Knesset Debates J Street's "Pro-Israel" Bona Fides -- My Statement to the Committee

“J Street is involved in a purimshpiel, hiding its real anti-Israel face behind a ‘pro-Israel’ mask,” Lenny Ben-David testified before a Knesset committee today. The following is the English translation of Knesset testimony presented to the Knesset Committee on Immigration and Diaspora Affairs on Wednesday, March 23, 2011 by Lenny Ben-David. Some 40 years ago, an Arab diplomat named Mohammed Mehdi declared, “The road to the liberation of Palestine leads through Washington.” Today, this quote is more correct than ever. I see the current de-legitimization campaign against Israel as part of the ongoing war against Israel, and Washington is one of the fronts. I want to emphasize that in the Zionist world, there is plenty of room for organizations from the left and the right, secular and religious organizations, Jewish and Christian organizations. But I have never seen an organization like J Street that hides behind the cover of a pro-Israel organization and works with such furtiveness in the United States, in general, and in Washington in particular, to undermine and hurt the State of Israel. • Here is one case that happened this week which exemplifies J Street’s actions: After J Street shed its crocodile tears after the massacre of the Fogel family in Itamar, J Street attempted to block a congressional letter which attacked Palestinian incitement, one of the factors in the attack. “J Street opposes the letter currently being circulated by Representatives Rothman and Austria on incitement and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,” J Street wrote. “It is entirely appropriate for Members of Congress to speak out — as J Street consistently does — against instances of incitement by Palestinians against the State of Israel and its citizens. In our view, it is preferable for Congressional statements on the conflict to address the actions and words of both parties [emphasis added] that hamper the chances to achieve peace.” • J Street’s leaders Ben-Ami and David Gilo have stated here in Israel that J Street “represents 170,000” supporters. In fact, J Street reaches that number by counting all entries to its website as “supporters.” The organization does not maintain a dues-paying members list. • J Street supported the UN condemnation of Israel last month and opposed the U.S. veto of the resolution. Gilo explained on Israeli Channel 2 TV that J Street was simply following policies of eight American presidents. But by taking that position, they were opposing the policy of the current Obama administration that saw a UN condemnation of Israel at this sensitive time as a dangerous and inappropriate act. On the issue of the veto, U.S. Representative Gary Ackerman stated, “J Street is so open-minded about what constitutes support for Israel that its brains have fallen out.” • Gilo claimed on Israeli TV that J Street opposes the boycott of Israel. Yet, J Street provided a platform for one of the foremost Boycott-Divestment-Sanctions (BDS) organizations, the Jewish Voices for Peace, at its Washington Conference. JVP’s director proclaimed at J Street, “BDS is an opportunity for each of us, personally, to act on our values. To express, directly, our support for freedom, democracy and dignity.” • J Street also cosponsored a congressional mission to Israel with the Churches for Middle East Peace, an organization consisting of pro-BDS organizations. • J Street opposed sanctions against Iran. Today, J Street states that it always supported sanctions against Iran, but that’s not true. J Street joined with the pro-Iranian lobby, the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), to oppose congressional efforts to impose sanctions on Iran. Ben-Ami and NIAC director Trita Parsi co-authored an anti-sanctions article titled “How Diplomacy Can Work with Iran” in Huffington Post in June 2009. J Street receives large contributions from one of NIAC’s directors, Genevieve Lynch of New York. She serves on J Street’s Finance Committee. • J Street supports the Sheikh Jarrah Solidarity group opposed to Jews living in former Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem. This is the organization that demonstrates in Jerusalem every week, and before you is a picture of Jeremy Ben-Ami leading one of the demonstrations. J Street hosted the SJS at its most recent conference in Washington. The SJS’ manifesto calls for the “liquidation or fundamental change of organizations that contribute to the dispossession of Arabs, including the Jewish Agency, the Jewish National Fund, and the Israel Lands Authority.” • Official American documents from the Federal Election Commission show that J Street’s political action committee receives contributions from sources in the pro-Saudi lobby, the Arab-American lobby, and even the pro-Iranian lobby. • In J Street’s first two years, director Jeremy Ben-Ami repeatedly stated that the organization received no funds from George Soros, the anti-Israel billionaire. But U.S. Internal Revenue Service documents revealed that his statements were untrue. Mr. Gilo said in a TV interview that Soros’ contributions were supposed to have been kept secret, but he claimed that Soros’ half-million dollar contributions were relatively small. Indeed they were in comparison to the $811,697 contribution from a mysterious Hong Kong woman, Consolacion Esdicul, which constituted one-half of J Street 2009 budget. There are few details about this woman, and suspicion is raised about possible money laundering. • J Street supports Richard Goldstone the author of the Goldstone Report. J Street staff members assisted in setting up meetings for Goldstone on Capitol Hill. A Goldstone letter to members of Congress was drafted on the computer of one of J Street’s five corporate directors, Morton Halperin, a Soros advisor. • J Street sponsored UNRWA leader and Israel critic John Ging on American speaking tours. Are these the actions of a “pro-Israel” organization? J Street’s intensive public relations activities here in Israel are carried out by Ben-Or Communications which presents J Street’s narrative in the Israeli media without any response. Ben-Or communications is co-owned by Oriella Ben-Tzvi and J Street’s Jeremy Ben-Ami. Besides working on J Street’s behalf, Ben-Or also represents some of Israel’s worst detractors such as Jimmy Carter, the “Elders,” Yesh Din, Amnesty International, and National Public Radio in the U.S. Unfortunately, J Street will use the opportunity to extend its purimspiel past the Purim holiday, to hide its real, anti-Israel face behind its “pro-Israel” mask. Its agenda, its supporters, and its record all show that J Street’s intentions are the weakening of Israel’s deterrent abilities, the promotion of Israel’s detractors, and the undermining of Israel’s democratically elected government. For more information: * J Street at it again: Attacking efforts to defend Israel By Jennifer Rubin * Twenty-Six Reasons J Street’s Demise Shouldn’t Be Mourned By Lenny Ben-David * The J Street Files - Jikileaks

Sphere: Related Content

"In every generation, the enemies rise up against us" - Passover Haggada"Your destroyers will come from your own midst" - Isaiah

Israel's enemies will use any weapon they can to attack and delegitimize Israel. There's a cottage industry led by the "Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy" that reviews declassified U.S. Government documents from the 1950s and 1960s to prove that Israel deployed various groups as "foreign agents" in order to influence U.S. policy. The Jewish Agency, the American Zionist Council (AZC), and AIPAC are primary targets of the research group.

Some documents recently declassified come from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and date back to the 1960s when the committee was headed by the anti-Israel crusader, Sen. J. William Fulbright (pictured).

The committee subpoenaed records from the American Zionist Council, a pro-Israel American umbrella group formed in 1949. One document from 1961 detailed the AZC's public relations efforts and the opposition it faced from the anti-Israel lobby. A key component of that lobby was the anti-Zionist American Council for Judaism, headed by Elmer Berger who constantly railed against pro-Israel Jewish groups.

The American Council for Judaism held as it tenets that "Nationality and religion are separate and distinct. Our nationality is American, our religion is Judaism. Our homeland is the United States of America. We reject any concept that all Jews outside of Israel are in exile..."

Here is one fascinating excerpt from the 1961 American Zionist Council report:

"The ACJ [American Council for Judaism] is today the most effective anti-Zionist and anti-Israel force on the American scene. It continues its aggressive campaign and is concentrating on the mass media and in church circles. Its success is due primarily to the fact that being a Jewish organization (they operate under the term 'Judaism') it becomes acceptable to those in the communications field who thrive on controversy and who can now present 'another Jewish point of view'. Its position also finds an echo among those Christians—who, either because of some degree of latent anti-Semitism or because of obligations to the Arabs—can now join the fray without fear of being called anti-Semitic; ('I am in good Jewish company')."

Sound familiar? This report, written 50 years ago, sounds remarkably contemporary; just substitute the letters "JSt" for "ACJ." It's not surprising that the American Council for Judaism (yes, it still exists) approves of J Street's mission and activities.

Sphere: Related Content

J Street Has No Shame : Just Days before U.S. Elections J Street Takes More Questionable Contributions

First published in The Jerusalem Post online

You’d think the purported "pro-Israel" J Street would have learned its lesson. After the revelation of once-denied contributions from George Soros and $811,697 from a mysterious Philippine woman from Hong Kong, last month J Street’s Political Action Committee accepted campaign contributions from individuals who most certainly are not "pro-Israel."

