Muslim and Jewish Women in Nazareth

'We can live in peace'...John Lennon (photo: Dafna Tal)

Mahzor

Mahzor

New York Public Library

Churches

Sarajevo Haggadah

Mah Nishtanah

Sarajevo haggadah

Antaea Darom

Israeli women's art

Action

Torah as music

Ben Heine

Action

ceramic bowl

Mohammad Said Kalash, "Offering Reconciliation" exhibit (photo: Ilan Amihai)

Action

Punch and Judy/Pinchas and Jamila

Avi Katz

Action

David Grossman

Ben Heine

Action

Eldrige Street shul

Lower East Side

Action

Dove

Ben Heine

Action

Two birds

Hoda Jamal

Action

Israeli and Palestinian boys

from documentary, Promises

Action

Cat in the Hat

Yiddish version

Action

Daylight through the Wall

Banksy: graffiti art on Separation Wall

Action

Maurice Sendak's Brundibar set

New Victory Theater (photo: Nan Melville/NYT)

Action

Daniel Barenboim, West-Eastern Divan Orchestra

Palestinian-Israeli musical ensemble (photo: Kerstin Joensson/AP)

Action

Great Day on Eldrige Street

N.Y.'s klezmer greats celebrate shul rededication (photo: Leo Sorel)

Action

Joint Appeal for Peace

(Avi Katz)

Joint Appeal for Peace

Ketubah, Ancona, Italy (1772)

(Jewish Theological Seminary library)

Ancona ketubah

Know Me by My Enemies, the Sequel

October 10th, 2009

bronfman screenshotSome enemies I’m proud to make.  Steve Bronfman is one of them.  Out of the blue, he wrote to me complaining that he’d been ejected from Helena Cobban’s comment threads.  I thought: “Ferchrissakes, what does he want from me?  Helena is a QUAKER for godsakes.  If you get banned from her blog you must be a real twit.”

I mistakenly exchanged a few e mails with Steve until I discovered that he was a prolific pro-Israel hasbarist with far too much time on his hands.  And now I’ve made his enemies list, I’m proud to say.  In addition, Steve has made the unmannerly decision to post my private e mails to him without asking my permission to do so.  Needless to say, if I’d known he was a blogger I wouldn’t have given him the time of day.  Thank God, Comcast has a decent spam filter which will send his future e mails where they belong.

The thing that really tickles me about Steve’s blogroll is that I’m right up there with Helena as the baddies.  While the good guys are some of the most execrable Jewish racist characters on the web.

I do wonder though why Steve would want to include a link in his blogroll to sites he finds objectionable.  Doesn’t he realize he’ll be sending me site traffic (not much, considering how small his audience is)?  I just wish someone with some real site traffic would attack me and link me in their blogroll!  Actually, I’m kidding.  LGF once did that and the mail was especially vicious until the Lizards’ attention span was depleted after about half an hour.

And a note for my “friends” who scour my blog for alleged hypocrisy, I DO sometimes post comments sent to me via e mail without the author’s permission.  But I only do so when the e mail is a particularly vicious smear.  I don’t view such attacks as deserving the consideration of a request for permission.  And I did not attack Bronfman in such fashion.

The Israeli Right Disses Obama’s Nobel

October 10th, 2009

One way of knowing someone is by who their friends are.  Another way is by their enemies.  You can get a sense of the humanity (or lack thereof) of Barack Obama’s enemies by reading some of their responses to his Nobel Peace Prize.

Zvi Solow, professor at Ben Gurion University, writes of a few telling Israeli right-wing responses to the announcement.  Zvi doesn’t name this source:

” The Norwegian Nobel committee was established by a leftist Parliament & the prize to Obama is the appreciation of a grateful world for the end of the Bush era”

An especially interesting reaction is this one from current Knesset speaker, Likud MK Reuven Rivlin:

“The problem is that now Obama will find it easier to mobilise the world to force a peace agreement on us. But an imposed peace will be short lived.”

