The J Street Challenge - The Seductive Allure of Peace in our Time
Here's a trailer for a new movie that I know you're all going to want to watch. It's all about the 'pro-Israel, pro-peace' J Street, and the challenge they represent to the Jewish community. I have a few friends who are in this trailer.
Jeremy Ben Ami's Jerusalem home is in 'ethnically cleansed' Baka
For those who don't read Hebrew, or are not familiar with the form above, the form is a standard summary from the Israeli Companies Registrar listing the names and addresses of the shareholders of an Israeli company. You can get a form like this for any Israeli company online through the Companies Registrar.
This particular form is for Ben-Or Communications Ltd., a public relations company which has two classes of shares (Hat Tip: Lenny B). There are 200 'management shares' (which are usually the shares that control the company's management), outstanding, which are owned by Oriella Ben Zvi of Herzliya. There are 200 ordinary shares (like common stock in the US) outstanding, 170 of which are owned by Ben Zvi, and the other 30 of which are owned by Jeremy Ben Ami, the chairman of J Street. Ben-Or Communications acts as J Street's public relations firm in Israel.
Ben Zvi's address is given as being in Herzliya, and she gives an Israeli identification number. Ben Ami has an Israeli identification number which indicates that he is not an Israeli citizen (900000000), but curiously gives a Jerusalem address.
What's even more curious is that Ben Ami's Jerusalem address is on Mordechai HaYehudi Street, which is located in Baka, a neighborhood that was populated by Arabs before the War of Independence.
Baka was established in the late 19th century after the completion of the Jerusalem Railway Station.
The station created the nucleus of a commercial center that eventually
attracted wealthy Arab, Christian and Armenian families from the Old
City who built mansions there in the 1920s. [3] The neighborhood had an agricultural character until the 1950s.
During the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, the neighborhood was left on the Israeli (western) side of the dividing line between West Jerusalem and East Jerusalem. Its population changed, as with many neighborhoods on both sides of the dividing line.
I'd be curious to hear why Ben Ami thinks it's okay to live in a house that was confiscated from Arabs (who probably fled) after the War of Independence, but not okay to live in a house that was built on empty, ownerless land in Judea and Samaria (or on land in Judea and Samaria that was owned by Jews before 1948 and was ethnically cleansed by the illegal Jordanian occupation from 1948-67).
Yitzhak Ben Ami is probably rolling over in his grave over the actions of his son, J Street co-founder Jeremy Ben Ami (left in the picture at the top of this post).
Yitzhak Ben Ami z"l (of blessed memory) died nearly thirty years ago. But you can learn a lot about him if you go here.
Here's Soccer Dad's Middle East Media Sampler for Sunday, December 18.
1) Your daily dose of irony
Where do the following paragraphs appear?
Can anyone argue with the assertion that, for neocons, Obama is always wrong and Bibi is always right? Not only that, they denounce those who dare criticise Netanyahu over anything while never ever letting up on Obama. How can it be that the prime minister is always right but the president is always wrong? But I need to offer a clarification. By the term "Israel firster", I do not mean that right-wingers and neocons who advance bellicose Middle East policies are putting the interests of Israel first. Far from it. They are putting the interests of Binyamin Netanyahu and his hardliners first. After all, if they were putting Israel first, they would not be promoting policies (such as war with Iran or the perpetuation of the occupation) that could very easily lead to Israel's destruction or, at least, to the loss of its Jewish majority. The people I call "Israel firsters" are, in fact, Netanyahu firsters.
Worse, is the fact that LA's Jewish Journal reproduces Rosenberg's columns too. The latest there, is called The “pro-Israel” right loses it, and in it Rosenberg praises Thomas Friedman for being pro-Israel! How anyone who willingly has his columns republished on an Islamist website can accuse others of losing it is extremely ironic; not that Rosenberg possesses the self-awareness to recognize that. But I wanted to focus on part of the defense of Friedman:
The Friedman quote that absolutely drove the pro-Likud right crazy was directed at Binyamin Netanyahu:
I sure hope that Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, understands that the standing ovation he got in Congress this year was not for his politics. That ovation was bought and paid for by the Israel lobby.
For this, Commentary called Friedman a practitioner of the “new anti-Semitism,” with virtually all of the usual suspects following suit. Tom Friedman an anti-Semite! Imagine.
I'm sure his readers in Qatar and the Gulf will love the "Israel Lobby" line. Friedman and Rosenberg just confirmed their darkest fear! (Does Al Jazeera translate these article into Arabic?)
Unfortunately, there is not enough debate over what it means to be “pro-Israel” and little frank discussion of the fundamental, even existential, choice facing Israel and the United States at a strategic fork in the road. Down one path, Israel maintains the status quo. Settlements beyond the Green Line continue to expand, and doubts regarding the existence of a true partner for peace are used to justify continued procrastination in taking meaningful steps toward a two-state solution. All too quickly on this path it will become clear that there no longer is a Green Line. Rather, there will be one state between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean left to grapple with how to remain a democratic, Jewish nation when a majority of the people living there are not Jewish.
I’m not in the least bit joking and honestly don’t think I’ve exaggerated the above points covering what the American and European left (including its Jewish components) thinks should be the proper Israeli policy. Nevertheless, I don’t see the Kadima or Labor parties adopting such a program. I think it would be most amusing to go down to the corner of, for example, King George and Dizengoff streets to quiz random Israeli pedestrians about what they think of this plan. As always, since the mainstream Western media generally does not allow a real response to the ridiculousness of the program it advocates for Israel you won’t be reading any of the points made above in such places. People will just be left to believe that the current government is just unreasonably reactionary; that most Israelis support Obama (or if they don’t they deserve what they get); and if Israel just let the American far left choose its government than everything would be just fine. In fact, every public opinion poll in Israel backs up my points. Indeed, if anyone left-wing blogs or the mass media does remark on this article it will only be to brand it “right-wing.” Not at all. It's just right.
Recently one of my state legislators visited Israel. While I suspect that he generally is in agreement with J-Street, I don't believe he has a formal affiliation with the group.
One of the things impressed upon us by many of the leaders and thinkers we’ve met with these past four days: the unwillingness of politcal figures on both sides to come to the “damn table,” as Defense Secretary Leon Panetta recently said. As an Israeli academic put it at the end of the day, “You can’t prematurely create a Palestinian state under the wrong conditions.” Israel must demonstrate the merits of that argument to the Jewish Diaspora and the rest of the world.
He, of course, is misinformed. And that won't stop him from presenting himself as pro-Israel in 2014, when he's up for re-election. (He presents himself as pro-Israel to the roughly 30% of his constituents who are Jewish - mostly Orthodox.)
If he were pro-Israel, he would be able to demonstrate those arguments. One need not be a scholar; this isn't ancient history.
In 1993, Israel and the PLO signed the Oslo Accords. In his exchange of letters with Prime Minister Rabin, Yasser Arafat committed himself to rejecting terrorism and devoting himself to negotiations for peace. Over the next several years Israel withdrew from territory, freeing more than 90% of the Palestinians from Israel rule. Even "right wing" Prime Minister withdrew Israeli forces from most of the Jewish holy city of Hebron. Still President Clinton viewed Netanyahu as an obstacle to peace and worked to undermine him politically.
After Netanyahu was defeated in 1999 and succeeded by Ehud Barak, efforts were made to resolve final status issues. In July 2000, Arafat rejected an unprecedented offer from Barak to settle all the issues at Camp David Maryland. Two months later Arafat launched the "Aqsa Intifada," using the pretext of Ariel Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount.
In response Israel launched Operation Defensive Shield to destroy the terror infrastructure that Arafat had built in Judea and Samaria. Despite Israel's success in defeating the major terror groups it faced there, hundreds of Israelis were killed during this terror war.
