Someone who was there sent me the following summary of Alon Pinkas' presentation to the AAJLJ on Thursday.
- Stephen Greenwald, AAJLJ president made a brief statement recognizing the controversial nature of the event and disclaiming that it represents the views of the AAJLJ - he then introduced the J Street rep to introduce Pinkas…
- Pinkas briefly discussed the J Street summer tour with the phrase, "J Street smartly brought people here…" (ok, at this point I'm just biding my time to aske a question)
- Pinkas claimed that he represents what 65-75% of Israelis believe - i.e, that a two-state solution is necessary for Israel's survival - which he cares very much about. He's honored to be part of this delegatioin since "we're on borrowed time." His whole basis for the need for a 2-state solution was demographics (he threw out numbers and claimed it was a foregoing conclusion that if there is not a Pal state in the near future, Israel will either have a Prime Minister named Mohammed or it will become an apartheid state). He must have used the word "urgency" at least 10 times - long-term the majority of Israelis want a peace process and short-term the status quo will be rocked come September. He admitted he doesn't like the idea of a Pal state, it has attributes of what will become a failed state but there's no other logical solution or arrangement. Israeli's problem is that they've become in love with the status quo - not being asked to pay the price for a peace process (yada, yada, yada). Oh, and even our president says this is unsustainable (so it must be true!)
- Obama has been just as friendly as his predecessor (finally some moans from the audience) - providing military hardware, intelligence sharing, continuing vetoes at the UN, pushing peace process. Oh, and he endorses more Israeli positions than Pal positions (backed up with nothing…) American administarion has set out principles saying nothing that was not endorsed by Clinton or Bush and going back to Johnson.
- claims that '67 lines are indefensible are "highly debatable." Israeli defended itself before with those lines in place. He recognized that the nature of the threat has changed but said it in a way to support the defensibility of the lines rather indefensibility.
- Bibi's mistake is claiming that he wants a 2-state sol'n when the Israeli gov't doesn't really want a 2-state sol'n and Bibi should just say so then. He respects Bibi for really not wanting to proceed with a peace process and mad that he's not coming out of the closet with this and continuing to pretend he does. But he blames the Israeli gov't for not offering an alternative. Gov't doesn't relfect public opinion on this. Israeli public opinion is to the left, not right. Majority believe there has to be a 2-state solution. Livni has 51% chance of being the next PM b/c she has a clear vision of what should be done. (I want to scream out at this point). Bibi only got 24% of the vote and found himself looking right and looking left and all the sudden he was PM! There will be a vote in 2012.
- Question time:
- 1st woman went on a bit long (which is really b/c Pinkas didn't say anything production and opened up too many cans of worms) and started to get shouted down but she was on our side and it started the tension in the room really rising
- 2nd guy asked some pointed questions and got direct answers (I believe he was the only one who did)
- I was next - tried to consolidate a lot of points and we had a heated exchange for a couple of minutes til Greenwald shut it down. I challenged him on the demographics (as the 1st woman did) and his response to me was the same - give me your stats, where are your stats, there are none. I approached it differently and explained to him that there have been demographic studies that dispute his conclusion through analyzing birth rates which he hadn't mentioned - he said, oh, you're referring to Ettinger and he's been spewing this stuff for years. I indicated that there were others that I'd be happy to forward to him and moved on b/c too much ground to cover (BTW - this is a great article: http://www.tabletmag.com/news-and-politics/72679/time-out/). I pointed out to him that discussions had been going on between the Israeli's and Pals until Obama came into office and shut them down with his position on building in the settlements and his most recent position on the '67 lines - both enabling the Pals to walk. He again disputed that O was any different than his predecessors, he got very condescending with me (Greenwald did not really allow too much back and forth and the J streeters were screaming to let him talk). When I pointed out that O basically threw away the plan set forth in the 2004 Bush letter, he said he didn't see a difference, I explained the difference, he wouldn't acknowledge it saying it was the same thing. I tried to get at why he and his colleagues were associating themselves with an anti-Israel organization such as J Street in order to undermine the policy of the democratically elected government of Israel (and the will of the majority of all Americans, not just American Jews) and pointed out that Bibi's numbers grew when he was last here in the states - he poo'd the numbers and made fun of that statement, the J streeters went crazy, Greenwald attacked me for claiming that J Street was anti-Israel and wanted the J Street rep to have an opportunity to defend the organization (to me, that was the most important bit of info from the day - that the President of the AAJLJ would defend J Street) - when I asked if he would let me speak and give the litany of items to support that claim including their association with BDS advocates which I got out but no one acknowledged, he refused - everyone's screaming over everyone, Pinkas chastised me for saying who is and who is not pro-Israel, Greenwald called on the next person.
