Over the summer, the Jerusalem Media and Communications Center surveyed Palestinians and asked them, out of a list of prominent potential successors to Mahmoud Abbas, how much they trust them.
The results are abysmal for nearly everyone who has a chance to be the next leader of the PA, the PLO and Fatah.
Q17. How much trust do you have in the following people: Much, somewhat,
no trust or don’t know?
1. Mahmoud Al Aloul
Much trust 8.0
Somewhat trust 18.9
No trust 25.8
2. Jibril Rajoub
Much trust 8.6
Somewhat trust 25.0
No trust 38.3
3. Nasser Qidwa
Much trust 7.6
Somewhat trust 23.3
No trust 27.6
4. Marwan Barghouthi
Much trust 55.2
Somewhat trust 26.3
No trust 7.2
5. Hussein Al Sheikh
Much trust 8.2
Somewhat trust 22.0
No trust 39.8
6. Mohammad Shtayeh
Much trust 13.3
Somewhat trust 31.1
No trust 41.9
7. Ismail Haniyeh
Much trust 17.4
Somewhat trust 23.7
No trust 42.3
8. Yehya Sinwar
Much trust 16.4
Somewhat trust 20.8
No trust 39.4
9. Khaled Meshaal
Much trust 14.6
Somewhat trust 20.5
No trust 42.0
10. Mohammad Dahlan
Much trust 8.8
Somewhat trust 21.8
No trust 47.7
11. Mostafa Al Barghouthi
Much trust 19.3
Somewhat trust 35.6
No trust 24.3
The only person they really trust is a terrorist, in Israeli prison for his part in murdering five Israelis.
The only one they somewhat trust, Mostafa Barghouti, is General Secretary of the Palestinian National Initiative and would be considered a moderate by most Westerners; he is not a terrorist and says he does not support violence.
Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism today at Amazon!
Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.
This photo is not from today, but it is such a great picture of Arabs participating in the democratic process - the exact opposite of how Israel haters frame things.
Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism today at Amazon!
Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.
It also contributes to a situation in which people on both sides of the political aisle ignore arguments from their opponents, and—as another Times article pointed out—leads to Democrats and Republicans thinking that democracy is in peril. They just disagree about who is at fault.
There are lots of reasons for this landscape. But to deny the responsibility of the media, and the way so many journalists lie for partisan reasons, is not only to fly in the face of the facts; it exhibits a failure to understand how and why our politics and our society are so broken.
This atmosphere helps explain, at least in part, the rise of anti-Semitism and how it is being tolerated on both ends of the political spectrum. It reflects an over-the-top partisanship in a society in which few are willing to condemn political allies, even when they are guilty of blatant hate-speech.
The same pattern applies to coverage of Israel and the Middle East. Though ignorance of the history of the region might seem to be at the root of the slant—since many editors and reporters simply don’t know, for instance, that peace between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs might have been possible had the latter not consistently rejected any and all compromises throughout the century of the conflict—even relatively recent events are often ignored, buttressing a narrative about oppression of the Palestinians.
Furthermore, many reporters, influenced by Palestinian propaganda and anti-Semitic talking points, deliberately distort the way the conflict is depicted. This helps create fertile ground for prejudice. It also paves the way for developments like the recent U.N. Human Rights Council’s Commission of Inquiry report, which traffics in blatant anti-Semitism and falsely accuses Israel of being an “apartheid state.”
The consequences, both in the United States and abroad, of a broken media that can’t be trusted do not merely affect the world of journalism. When members of the press lie to advance a cause, they are not simply spreading misinformation; they are also creating an environment in which democracy fails and anti-Semitism advances.
Even before the arrival of the new Soviet arms, Egypt had turned Israel’s Red Sea port of Eilat into a white elephant by blockading the Straits of Tiran to shipping to and from Israel. At the same time, the Egyptian military was orchestrating repeated Palestinian Fedayeen terror attacks, all while beefing up its threatening presence in northern Sinai. Israel felt it had to preempt before Soviet weapons dramatically changed the balance of power.
