Neocons Target Pro-Peace Lobby

I would like to see an article written by J Street and an artitcle written by AIPAC comparing and contrasting their philosophies. No name calling or hyperbole from either side. No use of statistics or opinion polls. Just a point by point comparision of their positions. That would be refreshing.

It's really heartwarming that J-Street favors a "diplomatic" approach to  Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the al-Aksa Martyrs Brigade (of Fatah), Hezbollah, and other belligerent terrorist organizations bent on destroying the world's only Jewish state.  Love them or hate them, the much maligned Neo-Cons have absolutely nothing to do with the lack of peace between Israel and its neighbors.  Just ask Bill Clinton about Yasir Arafat's flouting of Oslo, George W. about the "moderate" Mahmoud Abbas' failure to accept a Palestinian state with a capital in Jerusalem, or Obama about trying to get Abbas to enter peace negotiations with a Jewish state he won't recognize, and you'll see what I mean.   

The reason there's no peace and no Palestinian state is because there are no Palestinian politicians who are willing to risk their credibility on the Arab street for long enough to have productive negotiations with Israel.  If J-Street was aware of the current reality in the Middle East, it would know that so called moderate Arab leaders negotiate with Israel at their own political, and in some cases, physical peril: Abbas or Sari Nusseibeh anyone?  

We Israel supporters who have the audacity to suggest that there's probably not a whole to be gained from negotiating with people who would rather work for Israel's destruction than the formation of a Palestinian state, are not anti-peace, as J-Street would have it.  Rather, we define peace as a contiguous Palestinian state next to an Israel where civilians DO NOT have to fear rocket attacks and suicide bombers.  

J-Street may truly believe that it is working for peace.  In reality, its policies embolden enemies that do not view peace as an option.     

I heartily agree with Asher, and would like to quote his last comment to underscore his understanding of a complex region which seems to defy the good hearted, yet I think misguided efforts of J Street:

 "J-Street may truly believe that it is working for peace.  In reality, its policies embolden enemies that do not view peace as an option."

Asher makes a critical point. Not only is J Street an idealistic organization that draws to mind the quote "the road to hell is lined with good intentions," but I'm worried that it endangers Israel by giving anti-Israel fodder to her many, many political enemies. Thankfully, many in the US are coming to their senses and distancing themselves from J Street since they know just how perilous a situation Israel is in.

As a pro gay marriage, pro carbon tax, anti Wall Street liberal who voted for Obama, I deplore all societies that seek to oppress and malign their citizens. Which means that supporting a Palestinian state, or any other Arab nation outside of Iraq, is tantamount to making deals with dictators, so how can I support it? The Left's fascination with Arab nationalism is perverse and betrays all core liberal values. For some reason J Street seems to think that a Palestinian state will be a good thing, and that shrinking Israeli power will lead to peace. But, sadly, as we've seen in Gaza, it won't. It will just create another Somalia. 

Lastly, as a former student of Michael Oren who had the great pleasure to get to know him, I can vouch for the man's moral standing and liberal sensibilities. While he was appointed by Netanyahu to his current ambassadorship, he was a military advisor to Rabin over a decade ago, and is your typical liberal Democrat who advocates for progressive values. He is no right wing war-monger, rather, he is an intelligent, lauded intellectual who detects the unwitting falsehood in J Street's supposed support for Israel. Oren grasped long ago what J Street seems to be struggling with: supporting Israel means aligning yourself with the leadership's values of defense and security for Jews. 

It's time to influence young people to deny the hipster street cred of knee jerk "liberal" organizations that burnish their credentials by criticizing the Jewish State, and get the cash over to AIPAC.

What has come to frustrate me the most about J Street is that whoever it is that authors their communications simply cannot stay on message and spends far too much time slagging other Jewish and pro-Israel organizations.  They say that they are "Pro-Israel, Pro-Peace" in the first paragraph of nearly every email, but then use "Pro-Israel" further on down as an epithet to smear rival organizations; and considering that outside of certain fringe organization within the Jewish community, and certain apocalyptic Christians, nearly the entire "pro-Israel" community supports a two-state solution, it's really inappropriate.

