Now, everybody who reads me knows that I am not a big supporter of administration policy on the Middle East. But, then, I am not a big supporter of its foreign policy almost anywhere. No, let me correct that. Not "almost anywhere." But "anywhere."
That said, I don't believe that President Obama is trying to weaken the United States or its allies. What we do disagree about (but it's I who am here doing the disagreeing) is what strengthens America and what debilitates it.
Actually, the Obama crowd seems to be reconnoitering a bit after the string of rebuffs it has experienced from those who it has been trying to court. In any case, it has surely registered on them that Israel is amenable to a quite generous compromise ... but it is the Palestinians, riven though they may be, who are insisting on "loser take all." Strange world, theirs, no? And just in case you need a reminder: This is not the first time that the Palestinians have rioted on Al Haram al-Sharif (in their vocabulary) and the Temple Mount (in the West's) to preclude negotiations. It's an old tactic, alas.
I'd bet also that the White House laments the fact that, when it summoned Jewish leaders for a meeting with the president months ago, it sent an invitation to J Street and omitted the Zionist Organization of America, which, for all its troublesomeness, is an institution with many real members and real ongoing work in Israel. Moreover, it is an historically significant body, Louis Dembitz Brandeis having been its president for many years. I can imagine some smart-assed staffer coming up with the idea. "Let's leave out the ZOA and invite J Street instead."
Well, they did invite J Street, and now they are stuck with the damage. The J Streeters went around identifying themselves as Obama's people in the crowd. I suppose that was good for them. But it was not good for Obama. The fact is that, by this past weekend, when J-Street launched its D.C. fest, it was already seen in the public mind as a bunch of nut cases and very much anti-Israel in the very substantive sense. It was callous about Iran's nuclear threat to Israel, was against sanctions, supported negotiations with Hamas, which even the E.U. disdained. Moreover, it refuses to recognize that one obstacle to a two-state solution is that neither the Palestinians nor the other Arabs can even contemplate security guarantees to Israel.
Mr. President: You courted a friend. Now you have him. Woe is you.
Anyway, here are some links to the J Street saga…
Politico (Ben Smith): Frontiers of Pro-Israel
Ha’aretz: Poet booted from J Street meet for comparing Guantanamo to Auschwitz
The Jerusalem Post: Ambassador Michael Oren declines J Street conference invite
The Washington Times: Upstart Israel lobby draws controversy
The Washington Post: Israel conference to open amid controversy
The Guardian (Isi Leibler): J Street's 'pro-Israel' stance is phoney
And, from Lenny Ben-David over at Pajamas Media, an important set of questions for J Street executive director Jeremy Ben-Ami...
Showdown on J Street
Pointed questions for director Jeremy Ben-Ami before the new "pro-Israel, pro-peace" lobby's first big conference.
J Street’s director, Jeremy Ben-Ami, published an open letter to Israel’s Ambassador Michael Oren in the Jerusalem Post this week insisting that he appear at the J Street Conference at the end of the month. Hopefully, Ambassador Oren will continue to deny the supposed “pro-Israel” organization the legitimacy of his presence.
J Street’s goals and policies were revealed when Stephen Walt, co-author of the venomous The Israel Lobby, recently proclaimed, “This is a key moment in the debate. It will be important whether Obama gets enough cover from J Street and the Israel Policy Forum so Obama can say, ‘AIPAC is not representative of the American Jewish community.’”
It’s time to call out Jeremy Ben-Ami, J Street’s director, to answer the following questions:
1: You served as Fenton Communications’ senior vice president until you established J Street, launched in 2008. In early 2009, Fenton signed contracts with a Qatari foundation to lead an 18-month long anti-Israel campaign in the United States with a special focus on campuses. The actual text of the contract called for: “An international public opinion awareness campaign that advocates for the accountability of those who participated in attacks against schools in Gaza.”
Did you sever your ties with Fenton when you began J Street? Do you retain any role or holdings in Fenton today? Did you play any role in introducing Fenton to the Qatari agents or play any role in facilitating the contract? Were you aware of the negotiations or the contract signed on March 12, 2009?
These questions are relevant because it’s important to know if J Street’s refusal to support Israel’s anti-Hamas military campaign was influenced by your ties with Fenton, whose promotional material claims: “We only represent people and projects we believe in.”
Were there discussions with Fenton prior to J Street’s refusal to condemn the Goldstone Report on Gaza, a report that certainly serves the Fenton/Qatari interests? Were there communications with Fenton surrounding J Street’s support for Rep. Donna Edwards who refused to sign a congressional resolution supporting Israeli actions in Gaza?
2: You were recently asked in an interview about funds J Street received from Palestinians, Arab-Americans, and Iranian-Americans, to which you answered: “J Street does have some Arab and Muslim donors — about five. These are individuals, not organizations, corporations or foreign countries. Well over 90 percent of our money comes from Jewish Americans and Christians.”
Did you really say J Street has only five Arab and Muslim donors? A partial listing quickly extracted from the U.S. Federal Election Commission shows more than 30 contributors, many with ties to Arab-American organizations.
So far, only J Street’s Political Action Committee has disclosed its contributors, as mandated by federal law. But who are the donors to the main J Street organization? Make that list public, and these pesky inquiries will probably go away.
When asked about J Street’s funding by the Jerusalem Post — the newspaper that ran the original exposé — you responded “at most 3 percent” of contributors were Muslim or Arab. Now you state that the figure may be closer to 10 percent. One tenth of J Street’s budget of $3 million, or $300,000, is a substantial sum. Why do so many Arabs contribute to an organization that purports to be “pro-Israel?”
3: Do any Israelis support J Street’s agenda? How many? Look at the list of Israeli speakers appearing at J Street’s Conference, all losers in Israel’s political arena: Ami Ayalon, Colette Avital, Amir Peretz, Shlomo Ben-Ami, Yuli Tamir, Amnon Lipkin-Shahak. They have all failed to secure support from the Israeli electorate or even from their own parties, so they take their messages to the U.S. and plead with the U.S. government to pressure Israel’s government, make the Israelis do things that their citizens have already rejected. The tactic is patently anti-democratic.