For London and Paris, the Suez War was an unmitigated disaster. The US opposed their attack, viewing it as anachronistic colonial-type gunboat diplomacy, detrimental to western interests in the Cold War. Washington unabashedly compelled France and Britain to withdraw – applying harsh economic pressure that threatened the solvency of its European allies.
The British and French, who earlier in the century had carved up the Middle East into respective spheres of influence, were now exposed as second-rate world powers. Their Suez defeat was the harbinger of the loss of French Algeria and the demise of Britain’s leadership role in the region, which was transferred to the Americans. In the end, it was not Nasser who was forced from office, but Eden and Mollet.
For Israel, the 1956 military victory failed to advance peace, or, in the absence of Arab recognition, any changes to the territorial status-quo: Washington insisted on a full pullback to the 1949 lines.
Nonetheless, the war lifted the blockade of Eilat, and Israeli deterrence was enhanced, inaugurating a decade of relative quiet on the southern frontier.
In addition, Israel’s adept handling of American demands in the months following the crisis led to an improvement in US-Israel ties. President Dwight D. Eisenhower, who in 1956 had been critical of Israel’s behavior, in 1960 became the first American leader to host an Israeli prime minister, Ben-Gurion, at the White House.
If there was a downside for Israel, it was foreseen during the cabinet deliberations on the authorization of the offensive. The ministers from the left-wing Ahdut Haavoda (Unity of Labor) party expressed concern about Israel’s “unholy” collaboration with European colonial powers (though they still voted, together with Ben-Gurion’s Mapai ministers, for the attack).
Soviet premier Nikolai Bulganin pressed this theme in an angry letter to Ben-Gurion dated November 5, 1956, charging that Israel had acted “as a tool of foreign imperialist powers.”
Israel was born in a struggle against British colonialism and should have enjoyed a natural affinity from countries that had similarly battled European empires for their freedom. But the Sinai Campaign injured Israel’s standing among the growing number of newly independent African and Asian nations of the Non-Aligned Movement, where Nasser remained a hero.
Regrettably, the 1956 depiction of Israel as a colonialist power has had remarkable longevity. Some seven decades later, this erroneous accusation is still being actively propagated by those seeking to undermine Israel’s legitimacy – just ask Jewish students studying at Western universities.
But it doesn’t end there. I received a second simultaneous suspension. Now this – even more than the first- is patently absurd. I recently exposed a fundraising scam in Scotland – and I wrote a tweet to publish the article. That tweet apparently also broke the rules for ‘hateful conduct’:
Trying my hardest I fail to understand just what could possibly be wrong with this one. An antisemite did create a partnership with a scammer in Gaza who does have family links to both Hamas and Islamic Jihad. They are currently taking £1000s from people in Scotland and their campaigns are getting increasingly absurd. Each of my points is factually accuate and thanks to this expose I believe Police Scotland have now got involved.
But as it stands, I have been no-platformed again – for doing nothing but fighting antisemitism. And again, it is easy to find the malicious intent and coordination behind those reporting me:
Twitter and minority groups
This is undoubtedly malicious. It is also clearly coordinated. And above all it is a blatant attempt from Islamists and the hard left – to have me completely silenced. The question therefore becomes – why does Twitter – who can protect me from this – *CHOOSE* to side with them and silence my voice?
Is it numbers? Jews are always outnumbered. If Twitter by default sides with the majority then Twitter actively helps bully minority groups. For the Jewish people – the quintessential minority group – this is really bad news.
Twitter also refuses to grant me the basic cover it could provide – (by giving my account a blue tick). Twitter is actively paving the way for antisemites to attack Jews who fight antisemitism and refusing to give them protection they can easily give. Haven’t they kind of got this all the wrong way round?
