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

J Street seems to have a habit of hurting Israel in the pursuit of its own agenda.

J Street Support for BDS

An article came out Monday in The Washington Free Beacon detailing how J Street Chapters Aiding BDS Campaigns on Campuses. While it is true that the deputy director of J Street U, Catie Stewart, claims that the organization does not support neither "Apartheid Week" nor BDS campaigns on college campuses, there are indications that J Street hedges on their position and do not necessarily oppose BDS per se:

o  In response to a BDS referendum at the University of Minnesota in March, a pro-Israel coalition launched a campaign in opposition. J Street U released a statement opposing the referendum not because it was anti-Israel, but because "this resolution and others like it only serve to empower the Israeli far-right" and that you cannot "effectively oppose BDS without also actively opposing the occupation that fuels it." The BDS referendum passed at UMN in March. 

o  When a BDS resolution was proposed at Columbia University/Barnard, J Street U posted a statement, since revised, stating that it "opposes the International BDS Movement." But then it went on to decry "the conflation of anti-occupation with anti-Israel," accusing anti-BDS campaigns as being "government funded attacks" targeting "anti-occupation groups, like the New Israel Fund, B'tselem, and Breaking the Silence" while pretending to deal with "the handful of hardline anti-Israel activists." The Barnard BDS resolution passed. 

o  When a BDS resolution was brought up at George Washington University in April, the J Street U there did not oppose BDS per se, instead again used the familiar theme that "BDS legislation provides Israel's far-right government with the talking points they use to justify their fear-mongering tactics" and insisted that "one can be pro-BDS and not anti-Semitic." The BDS resolution at GW passed.

This disregard for Israeli seems to be part of a pattern.

J Street Support for The Iran Deal

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

Jeremy Ben-Ami. Credit: Joe Mabel

J Street Support for Democrats Only

Last month, I wrote about Judging J-Street By The Candidates They Support, that J Street consistently supports Democratic candidates over Republican ones -- as if they were the only ones who supported Israel. This was true in 2010 through 2016.
I just found a list from 2008 in a J Street report

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

Unfortunately, within a few years of J Street’s establishment, I came to the realization that I had been deliberately misled and in a one instance lied to by the senior leadership of the organization. I refuse to work with any group that conducts itself in this manner.

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

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

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

The names of Reps. John Salazar (CO-03) and Ed Towns (NY-10) have been scrubbed from the list of congressmen serving on the host committee for J Street's inaugural conference. That brings to ten the number of congressmen, Republicans and Democrats, senators and representatives, who have bailed on J Street after learning that, contrary to their promotional materials, they are not a pro-Israel group...

o  Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR)
o  Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY)
o  Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY)
o  Sen. Thad Cochran (R-MS)
o  Rep. Mike Castle (R-DE)
o  Rep. Mike Ross (D-AR)
o  Rep. Michael McCaul (R-TX)
o  Rep. Leonard Boswell (D-IA)
o  Rep. John Salazar (D-CO)
o  Rep. Ed Towns (D-NY)

Since then, J Street has had the last laugh, gaining in legitimacy.  But the fact remains that it has done so by openly declaring itself the "blocking back" for Obama and aligning itself with policies and groups that do not act in Israel's best interest, and by limiting itself to supporting only Democrats.

J Street Support for The Goldstone Report

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

As a side note, in the same October 2009 interview with Jeffrey Goldberg for Atlantic Magazine where Ben-Ami claimed not to support the Goldstone Report, he also referred to "Jewish Voice for Peace and other groups that are consistently upset with us for backing Howard Berman's [Iran] sanctions plan." [emphasis added]

Earlier, in May of that year, J Street came out with a press release, praising Berman for supporting Obama's plan to pursue a diplomatic solution with Iran: "As Chairman Berman stated, the Administration should be given reasonable time to pursue serious and tough diplomacy with Iran." Seeing that J Street was already aligning themselves with NIAC, one has to wonder just how tough J Street thought that diplomacy should be.

Where Is All This Leading?

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

Obama advanced policies and positions that empowered the radicals at the expense of the moderates.
Obama’s hostility towards Israel, his repeated intimations that Israel is a colonialist outpost while the Palestinians are the indigenous people of the land of Israel were part and parcel of his across-the-board effort to enable the radical Left to take over the party. Obama’s efforts laid the groundwork for socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders’ surprisingly strong challenge to Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton in the party’s presidential primaries. It also set the stage for the rise of radical leaders like Congressman Keith Ellison and Sen. Elizabeth Warren in the post-Obama Democratic party.