Earlier in 2000, Israel completely withdrew its forces from southern Lebanon, which, according to the conventional wisdom provided Hezbollah with its raison d'etre. But Hezbollah quickly violated the international border, kidnapping and killing three Israeli soldiers - a violation that was covered up by the UN. Hezbollah used the next six years to build up its capacity to strike Israel (and launched occasional attacks against Israel throughout.) When the threat became too great, Israel was forced to fight to destroy the infrastructure that had been built over the previous six years. With the Israeli capture of the Karine A, Arafat was discredited. International pressure forced his second in command, Mahmoud Abbas into the leadership of the Palestinian Authority. While he hasn't been as involved in terror to the same degree as Arafat, Abbas has proven himself to be just as corrupt. Later Salam Fayyad became the Prime Minister of the government, however this "moderate" face has no real constituency in the Fatah Central committee, which is still ideologically committed to the destruction of Israel. Furthermore Abbas refused a peace offer from Ehud Olmert in 2008 - one even more extensive that Barak's eight years earlier - claiming that (East) Jerusalem was non-negotiable.
In addition to the withdrawals from much of Judea and Samaria (or, if you prefer, the West Bank) and from southern Lebanon, in 2005 Israel withdrew all soldiers and civilians from Gaza. Hamas was the beneficiary of this withdrawal and was able to win legislative elections in 2006 and then a brutal power struggle with Fatah a year later, consolidating its hold on Gaza. In late 2008 after thousands of rockets were fired at southern Israel, Israel fought back with Operation Cast Lead to destroy Hamas's infrastructure.
This is Israel's case in six paragraphs. Over the past 18 years Israel has undertaken significant risks and made substantial material concessions for peace. Its efforts have been met with indifference at best, or even terror. Despite these risks and concessions, Israel is still portrayed as fundamentally responsible for the absence of peace. Even Israel's efforts to protect itself against outrageous attacks of terror are met with criticism not sympathy.
If MJ Rosenberg, or Jeremy Ben Ami or my legislator were truly pro-Israel they'd acknowledge all this. Instead their insistence that Israel is fundamentally responsible for the lack of peace or even (as my legislator seemingly argues) equally responsible, only excuses the intransigence of the Palestinians.
4) Clarification
I wrote on Friday, that PM Netanyahu's adviser, Ron Dermer, was incorrect about when Judge Goldstone's op-ed had appeared in the New York Times. Here's the full text:
Not to be accused of cherry-picking to prove a point, I discovered that during the last three months (September through November) you published 20 op-eds about Israel in the New York Times and International Herald Tribune. After dividing the op-eds into two categories, “positive” and “negative,” with “negative” meaning an attack against the State of Israel or the policies of its democratically elected government, I found that 19 out of 20 columns were “negative.” The only "positive" piece was penned by Richard Goldstone (of the infamous Goldstone Report), in which he defended Israel against the slanderous charge of Apartheid.
I mis-read the initial excerpted report, and thought that Dermer had written that the op-ed appeared in September.
I have often said that I believe that an Obama defeat in 2012 would spell the end of J Street. Now, for the third time this year, a senior J Street operative is bailing out.
It is with mixed emotions that I am announcing that Hadar Susskind, J Street’s Vice President of Policy and Strategy, is moving on to a new position with Tides, a values-based infrastructure platform for social change. Hadar will join Tides as Senior Vice President/Managing Director and will formally leave J Street on September 30.
J Street is sad to lose such a talented and dedicated colleague, but we are excited about the new responsibilities and challenges that Hadar will be taking on in his new role. He will be opening the Washington DC office for Tides at a time of strategic recalibration, and will lead the creation of a “Tikkun Olam Fund” to support Jewish social justice work, an area where Hadar has a strong and passionate interest.
Hadar has been our chief legislative officer for the past two years, during which he oversaw our growing influence and impact in Congress. He has been a tireless voice for J Street on the Hill, and an important member of our senior team.
I am very grateful for all that Hadar has done to advance the cause of peace and security for Israel and for a more open conversation in the American Jewish community.”
As one of J Street's top political operatives (arguably the number two in command behind founder Jeremy Ben-Ami), Susskind directed the group's government affairs team and managed its political campaigns. He also played a key role in helping J Street's political action committee navigate the 2010 election cycle (which cost J Street many of its congressional backers).
...
It's unclear what this means for a group that's seen its share of PR woes in the past year - and has been waging a full-court press to put things back on track. But Susskind's loss will likely be felt. He's operated for years at the intersection of the Jewish community and politics, and is well known among insiders in both groups.
*A J Street spokesperson tells me that the group doesn't have a replacement lined up quite yet. "We are in the midst of reevaluating our structural needs right now," the official told me.
...
A former J Street official tells me that Susskind's departure isn't likely to leave J Street feeling "happy."
"It's a hell of an opportunity for Hadar to go work for Tides, especially with the portfolio as it's laid out," said Isaac Luria, who left J Street in April after serving as its new media guru. "J Street can't be happy to see him go, but don't see how he could have turned such an interesting opportunity down."
Like rats deserting a sinking ship while they can before 2012. Ben Ami will soon be the only one left.
The difference between criticizing Israel and being anti-Israel
Isi Leibler explains the difference between criticizing Israel and being anti-Israel, and why J Street clearly falls into the latter category.
The dividing lines between J Street and mainstream Jewish groups are not its views, but its efforts to convince Americans to encourage President Barack Obama to pressure the Israeli government. It is surely unconscionable for trendy American Jews to canvass their government to force Israel to act contrary to its will regarding national security, with potential life-and-death repercussions. J Street justifies this on the grounds that Israelis need “tough love,” comparing us to children on drugs who must be pressured into doing what’s good for them, or impounding the car keys of a drunken friend.
The blatant dishonesty of Ben-Ami’s stated willingness to back Israel during war was demonstrated by J Street’s approach to the Gaza conflict – which united all sections of the Israeli political spectrum, including the far-Left Meretz. J Street applied moral equivalence to Israel and Hamas, claiming that “there are many who recognize elements of truth on both sides of this gaping divide,” and reproached Israel for launching “a disproportionate response.” It stated that “we recognize that neither Israelis nor Palestinians have a monopoly of right and wrong,” and accused Israelis of “lacking sanity and moderation” in their attitude toward Hamas.
J Street also supports and finances the candidacy of anti-Israel congressmen, and constantly campaigns against pro-Israel resolutions in Congress. Immediately following the Fogel family massacre, J Street even opposed a bi-partisan congressional resolution condemning the PA for anti- Semitic incitement, claiming that “the current PA leadership has taken great political risks and shown real willingness to end the conflict.” It facilitated meetings on Capitol Hill for Goldstone to promote his discredited report. Furthermore, in 2009 – at the height of the Iran sanctions debate – Ben- Ami published an article opposing UN sanctions, although he has since changed his position.
J Street lobbied against a US veto of an anti-Israel resolution at the UN Security Council, prompting Democratic Congressman Gary Ackerman to sever ties with the group, quipping that “J Street is so open minded about what constitutes support for Israel that its brains have fallen out.”
J Street repeatedly slanders AIPAC and its efforts to generate bi-partisan support for Israeli governments, labeling it an extreme right-wing body. It warns American Jews that their “one-sided support of Israel” could lead to charges of dual loyalties. One of its founding partners and a member of its advisory board, Daniel Levy, even told a gathering in Abu Dhabi that the creation of Israel was “an act that was wrong.”
J Street now ritually condemns boycott, divestment and sanctions, yet still welcomes organizations promoting BDS, like Voices for Peace, in their conferences. It also co-sponsored a congressional mission to Israel with Churches for the Middle East, a pro-BDS coalition. It honors IDF soldiers who refuse to obey orders. It supports the Sheikh Jarrah Solidarity group, which calls for the liquidation of the Jewish Agency and Jewish National Fund.