For now – I am appealing the suspensions. If you do not know me already – I will always fight my corner because I am speaking up for Jews everywhere. This refusal to back down so easily means I cannot currently post this on Twitter. If you have an account – please help me share it there.
What did Yair Lapid mean by his foregoing statement? Did he mean 2 states in an undivided Jerusalem or Jerusalem undivided as an Israel state with the Palestinian Arab state established elsewhere? If the former, he would find a majority in Israel would not accept this. If the latter, no Palestinian Arab or Arab leader would accept it.
What he should have done was to make use of an expert historian to proof positive Jewish indigenous rights to the Land of Israel, After all, during Temple Times , we learn of the Jews and the Romans. Subsequently the Greeks. The words, "Palestinians" and Arabs" don't appear until many centuries later.
To begin with, he could share the words of Lloyd George, who was outraged by the claim that Arabs had been treated unfairly in Palestine---":
"No race has done better out of the fidelity with which the Allies redeemed their promises to the oppressed races than the Arabs. Owing to the tremendous sacrifices of the Allied Nations, and more particularly of Britain and her Empire, the Arabs have already won independence in Iraq, Arabia, Syria, and Trans-jordania, although most of the Arab races fought throughout the War for the Turkish oppressors---[In particular ] the Palestinian Arabs for Turkish rule."[ A Mandate for Israel by Douglas J. Feith].
Perhaps the greatest lesson for Lapid is demonstrated by history - Appeasement mostly does not work and it certainly does not win.
Jaw-dropping press conference
LAPID’S PRIME-time press conference was just as jaw-dropping. Lauding the great “achievements” that Israel made by (ostensibly) rejecting a set of Lebanon’s additional demands, he boasted that the cabinet had approved the deal and thanked Biden and French President Emmanuel Macron for their help and support. Oy.
He proceeded to acknowledge that the agreement “staves off the possibility of a flare-up with Hezbollah,” quickly averring that “Israel is not afraid of Hezbollah. The IDF is stronger than any terror organization, and if we went to battle, we would deal it a heavy blow. That being said, if it’s possible to prevent war, it’s the job of a responsible government to do so.”
Questioned by a reporter about the government’s consent to circumvent a Knesset vote, he blabbered about the legality of the decision. Then he let the cat out of the bag.
“In light of the utterly profligate behavior of the opposition, we didn’t think that it would be [the] right [thing to do],” he explained.
In other words, the risk of Hezbollah interference in Israel’s gas mining is smaller in Lapid’s eyes than a potential parliamentary thumbs-down. Which brings us to Iran.
Biden's horrific foreign policy
DESPITE THE ongoing protests across the Islamic Republic that are providing a glimmer of hope about the ultimate fall of the regime, the US administration is continuing to convey its desperation to revive the nuclear pact and fill Tehran’s coffers with billions of dollars. This travesty is typical of Biden’s horrific foreign policy.
Israel cannot afford to follow in such ill-fated footsteps. Nevertheless, National Security Adviser Eyal Hulata defended the gas deal on the ridiculous grounds that it “goes against Iran’s interest in Lebanon and weakens Hezbollah’s hold on the government in Beirut.”
Really?
No wonder Udi Adiri, Israel’s longtime lead maritime border and gas extraction negotiator, resigned a couple of weeks ago in exasperation over the contents of the document that was crafted against his better judgment. This didn’t have an effect on what is going to be a signed, sealed and delivered deal on October 31, the day of Aoun’s exit and 24 hours before Israelis head to the polls.
No, you don’t have to be a maritime expert to grasp the magnitude of the gambit. Common sense and experience ought to suffice, if not in Israel’s soon-to-be-shuffled halls of power, then at least at the ballot box.
The Israel Defense Forces' Desert Reconnaissance Battalion is one of a kind: not only are its fighters volunteers, but they come from Muslim, Christian, and Circassian backgrounds, often having left their families and friends, who opposed their enlistment, behind.
They have served on the border with the Gaza Strip for many years, protecting Israel and putting their lives on the line.
