"So Why is There No Two State Solution?"

"Because the Palestinians want there to be no Jewish State more than they want a state of their own."

Now, here's a conversation worth listening to (no need to have one's eyes glued to the screen!)

The indefatigable Professor Alan Dershowitz talks, for just under an hour to Rabbi Marc Golub, about his steadfast championship of Israel,  the Six Day War, the lamentable impact of Arab rejectionism (by both the PLO and the PFLP), the difficulties he has experienced from the antisemites and anti-Zionists of the Hard Left (including the so-called "Jewish Voice for Peace"), the "very frightening" erosion of support for Israel among the left of the Democratic Party and among the party's younger elements, why Bernie Sanders is beyond the pale, the pernicious influence of J-Street ("Is J-Street Anti-Israel?"  "No. It Just is Not Pro-Israel ...It Tries to Appeal to the Extreme Left"), why he himself  remains a member of the Democratic Party, and much more.

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kW9cX79dPfM

However, by contrast to the Arab hardliners, Ed Husain wrote recently in The Spectator:

'A new narrative is emerging in the Middle East. New maps of the Muslim mind are being drawn and old hatreds are on the run. The anti-Semitic craze to destroy Israel was powerful in the 1960s, uniting Egypt’s President Nasser with his fellow Arabs. But now, Sunni Arab neighbours are changing course. Islamist leaders are losing their appeal — at a time when Iran, with its brand of theological fascism, poses a threat to Israel and the Arab world alike.

Polls show that the percentage of Arabs expressing trust in Islamist parties has fallen by well over a third since the uprisings of 2011. Three-quarters of Iraqis say they do not trust Islamist parties at all, and the number of young people who say they’re ‘not religious’ is also on the rise. This generation wants Arab leaders to increase economic prosperity and minimise political conflicts. And to build alliances, including with Israel.... Israel is coming to be regarded as a benign neighbour....

There are enough historical and scriptural narratives of Muslim-Jewish fraternity to form the basis for rapprochement. The enmity has, historically, been a recent blip. With an assertive Iran and an uninterested West, the Arabs and Jews have a shared interest in building a lasting alliance with each other.

 This may yet be the decade of peace.' 

Read Husain's entire article here

"Obscene and Outrageous": Isi Leibler blasts the ADL's association with J Street

In conversation with Rabbi Mark Golub, veteran world Jewish leader and Jerusalem Post columnist Isi Leibler delivers a sustained and stinging criticism of ADL national director Jonathan Greenblatt for cosying up to "pernicious" J Street, which is doing untold harm to the Jewish People and the State of Israel.

Leibler believes that Greenblatt has not spent sufficient time in Israel, and should do so, seeing what it is enduring for himself rather than choosing to associate with people and ideas that are "undermining" Israel and its national security.

"Israel is standing alone in a sea of barbarism", Leibler says, and if Jewish leaders in the Diaspora stand aside and fail to stick up for Israel against the leftist and Palestinian narrative, "history will condemn them."

 He is askance at the failure of American Jewish leaders strongly and unitedly to stress to Obama that Israel must have defensible borders, and fears that Obama might still give Israel an unacceptable "leaving present".

For more on Leibler versus Goldblatt see here and here and here

British Zionist Stalwart Hoffman: "The Last Thing Israel Needs Is The Vilification, Denigration & Falsehoods Routinely Seen From Yachad"

To admit or not to admit to the community's representative umbrella organisation a bona fide Jewish organisation which happens to profess opinions that militate against the broadly accepted Jewish communal ethos?

That is the thorny question that's bedevilled more than one Western Jewish community in recent years.

Take, for example, the case of the Australian Jewish Democratic Society (AJDS). which successfully applied for membership of the Jewish Community Council of Victoria (JCCV) – formerly known as the Victorian Jewish Board of Deputies(VJBD) – despite a radical leftist agenda unrepresentative of that of the Victorian Jewish community (and for that matter the Australian Jewish community) as a whole.  Thus the AJDS is an affiliate of the JCCV, which is in its turn a constituent of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ).

The admission of the AJDS (slogan: "A progressive voice among Jews and a Jewish voice among progressives") was doubtless not without much soul searching and many  misgivings on the part of JCCV delegates, but, so (as I understand the matter) the persuasive argument went, in a democratic, pluralistic community the AJDS could not be refused membership on any acceptable grounds.

The AJDS still remains an affiliate, despite ( to the ire and dismay of many in what remains a deeply Zionist community) its avowed support since August 2010 of a "selected BDS actions, a position taken subsequent to its initial admission to the JCCV:

'The resolution ... rejected the Palestinian civil society version of Boycotts, Divestments and Sanctions (BDS): 

“The AJDS is opposed to any Boycotts, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign aimed at the breadth of Israeli economic, cultural or intellectual activity”. The AJDS only supports “selected BDS actions designed to bring about an end to the Israeli occupation, blockade and settlement on Palestinian lands lying outside of the June 1967 Israeli borders.”

Unlike the rejected Palestinian full BDS, the AJDS wants to concentrate on those who profit from this very occupation. An example given in the resolution is of boycotting “settlement products”. In this way the AJDS’s stance is similar to that taken recently by the National Council of Churches in Australia. Like the churches, the AJDS has not endorsed some of the other aims of the Palestinian BDS such as the Palestinian Right of Return.