Ben-Ami tries to make light of the scandal that exposed him as a serial liar, obliging him to apologize for having repeatedly denied that J Street was clandestinely funded by George Soros, a pathologically anti-Israel Jew. There are other anonymous offshore donors, and evidence that much of J Street’s funding emanates from sources hostile to Israel, including Arabs.
The list of J Street’s anti-Israel initiatives is endless. Most are either ignored or played down in Ben-Ami’s misleading book, which could well serve as a case study of Orwellian double-speak, topped by the dishonest manner in which it portrays itself as “pro-Israel”. It is reminiscent of the “pro-peace” communist front organizations that sought to dupe bleeding-heart liberals into believing they were promoting peace, whilst in reality they were advancing the interests of the “Evil Empire.”
J Street may be a lot of things, but pro-Israel is definitely not one of them.
In a post four years ago, I explained that the Talmud refers to a wicked person who is the son of a righteous person as 'vinegar the son of wine.' Here's another example: J Street's Jeremy Ben Ami.
Ben-Ami’s paternal grandparents were, indeed, Zionist heroes. At great personal risk they moved from Czarist Russia to the Land of Israel as part of the First Aliyah (wave of immigration) of the late nineteenth century. They were among 66 Palestinian Jewish families who defied the warnings of their own community’s leaders and purchased a large plot of land from Arab effendis in 1909 on the sand dunes north of Jaffa. The families then conducted a lottery on the beach to distribute the plots on which they would build their individual homes — thus laying the foundation for Tel Aviv, the “first Hebrew city.” Two years ago Tel Aviv’s municipality celebrated the centennial of the city’s founding. Ben-Ami and his children took part in a ceremony reenacting the 1909 lottery on the beach along with other descendants of the original Jewish families.
Writing about the event in the New York Times, Ben-Ami hailed his grandparents’ generation of Zionist settlers who created Tel Aviv as a center of Jewish learning, culture, and commerce. But he then contrasted that noble achievement with the allegedly atavistic attitudes toward the Palestinian Arabs of the “Netanyahu/Lieberman government.” Further, Ben-Ami bemoaned the fact that “in America, reflexive support for Israel’s every move — no matter how morally questionable or strategically counterproductive — continues to guide the established institutions and voices of the American Jewish community. Critics of Israeli policy are too often labeled enemies of the Jewish people, rather than engaged in open and intelligent debate over what is best for Israel and for U.S. interests in the region.”
Jeremy’s father, Yitzhak Ben-Ami, was also a Zionist hero and a rebel. Growing up in Tel Aviv in the 1920s and 30s, the elder Ben-Ami dissented from the official Jewish leadership’s political line and joined Irgun Zvai Leumi, the underground military organization that frequently retaliated forcefully against Arab attacks and eventually launched an armed revolt against the British mandatory authority. Ben-Ami spent most of the war years in the United States as one of the leaders of an Irgun delegation trying to build international support for transforming Palestine into a Jewish state.
When news of the Nazi extermination plan for Europe’s Jews was confirmed by the U.S. State Department in November 1942, Ben-Ami and his colleagues suspended their Zionist activities and threw all their energies into publicizing the plight of the remaining European Jews under threat of annihilation. Known also as the “Bergson group” (after their leader Peter Bergson) they established the Emergency Committee to Save the Jewish People of Europe and launched a public lobbying effort to pressure the Roosevelt administration into trying — by any diplomatic or military means available — to rescue the remnant of European Jewry.
The Committee attracted support from Jews and non-Jews alike and from across the political spectrum (including celebrities such as writers Ben Hecht, Max Lerner, and I.F. Stone, Democratic Congressman Will Rogers Jr., and the prominent Republican Senator Guy Gillette). Aside from the Roosevelt administration’s calculated indifference, the biggest obstacle the Emergency Committee faced in trying to make rescuing European Jews part of America’s war aims was the hostility and obstructionism of large parts of the Jewish establishment.
No single figure did more to undermine the Committee’s work than Rabbi Stephen Wise of Temple Emmanuel, undisputed boss of several national Jewish organizations and often referred to as “King of the Jews.” On the day that Ben-Ami and his colleagues were leading 100 orthodox rabbis in a demonstration in front of the White House to protest the Roosevelt administration’s inaction on rescue, Wise was advising administration officials that the Bergson group “did not represent Jewish thinking in America.” Wise viewed the young Palestinians and their American supporters as interlopers and even tried to get Ben-Ami and his colleagues deported. Accused by Wise of being a draft dodger, Ben-Ami then enlisted in the American Army.
“It’s a myth that criticism of Israel is silenced,” Dershowitz said in a phone interview with the Post on Thursday. I have spoken at AIPAC many times and have criticized Israeli policy. AIPAC has never silenced me, because AIPAC knows I’m pro-Israel.”
In the book, Ben-Ami argues that the major Jewish organizations and pro-Israel advocates in America have “created a situation where one can’t question or criticize Israeli policy or actions without being branded an outcast.”
Dershowitz, a Harvard law professor, vehemently expressed disagreement with that assertion.
“Ben-Ami was in diapers when I opposed the occupation and was in favor of the two-state solution,” Dershowitz said on Thursday.
“See, I’m [J Street’s] worst nightmare. I oppose the occupation. But I’m really pro-Israel, unlike them.”
Dershowitz also argued that J Street’s actions have had a deleterious effect on the next generation’s ability to effectively advocate for Israel.
“I think J Street has done more damage to Israel than any [other] American organization,” he said.
“It has made a generation of Jews ashamed to be pro-Israel, and has made it politically correct among young people to single out Israel to a double standard and for fault.”
...
Dershowitz called J Street’s branding of its message as pro-Israel “dishonest.”
“It is a fraud in advertising to call J Street pro-Israel,” he said. “An organization that calls for the US to censure Israel at the UN is not pro-Israel. An organization that praises [judge Richard] Goldstone is not pro-Israel. An organization that calls for taking any military measure against Iran off the table is not pro-Israel. It should stop defrauding the public.”
I wonder whether Dershowitz thinks that Tzipi Livni is pro-Israel. Is an Israeli politician who calls on the President of the United States to 'keep pressuring Israel' pro-Israel? I think she's pro-Livni.
Read the whole thing. Please don't waste your money and don't put money in Ben Ami's pocket by buying the book. There are excerpts here with commentary by yours truly.
Nick Kristof doesn't write as often about Israel as do Thomas Friedman or Roger Cohen. But he's no less anti-Israel than they are. In the face of a 407-6 vote in the US House, urging the Obama administration to block the 'Palestinian' attempt at the UN next month to escape the negotiating table, Kristof is calling Congress 'obstructionist.' Instead, he urges Americans to join with the Saudis, the Iranians and George Soros to support J Street.
In the last few years, a former government official named Jeremy Ben-Ami has been trying to change the political dynamic in Washington with a new organization — J Street — that presses Congress and the White House to show more balance. Ben-Ami has just published a book, “A New Voice for Israel,” that is a clarion call for American reasonableness in the Middle East.
“If things don’t change pretty soon, chances are that the two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will slip through our fingers,” Ben-Ami writes. “As that happens, the dream of the Jewish people to be a free people in their own land also slowly disappears.”
In fact, not only has the 'two-state solution' already slipped through our fingers - it was never there. The proof is in Yasser Arafat's response to Ehud Barak's overly generous offer of statehood, and Mahmoud Abbas' response to Ehud Olmert's overly generous offer of statehood. Both offers and the responses to them prove that this conflict is not about land or occupation, but about Israel's very existence as a Jewish state in the Middle East.
The 'Palestinians' will not agree to the two most basic points necessary to resolve the conflict: waiver of the claimed right to flood any remaining Jewish state with Arab Muslims, and agreement that any settlement reached will constitute the end of the conflict. Without those two elements, there is nothing else that can be accomplished.