According to one of the fighters, "there are people here whose identities cannot be revealed not because of the operational aspects, but because of what would happen to them if their photos or names were made public."
The unit was established in 1986 in order to regulate the enlistment of Bedouin youth in the IDF. What began as a small unit has over time grown into a battalion.
When the Oslo Accords were signed in 1993, the unit became operational and was stationed along the Gaza border. During the Second Intifada, between 2000 and 2005, the fighters participated actively in operations in the strip, especially the Philadelphia Route, combating underground tunnels and the spread of terror.
In January 2002, four of the battalion's fighters were killed in an attack on an outpost near the Kerem Shalom border crossing, where several years later Gilad Shalit would be captured, and where the fighters carried out patrols with us, the journalists, in the dead of night.
Lt. Col. Guy Madar, 33, married and father of five from the Karmei Katif settlement in southern Israel, has been commanding the battalion for the past three months. He grew up in the Givati Brigade, and when he reached the rank of major general, he naturally wanted to continue his service in the purple brigade.
But today, he says, he could not be prouder of his fighters, even though sometimes the Arabic language, which is used outside of operational activity – as that is only conducted in Hebrew – is a challenge for him.
"I manage. The soldiers know Hebrew, and othertimes, they help me. My ambition is to learn Arabic. This is my first job as a battalion commander, but I got to know the Bedouin patrol unit because they are trained in a Givati base. But you only think you know something before you actually do it. Before that, there are a lot of preconceived notions. When I joined, I discovered how amazingly they operated. I grew up in Givati and I wanted to be an officer in Givati, and I will honestly say that at first, I was a little disappointed because I had a lot of fears, we all have our prejudices. It was only when I joined that I found out how serious this unit is. The fighters really don't get the appreciation they deserve.
"When I say that I am the commander of the Bedoun patrol unit, everyone tells me that it must be challenging and asks how I manage. My answer is that it is like any fighting unit in the IDF. That it is a group of fighters who want to contribute. They are strong, good fighters, and know the sector like the back of their hand. I have a company commander who has been here since 2013. Everyone who comes across the unit discovers that they are wonderful guys, not spoiled, who just want to fight and contribute to the country."
Continuing on exposing Mahmoud Abbas' lies in a single speech to the world...
Moreover, the Israeli government allowed the formation of racist Jewish terrorist organizations that practice terrorism against our people, and provided them with protection as they attack the Palestinians and call for their expulsion from their homes. At the top of these terrorist organizations are the Hilltop Youth, the price tag groups, Lahava, and the Temple Trustees, and these terrorist organizations are led by members of the Israeli Knesset, and, in this context, we call on the international community to put these terrorist organizations on the lists of global terrorism.
Have these groups placed bombs on Arab buses or encouraged their members to kill Arabs? I am unaware of that. However, some of them have done illegal things and they were arrested by the Israeli police. So claiming that Israel supports them is another lie.
Abbas is trying to say that Israel is guilty of everything he himself is guilty of. After all, the Al aqsa Martyrs Brigades are part of his Fatah organization and takes credit for terror attacks.
Israel has left us nothing of the land to establish our independent state in light of its frenzied settlement attack, so where will our people live in freedom and dignity? Where will we establish our independent state to live in peace with our neighbors?
The land situation is virtually the same as it was during the Oslo process.
Israel is imposing forged educational curricula in our schools in occupied Jerusalem, in violation of international law, and disrupts the presidential and legislative elections in Palestine, by preventing Palestinian citizens of Jerusalem from participating in them, as took place in three previous elections (1996, 2005, 2006), and enacts racist laws that it perpetuates a system of racial discrimination, an Apartheid against our people in front of the international community, and evades accountability and punishment, so why not hold Israel accountable for violating international law?
Here is a firehose of lies.
Israel is encouraging Arab schools in Jerusalem to use the Israeli curriculum, it is not forcing anything.
