Only a Multi-Ethnic/Religious Coalition Can Change U.S. Policy in Mid East

The other night I had one of my regular arguments with a liberal Jewish friend. I said that AIPAC is representative of Jewish opinion. He said it is not, Jews are more liberal. Rabbi Lerner makes the same point here, and Joe Klein has said something like this recently.

These guys are wrong. First, it is hard to believe that the most educated and affluent community in the U.S. would allow itself to be so misrepresented. Yes, AIPAC is more hawkish by and large, but as I pointed out a few days ago, AIPAC’s stances on Jerusalem, the settlements, confronting Iran, even land-for-peace are in step with majority Jewish opinion, which when it comes to Israel is very conservative. The proof I offered then was J Street’s survey of Jewish opinion, which shows that Jews overwhelmingly are against dividing a faraway place that most of them have never been to (Jerusalem).

Yesterday I had a look at the J Street website. This is the “alternative” lobby. It has emerged with fanfare lately as the voice of anti-occupation Jews. But is it? Lerner is disappointed in it. Its actual policy positions are weak to the point of being lame-o. On Jerusalem, note that J Street never says, Divide Jerusalem, it says that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. Not a word about being the capital for Palestine. It can’t alienate majority Jewish opinion. Note that on settlements, J Street only calls for freezing them now–no expansion. Mum’s the word on peeling back the existing colonies. Though in its two-state program, J Street calls for land swaps along the Clinton parameters, and says most of the settlements can stay. Most.

This is lukewarm, and actually very close to AIPAC’s Olmertian position. The reason it’s lukewarm is that J Street originates in the Jewish community, and its function as I have stated is to lobby the lobby–push AIPAC, which it does not oppose, slightly leftward. Good luck, I say again. And I bet that privately most of the J Street principals are close in temperament to MJ Rosenberg and Dan Fleshler, who have vigorously opposed the occupation for a long time.

Looking at J Street helps me to see where I stand: inside and outside the Jewish community. We are talking about definitions of community here. J Street’s definition, notwithstanding its inclusion of non-Jewish advisory board members–Lincoln Chafee–is The Jewish Community. But if you want to change Middle East policy, I don’t think you can plant both feet in the Jewish community. That community is just too primitive by and large on issues of Jerusalem and land, out of Holocaust memory and anti-Arab brainwashing (Lerner calls it Post Traumatic Stress Disorder). As I say, I’m going to report from the beach my parents go in the summer, a scientific community, liberals. I’m talking about universalist creed. American Jews remain by and large parochial. It’s why they’re 58 percent for not dividing Jerusalem, an international city. As J Street shows, a Jewish-oriented organization even with the best intentions is going to have to placate parochial feeling; almost every Jewish family has one or two Democrats turned neocons, in the attic, maybe even the living room. (Lerner and Andrea Whitmore say that Brit Tzedek has had problems with parochialism.) I’m glad J Street is here. But in order to lead the way to a fair resolution in the Middle East, American progressives need to form a diverse community of people who care about human rights, minority rights and justice.

About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of
Posted in Israel/Palestine, US Policy in the Middle East, US Politics

{ 33 comments... read them below or add one }

  1. otto says:

    This is broadly right. But note:

    1. MJ Rosenberg wants the settlements around Jerusalem like all the others. He's squarely in the J-Street two-inches to the left category in terms of the actual outcome he seeks.

    2. It's not holocaust memory and so on: it's just garden-variety colonial bigotry. The Israelis were treating the native arabs just the same in the 1920s and 1930s, when General Montgomery stood in for General Sharon in killing the indigenous inhabitants as necessary. There's little Jewish about Israeli behaviour — and much that is similar to the French Pieds Noirs and their hard right backers in Paris.

    3. You say, "Only a Multi-Ethnic/Religious Coalition Can Change U.S. Policy in Mid East". In fact, it's only an anti-Zionist coalition, expressly contrary to the parochial and bigoted attitudes you describe above – put another way, expressly contrary to the preferences of most American jews – which can do so.

  2. D. says:

    J-Street, like AFPN and every other Jewish "peace" group, opposes making US aid to Israel CONDITIONAL on Israeli behavior. As M&W tried to tell Americans, this is the crux of the matter. All this JStreet/AIPAC squabbling just Jews arguing with Jews on what's best for Jews — a pleasant pastime of which there is no end. But once the convention of unconditional aid is broken, the whole game would change. Because then the originators of the aid — the American people — would have to be brought into the discussion and convinced to keep giving. We would have to have the "multi-ethnic" discussion that Phil is calling for. And this is something none of the J-groups will ever willingly do.

