When the self-described “pro-Israel, pro-peace” group J Street was founded over a year ago, many in the Jewish community predicted that it would have little to no influence in the shaping of American foreign policy. While American Jews are indeed overwhelmingly left-of-center in their political orientation, they also happen to hold rather hawkish views on Israel. A 2007 American Jewish Committee survey found that the overwhelming majority of American Jews believes that Israel “cannot achieve peace with a Hamas-led, Palestinian government” and that “the goal of the Arabs is not the return of occupied territories but rather the destruction of Israel” — views sharply at odds with J Street’s support for engagement with Hamas and its tendency to accuse Israel of hindering the peace process.
J Street’s moral relativism was on full display in its reaction to last year’s Operation Cast Lead. None other than Rabbi Eric Yoffie, head of the Reform movement and one of America’s most prominent liberal Jewish leaders, admonished the organization in these very pages, describing its denunciation of Israel’s military operation against Hamas as “very wrong” and “deeply distressing.” Despite its claims, J Street does not represent mainstream Jewish opinion in this country, let alone in Israel, where the Jewish population was nearly unanimous in its support for Cast Lead. Yet notwithstanding the Jewish community’s rejection of J Street’s vision, the organization seems to have garnered the support of the most important constituency of all: the Obama administration.
On July 13, J Street’s executive director, Jeremy Ben-Ami, joined a select group of Jewish leaders for a White House meeting with President Obama. The purpose of the meeting was to smooth over tensions that have emerged between the pro-Israel community and the administration, tensions sparked by the latter’s propensity for publicly pressuring and criticizing Israel. It is in the execution of this strategic gambit — forcing Israel to do things that its leaders and populace do not want — that J Street will prove to be of great value to Obama.
Both Obama and J Street have fixated upon the subject of settlements. Both seem to believe that a settlement freeze holds the key to unlocking Middle East — if not global — peace. In their analysis, only American pressure can lead to a solution, as the Israelis are too hidebound and paranoid to understand what is in their own best interest. (Indeed, Obama reportedly told the assembled Jewish leaders that Israel needs “to engage in serious self-reflection” — something at which our president, as the author of not one but two memoirs, can claim not inconsiderable expertise.)
Who keeps preventing the full flowering of the necessary American leadership? In the J Street narrative, it’s establishment Jewish organizations, which distort American foreign policy by shielding Israel from pressure that would otherwise lead to peace. And who better to counter the influence of the so-called “Israel Lobby” than other Jews? J Street and the constellation of far-left “pro-Israel” organizations put a kosher stamp of approval on Obama’s bizarre hectoring and moral equivalence. By casting Israel as the obstructionist, as the “drunk” driver whose car keys need to be taken away (as Ben-Ami put it in one of his more candid moments), Obama will have a free hand to compel the parties to the peace table. And once gathered there, another Oslo accord can be forced upon a recalcitrant Israel (whereupon the disastrous consequences of that agreement — the erection of terrorist infrastructure, a deterioration of the Palestinian economy, deepening mutual distrust — will be repeated).
To this end, J Street seems to spend almost all of its resources bashing supporters of Israel. Those who disagree with the organization’s positions are routinely denounced as “right-wing” or “extremist.” Rather than draw attention to the murderous antisemitism, terrorism and impending nuclear-armed theocracy that Israel must confront, J Street prefers to churn out countless blog posts, press releases and op-eds denouncing the people who it believes are the real impediments to peace: stalwart defenders of Israel like Pastor John Hagee, Senator Joe Lieberman and former House speaker Newt Gingrich.
At the same time, the organization goes out of its way to defend those whose support for the Jewish state is dubious at best. In recent months, J Street has adopted an obscure freshman congresswoman from Maryland, Donna Edwards, as a cause célèbre. In January, after the conclusion of Cast Lead, Edwards was one of a handful of representatives to vote “present” on a resolution expressing support for Israel’s right to defend itself. When local Jewish leaders rightly criticized her, J Street raised $15,000 for Edwards in a matter of hours. Ben-Ami issued a defiant statement declaring, “This is exactly how — for decades — established pro-Israel groups have enforced right-wing message discipline on Israel in Congress.” (Notice the labeling of a resolution introduced by Nancy Pelosi and supported by 390 members of Congress as “right-wing.”) The effect of J Street’s backing of figures like Edwards will be the emboldening of Israel’s critics (who, like the Obama administration, will always be able to point to J Street to validate their “pro-Israel” bona fides) and the weakening of the strong, bipartisan support that the Jewish state has always enjoyed in Congress.