In August 2009, the Jerusalem Post first reported, "Muslims, Arabs among J Street Donors." Among the donors, the Post article revealed, was "Genevieve Lynch... a member of the National Iranian American Council board. The group has also received several contributions from Nancy Dutton [pictured right with a Saudi diplomat], an attorney who once represented the Saudi Embassy in Washington."

Well, in the 2010 election cycle these women are back along with some other unusual donors.

According to records filed with the U.S. Federal Election Committee on October 20 and October 21, J Street recorded hundreds of donations from Americans of all sorts, most Jewish and some Muslim. But several names jumped out from the 2,100 pages.

Lynch, the NIAC board member and a member of J Street’s Finance Committee, is listed contributing $10,000 in October. At one point last year, J Street and NIAC leaders worked together to block anti-Iran sanctions measures proposed by Congress. Belatedly, J Street changed its position and supported sanctions.

Nancy Dutton earmarked last week $250 for the Democratic Senate candidate in Pennsylvania, Joe Sestak. Her late husband Fred served as a Saudi foreign agent in Washington for 30 years. (During the 1982 AWACS debate he was believed to be responsible for the line, "Reagan or Begin?" which strongly suggested American Jews’ double loyalty.) After Fred’s death, Nancy picked up the pricey Saudi gig.

The Saudi connection is also seen in contributions made last month to J Street’s PAC by Ray Close, now of Princeton, NJ. For many years Ray Close’s address was in Saudi Arabia where he was the CIA’s station chief for 22 years. Later, he went to work for Saudi intelligence bosses. Close’s son Kenneth is registered at the Justice Department as a foreign agent, working for Saudi Prince Turki al-Faisal, the author of the Saudi "peace plan."

Perhaps reflecting today’s state of Israeli-Turkish relations, a Turkish American from Chicago, Mehmet Celebi, contributed $440 last month to J Street’s PAC. One prominent Jewish leader in Chicago vouches for Celebi as a friend of the Jewish community. Nevertheless, the former fundraiser for Hillary Rodham Clinton’s presidential campaign was booted off when the campaign learned he was involved in the production of a virulently anti-American and anti-Semitic film in Turkey called "Valley of the Wolves."

Another new name on the J Street PAC’s list of contributors is M. Cherif Bassiouni, a well-known professor of law at DePaul University. Bassioni is also an unlikely candidate to contribute to a purported "pro-Israel" organization. Several years ago he complained in an article in the Harvard International Law Journal, "A large segment of the world population asks why Israel's repression of the Palestinian people, which includes the commission of ‘grave breaches’ of the Geneva Convention and what the customary law of armed conflict considers ‘war crimes,’ is deemed justified, while Palestinians' unlawful acts of targeting civilians are condemned? These are only some contemporary examples of the double standard that fuels terrorism."

The fact that Lynch, Close and Dutton are repeat contributors to J Street suggests that the upstart lobby’s activities meet their approval and that J Street solicits their contributions.

Only because of an IRS fluke last month the world was provided with J Street's IRS 990 form with the Consolacion "Connie" Esdicul of Hong Kong contribution of $877,697. Reporters have still not uncovered the background of the mysterious woman nor her motive to be involved with J Street in what may be a possible money-laundering scheme.

The question that probably should be asked is not what drives these people to contribute to J Street, but what is the true nature of the J Street vehicle onto which they jumped on board and what is its true destination?

Sphere: Related Content

Nu? So Who Is J Street's Consolacion "Connie" Esdicul?

It's been several weeks since it was disclosed that a mysterious donor in Hong Kong named Consolacion "Connie" Esdicul gave $811,697 to J Street -- half of the organization's budget last year. [That's Connie in the picture receiving an award from actor Jackie Chan.]

Will some intrepid journalist please find out and report who she is and why she contributes to an anti-Israel organization that masquerades as a friend of Israel.

It's a story demanding to be written. All we've heard so far is based on the J Street handout that she is an associate of a non-Jewish Pittsburg "philantropist." Add to that strange story the fact that Mr. Pittsburg made millions at the Happy Valley race track in Hong Kong. The unusual amount of money suggests it was the sum after a foreign currency deposit. The failure to dig deeper into this story is a dereliction of journalists' duty. But that's been the case since the teflon J Street was originally formed.

Sphere: Related Content

J Street's Crooked Road -- Lies and Misdemeanors

First published in The Jerusalem Post, September 28, 2010

Bravo to The Washington Times' national security correspondent Eli Lake for his exposé of J Street over the weekend. The so-called "pro-Israel" organization is bursting with overripe scandals about the identity of its contributors, its decision-making process, conflicting policies on Iran sanctions, ties to pro-Iranian and Arab American organizations, and more. But many reporters have been reluctant to shine a spotlight on them, fearful of running afoul of the White House for whom J Street proudly serves as Obama’s “blocking back” or the extreme "Journolist" guild of "progressive" reporters and bloggers in Washington who promote J Street and attack its critics. [See Journolists in the Service of J Street]

When J Street president Jeremy Ben-Ami went to temple on Yom Kippur I hope he concentrated on the verse, "Forgive us for the sins we committed by fraud and falsehood.” Since J Street’s founding, Ben-Ami repeatedly and boldly lied about his organization’s dependence on the super-critic of Israel, George Soros. Lake revealed that J Street’s U.S. tax records prove that Soros and his family are major contributors.

J Street’s tax form 990 for the year ending in June 2009, showed that George Soros contributed $145,000 to J Street, daughter Andrea Soros gave $50,000, and son Jonathan an additional $50,000. That’s a significant percentage of J Street’s budget in its first years.

Despite all of J Street’s denials, it’s clear that J Street follows the “Golden Rule – he with the gold rules.” J Street’s policies strive to actualize Soros’ 2007 manifesto “On Israel, America and AIPAC” that appeared in the New York Review of Books. Soros’ influence on J Street goes a long way in explaining J Street’s very existence, its frequent criticism of Israel, its refusal to condemn the Goldstone report, its flirtation with Hamas and Iran, its refusal to support Israel’s anti-Hamas Gaza operation, and its active opposition to established American Jewish organizations.

The IRS tax returns also showed that J Street paid its own vice president Jim Gerstein $61,000 for “consulting” services by the Gerstein-Agne company. Elsewhere, J Street listed $46,000 for polling expenses, presumably to Gerstein’s own polling firm which has published several polls for Ben-Ami’s lobby. Whether the polling fees were part of the consulting fees is irrelevant. The “business transactions involving interested persons,” to use the IRS phrase, is a questionable corporate practice by a supposedly not-for-profit organization. It also totally destroys the credibility of J Street’s self-serving polls which it uses to justify its policies.

The IRS forms also list J Street’s five officers and directors, something J Street never before publicized. For good reason. The fifth listed is Mort Halperin [pictured right], a veteran Washington foreign policy hand who also serves as Senior Advisor at Soros’ Open Society Institute. In October 2009, at the height of congressional condemnation of the anti-Israel Goldstone report, Judge Goldstone sent a letter to members of Congress defending his criticism of Israel. One enterprising reporter, Michael Goldfarb checked the document’s “properties” and discovered the real author: Mort Halperin.

Beyond the Soros contributions to J Street, equally troubling is a huge $811,697 contribution from a “Consolacion Esdicul” from Hong Kong. It appears that Consolacion is “Connie” Esdicul, who Google reveals as a member of the Hong Kong Rotary Club and lives in the Happy Valley section of Hong Kong. But little is known about the woman. J Street claims that she was solicited by Bill Benter, “a prominent J Street supporter from Pittsburgh.” Actually, Benter, who is not Jewish, is considered the world’s most successful bettor on horse races, and he hangs out at the Happy Valley horse track in Hong Kong. Racing sheets report that Benter places $250,000 bets on a race. According to Wired.com, “Nobody's more skilled at masking bets than Bill Benter, regarded by many of his peers as the most successful sports bettor in the world.”

Esdicul’s contribution is a strange number unlike all the others which are rounded off to three zeroes. The figure may make sense, however, if it were a foreign currency conversion. What currency does $811,697 equal? Until J Street fesses up, we can only speculate. Using today’s conversion rates, Esdicul’s contribution equals 6,298,308 Hong Kong dollars, or 606,491 Euros, or 517,388 British pounds or 3,044,756 Saudi riyals.