This of course, goes to the commonly accepted Israeli right wing notion that the entire world is against and out to get us.  This of course makes the obligation of Israel’s political leaders to maneuver among the world’s anti-Israel sharks to avoid being eaten.  It never involves working with anyone outside Israel to actually try to come to terms with Israel’s traditional enemies.  There is also a note of almost resigned acceptance of the notion that it may eventually come to the fact that the world will impose a peace agreement on Israel.  I don’t think I’ve ever heard such sentiment expressed on the Israeli right.

It is indicative of the enormous disconnect between world, and Israeli opinion of Obama’s Middle East peace diplomacy, that he is viewed as pro-Israel by around 6% of Israelis.  Unlike right wing Israelis, I’m not overly disturbed by this number because Obama isn’t president of Israel and doesn’t have to run in an Israeli election.  Also, George Bush’s approval ratings were through the roof in Israel.  And that is a reflection of how sycophantic his relationship was with that country.  In order for there to be peace, perhaps an American president will have to endure some unpopularity.  Do we really want a president who Bibi Netanyahu can proudly call “pro-Israel?”

Time Magazine offers a similarly downbeat assessment of the reception within Israel and the Arab world of the Nobel news:

…Beneath the veneer of formal congratulations, the Obama Nobel award is being viewed as an as yet undeserved laurel, as an embarrassment, by some even as an impediment to a sustainable peace.

…Bloggers have been harsher. “Thank you Nobel Prize Committee for awarding the most ridiculous Nobel Prize for Peace since 1994, when you awarded one to the terrorist leader Yasser Arafat,” wrote jewliscious.com blogger Dahlia, a student living in Israel. “Well done and kudos!”

Leave it to the scabrous Jewlicious to feature some of the more clueless commentary on the Peace Prize.  StandWithUs or CAMERA couldn’t have said it better themselves.  In fact, maybe Dahia is one of those SWU Israel fellows who are brought here on hasbara junkets.  We’ve got a few making the rounds here in Seattle visiting unsuspecting Hebrew and high schools to offer their patriotic slant on “life in Israel.”

Saban Seeks 50% of Al Jazeera

October 9th, 2009
Saban & Power Rangers Assault on Al Jazeera!

Saban & Power Rangers Assault on Al Jazeera!

Mighty Morphin Power Rangers take over the Arab world!!

Haaretz reports that Israeli-American media mogul, Haim Saban, is seeking a 50% stake in Al Jazeera.  This is one strange story.  One of Aipac’s most stalwart power brokers is trying to buy into the Arab world’s most important media property.  There may be a business reason for Saban to do this, I don’t know.  But there clearly is a powerful political motive.  Imagine the possibility of co-opting Al Jazeera’s Israel coverage.  It’s an Aipac wet dream.  Not to mention Israeli intelligence agencies concerned with ensuring the Israeli narrative is heard in the Arab world.  How do you say “Mighty Morphin Power Rangers” in Arabic, anyway?

Haim Saban confers with Jane Harman, extension of his own power (i_Mishkenot)

Haim Saban confers with Jane Harman, extension of his own power (i_Mishkenot)

If the emir of Qatar is seriously entertaining a Saban bid either he’s in financial difficulty or else he’s smokin’ some powerful weed.  I can’t in a million years imagine why an Arab leader would be willing to give someone like Saban such immediate media cachet in the Arab world.  Imagine George Soros buying half of Rupert Murdoch’s NewsCorp or Murdoch buying half the N.Y. Times.  It’s that strange.

This is how much power Saban wields: when Jane Harman got herself in hot water for lobbying on behalf of the chairmanship of the House Intelligence Committee, it was Haim Saban to whom she appealed for support in her quest.  She was asking for Aipac to call in chits on her behalf and it was Saban who was the go-to guy.  Saban also asked her to go to bat for Steve Rosen in the midst of his “unpleasantness” with the Justice Department.

To give you an idea of how much of a hasbarist this guy is: he called the protest at the Toronto Film Festival “anti-Semitic” and “Jew hatred.”

Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize

October 9th, 2009

obama wins nobelYou could knock me over with a feather.  I just heard this news and it’s a shocker.  Barack Obama has indeed won the Nobel Peace Prize.  Here is the committee’s statement:

The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 is to be awarded to President Barack Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has attached special importance to Obama’s vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.

Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts. The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations. Thanks to Obama’s initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting. Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened.

Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world’s attention and given its people hope for a better future. His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world’s population.

Now, I respect Pres. Obama.  But what has he actually done to deserve it?  Yes, his agenda, if he realizes it, would certainly be Nobel-worthy.  But he hasn’t come close to realizing any of his foreign policy agenda.  He’s made some great speeches no doubt (Cairo for one).  But speeches are neither deeds nor concrete achievements.

So I think this award is really a shot in the dark.  A big gamble.  They’re telling Obama and the world that they have enormous hopes for him.  They’re also telling us what deep straits the world is in.  From Gaza to Teheran to Kabul to Baghdad, things are a mess.  A military attack against Iran hangs like a question mark over the Middle East.  The committee is essentially saying that tough times demand risk and this award is a risk.  It could be that Obama will merit it over time.  It could be that the award will make it that much easier for him to achieve some of his agenda.  If so, the Swedes are telling us that’s all to the good.

Lately, Obama has taken hits both at home and abroad.  This award is meant as a shot in the arm, a bit of courage for the tough times ahead.  He’ll need it.

I hope against hope that this award will encourage the realist camp in dealing with Iran.  I hope it will give pause to the Israeli adventurists gunning for a fight with Iran.  I do think it will make it that much harder for Obama himself to turn hawkish, as he has intimated he might do if negotiations fail.  So maybe there’s some shrewdness to this award as well.

The Forward Attacks Goldstone, Poorly

October 9th, 2009

Larry Cohler Esses, the Jewish Forward’s able assistant editor, alerted me to a new article by Gal Beckerman on the Goldstone Report.  Personally, I have a love/hate relationship with Beckerman’s work.  He wrote an awful profile of Haaretz for the Columbia Journalism Review a few years back.  But he also wrote a sterling story for the Forward recently about BDS.  The article on Goldstone isn’t entirely useless, as it does present an interview with Goldstone.  But the Beckerman’s attempts to debunk the Report are simply lame.

The most important issue I take is his claim that Goldstone has a fatal flaw in that he only relied on Palestinian eyewitness testimony.  If Beckerman had noted that Israel refused to offer its own IDF eyewitnesses to presents its own side, I would say that the Forward story should be taken seriously.  But the reporter didn’t even note Israel’s refusal to participate.

In an attempt to present Israel’s point of view, Beckerman offers non-eyewitness testimony from an IDF officer who works for Dore Gold’s hasbara outfit, the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.  The Forward neglects to mention the highly partisan nature of JCPA’s work, a fact that is critical in determining the probity of the officer’s contribution.

Lt. Col. Halevi, the officer in question, offers several points of rebuttal to Goldstone, none of which are persuasive.  In discussing the al-Samouni massacre, in which the IDF shelled a family home and killed 20, Halevi attempts to justify the incident by examining Islamic Jihad websites which posted material at the time of the attack indicating there was Palestinian resistance in the home’s location.  I find the notion that you can pinpoint any specific military activity happening at a specific location based on material posted to a website to be beyond ludicrous.  Not to mention that neither Halevi or Beckerman note the nature of what was posted and how it proved what the former claimed.

Further, Halevi compares a list of the names of the murdered al-Samouni clan members with lists of Hamas fighters posted on an unnamed militant website and discovers that several of the dead may have been (if we believe the website) Hamas fighters.  There are huge problems with this argument.  First, how can we assume that the two lists containing supposedly identical names actually refer to one & the same person?  In other words, a more concrete, physical form of identification is required before one can say with certainty that the names refer to the specific fighter in question.

