Hillary must still publicly cultivate the AIPAC crowd while working behind the scenes to undermine it. Haaretz is liberally quoted but no conservative analysis about Israel ever reached Hillary's eyes through her handpicked, trusted advisers.

(h/t Babylonian Hebrew)

.@JeffreyGoldberg vs. @PeterBeinart on @jstreetdotorg

Last night there was a very cogent tweet by Jeffrey Goldberg that upset Peter Beinart:

There are two options. If Goldberg is correct, then J-Street calling themselves "pro-Israel" is an absurdity - you cannot be pro-Israel when almost all Israelis disagree.

If Beinart is correct, then I can say with more certainty that I am pro-Palestinian.

After all, according to Beinart, it is up to individuals to define whether they are pro- or anti-something, and objective reality is not relevant.

I support the right of Palestinian Arabs to live in peace and security in any Arab country without discrimination. I support equal rights for Arab citizens of Israel. I support helping the economy of the territories. I am very opposed to Arab discrimination against Palestinians. I condemn how Lebanon and Egypt and Jordan and Gulf countries treat Palestinians as second class citizens.

Therefore, I am pro-Palestinian, by Peter Beinart's definition..

And my pro-Palestinian credentials actually outweigh J-Street's pro-Israel credentials, because I have lots of examples of Palestinians who (among themselves) agree with everything I just wrote, while J-Street will have to dig around the extreme Left of Israeli politics to find those who agree with them concerning Iran.

The fundamental question is whether being "pro-" something is objective or self-defining.

By objective standards, J-Street cannot claim to be pro-Israel if actual Israelis who have to live with the consequences of J-Streets positions consistently disagree with them group.

By Peter Beinart's standards, if someone wants to claim to be pro-Israel then they are. Presto!

Is J-Street really against BDS? Their opposition to anti-BDS legislation shows the answer

J-Street: Pointing in the wrong direction

Times of Israel reports:

After weeks of legislative drama, a trade bill containing provisions opposing the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) campaign against Israel cleared its final legislative hurdle Wednesday afternoon. The anti-BDS language, passed as part of the controversial Trade Promotion Authority legislation, is expected to be signed into law by President Barack Obama, who had pushed Congress to pass the trade bill as soon as possible.

Two amendments opposing BDS in Europe – one sponsored by Democratic Sen. Ben Cardin and Republican Sen. Rob Portman and the other by Republican Representative Peter Roskam and Democratic Representative Juan Vargas – were included in a trade authorization package that was considered must-pass legislation for the administration.

Reading J-Street's reasoning in opposing the bill reveals much about that purportedly "pro-Israel" organization:

J Street is adamantly opposed to the Global Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) Movement. We’ve worked consistently, particularly on college campuses*, to oppose BDS efforts that are often thinly-veiled attempts to delegitimize Israel.

We view the Roskam-Vargas “U.S.-Israel Trade and Commercial Enhancement Act” (H.R.825) as not simply unhelpful to the effort to combat Global BDS, but contrary to longstanding US policy opposing settlement of the territory occupied by Israel in the 1967 Six Day War.
...
The current stalemate in diplomatic progress toward a two-state solution has led some groups to pursue more limited boycotts or divestment initiatives in opposition to only the occupation and not Israel itself. These “targeted” efforts do not call for a boycott of Israel itself or Israeli goods, but of settlement products, unlike the all-encompassing boycott of Israel promoted by the global BDS Movement.

While J Street does not participate in such targeted boycott or divestment initiatives, we do not believe it is productive or appropriate for the United States government to spend time and resources preventing or reporting on such efforts.

J-Street claims to be opposed to BDS. But legislation that opposes BDS in all territories controlled by Israel is considered so heinous that they would rather see Israel boycotted than consider that Jews who live in their ancestral lands should not be boycotted. Which means that their opposition to BDS is not really so strong.

To put it another way, they claim to love Israel, but if that means that all Israeli citizens are treated the same whatever side of the Green Line they happen to live on, then screw Israel.

Also, while J-Street claims that this legislation doesn't distinguish between Israel and the territories, its opposition shows that J-Street doesn't distinguish between the Western Wall and Ramallah - all of them are the same occupied territory according to J-Street where Jews should be allowed to be boycotted if their friends at Jewish Voice for Peace want to. If someone wants to boycott a kosher falafel shop in the Jewish Quarter of the Old City, J-Street supports that right.

Legislation often includes parts that not everyone is thrilled with, but the greater good is considered worth the price of the particular parts that one doesn't like. J-Street has decided that the possibility of supporting Jews in the territories against discrimination more than negates any good that comes from a major piece of anti-BDS legislation.