If the wide collection of pro-Israel groups support the same end-goal, then I want to see more statements of and joint actions where they are in agreement.  The ADL works in coalition with other groups on common concerns-- and that is exactly why they continue to be influential. J Street needs to grow up and do that as well. 

Brit Tzedek v'Shalom is another "pro-Israel, pro-Peace" group, often acting in coalition with J Street, but I never see them taking pot-shots at other parts of the Jewish community, and they are unambiguous about the pro-Israel part of their mission (whether you agree with them or not, BTvS at least appears to be run by thoughtful, mature adults.)

I support and send my love to Dan, who's a fierce intellectual and a talented photographer, but I respectfully have to disagree with his take on Middle East. Arab governments -- except Iraq -- suck balls. The people have no freedom, the government-controlled media incents anti-Semitic violence. and women, gays, children, ethnic and religious minorities, and pretty much everyone else not in power, have shitty lives. If it weren't for oil, the Arab world would produce nothing but misery, illiteracy and war. Spend ten minutes in Egypt or Jordan and you'll see what I mean. Your average Arab person deserves a much better fate, but, unfortunately, Liberal Jewish Americans seem uninterested in helping the Arab world. Probably because they're too busy taking down the Zionists who seek only to have secure borders in our ancestral homeland. Which, by the way, includes Hebron, Jericho and other areas in the "West Bank."

Why are the typical Liberals so out of touch? My guess is Israeli sovereignty makes diaspora Jews insecure. Add to this the "fighting the last war" syndrome whereby Liberals use the rubric of the Civil Rights Movement and apply it incorrectly to Israel and the Arab war mongers, and you get a pretty dismal intellectual grasp of events over there. (Or here, as with the latest terror arrest in Boston by a Muslim radical.) 

The reality is that the head of J Street has made a name for himself by coalescing the 5th Column (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_column) within the Jewish community to organize their ignorance of Middle East real politik.

When you have enemies like Syria, Iran, and pretty much the entire Muslim world seeking to destroy you and Jews everywhere (like the community center bombing in Argentina by Iranian agents) you have to respond. Get huge weapons and kick ass. It's pretty simple. Too bad this basic logic eludes some of our most accomplished, and vocal, liberal thinkers.

Neocons! Neocons! Neocons!run for your lives!!!

 they are lurking among us, these nefarious neocons, subverting our 'progressive' ways, oh my!

"
Goldfarb himself has supported America's use of torture against
detainees, alleged that President Obama is secretly a Muslim who "pals
around with antisemites,"

I
don't buy the "secretly a Muslim" part but there is no doubt that
Barack Obama consorts openly with racists, anti-Semites, and racist and
anti-Semitic hate groups.

(1) Jeremiah Wright is openly
racist, he has published blood libels of the United States and Israel
(either on his own behalf or by others, in a publication under his
editorial control), and he recently used the phrase "them Jews."

(2)
Wright's Trinity United Church of Christ cheered and gave a standing
ovation to Michael Pfleger's "There were a whole lot of white people
crying." I would call this the behavior of a racist hate group; normal
people would remain uncomfortably silent, look the other way, or even
walk out of the room in disgust. Remember that these are the people
with whom the Obamas attended church for twenty years. They must
worship the Jesus who says to love your fellow human being only if his
skin color matches your own--sort of like the "Christian" Ku Klux Klan.

(3) Barack Obama attended a meeting of the National Action
Network where he posed with Al Sharpton and praised Al Sharpton. The
NAN is the same organization that, under Sharpton's supervision,
paraded around a Jewish-owned store (Freddy's Fashion Mart) in Harlem
while saying things like "greedy Jew b*****ds," "walk right on past
Freddy's, don't give the Jew a dime," "see that this cracker suffers,"
and "white interloper," the latter from Sharpton himself. I woud say
that the NAN's conduct makes it a racist and anti-Semitic hate group,
no better than the Ku Klux Klan that used to do similar things to
Black-owned stores in white neighborhoods.