Why would a Hong Kong individual contribute as much as one-half of J Street’s budget? Actually, Esdicul’s contribution is in line with J Street’s corrupt practices of taking money for its political action committee from decidedly non-pro-Israel sources: pro-Saudi activists, Arab-American leaders, Muslim activists, State Department Arabists, a Palestinian billionaire, and even a Turkish American who helped produce the anti-American and anti-Semitic film, Valley of the Wolves. According to the U.S. Federal Election Commission, the largest contribution to J Street’s Political Action Committee is $36,000 from a Latin teacher from Teton Village, Wyoming named Bob Morris. How do you say “strange” in Latin? [Pictured, left, Jeremy Ben-Ami with the president of the Arab-American Institute, Jim Zogby.]

With such contributions, it’s easy to understand how J Street’s operation on Capitol Hill grew exponentially in the last 12 months. According to lobbying records on file at the Clerk of the House of Representatives and the Secretary of the Senate, J Street’s lobbying budget went from under $5,000 in the first quarter of 2009 with one registered lobbyist to $130,000 in the first quarter of 2010, when J Street registered six lobbyists.

The $811,687 contribution from Hong Kong should raise the question whether under federal law the lobbyists need to register as foreign agents, and not domestic lobbyists.

Last week J Street published advertisements in the New York Times and Wall Street Journal demanding that Israel “freeze settlement growth.” [There were no parallel J Street demands on the Palestinians to stop jihadi incitement in the Palestinian Authority’s newspapers, radio and television networks.] “I would guess the two ads cost J Street a few hundred thousand dollars,” wrote one Jewish anti-Israel writer.

Now we know who pays for J Street’s advertisements, and running ads or hiring lobbyists to influence American policy is an action that could require foreign agent registration.

In recent months J Street endorsed several dozen candidates for congressional elections in November, and its political action committee has distributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to its favorite candidates. How many of the endorsees and candidates will rush to reject the J Street favors now that the organization emerged as a Soros and foreign front?

Give J Street credit though: they did succeed in identifying a leftist constituency looking for a voice in Washington. But The Washington Times exposé is so devastating to J Street’s credibility and standing in Washington that it’s time to look beyond J Street. Today, that constituency needs a new champion, one free of intrigues, lies, and corporate corruption.

Sphere: Related Content

Kampeas Responds: "Lenny Ben-David Is Right"

In fairness, I should have included these sentences from his piece I linked to in my earlier post:

Clearly, while Biden and Netanyahu were making up, in the White House a decision was made to apply Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel’s famous strategy for crisis management:

"You never want a serious crisis to go to waste, and what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things that you didn’t think you could do before."

The 1,600 Jerusalem apartments would become the anvil on which the administration would forge a pliant Israel. The message would have to be amplified, and for the White House, the pro-Obama, purportedly pro-Israel J Street was a perfect vehicle.

It mitigates against my thesis in the first post that Lenny, in a Pajamas Media recast of the March U.S.-Israel "crisis, is using Walt-Mearsheimer techniques to smear J Street as overly influential.

Mitigates, but I don't think it negates it; nor does it exonerate his piece of dark conspiracy theories that are awfully similar to the ones propagated around the web about the "lobby."

He paints a picture, by citing White House visitors logs, of J Street as at least a partner in this enterprise. Jeremy Ben-Ami is calling on March 11 and then again on the 12th to set a meeting! The boys need to consult!

A) Such meetings are routine during crises; Lenny, who has the logs, does not bother to tell us how often Howard Kohr, Jason Isaacson, Jess Hordes, any number of pro-Israel officials, came and went on those days.

B) The knowledge that the meeetings cand calls took place, therefore, adds up to bupkiss without an accurate idea of what the content was.

C) Although anyone who's worked this town long enough can guess. "We're going to roll out this policy, we'd like you to support it/not to oppose it too vocally." "Fine, although we have a problem with x and y, and we can't carpet that over." "X is fine, but can you go easy on the y?" "We can put y in a way that sounds supportive." (Mental chits are made.).

D) The J Street ads and mailers Lenny cites are consistent with J Street's message -- what evidence is there that they were written at the behest of the White House? Or that the White House did anything at Jeremy's behest?

Lenny isn't going to let this one go, which is fine, because beating beneath his berating are some good story ideas. He says:

It’s sad and probably a case of nonfeasance that journalists like yourself never ask who funds J Street, who founded it, who sits on its executive board, who makes the decisions at the organization. Who decided, for instance, to oppose Iranian sanctions, and then one day reverse positions and support them?

I know who founded it -- I broke the story of the secret meetings that led to its founding. I broke the goddamn story of its founding too. We looked into who funds J Street's political action committee (the easiest thing to check, because the records are so readily accessible), and honestly, it wasn't that interesting or enlightening.

But like I said, there are the kernels of good story ideas here -- but only if we apply them evenly, fairly, across the Jewish communal board. Witchhuntia, this ain't.

So who's on the various pro-Israel boards and who funds them? Good question,* but for all the groups, and we just don't have the resources right now to do that investigation (although I'd love to lead it with Jacob when we do.) Non-profits are not required to name funders, but there are other, more circuitous ways of tracking this. *Names of board members are easy to track, but what I think Lenny is referring to here is not just lists, but profiles, with political affiliations, etc.

And who makes J Street's decisions? Jeremy mostly, I can tell you from my cumulative experience with the group. Which actually is another interesting, broader story -- the relationship executive directors have with their boards. Some guide the board, some defer to the board, some have a give and take. (Jeremy is in the first category, is my impression.) The story here is how community policy is often driven by a handful of forceful personalities.

And J Street changed its mind on sanctions for a bunch of reasons, but mostly because it tied its star to a powerful, influential (and Jewish as it happens) congressman, Howard Berman, and he changed his mind. This is as Washington as it gets.

So, you want these stories? Can I get one of those icons in here that rolls its eyes -- up, to the right a little, at that green "donate" button?

Sphere: Related Content

Ron Kampeas of the JTA Doesn't Like My White House Logs Story

Ron Kampeas of the JTA lumps me together with the anti-Semitic Jewish conspiracy theorists Walt and Mearsheimer, accusing me of "peddling the notions of overweening lobbyists misdirecting U.S. policy from its natural inclinations?" He claims that I suggested "J Street pushed the White House to punish Israel -- classic conspira-babble."

Well, anyone who read the article below can easily perceive that there's no similarity between the article and Ron's fantasy recreation. If you need a further explanation, here's what I posted as a talkback on his blog:

Ron --
I know you can write—and you do that quite well. Unfortunately, you don’t read so well. 1. I never wrote that J Street plotted to change US policy. Just the opposite, I wrote that J Street was the White House’s tool: “The 1,600 Jerusalem apartments would become the anvil on which the administration would forge a pliant Israel. The message would have to be amplified, and for the White House, the pro-Obama, purportedly pro-Israel J Street was a perfect vehicle.” That’s certainly not claiming that “J Street pushed the White House to punish Israel.” Is it?
A simple apology will do.
2. As for Mr. Sullivan, I didn’t say he was a member of Journolist, but I wrote that he was one of the “J Street advocates and JournoList members.” Sullivan certainly counts as a J Street advocate.

It’s sad and probably a case of nonfeasance that journalists like yourself never ask who funds J Street, who founded it, who sits on its executive board, who makes the decisions at the organization. Who decided, for instance, to oppose Iranian sanctions, and then one day reverse positions and support them?
Other organizations on the Left such as Americans for Peace Now and the Israel Policy Forum are transparent, and no one challenges their bona fides. They play an important role in the broad spectrum of pro-Israel Jewish organizations.

Sphere: Related Content

White House Visitor Logs Suggest J Street Contributed to U.S.-Israel Diplomatic Crisis in March

First appeared in Pajamas Media

Last month the White House pulled out the red carpet to welcome Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, but the charm campaign is a new phenomenon. Less than six months ago, the U.S.-Israel relationship was in deep trouble.

On March 9, Vice President Joe Biden arrived in Israel and was told of an administrative announcement by the Ministry of Interior approving one of the first stages toward the construction of 1,600 apartments in the Ramat Shlomo neighborhood in northern Jerusalem. The announcement represented no dramatic change of policy or diplomatic message. But the Americans responded as if it was a deliberate high-level slap in the face, and the Israeli government apologized profusely.