    Although they were too polite (timid?) to state it bluntly, the reason M&W made the UNCONDITIONALITY of US aid to Israel the center of their argument, is that it reveals the fundamental distrust of the host society which is at the core of Zionist thinking. A democracy requires trust of your neighbors.

  3. Richard Witty says:

    I have more trust in J Street than you Phil.

    I don't consider the only relevant voice by any stretch.

    I think your using the Jerusalem question as a litmus test is wrong. Most that answered the question did NOT include the political math that you did. They were simply asked, "would you prefer that Jerusalem not be divided?" and answered "Yes".

    I've heard militant Palestinians answer the same "yes" to the same question, but meaning something entirely different than what the liberal Jews answered, and what interpretation you bring to that answer.

    The other answers in to the J Street survey were much clearer and much more supportive of an effort towards mutual peace (rather than imposed peace).

    I LIKE one implication of the answers to the J Street survey, which is "Its none of our damn business how you guys end up deciding how you cut the cake. We care that it be fair and permanently peaceful."

    If asked (I forgot if it was), "Can you live with a divided Jerusalem?" I expect that the majority would say "For the prospect of peace and real acceptance, absolutely."

    The significance of J Street is NOT as a shadow of AIPAC (as much as Phil hopelessly concludes so). Its significance is to demonstrate to politicians that there is a constituency of Jews that will support them if they diverge from the party line of the right-wing portion of AIPAC.

    On whether AIPAC represents Jews. It clearly does NOT represent proportional Jewish numbers. It probably does represent proportional Jewish dollars.

  4. charles Keating says:

    "The significance of J Street is NOT as a shadow of AIPAC (as much as Phil hopelessly concludes so). Its significance is to demonstrate to politicians that there is a constituency of Jews that will support them if they diverge from the party line of the right-wing portion of AIPAC."–Witty

    If a real leader of the USA came on TV and told the American people to watch an objective history of Israel (from Balfour, through Holocaust, through Nabka, down to the Lebanon massacre so recent) at X time on Y Çhannel because of its importance in foreign policy and our foreign aid dollars, both in the context of our economy and moral principles, the Amereican people would do so. After watching, there would be a groundswell of support that Israel be treated as other nations, i.e., with both carrot and stick. The stick is missing, the stick is missing–let's bring an end to the entitlement age and marry rights to duties. Have we learned nothing from the history of the modern and post-modern age?

  5. Ed says:

    The poll of the Jewish community just taken by J Street (an ostensibly centrist Jewish Zionist organization formulated to countervail the supposed right-wing ones) alleging the moderation of Jewish Americans on the Zionist issue was recently deconstructed on Rosner’s blog:
    Do U.S. Jews really support 'necessary compromises' for peace?
    link to

    What Rosner basically found was that the J Street poll was conducted and interpreted in such a way as to rig the findings to be in accordance with the pre-determined “Jews are more rational and centrist on the issues of Zionism and Mideast wars than believed” outcome J Street wanted to find. J Street then used these “findings” to dishonestly trumpet pro-Israel lobbies and politicians, nearly all of whom across the entire political spectrum are far-right on the Zionist issue, as out of touch with what Jewish American Zionists really wanted for Israel and the Mideast. In fact, they are all in nearly perfect harmony.

    J Street is thus shaping up primarily as just another dishonest cover organization, designed to reinforce an already false consciousness that many non-Jewish Americans have in their minds about the majority of US Jews: that they subscribe to the rationalism of Western Christian civilization and the Enlightenment. In fact they are creatures of an alien, superstitious, bigoted and dishonest Talmudic ideology, and their behavior and beliefs–and the Jewish-supremacist policies they advocate both for the US and Israel–are consistent with that.

  6. Robert Hume says:

    Good suggestion, Phil. I agree that a multi-ethnic, multi-religion organization is needed.

    I think that it could be founded by anyone, but the board, officers, and members need to be determined in accordance with quotas. Otherwise one group will dominate and the organization will cease to represent the US.

    I would suggest 20% Jewish, 10% Muslim, and 70% Christian comprised of 5-10% black and 5-10% Hispanic and 50-60% white.

    Is there a liberal Jewish billionaire willing to fund this as a start-up? Or are they possibly all opposed to quotas and/or not comfortable with funding an organizations which would be dominated by Christians no matter how much it is needed.

