Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News: J Street

Showing posts with label J Street. Show all posts

Thursday, March 07, 2019

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.

Fatah and J-Street vocally oppose peace plan they have not seen

J-Street's Jeremy Ben-Ami sent out an email:

Jared Kushner talks a good game about the Trump administration’s deep commitment to achieving peace in the Middle East.

Last week, Kushner again traveled to the Middle East to talk with Prime Minister Netanyahu and with Arab leaders. While there, Kushner gave a rare interview to a prominent Palestinian newspaper. The aim was presumably to convince the Palestinian people to embrace his soon-to-be-released proposal -- but he spent the interview lambasting President Abbas and the Palestinian Authority’s leadership.

The interview exemplified all that’s wrong with this administration’s approach. While offering empty platitudes about the benefits of peace, Kushner refused to endorse the two-state solution or to promise that he is working toward full Palestinian statehood -- continuing President Trump’s disastrous walk-back of 25 years of US and international consensus.

And he failed to acknowledge that the actions of this administration have alienated Palestinian leadership, empowered Israel’s right-wing rejectionists and shattered American credibility as a good-faith mediator.

So the absence of Kushner's saying certain words is what proves to J-Street that the peace plan is worthless?

J-Street, supposedly pro-peace, is pushing for a peace plan that has failed in 2000, 2001, 2008 and 2013. The not-yet-released deal is already, according to reports, gaining support in Jordan, Egypt, and most Gulf countries - more enthusiasm from Arabs than for anything Obama ever said.

No Arab state would accept a peace plan where the Palestinians don't end up with a state of some type. Yet they are willing to be more flexible in search of peace than J-Street.

Think about that for a minute.

If J-Street was really pro-peace, it would act cautiously. It might express misgivings but it would wait for the details for a true regional peace plan to be released. Instead, it is lobbying against a plan it doesn't know anything about.

That is not pro-peace!

Luckily, J-Street has an ally: Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah movement is now making posters that neatly complement J-Street's fact-free attack on Jared Kushner:

J-Street's position is aligned with Fatah's, and Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt are more interested in a peace plan than J-Street.

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

Is J Street As Dedicated To Israel As It Is To The Two-State Solution? (Daled Amos)

Yesterday, I responded to Josh Malina on Twitter.

Josh Malina, Wikipedia

Malina supports J Street. Here is part of an email J Street sent out of Josh Malina actively campaigning for them:

Those who watched The West Wing may remember that my character, Will Bailey, played a minor role in brokering Israeli-Palestinian peace.
The West Wing, alas, is a fictional universe. Here in the real one, our president — unlike Jed Bartlet — is not a Nobel Prize-winning scholar with an unfailing moral compass and an exceptional command of statecraft — or even someone who, you know, reads books.
Nor has our president helped achieve the dream of Israeli-Palestinian peace.
But, like Will Bailey, I am working toward that goal. I’m supporting J Street — and I hope that you will too...

Elder of Ziyon brought this out into the open on Twitter:

Disappointed to see @JoshMalina supporting @jstreetdotorg.
J-Street doesn't just "support two states" as it claims, it is against Israeli democracy and it tries to divide US Jews. Read @AlanDersh, a liberal who understands J-Street's dangerous lies. pic.twitter.com/QmFMJaSgCL
— ElderOfZiyon (@elderofziyon) June 17, 2018

A number of people then joined in, responding to Malina.

So did I:

@joshmalina On the question of @jstreet:
From the beginning, J Street was less than honest about the involvement of George Soros (not known for his enthusiasm for the State of Israel) as far as his initial funding of J Street.https://t.co/ttUfnTFcaE
— (((daledamos))) (@daledamos) June 18, 2018

And I continued...

Malina did respond to a couple of points I tweeted.

About Soros, he agreed "that it was a misstep, trying to hide the financial involvement of Soros at the inception of the organization."

In another tweet, he wrote, "I try to RT and amplify their [J Street's] message when they justly criticize Hamas or Abbas."