A Greenberg Quinlan Rosner poll released last month found that only 46% of registered voters believe that Israel is committed to peace, down from 66% right before Obama took office. Furthermore, only 44% believe America should support Israel, down from 71% a year before. It’s impossible to isolate a single cause for this decline in sympathy for Israel, but surely the change in tone from the White House has played a substantial role. Even more distressing is that ostensibly “pro-Israel” activists are aiding and abetting this dark transformation in public attitudes.
James Kirchick is an assistant editor at The New Republic.
In the end, the US stood alone in the world in its support for Israel's bloody three week onslaught on the people of Gaza and it did so because for decades Congress has been in thrall to the mainline pro-Israel lobby represented, for the most part, by AIPAC. Human rights organizations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch that for years downplayed Israeli human rights violations while relying on funding from liberal Jews, have broken free from those shackles and have condemned Israel for its war crimes in Gaza as have Israeli soldiers who took part in that assault.
That 94% of the Israeli Jewish public supported the bloodshed, some even watching the bombing from the border as it it was a light show, only reveals to the world the degree to which Israel's occupation of Palestinian land and the decades of humiliation of its people has degraded Israel's moral standing in the eyes of the world.
When it comes to the point where the an editor of the once progressive New Republic must point to John Hagee, Newt Gingrich and the warmonger and turncoat Joe Lieberman to find a counter to J Street, the pro-Israel American Jewish establishment is in deep trouble. And for those of us who have watched it subverting what little is left of American democracy, I must say, it's about time.
No one denies that you have the right to your wrong headed opinions. But until such time as you are prepared to join us here in Israel, it is the Israeli voters only whose voice will be heard and they have spoken load and clear for the direction that Israel will take.
But until such time as you are prepared to join us here in Israel...
Those of us who are not living in harms way have little moral authority to criticise those who are.
It's very easy for J Street and various other American Jewish voices to say what Israel should do, but none of them have put their money (safety) on the line to go live in, and build, Israel.
As an American Jew, I don't think I have much of a leg to stand on, telling Israelis that they have to take risks that I am not taking.
As a former American and current Israeli, I find it not too difficult to read through the lines.
I can say that on each side of this argument there are good people with good intentions.
I do not believe that people on the right support human rights violations nor do I believe that the left is intentionally trying to destroy Israel.
I can say though that one side may look at history and behavior more as proof and the other party using hope as their platform.
There is no real way to reconcile these differences. To meet in the middle will not make anyone happy. Therefore, these decisions should be made by Israeli voters and whomever receives the political mandate shall lead as such.
Israel is a democracy and its rights should be respected. Outside recomendations are welcome, but should not be forced.
I think that I missed something, where in Israel did he say he is? When you join other Israelis in Israel and see for yourself, the truth, then speak up. Otherwise, not one word, not one.
Jews have always been their own worst enemies.
J Street is funded by Soros interests...
Need we say more?
is "James Kirchick" the new pen name of Jonathan Pollard?
note to G. Marcus: George Soros gives more tzadaka world-wide in a month than you have given your entire lifetime. Ed Greenberg: you claim that "As an American Jew, I don't think I have much of a leg to stand on, telling Israelis that they have to take risks that I am not taking. " Not so: decision-making and (financial) responsibility go hand-in-hand. As long as the U.S. taxpayer is footing some of Israel's bills - even though Israel, per capita, has more billionaires than the U.S. does! - and Israel insists on this foreign-aid "bailout," then the U.S. most certainly has a say in what goes on over there. EMES!
To C. Mavrikos, When/if you give money to cancer research, do you tell them how to spend it or which area they should research? And when we give money to Africa, do we tell them that they first should setup true democratic institutions before they can use the money? You can't have it both ways. Either you support a friend and ally financially and let them spend it the way they see fit (in this case to defend their very survival and to prevent the slaughter of their population)...or if you don't trust them to spend the money in a way that suits your philosphy, then maybe you are not their friend afterall. No one knows what is best for Israel better than Israel.
Jeff,
Take what position you will, but its pretty hard to argue --as you do-- that AI and HRW "for years downplayed Israeli human rights violations while relying on funding from liberal Jews."
Not only is that a typical "Jews control everything with their money" canard, it is simply not true. Israel has certainly faced scrutiny and negative publicity. Many would argue more intense than most other countries of its size and (alleged) violations.