    Prospective members would be selected by lottery if their quota was oversubscribed. There would have to be a fairly hefty membership fee so that the organization could be independent of the initial funder, if possible.

  7. delia ruhe says:

    I think you are right, Phil. So would Kathleen Christison. See this oldish piece by her in

    link to

  8. Ed says:

    Westernized Jews, Statist-Materialist Washington trying to reconcile the irreconcilable

    link to

  9. LeaNder says:

    "What Rosner basically found was that the J Street poll was conducted and interpreted in such a way as to rig the findings to be in accordance with the pre-determined “Jews are more rational and centrist on the issues of Zionism and Mideast wars than believed” outcome J Street wanted to find."

    Ed, you mix up two things. A strategic survey and PR. Obviously the Jewish community has a publicity problem. They had far too many prominent war propagators in their camp.

    But give me one single institution that would not paint their image with a little luster in a situation like that.

    I doubt Rosner studied the story really deeply. The survey in fact builds up to the long question he ridicules. Could it be it has a certain amount of test quality vs questions asked before. (I had no time to look at it again, but listened to the audio presentation)

    The database itself may be quite interesting. Since if you had it on your computer you could ask your own questions beyond the ones presented. I have no problem with the "long" question it is carefully build up to that point. His ridicule only shows his bias and a certain amount of disrespect for the average person that takes the survey. Unfortunately nobody asked for the "design" behind the "long question". True, it's unusal but why not. Can you check it against, shorter questions that had similiar contents?

    Go to the J Street survey page.

    Follow the link "Audio of July 16th tele-briefing for the media" fast forward to around min. 58 after Laura Rozen whispered her "thank you", and listen to the next person's question. I understand, Amy Eden, which can't be, since he sounds pretty male. But the whole question and answer session would have been much more interesting had the people moved beyond the pure–and understandably glossy–PR surface of the data presented.

  10. Anonymous says:

    "almost every Jewish family has one or two Democrats turned neocons, in the attic, maybe even the living room"

    Training for the day when attics and basements are the only places they will see while waiting for their international comrades to incite wars to destroy their former host and free them. What a smart breed.

  11. saifedean says:

    J-Street is truly pathetic. They're effectively no different from AIPAC, and the sanctimonious crowd that works for them are worthy of every bit of contempt that is usually reserved for AIPAC and its like.

    J-Street's people are divided into two camps: those who are racist, ignorant and dumb enough to be similar to the AIPAC people; and those who are a little less racist, ignorant and dumb than AIPAC, but are spineless enough to believe the nonsensical notion that you can advance your ideas by masquerading as someone who does NOT believe in your ideas.

    This is a larger philosophical issue about how to express an opinion that isn't agreed with by the mainstream. The John Kerry and Hillary Clinton way is: hide your real beliefs and pretend you're George Bush and then hope you get power and try to change things quietly. We saw how that worked out. There is hardly anything more stupid in the world.

    On the other hand, people who actually believe in something will have the conviction to believe that if they spoke out about it, it will triumph. If you truly believe your ideas, you would be confident that people will flock to them and will believe them, but they will never believe someone who's not convinced enough of their own ideas to advocate them openly. Toning down your beliefs and rhetoric is only advisable if you don't believe in them completely, of if you're a coward who can't bear the consequences.

    My question for the J-Street crowd is therefore: are you dumb, racist and stupid enough to continue toeing the disgusting, parochial, racist and criminal line of AIPAC; or are you just spineless enough to be afraid of expressing your beliefs?

  12. LeaNder says:

    Sorry: the next person's questions and the answers, that's were it would become interesting. If only it would start there.

    I am a number freak, I can't hide it.

    It's after all the most objective view of reality we can get.

  13. the Sword of Gideon says:

    Being called racist, ignorant, and dumb by an Arab is actually kind of interesting. Because if any people is an expet on being racist, ignorant, and flat out dumb. It's the Arabs, in all their koranic glory. And if they didn't have the dumb luck to be sitting on the worlds oil reserves ;they would be back riding camels, fucking their multiple child brides, and wiping their ass with their left hand.

  14. D. says:

    Now you might think that last post expresses Perlman's anger at something Saif said, but you would be wrong. Bill shares Saif's contempt for JStreet, and for roughly the same reasons. That anger is just the continuous state of those sad lives which have been taught to regard themselves as "God's victims."