After two days of condemnations from the White House followed by Israel’s profuse apologies, it appeared that the crisis was over. On March 11, the Associated Press reported that Biden “attempted to soothe tensions in a speech extolling the countries’ close relationship, signaling the U.S. wants to move beyond an embarrassing diplomatic spat over settlements that tarnished his three-day visit.”

Biden noted that the prime minister had “clarified that the beginning of actual construction on this particular project would likely take several years. … That’s significant because it gives negotiators the time to resolve this as well as other outstanding issues.” Press accounts reported that Netanyahu had called Biden on Thursday morning, “and both agreed the crisis is behind them.”

It wasn’t.

On March 12, in a move coordinated with the White House, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton unleashed a 43-minute telephone harangue of Prime Minister Netanyahu. Clinton called the settlement approval a “deeply negative signal about Israel’s approach to the bilateral relationship … which had undermined trust and confidence in the peace process.” The State Department spokesman said Clinton stressed that “the Israeli government needed to demonstrate not just through words, but through specific actions, that they are committed to this relationship and to the peace process.”

On March 13, Netanyahu convened a meeting of his inner cabinet to discuss the Clinton call and to announce that he was setting up a government committee to oversee building announcements. On March 14, Netanyahu discussed the issue with the full cabinet and declared that the incident was “regrettable and should not have taken place.” Ostensibly, the issue was over, at least as far as Israel was concerned.

Yet the White House — still! — had other plans.

Hours later, presidential adviser David Axelrod went on Sunday’s TV news shows to attack the settlement decision. He said it was “very destructive … an affront … an insult. … What it did was it made more difficult a very difficult process.”

Over the next few days, anti-Israel and critical columnists and bloggers unleashed their venom against Israel. On March 15, The New York Times’ Roger Cohen wrote:

"President Barack Obama was furious. In a top-down administration like this one, you don’t get Secretary of State Hillary Clinton lambasting Netanyahu for 43 minutes and David Axelrod, a senior White House adviser, speaking of 'an affront' and 'an insult' and a 'very, very destructive' step if America’s measured leader is not immeasurably incensed. … Netanyahu’s apology is not enough. The United States is asking for 'specific actions.'”

So what happened?

A fire that was supposedly extinguished flared up again and again.

Clearly, while Biden and Netanyahu were making up, in the White House a decision was made to apply Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel’s famous strategy for crisis management: "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste, and what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things that you didn’t think you could do before."

The 1,600 Jerusalem apartments would become the anvil on which the administration would forge a pliant Israel. The message would have to be amplified, and for the White House, the pro-Obama, purportedly pro-Israel J Street was a perfect vehicle.

According to newly released White House visitor logs, J Street’s president, Jeremy Ben-Ami, and vice president of policy and strategy, Hadar Susskind, came to the White House to meet with officials in the White House Office of Public Engagement, headed by Obama’s close friend and adviser Valerie Jarrett. (Pictured with the President.)

On March 11, and then again on March 12, the logs show Ben-Ami set a meeting for March 15 in the Old Executive Office Building with Danielle Borrin, who served on the vice president’s staff and in Jarrett’s office. On March 17, another meeting was set in the West Wing, the White House’s inner sanctum, for the next day with Tina Tchen, Jarrett’s principle deputy and director of the White House Office of Public Engagement.

(See below: Tchen plays a key role in the liaison between the White House and J Street and the Arab lobby.)

On March 15, the day it met with Borrin, J Street issued a statement on the “escalation of U.S.-Israel tensions” warning that Israel’s “provocative actions undermine the peace process” and weaken the American attempts “to build a broad international coalition to address the Iranian nuclear program.” Parroting Emanuel’s strategy for crisis management, the J Street memo declared: "Bold American leadership is needed now to turn this crisis into a real opportunity to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict."

The memo, in effect, called for an imposed American solution: "We urge the United States to take this opportunity to suggest parameters to the parties for resuming negotiations — basing borders on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed land swaps, with the Palestinian state demilitarized and on territory equivalent to 100% of the area encompassed by the pre-1967 Armistice lines."

On March 16, J Street sent out an action alert to its members, warning: "Some hawkish pro-Israel activists are seizing the opportunity to attack the Obama Administration over Israel, urging the Administration to slow down and back off. The pro-Israel, pro-peace movement is stepping up strong … urging the Administration to turn this crisis into an opportunity for progress on two states."

Four days after meeting with Tchen, J Street published an advertisement in The New York Times to push for White House activism:

"It’s time for the Obama administration to seize the opportunity for bold leadership — putting concrete plans for a two-state solution on the table with the sustained commitment of the United States behind them. It’s time for the Palestinians to end incitement to violence. It’s time for Israel to stop allowing extremist settlers and their sympathizers to endanger not only the friendship of the United States, but also the very future of Israel."

I believe the March 15 Roger Cohen column in the Times likely also came as a result of White House encouragement. A long-time Axelrod acquaintance confessed to me last year: "I think I made a mistake about a year ago in introducing Roger Cohen to Axelrod electronically. Axe never writes me back, and Cohen will never tell, but, I think Cohen is floating the Administration policies ever since then."

On March 12, J Street founder Daniel Levy published in the Guardian a self-serving article about:

"[The Jewish diaspora’s determination] to reclaim a more moderate and progressive vision of what it means to be pro-Israel and to apply Jewish ethics and Jewish values, that helped guide civil rights struggles in the past, to contemporary Israeli reality. Such efforts are gaining ground — notably the emergence of J Street in America."

Levy — a member of the JournoList — wrote the first of a slew of critical pieces that week by J Street advocates and JournoList members, including Time’s Joe Klein, Andrew Sullivan, Spencer Ackerman, and Eric Alterman.

Using a football term, J Street promotes itself as “Obama’s blocking back.” The attempt by the White House and J Street in March 2010 to run over Israel after the Ramat Shlomo housing fumble was stopped well before the goal line. On March 27, three-quarters of the House of Representatives — some 337 members — sent a bipartisan letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton expressing solid support for Israel and voicing the expectation that differences between Jerusalem and Washington will be smoothed over quickly and in private.

A week later, the Senate followed with its letter of support signed by 76 members:

"We recognize that our government and the Government of Israel will not always agree on particular issues in the peace process. But such differences are best resolved amicably and in a manner that befits longstanding strategic allies. We must never forget the depth and breadth of our alliance and always do our utmost to reinforce a relationship that has benefited both nations for more than six decades."

And after the Gaza flotilla incident, both houses of Congress issued another letter of support in June — support that the White House could not ignore. Eighty-seven senators and more than 300 members of the House urged the president to support Israel, explaining that Israel’s “blockade of Gaza was both legal and necessary, and that Israeli commandos were acting in self-defense when they landed on the ship.”

J Street opposed the letter, urging members of Congress to support a more “nuanced” communication: "We would ask lawmakers to demonstrate real courage and leadership at this critical moment to call on the President to turn crisis into opportunity and to make ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict a central priority of his foreign policy."

J Street complained that the congressional letter failed, among other things, to "… address the impact of the present closure of Gaza on the civilian population."

Then and today, less than three months before the congressional elections, congressmen and senators — and the American people they represent — express their strong support for Israel.

For now, the White House does too.



J Street and the Arab Lobby

Tina Tchen — White House adviser, long-time Obama associate from Chicago, and head of the Office of Public Engagement — coordinates and encourages joint J Street/Arab American Institute programs and strategies.

Last October she addressed a joint meeting of the Arab American Institute and J Street, opening her remarks with: "You are quite representative of what we want to accomplish."

She appealed to the groups to promote Obama’s vision for the Middle East, and to work the Jewish and Arab American grassroots: "We need to not only change hearts and minds in the Middle East, but there are hearts and minds to be changed here in the United States as well."

J Street’s Ben-Ami (pictured at the podium) and the AAI president Jim Zogby (pictured on the right) echoed and endorsed her message.

Tchen’s Office of Public Engagement is the destination for many of the White House visits by Zogby, as recorded in the White House visitor logs.

The writer served as a senior Israeli diplomat in Washington. Today he is a consultant on public affairs and blogs at www.lennybendavid.com.

Sphere: Related Content

Just Published: Was J-List in the service of J Street?