"A historical note:"
Not exactly correct.On June 19,2008 Hamas announced a six month lull. They didn't really say what this would entail. Israel's response was that they would observe this without time limit. Hamas announced its end on December 19.
During this period 367 rockets and shells were fired at Israel from Gaza. But compared to the average of 320 a day before it, I guess you could say it was a great improvement.
Between June 19 and November 4, 38 rockets and shells were fired at Israel from Gaza. Following an Israeli action near the border to prevent another abduction (a tunnel had been built and seven Hamas fighters were killed in the action) Hamas stepped up its attacks. In the next month, 329 rockets and shells were fired.
So many here insisting that Americans have no right to tell Israel how to defend herself, to shut up and leave Israel alone.
Despite the dubious assertion that Israel was defending herself, I, for one American, would like nothing better than to leave Israel the hell alone. I would also like to take with us the $3 billion we pound down that sand trap every year, along with all the free materiel the Pentagon declares surplus and provides Israel gratis, the automatic support provided at the UN and the slavish devotion of Congress.
And, if possible, I would also like to resurrect all the Americans killed by terrorists over the past 30 to 40 years for our dog-like devotion to Israel, which is never nearly good enough for the churlish defenders of Israel. And yes, that hoped-for resurrection would also include the 3,000+ killed on 9/11, which the 911 Report makes clear were killed in retaliation for our support of Israel.
And since as many here claim that no one has the right to tell Israel how to defend herself, I can suppose only that the same must be true for the United States as well, and that the best way we could defend ourselves is to abandon Israel altogether and leave her to wallow in the bed she has so assiduously made for herself.
But since none of this is on the horizon, and since Israel is intent on leeching off the American taxpayer, no matter what, may I suggest to the last ditch supporters of Israel, who demand to eat their cake and have it too, that any and all criticism of Israel that emanates from the United States has been well paid for beforehand. And if you don't like it, then please write a check to the Treasury for the more than $100 billion we've given you, plus damages, and we'll call it a day.
Amen, Professor Grif!
As to "Viewers'" historical note, that tunnel had been there for some time and that the Hamas members were planning to capture another Israeli soldier was only conjecture and an excuse for the attack.
If you read the Israeli press, the Israelis considered the period as a cease-fire although it had begun a military build-up when it started in anticipation of the invasion that would later take place.
Another historical note: According to the Israeli media, Turkish PM Erdogan had brought Syrian and Israeli negotiators so close together that a "peace" deal appeared likely, and one may speculate, as I do, that one of the reasons that Israel launched the attack when it did, was to break the deal. Which is why Erdogan exploded at Peres when the two spoke at a forum not longer afterward.
A second reason is that Israel has a long history of either embarrassing or humiliating US presidents and taking actions against the Palestinians in the period between the change of administrations thus putting the incoming president on the spot. When the US president fails to respond strongly to Israel's action, the Arab world sees him as just another lackey of Israel which is exactly the way they wanted it, so Israel can turn and say, "See, we're your only friend in the Middle East." Which is, as Henry Kissinger told the State Department staff in a meeting just after the 1973 war, "a disaster" for America. To change the old phrase a bit, "with friends like Israel, we are guaranteed enemies."
The Obama Administration is all about one- sided pressure on Israel. It has no leverage on the other side. It is not going to bring about Peace but instead may increase Arab and Islamic power dangerously while diminishing Israeli, and yes Jewish power. He is dividing and conquering from within as when bringing Trojan Horse JStreet into the White House.
It amazes me that so many of my fellow Jews are blind to the way the settlements are undermining the country they profess to love. They are like a kid with a bottle of Drano who thinks it is pop, and when someone tries to take the bottle away they throw a fit.
If Israel wants the continued moral and financial backing of the United States, it had better be willing to accept the caring criticism and political pressure that go with it.
If not, the U.S. will eventually take its resources and go its own way.
Israel is not a child and the U.S. is not its parent. As others have said, Israel is a sovereign nation and can pursue whatever policies it wants. If those policies ignore demographic realities and hasten Israel's demise as a Jewish state, oh well.
After it's over, the neo-con, pro-Hagee, Gingrich and Leiberman types can be part of the heverah kadisha and reminisce about what good allies they were.
Or not. Note to everyone who has ever been on a dangerous path: Sometimes your real friends are the ones who tell you when you're wrong.
While Kirchick holds up Yoffie's spat over the Gaza War to bash J Street for their stance on settlements, here Yoffie is, in today's Ha'aretz no less, pointing out that the Reform Movement and most American Jews support a settlement freeze.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1102566.html
Hm.
