J STREET, ETC.

J Street's Anti-Israel Hate Fest Goes off the Rails

Posted: 16 Oct 2009 03:00 PM PDT BY SULTAN

The Pro-Hamas, Anti-Israel group J Street is holding its first annual gala dinner and thanks to the Obama Administration's backing, they've managed to bring a lot of congressmen on board. This is meant to be a major coup for the Anti-Israel organization by bringing a third of congress on board, giving them equal leverage to AIPAC.

But their number is already dwindling. The Weekly Standard helped inform one of the few Republicans on the list, Rep Mike Castle, of just what kind of feast this was, and he dropped out... particularly when told that one of J Street's featured speakers had a history of making some very ugly remarks.

This was followed by the departure of New York Senator Schumer and his pet Gillibrand. Followed by the departure of Senator Cochran and Congressman Mike Ross. Most of them have said that they have no idea how their names got on the list, which suggests that either J Street stupidly put politicians on the list without checking first, or that they're having second thoughts.

Today Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) and Reps. Michael McCaul (R-TX) and Leonard Boswell (D-IA) also joined those departing the J Street list. Lincoln again claimed not to know her name was on the list.

So to pinch hit, J Street has brought in Obama's Saudi National Security Advisor, James L. Jones, a truly perfect figure to match with the likes of Al Franken, Robert Wexler and Chuck Hagel. And of course you can't forget the Saudi backed hate group MPAC...

Condemning America for “Terrorism”: In response to America’s attack on terrorist targets in Afghanistan and Sudan in August 1998, MPAC Senior Advisor Maher Hathout said: “Our country is committing an act of terrorism. What we did is illegal, immoral, unhuman, unacceptable, stupid and un-American.” He also said America’s anti-terror action would be to blame for future hate crimes in the U.S.: “If our country commits hate crimes, why should we not expect the uneducated to do the same?” (Los Angeles Times, August 22, 1998)

“Hezbollah Members are Freedom Fighters”: “Hezbollah is fighting for freedom…This is legitimate.” (MPAC Senior Advisor Maher Hathout, at the National Press Club, June 18, 1998.)

“The Only Thing They Can Do is Throw Bombs”: “The only thing [Arab terrorists in Israel] can do is throw a bomb in a market or send somebody to suicide, we don’t have enough ability to target real targets in Israel.” (MPAC Senior Advisor Maher Hathout, in a Panel Discussion on Capitol Hill, June 18, 1998.)

Defending Holocaust-denier Roger Garaudy: After Garaudy was fined by a French court for denying the Holocaust: “Garaudy is not the first one to question the holocaust…As usual, Muslim organizations and leaders in the United States were silent on the sentence imposed on Garaudy. The exception was the Muslim Public Affairs Council that issued an immediate condemnation statement…to persecute him for his right to express his opinion and question some events is a clear violation of his basic human rights…Muslim organizations should have taken the case to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights.” (The Minaret, Vol.20, No.3 [1998])

Accusing Israel of “Defaming Mohammed”: “Israel created an environment of hate, and it bears responsibility for dehumanizing Muslims, defaming the Prophet [Mohammed], and supporting policies of Judaicizing [sic] the Holy Land.” (MPAC Director Salam al-Marayati, MPAC Action Alert, July 7, 1997)

Comparing Muslim Terrorists to America’s Founding Fathers: “Most Islamic movements have been branded as terrorists as a result of the rising extremism from a handful of militants. American freedom fighters hundreds of years ago were also regarded as terrorists by the British.” (MPAC Director Salam al-Marayati, The Minaret, June 1996)

And that's only one speaker... and then there's Josh Healy.

The dinner is essentially a festival of radical groups with appearances from names all too familiar to Israelis, such as the radical, "Rabbi" Arik Ascherman, who has harassed Israeli farmers and whose group "Rabbis for Human Rights" vandalized farms and vineyards, to promote the Arab takeover of these properties. There's Colette Avital, JJ Goldberg of the Forward, a Fatah government minister, Robert Malley, whose name came up during the election when the Obama Administration was forced to sever ties with him after his contacts with Hamas became public. There's Hagit Ofran the Director, Peace Now's Settlement Watch, whose ethnic cleansing goal is to drive Jewish farmers beyond the green line off their land. There's a representative from the fraudulent Breaking the Silence group nd the Jordanian Ambassador, Amir Peretz.

