More moral equivalency from J Street

Poor J Street.  They just can't help themselves.  As much as they would like to call themselves "pro-Israel," the simple fact is that any group which regards the Israelis and Palestinians as equally culpable for the lack of a peace agreement cannot reasonably call itself "pro-Israel."  Even if one hates the State of Israel (which I do NOT believe J Street does, by the way), one cannot seriously claim that the two sides share equal blame for there not being a Palestinian state yet.  I would much rather debate with someone who claims Israel is more at fault then with one who claims both sides are equally guilty.  The former might be persuaded by evidence; the latter is obviously more interested in political correctness than in discovering truth.

J Street falls into the latter category.  See this ad which they produced recently.  Here are my comments, with citations from the ad in bold:

• We feel deeply the sense of pain and anguish over the violence and insecurity wrought on Israel by Hamas through rockets and terror - Kudos to J Street for stating this.  Too many liberal/Left groups cannot bring themselves to condemn Hamas' actions as terror; J Street did.  The problem is, though, despite their claim to "feel deeply" the pain of Israel, they do not support actions which would go a long way to minimizing the terror emanating from Gaza, such as bombing strategic targets as many times as it takes until the threat is neutralized.
• We are steadfast in remaining true to the vision of Israel's founders in creating a democratic, Jewish state—a nation that upholds the highest human and Jewish values - I hope J Street is not suggesting that Israel has strayed from this vision.  Israel is a model of how to protect the rights of all its citizens, even those citizens who openly call for the dismantling of the Jewish state (see a number of Arab Members of Knesset).  Israel's actions consistently demonstrate its commitment to the dignity of all people (certainly with exceptions, but one should compare Israel to other democracies, not to a Utopian country), and its army is among the most moral in the entire world.  How many armies call in air strikes to its targets to warn them to leave the battlefield (Gaza War)?  How many armies fight in house to house, hand to hand, combat instead of just bombing the (heck) out of its enemies (Jenin)?
• The international controversy surrounding the attack on the Gaza flotilla........concern[s] us deeply - It was NOT an attack on the Gaza flotilla.  It was an action of self-defense in response to an unprovoked, merciless attack by some of the passengers on the sixth boat.  They planned to attack the IDF commandos, and had no interest in actually delivering humanitarian goods to the Gazan people.  And in the act of self-defense, nine Hamas collaborators (and that is exactly what they were; please do not fool yourself) were killed.
• ...the growing isolation of Israel concern[s] us deeply - Why?  The issue should be, was/is Israel right or wrong?  If the world supports Israel, great!  If the world opposes Israel, great!  What is important is the righteousness of Israel's cause, not whether it has "the world" 's support.  A world which condemns Israel overwhelmingly more than any other nation, including the worst human rights violators, while granting these nations spots on a human rights council or women's rights group, is not a world whose approval I wish to gain.  Period.
• ...the rhetoric and actions that feed fear and violence, emanating from both Israeli and Palestinian leaders... - This is the giveaway.  "Emanating from both Israeli and Palestinian leaders"?!  The Israeli side consistently expresses support for a Two-State Solution, however misguided it may be, in my opinion; the Palestinians refuse to speak to the Israeli side.  Israeli schoolchildren learn a curriculum of peace and reconciliation; the PA-controlled media broadcast messages of hate, violence, and rejection of Israel as a Jewish state.  How, exactly, does an unprecedented ten-month building freeze in Judea and Samaria (from an allegedly right wing Israeli government) qualify as an action which feeds fear and violence?  Why can J Street not have the intellectual honesty to recognize that one side has consistently demonstrated its commitment to peace, while the other side consistently rejects these peace overtures?  If we cannot admit this uncomfortable truth, there will never be peace in this region.
• Od lo avda tikvateinu / We have not lost our hope - What a perversion of the words of Israel's national anthem!  Was it the hope of Israel's founders to have a Jewish and Arab state west of the Jordan?  No, they accepted the 1947 Partition Plan reluctantly.  Something was better than nothing.  But the Arabs rejected it out of hand, and tried to destroy the nascent Jewish state in its infancy (and this before even one settlement was constructed in Judea, Samaria, or Gaza!).  Ever since Israel extended its hand in peace, that Arabs have either slapped it away, or shaken it with their own hand, dripping with Jewish blood.  This last line in particular is disgusting, and belies the notion that J Street is concerned with Israel's best interests.  They either do not care about reality, or are in willful denial of it. 
  

