J Street urges Israel to halt settlement building until borders finalized
Pro-Israel lobby ‘profoundly disspointed’ by news of approval to build nearly 1,000 houses beyond Green Line. By Natasha MozgovayaTags: Israel newsEast JerusalemIsrael settlementsJoe BidenBenjamin NetanyahuThe pro-Israel lobby J Street issued a statement Monday criticizing Israel’s announcement that it had approved the construction of over 1,000 Jewish homes beyond the Green Line in Jerusalem.
J Street executive director Jeremy Ben-Ami.

“J Street is profoundly disappointed that the Israeli government has chosen this moment to announce yet another large round of construction in East Jerusalem,” the statement said.
The news coincided with a trip to the United States by Netanyahu, which included a meeting with U.S. Vice President Joe Biden. It was during a trip by Biden to Israel earlier in the year that a diplomatic row erupted between the allies over Israeli plans to build 1,600 new Jewish homes in another East Jerusalem neighborhood, Ramat Shlomo.
“The latest negotiations designed to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict hang by a thread, and the United States is working tirelessly to find a way to keep hope for a diplomatic two-state resolution to the conflict alive,” the J Street statement said, adding that the news was even more disappointing “Netanyahu is in the U.S. this week, participating in important discussions with Vice President Biden and other American officials over how to resume peace talks and how to address the Iranian nuclear program.”
Earlier this year, Israel announced the construction of over 1,600 new houses for ultra-Orthodox families in East Jerusalem.
“I condemn the decision by the government of Israel to advance planning for new housing units in East Jerusalem,” Biden said, as the timing of the announcement was strongly criticized by both the left wing parties in Israel and the U.S. administration.
The American-Jewish lobby urged Israel to delay any further construction over the Green Line “until negotiations over the border have been finalized, in the interest of its long-term security and survival as a democracy and as the homeland of the Jewish people.”
Last month, over 120 leaders of Jewish organizations from around the world and important Jewish figures met in Jerusalem for a two-day conference for a meeting organized by the Jewish People Policy Planning Institute to deliberate the impact of the peace process and possible concessions to be expected and demanded a role in determining the fate of Jerusalem and other key issues in Mideast peace talks.
Participants in the conference were former presidential adviser Elliott Abrams; Malcolm Hoenlein of the Conference of Presidents of the Major American Jewish Organizations; former U.S. ambassador to Israel Daniel Kurtzer; the head of the Anti-Defamation League, Abraham Foxman; the senior vice president of Bna’i B’rith International, Daniel Mariaschin; Pierre Besnainou, a leading figure of the Jewish community in France; and others.

NY Times Friedman says many in US ‘fed up’ with Israel

Columnist contends Americans no longer care about Israeli-Palestinian conflict; laments fact that young US Jews drifting away from Israel.

New York Times opinion columnist Thomas Friedman said that many Americans are becoming “fed up” with Israel. Friedman’s comments came in an interview with Channel Two reporter Dana Weiss aired on Saturday.

Friedman stated that while the American public was by no means anti-Israel, they no longer care about the Israeli-Arab conflict and this could eventually hurt Israel’s national security interests, as the US is Israel’s only friend.

Friedman added that he believes Israel is not doing the utmost to promote renewed peace talks with the Palestinians. Friedman derided Israel’s calls for the Palestinians to recognize Israel as a Jewish State in exchange for a renewed freeze on construction in the settlements that could revive peace talks. He jokingly said that Israel is asking for “Abu Mazen [Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas] to sing Hatikva [Israel's national anthem] in perfect Yiddish.”

The New York Times columnist also lamented the fact that young American Jews are drifting away from Israel.

Friedman’s comments followed a controversial op-ed entitled “Just Knock it Off” that appeared in Tuesday’s New York Times in which he said “Israel today really is behaving like a spoiled child.”

In the column, Friedman both defends and blasts Israel for behavior past and present, but says that ultimately, the US request for an extended settlement construction moratorium should be honored, especially in light of the “billions of dollars of US aid” the country has received. If America asks Israel to “do something that in no way touches on its vital security but would actually enhance it,” he writes, “there is only one right answer: “Yes.”

In March, following US Vice President Joe Biden’s visit and the unfortunately timed announcement regarding approval of 1,600 new housing units in east Jerusalem, he wrote:

“Israel needs a wake-up call. Continuing to build settlements in the West Bank, and even housing in disputed East Jerusalem, is sheer madness.”