American Jews have long trended liberal, and President Obama won 78 percent of the Jewish vote in 2008. Yet major Jewish organizations, like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or Aipac, embrace hawkish positions.
AIPAC - to use Kristof's example - doesn't 'embrace hawkish positions.' It supports whatever positions are embraced by the Israeli government, which in a democracy ought to be the positions embraced by the voters. We Israelis live in a democracy, we live much closer to the conflict than Kristof does and we obviously see the conflict differently than he (and J Street, which has been castigated here in just about every possible public forum) does. Are we suddenly supposed to change into a dictatorship to adopt 'solutions' that we don't want because Kristof wants them? Are we supposed to risk our lives because yet another pompously detached writer for the New York Times thinks it's the right thing to do?
That’s because those Jews who vote and donate based on Israel are disproportionately conservative (the same is true of Christians who are most passionate about Israel issues). Ben-Ami argues that “the loudest eight percent” have hijacked Jewish groups to press for policies that represent neither the Jewish mainstream nor the best interests of Israel.
No, if anything, AIPAC is taking the positions of the democratically elected government of Israel. And the loudest eight percent isn't the Jews who support Israel - it's the wealthy Reform and non-affiliated Jews who donate 60% of the budget of the Democratic party. Sadly, it's not the Jews who support Israel, it's the Christians (I wish the Jews did too).
In the case of Israel, American Jewish opinion isn’t the monolith that many assume. A 2008 survey by the American Jewish Committee asked Jews what issue they most wanted presidential candidates to discuss. Most cited the economy; only 3 percent said Israel.
If anything, American Jewish opinion is a monolith - in favor of a 'Palestinian state.' That's because most American Jews don't understand that demand is a Trojan horse.
“What happens as Israel continues to become more religious and conservative, more isolated internationally and less democratic domestically?” Ben-Ami writes. “What happens to the relationship between American Jews and Israel as the face of Israel shifts from that of Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres to that of the national religious settlers and the ultra-Orthodox rabbis?”
Is Ben Ami suggesting that God forbid we kill all the religious Jews? That we not allow religious Jews to make aliya? If Ben Ami - who was born in Israel - truly cares about Israel - why did he leave? Why does he not return? Why should he have any voice in Israel? And by the way, in Yitzchak Rabin's last Knesset speech in 1995, he vowed there would be no 'Palestinian state.'
To put it another way: When Glenn Beck becomes the best friend of Israel’s government and is invited to speak to the Knesset, what do liberals do? Some withdraw. Others join leftist groups like Jewish Voice for Peace, which supports divestment campaigns against companies profiting from the occupation of Palestinian territories.
That's pretty disingenuous. J Street supports boycotting the Jewish towns of Judea and Samaria too. They just don't support boycotting the entire country although they 'understand' people who do and feel that they are still 'pro-Israel.'
(Whenever I write about Israel, I get accused of double standards because I don’t spill as much ink denouncing worse abuses by, say, Syria. I plead guilty. I demand more of Israel partly because my tax dollars supply arms and aid to Israel. I hold democratic allies like Israel to a higher standard — just as I do the U.S.)
Really, Nick? Do you make the same demands on Egypt? Lebanon? The 'Palestinians'? Name one other democratic ally that you hold to the same standards that you hold Israel. Name one Nick. You can't, can you?
Damned hypocrite.
I posted excerpts of Ben Ami's book with comments here. Please DON'T put money in his pocket by buying it.
Insight into the mind of a self-hating Jew: Excerpts from Jeremy Ben Ami's new book with commentary
J Street chief Jeremy Ben Ami (that's him in the picture) has written a book. The book is not doing quite so well on Amazon as they are claiming (when last someone checked, it was # 7 on Israel and not # 1 as they claim). Here are some excerpts someone sent to me. They should be enough to convince you that Gary Ackerman pegged it right when he made the comment quoted in the picture at left.
9—Born in the USA
p39
[Growing up] I understood that the Arabs had tried—more than once—to destroy Israel and make the Jews leave. But never once did I hear their side of history. Not one book in my house told their story. Not one class in Hebrew school exposed us to their culture, their backgrounds and lives… According to the history I learned, Palestine was essentially empty when the Jews arrived. [It was - Mark Twain records it in Innocents Abroad. Twain was here then; Ben Ami was not. CiJ]
p40-41
The story line of the Israel-Arab conflict as my generation learned it was simple and appealing—a tale of good and evil, a morality play pitting David against Goliath…It would be many years before I discovered that there is more than one narrative when it comes to the story of Israel and Palestine. In fact, it wasn’t until I moved to Israel and started meeting those very Palestinians that I learned that, yes, the Palestinians are a people and, yes, they do believe that my people came and threw them out of their homes and took their country away from them. Imagine my surprise when I found out they had the keys to those homes to prove it. [There is no such thing as an ethnically distinct 'Palestinian people.' They were invented by the Arab states as a club against Israel. The Arabs have admitted as much. CiJ].
My father’s politics were liberal-left on all issues…But not when it came to Israel. Little did I know that this was a phenomenon I’d come to know all too well in the American Jewish community later in life.
p43
[Defended Israel in college paper saying that there was media bias etc] Today there are well-funded training programs to arm student activists with talking points and arguments like these. Back then, I just had my father.
My senior thesis…concluded based on 28 years of polling data, that foreign policy actually has little impact on presidential elections. It’s an argument I still find myself making today.
I still hear from [my father’s contemporaries] today…sharing angry, often venomous letters charging me with betraying my father’s legacy.
p44
[Father also went against the mainstream in his day and history proved him right] I find myself on the center-left of the political spectrum, sounding the alarm about the looming existential threat to the democratic state of Israel as a Jewish Homeland if the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not resolved…Pro-Israel, pro-Peace movement…[is] attacked by right-of-center establishment, both in U.S. and Israel
p45
[Out of college little thought to Israel, at White House} my interactions with the Jewish community and the issue of Israel were sporadic…I’d talk abt [diff issues] but Israel? I left that to my colleagues from the Nat. Sect. Council, and I’d head back to my office when they started talking
p46
I was jolted…out of my complacency by the assassination of PM RABIN IN 1995. [tried to understand how jew could kill jew, frustrated couldn’t read Hebrew so went to Israel]
p47
[In Ulpan met Pals for first time] [Interesting how he apparently doesn't stop to ask what the fact that Israel provides 'Palestinians' with free ulpan (Hebrew lessons) shows us about Israel]. After 35 yrs of knowing little more than the caricatures on which I had been raised, I was know getting to know [them]…I learned again a basic rule of history—that one people’s victory is likely to be another’s catastrophe.
4—Sixty Seconds in Santa Fe
p55
[Worked on Dean campaign was at event and while distracted Dean said] US should “not take sides” in the Israeli-Pal conflict…should be “evenhanded” in our approach
That kind of straight talk and honesty is why I went to work for the governor but it certainly didn’t constitute playing by the rules of American politics when it comes to Israel
p62-66
[Worked on Mark Green mayoralty campaign…was revealed he contributed to APN…Hikind attacked him for questionable loyalty to Israel]
I was close to Peace Now, having consulted for them when I lived in Israel…I found it outrageous that a candidate in the largest city in the US would have to pass a loyalty test to Israel established by settler allies from the west bank.
[Dean & Green were] articulating a mainstream position on American foreign policy…Yet both candidates were treated as if they had blundered horribly…both minor examples of what happens every day when American politics intersects with Israel’s most vocal supporters [He sounds like Walt and Mearsheimer, doesn't he? CiJ]
[How did all this happen?] What about my views, and the views of all my colleagues and friends who had lived and worked in Israel, who passionately believe it will serve Israel’s and Americas interests for the US to be more evenhanded in its approach to the conflict?