Two retired senior IDF officers, well-known members of the peace camp, recently went to the U.S. to speak on J Street’s behalf. When they got there they discovered that J Street opposed sanctions against Iran. According to a JTA account, Brig. Gen.(res) Israela Oron called for a “timetable that would be tied to punishing sanctions.”
“The thing that worries me and that worries other Israelis is that [current negotiations are] not limited in time,” Oron said as the faces of her J Street hosts turned anxious, adding “I’m not sure I’m expressing the J Street opinion.”
Maj. Gen. (res) Danny Rothschild discovered that he differed with J Street’s policies on an immediate freezing of settlements, the halting of settlements’ natural growth, and opposing tough sanctions against Iran.
And then Labor MK Ophir Pines-Paz spoke to a Washington gathering in early October sponsored by J Street’s co-founder, Daniel Levy, today of the New America Foundation. When Pines-Paz was told he was wrong in “assuming that everyone on the left is aligned on Iran’s nuclear capabilities and threat, [and in agreement] with Israel’s assessment,” he exploded. “Wake up!” he shouted.
J Street produced a film clip for its site and for YouTube showing prominent Israelis who “speak out in support of a two-state solution and J Street.” But do they actually support J Street? View the clip carefully and discover that only three out of 11 Israelis mention J Street at all — former minister Ami Ayalon and Uri Savir. The third is former MK Colette Avital who is a J Street employee in Israel. Not quite the ringing endorsement J Street had in mind.
Even the leaders of Israel’s opposition have refused to appear at the Conference, according to sources in Jerusalem.
4: How extensive is your interlocking directorship? I believe that is the correct characterization of J Street and its allied organizations. J Street’s contributions from the heads of the Arab American Institute and Iranian lobby NIAC have been documented in these pages. They serve on J Street’s Finance Committee which has a minimum requirement of $10,000. As research continues in the files of various federal agencies, we found that the interlocking relations continue into the second tiers as well.
Take for example, the case of Rebecca Abou-Chedid. She appears in the federal elections records as contributing to J Street’s PAC. Her occupation is listed as “consultant” for “USUS LLC.” But until recently, she was also the national political director at the Arab American Institute where she “was responsible for formulating AAI’s positions on foreign policy … and represented the Arab American community with Congress as well as the Departments of Homeland Security, Justice, and State.” Today, Abou-Chedid is the director of outreach at the New America Foundation’s Middle East Task Force.
J Street co-founder and Advisory Council member Daniel Levy serves as co-director of the Middle East Task Force at the New America Foundation, an institute that benefits from George Soros’ largess and membership on its board.
Heads of other pro-Arab organizations, such as AMIDEAST, and Arab foreign agents are contributors to the PAC. But Mr. Ben-Ami claims that no organizations or foreign governments contribute. They don’t need do; their representatives do.
5:Who drives policy at J Street? It’s difficult to imagine that the unwieldy J-Street 160-member board of advisors directs policy. Some of those members are also foreign agents who worked for Egypt and Saudi Arabia. It also seems unlikely that your big bucks, 50-member Finance Committee provides decision-making guidance. That’s where the heads of the pro-Iranian and Arab-American lobbies sit.
So who directs policy? A hint was provided by a left-wing blogger, Richard Silverstein, who heard the pre-launch spiel in Seattle given by you and “co-founder” Daniel Levy 18 months ago.
“It’s always important with efforts like this to examine the board member names,” Silverman wrote. “There are of course leaders of the main American Jewish peace groups. There are rabbis and academics. But most important there are heavy hitter political donors (Alan Solomont), policy wonks (Rob Malley), U.S. ambassadors to Israel (Samuel Lewis), high level political operatives (Eli Pariser of Moveon), Hollywood liberals (Robert Greenwald), business leaders, George Soros’ top aide (Morton Halperin), and even a former Republican senator (Lincoln Chafee) and former Congressman (Tom Downey). … The group founders believe that Barack Obama and his staff “get” J Street’s perspective while they believe a Clinton candidacy might not advance J Street’s mission as aggressively.” [Note, the briefing was given at the height of the Democratic primaries.]
Soros, the National Journal reported, was present at J Street’s initial strategy sessions.
Anyone reading Soros’ 2007 manifesto, “On Israel, America and AIPAC,” will understand that he is the spiritual godfather of J Street, if not its silent sugardaddy.
“I believe that a much-needed self-examination of American policy in the Middle East has started in this country,” Soros proclaimed, “but it can’t make much headway as long as AIPAC retains powerful influence in both the Democratic and Republican parties. Some leaders of the Democratic Party have promised to bring about a change of direction but they cannot deliver on that promise until they are able to resist the dictates of AIPAC. Palestine is a place of critical importance where positive change is still possible. Iraq is largely beyond our control; but if we succeeded in settling the Palestinian problem we would be in a much better position to engage in negotiations with Iran and extricate ourselves from Iraq. The need for a peace settlement in Palestine is greater than ever. Both for the sake of Israel and the United States, it is highly desirable that the Saudi peace initiative should succeed; but AIPAC stands in the way. It continues to oppose dealing with a Palestinian government that includes Hamas.”
So it appears that Soros has created an organization that competes with AIPAC, calls for inclusion of Hamas, and opposes sanctions against Iran. His people sit on J Street’s board, and his other offspring from the New America Foundation and the National Iranian American Council, work in lockstep. It’s a scary scenario that should attract the attention of the best investigative reporters from national news outlets, but the modern day Lotus Eaters have been lulled and ensnared by J Street.
But just because they won’t ask the tough questions doesn’t mean that they don’t have to be answered.
Print
COMMENTS (35)
Allow me to suggest a few more links worth reading:
J Street makes all kinds of outlandish claims on how they represent mainstream Jewish USA. They claim to base these claims on polling data, polls that they commission. And write the questions to make sure they get the answers they want. The polls were carried out by an agency owned by J's former (or maybe present) ad agency. Read more about it here, here, here, and view full comment
Allow me to suggest a few more links worth reading:
J Street makes all kinds of outlandish claims on how they represent mainstream Jewish USA. They claim to base these claims on polling data, polls that they commission. And write the questions to make sure they get the answers they want. The polls were carried out by an agency owned by J's former (or maybe present) ad agency. Read more about it here, here, here, and here.