Jeff and Melissa, you sound well matched for one another.
Jeff, I'm sure you're one of those who thinks the State of Israel was created only because of the Holocaust. Well, sorry to burst your bubble of misinformation, but the Jewish people have lived there for 3,000 years. Take a look at a Jewish prayerbook (called a siddur), and open to almost any prayer and you'll see references to Tzion (Israel) and Yerushalayim (Jerusalem). Now look through a Koran. You will find zero references to Israel or Jerusalem. And those people you and the media call Palestineans are none other than Arabs. The name Palestine was bestowed upon Israel by the Romans. That means that the Jews who lived there before 1948, when the name Israel was restored are also Palestineans.
There's a great new pro-Israel blog out that is a counter weight to J Street. It's called Z Street, and its website is here: http://ziostreet.wordpress.com/ .
Jeff/Grif You have your wish Obama will drop Israel like a rock just wait and see!
I just came from Goldberg's site to and was happily surprised that he had supportive words for J Street as representing those Jews who have been disenfranchised by the AIPAC led Jewish establishment.
As for Charnie, there is a line in an old song that goes, "things that your liable to read in the bible, they ain't necessarily so."
Seriously, Jews have lived in all of the Middle East for thousands of years. All, with a few exceptions were Arab Jews, dark skinned like their Muslim neighbors who worshiped a different religion.
The Zionist Jews who came to colonize Palestine with no thought for the welfare of their Middle Eastern religious brethern, were white, European Ashkenazi whose origins were closer to Khazaria than to Palestine.
Although a fake Soviet geneticist opined that people can change color when they move to different climes, that a dark skinned African would eventually turn into a Scandanavian if his family lived long in let's say, Sweden. And that descendants of a Swede would be indistinguable from a black African if they lived there long enough. That is, of course, nonsense. Please tell he, Charnie, how these Jews from Palestine turned white?
BTW, I have those prayer books. Charming reading but religious dribble.
Jeff, Indians are Caucasians just like Europeans. Apparently, they both came from central Asia. They have different skin colours because they intermarried with the people among whom they settled. Just like Barack Obama has brown skin even though his mother is white. That's not hard to understand.
Anti-Zionists like yourself don't have to speculate about Khazaria to bolster their positions. Bold claims about uncertain historical issues can only harm credibility.
To change the topic: not speaking about J Street, I can't understand why American Jews should be worried about a freeze on settlements. Hasn't return of the West Bank with minor adjustments in the 1967 border always been the plan for peace?
The whole J-Street movement has more to do with Democratic party politics and less to do with Israel or the Middle East.
This is why they are successful in terms of domestic politics but their ideas about the Middle East are dizzy and half-baked.
There's a theory that the whole Obama focus on settlements is a plan to snuggle up to the Sunni Arabs to strengthen an alliance against Iran. We don't have a way of evaluating this theory.
Since lasting peace between Arabs and Israelis is unlikely, no matter what Obama does, perhaps he feels that making progress in other parts of the Middle East makes sense.
I support President Obama in his new peace initiative with about the same mixture of enthusiasm and doubt I had for President GW Bush as he led us into war with Saddam Hussein.
Jeff,
The Jewish People lived, worked and prayed in our ancestral homeland of Ancient Israel and Judea and our capital Jerusalem for 1,800 years before the birth of Mohammad.
Just because we were expelled by the Romans in 70 A.D. does not mean we forfitted our historic rights to the land of our forefathers.
If you choose to ignore the Bible, then the archaeological record provides proof enough...
The earliest reference to Israel is from the the funerary stela of the Egyptian Pharoah Merneptah from 1209 B.C.!
Or look at the Assyrian Reliefs from their attack on Judah in 701 B.C. in the British museum and the inscriptions of their ruler Senacharib about the Judean king Hezekiah.
Or look at the Dead Sea Scrolls or the writings of Josephus or...I could go on and on (in fact I spent three years at Harvard just studying ancient Israel)
It is an absolute outrage to claim that the Jews have no historical link to our own ancestral homeland.
Another outrage is to somehow claim that Jews who were living in Europe were somehow from Khazaria, a turkic kingdom which ultimately became Muslim.
The earliest Jewish settlement in Europe is not until 1,000 A.D. More to the point genetic tests at Oxford, University College London and the University of Utah have proven our Middle Eastern heritage (i.e. the fact that a full 1/2 of Askenazi Jews are descended from four Middle Eastern women 2,000 years ago) Ironically they have also proven our closest genetic cousins are Syrians, lol.