While not reversing the AJDS’s long-term opposition to blanket academic boycotts, the AJDS envisages boycotting “specific Israeli academics openly supportive of the Occupation.” The organisation made it plain that nevertheless decision on any action would still need to be taken on a case-by-case basis.

The AJDS is opposed to any Boycotts, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign aimed at the breadth of Israeli economic, cultural or intellectual activity. However, the AJDS does support selected BDS actions designed to bring about an end to the Israeli occupation, blockade and settlement on Palestinian lands lying outside of the June 1967 Israeli borders. Such limited and focused BDS support might include boycotts of settlement products and divestment from military Research and Development (R&D) and boycott of industrial/military activities unrelated to Israel’s defence and security. It might also include selected sanctions or boycotts against specific Israeli academics openly supportive of the Occupation.

The AJDS will make any decisions on these matters on a case-by-case basis, and exercise its judgement as to the political/social cost-benefits of any such actions before granting specific endorsement or approval....'

See the ADJS's latest mischief-making here

The question "to admit or not to admit" was faced by the  Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations earlier this year, when the controversial, professedly Zionist, J Street', founded by Peter Beinart, was rejected for admission to that body,  J Street being widely seen as having an agenda that seriously undermines Israel.

Last Sunday (16 November) Britain's version of J Street, Yachad, founded by Hannah Weisfeld, was admitted to membership of the British Board of Deputies by 135:61 votes, achieving the required two-thirds majority by the narrow margin of five votes.  Apparently, of the five members of the Board execitive, only Board vice-president Jonathan Arkush, voted against admission.

Now, since the Board is officially described as “the voice of British Jewry: a cross-communal, democratic, grassroots organization, and thus the authoritative first port of call for Government, media and others seeking to understand Jewish community  interests and concerns”  this result, like that admitting the AJDS to the JCCV,  was a victory for communal pluralism.

But is it a wise and worthy decision? 

Stalwart pro-Israel activist Jonathan Hoffman (pictured), who's both a member of the Board and of the Zionist Federation, has no doubt about the answer to that question.

I reproduce his speech to the Deputies in full:

'So the Constitution Committee thinks that Yachad is “beneficial to the interests of the community”. Nonsense. The welfare of Israel is at the heart of our interests. Indeed our Constitution requires us to "advance Israel's security, welfare and standing." Yachad is the very antithesis of this. Far from advancing Israel’s security, welfare and standing, it undermines it at every opportunity. Let me give you just four examples:

Example One: Yachad’s main activity in Israel is arranging trips into Judea and Samaria with a group called ‘Breaking the Silence’, which does nothing but denigrate and badmouth the IDF, without ever mentioning the terrorists that threaten Israel every day. Here is an account of one person who went on the trip:

"Our leader subjected us to a litany of accusations against Israel. I have studied the conflict and most of his accusations were new to me and did not ring true. Some of his statements I knew to be false. For example he said that the most aggressive act of the PA was in a speech at the UN – But I knew that Al Aqsa Martyr's Brigade – under the direct authority of the PA - had carried out acts of terrorism and that the PA has incited terrorism ever since it was created. Hannah Weisfeld mentioned further talks that Yachad is doing on "the legality of the occupation". Of course Israel’s presence on the West Bank is not illegal – but Weisfeld just wanted to put into our minds the thought that it is. She calls Yachad "pro-Israel pro-Peace" but her intention is to reduce the support of British Jews for Israel, and to get Israel out of the West Bank, even as the PA and all Palestinian movements call for Israel's destruction. If Israel withdrew, the level of violence would increase dramatically. It would also kill any chance of a two state solution. In my opinion she is committed to undermining support for Israel and her commitment to a two state solution is a sham. Her slogan "Pro Israel Pro Peace" is pure propaganda, as seen in George Orwell's 1984."

Not my words – The words of someone who went on a Yachad trip.

Example Two: Yachad supported the UN upgrade to Palestinian status – which was opposed by Israel and every other western country. Every truly pro-Israel organisation believes that negotiations are the only way forward. By wanting to give the Palestinians access to the International Court and to the UN with its inbuilt majority against Israel, Yachad’s action posed a threat to Israel’s security. So does Yachad’s support for the immediate creation of a Palestinian State. Can you imagine how much worse the summer bombardment of Israel would have been, if Yachad had its way, and Palestine was a country, no doubt governed by Hamas, with weapons still more threatening than the missiles which even now can reach Haifa? A month ago we were lobbying MPs to vote against a Palestinian State. To now admit an organisation wanting an immediate Palestinian State would be a complete nonsense.

Example Three: Yachad has never condemned a boycott of Israeli goods.

Example Four: Yachad makes no effort to explain how Hamas targets Israeli civilians. Yachad portrays the Security Fence only as something which harms the Palestinians. Yachad is silent when it comes to the number of Israeli lives the Fence has saved.

To those of you who say that “we need to embrace Jewish organisations with whom we might disagree”, I ask where are your red lines? Would you support membership for Jews for Justice for Palestinans? Or Jews for Boycotting Israeli Goods? Surely those organisations are beyond the pale? Well so is Yachad.

No – it is not simply that we ‘might disagree’ with Yachad. It is much worse than that. Yachad blatantly violates our Constitutional obligation to support Israel.