- a few other questions from both sides but in particular, the guy 2 seats down from me who was steaming over my questions and began by suggesting that I should be dragged into court for slander (I just laughed and said to him that I clearly must have struck a nerve and was happy for that).
- Bottom line, he never ever explained his ideas on how he and his compatriots plan on achieving a two-state solution with defensible borders, recognition of Israel, no right of return, etc (I asked him about timing and why this was so urgent ahead of the UN vote and he indicated they weren't pushing for this before the vote but gave no further information on plans). No surprise there but like Obama, he's like a child who just wants it and will bully, lie, and distort his way into getting it (or at least getting a free tour of the US - one person asked why he wasn't giving this discussion to the Arabs in say, Ramallah, instead of to Jewish lawyers on 5th Ave. and he said he'd rather be shopping on 5th Ave.)
Association of American Jewish Lawyers and Jurists hoodwinked into promoting anti-Israel positions?
For a group of lawyers, they certainly did not do their due diligence. Last week, Red Tulips sent me an invitation to an event being sponsored on Thursday by the Association of American Jewish Lawyers and Jurists.
The American Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists (AAJLJ) Presents
Ensuring Israel's Security Through a Two-State Solution
A Conversation with Ambassador Alon Pinkas
With a UN action on Palestinian statehood looming, Israel’s isolation in the international arena growing, and increased tensions in a region undergoing rapid transformation, Ambassador Pinkas, will speak about the urgency of a two-state solution to secure Israel's future as a Jewish, democratic homeland.
Ambassador Pinkas will address:
What should leaders do in advance of a likely September vote at the UN on Palestinian statehood? How do the dynamics of the Arab Spring affect Israel's prospects for peace and security? Does the planned reconciliation agreement between Fatah and Hamas make a peace deal with Israel more or less feasible?
Please join us on Thursday July 28th at 12:30 PM at Phillips Nizer LLP(666 Fifth Avenue, 28th Floor, NY) Kosher Lunch will be served Click here to RSVP
Ambassador Alon Pinkas:
From 2000 to 2004, Ambassador Alon Pinkas was Consul General of Israel supplying services to New York, New Jersey and Connecticut. In addition, he served as Chief of Staff to both Foreign Minister Shlomo Ben-Ami in 2000 and Foreign Minister David Levy from 1999 to 2000. Ambassador Pinkas was also the Foreign Policy Advisor to Ehud Barak in 1996 to 1999, when Barak was Chairman of the Labor party and the Opposition, and in 1995 to 1996 when Barak was a member of the delegation to the Middle East Economic Conference in Paris, France. He was Foreign Policy Advisor to then Labor Party Chairman Shimon Peres from 1991 to 1992.
In addition to his government service, Mr. Pinkas is an experienced journalist. He was the Chief Military and Defense correspondent for the Jerusalem Post and Chief Diplomatic Correspondent for Ma’ariv, a Hebrew language daily newspaper. He is a frequent commentator on US affairs in Israeli media and is a FOX News contributor on the Middle East and International Affairs.
I forwarded the invitation on to a couple of lawyers I know who are active in the pro-Israel community in the New York area - one of them is Lori Lowenthal Marcus, who is the founder of Z Street.
A subsequent version of the invitation that I saw included this line:
This event was made possible by J Street
Lori has now posted about it, and since I didn't have the time to do a full post myself....