Even in Israel, The Daily Caller’s “Journolist” exposé has received its share of attention. The Jeremiah Wright and Sarah Palin email threads were less interesting to Israelis than the Journolist discussion of whether to report on the Islamist background of the Ft. Hood Texas shooter.

The Israeli press didn’t get into the details of Spencer Ackerman’s thuggery of attacking conservative pundits as “racists” and his aggressive call “to raise the cost on the right of going after the left. … In other words, find a rightwinger’s [sic] and smash it through a plate-glass window….”

Pro-Israel consumers of the news as well as the many members of various pro-Israel media watchdogs such as the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting (CAMERA) and HonestReporting, would undoubtedly want to see the publication of the Journolist discussions on Israel, Netanyahu’s election, Operation Cast Lead in Gaza, and the Goldstone Report.

Will those threads confirm their deeply held suspicions of media bias against Israel?

The evidence so far indicates that many members of Journolist support the Middle East policies of a Washington organization named J Street. The supposedly “pro-Israel” J Street is a... Read more here.

Sphere: Related Content

Did I Get ‘Journolisted’? Was J-List Protecting J Street?

First published in Pajamas Media

This week, The Daily Caller published transcripts from the Journolist, a listserv comprised of several hundred liberal journalists. Among other things, the transcripts show a coordinated effort to bring a halt to articles and analyses about Barack Obama’s decades-long relationship with his pastor, radical Chicago preacher Jeremiah Wright.

According to the Daily Caller:

At several points during the 2008 presidential campaign a group of liberal journalists took radical steps to protect their favored candidate.

One “journalist” wrote to his colleagues:

In my opinion, we all have to do what we can to kill ABC [the leading newshound on the Obama-Wright relationship] and this idiocy in whatever venues we have.

Also according to the Daily Caller:

Spencer Ackerman of the Washington Independent urged his colleagues to deflect attention from Obama’s relationship with Wright by changing the subject. Pick one of Obama’s conservative critics, Ackerman wrote, “Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists.[emphasis added] … What is necessary is to raise the cost on the right of going after the left. … In other words, find a rightwinger’s [sic] and smash it through a plate-glass window. Take a snapshot of the bleeding mess and send it out in a Christmas card to let the right know that it needs to live in a state of constant fear. Obviously I mean this rhetorically.

I was not surprised by the account.

Reading the report, I realized Ackerman and his friends used this same strategy against me, attacked me as a racist, and attempted to put me through the plate-glass window because of my exposés on the supposedly “pro-Israel” lobbying organization J Street.

All of a sudden, at the end of October 2009, a pack of howling bloggers started nipping at my heels, accusing me of racism. I had written for Pajamas Media a fact-filled exposé about J Street’s founders, and about some of the contributors to the J Street PAC who were well-known pro-Saudi, Palestinian, Arab-American, and pro-Iranian activists. I added a few State Department Arabists for good measure. How could this group call itself “pro-Israel?” I asked.

Immediately, a torrent of condemnations hit from some of Israel’s strongest critics and from J Street advocates (I prefer “J Street-Walkers”): Spencer Ackerman, Andrew Sullivan, Daniel Luban, MJ Rosenberg, and Max Fisher. Lara Friedman from Americans for Peace Now also weighed in.

*** New information just received (HT: Batami): add journolisters Taylor Marsh, Matthew Yglesias, and Matt Duss, to those who followed Ackerman's battle plan in those 36 hours and attacked me as a racist. Philip Weiss (Mondoweiss) and Glenn Greenwald also joined the attack; as of this writing it's unclear if they are journolist members. ***

They focused on my naming someone with an Arab surname from the Arab-American Institute who contributed to J Street’s PAC. Typical of other contributors, I pointed out that her affiliation with one of the premier Arab lobbies in Washington was nowhere to be found in the Federal Election Commission's public records.

Their attacks were brutal:

Ben David is a cowardly racist … East German Stasi spook, believes everyone with Arab blood in their veins is The Enemy, Joe McCarthy, J. Edgar Hoover, etc.
Spencer Ackerman even issued a threat:

Lenny Ben-David, you and I will meet someday, face to face. I hope it comes very soon. I promise you it will be an unforgettable experience.

MJ Rosenberg endorsed the threat, saying: If there’s anything left of him.

It was an amazing, likely coordinated attack. “My God! You’re radioactive,” a staffer from a real pro-Israel organization told me.

After reading the Ackerman strategy to attack those who sought to expose the Obama-Wright connection, it’s very clear the same tactic was deployed to protect J Street. Serious Washington reporters who can smell J Street’s type of fraud from a mile away have avoided investigating the outfit, originally called “the Soros project” in its early life. Several reporters have material on a Turkish donor to J Street’s PAC who was thrown off of the Hillary Clinton campaign in 2008 when they learned he was involved in the production of the anti-American, anti-Semitic film Valley of the Wolves.

But not a word has been written.

They’ve seen the FEC data on an eccentric “Wyoming Latin teacher” who gave the PAC $36,000 this year — the largest contribution ever given to J Street’s PAC.

But not a peep.

It takes one click on the FEC site to see that leaders of the Arab-American and pro-Iranian lobby are still making major contributions But no one has challenged J Street to publish its board of directors or its major contributors.

Clearly, I had stepped on some very sensitive toes, and the journothugs didn’t like it. Therefore, to not be a victim of their thug tactics, I ask that you all read my original column that lit their fuse.

In October, I responded publicly to the Arab-American activist who was the supposed victim of my racism:

My reference to your involvement with J Street has nothing to do with your ancestry, or even you personally. Your name could be Golda Meir as far as I’m concerned. Your friends who label me a racist are only attempting to deflect attention away from the questions raised about J Street and its lack of transparency.

What I find disturbing about J Street is the deception surrounding it. One donor signed federal documents saying he is “not working” and living in Orlando when he’s actually a Palestinian billionaire from the West Bank. You are registered in the PAC as a “consultant” for USUS, not for the Arab American Institute. These disclosures have nothing to do with ethnic background. Why do Saudi employees and partners — “WASPS,” I presume — like lawyer Nancy Dutton and former CIA station chief Ray Close give to a “pro-Israel” organization? Why would life-long Arabist diplomats? Or activists in Muslim centers around the U.S., centers which identify with the Muslim Brotherhood? Or Genevieve Lynch, an officer in the Iranian-American lobby, give $10,000-plus to J Street’s PAC?

Already, some journalists are challenging or dismissing the Daily Caller’s exposé. The test of good journalists will be if they actually investigate the “Journolist” allegations, stiffen their backbones, and start investigating J Street.

Sphere: Related Content

Eating Chametz (Prohibited Bread) on J Street

The accompanying photo is "photo-shopped" and is not a real portrait

The Passover Seder service invites all who are in need to come and eat. This year I will not extend an invitation to our Seder to J Street’s director Jeremy Ben-Ami.

Passover is a wonderful celebration of freedom for the People of Israel and serves as an example to the world. Yet, Ben-Ami had the chutzpah on Passover eve to produce his own commentary on the Seder and to distort the meaning of the Passover holiday and Seder service to fit his anti-Israel agenda.

I don’t recall seeing in Ben-Ami’s bio any reference to his ordination as a rabbi. Maybe it was from some Deconstructionist divinity school, but it certainly wasn’t from the ancient schools of Moses, the sages Rabbi Gamliel or Rabbi Akiva, or from modern day rabbinical seminaries.

Oh, yes, I remember: Six months ago, the religious authority Ben-Ami presented to the New York Times his different and unique vision of how Judaism and Israel can survive and how to observe Passover:

“The average age of the dozen or so [J Street] staff members is about 30,” the Times profile reported. “Ben-Ami speaks for, and to, this post-Holocaust generation. ‘They’re all intermarried,’ he says. ‘They’re all doing Buddhist seders.’ They are, he adds, baffled by the notion of ‘Israel as the place you can always count on when they come to get you.’ Living in a world of blogs, they’re similarly skeptical of the premise that ‘we’re still on too-shaky ground’ to permit public disagreement.”

Ben-Ami sent out and posted on J Street’s website his “Four Questions for the Seder” handout. His distortions of Judaism and his attacks on the pro-Israel community and the Israeli coalition government cross the line – whatever line you chose, it’s crossed.

