Not that anyone is reading this old thread anymore but I did try to respond as promptly as I could to your last post and Am Con seems to have lost it. (Thanks guys; don’t you realize that every word was nothing less than an absolute *pearl*?)

All I’ll say then now is that I stick with my evaluation of J-Street as merely being “less bad” than AIPAC, and indeed cite the most recent events possible that further bolster my opinion:

Firstly, did you happen to notice J-Street’s urging and then applauding of Obama’s attempted strangulation of the Goldstone Report? Of course given our media here that might not seem like much, but consider that the images of the charcoaled bodies of innumerable women and children killed in the Gaza offensive were not just the daily but the *hourly* fare for vast numbers of arabs and muslims and then see the U.S. disgustingly trying to squelch the unimpeachable Mr. Goldstone, and then try to tell me J-Street is all that concerned with the U.S.’s image or interests. Really, dude? Can that be seriously maintained?

And, secondly, I also note that just the other day what did J-Street’s leader Ben-Ami do but go about comparing Dr. Walt and Dr. Mearsheimer’s book about the Israeli lobby to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. In essence, saying that it and they were anti-semitic.

Once again, can anyone really argue that J-Street is acting in the interests of the U.S. by so clearly trying to smear the ideas as sober and responsible and restrained that appear in that book as being beyond the Pale? As being, essentially, non-discussable in polite company?

Pfui, Norwegian. This don’t mean I wish J-Street ill given your accurate perception of the parameters of the reigning reality, but that merely reigning reality has no claim on being right and in terms of what’s right and wrong J-Street is and still remains only “less bad” than AIPAC.

Cheers,

“[J-Street's] claim is that peace between Israel and Palestinians is good for America and Israel. Do you disagree?”

Of course not, but as Churchill used to say while that’s true it’s also not comprehensive. Not even nearly.

And …

“AIPAC wants zero daylight between the government of Israel and the U.S – what Bibi says goes. J Street supports a complete settlement freeze. How is that only less bad?”

Because it is only less bad.

Look, NS, but for you apparently believing J-Street is not just “less bad” but is indeed great or wonderful or etc. we aren’t in any big disagreement. Yes, J-Street is better than AIPAC. But simply observing that because it supports a complete settlement freeze isn’t being comprehensive either, and as I tried to make plain despite its “less bad” positions the comprehensive situation is still that almost by its own words the founding of J-Street was not to advance U.S. interests but Israel’s instead.

So, for instance, okay; let’s forget that it’s still cheerleading for sanctions against Iran given that those sanctions could only possibly lead to a U.S. war. Per you it apparently has said that it supports a complete settlement freeze. (Although as per you again it also says it supports Obama who has now clearly backed way away from calling for a freeze, so apparently meaning that it really only supports whoever is asking the absolute minimal of things from Israel.)

But a mere settlement freeze is nothing in terms of the bigger picture. Nor indeed even the smaller picture just concerning those settlements when the clear unbroken U.S. policy regarding same—not to mention the sentiments of the world and the U.N.—are that those settlements ought not be there at all, period, and that they are an “obstacle to peace.”

So right there where is J-Street in terms of this unbroken statement of U.S. interests? Demanding settlement removals? Nope; only … a little freeze .. and then a retreat to only maybe a little bit of chilling since a freeze is just so outre. Wowee.

But maybe you are right and J-Street is going to impress us elsewise in the future. (Which has me irresistibly hearing the refrain to the great Burt Bacharach tune “Promises Promises.”) Yet, in terms of coming to some *current* evaluation of the organization and what it’s *actually* done so far other than advocating for potential war with Iran and chilling settlement expansion the only other thing they seem to have done is what? Well, gee, what a surprise: Agitated for and supported the strangulation of the Goldstone Report by the U.S.

So you tell me how this is in the U.S. interests? Our President goes to Cairo and tells the arab/muslim world we want a clearly needed new relationship of trust and respect with it. And what does J-Street do when an unimpeachably non-anti-semite like Mr. Goldstone comes out and says that yes, there is lots of evidence of war crimes and crimes against humanity committed against arabs and muslims in Gaza? Does J-Street stand up and say yes we do respect the arab and muslim world and we think this report ought to be aired and looked into and followed up upon?

No, of *course* not. Not with really *serious* things like this that could harm Israel. Instead it’s The Party Line. Indistinguishable from AIPAC: “Please United States! Strangle Goldstone in its crib!” (And damn the disgust of the arab and muslim world for the U.S., not to mention however many new terrorists against the U.S. same might be creating who see that when it comes to actions the U.S. simply doesn’t give a damn about white phosphorus being used against arab and muslim women and children and etc. and so forth.)

And indeed I’ll rest my entire case about J-Street on this issue alone, which is easy to minimize or overlook given how ignored Gaza and the whole issue has been in the American media. (But surely is appreciated by people interested in the region such as J-Street). The charcoaled bodies and body parts of the *hundreds* of Palestinian women and children killed in Gaza were not just the daily but the *hourly* television fare in the arab and moslem world even if oh-so-studiously ignored by our media here. And likewise the U.N.’s Goldstone Report naturally formed a giant cause celebre in the moslem/arab world, as did what the U.S. is trying to do to it. So let no one delude themselves of the incredible damage that was and is being done to U.S. credibility and interests by its attempted strangulation of the Goldstone report. And let no one delude themselves that J-Street gives a damn about that damage to U.S. interests either.

