JStreet supports Israel like MoveOn.org supports Democracy

Eli Pariser, Board President of MoveOn.org Political Action, is a member of JStreet's Advisory Board. Yes, the same MoveOn.org which, on its website, recently encouraged readers to "join the thousands of people heading to Wall Street . . . to show them what democracy looks like."

JStreet supports Israel like MoveOn.org supports Democracy -- which is to say IMHO in a misguided, rather destructive fashion.

Be sure to click through and watch the video at MoveOn.org. Take a good, hard look. All you knee-jerk, Jewish Democrats out there -- do you like what you see?

con·dem·na·tion

[CONDEMNATION. Origin: Old French condempner, from Latin condemnāre, from damnāre, see damn]

===

A recent J Street post is entitled "J Street Condemns Knesset Passage of Boycott Bill," (click here for the link), and today we're lucky enough to get two contradictions for the price of one.

Firstly, in the name of supposedly protecting and promoting Israel, J Street once again publicly excoriates (or "condemns" as the case may be) the Jewish state.

Secondly, and best of all, is that J Street does so in the context of demanding that Israel give a pass to those who wish to destablize the country by waging a form of economic warfare against it.

Many will agree that the boycott bill criminalizing the BDS movement is a strong step, but (in the words of Jonathan Tobin)

". . . those seeking to implement boycotts are not merely expressing criticism of government policies but are, in fact, waging economic warfare on Israel. Moreover, such boycotts are not merely symbolic efforts to chide the Jewish state on a particular issue but part of an insidious international conspiracy to strangle a nation. If the majority of Israelis, and it would appear a majority of the country as well as the Knesset backs this measure, it is because they rightly see advocacy of boycotts as racist attacks on their very existence."

J Street, it seems, disagrees with this majority of Israelis.

"The problem with the boycott bill," Mr. Tobin continues, "is it makes those who support the vicious war to extinguish the Jewish state look like free speech martyrs."

J Street is certainly doing everything it can to promote this "martyr" viewpoint.

In closing, it is interesting to note that, in a recent email urging recipients to join the organization's Two-State Summer campaign, Jeremy Ben-Ami closed his letter with a reference to J Street as the "pro-peace, pro-Israel movement." Some will say that this is just a slip of the tongue, but I maintain it is a far more meaningful Freudian slip of sorts. In its official communications, J Street has always been careful to put "pro-Israel" first. But those who follow it know far too well that J Street's actions demonstrate that this is simply not the case.

(Click here for link to full post by Jonathan Tobin.)

Foolish, or Evil?

Someone, please tell me right away if the latest entreaties from J Street are simply run-of-the-mill foolishness, or something far more sinister?

When taken together, the missive J Street recently sent to its mailing list, urging followers to barrage members of Congress to "make bold peace moves," followed closely by a reading of today's Wall Street Journal article President to Renew Muslim Outreach, is almost too much to bear.

"Many Arab governments," quoth the article, "have been pressing Mr. Obama to publicly outline his own parameters for the creation of an independent Palestinian state as a way to exert more pressure on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who visits Washington next week." Apparently the Arab governments are not alone -- they also have J Street assisting them in drumming up pressure to exert on the legitimate and democratically-elected government of Israel.

It seems that either J Street is simply a tool for the current U. S. Administration, or that -- perhaps even worse! -- they actually believe their own naive/delusional interpretation of events; that reconciliation between Fatah and Hamas (an organization committed to Israel's destruction) is somehow good for Israel, and that Israel should somehow suddenly put its faith in parties ranging from indifferent (at best) to hostile (at worst) to its legitimate security needs.

Ugh!!!

Israel Knows Best What is Best For Israel -- not J Street

Many of you have heard by now of the public relations campaign being waged against the Knesset's investigation of J Street, and against Prime Minister Netanyahu's decision not to meet with Jeremy Ben-Ami. In an effort to bring some balance to the proceedings, I, too, have created a petition of sorts, which you can send to members of the Israeli government expressing support for their position.

If you agree that "Israel knows best what is best for Israel" (rather than J Street), please copy and paste this letter (along with edits as you see fit) to the email addresses below.

[start cut-and-paste]=====

I wish to express my support of the Israeli Knesset's right to investigate an organization it as it sees fit. Specifically, I refer to the Knesset’s Immigration, Absorption and Public Diplomacy Committee decision to investigate the activities of the J Street.