Pro-Israel? Yeah, right.

--------
* I have looked hard for evidence of a single J-Street action on a single college campus - a table, a protest, anything - publicly denouncing BDS. I have not found one yet. They only have some online documents against BDS that as far as I can tell were never physically distributed to anyone.

The impression one gets is that J-Street wants to maintain its ties to radical anti-Israel BDS groups like JVP but still wants to pretend to be pro-Israel.

(h/t fizziks)

J-Street releases slick website embracing a bad deal with iran

J-Street is assuming that people are idiots.

They just came out with a "hail Mary" website meant to convince everyone that the deal being negotiated with Iran is wonderful. It is very slick, filled with animations, and it claims to debunk the major 8 arguments against the deal.

It fails miserably.

J-Street says:

Opponents of this agreement say Iran will cheat their way to a nuclear weapon.

Not without us knowing in time to stop them. That's why this deal is so important: by subjecting Iran to the most intrusive inspections regime in history, it leaves nothing to trust.

Inspections at all nuclear sites. 24/7/365 monitoring. Tracking every ounce of uranium. It all adds up to unprecedented assurance that Iran cannot cheat their way to a weapon undetected

No. Iran has not agreed anytime/anywhere inspections of its military sites, and never will. But they are critically important.

We have heard many assertions by Iranian officials since the P5+1/Iran framework was reached that International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors will not be allowed into military sites in Iran. The blanket assertion seems to suggest that this could be the case even when the IAEA has evidence of undeclared nuclear activities at these sites. Some Iranian officials have even asserted that no country would ever let inspectors into their military sites. But what kind of agreement would that be? What better place to hide a covert centrifuge plant or a plant to develop the nuclear weapon itself?

J-Street says:

Opponents of this agreement say Iran must admit to all its past nuclear-weapons related research.

Yet it would be foolish to sacrifice knowing what Iran is doing now and in future just to insist that it admit all it did wrong in past.

This deal ensures that we’ll know what Iran is up to now and going forward--and give us ample time to stop it--because Iran will be subject to the most intrusive inspections regime in history

This is wrong too. As summarized by Omri Ceren from the TIP mailing list:

(1) No way to have a reliable breakout estimate without PMD resolution - That information could also shape the world’s understanding of a crucial question: Iran’s “breakout time,” or the amount of time it would take Tehran to dash to a bomb if it chose to do so, said Olli Heinonen, a former IAEA deputy director now with the Kennedy School of Government’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard. “You need to know how far they got,” Heinonen said.
(2) No way to have a reliable verification regime without PMD resolution - On Tuesday, Kerry hinted at why the U.S. might be satisfied with such an outcome. U.S. intelligence, he implied, paints a clear enough picture of Iran’s weapons research to make Iranian cooperation unnecessary. “We have absolute knowledge with respect to the certain military activities they were engaged in,” Kerry said. But that statement was quickly challenged by critics of the talks. “I know of no American intelligence officer who would ever use that description to characterize what we know and do not know,” former CIA director Michael Hayden wrote in the Washington Times.
(3) Lets Iran cement its 'we did nothing wrong' narrative, kneecaping the IAEA and gutting the nonproliferation regime - Some experts said the issue is as much political as it is religious, however: Iran appears determined never to concede that it did anything to warrant punitive international sanctions, and to maintain its posture as a victim of western aggression. “Our program always has been — and always will be — exclusively peaceful,” insisted Iran’s Foreign Minister Javad Zarif in April. Evidence of military research, Sadjadpour said, “can be explained away as an elaborate Mossad-CIA conspiracy.”

J-Street says:

Opponents of the agreement say that it lifts sanctions on Iran in exchange for little or nothing but promises.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Sanctions only lift when the international inspectors, part of the most intrusive program in history, verify that Iran is complying with the deal.

And if Iran is found to be violating the agreement? Sanctions snap right back into place.

Are they freaking kidding? Yes, of course they are. They know this is garbage, and they even say so in answer to a later concern:

Opponents of this agreement say the United States should impose tougher sanctions and insist on a “better deal.”

However, new US sanctions would actually result in less pressure on Iran to concessions, not more.

If Congress rejects a deal that prevents Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, we will be blamed, not Iran. China, Russian and other countries would resume their business with Iran, collapsing the tough sanctions regime, while Iran could kick out inspectors and resume concerning activities, paving the way for it to develop a bomb.

So if we can't trust Russia and China to back up the US if Congress rejects a deal, why does J-Street believe that they will snap back sanctions if Iran cheats?

Opponents of this agreement say it only lasts for 10 or 15 years.