The curriculum is accurate and the criticisms of it by Palestinians are ludicrous.
Israel is not stopping Arabs in Jerusalem from participating in elections; they just have to travel a few minutes to get to a polling booth - or they can vote at post offices. Abbas is the one who has used Israel as an excuse not to hold elections.
Israel does not perpetuate a system of racial discrimination. It treats Arab and Jewish citizens equally, and it treats non-citizens differently from citizens, just like every other country does.
Israel does not practice apartheid and this is simply an antisemitic slur.
Israel has not refrained from the repeated violation of our land and its recent closure of the headquarters of six Palestinian human rights organizations operating in the Palestinian territory, in accordance with Palestinian and international law, after it had accused them in the past of being terrorist organizations, while the whole world rejected and condemned this accusation, after confirming it was baseless.
The links between those groups and terror groups, especially the PFLP, are beyond dispute.
More coming....
Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism today at Amazon!
Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.
As a publisher who has had my own materials removed from social media, I am very sensitive to freedom of speech issues.
And I'm sensitive from both sides of the issue, since I am certainly against antisemitic and other hate speech.
The topic is fraught with emotion, as it should be. We should get emotional both about defending our freedoms and also against those who abuse their speech to harm others.
As a result of the unprecedented and ongoing violent situation in Washington, D.C., we have required the removal of three @realDonaldTrump Tweets that were posted earlier today for repeated and severe violations of our Civic Integrity policy.
This means that the account of @realDonaldTrump will be locked for 12 hours following the removal of these Tweets. If the Tweets are not removed, the account will remain locked.
Future violations of the Twitter Rules, including our Civic Integrity or Violent Threats policies, will result in permanent suspension of the @realDonaldTrump account.
Our public interest policy — which has guided our enforcement action in this area for years — ends where we believe the risk of harm is higher and/or more severe.
Was this the correct thing to do?
This explanation is a little misleading. Twitter's Civic Integrity Policy is mostly concerned with manipulating elections or other civic processes, and while I suppose one can say that the violence at the Capitol on Wednesday was a version of manipulating a civic process. But if anything encouraged that mob, it sure wasn't Twitter - it was the President himself speaking directly to them and telling them to march to the Capitol, which was also covered by national cable TV news networks live.
So what benefit to society was there for Twitter to take away those tweets when his message was freely available elsewhere?
I want to be clear - I'm not discussing the law here. Twitter has every right to censor whomever it wants, as long as it sets up its rules ahead of time and enforces the rules consistently (which often does not appear to be the case.) I have no problem with Zoom censoring terrorist Leila Khaled from speaking on its platform when she is in the US but allowing her to speak when she is in the UK, because Zoom is only following its own policies that are different in each country.
In general, my opinion is that freedom of speech should be close to absolute unless it is inciting to violence. Unfortunately, that kicks the can down the road - what is considered incitement? Is saying that Jews control the world incitement to attack Jews? What about claiming that Jews abuse infants when they circumcise them? Do racist comments make it more likely for people to attack people of color?
Or do we draw the line at direct specific threats? That sounds like a reasonable policy, but we've already seen how white supremacists and neo-Nazis have adapted to that - by treating everything they say as a joke, jokes that are taken seriously by their audience who understand the game they are playing.
There are two conflicting principles, between freedom of speech and prohibiting incitement, and going too far in either direction can result in either criminalizing independent thought or creating an environment where people can get murdered. There is a third complicating principle as well - that providers of communications platforms treat all speech with a consistent policy, not favoring one political stance over another.
These are difficult questions.
In the specific case here, Twitter is clearly trying to tamp down violence, which is of course a good thing. I think that this can easily backfire, though.
The people who were marching in Washington feel that they are not being heard, that they are marginalized by the mainstream, that their issues with the election are not being taken seriously. They are being censored by YouTube and Facebook and Twitter and they are frustrated - convinced that this is a huge conspiracy against their viewpoints. This drives them underground to other sites that still have plenty of viewers but no alternative points of view.