As an example, he linked to one of their press releases:

J STREET STRONGLY CONDEMNS INCENDIARY, OFFENSIVE REMARKS BY PRESIDENT ABBAS

But that was not my question. The question I asked was whether J Street had come out recently in defense of Israel during the riots. Contrary to the narrative the media readily propagates, not all those involved are in fact peaceful, unarmed protesters. Instead, many are rioting and attempting -- and in some cases succeeding -- in infiltrating into Israel.

It would be nice to have help pointing that out on social media.

J Street's two-paragraph condemnation of "incendiary' comments by Abbas is irrelevant to the point.

I responded

Fair enough, but you do see the irony if @jstreetdotorg condemns "incendiary" remarks but fails to condemn the "incendiary" kites.
— (((daledamos))) (@daledamos) June 18, 2018

Malina tweeted back:

I believe they tweeted - and I RT-ed - about terror kites. I am trying to confirm that for you. They are tools of terror and should be called out as such. I have certainly tweeted about them.

And that is where things stand.

He has not yet gotten back to me.

I'm not sure he will.

When you do a search on Twitter for any tweets J Street has tweeted on the kites, only 2 tweets show up:

No condemnation.

No outpouring of...anything.

Both Tweets are informative -- but that's all, and who needs J Street for that?

A similar search on the J Street site turns up either links that go directly to articles or "News Roundups."

Maybe J Street is just too busy.

After all, besides piling up on Trump over the issue of the treatment of immigrant families J Street has been occupied with attacking Ambassador David Friedman.

From the beginning, J Street has attacked Trump, accusing him of racism and white supremacism, blaming him for an alleged increase in Antisemitism in the US and of causing instability both in the US and in the Middle East.

Similarly, J Street has painted David Friedman as unfit to be the US ambassador to Israel and last month J Street claimed he should be investigated.

And of course, we all know how J Street feels about Netanyahu.

But does that leave any time for actually advocating for Israel?

Do a search of what J Street has been tweeting about the Gaza riots, and there 6 of them -- 3 in April and 3 in May. One of which links to a press release on the J Street website:

While there are reports of a small number of Palestinians attempting to breach the fence or otherwise attack Israeli soldiers, the vast majority of those who have gathered appear to be exercising their legitimate and important right to engage in nonviolent protest.

Good to know that the people at J Street read The New York Times.

But other than attempting to impose their view of a peace plan on Israel, do the members of J Street in the US actually see themselves as standing up for and defending Israel from the libels and slanders that come at it from all quarters?

J Street does not call itself "The Home for Pro-Israel, Pro-Peace Americans" -- it calls itself "The Political Home for Pro-Israel, Pro-Peace Americans," which is why nothing they say about Abbas, Hamas and the enemies of Israel ever come remotely close to J Street's ongoing over-the-top attacks on President Trump, David Friedman and Netanyahu.

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

An acid test for "pro-peace" organizations: Support or denounce Indonesian Muslim visit to Israel?

Yesterday, a delegation from the largest Muslim organization in the world ended its tour of Israel.

Yahya Cholil Staquf, General Secretary of the world's largest Muslim organization, the Nahdlatul Ulama (NU) Supreme Council, led a team of people to Israel to discuss common issues and peace.

This included meetings with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the President Reuven Rivlin, and visits to the Al-Aqsa Mosque.

During the visit, the Indonesian delegation also participated in meetings in Jerusalem with Jewish and Muslim religious leaders and activists in order to "bring the views of the three heavenly religions closer together."

Who could be against such a thing?

Well, Hamas and Fatah and the PA denounced the visit in unmistakable terms.

The Palestinian Foreign Ministry said in a statement that "the participation of the delegation contradicts the positions of the Indonesian government and the Indonesian people, who has always expressed its position rejecting the occupation and its policies."