If any of the following Congresscritters is in your district, feel free to call or drop a line telling him or her that they're supporting the well funded equivalent of an ANSWER event by an Anti-Israel group which includes a speaker who called for the destruction of the State of Israel.

The full list of shame for now includes in the Senate "great Americans" like Al Franken, Russ Feingold, Pat Leahy, Bernie Sanders, John Kerry and Jim Webb. And of course the as of yet unconvicted Ron Buris and Chris Dodd.

Along with...

Diane Feinstein, Jeanne Shaheen, Daniel Akaka, Sherrod Brown, Maria Cantwell, Tom Carper, Bob Casey, Byron Dorgan, Kay Hagan, Tim Johnson, Herb Kohl, Mary Landrieu, Blanche Lincoln, Jeff Merkley, Mark Pryor, Jon Tester, Mark Udall, Tom Udall, Sheldon Whitehouse

On the House of Representatives side we have a few more criminals like Charlie Rangel, then there's Barbara Lee, Russ Carnahan, CAIR stooge Keith Ellison, Barney Frank, John Conyers, Jesse Jackson, Jr, who but for a million would be Senator Burris, Sheila Jackson Lee, Dennis Kucinich, Dennis Kucinich and the final Baghdad Boy, Jim McDermott.

But the list also includes people who should have known better, like Carolyn Maloney, Lynn Woolsey, Jane Harman and Steve Israel.

The full list features, Leonard Boswell, Charles Boustany, Bruce Braley, Corrine Brown, Lois Capps, Michael Capuano, Chris Carney, Andre Carson, Yvette Clarke, James Clyburn, Howard Coble, Steve Cohen, Gerry Connolly, John Conyers, Jim Cooper, Elijah Cummings, Danny Davis, Susan Davis, Peter DeFazio, Dianna DeGette, William Delahunt, Rosa DeLauro, John Dingell, Lloyd Doggett, Mike Doyle, Steve Driehaus, Donna Edwards, Anna Eshoo, Eni Faleomavaega, Sam Farr, Chaka Fattah, Bob Filner, Bill Foster, Neil Abercrombie, Jason Altmire, Michael Arcuri, Brian Baird, Tammy Baldwin, Brian Bilbray, Earl Blumenauer, John Boccieri, Gabrielle Giffords, Charlie Gonzalez, Raul Grijalva, Luis Gutierrez, John Hall, Debbie Halvorson, Jim Himes, Maurice Hinchey, Ruben Hinojosa, Mazie K. Hirono, Eleanor Holmes-Norton, Rush Holt, Mike Honda, Jay Inslee, Steve Israel, Eddie Bernice Johnson, Hank Johnson, Steve Kagen, Marcy Kaptur, Carolyn Kilpatrick, Mary-Jo Kilroy
Ron Kind, John Larson, David Loebsack, Ben Ray Lujan, Stephen Lynch, Betsy Markey and Ed Markey, Eric Massa, Michael McCaul, Betty McCollum, James McGovern, Gregory Meeks, Brad Miller, George Miller, Harry Mitchell, Dennis Moore, Gwen Moore, James Moran, Chris Murphy, Scott Murphy, Richard Neal, Glenn Nye, John Olver, Solomon Ortiz, Frank Pallone, Bill Pascrell, Ed Pastor, Donald Payne, Ed Perlmutter, Tom Perriello, Chellie Pingree, Jared Polis, David Price, Nick Rahall, Ciro Rodriguez, Lucille Roybal-Allard, Bobby Rush, John Salazar, Loretta Sanchez, Jan Schakowsky, Adam Schiff, Joe Sestak, Carol Shea-Porter, Louise Slaughter, Jackie Speier, John Tanner, John Tierney, Mike Thompson, Paul Tonko, Ed Towns, Nikki Tsongas, Diane Watson, Henry Waxman, David Wu, John Yarmuth

Note, this list may change if more of the congresscitters drop out of the J Street Hamaslympics.

The Weekly Standard is to be credited for doing the reporting and creating the first signs of the exodus from J Street's attempt to legitimize its pro-terrorist political influence.

J Street is predictably enough shrieking SWIFT BOAT, and asking its members to call and beg the congressmen and Senators who still haven't dropped out to stay. Though how exactly pointing out that one of your speakers called for the destruction of Israel... remains unclear.

