While I would encourage you to view it or read it in its entirety, here are some of the highlights:

Daniel Pipes, an academic known for his hard-line Middle East views, had it right when he said recently “that anyone concerned about the security and welfare of Israel is in the pro-Israel camp.”…

Attempting to delegitimize Israel, on too many college campuses and throughout much of Europe, critics try to portray Israel as though it is some apartheid-like state. It is an absurd assertion. Anyone who knows what apartheid was, and who knows Israel today, is well aware of that.

Critics cite assessments like the Goldstone Report to justify such contentions. When it was first issued I publicly challenged its fatal flaws. The Goldstone Report states that Israeli armed forces “carried out direct intentional strikes against civilians,” a contention, as you know, that Goldstone has now retracted. But the damage has been done, and we’re going to spend years trying to undo that damage. When Rabbi Eric Yoffie excoriated Richard Goldstone and his biased report at the first J Street Conference, some booed him. Rabbi Yoffie was unfazed and went on to say “Anyone who supports a peaceful two-state solution must consider the role of Hamas in destroying such a prospect-and yet, quite astonishingly, nothing of this is discussed in the Goldstone Report.” I applaud Rabbi Yoffie’s independent and clear voice in this and other crucial issues….

And just weeks ago David Saperstein had my full support when he gave his constructively critical keynote address to the second J Street Conference. I agree wholeheartedly with Rabbi Saperstein’s decision to speak at the conference, to assert again how vital movement towards a peace process is to Israel’s security and America’s interests, to offer thoughtful criticism of J Street’s policy making, but also to offer a strong critique of J Street’s stand opposing the recent US veto of the UN resolution condemning Israeli settlements.

Like my colleagues Eric and David, I am unafraid to challenge misguided views regardless of the source….

I also believe that Israel’s security and well-being require that Israel must become a more tolerant and pluralistic society. I have spent over 20 years working to strengthen the Israel envisioned in Israel’s Declaration of Independence:

“THE STATE OF ISRAEL will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture…”

This week our congregation, like many of yours, will hold many events to celebrate Yom Ha’atzmaut. On Erev Shabbat, as we have for the past years, we will host five IDF officers who will share their diverse backgrounds and service in defense of Israel. Last year, our teens were privileged to host 25 elite IDF commanders. Following Operation Cast Lead, it is critically important for these remarkable young soldiers to know that we in America are with them. I know first hand as a senior rabbinic fellow of the Shalom Hartman Institute the kind of ethics training these officers receive because they are taught by many of the same scholars with whom I study.

As I stand with the IDF soldiers this Friday night, I will let them know that my congregation stands in solidarity with them. We admire their courage; we support their abiding efforts to make Israel secure. I am confident that the IDF always aspires to conduct itself according to the highest ethical standards. There will always be lapses and errors in judgment especially in the new unprecedented ways of war confronting Israel, but I believe no other fighting force has more ethical rigor than the Israel Defense Forces….

Despite the expanding sanctions and the undermining of Iran’s technical abilities that U.S. and Israeli joint efforts have achieved, Iran remains determined to move its nuclear weapons program along as expeditiously as possible endangering Israel’s literal existence and U.S. interests throughout the region.

In the UN and around the world, Israel’s enemies have launched an offensive of economic attacks aimed at weakening and delegitimizing Israel that is taking hold in anti-Israel strongholds on and off campuses in Europe and North America. These Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions tactics are destructive and we must do everything in our power to combat these attacks through education, legislative advocacy and good, old-fashioned community organizing. The RAC and ARZA have played a key role in these efforts. But all of us, we’ve got to do our part. I know we can count on each other to get it done….

A very important part of my leadership as the URJ president will be to help all of our congregations become ohavei Tzion-lovers of Israel….

I will never back down from my commitment to a secure Israel.

I will never stop fighting for an Israel that grants all of its citizens, Arabs and Jews, fundamental human rights.

I will never stop working for an Israel that grants equal rights to Jews no matter their spiritual practice or belief.

I will never stop advocating for the US to remain Israel’s staunch ally.

I will not back away from my commitment to a two-state solution living side-by-side in peace and security.