Second, and even more important, so what if the murdered individual was a Hamas fighter?  The key point is that the al-Samounis were unarmed (I’m certain that after the attack the IDF would’ve entered the home to determine whether there were arms there and I have not heard any claim that there was).  And even if they were armed, how does that justify killing unarmed women and children who were not fighters?  If you justify this, you are entering Salah Shehadeh territory (he was a Hamas militant murdered by a 1,000 ton bomb dropped on a residential apartment building where it killed 14 other innocent civilians).  Bogie Yaalon, Dan Halutz and Doron Almog are each wanted outside Israel for possible war crimes based on this incident.

Next, Halevi uses the same argument to justify an attack on a mosque at which 350 residents were worshipping.  Here is how Beckerman describes the attack:

In a mosque on the outskirts of Jabilyah, somewhere between 200 and 300 men and women are gathered for the evening prayer. An explosion rips the front door off its hinges and flings it all the way across the room. A missile has struck the mosque’s entrance, killing 15 people, some kneeling mid-prayer. A boy sitting by the door has his leg blown off.

Halevi again uses unnamed websites to correlate names of the dead with lists of supposed Hamas and Islamic Jihad fighters and finds victims with the same name listed on the websites.  This supposedly justifies their murder during the act of prayer.

This reminds me of the murder of the 250 Gaza police cadets at their graduation ceremony, which also has been justified by the hasbarists since these unarmed officers were part of the “Hamas terror apparatus.”  I’m sorry, but if we go there then we have to justify Palestinian attacks on Israeli non-military law enforcement.  Should we countenance a Palestinian attack on an Israel police cadet graduation ceremony in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem?  Should we countenance the abduction of Israeli police and their murder because they too are part of the Israeli “apparatus of terror.”  That’s a slippery slope I choose not to slide down.

Worshippers at prayer are not legitimate targets, period, whether they are militants or not.  And even if they are militants, they are not legitimate targets with 350 civilians praying around them.  You can dress up a pig any way  you like, but in the end it’s still a pig.  And this is a war crime.

I believe Israel should have an opportunity to present its side of the case. It should have presented the IDF units operating near the al-Samouni home and the mosque and even the soldiers who pulled the trigger on the missiles.  Maybe they have a legitimate defense or explanation for their action.  They should’ve been heard.  But Israel refused to provide them.  After their refusal, Israel doesn’t get to argue the report is one-sided because it only included eyewitness testimony from one side.

Besides, Goldstone paid for those Israelis who were willing to testify to travel to Geneva where they told their story (Israel refused to allow Goldstone to enter Israel and take testimony from Israelis).  He, as opposed to the Israeli government, went to extra mile to be fair.  But it has no credibility when it uses the argument of one-sidedness against the South African jurist.

Condescension drips from this passage by a Bar Ilan law professor, who actually attempts to make the claim that the al-Samounis either didn’t see what they saw, or else Hamas forced them to lie about what they saw, or they were already predisposed to hate Israel so much that they made it all up:

“People don’t see what they think they see,” said Bell, the Bar Ilan law professor. “They don’t remember what they think they remember. That’s in the best of circumstances when they are trying to give you accurate information. In this case, what you have are witnesses that, for the most part, are living under a totalitarian government and subject to systematic intimidation. And also, they are living in a long time war zone where they have extreme hostility to the other side.”

Perhaps Professor Bell can explain away the bodies as well.  Are they a figment of a hate-filled Gazan imagination?

The crowning insult is Beckerman’s reliance on alleged “research” by a pro-settler extremist blogger, Elder of Ziyon.  This is somone obsessed with Muslim-hatred without actually knowing anything about Islam other than what can fit into a thimble (if that).  This is someone whose biases are so severe that he doesn’t even realize when he’s lying.  He really believes his lies are the truth (at least as he sees it).  Just a small fer instance, he’s called me “anti-Israel,” and that’s some of his milder epithets.