  15. Ed says:

    “If you truly believe your ideas, you would be confident that people will flock to them and will believe them, but they will never believe someone who's not convinced enough of their own ideas to advocate them openly.”

    The problem for Jewish Zionists (and their New World Order internationalist/globalization advocate-allies running the two-party Establishment) is that their ideologies are hostile to the average human being, and to contending civilizations (Western-Christian, Islamic, etc) and thus they have to find a way to impose their agenda subversively. In other words, they don’t want to trumpet their true beliefs; they want to hide them.

    Hence in the case of the Zionists, infiltrating US institutions, quietly but steadily imposing their Zionist agenda, and shouting down critics as anti Semitic; and in the case of the globalizationists, by imposing their agenda (open-borders, “free market” trade agreements, the elimination of parochial government oversight of their moneyed cronies) and shouting down critics as “racists” for opposing, for example, unregulated Mexican entry into the US of people and goods.

    These craven Statist-Materialists and Zionist ideologues running the post-Christian, NWO-Establishment teach each other their dirty tricks and tactics, and then use them again and again. They are so intricately intertwined, it is impossible to bring one down without taking on the other.

    Any “liberal” who wants to defeat Zionism better be prepared to start challenging their own internationalist, post-religion utopian fantasies and ideologies, because all they ever really end up doing is softening up and dumbing down the masses, which the Zionists and the money-worshipping elite then proceed to rape.

  16. LeaNder says:

    saifedean, Pearlman/SOG's article is the equivalent to yours.

    Note: JStreet tries to find the support of a large part of the Jewish community. It wouldn't be very wise to do this without first looking were they stand on the issues. And that they did this at all, gives me hope. It suggests a dialogical approach, while AIPAC decisions are formed on the top. They have to move slowly, and carefully if they want to be successful.

    The first thing they have to break is he "Iron Wall" outlook and the spiral of silence on the US ground. That is a huge project.

  17. Arab Occupied Old City (1956) is an example of Jewish self-indoctrination from the 1950s.

    Jewish institutions have been brainwashing American Jews for a long time.

    50 years earlier the vast majority of Jews had practically no interest in Jerusalem whatsoever, and I have read that one of the most common psychological disorders among Zionist Jewish Jerusalemites during the 1920s was nostalgia for Poland, Russia, the Ukraine, or Lithuania.

  18. Paul Easton, Bensonhurst, Brooklyn says:

    i dont know or care about jstreet but i dont think the ordinary american jew is like aipac. they dont really give a crap about isreal but if pressed to say something their monotheistic superego takes over and spews some zionist juices. the superego screams that they will kill the momma if they bite her tit.

    its true that they will be the last to face reality. unless the isreali peace movement gets big enough to sooth the outsized yiddish superego.

  19. Paul Easton, Bensonhurst, Brooklyn says:

    Walking around in the Brooklyn Street I recognized the movie I am in. It is a remake of Ernest B. Schoedsack's "The Last Days of Pompeii". I like this movie.

  20. Glenn Condell says:

    '-Street is truly pathetic. They're effectively no different from AIPAC'

    Just as Indyk and Ross are really no different from Wolfowitz and Perle; Friedman and Brooks are no different from Krauthammer and Steyn; Saban and the DLC no different from Adelson and the RNC; Barak from Netanyahu; Times from Weekly Standard; Witty from Gideon.

    They are all on the same team. That is to say, another country's team. Divide and conquer; or rather, pretend to divide, then conquer. Cover every base the rubes can possibly alight on.

  21. Eurosabra says:

    Actually, Otto, Paris was always rather "Red", and the pieds-noirs assumed it would be hostile to French Algeria from 1958 onwards. Certainly by '61 the mass demonstrations were only of the FLN and PCF, and the state suppressed them by force only because of the affront to Papon and its authority. And only with consciousness of its corruption. ("Allez-y, vous êtes couverts.")

    Sorry that Israel means that Jews are no longer Orientals to be kicked around by Montgomery, Peel, SOAS, etc. Guess
    we need to be a natural nation for the approval of Volgadeutsche if not Leibstandarte nostalgics in Kazakhstan.