As the leader of the largest Movement in Jewish life, I intend to work every single day to build up the ranks of those who share my Zionist passion. And I call upon everyone in the pro-Israel community to join me in this critical work.

When Israel gets into our hearts, then I know that we will never stop fighting for an Israel that is secure, religiously free, guided by justice and dwelling in peace.

Our hope is not lost-
The hope of two thousand years:
To be a free people in our land,
The land of Zion and Jerusalem.

Ken yehi ratzon.

 

 

Israel helps Japan: Israel is sending tons of humanitarian aid, as well as doctors and equipment to help the Japanese survivors of the tsunami and quake. They’ll be setting up a field hospital like they did in Haiti. And why are they doing it? Not to make the Japanese like them. They’re doing it because the Torah commands us to do so.

Legends in their own minds: Psst—NYTimes—it doesn’t matter how many times you say it is, J Street is not significant in the Jewish community. They have no significant membership, no support in Congress, and no support among the overwhelming majority of American Jews. And NYTimes staff: Wishing will not make it so. I learned that a long time ago.

Hard times in Syria: Another domino is falling. Of course, we have no idea what’s going to happen if the people of the Middle East actually do topple all their autocracies, dictatorships, and kleptocracies. But at least it’s awesome to hear the Syrian people tell Assad that they don’t want to be Iran’s tools. But don’t get cocky on this: Hezbollah has probably already sent thousands of their own to beat protesting Syrians, the way they did in Iran. Assad is no Ghaddaffy, and Syria isn’t Libya. I think it will be very, very blood there.

Mr. President — You have inspired me with your commitment to a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

I urge you to take the next step toward realizing that goal by focusing on a “Borders and Security First” approach to ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that moves beyond just talk towards tangible progress in defining and implementing a two-state solution.

My good friend, Rabbi Micky Boyden from Hod Hasharon, Israel, gave an excellent response to the petition on the We Are For Israel website here. However, he did not comment on J Street’s full policy position upon which this petition is based. This plea to the President is based upon J Street’s misguided policy, found here, in which J Street calls for the United States to impose a solution on borders and security!!! The J Street policy document argues that the two sides must meet their “internationally recognized obligations,” a term by which they seem to mean all prior negotiations and potentially include UN resolutions (they do not explicitly exclude them for certain):

However, the time has come for the United States to put forward a proposal to establish a border and security arrangements.  With a border established, there will be no further need to negotiate over settlement construction. Both Israel and the Palestinians will be able to build where they please within their borders and not beyond.

This is both naive and harmful. It is irresponsible for those who desire peace to go in this direction. In essence, the US would have to

1. Insist on the 1967 lines with some minor territorial changes,
2. Create an international zone in Jerusalem that only the US could possibly police for the indefinite future and could not possibly wish to do so,
3. Ratify Israeli control over territory that the UN doesn’t recognize and the Arab world would vehemently, if not violently, oppose, or
4. Do all three of the the above.

J Street’s position here would result in the complete collapse of the peace process and potentially the Palestinian Authority itself. Functionally, J Street calling for an end to Oslo. Some of us might not like Oslo. Some among us may say that bringing the PLO back was a bad idea. However, I cannot imagine that J Street itself would wish to end Oslo and collapse the Palestinian Authority. They keep arguing how wonderful Abbas is? See here. Yet J Street’s policy would bring about just that end:

• The end of the Oslo process,
• Potentially the collapse of the Palestinian Authority,
• A new intifada, this time against the United States as well as Israel (the US would have sided with Israel in granting Israel more than the 1967 border as such and in not granting all of pre-1967 Jerusalem to the Palestinians), and
• No gains on the peace front either between Israel and the Palestinians, Israel and the Arab world, or the US and the Arab world. Things might even significantly worsen because the United States would take a position opposed by the Arab world and even by the broader Muslim world.