The notion that Israel needs to be encouraged to make peace, either by the American government or by concerned Diaspora Jews, is laughable.  Israel need not prove its desire for peace anymore.  Let J Street take out ads in Arab newspapers; then there will be some glimmer of hope for peace.  Let J Street stop being a part of the problem, and start being a part of the solution.

J Street - Dangerous for the State of Israel

To those who might consider participating with J Street in any projects, let me issue a word of caution:

J Street is dangerous for Israel and the Jewish people.

They have an Executive Director, Jeremy Ben-Ami, who a) possesses an Israeli-sounding last name (it is), and b) has a father who fought in the War of Independence with Menachem Begin (he does; the elder Ben-Ami also purchased the Altalena). The man's Israel credentials are relatively untouchable. But let's take a closer look at J Street. Are they the mainstream organization they claim to be? Are they really pro-Israel, or are they merely a mouthpiece for liberal-, pro-Palestinian-, and in-actuality-supporters-of-a-discredited-peace-policy people?

1. J Street advocated for an early end to the 2008-2009 Gaza War, instead of supporting Israel's attempts to end the rocket attacks, once and for all, having endured eight years of them. True, they criticized Hamas' firing rockets, but also opposed Israeli military measures to stop those attacks. How would they have ended it? Just impose a ceasefire, during which Hamas can re-arm itself. This is pro-Israel?
2. Stephen Walt, co-author of The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, has praised J Street's "Israel advocacy" in a Washington Post opinion piece. J Street was asked about this vote of confidence in a Jerusalem Post article, and responded, "There are plenty of people who talk about J Street that we don't agree with. Just because they mention us in an article doesn't mean that we therefore endorse their analysis. We don't come out with a statement on every person who's spoken about us." Fair enough, but when Stephen Walt praises you, should that not give the rest of us pause? One is known by one's enemies and by one's friends.
3. J Street conducted a rigged opinion poll of American Jews, in which they wrote the questions, conducted the poll, and analyzed the results. Brilliant! And who heads the firm which was "hired" to conduct the poll? A founding vice-president of J Street, Jim Gerstein. Simply incredible.
4. See also Shmuel Rosner's analysis of the J Street "poll," as well as Shmuley Boteach's opinion piece in the Jerusalem Post on J Street's condescension towards ideological opponents.
5. Rabbi Eric Yoffie (Rabbi Eric Yoffie!) wrote a scathing critique of J Street's response to the Gaza operation. When you are a liberal Israel advocacy group, and you have lost Rabbi Yoffie, things are not looking good for you.
6. See J Street's policy makers' comments in a flattering, it-could-almost-have-been-written-by-J Street-itself New York Times Magazine article. If their views on Middle East peace do not frighten you, then I really do not know what more to say.
   
7. Finally, please see my blog posting on, among other issues, J Street's willful misrepresentation (read lying) about a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) report. Referring to page 7 of the document, they claim the NIE estimates Iran having nuclear weapons capability in 2013 (which would allow time for more diplomatic efforts), whereas in fact, the NIE estimates this capability possibly as early as next year, 2010. But then again, this information does not fit with their agenda, so they lie about it. Read the report yourself, and then judge.

I urge all of you to read these articles. Do not be fooled by J Street. I do not believe they are anti-peace, as they accuse those of us on the right of being. I believe they do want peace, but are pursuing it through means which have been discredited time and time again. There is literally nothing that the Palestinians can say or do which will convince J Street, and like-minded people, that the Palestinians have no intention of ever making peace with a Jewish state.

As I wrote to a friend in July 2009, we have had sixteen years of pursuing peace according to the designs of the left. They have failed. It is time to give someone else a chance.

J Street - Helplessly naive on Iran

In August, I posted a cartoon by Dana Summers of the Orlando Sentinel, depicting Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and North Korea's Kim Jong Ill hammering away on a nuclear bomb, as they say to Barack Obama, "You don't mind if we work while we talk, do you?" That cartoon really summed it up for me. President Obama, and his fellow leftists/liberals, subscribe to the belief that no matter how evil a person may be, there is always some carrot one can offer him to change his ways. They say, "You can't only talk to your friends! You must also talk to your enemies!" It sounds great, in theory, but so did Communism.