That is at least slightly less delusional than J Street chief Jeremy Ben Ami whining that Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren doesn't want to attend an Anti-Israel event. Well gosh, do you see the Iranian ambassador coming down to AIPAC or ZOA.

For more J Street reading, see J Street' Saudi connection at Pajamas Media

Moving beyond J Street now, a Washington Post article raises a whole new Constitutional question about Obama. Namely whether Obama can legally accept the Nobel in the first place.

Article I, Section 9, of the Constitution, the emolument clause, clearly stipulates: "And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State."

The award of the peace prize to a sitting president is not unprecedented. But Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson received the honor for their past actions: Roosevelt's efforts to end the Russo-Japanese War, and Wilson's work in establishing the League of Nations. Obama's award is different. It is intended to affect future action. As a member of the Nobel Committee explained, the prize should encourage Obama to meet his goal of nuclear disarmament. It raises important legal questions for the second time in less than 10 months -- questions not discussed, much less adequately addressed anywhere else.

The five-member Nobel commission is elected by the Storting, the parliament of Norway. Thus the award of the peace prize is made by a body representing the legislature of a sovereign foreign state. There is no doubt that the Nobel Peace Prize is an "emolument" ("gain from employment or position," according to Webster). ...

Second, the president has indicated that he will give the prize money to charity, but that does not solve his legal problem. Giving that $1.4 million to a charity could give him a deduction that would reduce his income taxes by $500,000 -- not a nominal amount. Moreover, the money is not his to give away. It belongs to the United States: A federal statute provides that if the president accepts a "tangible or intangible present" for more than a minimal value from any foreign government, the gift "shall become the property of the United States."

This is at least the second time that Obama has run afoul of the emolument clause. On June 3, 2009, the day before he gave his speech in Cairo on relations with the Muslim world, he accepted (and even donned) the bejeweled Collar of the King Abdul Aziz Order of Merit, Saudi Arabia's highest honor, from the hands of King Abdullah. (President Bush was awarded the Order in January last year.)

Aside from whether a president shows questionable judgment in accepting any preferment from the House of Saud named for its anti-Semitic modern founder, there is another issue: The Collar is clearly a chivalric "order" of the Saudi monarchy conferring a rank in that system of titled royalty and nobility. It is not a mere decoration or campaign ribbon. There does not seem to be any record of congressional permission asked for, much less granted, for the president to accept this bauble. Washington, Madison and Hamilton would have clearly understood that the Abdul Aziz Order falls under the same ban they had in mind for any public officials coveting awards made under the honors system of the British monarchy.

Taking President Obama at his word that the Nobel award is "an affirmation of American leadership," Congress should allow him to accept the award. The prize money, which legally belongs to the United States, ought to be applied by Congress to some worthy cause, such as reducing the deficit

The media in general is likely to sidestep yet another violation of the Constitution.

Just as the media will ignore the revelations about Anita Dunn , the Maoist White House Communications Director

And then the third lesson and tip actually comes from two of my favorite political philosophers: Mao Tse Tung and Mother Teresa, not often coupled together, but the two people that I turn to most to basically deliver a simple point, which is, you're going to make choices. You're going to challenge. You're going to say "why not." You're going to figure out how to do things that have never been done before.

But here's the deal — these are your choices. They are no one else's. In 1947, when Mao Tse Tung was being challenged within his own party on his plan to basically take China over, Chiang Kai Shek and the nationalist Chinese held the cities that had the army. They had the airport. They had everything on their side, and people said, "How can you win? How can you do this? How can you do this, against all the odds against you?" And Mao Tse Tung said, "You know, you fight your war, and I'll fight mine."

Media Matters has begun claiming that Anita Dunn did nothing wrong, and that lots of people have quoted Mao. One wonders if they would take that same position had a Bush White House spokesman quoted Hitler or even say George Wallace, who unlike Mao didn't kill millions of people. We all know the answer to that. Even Trent Lott who didn't say anything nearly as inflammatory was forced out over it.

In the case of Trent Lott, the media sold the assumption that a pro-Thurmond comment was also a pro-segregation comment. In this case the media is selling the double standard that Anita Dunn making positive statements about Mao is not at all an endorsement of his views or actions.