On J Street's dubious contributors, or, HRW's fund-raising methods on steroids. Since most people will only put their money where their mouth is, clearly they are pleased with what they hear from the jerks at J. (see here and here).
Some very pointed questions that J Street has yet to answer or answer convincingly, here.
Some of the choice members of the J Street advisory council. Also their attraction to known Saudi friends. Tell me who your friends are and I will tell you who you are. See here and here.
And all this is but the tip of the iceberg.
Hershel Ginsburg
Efrata / Jerusalem
"In any case, it has surely registered on [the Obama crowd] that Israel is amenable to a quite generous compromise ... but it is the Palestinians, riven though they may be, who are insisting on 'loser take all.'
george:
Again, an analogy:
Your community has been taken over by X with the help of, say, the international community. You struggle for years to regain your land...your property. X successfully fights you off though and in the process takes even more land. Then with the help of that self-same international community "generous compromises" are offered that give you virtually none of the land back but with promises that less might be taken in the future. Being "losers", however, you rejec ... view full comment
"In any case, it has surely registered on [the Obama crowd] that Israel is amenable to a quite generous compromise ... but it is the Palestinians, riven though they may be, who are insisting on 'loser take all.'
george:
Again, an analogy:
Your community has been taken over by X with the help of, say, the international community. You struggle for years to regain your land...your property. X successfully fights you off though and in the process takes even more land. Then with the help of that self-same international community "generous compromises" are offered that give you virtually none of the land back but with promises that less might be taken in the future. Being "losers", however, you reject this.
Now, I don't necessarily accept this analogy because it is futile to pretend we can go back to the point before the communities were "disappeared". From, for example, the map. You reach a point where the brutal injustice becomes so interwoven into human history it has to be accepted or you are in la la land. If nothing else the "human condition" is riven with apalling injustice. Right?
On the other hand, I can certainly understand why those who actually lost their land, community, property might be less willing to accede.
And you all know damned well that if the situation were reversed and it was X communities that were gobbled up in the march of time you'd all be demanding precisely what you condemn the "losers" for demanding.
Intellectually and morally, you're, I don't know, hypocrites?
george walton
We can safely ignore the antisemitic post by the obsessed Jew hater George Walton.
We can safely ignore the antisemitic post by the obsessed Jew hater George Walton.
So George, you contend that the Jews came in and stole property from what today are known as Palestinians?
So George, you contend that the Jews came in and stole property from what today are known as Palestinians?
By the way, this is a new and improved George. At least this is an honest comment.
By the way, this is a new and improved George. At least this is an honest comment.
Ginzy,
Uh, these sources you lead us to:
Noah Pollak, Shmuel Rosner, Lenny Ben-David, Hilary Kreiger, David Hornek, Ed Driscoll.
They don't happen to have a political ax to grind do they? I noticed Pajamas Media pops up a lot. Aren't they a reactionary conservative blog?
So, isn't your tour guide above a little like someone sending us to talk radio and Fox News to find things "worth reading" about Barack Obama?
Again, you embrace a Whole Truth narrative. Then you go around looking for folks to confirm it.
Now, I do the same thing at times, true. We all do. But some of us at least own up to it.
How about you?
george
Ginzy,
Uh, these sources you lead us to:
Noah Pollak, Shmuel Rosner, Lenny Ben-David, Hilary Kreiger, David Hornek, Ed Driscoll.
They don't happen to have a political ax to grind do they? I noticed Pajamas Media pops up a lot. Aren't they a reactionary conservative blog?
So, isn't your tour guide above a little like someone sending us to talk radio and Fox News to find things "worth reading" about Barack Obama?
Again, you embrace a Whole Truth narrative. Then you go around looking for folks to confirm it.
Now, I do the same thing at times, true. We all do. But some of us at least own up to it.
How about you?
george
Ginzy, I'm not a supporter of J Street, but since when did having Arab friends make one suspect? That's quite a smear.
Ginzy, I'm not a supporter of J Street, but since when did having Arab friends make one suspect? That's quite a smear.
jacko:
So George, you contend that the Jews came in and stole property from what today are known as Palestinians?
george:
Stole? No, world history isn't an episode of Law and Order. There are so many more "diplomatic" ways in which to nudge folks in the general direction of those who own and operate the world. Let's just say they were given an offer they, uh, couldn't refuse?
george
jacko:
So George, you contend that the Jews came in and stole property from what today are known as Palestinians?
george:
Stole? No, world history isn't an episode of Law and Order. There are so many more "diplomatic" ways in which to nudge folks in the general direction of those who own and operate the world. Let's just say they were given an offer they, uh, couldn't refuse?
george
George. So you're saying they got screwed. Well, I might offer that the They of today is substantially different than the They of yesterday. The They of today are the product of a narrative fashioned by opportunistic contenders. Righteousness has precious little to do with the claims.
George. So you're saying they got screwed. Well, I might offer that the They of today is substantially different than the They of yesterday. The They of today are the product of a narrative fashioned by opportunistic contenders. Righteousness has precious little to do with the claims.
MOLLYSIMON
"Ginzy, I'm not a supporter of J Street, but since when did having Arab friends make one suspect? That's quite a smear. "
Molly, Ginzy didn't say "Arab friends" he said "Saudi friends:"
Ginzy: "Also their attraction to known Saudi friends. Tell me who your friends are and I will tell you who you are. See here and here."
You know the people that brought us wahhabism or more broadly salafism.
MOLLYSIMON
"Ginzy, I'm not a supporter of J Street, but since when did having Arab friends make one suspect? That's quite a smear. "
Molly, Ginzy didn't say "Arab friends" he said "Saudi friends:"
Ginzy: "Also their attraction to known Saudi friends. Tell me who your friends are and I will tell you who you are. See here and here."
You know the people that brought us wahhabism or more broadly salafism.
jacko in arguing with the Jew hater G. Walton you are legitimizing his views in the sense that you are saying that he has a say in this discussion. He doesn't.
Moreover Walton has stated that he doesn't believe the Jewish people are a "legitimate people," so his hatred goes way beyond Israel.
jacko in arguing with the Jew hater G. Walton you are legitimizing his views in the sense that you are saying that he has a say in this discussion. He doesn't.