They're wrong: after rolling back Iran's nuclear program, this deal keeps in place permanent enhanced inspections to prevent it from acquiring a bomb.

That’s a far better result than the mere two to four years experts say a military strike would set back Iran’s nuclear program.

See above - Iran will always be able to build a bomb in a secret military facility. After all, Fordow was a secret military facility that, under this deal would not be discovered by the IAEA!

J-Street says:

Opponents of the agreement argue that this deal allows Iran to still engage in some nuclear research and development.

In fact, this deal severely restricts Iran’s nuclear R&D, including by prohibiting the testing of advanced centrifuges using uranium. It also drags Iran’s R&D program out into the light of day, subjecting it to the most intrusive inspections and verification regime in history.

Iran will be able to build advanced centrifuges, as long as it tests them with non-nuclear materials. So the research is hard;y being limited at all.

And when J-Street says (repeatedly) that the deal subjects Iran to "the most intrusive inspections and verification regime in history" that is meaningless, because if the inspections aren't enough to stop a bomb, then who cares how they compare to others? As we've shown, they will not stop inspections of sites Iran deems to be military.

In recent weeks there has been serious skepticism of the Iran deal, not from right-wing critics but from mainstream media who are watching incredulously as successive State Department briefings turn into fiascoes of the government abandoning red lines to make a deal. But J-Street, supposedly pro-Israel, shows not the slightest skepticism about the chances that the deal could provide Iran with a pathway to a nuclear weapon. So exactly what is J-Street's position?

The answer is that J-Street will always ensure that its policies are identical to those of the White House, even when the White House changes its policies. If President Obama declared tomorrow that the US is giving nuclear bombs to Iran. J-Street would back him 100%. Because the entire organization is built around a symbiotic relationship with the White House where they back Obama in return for providing him with "Jewish" cover for his anti-Israel actions.

J-Street poll shows American Jews don't quite support J-Street positions

J-Street is pretending to be happy:

Just weeks ahead of the June 30 deadline for negotiations, this morning J Street released a new poll that confirms the majority of Jewish Americans support President Obama's approach to keeping a nuclear bomb out of Iran’s hands.

In fact, the data prove yet again that the pundits and presumed Jewish communal representatives are flat-out wrong in assuming this community is hawkish on Iran or US policy in the Middle East in general.

But the poll itself has results that J-Street would prefer not to be publicized.

Here are some:

Binyamin Netanyahu, who J-Street vilifies at every opportunity, has a higher favorability rating than Barack Obama, 56-49.

Would you support or oppose the United States playing an active role in helping the parties to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict if it meant the United States publicly stating its disagreements with Israel? 56% oppose, J-Street supports.

Other results are skewed by the nature of the question:

72% say "I support a two-state solution that declares an end to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, resulting in all Arab countries establishing full diplomatic ties with Israel and creating an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza."

J-Street says this is their position. it also happens to be Binyamin Netanyahu's position. The question is whether every square inch across the Green Line must be part of a Palestinian state - J-Street seems to say yes, judging from their adamant opposition to Israel building in areas that would remain part of the Jewish state. So the question is tilted to get answers that J-Street can claim supports their position.

Even the nuclear Iran question is skewed:

Imagine that the U.S., Britain, Germany, France, China, Russia, and Iran reach a final agreement that places significant limits on Iran's nuclear program to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.
The agreement imposes intrusive inspections of Iran's nuclear facilities by international nuclear experts, and it caps the level at which Iran can enrich uranium to far below what is necessary to make a nuclear weapon. In exchange for limiting its nuclear program and agreeing to intrusive inspections, Iran would receive phased relief from U.S. and international economic sanctions, as Iran complies with the terms of the agreement.
Would you support or oppose this agreement?

78% of American Jews support this, but the problem is that recent news stories show that there will not be "intrusive inspections" - and J-Street has not uttered a word of concern.

Wording is everything. Let's say the question had been written as "Iran has a history of cheating on its nuclear agreements. They have insulted the US and its leader has said 'Death to America.' They refuse to give adequate access to IAEA nuclear inspectors. They have created secret nuclear facilities Do you support an agreement that is unenforceable?" - would the answers be the same?

J-Street pretends to care about Israel advocacy on campus

I received this email from J-Street's Jeremy Ben Ami:

Sheldon Adelson, Rabbi Shmuley Boteach and Christians United For Israel -- hardly a group representative of the American Jewish community -- spent this Saturday convening a secretive Las Vegas conclave to fight BDS. The problem: their approach is all wrong, and the impact for Israel advocacy on campus could be dire.