Enter J Street, the leftist/liberal answer to AIPAC. They have released a position statement on how best to deal with Iran's nuclear ambitions. Here are some selections, with my comments:

• "...we are outraged at the Iranian regime’s apparent vote fraud..." - Apparent? Apparent? To say that the Iranian vote was apparently fraudulent is like saying that pro wrestling in America is apparently rigged. Everyone knows the vote was rigged. Everyone, that is, except for, apparently, J Street. MSNBC knew it. CNN knew it. Even the New York Times knew it, quoting an Interior Ministry worker who said the fraud had been planned "for weeks." But J Street describes the fraud perpetrated as "apparent."
• "The international community must, in the words of the President, “bear witness” to the disturbing events taking place right now in Iran." - "Bear witness," eh? "Bearing witness" does not usually help those in need. Usually, those in need require others to stand up on their behalf and deliver them from oppressors. The international community "bore witness" to the genocide in Rwanda, the Holocaust, the Armenian genocide, the mass starvation of Ukranians, and continues to "bear witness" to the slaughter in Darfur. An international, or unilateral, military force might work better than merely "bearing witness."
• [Should President Obama involve himself further in the Iranian election issue, it will be] "perceived [as the] US meddling in internal Iranian affairs." - Here is what President Obama had to say about the Iranian election results: "The Iranian government must understand that the world is watching." Yes, Mr. President, as you suggested, the world is "bearing witness." "...free speech must be respected..." Excellent suggestion to a tyrannical regime. Excellent. "...the United States stands with all who seek to exercise those rights." Yes, by "bearing witness." Not exactly let's-make-Ahmadinejad-quake-in-his-boots-statements, right? But here was Ahmadinejad's reaction, as reported by CNN: "Do you think that this kind of behavior is going to solve any of your problems? It will only make people think you are someone like Bush." Priceless. Barack Obama is compared to George W. Bush by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. And J Street insists that President Obama might be accused of "meddling" should he "involve himself more directly." He didn't, yet was still accused.
• "As the leadership struggle in Iran continues, we suggest that a tactical pause be considered in the United States’ diplomatic outreach efforts and a hold be placed on any new sanctions against the Iranian government." - Is J Street seriously in the dark as to whom will emerge victorious in the "leadership struggle"? Ahmadinejad's side has guns. Moussavi's doesn't. Guns win.
  
• "...we take note of the recent US national intelligence assessment, placing a possible Iranian nuclear weapons capacity in 2013..." (Actually, the NIE suggests it could be as early as 2010. Read the report. Folks, that's next year. But what's three years between friends?) And if they're wrong, and Iran gets the bomb earlier? What will J Street say? "Oops! Our bad!" When one is dealing with a government like Iran's, which has expressed its desire to wipe out another nation, and which is building a nuclear bomb, it is advised to deal with such a threat seriously, and not hope that said threatening nation is really a few years off from having nuclear weapons capabilities. Then, it will be too late. But J Street will still be able to say, "At least we tried, right?" A nation can not threaten another with extinction, proceed to build a nuclear bomb, and expect no reaction from the threatened nation.
• "Under the current circumstances, it is our view that ever harsher sanctions at this time are unlikely to cause the Iranian regime to cease weapons development. In fact, tougher sanctions, let alone military action, are only likely to strengthen the resolve of Iranian hardliners to pursue weapons development and confrontation with the United States." - So Iran keeps breaking the rules, the United States will do nothing except negotiate, and this will stop Iran from pursuing a nuclear bomb? Only liberals could come up with such logic. In truth, what will cause Iranian hardliners to pursue weapons development is not "tougher sanctions" or "military action," but rather the perception that America (not Europe) is weak, and that the Obama Administration will endlessly negotiate, no matter what Iran does. When the sharks smell blood, as they do now, they will close in for the kill.

When one reads pieces like this from groups like J Street, one has to wonder how much longer western civilization can last with such thinking. The naivete is breathtaking. History be damned. Just because endless negotiations with dictators never stopped them in the past, is no reason to believe it won't stop them in the future, right?