Moreover Walton has stated that he doesn't believe the Jewish people are a "legitimate people," so his hatred goes way beyond Israel.
Walton's knowledge of history: "Let's just say they were given an offer they, uh, couldn't refuse?"
Bullshit, they did nothing but refuse any offer of peace.
Walton's knowledge of history: "Let's just say they were given an offer they, uh, couldn't refuse?"
Bullshit, they did nothing but refuse any offer of peace.
Reading this post was like reading George Will, Charles Krauthammer and William Kristol for critiques of the Obama Adminstarion's . . . well, anything. I suggest trying this pice by David Bernstein http://volokh.com/2009/10/24/some-friendly-really-advice-to-jstreet/ and Jeffrey Goldberg's interview of Jeremy Ben Ami http://jeffreygoldberg ... view full comment
Reading this post was like reading George Will, Charles Krauthammer and William Kristol for critiques of the Obama Adminstarion's . . . well, anything. I suggest trying this pice by David Bernstein http://volokh.com/2009/10/24/some-friendly-really-advice-to-jstreet/ and Jeffrey Goldberg's interview of Jeremy Ben Ami http://jeffreygoldberg.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/10/j_streets_ben-am.... The first is a cogent argument how J Street aspires to become to the Democratic Party what AIPAC is to the Republicans: shrill, closed minded and focused as much if not more on its critics than support of Israel. The second proves at least that Ben Ami when necessary can talk the talk, but Goldberg exposes that he walks with a pretty strange crowd.
He is suggesting that the Arabs who fled from their villages and towns during the 1948 war were given the option to either flee or get murdered, mafia-style. "an offer he couldn't refuse" with a wink/nudge. The Zionists, if you believe george, were nothing but a bunch of mafiosos. It is the same george who thought that the 1947 partition of Palestine resolution was the British Mandate. Nor did he realize that the one was a League of nations resolution the other - the UN, and that there was a period of 26 years between the two events, with WWII and the Holocaust in between.
george connects only those dots that are agreeable to his deconstructed mind. Those are the only facts that have valid ... view full comment
He is suggesting that the Arabs who fled from their villages and towns during the 1948 war were given the option to either flee or get murdered, mafia-style. "an offer he couldn't refuse" with a wink/nudge. The Zionists, if you believe george, were nothing but a bunch of mafiosos. It is the same george who thought that the 1947 partition of Palestine resolution was the British Mandate. Nor did he realize that the one was a League of nations resolution the other - the UN, and that there was a period of 26 years between the two events, with WWII and the Holocaust in between.
george connects only those dots that are agreeable to his deconstructed mind. Those are the only facts that have validity for him. All other facts are merely the invention of what he calls "true believers" which coming from him, I assume are those who actually are in possession of correct knowledge and verifiable facts.
george fancies himself a Galileo for our time. That he is, a bizaro Galileo. Whereas Galileo insisted that it was earth moving around the sun, bizaro Galileo insists that he knows better and it is the sun that is circling earth. He sees it therefore it is.
What an insufferable putz.
Jackson: Point is maybe taken. The bottom line: The Saudis may have contributed, but if you go by what the director said in this interview, J Street has not been influenced. In fact, counter to what I believe, he says that US aid to Israel is a non-negotiable.
As for sanctions on Iran, this should not be a test of one's fealty to Israel. Sorry. Any way, one can be in favor all one wants, but it's not going to happen. Any sanctions we make alone are worthless, and I don't see China and Russia jumping on the train. But I think negotiating with them is a waste of time, too. They're going to go nuclear, and there's not a lot we can do.
Ginzy: Writing questions to which they'll get t ... view full comment
Jackson: Point is maybe taken. The bottom line: The Saudis may have contributed, but if you go by what the director said in this interview, J Street has not been influenced. In fact, counter to what I believe, he says that US aid to Israel is a non-negotiable.
As for sanctions on Iran, this should not be a test of one's fealty to Israel. Sorry. Any way, one can be in favor all one wants, but it's not going to happen. Any sanctions we make alone are worthless, and I don't see China and Russia jumping on the train. But I think negotiating with them is a waste of time, too. They're going to go nuclear, and there's not a lot we can do.
Ginzy: Writing questions to which they'll get the answers they want? You think J Street invented this? Then you didn't get the latest "survey"--actually, make that a push poll--I received from the RNC. It was hilarious--especially because it was sent to me, a registered Democratic, in an extremely liberal district. But if that's how they want to spend their money, far be it for me and all that.
Stuart Wild, I didn't see your answer (was busy writing my own) but you just about summed it up for me.
Stuart Wild, I didn't see your answer (was busy writing my own) but you just about summed it up for me.
jacko:
George. So you're saying they got screwed.
george:
Isn't it about this time in the exchange you label me a "fraudulant coward" and be done with it? Is this a new tact? ; o )
Screwed? Again, you look at this from the perspective of an ethicist. As though we could ask Randy Cohen for an answer. Which side is Right?...Which side is Wrong?
Instead, the reality, as always, is this: Which side has the power to enforce a set of conditions on the ground. And then sustain it.
When in the course of human history has this not been the case? You take what you can get and then you rationalize it.
But that's never good enough for some---the idealists---is it? No, they need to justify it instead AS an a ... view full comment
jacko:
George. So you're saying they got screwed.
george:
Isn't it about this time in the exchange you label me a "fraudulant coward" and be done with it? Is this a new tact? ; o )
Screwed? Again, you look at this from the perspective of an ethicist. As though we could ask Randy Cohen for an answer. Which side is Right?...Which side is Wrong?
Instead, the reality, as always, is this: Which side has the power to enforce a set of conditions on the ground. And then sustain it.
When in the course of human history has this not been the case? You take what you can get and then you rationalize it.
But that's never good enough for some---the idealists---is it? No, they need to justify it instead AS an act of "righteousness".
Thus when our Founding Fathers established the United States of America by driving the Indians from their own communities it had to be wrapped up in the grandeur of Manifest Destiny. Hell, that's practically like a blueprint from God, isn't it?
The bottom line here doesn't change: The "birth of Israel" came at expense of a lot of Palestinian communities that died. Now, folks like you can point to the sorry state of the Palestinians today; and up to a point that is true. Many embrace Islamist religious fanatics and/or want to go back a dozen centuries into the past. It's a terrible waste in many respects. But it doesn't change what happened to them. Or who did it to them. Or why it was done.