To those who say that rejecting Yachad will damage the standing of the Board, I respond with the example of J-Street in the US. J-Street was rejected for membership of the US Conference of Presidents. Far from damaging the standing of the Conference, it enhanced it in the eyes of many. Here the ZF rejected Yachad’s membership. Has it damaged the ZF’s standing? Of course not. The ZF’s standing has never been higher. The ZF’s rally during the Gaza operation to support Israel attracted thousands.

 I urge you to vote ‘no’ to Yachad membership of the Board. At this time – above all times – Israel needs support from the Diaspora. The last thing Israel needs is the vilification, denigration and falsehoods routinely seen from Yachad."

A powerful speech indeed! 

But sadly not persuasive.

Perhaps Mr Hoffman should have reminded his listeners of the ancient proverb widely, though apparently erroneously, attributed to Euripides:

"Those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad."

Meanwhile, against the backdrop of the evil attack on a synagogue in Jerusalem, involving an axe among other weapons, that has left four rabbis dead, the following photo, proclaiming "This is the way from now on", is being widely distributed on Palestinian social media:

 (Hat tip: M.Z.)

And then there's this:

See http://www.meforum.org/4892/murdered-because-they-were-jews

"My Experience Taught Me That Even During Wartime, Israel Made It A Priority To Meet The Needs Of Palestinians": A former IDF officer tears through a "Breaking The Silence" speaker's tissue of lies

"I couldn’t understand why the speaker was being praised that night. I couldn’t understand why someone who was dedicated to misrepresenting Israel and its moral character was given credibility.... 

[The speaker] claimed that Israeli soldiers are trained to oppress the Palestinians individually and as a people, that they maliciously mistreat Palestinians in the West Bank, and that they are taught to make Palestinians fear Israeli soldiers. He argued that there are no civil rights for Palestinians and that the Jewish people who now have a state use their power to oppress Palestinians.

The organizers said they love Israel. But by praising lies and misinformation, they made it clear that their “loving Israel” is only an empty façade.'

That's how a former officer in the IDF (code of ethics here) has characterised a "Breaking the Silence" (for the lowdown on this group see here) lecture at Washington University in St Louis by a former IDF soldier on 31 March, an event co-sponsored by St Louis Hillel and J Street U.  No questioning or dialogue was permitted by the organisers.

 'As an Israeli reservist who had been stationed in the West Bank, I sat in disbelief as the speaker described attitudes and policies that were entirely divorced from reality....

I had no idea what he was talking about or what motivated him to lie.

He did not describe the Israel or IDF that I know so intimately.

As a reservist and a soldier, I had been stationed in the West Bank. My job was to protect the Palestinians’ human rights, coordinate humanitarian aid, and tend to the needs of civilians living in the West Bank. I always felt that Israel’s concern for the welfare of the Palestinians was impressive, and I was proud to be part of it.

My experience taught me that even during wartime, Israel made it a priority to meet the needs of Palestinians even though they had made themselves enemies of the State of Israel by launching the second intifada.

I recall that during my service in Hebron, I had to adhere to international humanitarian law and ensure that the soldiers in the Judea Brigade were educated about the Geneva Convention and the rules of engagement—or face punishment. We sometimes went beyond these strict rules to help Palestinians. Once, when I served in my unit’s headquarters, we arranged a complex operation so that my unit, with the help of another unit, could save the life of a Palestinian boy living in Gaza whose mother had died. We did some investigating, and discovered that his uncle lived in Ramallah. In a special operation in the middle of the night, we moved the child to his uncle so that he would not be left alone in the streets of the Gaza Strip.

It was torture for me to sit there quietly and listen to the distortions of this former soldier who had served during the most violent period of the second intifada (2000-2003), when suicide bombers and snipers were wantonly murdering Israeli men, women, and children. But he never described the terrorism that forced the IDF to take measures to protect our families....

 He went on making outlandish claims. He said the IDF is actually an anti-Zionist army because it operates in the West Bank. He added that there is no more terrorism today, so Israel had no reason for its security measures. He apparently forgot why there are dramatically fewer terror attacks today, or maybe he just didn’t want to mention that it might be because of Israel’s heightened security.

.... He claimed the Palestinians have no security forces—even though they do, and my unit worked closely with those forces on a daily basis. The speaker either did not know, or was told to say that.

I worked almost five years to protect civilians, human lives, and their dignity in the West Bank. I spent the most important years of my life to make sure the IDF protects human rights and lives up to the Geneva Conventions, to protect my army and my people. Yet this speaker, in a matter of 45 minutes, invalidated my entire military service, accusing me of the very things that I worked so hard to prevent....

If he has complaints about the IDF, he should be an activist in Israel. Soldiers don’t always do the right thing or live up to the IDF code. They should be disciplined. Israel’s policies can be debated. But Israel is constantly examining itself critically, and debates in Israel are energetic and promote the full variety of views. Why, then, would he come to the U.S. to complain about his own army?....  I wondered what kind of twisted thinking would make a person who lives in a vibrant democracy, where he can campaign for his political positions, instead ask outside forces to pressure his country? What motivated him? Is he a post-nationalist who doesn’t want Israel to exist at all?'

Read more here
For the IDF's many humanitarian missions see here

J Street On Celluloid

Not before time, a documentary exposing J-Street is being screened around the United States:

"Since its founding in 2008, J Street has attracted many supporters within the American Jewish community and on college campuses. The documentary film “The J Street Challenge” explores the phenomenon of J Street, examining and debating J Street’s message and its leaders....