JPOST.COM Article

By Afshan Khan

The pro status quo, Anti Peace  Zionist Group is outraged at newly awakened Pro Peace, Pro-American Jewish Group J Street. The irony is that while trying to bash J Street Alan Dershowitz exposes his own week and anti-Peace  arguments which are based on false propaganda which Alan and his ilk has created for last  five decades to mislead Americans and west . Anybody who dares to question  the validity of their inherently wrong agenda is  immediately branded anti-Israel and thereby Anti-Semite and the bashing does not end there , their  careers have been destroyed  systematically, ultimately their voices fell into oblivion . Times has changed since then and Alan and others of his flock should know that they don’t  have control over the media, and more importantly it is not limited to traditional print and Television . Young generations do not get their news from just old , biased  sources anymore.

They must  be aware that new generation of Americans are  media savoy and politically astute. They also began to see that United States can not continue to wage wars which are against it national and strategic interest.

www.huffingtonpost.com article

J Street has gone over to the dark side. It claims to be “a pro-Israel, pro peace lobby.” It has now become neither. Its Executive Director, Jeremy Ben-Ami, has joined the off key chorus of those who falsely claim that Israel, by refusing to make peace with the Palestinians, is placing the lives of American soldiers at risk.

This claim was first attributed to Vice President Joe Biden and to General David Petraeus. It was quickly denied by them but continued to have a life of its own in the anti-Israel media. It was picked up by Steven Walt and John Mearsheimer, Pat Buchanan and others on the hard right and hard left who share a common disdain for the Jewish state. It is the most dangerous argument ever put forward by Israel bashers. It is also totally false.

It is dangerous for two reasons. First, it seeks to reduce support for Israel among Americans who, quite understandably and correctly, care deeply about American soldiers being killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Israel has always understood this and that’s why it is one of the few American allies who has never asked the United States to put its troops in harm’s way in defense of Israeli citizens. If Americans were to believe the falsehood that Israel were to blame for American deaths caused by Islamic extremists in Iraq and Afghanistan, support for the Jewish state would suffer considerably.

It is also dangerous because its implication is that Israel must cease to exist: the basic complaint that Muslim extremists have against Israel is not what the Jewish state does, but what it is: a secular, non-Muslim, democracy that promotes equal rights for women, gays, Christians and others. Regardless of what Israel does or doesn’t do, its very existence will be anathema to Muslim extremists. So if Israel’s actions were in fact a cause of American deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan–which they are not–then the only logical solution would be Israel’s disappearance. This might be acceptable to the Walts, Mearsheimers and Buchanans of the world, but it is surely not acceptable to Israel or anyone who claims to be pro-Israel.

Finally, the argument is totally false as a matter of fact. At the same time that Israel was seeking to make peace in 2000-2001 by creating a Palestinian state on the West Bank and in Gaza with a capital in East Jerusalem, Al Qaeda was planning the 9/11 attack. So Israel’s “good” actions did nothing to make America safe from Islamic terrorism. On the other hand, when Israel took tough action against Gaza last year in Operation Cast Lead, Israel’s “bad” actions did not increase American casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan. In fact, there is absolutely no relationship between Israel’s actions and the extent of American casualties. It is a totally phony argument based on equal parts of surmise and bigotry.

Yet this dangerous and false argument, which is being hotly debated within the Obama Administration, has now received the imprimatur of J Street. In the letter to The New York Times on April 21, 2010, Jeremy Ben-Ami, speaking on behalf of J Street, included the following paragraph:

“An analysis of the Obama administration’s calculus on Middle East policy should reflect that many in the Jewish community recognize that resolving the conflict is not only necessary to secure Israel’s future, but also critical to regional stability and American strategic interests.”

Although Ben-Ami doesn’t explicitly make a direct connection between Israeli actions and American casualties, his use of the phrase “critical to…American strategic interests,” is a well-known code, especially these days, for the argument that there is a connection between Israeli actions and American casualties.

In lending support to that dangerous and false argument, J Street has disqualified itself from being considered “pro-Israel.” The argument is also anything but “pro peace,” since it will actually encourage Islamic extremists to target American interests in the hope that American casualties will be blamed on Israel. It will also encourage the Palestinian leadership to harden its position, in the expectation that lack of progress toward peace will result in Israel being blamed for American casualties.