What sources does he rely on to buttress his claims?  Honest Reporting, a hasbara site founded by the folks who bring you Aish Hatorah and Clarion Fund (producers of those masterworks of cinema, Third Jihad and Obsession); CAMERA, which falsely claimed that Desmond Tutu is an anti-Semite and that Canon Naim Ateek called Israelis “Christ-killers;” MEMRI, which either through ignorance or willful deceit mistranslated the script of a Hamas TV show to allegedly show that Palestinian children were being indoctrinated for martyrdom; Little Green Footballs, champion of global anti-jihadism; Debka File, a wannabe Israeli intelligence site which Yediot reporter Ronen Bergman says even Israeli intelligence refuses to believe (remember the NYC dirty bomb hoax?); and Commentary Magazine.  These are the sites that receive pride of place in his blog and which he specifically lists as his trusted sources.

Elder of Ziyon has every right to choose whatever sources he wishes in writing his blog.  But the Forward, as a serious journalistic enterprise doesn’t have a right to rely on this blogger for bupkes.

Another important fact the Forward report omits is that the only Israeli soldier so far actually punished for infractions during the Gaza war stole a credit card.  Sure, the IDF will tell you it has 100 open investigations.  This you’re supposed to believe indicates that it takes it’s responsibility seriously to find and punish the guilty.  But how much time has passed since the Gaza war?  And in all that time only one soldier did anything bad enough to warrant punishment?

[NOTE: Larry Cohler Esses has pointed out my error in the following passage.  I missed the quotation in the story.  I do find Goldstone's locution here awkward and take him to mean that his Report wasn't meant as a formal legal document that could be used to indict or convict anyone.  That would rely on Israel, Palestine or the ICC for adjudication.  I still think using this quotation as the headline of the article was unfortunate.]  Strangely, the title of the story is Goldstone: ‘If This Was a Court Of Law, There Would Have Been Nothing Proven.’ Yet, nowhere in the story does this quotation appear. As a result you have no idea what it refers to: was it something Goldstone himself said or a claim made against his work? Only Beckerman and perhaps his editor know for sure.

I know the Forward to be a thorough, high quality newspaper and I have written here praising its reporting.  But today is not one of those days I’m sorry to say.

McCain, Goldberg Join Ranks of Iran Realists

October 8th, 2009

The ranks of the Iran realists are swelling every day and recruits come from the unlikeliest of places.  Recently, Matt Duss noted that John McCain, the Iran uber-hawk during the presidential campaign, has resigned himself to an Iranian bomb.  Newsweek interviewed McCain:

Many leaders in President Obama’s position would love the opportunity to be Churchill and order up a dramatic strike that would set the Iranian program back and send a message of resolve. But even the most hawkish of American politicians do not believe such military action would work at an acceptable cost. In a conversation last week with John McCain, I asked whether we would have to live with a nuclear Iran. Without hesitation McCain replied: “Very likely.

I like Matt’s wrap up to this post:

…It’s encouraging that one of America’s leading hawks has come around to the idea that dealing with Iran boldly and bravely does not necessitate making war against it.

Now for those of you who like the idea of a pro-Israel media “star” joining our side, how does the name Jeffrey Goldberg strike you?  Yes, Jeff’s come over to the realist side on this one.  Frankly, given his past and usual cluelessness on so many issues related to Israel and the Middle East, I didn’t expect this of him.  But give him credit.  A broken clock is right twice a day and so is he (on this issue).

Actually I shouldn’t be so churlish because we need allies wherever we can find them.  So welcome Jeff Goldberg:

I’m against a strike first because because…American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan will suffer because of an Israeli strike. A nuclear Iran is not in the long-term best interests of the United States, of course, but we have short-term interests[that] conflict with what some see as Israel’s interest. Second, I’ve moved to the belief that the Iranian government is not so much a messianic apocalyptic cult, as Netanyahu described it to me, but an oppressive military regime…Its real agenda, it seems, is self-preservation, and people interested in staying alive, as individuals or as a collective, don’t launch nuclear-armed missiles at a nuclear state with a second-strike capability. The Iranians understand that Israel could obliterate Persian civilization…My impression, to date, is that…Iranian leaders would rather stay alive, and th[ey] have a great deal of sway over the nuclear program.