The Torah belongs to all of the Jewish People ever since Mt. Sinai and forever. As a collective, the Jewish People believe that the Land of Israel belongs to the Jewish people from the time of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Today, no one should deny that the largest stake, the largest rewards and the largest risks belong to those who protect Jewish peoplehood and statehood spiritually and physically, those who guarantee future generations of Jewish families, those who work its Land, and those who study its Torah (in whatever structure they chose).

Not protecting the Jewish People, the Jewish community, or however you call the Jewish collective are those who seek to encourage the assimilation of the Jewish people and its Torah into some 20th and 21st century universalist ideology. Call it what you will – communism, socialism, liberalism, tikkun olam, post-Zionism, etc. it is not anything near the “time-honored Jewish values” Ben-Ami dares to claim. Ben Ami: You may not dissolve Judaism in an attempt to subsume it into a universalist code that decries Jewish self-defense, pride and patriotism.

As I’ve written elsewhere, Ben-Ami is the shaliach tzibbur (prayer leader) for "Newest Testament" Jews: Jews who have embraced the new American Jewish religion of tikkun olam [fix the world] liberalism. Tikkun olam is the new overarching mitzva that guides them, even though it was never one of the 613 precepts of the Torah. The founding of Israel and the creation of Palestinian refugees may not have been the Original Sin in their theology as it is to others on the Left, but the settling of the West Bank following Israel's victory in 1967 is definitely viewed by them as Israel's Golden Calf.

The universalism of tikkun olam is a direct challenge to the exclusive “chosenness” of the core traditional Shma prayer. Shma Yisrael – Hear O’ Israel (why only Israel?), Hashem Elokeinu --the Lord is God (isn’t God dead or maybe She’s retired?), Hashem Echad –the Lord is One (doesn’t declaring the Oneness of God exclude the believers in Jesus, Buddha, Krishna, Wiccan gods, or Elvis?)

I’m sure Ben-Ami’s intermarried Buddhists are wonderful people, but in 25 years they and their children will not be filling the synagogues, temples, and day schools in the United States, nor will be they sitting in the classrooms of Hebrew University or Yeshivat Kerem B’Yavne, nor guarding the borders or flying the aircraft over the State of Israel. To them, Passover Seder will be a quaint custom observed by their grandparents.

Ben Ami’s false message

In his Passover missive, Ben Ami divides the Jewish world in two, describing it as a “struggle developing between two camps with radically different visions of Jewish expression in the 21st century.” According to Ben-Ami, it’s “us” or “them.” There are no shades of grey? How Jewish is that?

“On one side of this struggle,” Ben Ami continues,” are those committed to our vision of time-honored Jewish and democratic values - grounded in respect for ‘the other,’ a tolerance for dissent, and a willingness to sacrifice territory for peace.”

Notice Ben-Ami has no respect for “the other” when she/he is a Jew. It's all "we" and "they." And since when is surrender a "time-honored Jewish value?" Look how divisive Ben-Ami is in the next section:

“On the other side,” says Ben-Ami, “are those who seem willing to muffle dissent, view all conflict as zero-sum, and place retaining captured land and territory at the center of its value system.”

What intolerance! Anyone who opposes J Street as well as the Israelis who democratically vote for what they perceive as best for Israel are depicted as fascist. Don’t forget that territory was given up by right-wingers Menachem Begin and Binyamin Netanyahu when they negotiated directly with real partners for peace. Barak and Sharon surrendered territory to terrorists and got rockets in return from Lebanon and Gaza.

“As a people,” Ben-Ami concludes, “do we line up with those who seek to hang on to all of "Greater Israel" and watch our Jewish and democratic values erode in Israel and in our community, or do we stand up urgently for territorial compromise and for behavior in Israel and in our community that reflects our cherished and long-held values? … We're in a larger and more significant battle over who we are as a people in this new century and how our people are defined collectively for ourselves and for others by the behavior of the country that serves as our national expression.”

What an anti-democratic diatribe by Ben-Ami. His “we” should decide Israel’s values and behavior! He's upset because Israel's behavior will define him, a Newest Testament Jew, living in Washington.

Ben-Ami – go find your afikoman somewhere else. You remind me of someone else who scorned the Jewish People and sought to divide them -- the rosha – the evil son – and he is not invited to my table either.

Sphere: Related Content

Reflections on the AIPAC Conference.Dowd Confirms: J Street Is Obama's Enabler

Thank God for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Maybe after its conference in Washington this week and its loud and clear expression of Americans’ support for Israel, the anti-Israel pundits, “Waltsheimers,” and the J Street-Walkers will shut up. On second thought, they have no shame, so they’ll probably keep yapping about how bad Israel and the pro-Israel lobby are.

Consider Maureen Dowd’s screed against the “supremely aggravating” Benjamin Netanyahu last week. After what she called the “president’s smackdown” of Netanyahu, she and others, like Joe Klein, MJ Rosenberg, and Roger Cohen, were experiencing orgasmic frissons over the Administration’s attacks on Israel. “Tough love,” they call it; others recognize the act they recommend as attempted rape.

Dowd lets the J Street cat out of the bag when she wrote, “Mr. Obama knows that Jews no longer speak with one voice. That gives him enough room to keep the heat on Mr. Netanyahu.”

Then along came AIPAC with its 7,500 delegates, 1300 students, hundreds of senators and congressmen – of all faiths and colors -- and put the squeaky J Street mouse back in the bag.

J Street was formed, reportedly with the help of Obama aides even before the 2008 elections, precisely to claim that there was a counterweight to AIPAC. Soon after its establishment, J Street published a public opinion poll ostensibly supporting its positions, but it was quickly discovered that the poll had been drafted and cooked by one of J Street’s founders and officers. And again last week, J Street shamelessly went back to the same founder who cooked and presented another distorted poll. (Ha’aretz attempted a similar trick this week to try and show popular Israeli support for Obama and dwindling support for Netanyahu. The poll was also quickly discredited.)

Circumstantial evidence suggests that J Street was primed to back the Administration attack on Israel last week. Last year, when faced with the American financial crisis, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, expressed his strategy for crisis management: “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste — and what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things that you didn’t think you could do before.”

As the U.S.-Israel tension grew, J Street sent out a letter on March 16 to its members urging support for the Administration. The wording was uncannily familiar: "The Obama Administration can turn this crisis into an opportunity to tackle a core issue at the heart of the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians - the need to establish a border between Israel and the future Palestinian state….Bold American leadership is needed now to turn this crisis into a real opportunity to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict."

If we’re talking about chums chomping at the same trough of analogies, Tom Friedman blasted the Israeli government on March 14 for “driving drunk in Jerusalem.” Now, where did we hear that description before? Oh yeah, J Street’s director used that line to describe Israel in the Washington Post in May 2008, and in Newsweek two weeks later. J Street co-founder Daniel Levy used it too in July 2009.

There is – and there must be -- a place in the Jewish and pro-Israeli body politic for expressions from the Left. But not a fraudulent one like J Street that received political action funding from Americans affiliated with pro-Arab and pro-Iranian organizations or working with the Saudi government and embassy.

Kudos to the students who attended J Street’s October conference in Washington, revealed their true anti-Israel colors and requested that J Street’s “pro-Israel” brand be removed from their campus organizations. Compare them to the 1300+ proudly pro-Israel students of all faiths and from 50 states who attended the AIPAC conference this week.

And bravo to Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz who interrupted a J Street rep who was holding court at the AIPAC Conference on Monday. "I reject J Street,” the professor declared before a Ha’aretz reporter, “because it spends more time criticizing Israel than supporting it. They shouldn't call themselves pro-Israel.”

Ha'aretz continued, “The combative Harvard law professor said that he too opposed settlements. ‘But I spend 80 per cent of my time supporting Israel,’ he said. The sort of supporters J Street was attracting to its conferences showed that the group was damaging to Israel, Dershowitz said.”

"’If you invite [former NSC advisor] Zbigniew Brzezinski you are not pro-Israel,’ Dershowitz told the J Street rep. ‘You should ask yourself why Norman Finkelstein loves you,’ he said, referring to the noted leftwing American political commentator [and Holocaust denier].’”

Dershowitz’ own presentation to the AIPAC Conference was brilliant.

Sphere: Related Content

The White House's Errand Boy? Or J Street Walker?

As if on cue, J Street used the Emanuel dictum to rally its troops yesterday, directing them to back-the-bash-Israel campaign being conducted by the Administration.