Just as J Street enjoys the right to criticize the Israeli government, surely the Israeli government reserves the right to deem whether an organization can be considered "pro-Israel" or not. Most importantly, such a designation must be based on actions, rather than on slogans.

I believe it is at the very least fair to question the motives and intentions of any organization which urges the U.S. government to abstain from its veto of a UN Security Council resolution condemning Israel. I believe that Israel knows best what is best for Israel -- not J Street.

And I truly believe -- despite its rhetoric -- that J Street does not represent a majority of American Jewry, or even a particularly large segment of it. While the organization is "vocal" it seems that much of their support, political as well as financial, comes from sources outside of the American Jewish community. J Street certainly does not represent me.

I have great respect for the unique challenges that the State of Israel faces, and it is my hope that our governments -- democracies both -- continue to grow together and to flourish in these difficult times.

Respectfully,

[sign here, and enter contact info]

[end cut-and-paste]=====

At the very least, please forward this email to Kadima MK Otniel Schneller, who has sponsored the hearing. (His email address is oschneller@knesset.gov.il ) Email addresses of other MKs can be found here. It might also be helpful to send this email to Kadima and Labor Party members.

Remember, unlike some organizations, we don't have the benefit of George Soros funding us, nor do we make use of Salsa Lab's fancy online email-blast platform. This is true grass-roots organization at its finest -- crude, but effective.

Don't delay -- send your email now!!!

Apparently It's All Israel's Fault (Again)

Interesting that, despite their blog post expressing hope for the passage of a United Nations Security Council resolution condemning Israeli settlement expansion (see link to J Street blog entry here), J Street shies from any criticism of Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas and his role in the United States veto of the resolution.

According to the New York Times (link to Feb 18 article here), despite a lengthy telephone call from President Obama to President Abbas, the Palestinian Authority took a hard line on the resolution and forced a vote, at the same time effectively forcing the United States to veto the measure.

American ambassador Susan E. Rice is quoted in the article as saying the draft resolution risked "hardening the position of both sides." And while she pointed out that the veto should not be misconstrued as United States support of continued settlement acivity, she also observed that the Security Council is not the proper place to try and stop such activity. "The issue should be resolved through peace negotiations, she said, and not mandated by a binding resolution," the Times article goes on.

It seems that J Street disagrees with such a position, and prefers that Israel be publicly castigated.

Odd behavior, for a "pro-Israel" organization, no?

As Ye Sow, So Shall Ye Reap

I guess this is what J Street means when it asks for (and receives) "Presidential leadership" in the Middle East:

Nudge on Arms Further Divides the U.S. and Israel (front page article, New York Times, 4 July 2010)

The article discusses how the the Obama administration has bowed to pressure that the final version of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty push Israel to sign the document — a way of pressuring the Jewish state. In doing so, the U.S. is essentially tossing out its longstanding policy of ambiguity regarding Israel’s presumed nuclear stockpile.

Says the Times:

The United States, recognizing that the document would upset the Israelis, sought to distance itself even as it signed it.

In a statement released after the conference ended, the national security adviser, Gen. James L. Jones, said, “The United States deplores the decision to single out Israel in the Middle East section of the NPT document.” He said it was “equally deplorable” that the document did not single out Iran for its nuclear ambitions. . . .

"Deplorable," perhaps, but not so much so that the current administration won't throw Israel under the bus yet again.

Link to full article here.

Ye Gads! J Street, Have You No Shame!?!

Even I am shocked when a J Street position is so far left that it makes the New York Times come across like Fox News.

At least the Times (in this case) takes a stab at balanced reporting, pointing out that the founder of the Free Gaza Movement, one of the Turkish organizations behind the attempted run through the Israeli blockade of Gaza, "does not accept Israel as a Jewish state."

(nyt.com article here)

And rather than mourning the loss of their supporters, a leader of the other organization involved exults "We become famous . . . . We are very thankful to the Israeli authorities."

And what does J Street do? Fall all over themselves via email, crassly turning this situation into yet another opportunity to urge supporters to "demand Presidential leadership now" -- code, it seems, for the legitimization and escalation of the current administration's pressure on Israel.

Wrong-headed. Unwarranted. Counterproductive.

Does J Street leadership truly believe at this point that, if the Obama administration forces a two-state solution down Israel's throat, organizations such as these will suddenly be placated?

Ridiculous.