Media Matters' lame counterattack has been to drag out a quote from the campaign manager for Goldwater... of all people. That's a level of desperate obscurity that suggests that the bad folks at Media Matters are stretched very thin indeed. I suspect we should be grateful they didn't begin analyzing any quotes from the sister's nephew of Theodore Roosevelt.

The Media Matters attack gets even lamer when you read it

In his recent book, How to Win an Election, Stephen C. Shadegg cites a statement attributed to Mao Tse-tung: "Give me just two or three men in a village and I will take the village." Shadegg comments: " In the Goldwater campaigns of 1952 and 1958 and in all other campaigns where I have served as consultant I have followed the advice of Mao Tse-tung."

Now the Shadegg quote is not an endorsement of Mao himself, but of his strategy. By contrast Anita Dunn called Mao her favorite political philosopher and her retelling of his quote was framed by obvious admiration for his cause.

Additional quotes draw on nonsense like Bush telling Rove to read Mao's biography. Which again thoroughly ignores context in favor of setting up a strawman by claiming that Beck is against reading and or citing anything said by evil dictators, rather than that Beck was pointing out that Anita Dunn was admiringly quoting Mao.

Meanwhile continuing the roundup, JammieWearingFool reports that the great stimulus plan created 54 jobs for New York... at a cost of only 500 million dollars.

Which comes out to a dirt cheap 9 million dollars per job.

Thes real stimulus plan accomplishment may have been to make welfare look like an economicall sound alternative, since at least it would be cheaper than spending 9 million per job.

Munz's Place has more from Glenn Beck on the stimulus job creation scam

Continuing the roundup, Atlas Shrugs has the unbelievable story that Russian inspectors will be inspecting US nuclear sites

The plan, which Fox News has learned was agreed to in principle during negotiations, would constitute the most intrusive weapons inspection program the U.S. has ever accepted.

Russia and the United States have tentatively agreed to a weapons inspection program that would allow Russians to visit nuclear sites in America to count missiles and warheads.

The plan, which Fox News has learned was agreed to in principle during negotiations, would constitute the most intrusive weapons inspection program the U.S. has ever accepted.

The current U.S. administration has reneged on the promise of a missile shield over Eastern Europe, but there will be Russian agents in US nuclear sites.

Little wonder that Hillary now has a better approval rating than Obama

Via Jihad Watch, the story of renegade winemakers in Hamas territory

Abu Mohammed goes to great lengths to enjoy his wine in Gaza. Risking the wrath of the enclave's Islamist Hamas rulers, he sneaks to the rooftop of an abandoned house to make his own nectar.

Here in his secret hideaway, Abu Mohammed carefully turns grapes into home-made vintages he savors only in the privacy of his own home, far away from the disapproving eyes of Hamas police and Gaza's conservative society.

"I started making my own wine after Hamas took power," says the 40-something civil servant who, like all the other Gaza bootleggers interviewed by AFP, declined to give their real names for fear of being arrested.

"I asked friends how to do it and I did some research on the Internet," he says.

Abu Mohammed risks much to indulge his palate.

I'm thinking that maybe Abu Mohammed should have reconsidered voting for an Islamist party in the first place. Of course since he's identified as a member of the US subsidized PA bureaucracy, he's likely a Fatah henchman in the first place.

Steven Plaut has the story of radical Joel Beinin

Beinin may be best known within academia for his tour of duty as president of the Middle East Studies Association (MESA), a position generally reserved for haters of Israel and enablers of Islamofascism. Beinin’s publication record [1] is largely a hodgepodge of books and articles smearing Israel or promoting Marxism [2], many of them appearing in pseudo-academic and in non-scholarly political magazines. (His book Workers and Peasants in the Modern Middle East, said one critic, “could have been written by a Soviet flunky back in the days of Comrade Brezhnev.”) Many academics, including some of Beinin’s colleagues at Stanford, have scoffed at his academic credentials. At least one Stanford professor has insisted [3] that Beinin never should have been granted tenure.

Beinin has denounced American “imperialism” [4] on Aljazeera, the network of choice for Osama bin Laden. Just weeks after the 9/11 attacks, he published an article [5] claiming that al-Qaeda’s hatred of America was a justified and understandable reaction to America’s oppressive policies. Beinin believes, in fact, that 9/11 was America’s comeuppance for its alliance with Israel. “The American empire is going down,” Beinin claims.