This wasn't just any strategy session: they invited 50 organizations that work on college campuses, ranging from the political center to the most extreme and Islamophobic. At the end of the day, the organizations got to compete for millions in funding. The donors have made clear that with all this money, they want to “assign roles” and “command and control” our community’s work on campus.

It's clear who is most likely to be the biggest loser in all this: not BDS, but Israel, and the students who know that the best way to be pro-Israel is to be anti-occupation and pro-peace.

There is more chutzpah in these three three short paragraphs than the proverbial son who killed his parents and asked for mercy because he was an orphan.

J-street is lecturing Zionist organizations on Israel advocacy? Really? When has J-Street ever said a pro-Israel word to "Students for Justice in Palestine"? when have they ever written a letter to professors who want to boycott Israel? I'm still waiting for a single tweet from Jeremy Ben Ami that defends Israel against the worse kind of antisemitic, anti-Israel propaganda.

J-Street characterizes a conference that has been widely reported in the media as "secretive." This coming from someone who tries to sweep the anti-Zionist opinions of his own board members under the rug. This comes from someone who pretends to be pro-Israel but cannot allow his organization to explicitly say that they support a Jewish state because that is way too right-wing for J-Street.

And, really, doesn't use of the word "secretive" suggest antisemitic stereotypes? The language doesn't bother them at all.

J-Street claims on the one habd to oppose BDS, but on the other they invite BDS champions like Mustafa Barghouti and Rebecca Vilkomerson to speak at their conferences.

So what in reality has J-Street done to combat BDS? Have they been vocal against the many divestment initiatives on campus? I have never heard them say a word in any of these public student debates on the topic - but they berate StandWithUs, who does a masterful job defending Israel and defeating these initiatives that J-Street seems to be de facto ambivalent about.

Well, J-street U has a "BDS Response Toolkit."

It is password-protected.

Who is "secretive?"

"Pro-Israel" J-Street tries to raise funds by saying Israel is racist

By now you have read the story about the shelved plan to force West Bank Arab workers to go back to their homes using buses that stop at checkpoints.

After criticism from the left and the right, much of which was misinformed by the original Haaretz story, Netanyahu himself said he would not implement the plan.

On one level at least, Israel proved that it is against discrimination in buses against Arabs, even Arabs who are not citizens.

That should make leftist groups that claim to be pro-Israel very happy, right? The democratically elected government chose not to implement this plan. Even though there were serious security issues that the plan was meant to address, the Government of Israel overrode the plan. Everyone should be happy.

But that isn't what happened.

J-Street sent out a fundraising email that tries to use this episode to paint Israel has a terribly racist society, and claiming that only pressure from American Jews can get Israel to be less racist, which it naturally is if it wasn't for the wonderful people at J-Street:

Last year, Israel's government considered a proposal that would have segregated key bus lines in the West Bank -- some for Jewish settlers, some for Palestinians. The American Jewish community spoke up, and with so many voices opposed, the proposal was cancelled.

Or so we thought.

Now, with Israel's new government, Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon is once again advocating rules that would result in segregation. He wants to separate Jewish Israelis and Palestinians as they go from Israel back into Occupied Territory.

Under Ya'alon's plan, Palestinian workers going home at the end of the day would have to travel through the same checkpoints they used to enter Israel, forcing many far out of their way and onto Palestinian-only bus routes. His proposal is currently on hold, but he and others in Israel's new government are pushing to reinstate it -- permanently. That's why we have to raise our voices once again.

Our values matter, and so do our voices. If we remain silent, the costs are high: further erosion of democracy, and even more international isolation. For Israel's sake, it's critical that the American Jewish community speak out again.

Add your voice and stand up for the Israel we believe in: one that supports our Jewish and democratic values.

Segregated buses? That's just not okay.

- Jeremy Ben-Ami>

Of course, Israeli Arabs could ride on these buses, just as in last year's plan. No Israeli citizen is being discriminated against. But because Jeremy Ben Ami wants to use this episode to cynically manipulate his audience, he consciously compares this story with segregated buses in the US in the 1950s.

That's just not OK. And it proves that Ben-Ami does not love Israel at all, but instead goes out of his way to paint it in as horrible a light as possible.

That's just not OK.

At least J-Street is admitting whose side they are on

From the National Iranian American Council, April 6:

For Immediate Release

Contact NIAC: Jamal Abdi

jabdi@niacouncil.org, 202.386.6408

Contact AAI: Waseem Mardini

wmardini@aaiusa.org, 202.652.4987

Contact J Street: Jessica Rosenblum

Jessica@jstreet.org, 202.279.0005

Washington, DC – The Arab American Institute (“AAI”), J Street, and the National Iranian American Council (“NIAC”) issued the following joint statement regarding the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action framework struck by Iran and the P5+1:

We congratulate President Obama, Secretary Kerry, and the U.S. negotiating team for successfully reaching an historic agreement that provides a framework for preventing a nuclear-armed Iran and averts a disastrous war. While there is much work to be done to address our remaining concerns regarding Iran’s objectionable policies, reaching a final agreement by June on the nuclear issue is an important step to enhancing American and regional security.