And that has almost nothing to do with ethics, does it? Least of all an ethos said to have its roots in an alleged "universal code of human behavior".
I love this verse:
"Democracy don't rule the world/You better get that through your head/This world is ruled by violence/But I guess that's better left unsaid"
And, like Mr Dylan, my aim is more or less to expose both the sham and the hypocrisy of those who pretend otherwise. Or, perhaps, worse, those who are so fucking blind to the way the world really does unfold, they actually don't have to pretend at all. They really do believe their own rhetorical bullshit about Our God, Our Country, Our Truth, Our Justice....
george walton
d/a
I doubt that this idea could catch on, but, personally,
I'm inclined to contribute to the campaign funds of
anyone opposing a J Street supported candidate,
other things being reasonably equal, even if the J Street candidate
is a Democrat running against a Republican
(again, if my "unless clause" is satisfed, i.e.,
other things being equal). Both J Street's ideology
and its deceptive "sales practices" (in polling, and in misrepresenting
themselves and others) have brought me to this point.
I doubt that this idea could catch on, but, personally,
I'm inclined to contribute to the campaign funds of
anyone opposing a J Street supported candidate,
other things being reasonably equal, even if the J Street candidate
is a Democrat running against a Republican
(again, if my "unless clause" is satisfed, i.e.,
other things being equal). Both J Street's ideology
and its deceptive "sales practices" (in polling, and in misrepresenting
themselves and others) have brought me to this point.
Contrary to Stuart Wild's stereotypes, I normally vote Democratic AND support AIPAC. I dislike today's plutocratic, theocratic Republicanism and question whether we can remake Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan with huge ground forces.
I never bother to read postings to this blog by George Walton and his ilk.
Molly Simon believes that resistence to Islamic Republican Iran is futile. I disagree. The risks of not destroying the Islamic Republic are greater than the risks of tolerating it for much longer. It is lamentable that the world is leaving that job to desperate little Israel.
Contrary to Stuart Wild's stereotypes, I normally vote Democratic AND support AIPAC. I dislike today's plutocratic, theocratic Republicanism and question whether we can remake Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan with huge ground forces.
I never bother to read postings to this blog by George Walton and his ilk.
Molly Simon believes that resistence to Islamic Republican Iran is futile. I disagree. The risks of not destroying the Islamic Republic are greater than the risks of tolerating it for much longer. It is lamentable that the world is leaving that job to desperate little Israel.
MOLLYSIMON
"Jackson: Point is maybe taken. The bottom line: The Saudis may have contributed, but if you go by what the director said in this interview, J Street has not been influenced. In fact, counter to what I believe, he says that US aid to Israel is a non-negotiable."
Don't know about bottom lines, but my only point was that Ginzy wasn't talking about "Arabs" in general.
As for the rest, the interview was interesting. The director of J Street seems ok to me, (I haven't been following closely all his comments about this issue, Molly) a lot of the people in his organization, though, don't seem as concerned about Israel as he appears to be.
Anyway, here is another opinion about the dir ... view full comment
MOLLYSIMON
"Jackson: Point is maybe taken. The bottom line: The Saudis may have contributed, but if you go by what the director said in this interview, J Street has not been influenced. In fact, counter to what I believe, he says that US aid to Israel is a non-negotiable."
Don't know about bottom lines, but my only point was that Ginzy wasn't talking about "Arabs" in general.
As for the rest, the interview was interesting. The director of J Street seems ok to me, (I haven't been following closely all his comments about this issue, Molly) a lot of the people in his organization, though, don't seem as concerned about Israel as he appears to be.
Anyway, here is another opinion about the director, Molly.
http://blog.z-word.com/2009/10/how-to-make-life-easy-for-j-street%e2%80%...
Another ignorant opinion by the psycho fraudster George Walton "The bottom line here doesn't change: The "birth of Israel" came at expense of a lot of Palestinian communities that died."
This is like saying that the US victory over Japan and Germany came at the expense of Japan and Germany.
The birth of Israel in 1947 before the Arabs decided to attack the Jewish people in mandate Palestine did not involve the uprooting of even one Arab village.
After the Arabs declared war communities on both sides were devastated.
I'll throw in my own bottom line: if the Arabs had not attacked the Jews there would never have been a "refugee problem." Second bottom line, if the Arabs had repatriated their A ... view full comment
Another ignorant opinion by the psycho fraudster George Walton "The bottom line here doesn't change: The "birth of Israel" came at expense of a lot of Palestinian communities that died."
This is like saying that the US victory over Japan and Germany came at the expense of Japan and Germany.
The birth of Israel in 1947 before the Arabs decided to attack the Jewish people in mandate Palestine did not involve the uprooting of even one Arab village.
After the Arabs declared war communities on both sides were devastated.
I'll throw in my own bottom line: if the Arabs had not attacked the Jews there would never have been a "refugee problem." Second bottom line, if the Arabs had repatriated their Arab brothers as the Israel repatriated Jewish refugees from Arab lands, and as the Germans and other Europeans repatriated their national after the war there would have been no "Palestinian refugee problem."
This is too much for George to absorb given his dedicated hatred of Jews and given that his friends at stormfront.com won't like him any more if he did absorb it.
In the meantime while the Jew haters rage, Israelis continue to live their lives calmly and develop its scientific potential here in collaboration with American and Japanese scientists.
“New Israeli battery provides thousands of hours of power”
Oct. 14, 2009
Judy Siegel-Itzkovich , THE JERUSALEM POST
“A new kind of portable electrochemical battery that can produce thousands of hours of power - and soon replace the expensive regular or rechargeable batteries in hearing aids and sensors and eventually in cellphones, laptop computers and even electric cars - has been developed at Haifa's Technion-Israel Institute of Technology.
The unique battery is based on silicon as a fuel that reverts ... view full comment
In the meantime while the Jew haters rage, Israelis continue to live their lives calmly and develop its scientific potential here in collaboration with American and Japanese scientists.