How these rules were written and codified is a fascinating tale of modern American politics. The need to rewrite these rules has become the mission of my life
5—The Loudest 8%
p67-75
How he met Jim Gerstein…Jim said based on data that] Israel is a “threshold” issue for Jewish voters…Only a small percentage of Jewish Americans actually vote based primarily on whether or not a candidate adheres to their party line on Israel…And that minority definitely trends further to the right than Jewish Americans as a whole when it comes to Israel…Jim [calls] this minority “the loudest 8% in the country” bc their voices dominate the public debate and the perception of where the community stands…But the views of this minority are out of date and out of touch w the broader American Jewish public.
[Wrong perception that Jewish American community is single-issue voting bloc and that to win votes candidates need to be as far right as possible. So candidates talk mostly abt Israel etc when addressing Jewish community and don’t address issues which they care abt most]
[What are views of Jewish Americans?] We can certainly start with the notion that Jews are libral politically. They self-identify as liberal or progressive, and they vote Democrat. Repubs continually try to claim that Jews are moving towards right and try to use Israel as a wedge issue but based on data, polling, etc, this is all obviously a “myth”] [Not such a myth based on recent polling. Obama majority has definitely shrunk. CiJ].
p76-78
Jewish Americans grow up both conscious and proud of Jewish leadership of mvmnts for justice and equality over the past century…We understood that it was our role to help fight oppression and injustice. [Loudest 8% don’t have these values—they are less democratic, liberal, progressive, more likely to have voted for McCain, be religiously observant and] opposed to active American leadership as a means to solve a conflict.
[Not only have the loudest 8%] created the impression of a community w a single-minded focus on Israel, they have backed it p w just enough money and political muscle to skew the national conversation abt foreign policy and the Middle East for more than a generation.
6—Ending the Conflict
p79-81
Those who oppose efforts to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict love to say that there’s no point in trying, bc this is a fight that has been raging since time immemorial btwn mortal enemies destined to hate each other…In fact, the history of Jewish/non-Jewish relations in the land of Palestine, and throughout Arab and Muslim land, was fairly positive…root of conflict is national and territorial…without religious overtones. The resolution of this conflict [is] clear: the division of the land into two states, on for the Jewish people and one for the Palestinians. [If it's so clear, why have the Arabs rejected it time and time again? CiJ]
p83-86
[Consequences of occupation after ‘67 war…names Israeli leaders at the time who opposed settlements bc thought Israel would be viewed as kind of apartheid state…Israel ignored those voices and kept developing settlements…but Israeli leaders always knew the territories would need to be addressed in negotiations…]Since 1990’s negotiators have embraces the same basic outline…the “Clinton Parameters”
p87-89
Despite widespread public support for a two-state solution…3 factors make resolving the conflict increasingly difficult and urgent. [(1) Technology and more lethal weaponry (2) deepening extremist ideology (3) Demography…] Given these threats…Israel finds itself at a critical fork in the road, facing a choice of existential proportion: Either end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict now thru a two-state solution or cling to an untenable status quo that leads to the decline of its Jewish character, its democratic values and its international standing. [The demography issue is bogus - it's based on statistics that double count 'Palestinians' in Jerusalem and count 'Palestinians' who have not lived in the area in years. CiJ].
p90-91
The creation of a political home for the Palestinian people at some point in the coming years is inevitable. The question is whether the Israeli political system can muster the will to swallow the compromises necessary to achieve this outcome peacefully and diplomatically now, or whether it will take years or decades, not to mention thousands of lives lost
One common observation is that one side has the capacity to take the steps necessary to end the conflict, but not the will. The other side has the will, but not the capacity…Left to their own devices, the Israelis and Palestinians are unlikely to muster the political will to hash out the details of an agreement…That’s why the assistance of 3rd parties, in particular that of the United States, is indispensable…Luckily, it also has a strong self-interest in ending the conflict.
7—The Crossroads of politics and policy on Israel
p93-97
[Even though everyone in Washington agrees about what should be done in ME, they won’t say what they truly feel about the Israeli-Palestinians conflict bc of the Israel Lobby…they think it will cost them Jewish support. Jewish support=money not votes] This political dynamic goes a long was toward explaining how the United States…is unable to find a way to end the conflict when both the need and the solution are so evident. [More Walt and Mearsheimer conspiracy theories. CiJ]
Jewish Americans do provide a disproportionately large percentage of funding for American political candidates and committees…Washington insiders seem surprisingly unaware, however, how little of this financial support from Jewish Americans has anything to do with Israel. They don’t seem to grasp that Jewish Americans aren’t single-issue voters and actually hold moderate to liberal views on Israel. In J Street’s Nov 2010 poll…we found 78% support among Jewish American voters for a two-state solution…creating a Palestinian state in the WB, Gaza, and East Jerusalem. This is consistent w a long history of surveys…
A 2010 J Street poll also found that, by a margin of 82-18, Jewish Americans (JA’s) understand that a two-state solution is necessary to strengthen Israel’s security and ensure its Jewish, democratic character. [It's all in how you ask the question, and J Street does its own, biased polling via Gerstein. 'Nuff said. CiJ]
Further, 69% of JA’s believe that Israel should suspend, either partially or totally, construction of Jewish settlements on the WB, This, too, reflects a consistent view among JA’s that the settlements a re counterproductive to efforts to resolve the conflict peacefully. [65-35% support active, balanced US role in resolving the conflict]
The political establishment just does not hear the moderate voice. Instead what they hear constantly is vocal support for Israel, whether Israel is right or wrong…This voice tells them that the only way to truly support Israel is by not questioning any legislation, resolutions, or letters related to the conflict that express unwavering commitment to one side of the conflict (Israel) and frustration and doubt about the other (Pals and Arabs).
p98-105 (Israel Lobby/ECI)
[Bc of Jewish /Israeli ties to prominent Republicans] The challenge to the rest of us could not be clearer….AIPAC…is only one of a number of forces…None of these many organizations are actually in the business of electoral politics…In the 2010 election cycle, the primary vehicle for attacks on candidates perceived as being insufficiently pro-Israel was a newly formed body called the Emergency Committee for Israel (ECI)
Formed by Bill Kristol…neoconservative…neoconservative contention that strength and military power are more useful tools than diplomacy and conciliation, meshes well with the right-of-center views now dominant in Israel…strong cross-fertilization btwn Israel-focused and neoconservative think tanks in the US…The views of neoconservatives could not differ more from those of the overwhelming majority of JA’s.
Gary Bauer…president of the nonprofit American Values which according to its website, “is deeply committed to defending life, traditional marriage and equipping our children with the values necessary to stand against liberal education and cultural forces.
Rachel Abrams…wife of Elliot Abrams and daughter of legendary neoconservatives
ECI itself does not appear to be associated directly with AIPC. Rather it looks more like a partisan Republican political operation, staffed by two young Repub and neoconservative political operatives—Michael Goldfarb and Noah Pollak. Goldfarb was John McCain’s spokesman on Jewish issues…and worked closely with Kristol at the National Review. Pollak, the group’s exec director, has written for Commentary (whose founding editorial board include Kristol and Podhoretz) and worked for the Shalem Center in Jerusalem, the think tank that was home to…Michael Oren.
ECI ran television ads attacking a number of Democratic members of Congress for signing a letter to the president in early 2010 urging that the closure of Gaza be eased. They painted those members as friendly to Hamas and anti-Israel…attacks meshed with…RJC…aimed are peeling away Jews from their traditional Democratic affiliations---efforts that…have not succeeded.