  22. peters says:

    j street is a fig leaf of sorts, either to cover bad consciences or to cover their tracks… i believe the operatives are totally cynical a la glen condell. many non-operatives, say ordinary jews, don't want to know the truth, don't know really very much at all about israel and what it has been up to, except for the paranoid propaganda that is constantlly shovelled at them. the paranoid propaganda is about continuous holocaust images, bestial arabs who are out to kill them for no reason , and gentiles in general who are against them. so emotionally ordinary jews are for taking what they can get in the middle east. they don't think about it. they believe their rabbi or the fund raising letters they get. they don't want to think about or know the connection between their unspoken automatic solidarity with the neocons and the constant wars.
    (sorry for the bad writing, it's late)

  23. American says:

    J-street – AIPAC = same difference.

    There are two things we know.
    Israel is engaged in a slow motion genocide and we are helping to pay for it.
    And we have a lot of Jews who are not loyal to the US living here..and a lot of them are in our government.

    link to

    Evertime I see something like this, a jewish US politican like Berman bragging about how he uses his elected office for Israel I am incensed.

    Who would have ever believed that we have politicans and President that pubically state their first duty and loyalty is to a foreign country and outdo each other trying to prove it. A few decades ago they would have been McCarthyed out of the country.

    If it wasn't for the needless death and destruction I would hope for Israel to attack Iran….the blowback would be the quickest way for us to rid ourselves of that parasite and the zionist influence in this country.

    The founders of America are turning in their graves. They said we might lose our country and democracy because of those who would use our own democratic tools against us for their own agendas and interest. And now it's happened.

  24. Richard Witty says:

    I think the desparate repitition that J Street is insignificant, is a form of proof of its significance.

    The thesis of J Street is "live and let live", and that the most humane form of that in the current setting is a two-state solution with healthy and self-reliant (though interacting) entities.

    Beyond that, they lie low from saying "this litmus test must be included or it is "unjust" or "racist"". They recognize that some things are none of our business, that it is up to the parties themselves to determine if a particular solution is fair and helpful.

    To me it sounds like a courageous and very definitive assertion.

    Living and let living.

  25. Laurie says:

    If U.S. tax dollars go to Israel then Israel is my business.

  26. Phil Weiss says:

    Richard, I agree with you that J Street is significant. It's an important public break with AIPAC in terms of strict solidarity, discomfort. It's a great development.
    What fascinates me, and I don't think you can dispute, is that J Street is virtually echoing AIPAC on Jerusalem, settlements, etc. It is important to examine this and analyze it. When you comment on this blog, you are joining a diverse community. I'm saying that efforts at making peace in the Mid East must originate from a diverse community, not a strictly Jewish one, which does appear to be J Street's self definition, Phil

  27. Dan Fleshler says:

    There are about a dozen premises worth discussing here, but I do want to point out that the basis of Phil's complaint is false (or mostly false). On the J Street web site, there is an OBVIOUS endorsement of dividing Jerusalem as that is part of the Clinton parameters. There is CLEARLY a commitment to a solution that entails evacuating settlements (not nearly enough settlements, I agree). No one familiar with the terminology of this conflict would think otherwise. I don't know why they didn't say more about the solution for Jerusalem in that section, and perhaps they should have. But here is what they say in the section on the two state solution:

    "In 2000, President Clinton outlined parameters for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict…It is a formulation that has broad support among Israelis and Palestinians, including their current leaders.

    "The outlines of an agreement are by now well-known and widely accepted: Borders based on the 1967 lines with agreed reciprocal land swaps allowing Israeli incorporation of a majority of settlers as well as Palestinian viability and contiguity; a division of Jerusalem that is based on demographic realities, establishes the capitals of the two states, and allows freedom of access to all holy sites; robust security arrangements; and resolution of the refugee issue that focuses on resettlement in the new state of Palestine, financial compensation and assistance."

    I know that much of this formulation disturbs some people here. There is understandable resistance to the idea of a solution that incorporates most of the settlers into Israel proper (the vast majority live on the outskirts of Jerusalem and a few other blocs on the western edge of the Green Line), even though that idea has been accepted by Palestinian negotiators who live in the real world, as opposed to the parallel universe of this blog.

    And I am sure everyone here knows more about how to end the occupation and suffering of the Palestinian people than the PA leaders who begrudgingly accepted this premise because their people must be rescued from a daily emergency and not wait for perfect solutions.

    But Clinton's plan, in turn, will mean the removal of an untold number of settlers (100,000?). Is that sufficient? Not to me. Is that just? No. Is it possible that doing so would help to end the occupation? Maybe. Are there better ideas out there? NO. Should the entire conflict be settled in the pristine universe of the blogosphere, as opposed to a land where political realities have defied dozens and dozens of peace plans since the Peel Commmission? No.