We presented Emanuel's dictum here yesterday. It states: “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste — and what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things that you didn’t think you could do before.”

And here's an abstract from the J Street letter: The Obama Administration can turn this crisis into an opportunity to tackle a core issue at the heart of the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians - the need to establish a border between Israel and the future Palestinian state.... We cannot let any single provocative Israeli announcement of construction in East Jerusalem, no matter how infuriating, delay progress towards a two-state solution. Bold American leadership is needed now to turn this crisis into a real opportunity to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Sphere: Related Content

J Street's Position on Gaza Is Worse than First Thought:Their Letter Was Worse than the Cong'l Letter of 54

When I first reported on J Street's support for the 54 Members of Congress who wrote a letter to President Obama urging him to pressure Israel (and nominally Egypt) to lift the blockade on Gaza, I based the report on a newspaper story in the Minnesota Independent. "[The] members of Congress," the paper stated, "as well as a number of religious groups and denominations, have signed on to Ellison’s letter." J Street appeared first on the newspaper's list of organizations.

But there were two very different letters, it turned out. The Congressional letter placed some of the blame for Gaza's plight on Egypt. "The people of Gaza have suffered enormously since the blockade imposed by Israel and Egypt following Hamas’ coup," the letter stated. The Members of Congress also conceded that Israel had legitimate security concerns: "We recognize that the Israeli government has imposed restrictions on Gaza out of a legitimate and keenly felt fear of continued terrorist action by Hamas and other militant groups."

The other letter, written by J Street, several other leftist Jewish organizations, and known anti-Israel organizations, however, placed the onus solely on Israel. "[D]ue to Israel’s policy of severely limiting passage of essential goods and materiel through its crossings, the suffering in Gaza continues.....We urge that your administration use America’s unique relationship with Israel to persuade it to lift the closure of its border crossing with Gaza now."

There is no hint of Israel's legitimate security concerns or Hamas' terrorism.

The J Street letter was co-signed by the Foundation for Middle East Peace, Americans for Peace Now, the Arab American Institute, Churches for Middle East Peace, B’Tselem USA, and Rabbis for Human Rights – North America.

Don't look for the letter on J Street's site. They're afraid people will read it. You can find it on the webpage of the Foundation for Middle East Peace.

PS: J Street's Congressional Mission to Israel flaunted its partnership with the Churches for Middle East Peace organization even before it arrived in Israel. The letters requesting meetings bore the logos of J Street's Educational Fund and the CMEP. It's no wonder Israelis were reluctant to meet the total group, and when Israeli officials requested to meet with the Members of Congress alone, they were rebuffed with a response to the effect, "You meet all of us or none of us, and we'll call a press conference."

Charming.

This is what NGO-Monitor says about CMEP: "[S]ome of its constituent groups are centrally involved in the political war against Israel. A number of CMEP partners take an active role in promoting BDS – the boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign – as part of the 2001 Durban NGO agenda which calls for the total international isolation of Israel."

After taking CMEP to Israel and trying to force this BDS-endorsing organization upon its Israeli hosts, J Street has the chutzpah to post on its website today:

J Street & J Street U Reiterate Opposition to Boycott Divestment Sanctions, “Israel Apartheid Week”

They have no shame.

Sphere: Related Content

Thoughts on the Situation, Part 3 -- J Street Defends the Letter of 54

Today’s Jerusalem Post carries an Op-Ed column by officials from J Street and Americans for Peace Now.

They defend the recent letter they sponsored with 54 Members of Congress to President Barack Obama which “express[ed] concern for Israel's security, for the humanitarian conditions in the Gaza Strip, and for the urgency of reaching a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.”

But that was not the reason for the letter. Read the letter here. The Members themselves state, “We write to you [Obama] with great concern about the ongoing crisis in Gaza.”

Note that for the Jerusalem Post, J Street and APN argue that first they were concerned for “Israel’s security,” but the text of the letter indicates that Israel’s security is of little concern. More than 90 percent of the letter deals with the “collective punishment of the Palestinian residents” of Gaza and easing their plight. This accusation of Israel’s “collection punishment” helps explain why J Street failed to condemn the Goldstone Report.

This is not a letter from “pro-Israel” sources, but from “pro-Gaza” sources. And in the case of Hamas-occupied Gaza, the two are mutually exclusive.

Don’t miss Rep. Eliot Engel's comments about J Street, also in today's Jerusalem Post: Engel, a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and a staunch supporter of Israel in the House, said J Street takes “positions in Washington I have difficulty with.” Engel said J Street’s statements “over-emphasize” what the organization feels Israel is not doing, “rather than putting the blame squarely where I think it belongs – the Palestinian attitude of denying Israel the right to exist as a Jewish state.”

Sphere: Related Content

Thoughts on the Situation, Part 1 -- J Street and Dubai

There’s some ironic symmetry between the rancorous J Street visit to Israel and the Dubai “hit.”

While Israel gets blamed for both, with critics claiming that the two were heavy-handed cases of Israeli bungling, I suggest that both cases will end up being powerful models of deterrence. The Dubai operation was a success, and terrorist leaders will be spending time and resources looking over their shoulders and searching for traitors and moles.

What now emerges as a J Street’s propaganda ploy may lead to the organization being deterred from bringing to Israel more missions of naïve or hostile Members of Congress. What Congressman would want to join a Congressional delegation whose mission is to tangle with the Israeli government? The organization was more concerned with its own self-aggrandizement than giving their congressional guests the opportunity to meet Israeli leaders. "Either we all enter the meeting, or no one enters," was pretty much J Street's ultimatum.

J Street’s director returned to the U.S. claiming victory in his fight between the forces of light and darkness. He masks his efforts to promote J Street and attacking Israel’s government in terms of his holy "vision and values" and denounces those concerned over Israel’s security and welfare.

He wrote:“On one side of this struggle are those committed to our vision of time-honored Jewish and democratic values - grounded in respect for 'the other,' a tolerance for dissent, and a willingness to sacrifice territory for peace. On the other side are those who seem willing to muffle dissent, view all conflict as zero-sum, and place retaining captured land and territory at the center of its value system.”

Can someone please find J Street’s parallel in the Israeli body politic? It’s certainly not Labor or Kadima. Perhaps they reflect Meretz or Hadash (the communist/Arab coalition in the Knesset)? I suggest his values and vision are anything but Jewish or democratic.

Sphere: Related Content

Going Left on J Street

First appeared in National Review Online

When 54 congressmen sent a letter to President Obama on January 21 asking him to press Israel (and nominally Egypt) to lift the blockade on Gaza and provide “immediate relief for the citizens of Gaza,” I looked for J Street’s fingerprints. Since its inception two years ago, the well-heeled PAC has rarely missed an opportunity to attack the policies of the Olmert and Netanyahu governments: It criticized Israel’s military operation in Gaza, held out the option of negotiating with Hamas, called for freezing all Israeli building in east Jerusalem as well as in the West Bank, refused to support sanctions against Iran, and more. But, lo and behold, there was nary a word about the Gaza relief letter on the J Street website or in the press materials of the supposedly “pro-Israel, pro-peace” organization.

Others, however, did credit J Street with supporting the letter, and even with sponsoring it. According to Ha’aretz, “In addition to members of Congress, several leftist organizations also signed the letter, including Americans for Peace Now and J Street.”

Wrote Michael Rosenberg, one of Israel’s harshest critics, “The [54 members of Congress] deserve our thanks as does J Street and Americans for Peace Now which pushed the letter.”

And who appears first on the Minnesota Independent’s list of the letter’s backers? “Among the groups supporting the letter: J Street, The Holy Land Christian Ecumenical Foundation (HCEF), The American Task Force on Palestine (ATFP), The American Near East Refugee Association (ANERA), The Methodist Church, The Friends Committee on National Legislation (FCNL), and Rabbis for Human Rights.”

With the exception of the rabbis, none of J Street’s colleagues on the letter are known for their fraternal feelings toward Israel.

Is that why J Street avoids claiming credit for the letter or publicizing the fact that it trucks with some unkosher characters? Perhaps the “pro-Israel” group wanted to avoid appearing “pro-Gaza” on the eve of launching its national grassroots operation last week. Or perhaps J Street got burned over the last year when it was revealed that a large portion of its PAC funds (possibly close to 10 percent) were coming from individuals never known for being “pro-Israel.” Indeed, the most recent Federal Election Commission records (for the last quarter of 2009) suggest that the J Street PAC donors with ties to Saudi Arabia — the tarnished National Iranian American Council and the Arab-American Institute — didn’t like the publicity and are keeping their checkbooks closed.