Sadly academia is all too full of trash like him.

Muslims Against Sharia updates us on the status of Iran's supposedly ailing or perhaps deceased Supreme Leader

And now that the USA is moving toward appeasing the Taliban, the Times has the interesting story of the consequences of Taliban appeasement

When ten French soldiers were killed last year in an ambush by Afghan insurgents in what had seemed a relatively peaceful area, the French public were horrified.

Their revulsion increased with the news that many of the dead soldiers had been mutilated — and with the publication of photographs showing the militants triumphantly sporting their victims’ flak jackets and weapons. The French had been in charge of the Sarobi area, east of Kabul, for only a month, taking over from the Italians; it was one of the biggest single losses of life by Nato forces in Afghanistan.

What the grieving nation did not know was that in the months before the French soldiers arrived in mid-2008, the Italian secret service had been paying tens of thousands of dollars to Taleban commanders and local warlords to keep the area quiet, The Times has learnt. The clandestine payments, whose existence was hidden from the incoming French forces, were disclosed by Western military officials.

The New Centrist may be leaving the blogging world

Steven Shamrak looks at the madness of a self-destructive world

I can't understand how the family of Mohammed (be it in Lebanon , Gaza , the West Bank, Syria , Jordan or Egypt ) can afford to have 8 children. He and his wife have not worked a day of their lives. They have been given a house or an apartment and food. Their children go to school and even a college. For 60 years his family has been benefiting from the generosity of the international community delivered by the United Nations. The family has been receiving education and medical care that most Arabs in the region can only dream about. The family is a part of the so-called Palestinians refugees' scam. They became the best-educated and looked after group in the Muslim world!

Mohammed's father did not work either. The only thing he had to do was to sit and smoke his pipe, as his son does now. Mohammed's wife, as her mother before her, is a willing participant of this global charade. Her main job is to reproduce and make more professional refugees, like Mohammed, in order to boost the legitimacy of the bogus claim of the fake Palestinian people and provide demographic ammunition to an arsenal of the anti-Israel 'coalition'. And she is proud that some of her sons, instead of finding a job, are willing to martyr themselves at any time by killing Jews and bring perverted and warped honor to the family, as well as money donated by Iraq in the past and by Saudi Arabia and Iran now.

Sixty years have passed since Israel won her independence. During this time Israel absorbed several millions of Jewish refugees, including 850,000 from Muslim countries. When WW2 ended, 50 million refugees were scattered across Europe . All of them have found a country where they can live and work, for themselves and their families. All this time the international community has already willingly and quite eagerly subsidized four generations of these professional refugees. For some perverted, deeply imbedded anti-Semitic reason, it makes sure that Mohammed and his family are the best cared for refugees in the world!

Mohammed does not need to do anything but sit and smoke his pipe and wait, as his father and grandfather did. By doing so he gives permission to Islamic political expansionistic machinery and traditional international anti-Semitism to make claims, on his behalf, that Jews took his land, and to prevent Israel from regaining full control over all Jewish land. Continuation of this travesty gives them an opportunity to maintain instability in the region, manipulate the price of oil at any time they wish, sell the arms to the Muslim countries with a high profit margin, build nuclear reactors for a huge amount of money, knowing that Israel will bomb them. In return Mohammed receives free shelter, food, education for his children and medical services. Not bad for a day of no work!

I just would like to ask American and European taxpayers: Do all of you receive free housing, food, education and medical treatment from your own government? If not, why do you allow your government to subsidize these professional international parasites? So-called Palestinians are the nuts and bolts of a huge machine called Islamic expansionism.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
"J Street," a new organization and lobby whose goal is to change U.S. policies on Israel. Though J Street claims to be "pro- Israel" and "pro-peace" and to represent mainstream Jewish opinion, we are troubled because their positions seem to undermine Israel and its search for peace with security. Their views may also contribute to anti-Israel biases and misinformation.

Among our concerns are the following:

We are concerned because J Street echoes many of the charges in Walt and Mearsheimer's The Israel Lobby, and denigrates mainstream Jewish organizations across the political spectrum.