What would the Palestinians and broader Arab world say if the United States proposed to allow Israel to control the Old City? What would the Arab world say if the United States proposed to control the Old City itself? Can you imagine the conflicts in law that would occur between US law, international law, Sharia and the Halakhah over the holy sites? Are you kidding me??? The last foreign power that tried to govern these sites, Britain during the Mandatory Period, was attacked by both Jews and Arabs. I cannot imagine that this solution would prove to be any different. If Amir was willing to kill Rabin, how many crazies would carry out attacks against US soldiers? How many Hamas attacks, especially now that Hamas is allied with Iran, would take place? How many more Muslim radicals would target Americans around the world? For the US to grant Israel control over the Old City or to claim control over the Old City itself would be an utter nightmare and would destroy US-Israel relations as well as significantly harm US-Arab and US-Muslim relations. To call this a horrible policy would not begin to scratch the surface.

I assume to this point that the US would not simply grant the Palestinians control over the Old City, but let us assume that such an idea were to be proposed by the US. A US proposal that removed access to the Jewish holy sites in the Old City or in any way restricted them would likely end discussions between the US and Israel until a President more favorable to Israeli control of those sites took office. Should the US try to force through a solution in the UN that is opposed by Israel, it would destroy the US-Israel relationship and would do so with limited or no political gain. Would Saudi Arabia be a closer ally of America if America went that route? No. Would Egypt? No. Jordan? No. So why even consider it?

J Street makes sure to exclude the Old City from these initial border discussions probably because of the very problems discussed above, but if one must resort to settling the far easier disagreement through US intervention, surely the Old City and the holiest sites must be addressed that way as well, namely through an imposed solution.

Should the Obama Administration go this route, it will not only fail to bring peace but will wreak havoc in the region. The US would be far better off letting go of the peace process entirely, totally ignoring it, rather than going this route. J Street’s policy here is terrible in the extreme.

Last year, I noted a Washington Post article, New Liberal Jewish Lobby Quickly Makes Its Mark that celebrated J-Street’s first birthday:

When a group of Jewish liberals formed a lobbying and fundraising group called J Street a year ago, they had modest hopes of raising $50,000 for a handful of congressional candidates.

Instead, the group’s political arm ended up funneling nearly $600,000 to several dozen Democrats and a handful of Republicans in 2008, making it Washington’s leading pro-Israel PAC, according to Federal Election Commission expenditure records. Organizers say 33 of the group’s 41 favored House and Senate candidates won their races.

The article’s writer, Daniel Eggen, dutifully promoted Jeremy Ben Ami’s boasts, while giving relatively little attention to J-Street’s critics. Though, Eggen did observe:

But the group’s aggressive tactics have prompted criticism from many established Jewish advocacy groups, which say the project appears calibrated to grab attention and often goes too far in its critiques of Israeli policy. Critics also say J Street has drawn most of its financial contributions from a relatively narrow group of supporters, raising questions about the breadth of its appeal.

Of course no specifics are given. But the “questions about the breadth of [J-Street's] appeal” should have been investigated. The questions were investigated recently but not by the Washington Post, rather by Eli Lake of the Washington Times:

Tax forms obtained by The Washington Times reveal that Mr. Soros and his two children, Jonathan and Andrea Soros, contributed a total $245,000 to J Street from one Manhattan address in New York during the fiscal year from July 1, 2008 to June 30, 2009.

The contributions represent a third of the group’s revenue from U.S. sources during the period. Nearly half of J Street’s revenue during the timeframe — a total of $811,697 — however, came from a single donor in Happy Valley, Hong Kong, named Consolacion Esdicul.

So in the year ending June 30, 2009 – covering about 9 months leading up to the Washington Post article – J-Street raised over $1 million from the Soros family and Consolacion Esdicul.

Note the claim of “modest hopes” was false. Ben Ami knew J-Street had plenty of cash coming his way from Soros and friends. Eggen wasn’t enterprising enough to investigate the sources of J-Street’s funding, which would have shown J-Street’s critics to be correct.

Jeremy Ben Ami is a con man relying on the credulity of a media ever anxious to show that being pro-Israel is something to be ashamed of. In fact Jeremy Ben Ami represents a fringe position, who only came to prominence due to his political connections and the wealth others spread around.

Crossposted on Yourish.

Lying by omission.

The irony of the Emergency Committee’s attacks is that the changes that Members of Congress called for recently become the official policy of the Israeli Government.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu altered Israel’s Gaza blockade policy recently to allow more humanitarian goods into Gaza, stating that the change in policy “eliminates Hamas’ main propaganda claim and allows us and our international allies to face our real concerns in the realm of security.”