Hamas said, "We appreciate Indonesia, its people, its religious leaders and its historical stands in support of our people's rights and struggles for freedom and independence. We condemn this disgraceful act. "

Fatah spokesman Osama al-Qawasmi said in a statement that the delegation's actions were "a crime against Jerusalem, the Palestinian people and Muslims in the world...The participation of Yahya Taqouf in this conference in occupied Jerusalem is a betrayal of religion, the Aqsa Mosque, the Palestinian people and the Arab and Islamic nations." He called on the Indonesian government and people to "hold accountable those who sold themselves to the devil and wanted to be a tool in the hands of the Zionists and Israel."

The question is: what do supposedly "pro-peace" organizations have to say? Will they support a leader of 50 million Muslims meeting Jewish and Israeli leaders as a way to bring peace and understanding, or will they accept that the PLO and Fatah and Hamas have veto power over anything any Muslim does, even when those Muslims represent tens of millions of people?

The answer is that J-Street will remain silent, because their positions are exactly those of the Palestinian Authority and they will never admit that a meeting with the supposedly evil Netanyahu government can ever be good thing. SJP and other BDS organizations will be against the visit because it violates their prime directive of no dealing with the Zionist entity.

Ironically, Arab nations' silence means their tacit support for the meeting, given their knee-jerk support for anything Palestinians demanded in the past.

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

J-Street members applaud taking in Syrian refugees - but not Israel's right to exist

Yesterday I showed how enthusiastic J-Street members were in applauding Palestinian intransigence.

Compare that to this speech by Hawaii senator Brian Schatz, where the applause for pro-Israel positions like supporting Israel's right to exist and maintaining Israel's military edge were muted or nonexistent, but supporting the Iran deal and demanding that the US take in Syrian refugees were greeted rapturously.

Altogether, the representative of a terror organization received far more adulation than a Jewish senator who supports Israel's right to exist.

(You might argue that Schatz didn't pause enough after saying his pro-Israel positions so the audience couldn't applaud as much. Perhaps, but I would argue that he knew his audience - he is a professional politician and knows how to elicit applause with a pause, and he didn't want to risk an awkward silence.)

Schatz also made a pro-J-Street argument, claiming falsely that the Zionist crowd is unwilling to engage in debate and that this is undemocratic. No, we are happy to engage in debate - of all J-Street was doing was asking for debate there would be no shortage of people willing to argue for Israel against it. But J-Street is actively trying to undermine Israel's democracy while pro-Israel organizations support it. That's the issue.

Which he knows is true, because AIPAC always supported the Israeli government, left or right. It is J-Street that is manifestly undemocratic.

J-Street isn't a pro-Israel organization. It is simply a leftist group that is trying to split the American Jewish community to oppose Israeli policies.

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.

Blessed Be The Peacemakers -- Like J Street's Mahmoud Abbas!

J Street has come out with an ad in The New York Times advocating for peace talks, more specifically advocating for "a new proposal for two-state negotiations" by none other than Mahmoud Abbas.

Based on the picture used to illustrate the rest of the ad, J Street is making a not too subtle point:

The J Street ad even makes the point of listing all the people who support a two-state solution:

o US presidents from both parties
o  Veteran US foreign policy leaders
o  The majority of the Israeli security establishment
o  80 percent of Jewish Americans
o  The Arab League
o  Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who last month laid out a new proposal for two-state negotiations

That leaves out just 2 groups: the Israelis and Arabs themselves.

J Street does actually claim support for the two-state solution by both Israelis and Palestinians:

Reaching a two-state solution is vital to securing Israel’s future as a democratic homeland for the Jewish people and to advancing overall peace and stability in the region. That’s why it’s long been supported by the majority of Israelis and Palestinians... [emphasis added]

But that is not accurate. According to a poll taken in November of last year into the beginning of December, under 50% of Palestinians, Israeli Jews support the two-state solution - that's 47% of Palestinians and 46% of Israeli Jews, according to the poll by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research and the Tami Steinmetz Center for Peace Research. In a similar poll conducted earlier in June 2017, 52% of Palestinians and 47% of Israeli Jews supported a two-state solution.

To put it simply, the people who are going to have to live with this "solution" are not really in favor of it.