But here's where J Street gets really crafty: one of the theaters in which this gig is going to be played is a summer event held by the Association of American Jewish Lawyers and Jurists. That event is an exclusive invitation-only talk being given on July 28th by former Israeli Consul General of New York Alon Pinkas to the membership of the AAJLJ. But guess what? No one told the AAJLJ organizers that Pinkas is not only part of the J Street Theater Group, but that he will be proselytizing for the positions that the democratically-elected government of Israel has vehemently rejected. So without realizing it, the AAJLJ has been hoodwinked into providing to J Street a podium and a captive audience of trained talkers who are expecting to hear a pro-Israel Israeli former diplomat at a pro-Israel event. But what they'll be hearing is that Israel must - MUST - throw Jews off their land, forfeit defensible borders to a people who won't even recognize Israel as the Jewish homeland, let alone renounce terrorism, and that it must happen before early September or else they really don't support a Jewish and Democratic state.
If you think J Street needs to apologize to the AAJLJ and to actual pro-Israel Jewish lawyers, let us know and we'll add your name to a letter calling for that.
Yes, of course, sign me up. You should all sign onto Lori's letter by going here.
But come on, AAJLJ put a line on the bottom saying that the event was made possible by J Street and they didn't know what that meant? The rumor I have heard from other people who contacted AAJLJ is that AAJLJ was asked to put on this event by someone at Israel's New York consulate who was doing a favor for Pinkas. Isn't that great? Israel's representatives in New York are acting against government policy! Where have we seen that before?
AAJLJ is apparently not very comfortable with whole situation. Apparently they are now trying to convince people that there's a difference between the event being 'made possible by J Street' and its being 'sponsored by J Street.' How lawyerly.
If you're a lawyer in the New York area and you are able to do so, please show up there tomorrow and rip Mr. Pinkas' arguments apart.
Haaretz reports on a tour by six former Israeli diplomats and senior IDF officers who are claiming that the 1949 armistice lines, which were called the 'borders of Auschwitz' by Leftist Foreign Minister Abba Eban, are 'defensible.' What Haaretz doesn't mention, because it would be enough to arouse suspicion in most Israelis, is that the tour is being sponsored by J Street, the group that is trying to bring about the next Holocaust (God forbid) so long as it gets Barack Hussein Obama re-elected.
The group visited the White House on Monday and met with the National Security Council Director for Middle East and North Africa Steven Simon, and were to have meetings later in the evening with acting Middle East envoy David Hale and officials at the Pentagon.
Among the group participants were Major General (Ret.) Natan Sharoni, a battery commander in the Sinai Campaign and a battalion commander during the Six Day War who later became Head of Planning for the IDF and Ambassador Alon Pinkas, who served as Consul General of Israel in New York.
Joining the two was Ambassador Ilan Baruch, who served with the Israeli Foreign Ministry for more than thirty years and stirred a public debate in Israel when, upon his resignation, he penned an open letter critical of Israeli government policies.
Others in the group include Colonel (Ret.) Shaul Arieli, who was Commander of the Northern Brigade in Gaza, and was responsible for the evacuation and transfer of the Gaza Strip to Palestinian control in 1994 and distinguished soldier Brigadier General (Ret.) Nehemiah Dagan.
Major General (Ret.) Shlomo Gazit, who was head of the Assessment Department in IDF Intelligence and later became Coordinator of Israeli Government Operations in the Administered Territories and Attorney Gilead Sher, the legal representative for the Shalit family also joined the group.
“We are here because we feel that we are running out of time, and there is no actual status quo,” Sharoni told Haaretz Monday. “The dynamic is such that we must act quickly so that we don’t find ourselves facing actions that cannot be corrected.”
“We are here because we are concerned that the Jewish state won't remain Jewish and democratic. Thirty years from now, Jews will be one-third of the population from Jordan to the Mediterranean. And the culture that is developing in Israel these days suggests that the one-third will control the two-thirds,” he said.