As Arab Americans, Jewish Americans, and Iranian Americans, we are especially cognizant of what this agreement may mean for the Middle East. This deal may provide an important first step towards de-escalating regional tensions and pave the way for resolving the many conflicts that still persist. The lesson that we all must learn from these successful negotiations is that diplomacy works. This deal demonstrates that no disagreement should be so deeply entrenched that it cannot be resolved through the give and take of serious diplomacy.

Instead of taking the easy road and continuing to escalate, President Obama and his administration decided to give diplomacy a chance to succeed. Today, the world is better off thanks to the work of all the diplomats involved in these negotiations, and those who supported their work. If the lessons of this long process can be successfully applied to our continued concerns with Iran as well as the myriad other issues that continue to confront the region, there is hope for a brighter future in the Middle East.

The National Iranian American Council is often described as an unofficial Iranian lobby in the US.

J-Street has partnered with the NIAC since at least 2009, and NIAC has contributed thousands of dollars to the J-Street PAC.

Many Iranian Americans are very upset at the NIAC for its pro-mullah positions. But for J-Street, they make a lot of sense.

(h/t EBoZ)

The reason J-Street will never condemn Marcia Freedman

Over the past several days I have shown that, to applause at the J-Street Conference, former Ratz MK Marcia Freedman called for the end of the concept of a Jewish state and instead for a "Jewish homeland" within some sort of (presumably Arab) political entity in Palestine, with Jews as a "protected minority."

I noted that no one from J-Street condemned or even distanced themselves from her comments, and wondered why an organization that pretends that it is so concerned about a two-state solution would not say a word against its own speaker advocating a one-state solution with no Jewish state.

It turns out that if you parse J-Street's official position, it is not a whole lot different from Marcia Freedman's.

J-Street's home page does not call for a Jewish state. Like Freedman, it calls for a Jewish "homeland."

Their six principles also don't say anything about Israel being a Jewish state.

1. We support the people and the state of Israel and their right to live in security and peace and to defend themselves against those who would harm them.

2. The future of Israel depends on achieving a two-state resolution of the conflict with the Palestinian people.

3. The resolution of the conflict requires serious and sustained US leadership.

4. Israel's supporters have not only the right but the obligation to speak out when we think the policies or actions of the Israeli government are hurting Israel's and the Jewish people's long-term interests.

5. Vibrant and respectful debate about Israel benefits the American Jewish community and Israel.

6. It is both possible and necessary to engage in a warm relationship with Israel and to remain true to the values we hold most dear as Jews and as Americans--and on which Israel was founded.

There is very little here that contradict's Freedman's solution. If one of the "two states" is not recognized as the Jewish state, then J-Street's core principles does not preclude the "right of return" - Israel could become a Muslim majority state alongside "Palestine" as a prelude to Freedman's ultimate goal.

To be sure, they will sometimes sprinkle in phrases like "Jewish and democratic state" in their articles, even when they are dead-set against requiring that Israel be recognized as the Jewish state by its "peace partner." In a final agreement, they say, it would be nice if there was mutual recognition of the rights of the Jewish people to a state along with the rights of the "Palestinian people" to a state - but nothing about recognizing Israel as that state.

It is clear that J-Street's philosophy is far to the left of most American Jews, but they will downplay their true position in order to raise funding for their jihad against Israel's elected leadership.

Members of their college arm, J-Street U, have recognized that as they are frustrated that the J-Street conference was tilted more towards public relations and pretending to represent the Jewish community than towards the "progressive" values they hold dear. Stanford J-Street U members were upset that the Palestinian flag was not on stage at any of the J-Street Conference events, and they were nt happy that J-Street told them to not support divestment from Israel - a position that would be consistent with J-Street's position of pressuring Israel from without, but one that would alienate its core of clueless liberal Jews who don't parse J-Street's positions beyond the "two-state" rhetoric.

There isn't much daylight between J-Street's real positions and that of Marcia Freedman. And there is a lot of daylight between J-Street's real positions and what the majority of the American Jewish community desires. J-Street knows that it needs to lie and obfuscate its positions to the Jewish community in its attempts to divide it - and to raise money from it.

That is J-Street in a nutshell.