We are concerned about many of J Street's funders and advisors who have opposed Israel or have ties with Arab governments that have been consistently hostile to Israel. They include one board member who donated $10,000 and is on the National American Iranian Council, widely viewed as the unofficial lobby in America for the current Iranian regime. [1] Others include Zahi Khouri, a wealthy Palestinian businessman, who considers AIPAC and Netanyahu "enemies of peace" [2] Another J Street donor is a board member of Human Rights Watch, an organization that targets Israel [3] for unfair criticism, and was recently exposed because its "military expert" was obsessed with Nazi memorabilia, and because it solicited funds from the Saudi government, enticing them by promising to continue its biased investigations of Israel. J Street advisor Judith Barnett worked for the Egyptian Ministry of Foreign Trade, and became a registered agent for Saudi Arabia. [4]

We are concerned because J Street draws a moral equivalence between Israel and Hamas. During Israel's recent war against Hamas, J Street said it could not identify "who was right or who was wrong," proclaiming that "we recognize that neither Israelis nor Palestinians have a monopoly on right and wrong." [5] We are deeply disturbed that J Street would equate the moral principles of Israel and Hamas, whose founding document calls for the murder of Jews and the destruction of Israel, and includes sections that echo The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

We are most concerned because J Street frequently endorses anti-Israel, anti-Jewish narratives. J Street claimed that Israel's response in the war against Hamas was "disproportionate;" accepted the discredited claims of the UN Goldstone report on Israel's conduct during the Hamas war; [6] launched letter writing campaigns to support a "60 Minutes" show demonizing Israeli settlers; [7] supported the staging of "7 Jewish Children," a play with such strong anti-Semitic messages that the BBC wouldn't air it, [8] and praised Jimmy Carter whose biased views have been so damaging to Israel. [9]

We are concerned because J Street lays equal blame on Israel and the Palestinians for the ongoing conflict, ignoring the long history of Palestinian rejectionism, the extremism of Palestinian organizations like Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and the Fatah-funded Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, and the unfortunate results of Israel's concessions for peace, such as the withdrawal from Gaza in 2005. We are disturbed when we read statements blaming both sides equally for the failure of past peace efforts, such as, "It is J Street's position that the parties themselves have proven incapable of reaching a resolution to the conflict." [10]

We are concerned because J Street frequently opposes the positions of the Israeli government and its electorate, and urges America to oppose center piece Israeli policies that have wide public support in Israel and the U.S. J Street opposed Israel's war against Hamas, supported the U.S. administration's call for a settlement freeze without comparable demands put on the Palestinians, rejects stronger sanctions against Iran, and calls for the U.S. and Israel to negotiate with Hamas. J Street seems to belittle or ignore official Israeli policy and the realities on the ground in the region.

We are also troubled that many Israeli J Street members are affiliated with Israeli political parties that were soundly defeated and marginalized in recent elections, and who seem to be trying to influence the American public and government to adopt their rejected platforms.

We are troubled that J Street claims to represent the silent mainstream of American Jewish opinion even though the polls that J Street conducted to prove the popularity of its positions were exposed as unreliable because biased questions forced the responses that J Street sought. [11] Other polls of Jewish American opinion produced substantially different results.

We share the deep concerns of Rabbi Eric Yoffie, President of the Union for Reform Judaism, who condemned J Street's position on Israel's war against Hamas. He wrote that J Street's views are "deeply distressing because they are morally deficient, profoundly out of touch with Jewish sentiment and also appallingly naïve." [12]

We are all committed to breaking the impasse on the road to peace in the Middle East, but we should be concerned about a group that misrepresents itself to well-meaning people by falsely claiming that it reflects mainstream American Jewish opinion, and while promoting policies and views that threaten to harm Israel and undermine the arduous efforts for establishing an enduring peace.