The left wing of the Democratic Party is clearly gaining influence, and J Street is part of that.
But to the degree that it has backed Obama, and continues to support how he framed the Middle East, J Street undermines Israel.

J Street's refusal to condemn BDS, except as a tool in the hands of the "right-wing"; its association with the likes of Soros and NIAC in supporting the Iran Deal; J Street's backing only for Democrats;  its support for the clearly one-sided Goldstone Report and most recently J Street's support of the narrative of the "Great March of Return -- these positions do nothing to support Israel.

There are many ways to support Israel, and no one says you cannot criticize it -- but the actions J Street takes demonize Israel and affect Israeli security.

In 2009, William Daroff, the Washington director of the Jewish Federations of North America told JTA that J Street was developing "better PR tactics", such as condemning Iran's Ahmadinejad for denying the Holocaust -- but:

these were easy calls. J Street, he said, has not yet defended Israel when it is unpopular to do so.

Don't hold your breath.

At the time, Daroff wondered aloud, "when and if the Obama administration shifts direction, would J Street still be relevant?”

J Street has proven that it is capable of staying relevant.

Just not relevant to the survival of Israel

---

---

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

Read More

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That page no longer exists.

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

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

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

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

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

But look at their record:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is a recent example that proves the point.

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

Among the points the letter claims:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Senator Mark Pocan official photo

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

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

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

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

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

Senator Hank Johnson official photo

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

Senator Daniel Kildee official photo

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

---

---

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

Read More

The silence of Jeremy Ben Ami

J-Street never tires of claiming to be supportive of a two-state solution, a position that it falsely claims is not the position of American Zionist organizations.

On Friday, I posted a video showing that a speaker at the recent J-Street conference, during a panel discussion on the future of liberal Zionism, advocated for the ending of the Jewish state and instead saying that Jews should be a "protected minority" in their homeland.



The speaker, former MK Marcia Freedman, is a member of J-Street's advisory panel.

The moderator of the panel, J Street co-founder Daniel Levy, did not challenge Freedman for advocating what is in complete opposition to what J-Street claims its position is. None of the other panelists showed any anger at the idea of the destruction of Israel that Freedman was pushing.

Since then, over 12,000 people have viewed the video - far more people than attended the conference itself. Despite repeated tweets to J-Street leaders or other panelists like Peter Beinart, not one has distanced themselves from Freedman's statements. (J-Street's synopsis of the panel skips Freedman's participation altogether.)

For every statement made by real Zionists to defend Israel - whether it is from terror or Iran - J-Street has forcefully come out in opposition. But J-Street's media machine does not seem to spend any time defending Israel's existence from attacks by people like Freedman or groups like "Jewish Voice for Peace."

Why not?

Perhaps it is because J-Street's commitment to Israel's existence is far more tenuous than they pretend when they do their fundraising and lobbying. After all, this same Daniel Levy who moderated the panel is on the record as saying that if Arab states refuse to accept Israel, "then Israel really ain't a very good idea." Which sounds a lot like Marcia Freedman.

J-Street complains loudly that it is not being accepted by mainstream Jewish and Zionist organizations. This episode is one good example of why that is. J-Street, despite claiming to be pro-Israel, has yet to defend Israel's position against those that want to see it destroyed - even within its own conference. I have shown that founder Jeremy Ben-Ami's Twitter timeline has not once defended Israel's existence against attacks from its left.

Which means that its "pro-Israel" stance is really a cover for its truly anti-Israel message.

Over the past couple of months, we've heard more praise of Israel from the EU than from J-Street. That ought to tell you something.

Read More

A simple test to see if "progressives" are really "Pro-Israel" (poster)

This should be self-evident.

If you are a prolific tweeter, and yet cannot find the time to tweet a single defense of the nation you claim to love against its many critics, then you cannot claim to be "pro-Israel."

If you cannot write a single tweet saying pointing out the absurdity of Israel-haters calling Israel an "apartheid state,"  then you cannot claim to be "pro-Israel."

If you cannot compose a single tweet about Israel's beauty, culture, history, or accomplishments - then you cannot claim to be "pro-Israel."

So if you aren't pro-Israel and every single one of your Israel-related tweets is critical, what are you?

Read More