The film presents comments and analyses from noted academics and writers who have challenged J Street’s mission and tactics. These critics assert that J Street disproportionally blames Israel for the lack of peace and ignores the vicious hatred and incitement promoted by the Palestinian leadership. J Street also seems to ignore the historical context of the conflict, with ongoing hostility and existential threats to the Jewish State from neighboring countries. The critics also question the appropriateness of a political lobby that wishes to circumvent the Israeli electorate and the country’s democracy by seeking to have the U.S government impose a solution. In pursuing its political agenda, J Street has divided the Jewish community and weakened communal support for Israel.

The film investigates the background of J Street and its founders, J Street’s organizational funding, and its alliances with organizations and individuals who are known to be hostile to the Jewish state...."

 Here's the trailer:

Regarding J-Street's dangerous duplicity, Ben Cohen has written:

'[F]erocious critics of Israel like the hedge-fund billionaire George Soros and Genevieve Lynch, a board member of the pro-Iranian regime National Iranian-American Council, have donated significant sums to the organization. And although it says it is opposed to the anti-Semitic Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign against Israel, J Street maintains close ties with those who advocate collaboration with the BDS movement in targeting West Bank settlements, like the writer Peter Beinart and the corporate lawyer Kathleen Peratis. This milieu is hardly conducive to J Street’s “pro-Israel” self-image.

Then there are J Street’s statements. As Dershowitz points out, you “rarely” hear J Street praising Israel. A far more familiar refrain consists of slamming Benjamin Netanyahu’s government as an obstacle to peace, or opposing tougher sanctions on the Iranian regime—positions that don’t raise an eyebrow when articulated by anti-Israel groups, but which sound rather discordant coming from a group that claims to support Israel.

In that regard, much of the J Street documentary studies why the organization’s analysis of Israel’s situation is wrong. Its emphasis on Israel’s land policies in the West Bank, its tin ear when it comes to Palestinian and Arab incitement, its embrace of a strategy that would result in the U.S. pushing Israel to make decisions contrary to its basic security interests—these moral and strategic errors are all familiar to anyone who has followed the debate about J Street’s contribution.'

"I think it’s great to bring in a liberal voice. Whether or not you agree with him, it’s a great opportunity to learn more about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict," a college senior and JStreet U Penn board member is quoted as saying, following an address by Peter Beinart to members of Hillel at the University of Pennsylvania.

Someone who profoundly disagrees with Beinart presents a different perspective on that talk, and since so much ahistorical misinformation is spewed by Israel-haters not only on comments below the above-linked report but all over the internet, I'm taking the liberty of quoting his or her remarks at length:

'Not just what Beinart said but the whole context of it was silly. Instead of the entire Jewish community ( and non-Jewish Zionists who are many ) uniting behind the one and only Jewish State and asserting its rights and educating people about the real history of modern Israel ... ), certain groups like J-Street and its fellow travelers and enablers tie themselves into knots and do a whole tap-dancing act --'well we are not saying this...well we are saying that'--buttering things up on one side, and making distinctions that no one cares about. It was all just a big waste of time.

To clear up the confusion: There was no such country as Palestine before the British Mandate of Palestine was established following the First World War. Before that it was just a general geographic term. The area on both sides of the Jordan River was divided into different administrative areas under the rule of the Ottoman Empire. Under the Treaties of Sevres and then confirmed by the Treaty of Lausanne, the defeated Ottomans transferred their control to the victorious Allied Powers. Incorporating wholly the text of the Balfour Declaration,the victorious allies agreed to the San Remo Resolution(1920) and then the Mandate Treaty (1922) which clearly note the historic, cultural, religious connection of the land of Palestine to the Jewish people as a whole. The whole purpose of the Mandate was for the "reconstitution" of Israel ie re-creating that which had existed before. This This acknowledgement is binding, irrevocable International Law and is still valid to this day and includes the entire area of Judea and Samaria and all of Jerusalem. ALL inhabitants of the Mandate were deemed "Palestinians." The contemporary use of the term for all non-Jews in the area  (including non-Arabs ) dates only to the 1960's under the influence of arch-terrorist Arafat. Before that they were Levantine people or Palestinian Arabs etc. The Mandate Treaty was confirmed by the United Nations under Article 80. That is why as soon as the Mandate ended Israel was able to declare independence and gain international recognition starting with the United States and then the Soviet Union and so forth.

"The rightful owners" of the Land of Israel are the Jewish people as a whole which is one reason Israel is the Jewish State and has the Law of Return granting Jewish people the right of citizenship if they immigrate there. Jews are the indigenous people of Israel and there has been continuous Jewish habitation of the Land of Israel since Biblical times. In the Modern era Jews achieved a majority of certain areas such as Jerusalem since the 1860's. The majority of Israel's present Jewish population had been from Arab Lands where they were cruelly kicked out in the 1950's and deprived of all their property ( a value much greater than that alleged to have been lost by Palestinian Arabs following the creation of Israel.) Ottoman State owned Lands were transferred to the Mandate and then to the State of Israel where they are held by Israel in trust for the Jewish people to live on. They are also known as "public lands". Most of the land during the Ottoman era was public or state land. It now belongs to the State of Israel. Deal with it.

There is no "occupation" since Israel RE-gained the lands of Judea and Samaria and RE-united the city of Jerusalem. These lands were regained in the course of a defensive war so Israel has the right to retain the land and has the prior and better claim especially since the annexation of the so-called West Bank by Jordan was only recognized by the UK and Pakistan, so they were and still are the unallocated parts of the Mandate treaty territory that now belongs to Israel.