I therefore respectfully stand by my appraisal: J-Street is simply less bad than AIPAC, and a long long way from being impressive to anyone who is principally concerned with U.S. interests. Not that I wish it ill given the parameters of the reigning reality. Nor that one shouldn’t always keep an open eye and an open mind as to the future. But neither do I think Americans ought to be fools and have to pretend that the positions that it advances can’t be examined for an overly zealous concern about the interests of a foreign nation to the neglect and even detriment of America’s own.

Supporting sanctions with caveats and not mentioning war is a dovish position given the current debate. Berman’s plan is basically a long delaying action. If negotiations don’t work in the next 6 months or so, waste time at the UNSC, then bargain with countries other than Russia and China (thus limiting their effectiveness) for something, and only if that produces nothing impose unilateral sanctions. In my mind, only unilateral sanctions could be considered as an act of war, and given the limited U.S. – Iran economic trading, they wouldn’t be crippling or involve anything essential to Iran or its people. In our negotiations with Iran, we basically only have potential benefits (not carrots, that’s demeaning).

You don’t know much about J Street if you say “the absolute entirety of its founding rationale was clearly proclaimed as being an an alternative way other than AIPAC to help Israel, period.” They want to help Israel, yes, but it’s how that is important. The core idea of J Street, and how it distinguishes itself from AIPAC, is pro-peace – that is a two state solution. Their claim is that peace between Israel and Palestinians is good for America and Israel. Do you disagree?

As to your impression, AIPAC wants zero daylight between the government of Israel and the U.S – what Bibi says goes. J Street supports a complete settlement freeze. How is that only less bad?

“Who in the world has called Berman’s bill an act of war?”

Ummmm … the Iranians maybe? I.e., the ones that count being the ones that might turn it into an act of war.?

Indeed I suspect virtually every country on earth would at some point see some sanctions taken against it as an act of war, and doubt that any country has ever denied itself that right.

There’s no doubt that J-Street is no AIPAC at least yet. On the other hand how do they know that the Iranians wouldn’t consider the U.S.’s organization of sanctions against it as an act of war? Or eventually do so if such sanctions started to bite too deeply? (And of course deep biting sanctions are exactly the kind that you extol that J-Street is backing.)

The answer is that J-Street doesn’t know if Iran would ever consider such sanctions an act of war. But they nevertheless still advocate sanctions if negotiations don’t work, and are thereby inescapably saying that yes, in that instance if war broke out it would be just peachy to see the U.S. involved in same with Iran.

In my book then, given the thinness of the U.S.’s interests in having such a war, the thickness of Israel’s and J-Street’s express billing of itself as a pro-Israel lobby, this still leaves a whole lot wanting in J-Street’s position.

Maybe if J-Street ever showed even half so much concern about American interests as opposed to Israel’s it would be different. But the absolute entirety of its founding rationale was clearly proclaimed as being an an alternative way other than AIPAC to help Israel, period. Ergo, at the very least, and as one concerned principally with U.S. interests, there’s absolutely nothing J-Street has done so far that “impresses” me one bit. All it has merely succeeded in doing is not being as bad as AIPAC, and that’s all.

We need to get back to basics. Today, I sent a letter to “Jstreet.org” asking them several questions. Hopefully, they will find the time to answer them. Here is the letter:

Comments posted on the “Jstreet.org” website on October 20, 2009

The life story of Muhammad, the founder of Islam and the author of the Koran, is nowhere to be found in the American main stream media. Jewish-Americans and Christian-Americans alike are ignorant of the facts.

How can peace be achieved with a people and a belief system that most of us do not understand? Islam is a radical belief system that forbids anyone from telling the truth about its founder.

What is the real story behind the claim that Muhammad flew in a dream on a unicorn to Jerusalem? And, perhaps more importantly, why should we take that seriously enough to sacrifice the lives of thousands of innocents? Why should world wars revolve around this issue?

Who was in Israel first? Was it the Jews or the Arabs? Is there no place for the Arabs that migrated to Palestine in the rest of the Arab world? Do the Palestinians really want peace – or are they just an excuse for Muslim pursuit of entire world domination?

Please tell us your position on this very important matter.

Thank you.

But back to your post. Ben-Ami’s statement differs strikingly from the AIPAC line. Would AIPAC ever say “We too strongly support the Obama Administration’s efforts to engage Iran.” J Street’s order of action: direct negotiations, UN Security Council sanctions, multilateral sanctions, unilateral sanctions. No mention of any military threat. This is not AIPAC speak. As Jack Ross says, AIPAC is losing it over their success so far.

Calling Berman pretty names is SOP for congressional chairman. Stick to evaluating the actions, not the butt kissing. Who in the world has called Berman’s bill an act of war? What J Streets knows is that hard-hitting sanctions have zero chance in the Security Council. You should know, because you quoted it, that J Street’s position only talks about sanctions if direct negotiations don’t work. But maybe I would see your point if you could better explain “Supporting ‘hard-hitting multilateral sanctions’ will only end any hopes for a negotiated solution and will strengthen Iranian hardliners.”

I wouldn’t write off any group for one sponsored talk. They have plenty of public positions of their own that they should be evaluated by. And finally, don’t be cynical, or concern-troll. Do pay attention to J Street’s conference. I will bet you will be impressed.

And whatever steps they’ve taken to appease the hard-liners since they opposed the Gaza War have done nothing to stop the unmitigated hysteria of the neocons about J Street, which has now ascended to Chomsky-like status in neocon demonology.

I’m not saying there isn’t a danger of them going wobbly, but a lot remains to be seen. Their conference, which I will be intending, will indeed be indicative of a lot.