And that fuels extremism.
I didn't see the mainstream media give much of a warning that this demonstration could be as big or unruly as it was. There are demonstrations in Washington every day. But most of the media ignores the underground sites, where people have been planning this demonstration for at least a month. Obviously, tens of thousands came to Washington from all over and just as obviously, the Capitol police and DC police were not close to prepared.
If the protesters had been allowed to speak freely about their issues with the election on mainstream social media, perhaps they would not be as paranoid. Perhaps they could have been exposed to other points of view as people would argue with them in the open. Perhaps the mainstream media and the police could have been following the situation more closely and defended the Capitol better (and that is a scandal in itself - if there had been a proper defense, there would have been no riots.)
This is only one example of how a more liberal approach to free speech could actually make violence less likely.
As I said, I get it. I am frustrated by prominent people using social media not only to mislead but to outright lie, and I fight it every day. Skilled people use social media for propaganda that can have very bad real world effects. I am very sensitive to the possibility of violence resulting from irresponsible conspiracy theories.
But I still believe that shining a light on the crazy, the paranoid and the hate is a far better approach than to force it underground, where it can become much, much worse - as we saw today.
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.
("Democratic Palestine" flag in between two terrorist leaders)
US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said that the Palestinians need to choose a leadership willing to hold a dialogue for peace in a recent interview on Fox News.
Fatah Media Office head Munir al-Jaghoub responded angrily, saying "When will you realize that our people choose its leadership and that Palestine, although it is a state under occupation, is not one of the banana republics? "
The people choose their leadership? Since when? The last elections were in 2006. Since then, elections have been promised in 2014, 2018, 2019, and now 2021.
This is deceptive, though. The Palestinian Authority does not serve the people. It reports to the PLO, whose leadership has never been elected.
And even if elections are held in 2021, what choice will the Palestinians have? According to Al Quds al al Arabi, Hamas and Fatah are negotiating running as a joint list - meaning that the people will have no choice at all, and the government will be negotiated between the two parties without the people having the slightest say.
The world likes to pretend a Palestinian state would be a liberal democracy. All available evidence shows it would be a brutal dictatorship.
The "pro-Palestinian" crowd doesn't seem too concerned.
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 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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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 "GreatMarch 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.
This blog may be a labor of love for me, but it takes a lot of effort, time and money. For over 19 years and 40,000 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.
Out of the Box
-
[image: Dry Bones cartoon,War, America, Gaza, Jews, Jewish, Israel, Donate,
Oct 7, Jews, Mexico, Gaza Pier,]
* Here's an even BETTER IDEA!*
Help Dry Bones...
Hamas planned for a future without Israel in 2021
-
In a Gaza conference held in September 2021, Hamas declared that ‘victory
was nigh’ and set out its vision for a future without Israel. The event
(picke...
What’s Eating Joe?
-
Ahead of a meeting between Prime Minister James Marape of Papua New Guinea
and Chinese Communist Foreign Minister Wang Yi, Joe decided to accuse Papua
...
The Palestinian “Two-State” Plan: Duping the West
-
One of the great unsolved mysteries of the 21st century is why, given what
a catastrophe it proved to be, anyone, much less a whole phalanx of
politicians,...
06-Feb-24: Obituary: Naftali Gordon
-
The obituary that follows was published yesterday by *Times of Israel* under
the headline "*Master Sgt. (res.) Naftali Gordon, 32: A man of ‘honesty and
...
Closing Jews Down Under Website
-
With a heavyish heart I am closing down the website after ten years.
It is and it isn’t an easy decision after 10 years of constant work. The
past...
‘Test & Trace’ is a mirage
-
Lockdown II thoughts: Day 1 Opposition politicians have been banging on
about the need for a ‘working’ Test & Trace system even more loudly than
the govern...
Wednesday, November 02, 2022
Elder of Ziyon