It is particularly unbelievable given that for so many millenia Jews were persecuted for being responsible for the death of Jesus in Jerusalem (himself a Jew). Now we are told we were never in Jerusalem to begin with...hmmm....
Bottom line Jeff, may I sugest a trip to Israel to visit some of its many excavation sites...
Elizabeth,
There is no legal argument that can be made on the basis of some set of facts that were alleged to have existed 2000 years ago that would justify the expelling of the Palestinians from their homeland where the fact of their having lived there for generations is not seriously contested.
But serious questions have been raised as to the truth of the story you describe and that we have been led to believe and to some Israeli historians and archaeologists it is as full of holes as the Christian tale of the immaculate birth of Jesus.
Israeli historian Shlomo Zand has written a book that was 19 weeks on the best seller list in Israel that says that the story of the Jewish people as it has been handed down to us is a hoax and back in 1999, in the Ha'aretz magazine Ze'ev Herzog wrote "Deconstructing the Walls of Jericho" which implied the same thing.
/
(from Ha'aretz/ Magazine/, Friday, October 29, 1999)/
"Following 70 years of intensive excavations in the Land of Israel, archaeologists have found out: The patriarchs' acts are legendary stories, we did not sojourn in Egypt or make an exodus, we did not conquer the land. Neither is there any mention of the empire of David and Solomon. Those who take an interest have known these facts for years, but Israel is a stubborn people and doesn't want to hear about it.
"This is what archaeologists have learned from their excavations in the Land of Israel: the Israelites were never in Egypt, did not wander in the desert, did not conquer the land in a military campaign and did not pass it on to the 12 tribes of Israel. Perhaps even harder to swallow is that the united monarchy of David and Solomon, which is described by the Bible as a regional power, was at most a small tribal kingdom. And it will come as an unpleasant shock to many that the God of Israel, YHWH, had a female consort and that the early Israelite religion adopted monotheism only in the waning period of the monarchy and not at Mount Sinai." There is more if you follow the link.
As for the Khazars, there is considerable historical information which was known among Jewish scholars, I suspect the non-Zionists, including Graetz. The king of the Khazars converted his people to Judaism around 750 CE, it was major military power for 200 years, until many of its inhabitants were pushed into Eastern Europe by the forces of Gengis Khan and finally disappeared in the 12th century. The peoples in the area may be Muslim now but they apparently weren't then. What I find curious is the total lack of curiosity about this Jewish state and its history among the current generation of Jews.
One of the first things that astounded me when I made my first trip to Israel in 1983 (which was before the arrival of the Ethiopians, was that the ethnic diversity of white people in Tel Aviv claiming to be Jews was as widespread as one finds in any large Clearly, many of these Jews are not semitic. I am aware of tests that have been taken, but the details of who was selected for testing is not readily accessible.
Obama is attempting to create a rift between Israel and American Jewry. He and his faux-"Jewish" suppress the American Jewish community and silence the so-called Jewish lobby. He knows that the quislings of J Street and extreme leftists like the "Jewish" Forward will support his strategy. It is an obvious strategy of "divide and conquer". But we shall see how American Jews respond to the ham-fisted attempt to intimidate Jews. This is an interesting article:
Obama's calculations were wrong
By Amnon Lord
I admit I was mistaken about the direction the relationship between the Obama administration and the Netanyahu government would take. It seemed consensual that the two-state solution was on its way to the freezer with a tag attached: "See under 'solutionism.'" This would have placed the differences between President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu on the level of principle. On the ground, Obama would avoid confrontation with Israel and work with Netanyahu to accelerate economic cooperation between Palestinians and Israelis.
Instead, Obama chose to embark on a collision course. Among Netanyahu's advisers there are some who believe that those who set Obama on this course are close advisers like Rahm Emanuel who think they understand Israeli society and politics and who have detested Netanyahu from the time they served in the Clinton administration. Whatever the reason, this confrontation apparently started from day one of Netanyahu tenure: when he visited the White House for the first time a month and a half after taking office, he already encountered a chilly reception.
This is unprecedented. Even during the presidency of Jimmy Carter, whom many compare to Obama, the first visits by prime ministers Yitzhak Rabin and later Menachem Begin were warm and friendly, at least on the surface.