Truth in advertising requires that at the very least J Street stop proclaiming itself as pro-Israel. As long as it was limiting its lobbying activities to ending the settlements, dividing Jerusalem and pressing for negotiations, it could plausibly claim the mantle of pro-Israel, despite the reality that many of its members, supporters, speakers and invited guests are virulently anti-Israel. But now that it has crossed the line into legitimating the most dangerous and false argument ever made against Israel’s security, it must stop calling itself pro-Israel. Some of its college affiliate groups have already done that. They now describe themselves as pro peace because they don’t want to burden themselves with the pro Israel label. J Street should follow their lead and end its false advertising. Or else it should abandon its anti-Israel claim that Israel is damaging American strategic interests.

Partners against Iran
By JPOST EDITORIAL
16/02/2010 23:03

Mullen’s visit underlined Washington’s intensifying effort to keep closely coordinated with Israel.
Talkbacks (1)

The visit to Israel this week by the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen, underlined the growing urgency of the Iranian nuclear challenge, and the Obama administration’s intensifying effort to keep closely coordinated with Israel while grappling with that threat.

Mullen’s visit coincided with the announcement that Vice President Joe Biden will also come to Israel in the near future, again for high-level talks largely focused on the Iranian issue.The visit also came as US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton toured Qatar and Saudi Arabia in order to shore up support for American diplomatic and military efforts in the region, ahead of visits by three of her top deputies and a reported upcoming trip by White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel.

The rhetoric from Washington is firm: Clinton declared to Iran that the US would “not stand idly by while you pursue a nuclear program that can be used to threaten your neighbors and even beyond.” Mullen was more curt still: Iran “cannot have a nuclear weapon, [or] nuclear capability,” he said here.

At the same time, however, there is profound concern in Israel that the fine words, even backed up by a new seriousness in seeking more effective economic sanctions, will prove insufficient to deter the ayatollahs.

Clearly, the flurry of visits by high-level US officials marks a heightened era of dialogue between Washington and Jerusalem, as the US steps up its campaign to resolve the Iranian crisis without a resort to force.

Mullen warned Israel tellingly of the “unintended consequences” of a military strike. Biden, the former head of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, will doubtless also stress the administration’s conviction that there are still effective ways, and sufficient time, to force the Islamic Republic’s hand before we arrive at the stark choice: a nuclear Iran, or military intervention to prevent it.

FOR NOW, President Barack Obama has yet to add Israel to his travel plans. And eight months after his landmark visit to Cairo, and his outreach address to the Muslim world, his absence is keenly felt here. Obama the candidate received the usual rock-star treatment when he visited – and took time to tour Sderot – in 2008. Obama the president is a more suspect commodity – a friend of Israel and guardian of the strategic partnership, to be sure, but also a leader who has been publicly at odds with ours over the dimensions of a building freeze beyond the ’67 lines and over his assessment that progress on the Palestinian front can produce leverage on Iran rather than the other way round.

A presidential visit in the near future would certainly prove reassuring to many Israelis, and would disarm those critics who assert that our well-being is not a sufficiently high priority for hisWhite House.

But whether their face-to-face meetings take place here or in Washington, there can be no doubting that further direct consultations between Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu will be vital in the coming months – as the US president strives to force Iran to change course, and the possibility of this effort failing raises ever-greater concerns in Israel.

Israel has been publicly supportive of the American effort at engagement with Iran, even as it has privately complained about the lack of firm parameters guiding that engagement, the fudging of deadlines, the apparent capacity for Iran to exploit a well-meaning president’s desire for a diplomatic solution in order to buy time and close in on the nuclear weapons goal.

Ultimately, Israel must and will take the decisions it feels necessary to safeguard its basic security interests. Ultimately, Israel will gauge the risks, assess the consequences, and act accordingly.

Today, in mid-February 2010, the US and Israel remain shoulder-to-shoulder in seeking biting sanctions against Teheran, to obviate the recourse to the use of force. It is encouraging to see the succession of candid, straight-talking, high-level visits bolstering that coordination. It is a partnership that needs to be maintained at the very highest level as well.

To read more, click here
Partners against Iran