What Planet Do We Live On Dept.: Israel Lobbyist Dismisses ‘J Street’ as ‘Pro-Palestinian’

by Philip Weiss on August 22, 2008 · 4 comments

The National, the fascinating new paper coming out of Abu Dhabi, has a smart long piece on J Street. It includes this exchange, which only reveals how shockingly poor the American discourse is:

“There is no question that J Street is pro-Palestinian, but it remains to be seen if it’s pro-Israel,” said Jeff Ballabon, a New York lawyer and lobbyist who acts as an intermediary between conservative Republican candidates, Orthodox Jewish donors and Christian activists.

But such complaints illuminate the tilted state of debate more than anything else: J Street, like its rivals, acknowledges the reality of Palestinian violence, but unlike them, it also seeks to draw attention to the plight of the Palestinian people. “As long as Palestinians despair of a decent and dignified life, Israel will be at war,” [J Street director Jeremy] Ben-Ami wrote in a Washington Post op-ed earlier this year. “Helping the Palestinians achieve a viable, prosperous state is one of the most pro-Israel things an American politician can do.”


Let's be clear. J Street is a largely Jewish organization, of liberal Zionists, who don't oppose AIPAC but are trying to lobby it. Justin Vogt, the piece's author notes, shrewdly, that the leading Jewish organizations in the U.S., AIPAC and the Conference of Presidents, are for "the peace process," but have done all they can to limit abridgments of Israel's "power and territory." He also wee-wees a little on Walt and Mearsheimer in the usual way, by giving space to their critics, but basically adopts their line. The lobby is a "goliath."

Related posts:

  1. J Street: ‘We’re Not Anti-AIPAC’
  2. Alterman: Let the Settlers Live in the New Palestinian State
  3. ‘J Street’ Is Gutless Re AIPAC
  4. Palin the Lobbyist-Basher Was Vetted– by the Israel Lobby
  5. Shameless Israel lobbyist Makovsky (again) puts himself forward as Palestinian spokesman

{ 4 comments }

1 syvanen August 22, 2008 at 7:59 pm

This is the telling sentence: "AIPAC and the Conference of Presidents, are for 'the peace process,' but have done all they can to limit abridgments of Israel's 'power and territory.'"

When those entities define Israel's territory as being in the West Bank (and they do if we judge by their actions and not just their words) then the peace process is meaningless. It is totally absurd to continue supporting a "peace process" where the stated goals of building two states is already negated by the Israelis from the beginning.

That is why we must drop the two state solution. Working for that goal simply provides the Israelis cover to increase their settlements, to continue building facts on the ground. The negotiations have been going on for 16 and that is their only result. To continue is to continue the charade, but more distructively, put off until some undefined future for the Palestinians are allowed freedom and civil liberties. That should be the goal today. Work for Palestinian freedom and civil liberties, not obstruction, delay and charades.

2 americangoy August 22, 2008 at 9:47 pm

This is funny, in a pathetic sort of a way.

3 Richard Witty August 23, 2008 at 3:59 am

And you continue to wee-wee on J street rather than using your skills to assist their work.

4 Anonymous August 26, 2008 at 5:41 pm

This is a test.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post: Neoconservatism Is Apparently Still a Resume-Builder

Next post: Foxman Says ‘Oldest Answer to Policy Failures’ Is–You Guessed ‘Em