“New Israeli battery provides thousands of hours of power”
Oct. 14, 2009
Judy Siegel-Itzkovich , THE JERUSALEM POST
“A new kind of portable electrochemical battery that can produce thousands of hours of power - and soon replace the expensive regular or rechargeable batteries in hearing aids and sensors and eventually in cellphones, laptop computers and even electric cars - has been developed at Haifa's Technion-Israel Institute of Technology.
The unique battery is based on silicon as a fuel that reverts to its original sand. The battery can also be left on the shelf for years and inserted into a device to provide immediate power.
It was developed over the last two-and-a-half years by Prof. Yair Ein-Eli of the Technion's materials engineering department, with collaboration by Prof. Digby Macdonald of Pennsylvania State University in the US and Prof. Rika Hagiwara of Kyoto University in Japan.
The work was conducted with a grant from the US-Israel Binational Science Foundation, and an article on the battery was just published in the journal Electrochemistry Communications.
Ein-Eli told The Jerusalem Post on Wednesday that he has spent the last eight years investigating silicon in all aspects and the possibility of its serving as the major component of a highly efficient and environmentally friendly battery.
Five years ago, he met Macdonald, who attended Ein-Eli's lecture on electrochemistry, and they decided to work together, with the American coming to visit his Technion lab once a year.
The team obtained from the Japanese researcher an ionic liquid (liquid electrolytes or salts that form stable liquids) that does not evaporate easily. Most of the work was performed in the Haifa lab.
Ordinary portable batteries are composed of a positive electrode called a cathode and a negative one called an anode. They are separated by material containing ions (electrolytes in a liquid form).
Some metal-air batteries exist, such as those using lithium, and are cheaper and lighter because they lack a cathode structure. Various big companies such as IBM, together with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, are trying to develop rechargeable lithium-air batteries that could function 10 times longer than conventional batteries, but they have not yet succeeded.
The ionic liquid developed a decade ago in Japan is the perfect substance for this purpose, Ein-Eli continued. In such electrolytes, the highly doped silicon - a semi-conductor - is activated and acts as a highly metalized conductor.
"We bought ready-made flat metalized silicon wafers, which serve as the anode. There is no corrosion or evaporation with the ionic liquid, and unlike conventional batteries, the silicon-air battery does not absorb water from the outside," he explained.
In the Technion battery, oxygen from the air in the battery capsule passes through a membrane and interacts with oxidized silicon, which is inert, stable, lightweight and nontoxic, has a high-energy content and can be used later as a building material.
Most computer chips are also made from silicon.
The new invention - with a US patent pending - is not rechargeable, but it can supply power for thousands of hours, said Ein-Eli.
The Technion battery ranges from one square centimeter - small enough for hearing aids and much more efficient than the highly expensive, short-lasting lithium ones used now - to several square centimeters. In another year, the power output can be significantly increased, and in three or four years, said the researcher, it could be made rechargeable as well.
"Think of an electric car battery made from silicon that will turn into sand that would be recycled into silicon and then into power again," suggested Ein-Eli. "This would take about 10 years more and be revolutionary. It could be used in any portable electronic device or be integrated with solar or wind power as well as electric energy."
A number of foreign and Israeli companies have already contacted him and shown strong interest in the battery, he said.
The system is "highly promising, as it is capable of outperforming other existing metal-air battery technologies," Ein-Eli concluded.”
http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1255547719698&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull
Here is a workable link:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1255547719698&pagename=JPArti...
Here is a workable link:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1255547719698&pagename=JPArti...
amid:
I never bother to read postings to this blog by George Walton and his ilk.
george:
And thus you can rest assured I will never bother to read yours other. This is as it should be for those who have no respect for another's intelligence.
g
amid:
I never bother to read postings to this blog by George Walton and his ilk.
george:
And thus you can rest assured I will never bother to read yours other. This is as it should be for those who have no respect for another's intelligence.
g
First, from inside the J Street conference, with some revealing reports who is on who is cheered and who is jeered, and how pointed questions to J Street staffers can be artfully dodged ( here and here).
It should be noted that one of those booed at the conference, Rabbi Eric Yoffie of the Reform Movement, was not booed for taking excessively anti-Israel positions. He and his movement are very much in the left wing of the US Jewish community, both religiously and politically. And as noted in ... view full comment
First, from inside the J Street conference, with some revealing reports who is on who is cheered and who is jeered, and how pointed questions to J Street staffers can be artfully dodged ( here and here).
It should be noted that one of those booed at the conference, Rabbi Eric Yoffie of the Reform Movement, was not booed for taking excessively anti-Israel positions. He and his movement are very much in the left wing of the US Jewish community, both religiously and politically. And as noted in the Talmud (Tractate Mo'ed Kattan, 25B), ?אם בארזים נפלה שלהבת, מה יעשו איזובי הקיר (the ginzy standard translation: If a fire has befallen the cedars, what is can the hyssop on the wall possibly do?).
Molly, I have no problem with Arab friends or acquaintances. But when an organization gets support from individuals and other organizations whose long established position on Israel is not consistent with Israel's interests or well being or existence as Jewish state, then that should raise questions about said organization.
Regarding Goldberg's interview with Ben Ami, JBA has a habit of artfully dodging uncomfortable issues (as befits an experienced political operative), he carefully avoids defining J Street as a Zionist organization. And as noted by Gil Troy in the Jerusalem Post (here) the word "Zionism" or any of its derivatives is absent from J Street web site. How can an organization claim to be even remotely pro-Israel (unless you believe that Israel's interests are best served by its dissolution as a Jewish state) without even mentioning the word "Zionism" in at least a mildly positive context?
And now the latest: J Street's campus division is dropping the label "pro-Israel" (see here), a term that JBA is careful to repeat like a mantra, lest his listeners realize that something is rotten in the state of J Street. In the words of the bard, Methinks the lady doth protest too much.
Back to the interview. JBA likes to play fast a loose with the facts. He claims that during the"ceasefire for four and a half months, from June until early November of last year, there were zero rockets" from inside Gaza against the "Gaza envelope". There are several problems with that statement. First of all it is patently false; there were rockets fired in the June to early November, albeit at a slower rate (my son was in command of a tank & crew along the Gaza border during this period and we naturally followed the news very closely). JG has already noted this discrepancy (here), and this has clearly raised questions in his mind. (NOTE: I am in the process of trying to obtain definitive month-by-month rocket counts from the IDF spokesman's office in response to JG's general info request).