What Commentary’s Jennifer Rubin found interesting about the letter was “the extent of the overlap between the pro-Gaza blockade lifters and the roster of J Street–supported congressmen” recently published by J Street. “At least we know the sort of congressmen that J Street supports and the sort that are only too glad to accept J Street’s largesse,” Rubin states.

And now we also know that J Street continues to try to hide its fellow travelers, just as it tried to hide the backgrounds of some of its PAC contributors, its George Soros donations, and its decision-making process.

The “word on the street” now is that several members of Congress are disassociating themselves from their letter, much the same way members pulled out of J Street’s national conference in October 2009.

Sphere: Related Content

The Saudis Take a Stroll on J Street

There are some very close ties between Saudi Arabia, the Arab American Institute, and J Street.

See Pajamas Media for this new exposé. Read it here tomorrow.

Sphere: Related Content

An Israeli Comes to the Defense of Obama and His Frum* Jewish Aides and Supporters. Well, Sort Of

*Frum is a Yiddish word used to describe Orthodox, observant Jews.

A version of this article appeared in the Jerusalem Post on Dec. 1.

This week a senior respected Israeli analyst asked me to look back and decide, "Are we seeing the worst crisis in U.S.-Israel relations? Is this the worst ever administration from Israel's perspective?" Also this week an Israeli minister termed President Obama's administration "awful," and an Israeli political activist was quoted in Israel's largest circulation paper as saying, "The Obama regime is anti-Jewish and anti-Semitic."

To all, I respond with the strongest possible retorts: balderdash, tripe, silliness and stupidity! There are other serious ideological problems with this U.S. administration which results in rock-bottom popularity for the US president in Israel but the labels of "anti-Semitic" or "the worst" are bum raps.
Just look at the history.

IN 1957, the Eisenhower administration threatened to come down hard on the fledgling Israel, including removing UJA's tax-exempt status, as a way of pressuring Israel to withdraw from the Sinai Peninsula.

In 1970, Richard Nixon threatened to cut the supply of 50 F-4 Phantoms to Israel because of insults hurled at French Premier Georges Pompidou by Jewish-American activists in New York. The demonstrations led the notoriously anti-Israel columnists Rowland Evans and Robert Novak to bray, "More than any president since Dwight Eisenhower, Mr. Nixon has shown a tough realism in trying to stake out the correct US policy in the inflamed Middle East without kowtowing to the large and highly influential Jewish vote." [Note Evans and Novak beat by more than 35 years professors Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, the authors of the 2007 The Israel Lobby a distinctly unoriginal diatribe against Jewish influence on foreign policy. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose (the more things change, the more they stay the same.)]

Observers feared the worst in U.S.-Israel relations in 1975 when the Ford Administration weighed a "reassessment" of American policy in the Middle East, including cutting aid to Israel.

In the 1980s, Ronald Reagan earned a place in history as one of Israel's strongest friends, but his administration included strong critics of Israel such as vice president George H.W. Bush and defense secretary Caspar Weinberger. The sale of AWACS, just the tip of a massive arms sale and a realignment of US policy to embrace Saudi Arabia, took place under Reagan's watch, and the political war cry of "Reagan or Begin" was broadcast to suggest American Jews' dual loyalties. Arms to Israel were embargoed and delayed after the 1981 Osirak reactor bombing and the 1982 Lebanon War. And the Pollard affair pulled the U.S.-Israel relationship to new lows.

Could relations have been worse than when George Bush Sr. went on national TV to challenge 1000 Jewish lobbyists to block $10 billion in housing loan guarantees over the issue of settlements at a time when hundreds of thousands of Soviet Jews were flowing into Israel? Actually, yes, they worsened when his secretary of state, James Baker, was quoted as saying, "F*** the Jews, they don't vote for us anyway."

YOU GET the point: Anti-Semitism and crises in the U.S.-Israel relationship have existed in the past, and there is simply nothing like it in the current U.S. administration. Arms embargos and aid cut-offs then truly endangered Israel's security and gave Arab states tangible proof that American support for Israel was assailable. There is no such talk of cuts today. In fact, the strong support given to Israel by Congress and the unprecedented joint anti-missile exercise carried out by US and Israeli armed forces last month should put to rest the canard of an anti-Israel America.

So why the pervasive malaise about the Obama administration - a distrust so deep that Obama's popularity in Israel is equal to the margin of error? Well, Obama's failure to visit Israel doesn't improve his popularity, nor does his repeated cold-shouldering of Israel's prime minister.

Even the appointments of prominent Jews, Rahm Emanuel (chief of staff), David Axelrod (senior advisor), Mara Rudman (NSC/Mitchell's team), Hannah Rosenthal (envoy to monitor anti-Semitism), etc. don't make a difference. They arranged the first ever Seder in the White House, and sent the president to visit a concentration camp. How can anyone accuse these individuals of being "self-hating Jews," when they are members of synagogues, observe Jewish holidays, have relatives in Israel and send their children to Jewish Day Schools?

Because they are "Newest Testament" Jews; Jews who have embraced the new American Jewish religion of tikkun olam [fix the world] liberalism. Tikkun olam is the new overarching mitzva that guides them, even though it was never one of the 613 precepts of the Torah. The founding of Israel and the creation of Palestinian refugees may not have been the Original Sin in their theology as it is to others on the Left, but the settling of the West Bank following Israel's victory in 1967 is definitely viewed by them as Israel's Golden Calf.

The universalism of tikkun olam is a direct challenge to the exclusive “chosenness” of the traditional Shma prayer. Shma Yisrael – Hear O’ Israel (why only Israel?), Hashem Elokeinu --the Lord is God (isn’t God dead or maybe She’s retired?), Hashem Echad –the Lord is One (doesn’t declaring the Oneness of God exclude the believers in Jesus, Buddha, Krishna, Wiccan gods, or Elvis?)

The translation of Newest Testament universalism into action can be seen in the words and policies of the modern day shaliach tzibbur [leader of the service], J Street.

Obama advisors, according to the National Journal, participated in the meetings to set up the “Soros Project,” later to be known as “J Street.” In keeping with the Newest Testament, J Street’s director Jeremy Ben-Ami told the New York Times of his staff’s penchant for Buddhist seders and defended intermarriage in an interview with The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg.

The policies of J Street - the self-proclaimed "blocking back for Obama" - hold open the option of negotiations with Hamas, oppose Iran sanctions, and embrace the Saudi Plan, now called the Arab Peace Initiative, which demands a return to the 1967 lines, dividing Jerusalem and the right of return for Palestinian refugees.

The frum universalists have even adopted the Old Testament commandment of hating the tribe of Amalek, but in their case, the visceral hatred is redirected at settlers, religious and ultra-Orthodox Israeli Jews, and the modern day Haman, Binyamin Netanyahu, called a “bullshitter” by one of Obama’s closest aides.

"There will be no peace if the settlements remain in place," wrote one of the Newest Testament prophets, MJ Rosenberg. "Pre-1967 Israel was not terrible at all. In fact it was pretty wonderful," he also wrote. "The secular areas [of Jerusalem] are charming but much of the rest is Jewish Taliban country... No humor, no aesthetics, just lunatics in black."

The Obama administration certainly has committed its share of questionable activities, such as ignoring George W. Bush's assurances on Israeli population centers in the West Bank, being over-confident in the ability of Palestinian security forces, attempting to appoint Chas Freeman to a high intelligence post, and abysmally executing its campaign against Israeli settlements and building in Jerusalem.

Perhaps the biggest mistake of all, however, was the advice given by Obama advisors that the rules of tikkun olam have a place in the compassionless Middle East.

The diplomatic failures led the New York Times editorial board to conclude on November 28, "We don't know exactly what happened but we are told that Mr. Obama relied more on the judgment of his political advisers - specifically his chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel - than of his Mideast specialists."

Misguided, perhaps. But to declare the Obama administration to be anti-Semitic is just wrong. Let's keep the debate in the area of policy. Unfortunately, there'll be no shortage of topics to discuss.

Sphere: Related Content