The people who are guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity are the terrorists who have killed innocent Jewish men, women and children in horrific atrocities since the 1920's with such things as the massacre of the Jews of Hebron in 1929 to the present day with atrocities such as the slaughter of the Fogel family in Itamar including both the mother and the father and their babies. Thousands of Israelis have been killed and wounded since the so-called peace process especially during the Oslo War or the Arafat Terror war of 2000 to 2004. The present day President of the Palestinian Authority is known to have had a direct role in the planning of the Munich Olympics massacre of 1972. Jonathan Schanzer in his book writes in detail of the corruption and out -right thievery of the Palestinian Authority officials in his book "State of Failure: Yasser Arafat, Mahmoud Abbas and the Unmaking of the Palestinian State". Obviously, they should be required to account for the billions of dollars they stole from International donors some of it channeled to terrorist activity including under the vastly over-rated phony and former PM Salam Fayyad.'

Well, Yippee & I'll Be Darned! J Street Knocked Back At Berkeley

California dreamin'

Many who read this will have read the following in The Times of Israel, by a young former IDF soldier flabbergasted at what he's experienced as a StandWithUs shaliach in North America:

'.... I was shocked ... by the anti-Israel bigotry and hostility I encountered, especially in the greater Seattle area, Oregon, and Berkeley. I had been very liberal, a member of the leftist Zionist party, Meretz, but the anti-Semitism and hatred for Israel that I have seen in the U.S. has changed my outlook personally and politically.

This year, from January through May, I went to college campuses, high schools, and churches to tell people about the history of modern Israel, about my experience growing up in the Jewish state, and about my family. I also always spoke about my military service as an officer in an IDF COGAT unit that attends to the needs of Palestinian civilians who are not involved in the conflict and promotes Palestinian civil society. Each time I would speak and take questions for an hour or more. I have shared my personal story with over 16,000 people at many, many college campuses and high schools, including UC Berkeley, Stanford, the University of Washington, Seattle University and many others. Many of those to whom I spoke were supportive, friendly, and open to hearing about my Israel. But, sadly, far too many were not.

When I served as a soldier in the West Bank, I got used to having ugly things said to me, but nothing prepared me for the misinformation, demonization of Israel, and the gut-wrenching, anti-Israel, anti-Semitic hostility expressed by many students, professors, church members, and even some high school students right here in the Pacific Northwest.

I was further shocked by how unaware the organized Jewish community is and how little they are actually doing to counter this rising anti-Semitism, which motivated me to write this article.

This new form of bigotry against Israel has been called the “new anti-Semitism,” with “Israel” replacing “Jew” in traditional anti-Semitic imagery and canards, singling out and discriminating against the Jewish state, and denying the Jewish people alone the right to self-determination. The new anti-Semitism is packaged in the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign (BDS), which claims to champion Palestinian rights though its real goal is to erode American support for Israel, discredit Jews who support Israel, and pave the way for eliminating the Jewish state. One of BDS’ central demands is the “complete right of return” for all the descendants of the original Palestinian refugees, subtle language that means the end of Israel as the Jewish homeland because it would turn Israel into a Palestinian-Arab majority state.

It is surprising that an extremist group like BDS is ever taken seriously, but BDS advocates have found receptive audiences in some circles. Their campaigns are well organized and in many cases, well financed. They have lobbied universities, corporations, food co-ops, churches, performing artists, labor unions, and other organizations to boycott Israel and companies that do business with Israel. But even if these groups don’t agree to treat Israel as a pariah state, the BDS activists manage to spread their anti-Israel misinformation, lies and prejudice simply by forcing a debate based on their false claims about Israel....

My experiences in America have changed me. I never expected to encounter such hatred and lies. I never believed that such anti-Semitism still existed, especially in the U.S. I never knew that the battlefield was not just Gaza, the West Bank, and hostile Middle Eastern countries wanting to destroy Israel and kill our citizens and soldiers. It is also here in America, where a battle must be waged against prejudice and lies.

I implore American Jews: do more....' (Read the entire article here)

You'll note his mention of the University of California at Berkeley.  That campus, a by-word for student radicalism in the 1960s and afterwards, where this inveterate critic of Israel teaches, where this initiative occurred, and which back in April passed a BDS motion (albeit, according to this report, in a diluted form) would seem to be a campus at which J Street ("the enemy within," as argued here) would thrive.

But it's evident that the campus Jewish Student Union is deeply distrustful of J Street [see NGO's synopsis regarding J Street here], which last year invited Yehuda Shaul, founder of Breaking the Silence [BtS], to campus; he'll be speaking there next month. [See NGO Monitor's synopsis regarding BtS here]

A couple of days ago the Jewish Student Union voted (by eight votes to two, with two abstentions) to deny membership to J Street, which having been turned down in 2011, on grounds that included its invitation to campus of a co-founder of the Sheikh Jarrah Solidarity Movement [see NGO Monitor's synopsis of that body here], was making a renewed bid for inclusion.

Cheers!

Yesterday's Daily Californian reports:

'.... The bylaws of the Jewish Student Union, an umbrella organization for Jewish student groups on campus, stipulate that a member organization must not host speakers who demonize Israel, said Jewish Student Union President Daphna Torbati.

