The J-Street camouflage

When I originally posted about J-Street’s invitation to Israeli Ambassador, Michael Oren, I was against his speaking at the J-Street conference, but was open to the idea of Oren giving a talk explaining why J-Street despite its loud protests otherwise, is actually anti-Israel. It is a view that Shmuel Rosner advocated.

However, last night I saw that J-Street will be hosting a bloggers panel. This panel will be attended by the likes of Helena Cobban, Richard Silverstein, Phil Weiss, and Max Blumenthal, among others. Silverstein claims that J-Street is only providing them a platform but not endorsing their views. Really, a platform is more than enough. These people are by no means pro-Israel – they are unapologetically anti-Israel – the false label that J-Street insists on attaching to itself.

In fact Helena Cobban has just been named the executive director of the Council for the National Interest (CNI). CNI is one of those organizations run by former Middle East diplomats (in this case Eugene Bird) with strong ties to Saudi Arabia. So while they agitate against the so-called “Israel Lobby” they are part of what Steven Emerson once referred to the American House of Saud. Cobban believes that Hamas is a legitimate organization – she goes beyond saying Israel must negotiate with Hamas – and therefore can accurately be called a terror supporter.

I don’t care if J-Street is claiming not to endorse the views of the bloggers, if it’s giving them a platform, it is implicitly expressing its approval of their views.

What J-Street wants from Oren is not a speech, but recognition. It is recognition it has been unable to attain on its own. As politicians are learning of J-Street’s true views and allies, they are abandoning J-Street.

If Ambassador Oren appears at the J-Street conference, Jeremy Ben Ami and his acolytes (regardless of the content of Oren’s speech) will hype that they’ve made the big time by being recognized by Israel’s “right wing” government. J-Street, quite out of the mainstream of (even liberal) Jewish opinion hasn’t been able to convince a sizable portion of the pro-Israel community of its good intentions towards Israel. It wanted a shortcut to respectability.

This isn’t “inside Jewish baseball” or interfering in an internal American (or American-Jewish) matter. I

More and more J-Street looks like it was founded in order to promote the views of CNI and related organizations, which are openly hostile to Israel. J-Street figured that having Jews espousing such views, would make them more acceptable. Practically, there’s no reason for Israel’s ambassador to strengthen a group devoted to opposing Israel’s government.

I have to agree with Carl, Ambassador Oren should not go. Not even to rebuke J-Street.

UPDATE: Thanks to Rahel for catching the spelling mistake in the title.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad

About Soccerdad

I'm a government bureaucrat with delusions of literacy.
This entry was posted in Israel. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to The J-Street camouflage

  1. Alex Bensky says:

    J Street has a habit of giving platforms and publicity to noxious, viciously anti-Israel and anti-Semitic people, and then claiming they’re not endorsing, just offering ideas and debate, etc.

    A few months ago they supported a Washington, DC, production of Caryl Churchill’s odious and libelous playlet, “Seven Jewish Children.” When there was protest because among other things the work is as close to a blood libel as makes no never-mind, J Street said they were just trying to expand the conversation.

    Apparently J Street didn’t believe there was enough conversation on the Arab-Israel conflict as it is, and that such a conversation, based on the play, should include discussing whether Israelis do in fact use the Holocaust as a means of justifying their wanton slaughter of Palestinian children.

    The ironic thing about Ms. Churchill’s work, of course, is that in delineating a society that feeds on hate and justifies to itself the most savage and heinous acts, “Seven Palestinian Children” would actually have portrayed some truth.

    In the fall of last year there was going to be an anti-Iranian rally at the UN. Hillary Clinton was to speak. To make it bipartisan the organizers then invited Sarah Palin. At that point Hillary reneged and J Street was then a leader in the movement to cancel the demonstration altogether rather than blaming Hillary or suggesting the Democrats send someone else.

    In other words, it was more important to deny Sarah Palin a national platform than to demonstrate bipartisan abhorrence for Iran’s genocidal rantings.

    The true religion, the real motivation,of J Street and its ilk is progressivism, leftist ideology. They are pro-Israel only to the extent that Israel doesn’t cause them any embarrassment among their friends on the left. In other words, they support an imaginary Israel, as it were a Platonic ideal of Israel, rather than the Israel that actually exists.

    This renders them “pro-Israel” only for a given value of “pro-Israel.” They claim that the majority of American Jews support their views, although their polling methods are questionable. However, at least according to one poll, within the margin of error it is possible to say that no Israelis support their views.

    On the other hand, these are people who are comfortable telling average Americans what’s good for them, whether the average American thinks so or likes it, and there’s no reason why they don’t feel OK with telling the vast majority of Israelis that they aren’t capable of recognizing their own interests.

Comments are closed.