I do not accept that these groups…constitute a vast “Israel Lobby” …In fact I believe that these efforts to overstate Jewish power in this way are playing into nasty historical stereotypes that have fueled prejudice against the Jewish people over the centuries…
[Candidates have to memorize talking points on Israel and have to learn proper way to be “pro-Israel”…go on educational trip to ME after election courtesy of AIPAC etc…during tenure get visits and contributions of Jewish community and AIPAC reps] Newly elected officials are trained well…to live with a element of fear of what might happen if they start to toe a different lie when it comes to Israel [Examples of Sen. Charles Percy and Cynthia McKinny who lost bc were believed to be anti-Israel. Donna Edwards didn’t toe the line but was reelected overwhelmingly in 2010…She has found considerable support for her reasonable positions]
BEWARE THE BACKLASH p105-108
The traditional pro-Israel community employs a powerful combination of political assistance for those who follow the line and a healthy dose of fear for those who don’t…efforts cross the line from an admirable exercise of political power to overplaying one’s hand…interests of Jewish community and Israel are not well served by level of resentment…members of Congress and their staffs…[feel] dread as they head to the floor of the House or Senate to cast votes on Israel related resolutions…few members are willing to say no…it’s just not worth the political price…[they] resent the treatment they receive from pro-Israel lobbyists….majority of national political leaders know [that] there is a diversity of political views in Jewish community….Where, they wonder, are the moderate, rational voices when it comes to talking about Israel?
By the spring 2004 I was convinced that the rulebook of American politics needed a thorough rewrite…skewing the substantive discussion in DC about actual American policy.
After all, shouldn’t there be at least as much space for discussion here as there is in Israel itself? If Israel’s politicians can talk openly and honestly…why cant America’s?
[Those who don’t agree] need to know that there will be meaningful political support for them. They need to se evidence that for every prominent donor they think they may lose, another will take its place. They need to know that someone’s got their back…We sought to fill this gap by providing a political voice for friends of Israel…who are willing…to break with Israeli govt policy. Who are ready to say that the US may need to press not only the Palestinians and the Arabs to make peace but the Israelis, too.
P109- 112(George Soros/Launching J St)
[Oct 26, 2006 called confidential meeting w Soros, Peter Lewis, Charles Bronfman, etc…but before meeting story broke and criticized in particular for Soros’s participation. Soros opened meeting saying why he couldn’t participate: “I am not sufficiently engaged in Jewish affairs to be part of the reform of AIPAC.” Supposed to launch w budget of $10 million and merger with IPF, APN, AJP but didn’t have enough support so launched w $1.5 million. ]
We ultimately did gain the financial support of George Soros, who began contributing to the effort in the late fall of 2008…Soros’s prediction was on the mark: The revelation of his support generated a storm of controversy. So did the decision not to make his support public when it began. I am proud to have George Soros’s support. I believe his philanthropy and political activism represent the best of Jewish values in action, and I regret that I succumbed to the very political pressure that J Street is trying to defeat in arguing that we should keep his support quiet. Happily none of the controversy…has stopped the effort from taking off successfully…Michael Goldfarb and other right-wing activists tried to frighten members of Congress out of serving on our Host Committee [but unsuccessful]
On our first conference’s opening night, the “majority” of Israel’s supporters, the moderates, were silent no more. The Obama administration, coming into office just months after J Street launched, recognized this emerging power center and sent National Security advisor Jim Jones to address our conference and invited me to a meeting of American Jewish leaders
The goal of J Street is to be a new voice for Israel, not to be “the” voice of the American Jewish community…We know that we disagree substantively and politically with many in the community who are more skeptical of chances of reaching a peace deal, of capacity and willingness of the Palestinians and of the long-term viability of such an arrangement…We want a voice in the American political debate that reflects the progressive and liberal tendencies of that community and that is consonant with the values on which we were raised. We want nothing less to rewrite the rules of American politics. Our job wont be complete, however, unless we change the rules of the Jewish community as well.
8—Generation Oy
p113-119
The level of direct connection btwn Jews in America and Jews in Israel is…surprisingly low. [J St polls and others show that approx 33% of US Jews travel to Israel and overall interaction has been trending downward…can explain it generationally…Generational gap btwn non-Orthodox Jews over 65 and those under 35…Younger Jewish Americans are further removed from fear of prejudice and anti-Semitism. Growing up, Ben Ami very attached to Israel]
Israel, to today’s younger generation, is less a miracle than a fact…The notion of Israel as David and the Palestinian people as past of an Arab Goliath sounds backwards to them…They see less an Israeli fight for survival, and more a Palestinian fight for freedom, in which the underdogs are no longer the Jews…that fight for liberation and justice resonates.
Jewish children in the US today are unlikely to forge an emotional connection w Israeli settlers…they are…more apt to relate personally to the young Christian woman from Gaza denied permission to re-enter the WB in order to complete her university degree in Bethlehem…they’re shocked when they hear that rabbis rule that it is a sin to rent a home to an Arab, and that a majority of Jewish Israelis support this discrimination, not the Arabs who are its victim.
[Among non-Orthodox Jews under 35…those who are “left-leaning” are just as tied to Israel as those who are “right-leaning”] Jewish liberals…should find it reassuring and empowering that they care as much about Israel as do their conservative neighbors…If liberals care just as much about Israel as do conservative community members, their concern for an perspective on the future of Israel deserve equal respect and airtime.
[American Jews are giving less to Jewish causes…making pro-Israel liberals more comfortable will reverse 50% decline in donations]
p120-126
[Flotilla: Agreement w Israeli statement—middle age, conservative, religious. Turkish statement—18-29…Younger Jews no less connected to Judaism but not connected to Israel…need more progressive approach] One of the surprises for me, since starting J St, has been that the net generation of leaders in the Jewish community seems to see Israel largely as a headache or impediment, rather than as a potential asset to their work…[In Israel lots of young activists working in NGOs for more just, peaceful society, supporting non-violence resistance in occupation of WB]
Young Americans should be exposed…to the passionate activism of young Israelis who have finished their military service and are now speaking out against the occupation. Instead those Israeli speakers are often blocked from traditional American campus events and certainly not on itinerary for Birthright
[major philanthropists have tried to get young Jews to relate more strongly to Israel…things like Birthright don’t work bc they fail to address the issues…Progressive students want to express anger over Palestinian plight…so they join movements like BDS] The problem is that the policies of the state of Israel and the behavior of parts of the Jewish community in Israel are simply tremendously disturbing to large numbers of students and even to their professors…The proper response…is not to label them as anti-Israel or to throw them out of the communal tent…not a vigorous reiteration of Israel’s right to exist
p126- (Beinart)
[reviewed threats to Israel’s democracy and concluded [that the current Israel conversation in the Jewish community is putting the future of liberal ZIonism, and support for Israel among young Jewish Americans, at risk…I would go further…the conversation is putting the heart and soul of the entire American Jewish community at risk…[solution: Criticism of Israel needs to be met w rational dialogue and community leadership should speak up loudly when Israel’s is exhibiting bad behavior]
9—Five Million Jews, One Opinion?
Silencing the Dissent p131-138
[Dissent over Israel is a good thing nowadays…kvetching how J Street is not recognized as pro-Israel, ostracized etc…modern day McCarthyism of ppl who express their positions on Israel
Funding p138-141
Another tool in the right-wing playbook is to throw around financial clout.