The second issue that concerns the group is that no credible critics have dared to counter Prime Minister Netanyahu's claim that the 1967 borders are “indefensible”.
“It has already entered the Israeli political lexicon as an axiom”, Sharoni said. “We think it's misleading. The 1967 borders are defensible, we just need to define – defensible against what? It's true they are indefensible against rockets from Iran, but so is all the territory of Israel.”
The problem isn't rockets from Iran; the problem is rockets and hand-held anti-aircraft missiles from Hamas and Fatah. But I'm sure that all of my favorite Leftists will be contemptuous as to how I could dismiss such 'senior officers' and Alon Pinkas (who is rumored to be trying to take revenge against Prime Minister Netanyahu for not appointing him UN Ambassador). Please.
So why do these people think that Israel is defensible without all the high ground to the East?
“They are indefensible against terror and Hezbollah rockets,” he added. “But to say that the strategic depth of the Jordan Valley will save Israel, that is a deception.”
Against what ARE they defensible? Do tell us.
Sharoni said that what has traditionally constituted the ‘Eastern front’ against Israel is now non-existent.
“Iraq doesn't have the capacity to send ground divisions against us; we have peace with Jordan, and Syria won't go to war against Israel by herself. I am sure the prime minister knows it – but he probably doesn't want to make any use of this information,” Sharoni said.
And if there's a coup in Jordan next week and they abrogate the treaty (as Egypt may yet do)? And if Iraq - which is coming to be dominated by Iran - decides that what it really wants to do in life is to send millions of martyrs to Jerusalem? And if Assad wins in Syria - or even if he loses - and then decides he's going to attack Israel? 'He won't attack alone'? That's a basis for defense policy?
Sharoni responded to a question from Haaretz concerning a possible threat emerging on the Eastern front ten years in the future, dismissing the supposed necessity of maintaining sovereignty over a part of the West Bank to act as a buffer zone in the event of an attack.
“Do we actually need to control the Jordan Valley to confront these threats? To move one or two IDF divisions to seize control of the Valley takes up to 36 hours. With our deterrence and mobility, there is no problem with it. If it will be a demilitarized zone – if something happens, there is enough time to get there.”
IF it will be a demilitarized zone. That's an awfully big IF, isn't it? Who's going to enforce that? The Europeans who fled from Gaza? UNIFIL and UNDOF, who did nothing to stop the Naqba Day attacks? And just how are those IDF divisions going to get over the Samarian high ground to get to the Jordan Valley and at what cost?
But what's most outrageous about this is that this group of old men who may all be long gone in 20 years (except for Pinkas, who is younger) got an audience at the White House and the National Security Council, where they were able to undermine the position of Israel's elected government. Logan Act anyone? (No, we don't have one, but we definitely need one). When the current session of Congress goes into recess, I think we should invite all the Republican leaders over here to discuss the US's foreign affairs budget and see how Hussein Obama reacts. Disgusting.
When I met with Ed Morrissey on Wednesday, he told me that he had spent about half an hour interviewing Alon Pinkas, Israel's former consul general in New York and an occasional commenter for Politico. Ed has put the interview up and I'm going to post the first part of it below.
Let's go to the videotape.
You can find the second part of the interview, and Ed's comments about it, here.
Pinkas sounds more realistic than Livni, but I doubt he would have the patience that Yisrael Aumann advocates.
The government announced on Sunday that Israel's ambassador to Britain, Ron Prosor, will become its ambassador to the United Nations, and that Prime Minister Netanyahu's National Security Adviser, Uzi Arad, will become Israel's ambassador to Britain. But note this:
Netanyahu had favored returning Dore Gold to his former position as ambassador to the UN, but Lieberman preferred Jewish Agency chairman Natan Sharansky. The Foreign Minister already irked Prime Minister Netanyahu last summer by naming Meron Reuven as temporary ambassador, after Prof. Gabriella Shalev left the post.
Of course, Sharansky said last week that he had no interest in being ambassador to the United Nations....