[1] http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/2009/08/exposing -j-street-fraud-why-is-pro.html

[2] Lenny Ben-David, "Peeling Off J-Street's Invisibility Cloak: What Today's NY Times Magazine Won't Tell You, Pajamas Media, Sept. 13, 2009 at http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/peeling-off-j- streets-invisibility-cloak-what-todays-ny-times- magazine-wont-tell-you/

[3] http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/peeling-off-j- streets-invisibility-cloak-what-todays-ny-times- magazine-wont-tell-you/ and NGO Monitor at ttp://www.ngo- monitor.org/article/human_rights_watch_hrw_

[4] http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/peeling-off-j- streets-invisibility-cloak-what-todays-ny-times- magazine-wont-tell-you/

[5] http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite? cid=1244371055245&pagename=JPArticle% 2FShowFull and http://www.jstreet.org/page/rep-marcy- kaptur-d-oh-statement-violence-gaza

[6] http://www.jstreet.org/blog/ , Sept. 21, 2009

[7] http://jstreet.org/campaigns/archived Jan. 29, 2009

[8] http://theaterjblogs.wordpress.com/2009/03/26/j- street-letter-of-support-on-discussing-7jc/

[9] http://www.campusprogress.org/asktheexpert/293 4/redefining-pro-israel

[10] http://jstreet.org/page/israel-palestine#

[11] http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index. php/pollak/75641

[12] http://www.forward.com/articles/14847/
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
DESTROYING DIALOUGUE AT THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
More J Street Evacuations: Gillibrand, Schumer Drop Out

We reported this morning that Delaware Rep. Mike Castle, the front-runner for that state's open Senate seat in 2010, had withdrawn his name from the host committee for J Street's inaugural conference later this month -- his staff insists that Castle himself was "totally unaware" that his name had been attached to a conference that features a speaker who blamed Israel for the 9/11 attacks. Now the other shoes are dropping. Ben Smith reports:

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand has asked to be removed from the host committee for a conference of the left-leaning Jewish group J Street and was "unaware" she had been included on the group's list of supporters, spokesman Matt Canter said.

Her withdrawal comes after her political mentor, Chuck Schumer, also refused to participate in the event, and as the place of J Street -- positioning itself as liberal but staunchly "pro-Israel" -- remains hotly contested in American political circles.

I expect there will be many more members of Congress who were likewise "unaware" that their names were being used to boost the credibility of a group that supports engagement with Hamas, opposes sanctions on Iran (only six members of the House share that position), and believes the primary obstacle to peace in the Middle East is Israeli settlements. Stay tuned...
Posted by Michael Goldfarb on October 15, 2009 02:09 PM
///////////////////////////////////////////////
By HILARY LEILA KRIEGER, JERUSALEM POST CORRESPONDENT
JPOST.COM

The Israeli Embassy informed J Street of its concern that the new lobbying group advocates policies that could "impair Israel's interests," an embassy spokesman has told The Jerusalem Post.

The 18-month-old self-described "pro-Israel, pro-peace" organization has been reaching out to the embassy and invited Ambassador Michael Oren to speak at its first annual conference in late October. Despite early indications the embassy was looking to engage the group, Oren has yet to meet with executive director Jeremy Ben-Ami or agree to participate in the conference.

Instead, the embassy has "communicated to J Street its views on the peace process and on the best way to ensure Israel's security," according to embassy spokesman Yoni Peled.

The message, Peled said, is that "while recognizing the need for a free and open debate on these issues, it is important to stress concern over certain policies that could impair Israel's interests."

J Street has taken several positions at odds with the Israeli government in recent months, including arguing against the immediate imposition of additional sanctions on Iran even as Israel pushes for greater action, and backing US President Barack Obama's call for a complete settlement freeze in the face of Israeli opposition.

The organization has also been criticized in certain Israeli and American Jewish circles for attacking other Jewish groups in ways that some feel breed division.

At the same time, J Street has stressed that it is supportive of Israel and believes its positions will best help ensure the Jewish state's survival.

"It's not a surprise that we disagree with certain Israeli government policies," J Street spokeswoman Amy Spitalnick said. "Our bottom line is that we always support the State of Israel and its future as a democracy."

"That's why J Street exists - to have this open debate" on differing points of view, she explained, adding that the organization still hopes Oren will attend the conference to further that discussion.

According to Spitalnick, some 1,000 Israel activists will attend the multi-day event. In addition, 160 members of Congress have signed onto the host committee for the conference gala.

With its annual conference, political action committee endorsing Congressional candidates, new campus presence and opening of field offices, J Street is looking to become a force to be reckoned with on the American Jewish scene.

While some have welcomed its creation, the group has also received pushback from quarters of the American Jewish community that charge its positions call into question the group's pro-Israel credentials and lend credence to Israel's detractors.


