Comments on: Our Pro-Israel Lobby: J Street, AIPAC, and You

By: Chuck Turchick

Chuck Turchick — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 21:46:55 +0000

Mr. Freilich writes: “It is presumptuous of our brethren in the US, and frankly offensive, for them to believe that they ‘know better’ what is right for Israel.” He doesn’t seek one voice; he seeks one voice that agrees with every Israeli policy.

Furthermore, the security of Jews in the Diaspora may well depend on the security of Israel. So maybe those who lobby, but are not 100% in concert with whatever the current Israeli government policy is, are in fact pursuing their own interest, and not acting out of a belief “that they ‘know better’ what is right for Israel.”

By: Paula Maccabee

Paula Maccabee — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 14:54:59 +0000

I’m not speaking about J Street specifically. But as a dedicated liberal, I think most of the concerns raised about Israel’s internal policies are either sham or distorted by our politics, not Israel’s. No other country would be questioned about building a security fence to prevent terrorist murder of people in buses and stores. That liberal cause celebre from just a few years ago has markedly reduced the number of terrorist deaths in Israel. No other country would be expected to respond passively if a hostile neighbor committed to its destruction was shooting missiles at civilians, as the folks in Gaza did with impunity before a brief and limited military action by Israel. And I am so tired of the carping about Jewish “settlements” as some sort of aggressive assault. Arabs live in Israel and in the United States, for that matter. If a future Palestinian State were to be dedicated to the well-being, education and commerce of Arabs instead of to destroying the State of Israel, Jewish people living in that Palestinian State would be a non-issue. They would pay taxes, send their kids to schools, shop, vote and live just like the Arabs in countries all over the world. Does that sound like a right-wing concept to you? To me, it sounds like peace.

By: ML

ML — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 02:37:19 +0000

Okay, admittedly, the use of huge was an overstatement. But we might agree on what constitutes “seeking Israel’s destruction.”

By: James Norton

James Norton — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 01:39:53 +0000

I spent about three years editing news about the Middle East for an international newspaper. Here’s the distilled truth I acquired over that period of time: “Pro-Israel” is not always the same as “pro-war” or “anti-Palestinian” or “pro-hardliner.” The amount of damage done to Israel’s diplomatic standing locally in the Middle East and globally over the past decade is incalculable. Much of it was done under the following premise: Whatever is most militarily aggressive and/or violent is, by extension, the best thing for Israel. Whatever government is most hardline in its views is, by extension, the “toughest” and the best at keeping Israelis safe. This misses the long-term point: Peace cannot be won over the long term with barbed wire and missiles. And many of those who seek better conditions for Palestinians and a less militant Israel feel that way because they love Israel — and hope to see it survive for a long time.

By: Leora Maccabee

Leora Maccabee — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 22:17:38 +0000

Come on ML! You’re going to have to be more specific than that! Jerusalem Post’s article “J Street donors include Arabs, State Department Officials” states that:

“Mainstream groups ranging from the American Jewish Committee to the United Jewish Communities 150-plus federations rarely if ever get such donations [from Palestinians or Muslim Americans]; PACs from the National Jewish Democratic Council’s to the Republican Jewish Coalition’s don’t list such contributors among their public filings.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1249418604334

What evidence do you have otherwise? I don’t know of any pro-Israel organization that receives funding from groups that seek Israel’s destruction. But I’d be fascinated to see the tax forms you’d find to prove me wrong.

By: ML

ML — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 22:13:47 +0000

Considering J-Street “tainted” for receiving money from Muslims, while not calling AIPAC “tainted” for receiving money from Evangelicals, is bigoted. Not all Muslim-Americans seek Israel’s destruction and not all Evangelicals have the Jews and Israelis best interests in mind.

I am weary of -anyone- who attempts to speak for the Jewish people, when they are really just speaking for their particular membership.

By: ML

ML — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 22:05:07 +0000

All of the Israel lobby groups receive huge contributions from groups that seek Israel’s destruction, one way or another.

By: Jenna Z

Jenna Z — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 21:47:57 +0000

I think multiple voices on any given issue are fine, but it’s important to remember that the administration (i.e., President) is more likely to listen to the lobbyists that conform to his point of view and/or agenda. I am having trouble trusting an organization that receives huge contributions from groups that want to seek Israel’s destruction.