(4) Barack Obama appeared at the anti-Semitic and anti-Catholic
hate group MoveOn.org. MoveOn.org's Action Forum, under MoveOn's
editorial control and with the full knowledge and approval of MoveOn's
leaders, welcomed the most vicious imaginable commentary about Jews.
This included a piece that suggested that Jews deserved the Holocaust
and that Hitler might have been right, as well as 9/11 denial (the
moral equivalent of Holocaust denial). MoveOn.org published a
derogatory picture of the Pope that could have come directly from the
pen of cartoonist Thomas Nast, and Eli Pariser published a vicious
insult to General David Petreaus. (Pariser says "Petraeus, Betray Us,"
I say, "Pariser," "Parasite." Call him "Eli Parasite.")

(5)
Barack Obama named the equivalent of a Holocaust denier as his "green
jobs czar." Van Jones signed a letter that questions what "really"
happened on 9/11, just as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad questions what "really"
took place in Germany between 1939 and 1945. [Twilight zone music]
Don't worry, Van, the truth is out there [/Twilight zone music]

I too will jump in and complain about the slogan: "pro-peace, pro-Israel lobby" as if a mantra.  Keep repeating it and someone will either fall asleep or become mesmerized.  J Street is first and foremost a pro-American group.  Secondly, it is pro-progressive ideology.  Third, it is pro-partition.  Then, maybe Israel figures in, usually as a bothersome entity that is disturbing world order. In his letter to Oren, Ben-Ami wrote quite fearfully, as if a member of the Dishonorable League of Trembling Israelites: "...we fear
that, on Israel's present path, we will see our shared dream of a
Jewish, democratic home in the state of Israel slip through our
fingers.  As Americans, we worry about the impact of Israeli policies on vital US interests in the Middle East and around the world.  Finally, as American Jews, we worry 
that the health and vitality of our community will be deeply affected
by what happens in the region, how the world perceives Israel and by
how our community here at home deals with increasingly complex
conversations around Israel".  That bit is so pitiful.

And as for the criticism, just answer factually and it'll go away.  And don;t threaten Lenny Ben-David     http://myrightword.blogspot.com/2009/10/lenny-ben-david-is-being-threate...

Yisrael Medad

www.myrightword.blogspot.com

The title of this piece of drivel gave away the entire argument. "Neocons Target Pro-Peace Lobby."  Who are these mysterious "neocons?"  Well, according to this article, it's the Israeli ambassador to the U.S. and journalist Michael Goldfarb.  Quite a conspiracy you've got there, Dan!  And what did this international cabal of two Yids with conservative leanings do?  They decided to "target" the "Pro-Peace Lobby."  This, apparently, means that they publicly disagreed with positions taken by J-Street.  My God, what next?  And (for me, at least) the cherry on top of this was where Dan refers to his fellow libs as the "Pro-Peace Lobby."  I guess that means that everyone who doesn't think that J-Street's policies are the way to go must be desparate to prevent peace at any cost!  Amazing!  I am a conservative, but I had always thought that my views reflected the best way to secure peace; silly me-- apparently, I'm just a member of the Anti-Peace Lobby.

Daniel, your argument is ad hominem tripe.  If you have a case to make, state it.  If not, then save the rhetoric for your next cell meeting.

As a Leftist it pains me to admit that my fellow liberals are hopelessly clueless about foreign affairs in general, and Israel in  particular, but Morganfrost is right. No pun intended. Psychiatrists -- and writers like Shakespeare -- teach you to look closely when someone constantly says a statement to seemingly exculpate their behavior that follows. Or in other words, "the lady doth protest too much."

What's "Pro-Peace" about creating a Palestinian terror state in the West Bank, inches away from Ben Gurion airport and most of the Jewish global population? Syria, Lebanon and Gaza have regularly attacked the border populations. It doesn't take a genius prognosticator to guess what will happen if the West Bank falls into the hands of the Arabs.

I find it amusing that J Street delegitimizes itself by having no "day after" policy. This is the same kind of thinking that created Hamastan in Gaza. At best I'd say J Street and their ilk are ignorant. At worst, I'd say they're manipulating the anti-Israel lobby to further their personal careers. Talk about ethics. Oy!

after the utter failure of Oslo, the 2 antifadas, the hundreds of Israelis killed in rocket attacks and suicide bombings, after the creation of Hamastan on land surrendered to the Arabs, how can these people say with a straight face that the road to peace is yielding more rewards for terror, for giving away territory in some Orwellian logic that the very people who have gotten more aggressive and more warlike and fundamentalist with every concession, will suddenly go Mahatma Gandhi and live in a hummus harmony with their jewish neighbors.

 this is called insanity. Much like the bulk of the left's geopolitical thinking when it comes to this issue.