This strategy of confrontation from the outset was a mistake; Obama has been misled by his advisers. People like Emanuel and David Axelrod saw Israel in the context of a problematic domestic policy designed to suppress the American Jewish community and silence the so-called Jewish lobby. They had two goals in mind: to deter Israel from taking any initiative, especially against Iran, and to change Netanyahu's order of priority from Iran first to "peace in our time" in Palestine.
OBAMA AND his people thought that concentrated pressure on the settlements issue would do the trick - split the Israeli political system and society wide open and plunge the country into sociopolitical crisis. Toward that goal they had access to a vehicle that no ordinary ruler has in a conflict, whether with an adversary or an ally: Some of the leading voices and commentators in Israel harbor pathological hatred toward Netanyahu and are willing to collaborate in psychological warfare against the Israeli government. Because the settlements are not a consensus issue either in Israeli society or among Israel's friends in America, the Obama people thought they could create a rift between Israel and American Jewry.
Obama's calculations were wrong. Although the Israeli public is far from unified on the settlements, and many would dismantle them if this was needed for a final peace agreement, there is broad agreement with three current Netanyahu positions. First, the nuclearization of Iran is of the utmost urgency and may require military action. Second, the Palestinians have thus far proven incapable of establishing their own state based on the requisite security regime and implementation of the rule of law, meaning that any territory ceded to them will turn into a terrorist base and eventually fall to Hamas. And third, any Palestinian state that is ultimately created must not pose a threat to Israel.
By endorsing Palestinian statehood with these preconditions, Netanyahu in his Bar-Ilan University speech closed the last gap that separated him from most of the Israeli public. The public, which is not infatuated with Netanyahu, nevertheless rallied to his side because the unique and disproportionate pressure directed at Israel at this juncture in its history reeks of appeasement. The way Obama fixed upon Israel as an ugly vehicle for rapprochement with the Muslim world was simply too transparent.
Thus Obama, who initially was much admired by many in Israel, has failed in his attempt to create a political crisis here and instead reaped a harvest of hatred. These days he is despised in Israel, with his lack of moral fiber regarding Iran and the elections putsch there adding fuel to the fire. Both his policy toward Iran and that regarding Israel have exposed US weaknesses.
One outcome now emerging is a rapprochement between Israel and Egypt. Both countries are concerned about sharing a border with an Islamist fundamentalist regime in Gaza; both feel threatened by Iran; and both are disturbed by the destabilizing effect of Obama's initiatives in the region and elsewhere. Thus one positive outcome of the developments of the past couple of months is Egypt and Israel hugging each other tightly in the dark.
Just want to say thanks for your article James. It's depressing to have to respond to these same false historical claims over and over. (I haven't seen the Khazaria foolishness for a few years, I thought that one had been retired.) I've done my share over the past 10 years, so I'll let these other commenters do it here.
But the guy who said 3000 died on 9-11 for Israel: congratulations for being a gullible fool. You've got jihadis who want to establish a worldwide ruling caliphate, who have no problem exploding themselves and taking innocent civilians with them, who come from a culture which produces "honor" killings and clitoridectomies, and they tell you that they would be all peaceful wuvvy duvvy if not for that satanic Israel, and you roll over for that?
OTOH you have a liberal democracy with the best human rights record in not only the Middle East but most of the world, where Arab citizens, especially women, have more rights than any Arab country, which gay Palestinians flee TO, which is responsible for many computer and medical advances over the past 30 years ... why dont you tell the jihadis to take a hike? Doesn't it bother you which side you're picking? You want to make your moral choices according to what jihadis want?
I think the biggest problem with J Street and IPF are not their views, but the lunatics with other agendas (see Jeff's rantings above) who enthusiastically join these groups. Just check out the commentators who post to MJ Rosenberg's rantings at TPM. As long as these "progressive" groups continue to embrace this crazed fringe, they will certainly never attract much of the mainstream, who may otherwise sympathize with their opinions.
to Andre Setton (and Al and Frank):
You are badly in need of a lesson in Logic. You claim that "When/if you give money to cancer research, do you tell them how to spend it or which area they should research? And when we give money to Africa, do we tell them that they first should setup true democratic institutions before they can use the money? You can't have it both ways."
Nonsense: charitable donations are often earmarked. And if a charity does something with a donor's money of which that donor disapproves, it knows that the donor will no longer contribute in the future!
If Israel doesn't want the U.S. to tell it what to do, then it should stop 'schnorring' funds from the U.S. taxpayer. You can't have it both ways!