…So far at least, no one has convinced me that an armed attack on Iran’s facilities by Israel would a) work, and b) make the world a safer place and c) protect the Jewish people from a second Holocaust.

I recently wrote a post about an article Reuven Pedatzur wrote in Haaretz which outlined Anthony Cordesman’s masterful analysis of a possible Israeli strike against Iran.  Matt Duss links to a new Wall Street Journal op ed Cordesman published on his views about this subject.

StandWithUs Lies About J Street

October 7th, 2009

StandWithUs, which will co-sponsor an anti-Iran conference here in Seattle later this month, has disseminated a lie-filled dossier on J Street in anticipation of its upcoming October national conference in Washington, DC (where I will lead an independent Israel-Palestine blogger discussion).  SWU, never terribly careful about facts or truth, stays true to form in its smear of J Street.

The first lie is that the group “echoes” Walt-Mearsheimer’s The Israel Lobby and “denigrates” American Jewish groups “across the spectrum.”  As for the first charge, no evidence is provided and since it is so patently false it isn’t even worth engaging.  But the second claim, also false, really points to the hostility of the pro-Israel advocacy groups like Aipac, SWU, ZOA, etc. who feel threatened by J Street’s popularity.  The latter has certainly not denigrated any Jewish group and no evidence is offered to support the claim.  But the aforementioned groups find J Street’s progressive agenda to be anathema to their own Likudist platform.  What better way to smear the group than by claiming it disrespects other groups, when the opposite is the case.

The smearsheet then proceeds to tarnish personal reputations of those associated with J Street.  First, they attack Trita Parsi, director of the National Iranian American Council by claiming his group is the “unofficial lobby for the Iranian regime.”  This is not just a lie, it is a damned lie and one first offered by the Iranian darling of the pro-Israel right, Hassan Daioeslam, who is a member of the executive committee of the People’s Mujahadeen, which is recognized by the U.S. government as a terrorist organization.  Daioeslam is being sued by NIAC for slander and the case has survived dismissal motions and is in discovery.  I find it interesting that Jewish smearmeister outfits like SWU would be making common cause with radical Iranian terror groups dedicated to the violent overthrow of the Iranian government.

Then they go after donors to J Street.  Keep in mind that these are not leaders of the group.  They’ve merely made a contribution.  But that’s sufficient grounds for tar and feathering.  The operative principle seems to be that Jewish organizations may not accept money from anyone who is Muslim or Arab.  Apparently, anyone who is, ipso facto is an enemy of Israel.  The proof for this claim is that no Jewish organizations ever receive donations from Arabs.  That’s an odd statement to say the least.  Should the reverse be the case?  That Jews may not make donations to Arab organizations without the group’s bona fides being suspected by their fellow Arabs?

The next victim is a Palestinian donor who allegedly declares Aipac and Netanyahu “enemies of peace.”  I’ve gone through all the links provided by SWU to this individual’s writings to find this offending phrase and I can’t.  What he does say, and this is from an interview with a highly unreliable Jerusalem Post reporter, is the following:

…He donated to the J Street PAC because “I believe that they are sincere about being pro-Israel and they are sincere about being pro-peace. And AIPAC I consider an enemy of Israel rather than a friend of Israel because they’re not helping it to achieve peace.”The businessman…said that he wanted to see a home for Israel and a home for Palestinians, along the 1967 border with a shared Jerusalem and symbolic treatment of the refugees, and felt that J Street would help achieve that.

“They are equally hard on the Palestinians as they are on Israel, so they’re not pro-Palestinian. They are just pro-peace and pro-Israel. I believe that,” he told the Post.

Well, if he’s guilty so am I.  And let’s keep in mind that even if this individual did say these things, J Street never did.  He is a donor to J Street, not the director and not even a board member.  Besides, there is nothing whatsoever wrong with what he DID say.

And get this–J Street actually has a single donor who is a board member of Human Rights Watch!  Imagine the perfidy and shame of such association!