So the truth begs the question — shouldn’t the Emergency Committee be running their attack ads against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu?

What’s missing from the above? Any context about the Gaza flotilla attack, the world outrage that immediately followed it, and the threatened [even more] isolation of Israel. The Gaza blockade was lifted under pressure, not because Bibi thought it was about time to lift the blockade.

And of course, the letter had it exactly wrong:

Easing the blockade on Gaza will not only improve the conditions on the ground for Gaza’s civilian population, but will also undermine the tunnel economy which has strengthened Hamas.

The tunnel economy is going gangbusters, still.

Of course, the really good news is that nobody other than the New York Times and its readers really gives a damn about J Street. But Bill Kristol is obviously hitting his target if J Street is singling him out for smearing. Job well done, Bill.

Rabbis for Israel

Where Our Advocacy Differs

Singling Out Israel for Criticism – We believe that it is illegitimate to single out Israel for blame and censure in respect of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Even in the context of “blaming both sides,” offering general criticism of the Palestinians while specifically condemning Israeli policies and actions amounts to a double standard that obscures history in a morally questionable manner.

Seeking Unilateral Concessions from Israel – We believe that pressing Israel alone to make concessions is not only unjustified but frequently motivated by political interests, naivety, ignorance, misinformation or even anti-Semitism. Any concessions should be made in the context of the peace process and should be reciprocal in nature.

Advocating Boycotts, Divestment or Sanctions against Israel – We believe that actions designed to weaken Israel’s economy and harm her society should be viewed as being anti-Israel and must be opposed by Israel advocates. Those favoring these tactics are functionally negotiating for the Palestinian side and diminishing the likelihood that the Palestinians will enter into peace negotiations themselves.

Seeking Action by the United States to Pressure Israel to Yield to Palestinian Demands – We believe that America should support Israel in its efforts to negotiate a secure and lasting peace with the Palestinians by working with Israel and the Palestinians to reach that goal. America should not work against Israel on behalf of the Palestinians by pressuring Israel to accept Palestinian demands while receiving nothing in return. The mere appearance of one-sided pressure on Israel fosters Palestinian intransigence and encourages their refusal to come to the negotiating table. This tactic is neither pro-Israel, nor pro-peace.

Obscuring Palestinian Obligations and Commitments – We believe that heightening awareness of Palestinian obligations and responsibilities is a pre-requisite for advancing the peace process.  We believe this to be an essential part of Israel advocacy. These commitments include actively combating the use of violence against Israel, ending the glorification of those who have committed acts of violence, and ceasing the incitement of hatred against Israel and against Jews, especially in school curricula and in state sponsored media. Peace should be promoted.

Criticizing Israel When Israel Acts to Ensure the Safety of Her Citizens – We believe that Israel has an absolute right to self-defense. The only way to reduce significantly the need for heightened defenses – including the naval blockade of Gaza and the West Bank security barrier – is through the peace process. When difficult choices must be made between the safety of Israel’s citizens and the needs or convenience of Palestinians, the right to self-defense must come first.

Turning Support for Israel into a Partisan Issue – We believe that our advocacy should not be motivated or influenced by political party affiliation. The best course for Israeli advocacy is a non-partisan approach that welcomes support for Israel from all and eschews it from none.

Demeaning or Vilifying Israel’s Elected Leaders – We believe that Israel’s democratically elected leaders, no matter what their political leanings, should be treated with respect and offered support in the pursuit of the goals of security, prosperity, and peace.

Careless Words Exploited by Israel’s Detractors and Enemies – We believe that we must consider how others might use, distort or manipulate our words in reference to Israel. We have seen and heard the words of Jewish leaders and organizations, often offered out of concern for Israel, utilized by those who seek to harm her. This is especially so in the case of those promoting the use of divestment schemes.

That said, the Obama administration seems to have taken a different track lately, one less conducive to this Palestinian goal and at a distance from J Street’s lobbying position. Others have noted this as well: see here and here for example. Yet, one cannot infer too much from the reports of the recent meeting between Netanyahu and Obama because they could be motivated by a desire by both men to hide problems that are occurring behind closed doors. On the other hand, the change in public is important in and of itself.