On the other hand, what about the people who are in favor of it? The presidents and policy leaders have successfully proven themselves far from infallible. The Jewish Americans may find the idea of a two-state solution emotionally satisfying, but that is no argument - especially since they need not worry about the consequences. The Arab League? Who knows if their motivation is because they believe the plan will work. As for the Israeli security establishment, their recommendation cannot be rejected out of hand but requires explanation: are they arguing abstractly on the basis of peace being the best kind of security, or do they anticipate specific conditions being fulfilled for that peace to be effective and lasting?

And that brings us to Abbas.

Looking at the record of the man J Street insists is the only man who is pushing for peace, it is clear that J Streets omission of Abbas's spotty record in peace negotiations slants the story.

In 2008, then-Prime Minister Olmert made an offer to Abbas. Years later, in 2015, Abbas admitted he was the one who rejected Olmert's peace plan, an agreement that would have given him nearly all of the land the Palestinian Arabs wanted, an almost total withdrawal from the West Bank, a land link to Gaza, with the Old City in East Jerusalem under international control. Abbas rejected the offer, claiming he was not given an opportunity to study the map that described Israel's offer. Olmert's version is a little different. He says he showed the map to Abbas, who wanted to take it with him. Olmert agreed - on the condition that they both sign the map since Olmert considered this as the final offer and not a basis for future negotiations. Abbas demurred and instead said he would return the next day with experts. Olmert never saw Abbas again.

In 2009, Washington Post columnist Jackson Diehl described Abbas's self-described waiting game. Abbas told Diehl his only role was to wait. He would wait for Obama to force Netanyahu to freeze settlements and publicly accept the two-state solution. Abbas basically waited during the 8 years of the Obama administration.

In late 2009, Netanyahu agreed to Obama's request for a 10-month moratorium on building settlements in order to facilitate peace talks. Abbas waited and did nothing until the last month, at which point he demanded an extension of the freeze. When Netanyahu refused, Abbas walked out.

Then came the peace talks in 2013-2014, http://www.thetower.org/0249-graphic-timeline-of-collapsed-peace-talks/as outlined in this infographic from The Israel Project:

Abbas did nothing to support the negotiations, instead failing to condemn a terrorist attack and announcing a unity government with Hamas terrorists.

Now, on February 25, J Street came out with the strangely named post "The Palestinian Peace Plan" -- strangely named because there is no description of the plan. Instead, part of J Street's argument for the plan is an admission of just how bad a peace partner Abbas actually is:

Let’s be clear: We have no illusions that Mahmoud Abbas is the ideal partner. His rhetoric is at times incendiary, and his frequent refusal to acknowledge the Jewish people’s historic connection to Israel or Jerusalem is troubling. His hold on leadership is tenuous and his critics are legion.

Yet we know there will never be a Zionist sitting on the Palestinian side of the negotiating table — and there doesn’t need to be to reach a lasting agreement that will make Israel safer.

As Yitzhak Rabin said, “You don’t make peace with friends. You make it with very unsavory enemies.” [emphasis added]

While admitting the problems of Abbas as a peace partner, J Street leaves out:

o Abbas's hold on leadership is more than tenuous - his term as president ended in 2009
o  He has a history of pocketing concessions and then leaving negotiations
o  He incites hatred against Israel, paying stipends to terrorists and naming stadiums after them
o  Palestinians don't support the two-state solution

Even members of the Palestinian government don't support real peace, and say this openly - in Arabic:

This is not an issue of being "unsavory"; the Palestinian government does not support the idea of peace, or even Jewish right to a state, to its own people. That is not unsavory, it is dishonest.

While J Street is quick to credit Abbas with suddenly coming forward with a peace initiative for the first time, it is worth noting that he was happy to sit back and wait during the Obama adminstration and never actively pushed for peace until the Trump administration, which put an end to coddling the Palestinian Arabs.

J Street appears happy to ignore the anti-Israel actions of Abbas and other members of the government.

This is the same J Street that once bragged, “Our No. 1 agenda item is to do whatever we can in Congress to act as the president’s blocking back.”