Another operative principle of the smear machine is that any State Department Arabist is automatically suspect.  The fact that many of these nations are actually allies of the U.S. doesn’t enter into SWU’s calculations.  Actually, SWU doesn’t seem to take U.S. interests into account at all.  If the nation is an Arab nation (and even some of THEM are allies of Israel) it is an enemy of Israel.

Take for instance, Judith Barnett, a J Street advisory board member who once served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce for the Middle East and Africa.  Since she’s become a registered lobbyist for Egypt, she’s apparently akin to a criminal.  What SWU doesn’t explain is why someone working for the Egyptian ministry of trade is apparently selling Israel down the river.  They seem to forget that our very own president found Egypt an important enough nation to make a major policy address there in June.  And Egypt has joined Israel in enforcing a siege of Gaza.  So what precisely is wrong for working for Egypt?

Next, SWU goes on to lie about J Street’s views of the Gaza war.  The former claims:

J Street said it could not identify “who was right or who was wrong,”

Compare this to what J Street actually said, which bears no resemblance whatsoever:

As friends of Israel, we felt [at the beginning of the Gaza war] immediate pressure from friends and family to pick a side. Did we think that Israel’s actions were fully justified or disproportionate? Did Hamas bring this on itself by firing rockets and provoking Israel or are the strikes an act of aggression against a people trapped in misery and poverty? Couldn’t we see who’s right and who’s wrong?

Here’s another statement J Street never made:

We are deeply disturbed that J Street would equate the moral principles of Israel and Hamas…

Never happened.

According to SWU, the fact that the progressive Jewish lobby called Israel’s attack on Hamas “disproportionate” indicates it is not only “anti-Israel,” but “anti-Jewish!” Jews around the world felt precisely the same way, yet they too are somehow anti-Israel for these beliefs. These right-wingers are so extreme that any view that posits Israel’s interests lie in a peaceful, negotiated settlement of its differences with the Palestinians are automatically anti-Israel.

The smearsheet claims J Street “accepted the discredited claims” of the Goldstone Report. It did not. In fact, the group’s carefully crafted statement on the subject did not endorse the Report at all. Rather, it called for the charges raised in it to be investigated BY ISRAEL.

Interestingly, SWU reveals its support for the most extreme of Israel’s settlers. When Bob Simon produced a 60 Minutes segment on the subject, he was excoriated by CAMERA, another rightist pro-Israel advocacy group. SWU apparently shares CAMERA’s support for the outrageous settlers who spit at elderly Palestinian women, set fire to Palestinian homes filled with helpless family members, expropriate Arab property by force, etc. The fact that J Street launched a letter writing campaign supporting Bob Simon seems proof of the group’s anti-Israel perfidy.

Another mark of J Street’s hatred of Israel is the fact that Jeremy Ben Ami has written that he “respects” Jimmy Carter. Apparently, in the Israel First community the president who earned a Nobel Prize and negotiated the only formal peace agreement Israel has ever signed with one of its former Arab enemies, is a Jew-hater. And SWU thinks this will fly?

The SWU statement also reveals that it opposes the 2005 Gaza withdrawal pursued by Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon:

We are concerned because J Street…ignor[es]…the unfortunate results of Israel’s concessions for peace, such as the withdrawal from Gaza in 2005.

This further confirms that SWU supports the Israeli Occupation and supports maintaining Israeli control of the Occupied Territories. Those aren’t even positions embraced by the U.S. government or American Jews. On this basis, I think we can make a strong argument that it is StandWithUs in fact that is anti-Israel (rejecting a policy of a sovereign Israeli (Sharon) government).

SWU argues that the progressive group:

…Frequently opposes the positions of the Israeli government and its electorate…

A glaring misunderstanding evident in such statement is that J Street is not actually an agent of the Israeli government. It is, if anything, an agent of the American Jewish community. As such, J Street lobbies in this country not on behalf of Israel; but rather, on behalf of the interests of the American Jewish community as they relate to Israel and other issues. That is a nuance SWU completely misunderstands because it is a bought and paid for agent of not the Israeli government, but the most radical right-wing elements of it.