[Federations adopt funding guidelines when it comes to Israel—when it comes to BDS, the Israeli govt and right-wing activists in US don’t make distinction btwn those who are anti-Israel and those who are protesting Israeli policies related to Pals but support Israel’s right to exist…also screen speakers, programs, funding, etc in advance to see if they’re properly pro-Israel] Further polarizing American Jews and undermining debate
p142- 144(HRW, etc]
[As soon as HRW focuses on Israel it’s branded as anti-Semitic, attacked by Israeli govt, called anti-Israel by AIPAC…even its founder, etc…progressive Jewish orgs who are not as well funded observe this so steer clear of Israel bc scared that they wont have funding if they criticize Israel.] [Two words: Marc Garlasco. CiJ]
Rather than live in fear of the consequences, progressive Jews need to lead the way [lots of Jewish philanthropists w progressive values like Soros who gave $100 million to HRW, etc]
The Enemy Of My Enemy p144-149
[McCarthyism…Dershowitz and Sarna were certain that J St is “Trojan horse for anti-Israel activists…but could only name Soros as anti-Israel]
[Stephen Walt support of J St drew criticism….In book Walt actually called for a group like J St…Ben Ami refused to announce his favorable comments/support]
The taunts, funding threats and guilt by association all add up to an undemocratic and un-Jewish pattern of limiting dissent…The self-appointed “pro-Israel” forces have skewed the conversation so severely…everyone else finds themselves blacklisted…[which is why many progressives just don’t engage in the conversation and community] It’s time to let them back in…rewrite the rulebook governing Israel conversation…
10—Rewriting the Rules
p151-172
[No single voice can speak for the Jewish Americans on Israel…threats of growing number and clout of Orthodox in Israel…Avigdor Leiberman…]
[Questions for leaders: criticism vs. delegitimization, will we censor, effectively restrain criticism of those who dissent, stand up for rights of Muslim Americans, step back from alliance w evangelicals, give young ppl space to openly discuss Israel ??]
Suggestions for refreshing the rulebook:
1. Supporting and loving Israel should be more than a simple yes-or-no proposition (redefinition of what it means to be pro-Israel)
2. Being pro-Israel should not require accepting everything Israel’s govt says on its face or pledging unquestioning loyalty to the policies of the govt…American Jews should have just as much say as Israelis…not all those engaged in the use of boycotts…are “anti-Israel”...The quickest and most effective way for Israel to take the steam out of the growing BDS movement would be to end the occupation. Then it would be unmistakably clear who are simply critics of Israeli policy, and who are intransigent enemies of the sate itself
3. The American Jewish community should ally with those whose values we share and be wary of selling out our values in an effort to grow the base of Americans supporting Israel...i.e. evangelical Christians—in particular Pastor John Hagee, Gary Bauer, Mike Huckabee
4. Not every “pro” requires an “anti” We should not ask people, organizations, or even countries to pick sides…Time to view support for the creation of a Pal state as a legitimately pro-Israel position…Us vs. them mentality—Park 51 Islamic center…J St/liberals defended it…Support for Obama was at least partly rooted in rejection by younger people of exactly the sort of rigid us-vs-them mindset that drives the communal approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict [Anyone need more proof that Ackerman was right? His head is so open his brains have fallen out. CiJ]
P173-4
The traditional institutions that have led organized American Jewish community for the better part of the past century need to face the reality that the product they are marketing just isn’t selling the way it used to…loss of donors, resources, interest, etc…Newer groups like Jewish Funds for Justice, American Jewish World Service and J St are growing robustly...not disconnected from our identity and heritage…simply dissatisfied with the traditional options the community is offering for connecting to them.
11 What becomes of Tel Aviv in 2019
P179-187
My joy and pride is Israel’s present are, however, balanced and at times exceeded by my deep concern for its future. [Israel’s failure to address its challenges is due to leaderless and paralyzed political system and allies who enable the country’s willful denial]
Israel must choose among 3 things: the land it has occupies since 1967 beyond the Green line, it’s Jewish majority, and its democracy. It can only have 2 of the 3…One by one, each of Israel’s PM’s has come to grips with this reality [and pursued 2-state resolution]…Ehud Barak, warned: failure to make peace with the Palestinians would leave the state of Israel at risk of becoming an “apartheid” regime [Olmert, Meridor agree]
One-state solution: For me there is no one state solution, only a one state nightmare…They need a divorce and they need it now before they kill each other…One critical test of Israel’s character…will be how it treats the non-Jews living in the state, in particular the indigenous Palestinian population … [problems: tensions of being democratic and Jewish…need to separate religion and state…ultra-Orthodox maintain govt opposed to territorial compromise]
There are proposals in the Knesset right now to institutionalize a form of second-class citizenship for non-Jewish Israelis, launch McCarthy-style investigations into organizations that promote civil and human rights and restrict free expression…[also] gap btwn rich and poor.
The ultimate dream is the same today as it was four generations ago—to be a free people in our own land—yet it has not been fully realized. Only an agreement that ends the conflict with the Palestinian people and established recognized borders for the state will grant Israel the full legitimacy it deserves and a permanent place in the community of nations.
12—America’s Stake in Ending the Conflict
p189-196
Fundamental national interest of the US…engaged militarily there…2006 ISG study: “The US will not be able to achieve its goals in the ME unless the US deals directly w the Arab-Israeli conflict.”
The Right is terrified that the public may recognize that the ongoing Israeli-Arab and Israeli-Palestinian conflict runs against American interest bc that could lead to meaningful pressure on Israel to cede land on the West Bank…
By arguing that…Patraeus is wrong for drawing a simple and logical connection btwn the festering of Israeli-Pal conflict and American interests…American Jewish leaders risk appearing to put their own interests, and those of the state of Israel, ahead of the interests of the US
Obama and the Future
p197-204
Despite the good will and best intentions, the Obama administration has failed in its first two years to bring the underlying conflict any closer to resolution…the president was quickly perceived by the Israeli public as favoring the Palestinians over them. But his early decision to put so much political capital into achieving a total settlement freeze was perhaps the most serious strategic mistake…The position was entirely consistent w the roadmap laid out by Bush…The Palestinians were delighted…The rest of the world was presently surprised and supportive…the Israelis said no…Settlements are a symptom of an underlying disease—the lack of a defined border…defining the border…would put an end to the settlement issue.
I would argue that the time has come for the US, w broad support from the international community, to publicly put the widely accepted parameters of a peace agreement on the table and then ask the parties publicly to respond…Let’s put them to the test…If one party says yes and the other hesitates, it will be clear where the obstruction lies. Either way it’s time to end the “peace process” as we know it. [Clinton tried that. We all know what happened. Israelis expressed reservations. 'Palestinians' said no. Ask Clinton whom he blames for failure. CiJ]
Mahmoud Abbas and PM Salaam Fayyad may not be perfect, but they are the best Palestinian leader Israel is likely to have to work with for quite some time; they are dedicated to diplomacy, negotiation, and a two-state solution that recognizes Israel’s right to exist. [You can''t make peace with the leaders. You have to make peace with the people. We may yet suffer for that mistake in Egypt and Jordan. The 'Palestinian people' don't want peace. They want to destroy Israel. Two-state is just a phase for them. See recent Greenberg poll. CiJ]
Ideally, the president should place efforts at resolution into a comprehensive, regional framework—for instance, taking the Arab League up on its Arab Peace Initiative…regional approach.
The “loudest 8%” has been astoundingly effective in shaping the discourse in Washington when it comes to Israel…The key to change, therefore, is to organize a broader pool of “passionate moderates” into a true counterweight to balance the energized minority…must demonstrate to the White House, to members of Congress, and to the political world that a sufficient base of political support exists and can be delivered to back them up if they break w the status quo. And this movement must be significant enough to not only help a White House pursue peace, but to make it politically costly not to pursue the end of the conflict aggressively.
13—Giving Voice to Our Values
p205-209
The ongoing occupation of the WB and the blockade of Gaza shouldn’t end simply bc they are strategically bad for the long-term security and survival of Israel, or bc they damage the national interests of the US. They should end bc they are morally wrong.
Yet to raise these moral questions opens you to a scathing attack and to being labeled “virulently anti-Israel.” The charge if you talk about Israel’s human rights record? That you are contributing to the delegitimization of the sate of Israel.