That requirement was a point of contention surrounding J Street U, which advocates a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Much of the disagreement focused on J Street U’s relationship with Breaking the Silence, an Israeli military veterans’ organization that criticizes Israel’s military operations in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem, said Elon Rov, a co-chair of J Street U.

“We are not afraid, as American Jews, to address those [difficult issues],” said Shayna Howitt, J Street U’s national communications co-chair. “We are not afraid … to host people who we might disagree with. We’re not afraid to stand up and question how we can best support Israel, because we’re committed to the safety of Israel.”

Breaking the Silence, however, has garnered serious criticism from other Jewish groups that belong to the Jewish Student Union. Torbati said she was concerned the group unfairly disparages Israeli soldiers.

Jewish Student Union members Avi Hecht and David Eliahu said Jewish students with connections to Israel would be alienated if J Street U were allowed to host Breaking the Silence under the Jewish Student Union umbrella.

“For a lot of members … the (Jewish Student Union is) the only place where they can express their love for Israel because of such an anti-Israel campus climate,” Torbati said. “A lot of people have said that they want the (Jewish Student Union) to stay a place they feel comfortable saying they love Israel.”

Hecht added that Breaking the Silence does not offer a fair picture of Israel’s military operations.

“Regardless of J Street’s intents, the effect of bringing a public event like BtS is detrimental to the image of Israel on our campus,” Eliahu said...."

Read more here

"The Enemy Within": J Street Summed Up By The Great I. J.

Mention  "I.J." in Australian Jewish communal circles and most people above a certain age will know exactly to whom you're referring: Isi Joseph Leibler, the clever and charismatic individual who, Colossus-like, led the community for a quarter of a century and who, by virtue originally of his groundbreaking and sustained efforts on behalf of trapped Soviet Jewry beginning in the 1960s rose to prominence (and stayed there) on the world Jewish stage.  (I've written more fully about him here.)

Admired and respected rather than universally loved (he suffers neither fools nor "trembling Israelites" gladly), he left a vacuum in the Australian Jewish leadership that has never been adequately filled when he departed for Israel in 1999.  Well-known to a wide readership as a Jerusalem Post columnist, I.J. (or "The Great Man," to give him his other epithet) masterfully sums up in his latest column all that is wrong with J Street:

".... J Street’s leadership ... manipulates history and reality with dangerous rhetoric. Founder and President, Jeremy Ben Ami, refuses to recognize Israel as a “Jewish state” referring to it as a “Jewish democratic home, in the state of Israel”. Co-founder Daniel Levy has described Israel’s creation as “an act that went wrong”. It is noteworthy in this respect that Ben Ami was also proven to be a serial liar when despite his repeated denials to the contrary, the anti-Israeli George Soros was exposed as one of his major contributors

 In contrast to AIPAC whose charter explicitly states that it supports the policies of the Israeli government holding office, J Street actively lobbies the US government to undermine policies that are enacted by Israel’s democratically elected government. It continuously fiercely disparages AIPAC and has gone to the extent of fanning anti-Semitism by warning that AIPAC’s “blind support” for Israel will give rise to hostile feelings that American Jews harbor dual national loyalties ....

 In the past, Labor leaders, including Yitzhak Rabin, considered it unconscionable for Jews living outside Israel to publicly engage in issues impacting on Israeli security from which neither they nor their children would reap the life or death consequences....

With the current unprecedented global escalation of anti-Israelism and anti-Semitism, we must divorce ourselves from the enemy within. There is plenty of room in the Jewish tent for legitimate dissent and freedom of expression. But “pro-Israel” Diaspora Jews, are morally barred from intruding and in particular from lobbying governments to pressure Israel to take actions which impinge on its national security.'

The entire article must be read, to appreciate what sparked it, and his further strictures thereon: see it here

"Proud Jewish American" Rattles Ohio Senator Regarding J Street(video)

Here's Senator Sherrod Brown (Democrat, Ohio), who's running for reelection against a strong Republican challenger, Josh Mandel, getting rattled by constituent Joel Griffith when the latter says:

"I’m a proud Jewish American and I’m concerned that the single biggest entity funding you is J Street.  J Street has given you $60,000, and as you know, J Street is funded by an attorney for the Saudi Embassy and has also been funded by the producer of one of the most anti-Semitic films ever made …"

Read more here

A Demolition Job on J Street

In the current month's issue of the New English Review is a comprehensive and devastating analysis of J Street by Matthew M. Hausman.  It really is a must-read.

Hausman observes, inter alia:

'Clearly, J Street devotes considerable energy to chiding Israel for her supposed transgressions, but has it ever seriously criticized Islamist terrorism, acknowledged the existence and doctrinal basis of Muslim antisemitism, or challenged the historicity of Palestinian national claims? While it seeks governmental scrutiny of Jewish charities – which many believe to be similar to the way Jewish New Dealers lobbied the IRS to investigate the Bergson Group and other Jewish critics of Roosevelt during World War II – has it likewise demanded the investigation of charities that give aid and succor to Hamas, Hezbollah and other terrorist organizations?

Unfortunately, many Americans are ignorant of Jewish and Mideast history, and thus lack the tools to recognize the inconsistency of the claims of “pro-Israel, pro peace” camp, especially when juxtaposed against its questionable actions. Far too many folks are willing to accept at face value the claim of J Street’s supposed moderation simply because President Obama anointed it as a major American Jewish organization – despite its smaller constituency and, I submit, its philosophical deviation from the mainstream – and because they have come to believe in the two-state solution as political orthodoxy.