J Street certainly will oppose some positions of a right wing government like Bibi Netanyahu’s. Indeed, many Israelis do the same. So for SWU to accuse J Street of being a traitor to Israel for supporting a settlement freeze when Bibi opposed it has it completely wrong. J Street sees itself as empowered to support the policies of a U.S. government if they disagree with those of a right wing Israeli government. And there is nothing whatsoever wrong with this.  J Street’s primary interest is those of the U.S. and American Jews, while SWU’s interests are those of Israel’s far-right.

Another SWU lie:

J Street opposed Israel’s war against Hamas

Actually, J Street supported Israel’s position that Hamas rocket attacks against Israeli civilians were intolerable and that the IDF had a right to respond.

In some cases, J Street positions that SWU considers treif are actually quite admirable:

[It] rejects stronger sanctions against Iran

Actually, J Street supports the policy of constructive engagement of the Obama administration. That policy does not yet call for stronger sanctions. J Street and many other Iran analysts and many American Jews oppose the notion that sanctions can force Iran to do something it refuses to do. The progressive group also recognizes that the next stage after sanctions fail will be a military attack by Israel. This option is opposed not just by J Street, but by the U.S. government. SWU conveniently doesn’t tell you that it will support a military attack if Israel launches one. This means that SWU is opposed to U.S. policy while J Street supports it. Which side would you rather be on?

Here’s another common sense position of J Street which SWU finds anathema:

[It] calls for the U.S. and Israel to negotiate with Hamas…

Actually, an Israeli poll found that a majority of Israelis also favor negotiating directly with Hamas. So the progressive organization finds itself once again in accord with prevailing Israeli opinion (though unfortunately most American Jews reject such a position).

SWU doesn’t believe in democracy. How else to construe the following statement:

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.

The last I checked there was nothing wrong with being a member of a legal Israeli political party. But for SWU, this seems again to be a mark of Cain. Also, J Street’s Israeli members (I believe this is another SWU error as I don’t believe J Street has Israeli members) do not control the organization’s agenda. J Street is an American organization and does not pursue policies on behalf of Israeli political parties or their individual members. In a democracy, this is precisely what J Street is supposed to do. Only in SWU’s perverted world view is such advocacy grounds for excommunication.

SWU further argues that an attack on a J Street poll by Commentary Magazine proves authoritatively that the poll was a fraud. My, my how convenient to turn to a fellow right wing pro-Israel advocacy publication to support your unfounded claims.

The smear document correctly notes that Rabbi Eric Yoffie criticized J Street’s position on the Gaza war. But SWU conveniently neglects to mention that the very same Rabbi Yoffie is J Street’s keynote speaker at its national conference. Guess SWU got caught with its pants down on this claim.

For more myths and truth about J Street click here.

Libya Forces UN Security Council to Take Up Goldstone Report

October 7th, 2009

Wow, when a nation like Libya makes your human rights record look bad, you know you’ve hit rock bottom.  Barack Obama, Mahmoud Abbas and Bibi Netanyahu thought they were pretty deft at burying the Goldstone Report in Geneva a few days ago.  But they neglected a few inconvenient facts, chief among them that if you try to suppress an idea whose time has come it will come back to bite you.  That is true of Goldstone.

Libya not only sits on the Security Council, it also is president of the General Assembly.  So that means that Qaddafi has the U.S. over a boulder twice over.  If the U.S. vetoes Security Council consideration of the Report, Libya can introduce it before the General Assembly, where we don’t have veto.  If Abbas hadn’t singed himself so badly in mishandling this affair, he might’ve been able to weasel out of this by telling Libya to take a hike.  But Hamas already has his ass in a sling over his betrayal of the Gazans.  He can’t very well dump Goldstone twice.

So Obama may have the Goldstone nightmare return to haunt him in the Security Council.  It might even be passed by the General Assembly.  So much for our president’s supposed political adeptness.  Goldstone is the report that will not die.  This time Obama has a chance to handle it better than he did in Geneva.  Will he?