[Dershowitz’s and other’s arguments that other countries like China, etc are worse human rights abusers are inconsequential…and can’t use the argument that “they started it”]
p209-214
I also question the ethics of those in the Jewish community who cut off the conversation on human rights and morality by personally attacking those who raise the issues. Look, for instance, at the treatment of Richard Goldstone. [Lists all his credentials as pro-Israel, etc] But then he led the international commission appointed by the UNHRC to investigate the actions of both Israel and Hamas during Operation Cast Lead…Opposition to the Goldstone Report became a rallying cry in Israel and among the right-of-center Israel advocates around the world. PM Netanyahu labeled it as one of the great strategic threats facing Israel…However, the proper response to the reports charges would be…to confront the troubling moral questions in defense of Israel’s actions, rather than refusing to participate…Instead the Israeli and Jewish establishments unleashed a torrent of personal attacks on the judge that turned his name into a dirty word. [He ignores the fact that Goldstone has recanted. I guess he only reads the New York Times and not the Washington Post. CiJ]
With the govt of Israel and its defenders labeling any critique of Israel off limits and unacceptably anti-Israel, it’s not surprising that there’s little room for the nuanced position that, despite the disproportionate international focus on Israel, the country still does have human rights issues that need to be addressed.
In Israel, the attacks against human rights organizations are steady, harsh, and growing…NGO Monitor…Im Tirtzu etc….The Knesset is considering a range of legislation that would dramatically limit the rights of those promoting human rights in Israel…This list of pending legislation that would erode the foundation of Israel’s democracy is lengthy, much of it is designed by Israel’s right wing to shut down the country’s human rights movement…Neither survival without morality nor morality without survival is a satisfactory outcome. [We also HAVE human rights organizations. No one else in this region does. CiJ]
14—Why Not?
P216-end
For several generations now, Jews in the US and in other parts of the Diaspora have grown up understanding our role: As our cousins in Israel build the national home of our people, it is our duty to answer their call for help. And so we have been asked for money…We have been asked to consider making aliyah…We are asked to lobby on Israel’s behalf in Washington and with govts around the world…We have been asked to visit as tourists and establish a personal connection w the country…
Today, however, Israel needs something much more and far different than it has in the past. Israel is at risk…It’s not simply an external enemy pointing a rocket, building a bomb or proposing a UN resolution. The threat today to Israel’s long term security and character is its failure to recognize the danger that comes with not achieving a two-state solution, not addressing and resolving the claims of the Palestinian people, not helping them achieve their freedom and independence.
Listen carefully and you’ll even hear former Israeli prime ministers and many of Israel’s military leaders and leading intellectuals begging us to recognize that Israel faces an existential threat…They—not Israel’s enemies—tell us that Israel is “finished”….speak of a future that resembles far too closely an apartheid state.
The conflict has a rational solution. It is still, at the end of the day, a dispute between two people over one piece of land. [No, it's not. It's over Israel's existence. Ben Ami cannot acknowledge that the conflict here is and always was a zero sum game. Israel has tried everything possible short of suicide and swimming to bring about peace. And our own people act to undermine us abroad. CiJ] And it’s our choice whether to fight to the death over it or to find some way to share it in peace…
This is the greatest love we can show Israel—don’t sit idly by and watch the country head for a cliff of its own making…This is the Zionism of the 21st century.
The present path that the state of Israel is on is unsustainable. The occupation of another ppl and the denial of their national aspirations and their rights is not only morally unacceptable, it is a fatal threat to the entire enterprise of the state of Israel.
A new voice is needed for an American Jewish community, one that is read to speak these truths and redefine what it means to be pro-Israel in the 21st century.
Don't read the whole thing (i.e. don't put money in his pocket by buying the book). This ought to be enough to tell you all you need to know.
Another lie that was exposed by Eli Lake on Friday was the claim that most of J Street's money came from small donations by American Jews. In fact, aside from the 15% that came from George Soros, 50% came from a woman in Hong Kong named Consolacion Esdicul.
The group's 990 forms -- which I've also obtained and put online for the first time here -- show the group's single largest contribution, in the odd sum of $811,697 coming from one Consolacion Esdicul of Happy Valley, a Hong Kong suburb. Esdicul, whose name is Filipino, has no presence on Google or Nexis aside from this story, and people I spoke to in Jewish groups left and right had never heard of her.
Spokeswoman Amy Spitalnick tells me the same thing the group told Lake:
She is a business associate of Bill Benter, another J Street supporter from Pittsburgh who solicited Consolacion's gift. It's a large gift, but it should be put in the context of the $11.2 million the J Street family of organizations has raised over the last 2.5 years (full details below).
Esdicul's contribution was just about half of the $1.6 million the group received during the year in question. Spitalnick says that they haven't received any other contributions from Esdicul , and that their operating budget over the last three years for the group's "family of organizations" is $9.5 million.
It is, to say the least, unusual that a group would get half its budget from a foreigner doing a favor to a business associate. I left a message for Benter, who heads a medical transcription company, to ask about how that came about.
Benter, as it turns out, is one of the world's most successful betters on horse races, and Happy Valley, a Hong Kong suburb, is the location of one of the world's largest horse race tracks.
I did a lot of speculating about Connie Esdicul here and here. I theorized that she might be the sister of Benter's wife, Vivian Fung, or the widow of Benter's former betting partner Alan Woods. In the course of my research, I discovered that Benter was also a donor to Barack Hussein Obama, the Democratic party of Virginia and Rabbis for Human Rights.
But the truth came to me from a source I found while in the US. The answer is really quite simple according to my source: Consolacion (Connie) Esdicul is Bill Benter's long-time secretary. She has been his secretary for the last 25 years, and may have been even more than his secretary at one time. So Benter (surprise, surprise!) is the likely source of all that money, which may not have been reported as such to the appropriate US authorities.
Just so you know that the source is authentic, here's a picture of Benter's office building:
I have the address and the phone number. Google Street View did the rest.
When you are a rich man you can buy a lot of things. But honesty cannot be bought.
I have to tell you honestly, I do not watch TV in Israel. So sitting in an airport in front of a television screen is like deja vu all over again for me.
So I'm sitting in the airport (I hope I'll be on a plane by the time you all see this) and there's Client Number 9 on CNN interviewing Steve Rosen of AIPAC and that creep, Jeremy Ben Ami. My first thought is, why is Ben Ami even in the same room as Rosen. Rosen leads a group that has massive support among American Jews and that just ran a convention that had 11,000 people and triple digit numbers of members of Congress. Ben Ami is a Soros hack. Soros doesn't own CNN so why is Ben Ami there?
I couldn't hear much of the conversation (there are hundreds of people waiting here), but the end was sickening. Client Number 9 summed up saying something like "it's amazing how Netanyahu says all these not nice things about Obama after Obama goes out of his way to praise Israel." Huh?
Oh yes, the segment's title was "Israel angry over Obama speech."
In praising President Obama's gutting of more than 40 years of Middle East doctrine, Jeremy Ben Ami has proven once again that he and J Street are not pro-Israel.
J Street wholeheartedly endorses the approach to resolving the conflict outlined today by the President, namely, to address borders and security first. This is an approach which J Street first advocated when negotiations stalled last year. He also clearly established that those borders must be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps – an essential component of the ad J Street ran this morning in The New York Times.
We hope the President will now put his words into action in the coming days as he meets with Prime Minister Netanyahu and that he will launch a credible new diplomatic initiative in advance of the looming September United Nations vote on Palestinian statehood.
We urge the President to publicly ask the leaders of both parties to join him in an intensive and immediate effort to achieve a two-state solution on the basis of the principles laid out in this speech. He has laid out the parameters of a workable two-state deal, and now the parties must decide if they are ready to work seriously to achieve that elusive goal.
With J Street on 'our side,' who needs Yasser Arafat?
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