Cartago delenda est!

I won't dignify Asher and Zachary's shopworn untruths with a detailed rejoinder, but I can't leave this bit without comment:

"Lastly, as a former student of Michael Oren who had the great pleasure to get to know him, I can vouch for the man's moral standing and liberal sensibilities. While he was appointed by Netanyahu to his current ambassadorship, he was a military advisor to Rabin over a decade ago, and is your typical liberal Democrat who advocates for progressive values. He is no right wing war-monger, rather, he is an intelligent, lauded intellectual who detects the unwitting falsehood in J Street's supposed support for Israel."

Quite an encomium. This Oren must be something special. Let's see if we can find more evidence of his Olympian intellect. Oh, here, how about this, from Oren's recent contribution to The New Republic:

 " ...(the Goldstone Report) portrays the Jews as the deliberate murderers of innocents–as Nazis. And a Nazi state not only lacks the need and right to defend itself; it must rather be destroyed." 

Wow. I didn't see any reference to Israel as a Nazi state in the report, but I confess to not having read the entire 500+ pages. I'll keep looking. And Goldstone implicitly calling for Israel's destruction? Very odd thing for a Zionist to do, but Oren says it's so. Must be.

And this:

"Recognizing the murder of six million Jews more than six decades ago is, in fact, vital for understanding the supreme dangers posed to six million Jews in Israel today by a nuclear Iran and by the Goldstone Report." 

Yow! The holocaust, Iranian a-bombs, and...Goldstone! The rotter!

Finally, in his latest screed, Power, Faith and Fantasy, Oren analyzes 18th century piracy as an instance of islamic jihad against the west (!), a view shared by precisely zero scholars of the era.  

Oren's foolishness and its endorsement by his acolytes need no comment. The poor fellow is clearly delaminating in public, allowing whatever lucidity he may once have possessed to opacify before our astonished eyes.   

Oh, and here's Zachary assuring us of his liberal bona fides:

"As a pro gay marriage, pro carbon tax, anti Wall Street liberal who voted for Obama..."

and

"As a Leftist..."

But also

"Get huge weapons and kick ass. It's pretty simple."

Hmmm...oh, wait, Zachary provides us with a way to understand this contradiction:

"Psychiatrists -- and writers like Shakespeare -- teach you to look closely when someone constantly says a statement to seemingly exculpate their behavior that follows."

Ahhh.....very clear now. Thank goodness for psychiatrists, who give us the tools to understand such fellows as Zachary.

I have long since stopped reading any of Ismail's posts, so let's skip ahead.

Jewcy, a website I love, is now a media partner of J Street, an organization that I think is unethical and anti-Israel. What do Israel-supporters suggest we do? Boycott Jewcy during the upcoming J Street conference? Leave the site altogether? I hate to dis on Jewcy because it's such a great site with amazing content and community, but J Street makes things personal with their hatred of a secure Israel.

Thoughts? 

"I have long since stopped reading any of Ismail's posts, so let's skip ahead."

I understand completely. If I had just endorsed a fellow who's uttered such nonsense as Oren has, I'd avoid the embarrassment of justifying myself, too.    

"What do Israel-supporters suggest we do? Boycott Jewcy during the upcoming J Street conference? Leave the site altogether? "

You won't read this, of course, but I'd suggest you do the latter.

I see it as a hopeful sign that such so benign and reasonable an organization as J Street strikes such panic in the hearts of Thacher et al.     J Street harbors a "hatred of a secure Israel"?  Oh, please.

As I understand it, J Street more closely represents American Jewish opinion - peace, a Jewish state and a Palestinian state-than do the troglodytes at AIPAC. As Thacher sees his fantasies of an Israel stretching from the river to the sea receding into the dim dusk of history, he and his like become more agitated, ramping up the paranoia and bellicosity in a desperate attempt to ward off the inevitable.

If someone happens to run into Thacher, read this to him, OK? Thanks.    