To JAMES KIRCHICK: Look at all the virulent anti-Israel posts which follow your commentary, and then note that the "Jewish" Forward TWICE DELETED the following:
This is the first time I have ever seen the far-left anti-Israel "Jewish" Forward publish a legitimate pro-Israel editorial. Let's hope it will not be a singular event.
Since J Street is a far-left extremist, virulently anti-Israel anti-Semitic fringe propagandist, Jews can only hope that the Forward, which routinely appears allied with J Street and tries to legitimize it, will not use this as a pretext to give it "equal time". J Street is no more worthy of having its obscenities published than any other virulent anti-Semitic organization.
The attitude of J Street is also already far too often represented in the vile anti-Israel anti-Semitic rants of most posters on this "Jewish" web site.
Steve Kroft: And you watched lots of people get shipped off to the death camps. George Soros: Right. I was 14 years old. And I would say that that’s when my character was made… Steve Kroft: …My understanding is that you went out with this protector of yours who swore that you were his adopted godson. George Soros: Yes. Yes. Steve Kroft: Went out, in fact, and helped in the confiscation of property from the Jews. George Soros: Yes. That?s right. Yes. Steve Kroft: I mean, that?s?that sounds like an experience that would send lots of people to the psychiatric couch for many, many years. Was it difficult? George Soros: Not-not at all. Not at all. Maybe as a child you don?t – you don?t see the connection. But it created no-no problem at all. Steve Kroft: No feeling of guilt? George Soros: No. Steve Kroft: For example that, ‘I’m Jewish and here I am, watching these people go. I could just as easily be there. I should be there.’ None of that? George Soros: Well, of course I could be on the other side or I could be the one from whom the thing is being taken away. But there was no sense that I shouldn’t be there, because that was-well, actually, in a funny way, it?s just like in markets- that if I weren’t there- of course, I wasn’t doing it, but somebody else would-would-would be taking it away anyhow. And it was the-whether I was there or not, I was only a spectator, the property was being taken away. So the-I had no role in taking away that property. So I had no sense of guilt
Wonder if these funds support J street (J strasse)
Say it ain't so, James. You honestly want to use that bigot Hagee as an example of support for Israel????
Frank,
The Forward probably deleted your posts for violating the comments rules at the bottom of this page:
In the interest of maintaining a civil forum, the Forward requires that all commenters be appropriately respectful toward our writers, other commenters and the subjects of the articles. Vigorous debate and reasoned critique are welcome; name-calling and personal invective are not. While we generally do not seek to edit or actively moderate comments, the Forward reserves the right to remove comments for any reason.
Sophie,
Why don't you read the 911 Report (perhaps still available for free online), that is, if you inform your opinions through reading and not through seances with Meir Kahane. Or do you believe that that US government report is part and parcel of the great goyish conspiracy to destroy Israel?
It is only par for your limited understanding that you are able to see only two sides to this mess - marching lockstep with Israel or with Bin Laden.
Who on earth would ask in a survey whether "the goal of the Arabs is not the return of occupied territories but rather the destruction of Israel”
So all Arabs have the same opinion? Just because they're Arabs? And all Arabs will continue to hold the same view no matter what policies Israel follows?
The racism inherent in the survey question is breathtaking.
As pointed out by sullivan:
"The pastor of Cornerstone Church of San Antonio, [John Hagee] is indeed a pea-brained bigot ... and it's sad -- and uncharacteristic -- of McCain to accept his support. Those people unsatisfied with Barack Obama's equivocations about Louis Farrakhan should have the intellectual consistency to admit that McCain's embrace of Hagee is far more troubling," - Jamie Kirchick, TNR, February 2008.
rather interesting contrast to the "stalwart defender" description of Hagee above.
The two sides of James Kirchick regarding Pastor John Hagee.
1.
"Glenn Greenwald's Selective Outrage The New Republic February 2008
"Yesterday, Dayo pointed to Glenn Greenwald's attack on John McCain for accepting the endorsement of the evangelical preacher John Hagee. The pastor of Cornerstone Church of San Antonio is indeed a pea-brained bigot (so much so that the equally obnoxious Bill Donohue of the Catholic League has denounced the presumptive Republican nominee), and it's sad -- and uncharacteristic -- of McCain to accept his support. Those people unsatisfied with Barack Obama's equivocations about Louis Farrakhan should have the intellectual consistency to admit that McCain's embrace of Hagee is far more troubling."
http://www.forward.com/articles/110371/
The Obama Lobby Opinion By James Kirchick Published July 22, 2009, issue of July 31, 2009.