What is clear from this meeting is that the administration’s position of publicly pressuring Israel to make concessions, as if primarily their lack is preventing the advancement of peace, is no longer American policy. In fact, the Obama administration seems to have abandoned the entire tactic of pressuring Israel in the hope of eliciting movement from the Palestinians and Arab League toward concessions on either the peace process or on Iran sanctions. If anything, the Obama administration’s aim seems to be to promote direct talks which the Palestinians do not desire and unilateral actions against Iran which Israel has sought.

While I have been critical of the Obama administration at times, just as I was critical of the Bush administration at times, it seems to be the case that while differing over some important issues, for certain, the relationship between America and Israel remains very strong and the administration is actively supporting Israel both in the peace process and in regard to Iran. Additionally, where once J Street seemed to have significant influence on the policies of this administration, it no longer appears to have much. This J Post article is essentially a systematic point by point dismantling of J Street’s positions put forth by the Obama administration. The fact that the administration is now not pressuring Israel and seems to be returning to the previous “stand alongside Israel” position of Clinton and Bush is, if it lasts, evidence of a dramatically weakened influence of J Street on the administration and a very AIPAC-like stance. While this could be waffling before the election, one can’t waffle that far many times without casting off supporters in both directions, so I do not expect the administration to suddenly embrace J Street’s positions again in 2011. This is very bad news for J Street.

My guess as to what brought about this change is that the Obama administration has come to see J Street’s advice as having resulted in increasing the distance from success on the peace front and in diminished support for the administration from essential Democratic voters, American Jews, at home. The combination of both of these things is devastating for J Street’s advocacy, but also bodes ill for progressive Jewish policy influence in general going forward. This will be the lasting legacy of J Street, namely weakening the progressive Jewish left, potentially in a massive way and not just on foreign policy.

From this ridiculously hypocritical beginning, J Street’s ad continues with images of violence: first an explosion at an Israeli gas station, then a video of Israeli troops landing on the Mavi Marmara (during the flotilla incident), followed by a scene of masked Palestinian gunmen and of stone throwing. Then J Street states that “America’s chorus of No ignores reality.” J Street quotes Sarah Palin as saying that “The Jewish settlements should be allowed to expand.”

J Street’s commercial acts as if J Street’s primary opponents are Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, and Joe Lieberman. Suddenly, this is not about Israel, but about American politics. Surely there are major Jewish figures both in America and in Israel who could have been quoted as saying something along the lines of “Israeli cities should be allowed to grow,” which is what Palin meant in context. In fact Palin said in 2008 that “A two state solution is the only solution” and Joe Lieberman, pictured next to her in this J Street hypocrisy, said in his official policy:

Advancing the Middle East Peace Process. Senator Lieberman believes that the United States should continue to take an active role in negotiating a peaceful resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Specifically, he maintains that a two-state solution – in which Israel lives side by side in peace with a democratic Palestinian state – ultimately provides the only appropriate framework for resolving this longstanding challenge.

J Street is attacking them as if they opposed peace, not simply as if they opposed J Street’s path to it. Rush Limbaugh is quoted out of any context at all as saying, “Who is imposing what on whom?” Which is interesting considering that it seems that J Street’s answer to that question is that the US should be imposing J Street’s solution on Israel. We have no idea what Limbaugh himself meant or even about what issue he was speaking. Limbaugh is simply being used as representative of someone whom J Street’s supporters will not like. His words are irrelevant, but his presence in the ad is an act of fear mongering by J Street saying in essence, “If you don’t vote for Obama, you’re going to get this guy instead.”

Then J Street quotes Mike Pence as saying, “There is no humanitarian crisis in Gaza.” This is done because J Street believes it a laughable statement, but it is a serious one because the impact of calling something a “humanitarian crisis” is profound and calling the situation in Gaza a humanitarian crisis is profoundly negative propaganda against Israel. This is not to say that things are wonderful in Gaza. They are not and the average person faces hardship. However a humanitarian CRISIS it is not. Leaders of the Israeli government including Ehud Barak and Danny Ayalon have made this case rather convincingly and the opening of a brand spanking new Gaza Mall full of products for sale must make one question both the unavailability of products and construction materials, much less the absence of wealth and prosperity, in Gaza. Malls are closing in cities around the United States because of the recession, but a new mall opened this week in Gaza. That speaks to prosperity, not to humanitarian crisis.