However, many secular progressives are unaware of polls showing that a majority of Palestinians actually reject the concept of permanent peace with a Jewish State. And those who believe in “two states for two peoples” are less inclined to recognize the discounting of Israeli sovereignty implied by the conflicting words and actions of the so-called “pro-Israel, pro-peace” camp. In order to understand the true orientation of such groups, then, it is necessary to expose the incongruity of the most seemingly neutral part of their agenda – the two-state solution ...  If more people realize that this paradigm has no real historical basis, much of the “pro-Israel, pro-peace” illusion would fall away.'

Please, please, read it all: http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm/frm/86006/sec_id/86006

Jay Walking with the Jelly Bellied

‘While waiting on line at the Starbucks at the J Street convention, I overheard a conversation among several Colorado J Street members. These were nicely dressed thirty-something women who were discussing why they weren't wearing the J Street buttons in their packets, which bear the phrase "pro-Israel pro-peace." The entire Boulder delegation, they said, was very uncomfortable with the emphasis, because "pro-Israel" was first, and "pro-Palestinian" wasn't a part of it. These women agreed that J Street had a messaging problem. If the buttons read "pro-Israel and Pro-Palestinian, or just "pro-peace" and NOT "pro-Israel," then they'd be willing to wear them.’

No, it’s not me who wrote that but Lori Lowenthal Marcus is president of Z STREET, http://www.zstreet.org/

Read more of her article, which is a real eye-opener into the equivocally “Zionist” nature of J Street, here http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/03/j_street_maybe_israel_really_a.html
Hat tip for the cartoon to http://israelmatzav.blogspot.com/2011/03/hillel-loves-j-street.html

So you think J Street is pro-Israel, huh?

This video might change your mind:

(hat tip: Jon Cohen http://www.thejc.com/blogpost/j-street-truth-about-anti-israel-group)

The Left's Hypocrisy Over the Term "Blood Libel"

Sarah Palin's use of the term "blood libel" to describe the slanderous accusations of her enemies following the tragic shootings in Arizona didn't offend me.  Not one iota.  Not for one split second. I notice that in common with other enemies of what’s Right and right such as the Guardian and the Independent, Al Beeb has been milking the Sarah Palin-uses-the term-blood-libel story to undermine an attractive and engaging politician who also happens to be a friend of Israel. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12176503

How characteristically and predictably cynical and partisan of Al Beeb and those newspapers – anything to score points for their nakedly leftist, anti-Western agenda. On its website Al Beeb has cited the (equally predictable and partisan) indignation at Ms Palin’s comments of the press secretary and president of what they call “the progressive pro-Israel [sic] group J Street”.  That prince of pro-Israel bloggers, the esteemed Elder of Ziyon, made this excellent pictorial comment on J-Street's president, Jeremy Ben-Ami, a few days ago.

Wouldst that Al Beeb and the other anti-Palin stooges proved as enthusiastic in revealing Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords’s favourable perception of Israel, but that’s undoubtedly too much to ask, because it sits uncomfortably with their own monstrous anti-Israel bias:

“My grandfather, Akiba Hornstein, was the son of a Lithuanian rabbi. My grandfather changed his name to Giff Giffords for reasons of anti-Semitism and moved to Southern Arizona from New York more than a half century ago. In the 1940s, he founded my family’s tire and automotive business, El Campo Tire, which grew into a successful and thriving business for 50 years, which I ran for several years before serving in the Arizona Legislature.

Growing up, my family’s Jewish roots and tradition played an important role in shaping my values. The women in my family served as strong role models for me as a girl. In my family, if you want to get something done, you take it to the women relatives! Like my grandmother, I am a lifetime member of Hadassah and now a member of Congregation Chaverim.

When I served in the State Senate in Arizona, I had the opportunity to visit Jerusalem . It was one of the most memorable experiences of my life. I had the opportunity to meet with the then-mayor of Jerusalem, Ehud Olmert, and I got to see firsthand the sacrifices that Israelis make in the name of security because of the dangerous state of affairs there.

I will always be a strong supporter of Israel . As the only functioning democracy in the Middle East, Israel is a vital strategic ally of the United States . I believe the United States must do everything possible to secure Israel ’s long-term security and achieve a lasting peace in the region....

Until the Palestinian leadership and other hostile regimes are willing to accept Israel ’s right to exist, it will be impossible to achieve peace....

As a woman and as a Jew, I will always work to insure that the United States stands with Israel to jointly ensure our mutual safety, security, and prosperity.' (Hat tip: Professor Barry Rubin)

Professor Barry Rubin refers in passing to the absurd furore over Ms Palin’s use of the term “blood libel”, in his new post, “Anti-Jewish Insanity in the Middle East Transcends All Previous Limits” (http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/2011/01/anti-jewish-insanity-in-middle-east.html):

'After more than 30 years working professionally on Middle East history and politics, I can still be astonished by things that happen in the region. Yet, precisely as William Shakespeare wrote in his play about Cleopatra:

"Age cannot wither her, nor custom stale/Her infinite variety:"

Well, not exactly "infinite variety." It's just more of the same, to an infinite extreme. Who would have thought, say 20 year ago, that the Arabic-speaking world's obsession with demonizing Jews might go even further than where it was at that time?