"To this end, J Street seems to spend almost all of its resources bashing supporters of Israel. Those who disagree with the organization’s positions are routinely denounced as “right-wing” or “extremist.” Rather than draw attention to the murderous antisemitism, terrorism and impending nuclear-armed theocracy that Israel must confront, J Street prefers to churn out countless blog posts, press releases and op-eds denouncing the people who it believes are the real impediments to peace: stalwart defenders of Israel like Pastor John Hagee, Senator Joe Lieberman and former House speaker Newt Gingrich."
In February 2008 in The New Republic, Mr. Kirchick termed the Rev. Hagee a "pea-brained bigot" and deemed it "sad" that Sen. John McCain had chosen to receive his support.
In July of this year in The Forward, Mr. Kirchick defined the Rev. Hagee as one of a group of "stalwart defenders of Israel."
The Forward is a fine publication, one that offers a myriad of views and does so in a deeply respectful and dignified manner. To allow Mr. Kirchick to so blatantly ignore the high standards of The Forward with his brand of, ahem, selective definition is unacceptable.
Please call on Mr. Kirchick to either explain his his markedly different descriptions of the Rev. Hagee a mere 17 months apart or decline to solicit his inconsistent positions in the future.
Thank you for your time.
The link to Mr. Kirchik's February 2008 piece on the Rev. Hagee in The New Republic.
My apologies for the error.
Who on earth would ask in a survey whether "the goal of the Arabs is not the return of occupied territories but rather the destruction of Israel”
So all Arabs have the same opinion? Just because they're Arabs? And all Arabs will continue to hold the same view no matter what policies Israel follows?
The racism inherent in the survey question is breathtaking.
I get a big kick out of "You don't live in Israel, so you can't speak". Let's try "You're taking my financial aid, so I'll say whatever the heck I want, and if you don't like it, stop begging and stand on your own two feet".
Stop picking on Georg Soros. He is my hero. He is using his resources to fight zionism. He is one of the few righteous Jews. I hope all Jews who disagree with me will have the same fate as Korach
George Soros is a crook, as all 'successful' businessmen are, and has been since the 'alleged' story of his Holocaust survival. Based on his actions he is a very disturbed, morally questionable individual, and his tsedaka-giving is nothing but an attempt to make up for his sins before G-d, afterlife, Messiah, younameit. Not that he believes in any of them. His support of another individual with a dubious resume, B.Obama is a proof that something bigger than our powerless online opinion exchange is in the works. And we all better pray that I am wrong in my suspicions.
George Soros is a crook, as all 'successful' businessmen are, and has been since the 'alleged' story of his Holocaust survival. Based on his actions he is a very disturbed, morally questionable individual, and his tsedaka-giving is nothing but an attempt to make up for his sins before G-d, afterlife, Messiah, younameit. Not that he believes in any of them. His support of another individual with a dubious resume, B.Obama is a proof that something bigger than our powerless online opinion exchange is in the works. And we all better pray that I am wrong in my suspicions.
To all Israel haters if America was to cut all head to Israel it would really have a problem.With Israel possessing over 370 Nuclear bombs in it's arsenal and a triad of ways to deliver them,well you can say good bye to your beloved arabs as well to many other countries.Look up Anthony Cordesman one of the U.S. most well known expert on nuclear warfare he wrote an excellent article on what would happen to the world under those circumstances Rofl
Too Jeff who don't want to give to much attention to.Look up DNA of Jews from Europe and it's not Khazar DNA
If Demjanjuk lost his US citizenship, why does Soros get to keep his?
Murray Rubin I get a big kick out of "You don't live in Israel, so you can't speak". Let's try "You're taking my financial aid, so I'll say whatever the heck I want, and if you don't like it, stop begging and stand on your own two feet".
Dear Mr Rubin
Why no crying from the left about the 2 billion to Egypt or 1.5billion to Jordan ? Should I mention the 7 billion plus defending Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states. They have more people than Israel and considerable amount of Oil cash to defend themselves than why is the USA giving them financial aid considering where most of Wahabiast terrorists were grown ?
The Forward welcomes reader comments in order to promote thoughtful discussion on issues of importance to the Jewish community. In the interest of maintaining a civil forum, the Forward requires that all commenters be appropriately respectful toward our writers, other commenters and the subjects of the articles. Vigorous debate and reasoned critique are welcome; name-calling and personal invective are not. While we generally do not seek to edit or actively moderate comments, the Forward reserves the right to remove comments for any reason.