For a moment, let us think of what a humanitarian crisis is. Haiti after the earthquake was a humanitarian crisis. The Tsunami in Southeast Asia was a humanitarian crisis. Sudan is amid a humanitarian crisis. What do these have in common? Thousands upon thousands of people dying or potentially dying from starvation and disease. How many die from starvation and disease in Gaza? From starvation, virtually none, if not none. In 2007, the last time figures were calculated, the life expectancy of someone born in Palestinian Territories was 73.46 years placing the Palestinian territories as a whole, 77^th on the list of nations, better than Hungary, China, Saudi Arabia, Jamaica, Jordan, Brazil, Lebanon, Turkey, the Philippines and well 109 other nations!!! While Gaza’s specific figures are likely less favorable than for the West Bank, there are not tens of thousands in danger of dying of starvation or disease.

Finally comes the most important line in the ad, “Do they speak for you?” That is the real question. It doesn’t matter what was said. The crux of J Street’s ad is whether or not you feel represented by Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh. It is an anti-Republican fear mongering ad that has little if anything to do with Israel. How do I know this? Because at its end President Obama is quoted as saying, “Two states living side-by-side in security,” something that Palin herself would say is important and has many times. J Street pretends that she and the others included in the ad seek the opposite, that this statement by the President distinguishes him from Palin and the others, as well as distinguishing J Street from its opponents. It does not. This is an extraordinarily disingenuous ad.

President Obama’s understanding of the link between resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and America’s own national security interests finds broad support among American Jews.

There’s a reason he states the above, and it’s not an honest one. See below.

American Jews are not a monolithic community represented by one voice.

Boilerplate. Since its inception, J Street would like you to believe that there is huge disagreement in the Jewish community about Israel. While the saying that you have two Jews and three opinions is correct, there is no such disagreement going on—except in the minds of the ultra-liberal Jews like the ones who advise President Obama that there are huge gaps in agreement in the Jewish community. It’s a self-referential made-up fact.

In fact, polling has consistently shown that a strong majority of American Jews understands the urgent need to achieve a two-state solution and supports this administration’s bold pursuit of that goal.

Yes, we do, and we have. This is nothing new. But Ben-Ami’s mendacity uses this fact to make it seem like AIPAC and other Jewish organizations do not support the two-state solution. This is a deliberate attempt to portray AIPAC and non-J Street organizations as against the two-state solution, which is a flat-out lie.

An analysis of the Obama administration’s calculus on Middle East policy should reflect that many in the Jewish community recognize that resolving the conflict is not only necessary to secure Israel’s future, but also critical to regional stability and American strategic interests.

It should, shoud it? Well, now we get to the meat of the matter: The J Street poll on which Ben-Ami is basing the statements in his letter. The thing is, J Street uses skewed questions to jigger the polls the way they want. Like this one:

Q.Below are some pairs of statements. After reading each pair, please mark whether the FIRST statement or the SECOND statement comes closer to your own view, even if neither is exactly right.

50% Middle East peace is a core American interest, and the United States should use assertive diplomacy to end the Palestinian- Israeli conflict.
OR
34% Only the parties themselves can make peace, and the United States should let the Palestinians and Israelis work out the conflict on their own.

Note that the above is not properly an either-or question. The first part states “Middle East peace is a core American interest.” The second part excludes that statement. But using the results of this skewed poll question, J Street can tout this poll as evidence that 50% of American Jews think that peace between the Israelis and Palestinians is a “core American interest”—which is exactly what Ben-Ami does in his letter to the Times.

The Times identifies Ben-Ami as the director of J Street. It does not, however, identify him as the liar who pretends to speak for the majority of Jews. He certainly doesn’t speak for me. But it definitely explains why the Obama administration thinks it can get away with throwing Israel under the bus.