Justin Elliott of Mother Jones says J Street's first congessional endorsements are ho-hum. "J Street's endorsees aren't talking about, say, how to put an end to Israeli settlement expansion, or about the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Gaza." And the Forward says:
J Street settled on liberal politicians who are also comfortable
within the orbit of Aipac, a nonpartisan group that does not endorse
candidates.
“I don’t see J Street and Aipac as being antithetical in any way,”
said Rep. Steve Cohen of Tennessee, a first-term congressman who
traveled to Israel with Aipac last summer
So J Street is already having trouble differentiating itself as better dog food. I think the revelation actually took place two weeks ago, when in response to media questions, J Street's executive director had these mild things to say about Obama's pandering at the AIPAC policy conference. Notice that neither of Jereme Ben-Ami's comments comes close to lambasting Obama or AIPAC. Jeremy Ben-Ami says that Obama's statement about Jerusalem was "unhelpful" and that AIPAC is trying to make it "costly" for political candidates to stick by our country's alleged policy–a viable two-state solution. An excellent point. But unemphatic.
J Street did not issue a statement of its own–just look at the website– didn't take on AIPAC for bringing Obama to his knees in the eyes of the world, and didn't fault Obama for pandering.Didn't offer an analysis of what is wrong with AIPAC. Jon Stewart was far more critical of Obama and AIPAC than J Street! Why did J Street go so quietly into that dark night on an issue tailor-made for its theme? I'm told that it doesn't want to hurt Obama with Jewish voters. J Street wants Obama to win, and is afraid that if it comes out against Obama's statements vigorously, it might cause division or strain, and knock down Obama's support from say 75 percent of Jews to only 65 percent (I think 40 is the maginot line: Reagan got nearly 40). So let's follow this logic. J Street says that it has to exist because AIPAC doesn't represent the liberal body of American Jewry. But when push comes to shove, J Street doesn't believe in that liberal body either. A recent AJC poll shows that American Jews are against dividing Jerusalem by 58 to 36 percent. I.e., Obama is with 'em!
That's the heart of the matter. American Jews are still backward on this issue. Yes those 36 percent belong to Obama, but J Street is afraid to try to grow that 36 percent by taking an angry stand when it matters. I get the feeling they don't believe their own claims.
(P.S. I applaud J Street for calling on American Jews to support the Gaza ceasefire…)
J Street is AIPAC with a little lipstick on.
Rick Santorum, in an article in the Phila Daily News, states that Obama has an Israel problem.
http://tinyurl.com/657yxp
58% of Jews in America oppose meaningful compromise on Jerusalem? Is there any reason to think that a lessor number favor an American attack on Iran?
This very thin minority rule is a horrible imposition on the rest of America. Any idea as to how much longer it will be until our Weimer Republic economy brings meaningful social unrest to the streets of America? President Obama will be just the man to order the National Guard out to quell the rioting…ooops, they're over in Iraq.
Obama is center-left, not left.
And, his comments to AIPAC, with the exception of the undivided Jerusalem comment, is consistent with the views of a center-left politician.
And, J Street is doing what it should, which is to present an alternative view, NOT to indulge (literally) in internecine sniping.
Relations to AIPAC the organization is NOT a litmus test for anything.
Making it one, is suppressive of discussion.
The left becomes the right in that manner, NOT the liberating voice, just the politically correct voice.
Phil: I know specifically about one race J Street is intervening in: Darcy Burner's challenge to Dave Reichert, a Bible-thumping Bush-Cheney acolyte who represents Microsoft territory on Seattle's eastside. This is an important race & she lost last time by only 4,000+ votes. This is not a ho hum election as you characterized Jstreet's endorsees. This is a critical election esp. in my neck of the woods.
I think you're expecting too much of J Street too early in its existence. There's no reason to take on AIPAC in a head to head match when the latter is so strong & J Street relatively new. THere will be plenty of time for that.
I would've like J Street to endorse Al Franken, but they decided to stick to House elections this time around.
Who would you have preferred J Street to endorse who they didn't endorse?
'J PAC' is pro Israel first.
'J PAC' is another Israeli Lobby in America.
'J PAC' is a new, hip, more acceptable AIPAC to the goyim while having the same goals as the big bad AIPAC we all know and love.
"Phil: I know specifically about one race J Street is intervening in: Darcy Burner's challenge to Dave Reichert, a Bible-thumping Bush-Cheney acolyte who represents Microsoft territory on Seattle's eastside. This is an important race & she lost last time by only 4,000+ votes. This is not a ho hum election as you characterized Jstreet's endorsees. This is a critical election esp. in my neck of the woods.
I think you're expecting too much of J Street too early in its existence."
There is also this by Mr. Silverstein…
You could say – anything which legitimately questions AIPAC in America – helps the discussion – helps free speech – is to be supported.
J Street should be assertively pro-Israel.
It should be so towards peace, if peace is possible.
If peace is not possible, J street should be towards peace to the extent that it is possible.
Fantasy doesn't cut it. Neither does pretending that it is a human rights organization.
Its a different way of being pro-Israel. And that is a very good thing.
Meet the new PAC, same as the old PAC (apologies to Pete Townsend)
Meet the new angry and impotent radical, same as the old.
(There are good and productive radicals in the world. You know them by their works.)
Worldwide public opinion has already turned on zionism.
Those millions and billions put into zionist propaganda–in the end, even they won't be enough.
For as the good and productive Godfather of Soul sang,
Money won't change ya
Money won't change ya mama
I said money won't change ya
But time–will take you on!
http://youtube.com/watch?v=piJ-89A0F00
The sentiment that the Jewish people are a nation will not die by rhetoric.
It didn't die in the 30's and 40's when assaulted by socialist views angry at Zionist nationalism (not for the displacement but for the nationalism), nor when assaulted by naziism.
It has a river running through it.
And, because of that river, the most modification to Zionism that is possible without severe represssion, is reform.
I urge reform, not represssion, not some fantasy of Israel not existing. And, also not some fantasy that it is evil or racist in origin.
Phil: Did you see in Monday’s New York Times (A section) J Street’s full page ad:
http://salsa.wiredforchange.com/o/2747/images/nytimesceasefiread.jpg
I thought it was a breath of fresh air.
What do you think?
Frank