Second of all, JBA is careful to bookend his time slot "to early November". With good reason, because (if I remember correctly) the pace of rocket fire started picking up in November through December when on many days tens of rockets fired, but the official end to the ceasefire itself was late December (around the 24th or 25th). Ergo, his premise that a ceasefire with Hamas is demonstrably dependable is nonsense. And with it all, Israel was interested in renewing the ceasefire (which I disagreed with at the time), but Hamas responded with a barrage of over 100 rockets in a single day. That was the straw that broke the camel's back even for far left-wing Meretz party.
In a follow-on exchange with JG (here), JBA also goes on to say that "250-300 rockets [have been fired from Gaza] since the invasion which is an average of 25-30/month". Assuming his numbers are correct (I think they may be a bit on the high side), most of those were fired in the initial weeks after Cast Lead and then slowed down very significantly. When I last visited Sderot during Passover, it was a far livelier place, with many more people, including kids playing, on the streets than I had seen in previous visits during the rocket-peppered "cease-fire"; in other words the local citizenry felt the difference and behaved accordingly. The rocket fire has slowed a few a month (if that) -- not 25-30 which would be about 1/day -- and those tend to land in open areas (in part this is due to much more assertive rules of engagement than were in effect when my son was stationed along the Gaza border; the firing crews can't get to the choice launch sites with impunity).
Even the NY Times' Ethan Bronner (here) grudgingly concedes that force trumps diplomacy when it comes to securing quiet along Israel's borders. ...אם בארזים נפלה שלהבת
That's all I have time for now. But the bottom line is that when JBA claims that J Street is pro-Israel and represents the mainstream of the American Jewish community, he should be sued for false advertising & distorting reality. And those naive lefties who join J honestly thinking that it's pro-Israel are candidates for next years Walter Duranty Useful Idiot Award. This year's award went to Richard Goldstone.
Hershel Ginsburg
Efrata / Jerusalem
It's pretty disingenuous for Ben Ami to claim they are Zionist, pro-Israel and two-states, while helpfully providing platform for one-staters or rabid Israel-haters like Max Blumenthal. It just does not make sense. It's either a variety of cognitive dissonance or an audacious attempt at conning people. But who are they conning? J-Street Arab supporters, or J-street Jewish supporters?
"Blumenthal went on to trash Elie Wiesel for speaking this past weekend at the Christians United for Israel conference in San Antonio. After mocking Pastor John Hagee, the founder of CUFI, Blumenthal said "the last time Elie Wiesel trusted someone so much it was Bernie Madoff." Wiesel admitted earlier this year t ... view full comment
It's pretty disingenuous for Ben Ami to claim they are Zionist, pro-Israel and two-states, while helpfully providing platform for one-staters or rabid Israel-haters like Max Blumenthal. It just does not make sense. It's either a variety of cognitive dissonance or an audacious attempt at conning people. But who are they conning? J-Street Arab supporters, or J-street Jewish supporters?
"Blumenthal went on to trash Elie Wiesel for speaking this past weekend at the Christians United for Israel conference in San Antonio. After mocking Pastor John Hagee, the founder of CUFI, Blumenthal said "the last time Elie Wiesel trusted someone so much it was Bernie Madoff." Wiesel admitted earlier this year that he lost "everything" he had in Madoff's ponzi scheme. The audience erupted with laughter ...."
"Finally, we heard from the proprietor of the blog GazaMom.com, a hijab clad Palestinian woman who said she doesn't consider Mahmoud Abbas to be the legitimate president of the Palestinian Authority. Does she support Hamas? Who knows. "Whenever I hear two-state solution, I shake my head," she said, "I'm a one-stater." Again the room erupted with applause."
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/10/elie_wiesel_mocked_a...
Max seems to think it is punk to mock Elie Wiesel. There are so many layers of convoluted self-hatred in this posture that it would require a full-time psychiatrist to make Max understand himself. People should remember this low point when they next indulge in watching one of Max's videos.
And has anyone tried to provide some sort of reality check to the one-stater Gaza-mom's vision? Has anyone tried to question her as to what exactly she means by that?
George. Given your convictions I'm wondering why you even bother to care. And why do you hold a special reserve of ire for Israel and jews? You end up walking all over your own philosophy. Hypocrite?
hint: Killing Israel will not equal killing God.
George. Given your convictions I'm wondering why you even bother to care. And why do you hold a special reserve of ire for Israel and jews? You end up walking all over your own philosophy. Hypocrite?
hint: Killing Israel will not equal killing God.
Thanks, Jackson, for the link, and thanks Ginzy, for extensive answer. I'm sitting here trying to figure out whether Ben-Ami is slippery or incompetent. Whatever it is, J Street is an amateur operation. They cannot possibly get mainstream and left-leaning Jews like me to join up if they feature these sorts of speakers. Sadly, this is obviously not the more liberal Jewish PAC I was hoping for--one that would make Palestinian rights central to their platform, along with a two-state solution. In JG's blog, Ben-Ami talked the talk--but I wish Goldberg had asked him how he could defend some of his guest speakers.
(By the way, Ginzy, if you have a spare minute, I'm just curious: Do you be ... view full comment
Thanks, Jackson, for the link, and thanks Ginzy, for extensive answer. I'm sitting here trying to figure out whether Ben-Ami is slippery or incompetent. Whatever it is, J Street is an amateur operation. They cannot possibly get mainstream and left-leaning Jews like me to join up if they feature these sorts of speakers. Sadly, this is obviously not the more liberal Jewish PAC I was hoping for--one that would make Palestinian rights central to their platform, along with a two-state solution. In JG's blog, Ben-Ami talked the talk--but I wish Goldberg had asked him how he could defend some of his guest speakers.
(By the way, Ginzy, if you have a spare minute, I'm just curious: Do you believe the Israeli's have a biblical right to the West Bank? Do you believe in a two-state solution? I'm really writing this because I want to know. We don't often agree, but I still enjoy your posts.)