  28. D. says:

    "the PA leaders who begrudgingly accepted this premise because their people must be rescued from a daily emergency and not wait for perfect solutions."

    Here's an idea: let's cut off more fuel and food shipments to the Palestinians. Then their daily emergency will be even worse and it will be even easier to reach a solution.

    (No justice, no peace.)

  29. charles Keating says:

    "On whether AIPAC represents Jews. It clearly does NOT represent proportional Jewish numbers. It probably does represent proportional Jewish dollars."–Witty

    Yes, and this says everything given the nature of American capaign finance as it exists today.

    The problem for the best interests of the USA is the American campaign finance system, not the Jewish Americans, who merely exploit it. Anybody got an alternate solution?

  30. charles Keating says:

    The Americans have already negated their own Constitutional principles by Truman's recognition of a self-identified Jewish state, an event that turned on end the principles of the Enlightenment through which the USA was founded, in recognition of the Jewish historical experience in the diaspora post Christ. This was done as a practical thing, so American, in light of the Shoah.

    But now, what are we left with?

    Goy America tied lock, stock & barrel to Jewish paranoia and revenge.

    This tale unfolding remains the tale of Jesus, and eye for an eye, or turning the other cheek?

    This is a biblical story told by an agnostic. I could care less, except American blood and treasure is being spent. I don't like what I see when I look into, e.g., the Office Of Special Plans.

  31. Glenn Condell says:

    Dan Fleshler said – 'I know that much of this formulation disturbs some people here.'

    Not much at all really; just the phrase 'allowing Israeli incorporation of a majority of settlers' which is vague as to whether they are incorporated where they are, on illegally occupied land, or into Israel proper. The latter is preferable; Israel after all has assumed 78% of historical Palestine after all, and some of us denizens here feel that if living in 'the real world' means Israel taking even more, we have a recipe for chaos for the forseeable future.

    No wonder the 'Palestinian negotiators' are 'begrudging'. They're being told 'We've got 78% but 'political realities' mean we have to take some more – sorry about that'. Would Israeli negotiators dream of accepting what they expect the Palestinians to? And anyway, who are they, these negotiators – do they include a fair proportion of Hamas, or are they PA? (Sorry, not terribly au fait with al the details)

    'their people must be rescued from a daily emergency and not wait for perfect solutions'

    This sounds very concerned, and perhaps it is, but if you blindly accept it, you give Israel wiggle room for more cynically maximalist demands, something it has always done. The goal ought to be 'the perfect solution' Dan, which is to give them back their land; you don't begin by aiming low, unless of course a less than optimal solution for Palestinians is what you're after from the start.

    'Are there better ideas out there? NO.'

    That's a bit too easy. And self-serving in the end.

    And by the way, you carry on as if those who post here are a bit off the wall, certainly out of the mainstream. Well, we know that and are glad we're not in the safe bubble of second-hand thought that drives bipartisan US Mideast policy. Look where it has got us.

    Most of what is discussed here is in any case only peripherally related to the actual terms of a potential peace deal. The Lobby and it's pernicious effects on our freedoms occupies more space. Lots of us see J-Street as a welcome development, but still, in one crucial sense, it furthers rather than inhibits the trajectory of Lobby designs by helping corral discussion into perhaps more acceptable but still safely Zionist regions.

    Apologies if this doesn't scan; have to run.

  32. Castellio says:

    Martillo… you write: "I have read that one of the most common psychological disorders among Zionist Jewish Jerusalemites during the 1920s was nostalgia for Poland, Russia, the Ukraine, or Lithuania."

    Can you source that for us? I'd appreciate it.

  33. Philip has been remarkably consistent as a hardliner, even after Meretz USA and Ameinu dialogued with him last year. It's a disappointment that Phil would continue to go out of his way to find points of difference with progressive Zionists rather than noting our commonalities. This is one of the worst customs of the radical left.

    J Street favors a negotiated solution to the conflict that is likely to include some form of the Clinton Parameters on Jerusalem, with both sides claiming different parts of Jerusalem as their capital, if they so choose. AIPAC, most American Jews and most Israelis today do not favor Arab territorial claims in Jerusalem; J Street, as with most liberal and left Zionists, do see a need to accommodate such claims. The current spate of three terror attacks by Arab residents of East Jerusalem are evidence that an accord must be reached — the sooner, the better.