For one thing, in the 1990s, history seemed to be moving toward moderation; for another thing, who could believe it could become even more intense.

But just at the moment when for the first time in all of history Americans are told that (some) Jews object to the use of the term "blood libel" by someone falsely accused of murder, the same people are ignoring thousands of blood libels generated daily in the Middle East, many with fatal consequences.

And now this, as reported by MEMRI (http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/2740.htm.):

Wael Ramadhan: "The [Roman] war against Cleopatra was Jewish in essence, and history repeats itself. The Romans had no territorial aspirations in Egypt in those days, and this is ignored by history and by many historians. The Romans were at war with the Parthians and the remnants of the Persian Empire, but they had no intention of waging war against Egypt."

Ramadhan has just made a television series on the Romans and Cleopatra.

There is a humorous side to all of this, but hatred and demonization of Jews is also a mania poisoning the Arab world (not to mention Iran and some other Muslim-majority) and blocking progress in dealing with all of its problems.

This plague has reached epidemic proportions, it shapes policy, prevents peace, paralyzes research and education, and unhinges religion. While an absurd debate rages in America about whether a non-Jew is allowed to use the phrase "blood libel" (something that no Jew has ever hitherto objected to in world history), they are ignoring huge numbers of actual, serious, deadly blood libels.

A sea of blood libels.... And they will produce a sea of blood.”

J Street – The Masquerade Laid Bare

It’s been reported that plans are afoot to set up a British organisation comparable to J Street, involving such leftwing Jews as Guardian journalist Jonathan Freedland (and presumably, though this is just speculation, with assistance from the New Israel Fund). I look on such a development with a jaundiced gaze; there are enough Israel-demonising groups in Britain today without adding to their number with a (yet another leftist) Jewish communal initiative. J Street’s plausible dishonesty has duped many well-meaning people into assuming that it has Israel’s welfare uppermost in its heart, and can achieve that aim more readily than AIPAC.

It’s hard to dispute Alan Dershowitz’s contention, made last March during its conference in Washington when he buttonholed one of its officials giving a press interview, that J Street has sown discord within the American Jewish community; it is a divisive force and damaging to Israel. "I reject J Street because it spends more time criticizing Israel than supporting it," Dershowitz declared. "They shouldn't call themselves pro-Israel.” He added that although he too opposes settlements, he makes “the 80 percent case for Israel”. The fact that J Street invited former U.S. Secretary of State Zbigniew Brzezinski – no great fan of Israel – to its March conference was an indication, he maintained, that J Street is “not pro-Israel". J Street has supported the odious slur on Israel that comprises the Goldstone Report, which prompted Colette Avital MK to quit as J Street’s conduit in Israel.

The revelation this week that – despite the earlier denials of J Street’s director Jeremy Ben-Ami (who now admits to making “misleading” statements), the far-left billionaire George Soros is one of J Street’s major donors (the other being mysterious Hong Kong-based “Consolacion Esdicul”) has really damaged J Street’s credibility. Soros has boasted that he is not a professing Jew; he has given to Arab groups but never to Israel; and he has advocated a Palestinian Authority ruled jointly by Fatah and Hamas. A Republican legislator from Virginia, Eric Cantor, is quoted as saying that J Street’s financial sources prove that the organisation is “not reflecting the mainstream position of the pro-Israel community in America” and that it does not “benefit the U.S.-Israel relationship”.

Hear, hear! Although J Street is unlikely to be reduced to rubble through these revelations, it is likely to become a no-go zone for all but the stalwarts who already tread its path.

Nobody has blogged about this grubby state of affairs surrounding J Street's funding more trenchantly than Isi Leibler, who in an absolute corker of a piece entitled “J-Street Unmasked” says, inter alia:

‘Soros and J-Street make a perfect match. Soros has proudly proclaimed "I am not a Zionist, nor am I a practising Jew." He believes that Israel is largely responsible for anti-Semitism.... Only last month ago, he contributed a record $100 million towards Human Rights Watch, the purportedly human rights watchdog, which no longer bothers to disguise its blatant bias and hostility towards Israel.

For its part, J-Street condemned Israel for its Gaza offensive against Hamas, describing it as "a disproportionate response." It refused to identify "who was right and who was wrong" proclaiming that "we recognize that neither Israelis nor Palestinians have a monopoly of right and wrong." It not only refused to condemn the Goldstone Report, but facilitated meetings between members of Congress and Judge Goldstone. It even resurrected the anti-Semitic charge of dual loyalties, warning Jews that by "one sided support of Israel," they "risked alienating the American public and would be condemned for displaying greater loyalties towards Israel than the US." It repeatedly slandered AIPAC depicting it as an extremist right-wing body ignoring the fact that it had backed the policies of all Israeli governments, including dovish administrations preceding Netanyahu.

To top it off, J-Street was also exposed for having received donations and support from Arab and pro-Arab individuals and organizations.The donors include Genevieve Lynch a former participant of the US Iranian National Council who also serves on the J-Street finance committee; Judith Barnett a former registered agent for Saudi Arabia who also serves on the J-Street Advisory Council; and Nancy Dutton a former attorney for the Saudi Arabian embassy who donates to J-Street's political action committee which finances anti-Israeli congressional candidates.’

Read all of Leibler’s marvellous exposé here: http://wordfromjerusalem.com/?p=2450