One such critic, former Commentary magazine editor Gabriel Schoenfeld, lambasted J Street on Thursday for not repudiating the backing of Stephen Walt, whose book The Israel Lobby and Foreign Policy Schoenfeld described as using anti-Semitic tropes.


"For a Jewish organization to make common cause with anti-Semitic voices in order to tear down others to establish its place at the table is nothing less than shameful," Schoenfeld said, pointing to a link on the J Street Web site to one of Walt's articles mentioning J Street, on the group's news citations page. He also referred to Walt's recent praise for J Street in a Washington Post story.


Schoenfeld was speaking on a panel on divisions within American Jewry organized by the Hudson Institute. Ben-Ami had been schedule to appear with him but canceled due to illness.


In response, Spitalnick said, "The only thing shameful here is an offensive and scurrilous attempt to turn blatant lies into stated facts. It is only through conversations rooted in actual fact and integrity - rather than lies and smears - that we'll move forward in our goal of securing Israel's future as a Jewish, democratic homeland."


She said Ben-Ami has frequently spoken about his disagreements with Walt's analysis in his book, which he co-wrote with John Mearsheimer.


"There are plenty of people who talk about J Street that we don't agree with. Just because they mention us in an article doesn't mean that we therefore endorse their analysis," Spitalnick said. "We don't come out with a statement on every person who's spoken about us."

//////////////////////////////////////////////////

http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/2009/08/exposing-j-street-fraud-why-is-pro.html

/////////////////////////////////////////////////
Monday, August 24, 2009
Exposing The J Street Fraud: Why is a "pro-Israel" Lobby Closely Cooperating with an Iranian Regime Front Group?
By Barry Rubin

Lenny Ben David has written a wonderful article on the J Street fraud, the anti-Israel lobby with the thinnest guise of being a pro-Israel lobby, extensively promoted by the media and even the White House.

He provides a lot of specific examples of why this group is being seen as hostile to the country it pretends to support. Research is only beginning into this nefarious organization and already the results are shocking.

But let me add some points. After listing support for J Street from anti-Israel individuals, including donations by them, Lenny writes:

“Why should a National Iranian American Council board member give at least $10,000 to J Street PAC? Perhaps it is because of the very close relationship between the two organizations. In June the directors of both organizations coauthored an article in the Huffington Post, `How diplomacy with Iran can Work,' arguing against imposing new tough sanctions on Iran.

“The two organizations have worked in lockstep over the last year to torpedo congressional action against Iran. Why would a supposedly pro-Israel, pro-peace organization work so hard to block legislation that would undermine the Iranian ayatollah regime? Ostensibly, any step to hinder Iran's nuclear development and aid to Hamas and Hizballah would be a step toward regional peace. Deterring Iran through sanctions would lessen the need for military action against Iran. This, as well as championing Hamas's cause, just doesn't make sense.”

But the situation is even worse than Lenny points out. The National Iranian American Council is widely viewed—and some researchers have presented evidence—as the unofficial lobby in America for the Iranian regime.

In other words, J Street is getting money and working with the group which supports President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the world's most powerful antisemite who seeks to wipe Israel off the map.

Does that suggest something rather phony about its aims and claims? Is this really a group that the Obama administration wants to be promoting, because to do so sends a very negative signal both to Israel and to American Jews.

But let me raise two other questions. The organization’s leader is fond of saying that his group has supported Israel in the past. Yet I have never seen a single statement made or position taken which has backed the state of Israel on any issue or made any criticism of Hamas, Hizballah, Iran, Syria, or the Palestinian Authority.

What is astonishing is that the media has not pressed for such proof or researched the organization’s actual record.

A second issue is: precisely who is connected with the organization in Israel. AIPAC is the lobby for Israel and, despite baseless criticisms; it has always supported the positions of the government in power, left or right.

The Israel Policy Forum was historically linked with the Labour party, though this connection has seemed to have weakened in recent years as that group has moved ever leftward. Peace Now is another legitimate organization, though one can certainly disagree with its positions which, at best, are badly outdated by events.

But who are J Street’s supporters in Israel? Again, no indication is given and one is suspicious that there are no credible public figures who would take such a stance.

At least it does say something about the strong, popular American support for Israel that an anti-Israel lobby can only be organized effectively in Washington if it pretends to be the opposite.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books. To see or subscribe to his blog.