As for Noga. Well, Ginzy, if you can tell people by the company they keep, then Noga's a bigoted, anti-semitic, homophobe. Mocking Wiesel the way they did was despicable. But I'm far more disgusted that Wiesel would speak at Hagee's church. Wonder why? Just read below, from TPM. Let's see what Noga says about the that Wiesel went there. Will Noga condemn Hagee? Or is she completely committed to defending people despite their associations--as long as those people agree with her. Of course, we all know the reason Hagee wants Jews in Israel is so that the Rapture will come that much quicker.
Here, from TPM:
Hagee says that if America presses Israel allow the Palestinians to found a state in the West Bank and Gaza God will "release the terrorists" to come to America to create a "bloodbath." (See this video, at approximately time mark 3:00)
Hagee says that God brought the Katrina disaster down on New Orleans because of a planned "homosexual parade there on the Monday that the Katrina came ... that it was going to reach a level of sexuality never demonstrated before in any of the other Gay Pride parades."
Then there's Hagee on why the Jews have had such a rough time of it for the last couple thousand years ...
"It was the disobedience and rebellion of the Jews, God's chosen people, to their covenantal responsibility to serve only the one true God, Jehovah, that gave rise to the opposition and persecution that they experienced beginning in Canaan and continuing to this very day....
How utterly repulsive, insulting, and heartbreaking to God for His chosen people to credit idols with bringing blessings He had showered upon the chosen people. Their own rebellion had birthed the seed of anti-Semitism that would arise and bring destruction to them for centuries to come.... it rises from the judgment of God uppon his rebellious chosen people." ["Jerusalem Countdown: A Prelude To War", paperback edition, pages 92 and 93]
jacko:
George. Given your convictions I'm wondering why you even bother to care. And why do you hold a special reserve of ire for Israel and jews? You end up walking all over your own philosophy. Hypocrite?
george:
Sigh....
I am what I am in here because virtually every other poster embraces one or another rendition of the Whole Truth about Israel, Zionism, Islam, Palestinians Arabs etc. Once it became clear to me that The Spine was a Cartoon Room I reacted to the posters [well, some posters] as cartoon characters. Again: if this were a room overflowing with hardcore Islamists, Objectivists, Marxists, Christians, Capitalists, Anarchists etc. I would react in exactly the same way. And I do in var ... view full comment
jacko:
George. Given your convictions I'm wondering why you even bother to care. And why do you hold a special reserve of ire for Israel and jews? You end up walking all over your own philosophy. Hypocrite?
george:
Sigh....
I am what I am in here because virtually every other poster embraces one or another rendition of the Whole Truth about Israel, Zionism, Islam, Palestinians Arabs etc. Once it became clear to me that The Spine was a Cartoon Room I reacted to the posters [well, some posters] as cartoon characters. Again: if this were a room overflowing with hardcore Islamists, Objectivists, Marxists, Christians, Capitalists, Anarchists etc. I would react in exactly the same way. And I do in various philosophy venues.
It is the True Believer mentality I seek to expose. And that is because people like this are the most dangerous in the world. My friends Danny and Anne pursue my exploits out in cyberspace because, as psychologists, they have a particular interest in what their own friend Julian calls MassThink. I just help them in their, uh, research.
jacko:
hint: Killing Israel will not equal killing God.
george:
Is that what you think I'm after---the death of G-d?
Please. As long as the overwhelming majority of people are 1] brainwashed into embracing one or another Father and 2] have little or no intellectual courage in confronting their own mortality, Doestoevki's haunting, "in the absense of God all things are permitted", the horror of a world without Divine Justice etc. I have absolutely no illusions about "killing" even a single one of them.
Besides, God is about fulfilling deep-seated emotional and psychological needs. Something folks like Harris and Hitchens and Dawkins never seem to fully grasp. They actually think they can reason with people about God. Some sure. But not you, right?
george
So God is an irrational construct born of fear?
So God is an irrational construct born of fear?
autodidact george loony tunes walton "I am what I am in here because virtually every other poster embraces one or another rendition of the Whole Truth ..."
Loony tunes, is what he is because the Jews made him do it.
Typical antisemitic tripe.
autodidact george loony tunes walton "I am what I am in here because virtually every other poster embraces one or another rendition of the Whole Truth ..."
Loony tunes, is what he is because the Jews made him do it.
Typical antisemitic tripe.
jacko quit feeding the asshole. You are just playing straight man.
jacko quit feeding the asshole. You are just playing straight man.
"So God is an irrational construct born of fear?"
gw:
Is that what some want to reduce him down to? Probably.
But not me.
Besides, it is theodicy that fascinates me far more.
That one might start with the ontological [and teleological] question "Why?" and end with "God" is not irrational to me.
Again, Einstein:
The most beautiful emotion we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion that stands at the cradle of all true art and science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead, a snuffed-out candle. To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is something that our minds cannot grasp, whose beauty ... view full comment
"So God is an irrational construct born of fear?"
gw:
Is that what some want to reduce him down to? Probably.
But not me.
Besides, it is theodicy that fascinates me far more.
That one might start with the ontological [and teleological] question "Why?" and end with "God" is not irrational to me.
Again, Einstein:
The most beautiful emotion we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion that stands at the cradle of all true art and science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead, a snuffed-out candle. To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is something that our minds cannot grasp, whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly: this is religiousness. In this sense, and in this sense only, I am a devoutly religious man.
george:
Religion stretched that broadly? Me too.
But to "whorship and adore" a God said to be the God in the butcher shop that is nature and human history?
You'd have to credulous to a degree I long ago transcended.
george
I think the cartoonishness you have such contempt for is the very same capacity which you project from within. Assumptions make the world manageable but accusations as such tend to be self indictments.
I think the cartoonishness you have such contempt for is the very same capacity which you project from within. Assumptions make the world manageable but accusations as such tend to be self indictments.
"I think the cartoonishness you have such contempt for is the very same capacity which you project from within."
gw:
Again, another vague psychologism about me and my arguments, rather than a rejoinder with intelligent arguments about religion of your own.
You only have 22 days now before the probation ends.
gw
"I think the cartoonishness you have such contempt for is the very same capacity which you project from within."
gw:
Again, another vague psychologism about me and my arguments, rather than a rejoinder with intelligent arguments about religion of your own.
You only have 22 days now before the probation ends.
gw