Apparently they are blocking for Abbas now.

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 Missing Chair for Abbas

J-Street placed a full page ad in the New York Times saying that Abbas has accepted a two state solution - but Netanyahu and Trump have not:

Here is a photo of Mahmoud Abbas from last Thursday - after he supposedly accepted a two-state solution at the Security Council - as he attended a Fatah Revolutionay Council meeting.

Note the logo on the folder he is holding. It is the Fatah logo, of the political party he heads. And it does not show a two-state solution. In fact, it urges a violent armed takeover of all of Israel.

There has never been any move to change the Fatah logo to indicate acceptance of Israel's existence, by Abbas or any of this people.

But J-Street knows that the head of the group whose logo boasts three weapons taking over the Jewish state is the peaceful party. .

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 Jeremy Ben Ami lies again, claims Abbas accepts "two states for two peoples"

In a new mailing from J-Street, Jeremy Ben Ami waxes poetic over Mahmoud Abbas' "peace plan" of giving up nothing and demanding everything be handed to him on a silver platter:

Last week, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas made an important speech to the UN Security Council.

Abbas laid out explicit support for the two-state solution and put forward a serious proposal for how to get there.

Of course, if Ben Ami had been paying attention, Abbas was not showing the slightest willingness to make any hard decisions for peace - as he and his predecessor have adamantly refused to do so for over twenty years.

But then Ben-Ami goes into complete fantasyland:

So it’s stunning when you realize that, today, of the three, the Palestinians are the only party willing to publicly endorse the goal of two states for two peoples.

This is a breathtaking lie.

Never has Abbas recognized Israel as a Jewish state, and he never will. He certainly didn't do so in his speech. Without that, there are no "two states for two peoples."

This has been what Israel has insisted upon since Camp David. The very expression "two states for two peoples" is Israeli. Israel has never stopped endorsing it. The phrase is mentioned numerous times on Israel's Foreign Ministry website, today.

Sometimes, Palestinians and apologists for their double talk like Jeremy Ben Ami will claim that Palestinians do accept two states for two people - but when they say that they mean the "Israeli" people, not the Jewish. people. That is almost certainly what Ben Ami meant - and he is knowingly deceiving his readers who do not realize the depth of his hate for Israel as a Jewish state.

But actual people who care about actual peace know that he is throwing dust in their eyes with this lie.

After all, J-Street itself is against Israel being recognized as the Jewish state. They knowingly obscure their "two states" demand by saying things like this:

J-Street does not say that Jews have the right to self determination, but "Israelis." Which makes no sense, since there was no "Israeli" people before 1948 - so whose self-determination was realized with the rebirth of the state of Israel?

There is no daylight between the official Palestinian position stated to the world and J-Street. It is not pro-Israel in any sense.

And people who believe that all peoples have the right to self determination but not Jews, which seems to be J-Street's position, are antisemitic.

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 calls Netanyahu a racist

The American Council for Judaism was a small but vocal anti-Zionist group whose main purpose in the 1940s and 1950s was to convince Americans that not all Jews supported Israel. It used its supposed Jewish bona-fides as a means to split the Jewish community and to show others, especially American Christians, that since the Jews were not all pro-Israel, then the non-Jews should be reluctant to support Israel.

Later, the ACJ dropped its most toxic opposition to Israel's existence, but remained (and remains) politically opposed to Zionism and Jewish nationalism by pretending to be far more representative of American Jews than it really is.

J-Street is today's American Council for Judaism.

While Americans are overwhelmingly pro-Israel, J-Street wants to make it look like plenty of Jews are against Israel to disrupt support for Israel and enhance support for Arab terrorist sympathizers who want to destroy Israel - but who, like J-Street, talk out of both sides of their mouths.

J-Street reached its political apex during the Obama administration, as they were invited to meet the President on many occasions and were used as a means to put political cover on Obama's anti-Israel bias.

In the current White House, J-Street is trying to find a way to remain relevant. And that has been to attack anything Trump does.