JPost adds that Lieberman had other candidates for the UN position, which has to make you wonder whether what he was really saying was "anyone but Dore Gold" (which seems kind of irrational given that Gold has ably performed in the position in the past).
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman have sparred over the post for nearly a year, with the prime minister wanting former ambassador Dore Gold to return to the UN and Lieberman suggesting Environment Minister Gilad Erdan and former consul-general in New York Alon Pinkas.
According to the report, Maj.-Gen. (res.) Meir Kalifi will replace Arad as national security advisor.
I know nothing about Kalifi, but I think that Dore Gold would be a great candidate for National Security Adviser.
Former Israeli consul general to New York Alon Pinkas criticized Prime Minister Netanyahu this week for 'partisan activities' in calling for a real military option to be available against Iran. Jonathan Tobin rips Pinkas to shreds.
What’s his evidence? The speech Netanyahu gave to the General Assembly of North American Jewish Federations in which he called for the assertion of a threat of force to respond to the nuclear threat from Iran. Netanyahu said that while he hoped that sanctions would work to convince Iran to abandon its nuclear ambitions, a credible threat of force must be on the table. Since U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates soon responded that sanctions are working (a position that no serious person actually believes), Pinkas concludes that Netanyahu violated a tradition of non-partisanship. After that, he goes on to switch gears and then rehearse the arguments often heard from Jewish Democrats that even raising the issue of support for Israel in U.S. elections is somehow not kosher.
Such arguments are nonsense.
First, worrying about Iran has never been the sole preserve of the Republicans. For example, a certain Democratic presidential candidate named Barack Obama made a number of pledges that he would never allow Iran to go nuclear on his watch. Many Democrats as well as Republicans have sounded the alarm about Iran as Obama spent his first year in office pursuing a feckless policy of “engagement” with the ayatollahs and then watched in dismay as he spent his second year assembling a coalition that could only muster support for tepid sanctions that have made no impression on the Iranians.
But what his piece illustrates is that it is Pinkas who is playing American party politics, not Netanyahu. By decrying the claim of some Republicans that some Democrats have been unsupportive of Israel, all Pinkas is doing is demonstrating that he dislikes the GOP and sympathizes with the Democrats. There’s nothing wrong with that, but if that’s how he feels, then perhaps he should move here, become a citizen, and get a vote. (Oddly enough, a few years ago Pinkas actually made a bid to become the head of the American Jewish Congress and almost got the job, until it was learned that it was a violation of Israeli law for a diplomat to take such a position so soon after leaving his post. Eventually, even the members of that moribund organization realized that the idea of an unemployed Israeli diplomat becoming the head of an American group was ridiculous.)
Contrary to Pinkas’s assertion, accountability is the one thing all friends of Israel should welcome. If either a Democrat or a Republican takes stances that are unhelpful to Israel, he or she ought to pay a political price at the ballot box. Taking the issue of support for Israel off the table does nothing to encourage politicians of either party to make good on their campaign promises to defend the Jewish state.
By expressing the justified concerns of Israelis about the existential threat facing their country from Iran, Netanyahu was doing exactly what he should be doing. By injecting himself into party squabbles here on behalf of his friends in the Democratic Party and by attempting to undermine his prime minister’s mission with a false allegation of partisanship, Pinkas demonstrated how out of touch he is with the realities of both Israeli and American politics.
I am an Orthodox Jew - some would even call me 'ultra-Orthodox.' Born in Boston, I was a corporate and securities attorney in New York City for seven years before making aliya to Israel in 1991 (I don't look it but I really am that old :-). I have been happily married to the same woman for thirty-five years, and we have eight children (bli ayin hara) ranging in age from 13 to 33 years and nine grandchildren. Four of our children are married! Before I started blogging I was a heavy contributor on a number of email lists and ran an email list called the Matzav from 2000-2004. You can contact me at: IsraelMatzav at gmail dot com
Someone who was there sent me the following summary of Alon Pinkas' presentation to the AAJLJ on Thursday. 
