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

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

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

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