"Wow. I didn't see any reference to Israel as a Nazi state in the
report, but I confess to not having read the entire 500+ pages. I'll
keep looking. And Goldstone implicitly calling for Israel's
destruction? Very odd thing for a Zionist to do, but Oren says it's so.
Must be."

Oren's statement is this "(the Goldstone Report) portrays the Jews as the deliberate murderers of innocents."

A person who deliberately murders innocents is morally equivalent to a Nazi in Oren's view. He is not saying that Goldstone is accusing Jews of being Nazis--he is saying that Goldstone is accusing Jews of being the moral equivalents of Nazis.

"Yow! The holocaust, Iranian a-bombs, and...Goldstone! The rotter!"

This is not a personal attack on Goldstone as such. It is an analysis of the conclusions he has reached and their implications.

Oren's view is that the report denies Israel's ability to defend itself. The implication is that Israel may be freely destroyed.

 "As I understand it, J Street more closely represents American Jewish
opinion - peace, a Jewish state and a Palestinian state-than do the
troglodytes at AIPAC."

The expert on American Jewish opinion speaks. Hark!

"As Thacher sees his fantasies of an Israel
stretching from the river to the sea receding into the dim dusk of
history, he and his like become more agitated, ramping up the paranoia
and bellicosity in a desperate attempt to ward off the inevitable."

This is quite instructive. You really think Israel from the river to the sea is an Israeli goal? Which one? The Tigris? Or perhaps the Indus? What with all that immigration and aliya, Israel must, of course, expand, yes? This is like a discussion with Nasser.

"As the pro-peace, pro-Israel lobby J Street's first annual conference
approaches"

Peace consists of eliminating Western pressure on Islamists. J Street would like to keep their hands clean so when the "left-alone" Islamists come to their door, they can claim to be "innocent". They'll be labeled "murtads" and permited to live as animals in the Caliphate.  

They are pro-peace when the peace involves Israelis turning the other cheek. They would rather see the entire world engulfed by a fascist ideology than fire one shot in the defence of their own lives.

So um....F*CK THAT! 

Says Zeevico:

"Oren's statement is this "(the Goldstone Report) portrays the Jews as the deliberate murderers of innocents."

A person who deliberately murders innocents is morally equivalent to a Nazi in Oren's view. He is not saying that Goldstone is accusing Jews of being Nazis--he is saying that Goldstone is accusing Jews of being the moral equivalents of Nazis."

Well, no. The statement was as I cited in my original comment:

"...(The Goldstone Report portrays the Jews as the deliberate murderers of innocents–AS NAZIS. And a Nazi state not only lacks the need and right to defend itself; it must rather be destroyed."

Not sure why you scrapped the words I highlighted , nor why you avoid Oren's hysterical insistence that the Report implies that Israel ought to be destroyed.

"This is not a personal attack on Goldstone as such. It is an analysis of the conclusions he has reached and their implications."

Some analysis. I'd say that it's a despicable effort to enlist the suffering of millions of Jews and the (non-existent) threat of Iranian nukes into the defense of Oren's political platform.

"Oren's view is that the report denies Israel's ability to defend itself. The implication is that Israel may be freely destroyed."

I agree that this is Oren's view, but isn't the interesting question whether or not this view comports with reality? How likely is it that a Zionist whose daughter has made aliyah suggests that Israel may not defend itself? Preposterous.  

"The expert on American Jewish opinion speaks. Hark!"

If you have another look at my comment, you'll see that I began with the qualifier "as I understand it", which hardly connotes expertise. But let's return to the matter at hand; are you suggesting that mainstream US Jewish opinion does not support a two-state resolution to the issue? I'm happy to be enlightened on this point.

"This is quite instructive. You really think Israel from the river to the sea is an Israeli goal? "

Zeev, you must learn to read more carefully. If you return to the source, you'll see that I was addressing Thacher's musings, not addressing "Israeli goals".  

"(J Street) are pro-peace when the peace involves Israelis turning the other cheek. They would rather see the entire world engulfed by a fascist ideology than fire one shot in the defence of their own lives."