The clear affinity between Mike Pence in his current trip to Israel and ordinary Israelis has shown that J-Street's claim to be "pro-Israel" is hollow.

In a mailing that J-Street leader Jeremy Ben Ami sent out yesterday, the group has now adopted the exact same methodology as the anti-Zionist websites like Electronic Intifada - to associate people they don't like with each other.

Ben Ami writes:

The common threads running through the actions and rhetoric of the far-right here and there -- of Trump, Pence and Netanyahu -- are clear:

- Extreme partisanship that puts right-wing ideology ahead of national interests and democratic values;
- Contempt and disrespect for immigrants and people of color;
- Disdain for diplomacy, negotiation and compromise.

Netanyahu has contempt for people of color? He is the one Israeli leader who has done more for the people of Africa than any other, and African nations respect him more than most world leaders! He set up a ministerial committee to battle racism in Israel.

Netanyahu has "disdain" for negotiation and compromise? He is the one who accepted a US framework (by Obama!) for peace - a framework that goes against Bibi's opposition to basing a solution on the 1967 lines! - which was rejected by Abbas.

And after watching Bibi's amazing political maneuvers that has brought Israel closer to Arab states, India, China and many other countries, the idea that he puts narrow ideology over Israel's national interests is laughable. Netanyahu has positioned Israel better politically than any other Israel leader.

J-Street has decided that the best way to show how much it hates Israel is to associate it with Trump. Since many Americans hate Trump, J-Street wants them to hate Israel's leaders just as much. Saying that Bibi (and, by implication, Israel's government and Israel itself) is racist and illiberal is simply slander. Which is all that J-Street has as it scrambles to raise money in an era where it is irrelevant as a factor in changing US policy towards Israel.

Jeremy Ben Ami is the one who puts ideology over Israel's best interests, and truth is the obvious casualty.

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 blames Abbas' antisemitism on...Trump (ElderToons)

Is there any more proof needed that J-Street cannot be taken seriously?

Israel's "peace partner" Mahmoud Abbas gives an hour-long rant that denies any connection between Israel and Judaism, that says that Jews chose to stay in Europe during the Holocaust rather than emigrate to Israel, that Ben Gurion was a bigot who hated Jews from Arab lands but ended up making secret agreements to have them persecuted in Arab countries so they would flee to Israel, hints that TWA chose to fly Jews from Yemen to Israel against their will because it is owned by Jews, and other hateful and antisemitic garbage.

J-Street briefly says that Abbas said some unacceptable things without elaborating - and then tells us why he was driven to such despair:

Sunday’s speech by President Abbas no doubt reflected his own and the Palestinian people’s deep despair at the ever-deepening occupation and the lack of diplomatic progress toward resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. That frustration, however, is no excuse for calling into question either the Jewish connection to, or Palestinian recognition of, the state of Israel – or for language and proposals that are justifiably earning widespread condemnation.

This speech – and the undercutting of America’s role as a mediator in this conflict – would not have come about if it were not for President Trump’s inept and disastrous missteps regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. By appointing a settlement movement ally as Ambassador to Israel, refusing to endorse the two-state solution and upending longstanding US policy on Jerusalem, the president and his team have taken one step after another to destroy the chances of peaceful resolution of the conflict.

Abbas revealed himself as a blatant antisemite. And not for the first time. His PhD thesis denied the Holocaust, saying that not so many Jews died and that Zionists colluded with Hitler to persecute them. He told the EU Parliament that rabbis encourage Israel to poison Palestinian wells. He said that Jews raise wild boars and dogs just to attack Palestinian farmers.

But to J-Street, Abbas is a moderate peace partner. To them, Abbas' long history of hate and bigotry doesn't exist, and when it is undeniable, they blame...Trump, The Source Of All That Is Evil In This World.

Because they know their audience. And to the J-Street crowd, Trump saying that Jerusalem is Jewish is the ultimate evil, and Abbas saying that Jews preferred to die in gas chambers rather than move to their ancestral homeland is a minor annoyance....that must be blamed on Trump.

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.