See, this is the sort of thing that keeps me up at night wondering about the mysterious vagaries of the human mind. Here's a guy who seems like a decent sort, had a lovely food conversation with him on the deli post, and he suddenly fragments at the mention of so benign a group as J Street. They'd prefer a fascist world than to defend themselves? Really?

How do people become so unhinged? 

What was/is the state of affairs in the ME was not in any way, shape or form peace. Hamas' bombardment of Sderot is NOT peace. Palestinian rioting every time some Sheik claims the Yehud are takign over Al-Aqsa is NOT peace.

So, when J-Street becomes hypertrophic AFTER Cast Lead, but not before, I question their notion of peace. The "pro-peace" lobby ignores the fact that ME was NEVER at peace to begin with, and simply blames Israel for starting new wars when the war never ended!

I fail to understand why they're suddenly going insane now and were completely silent after the Gaza disengagement when Israel was shelled everyday. Was that an acceptable "peace" for them?

It is solely on their vigorous response to Israel's self-defence that I base my assumpting that JStreet's peace is Israel sitting and taking it.

I personally support a Palestinian state and I love Israel, and I have deep respect for Arabs and for any other group of human beings. I could agree with a great deal of Jstreets basic ideas if i sprinkled fairy dust over the situation and ignored the legitimate concerns of both sides. The problems between both Israel and the broader Arab world will persist until the following are dealt with. How to accomplish this, i am not sure, but in my opinion, these are the root issues.

ISRAEL

(1) The realization of the need for Palestinians to have a homeland that they feel safe and secure in. There are two ways i see this as happening. The first is via the JStreet idealists, and i personally think their ideas are nice but sadly based on a utopian concept that i doubt will ever occur and second, the belief that Gaza and the West Bank are 'jewish land' and that out of necessity for the preservation of life, allowing them to take that land and claim it as their own.

(2) The end of the settlements that go outside of Israel proper

(3) as per the displacement of palestinians, either a form of compensation to them or some sort of right of return that if no one is living in the area, and they can proove that they lived there, they should have it or be financially compensated.

(4) Sharing Jerusalem.

PALESTINE AND THE BROADER ARAB WORLD

(1) As Israel is wiling to compensate and claims that are legitimate based on right of return, the Arab states have to be wiling to compensate Jewish claims for jews who lost their funds and lands post the war.

(2) As Israel is willing to understand the need for a palestinian homeland, the Palestinians and broader arab world have to stop the all the Hitlerian rants with the likes of Ahmedinijad and realize that this type of rhetoric actually devalues their own realistic claims as do the actions of Iran and hamas.

(3) the acceptance that in a real way, the Arab countries with the support of the Mufit of Jerusalem who worked with Hitler and expelling jews from Arab countries assisted in the creation of the state we have today.

BOTH ISRAEL AND THE ARAB COUNTRIES

(1) both have legitimate claims for crimes agianst humanity. The only way i see to deal with this is a court made up of arabs and jews that would place on trial via a Middle Eastern version of the Hague. If this was done, it would be a wonderful example of Arabs and Jews working together. In this way, the Hamas members or Islamic Jihad will recieve the same justice as an IDF or Setller or anyone else who has commited a crime. By doing it in this way, neither jews or arabs are vilified, but simply the perperatrators of actions that the court would find a crime.

(2) The realization by all parties that the greatest obstacle to peace is not ideology or either party, but in my opinion, the Mullahs in Iran. When both Israel and the Arab countries can realize this danger, not of the Iranian ppl (my father is Iranian Jewish btw) but the Mullahs, it helps to 

CONCLUSION

I think that alot of the pro peace groups have some wonderful ideas. I have met the ppl from JStreet as well as some of the so called anti zionist rabbis. The ideas are great, but they survive only in a fictionalized utopia land where everyone forgets that Hamas, Iran and friends are hunkering down for a long term conflict. I truly hope for peace between both peoples, and believe that one day taht will occur, but not until the issues on both sides that are valid are examined. The only ppl who can solve the problems in the Middle East are those in the Middle East. Efforts based from the EU or USA i think are note worthy but in the end, we who live in the USA dont have to deal with either a bomb going off in a pizza market or a son who is arab who was playing in the streets and hit by an IDF bullet destined for a Hamas member.