Total Pageviews

Friday, January 1, 2021

Rabbi Lipman's Opinion of A Promised Land's Overview of Israel by Barack Obama

Rabbi Dov Lipman                                           


 American-born Rabbi Dov Lipman made aliyah in 2004 and served as a member of the Knesset in 2013-15. 

An article that agrees with my feelings and facts that Obama has been besmirching Israel .  Obama wrote in his book of around 700 pages, A Promised Land, about Israel.  Here's what a rabbi thought of it.  I have felt that Obama was not a backer of Israel, and saw this on his last day in office when he did not back Israel in the UN vote.  That was quite blatant.  Nadene Goldfoot

I have never criticized former President Barack Obama publicly — neither during my time in the Knesset nor anywhere else — despite my having disagreed with many of his policies. I am of the strong opinion that Israelis should not engage in or interfere with American politics, and I regularly offer a blanket thank you to all American presidents, including Obama, for their economic and military support for Israel.

However, his memoir, “A Promised Land,” is filled with historical inaccuracies that I feel the need to address. His telling of Israel’s story (at the beginning of Chapter 25) not only exhibits a flawed understanding of the region — which clearly impacted his policies as president — but misleads readers in a way that will forever shape their negative perspective of the Jewish state.

Obama relates, for example, how the British were “occupying Palestine” when they issued the Balfour Declaration calling for a Jewish state. But labeling Great Britain as an “occupier” casts doubt on its legitimacy to determine anything about the future of the Holy Land, and that wasn’t the situation.

While it is true that England had no legal rights in Palestine when the Balfour Declaration was issued in 1917, that changed just five years later. The League of Nations, precursor to the United Nations, gave the British legal rights over Palestine in its 1922 “Mandate for Palestine,” which specifically mentions “the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.”

The League also said that “recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country.”

The former president’s noted omission of the internationally agreed-upon mandate for the British to establish a home for the Jews in Palestine misinforms the reader, who will conclude that the movement for a Jewish state in Palestine had no legitimacy or international consent.

“Over the next 20 years, Zionist leaders mobilized a surge of Jewish migration to Palestine,” Obama writes, creating the image that once the British illegally began the process of forming a Jewish state in Palestine, Jews suddenly started flocking there.

The truth is that Jews, who maintained a continual presence throughout the 2,000 years that most were exiled from the land, had already been moving to Palestine in large numbers way before then; considerably more than 100,000 immigrants arrived in the late 19th century and beginning of the 20th century. Then, in the 1920s, high numbers fleeing anti-Semitism in Europe could only find safe haven in Palestine due to the United States having instituted quotas in 1924 on the number of Jews who could enter America. The number of immigrants rose even more in the 1930s when Adolf Hitler came to power.

Historical context is important, and once Obama chose to write about the history, he should have provided the full context and portrayed the Jews as they were: a persecuted and desperate people searching for safety, and not, as he implies, strong conquerors flooding into Palestine.

His claim that the new immigrants “organized highly trained armed forces to defend their settlements” is also misleading. A more accurate way to describe it would have been: “Because the Arabs in the region mercilessly attacked the Jewish areas, the Jewish refugees had no choice but to take up arms to defend themselves.”

Acknowledging that the Arabs were attacking Jews before there was even a State of Israel is important historical context for understanding the Israeli-Arab conflict.

“A Promised Land” recounts, as well, how the United Nations passed a partition plan for Palestine in November 1947, by dividing the country into a Jewish and Arab state, which the “Zionist leaders,” as he calls them, accepted, but to which the “Arab Palestinians, as well as surrounding Arab nations that were just emerging from colonial rule, strenuously objected.”

Obama’s use of “Zionist leaders” instead of “Jewish leaders” plays right into the current international climate, in which it is politically correct to be “anti-Zionist,” while unacceptable to be anti-Jewish. (In reality, Zionism is the movement for Jews to live in their biblical and historic homeland, so being against that actually is anti-Semitism, but that’s for another discussion.)

The description of “Arab nations that were just emerging from colonial rule” is a clear attempt to justify the Arab refusal of the UN Partition Plan. Those poor “Arab nations” that have been suffering due to outsiders colonizing their “nations” simply could not accept another “colonial” entity, the Jews, entering the region.

But the truth is that with the exception of Egypt, which was not colonized, none of the neighboring countries that rejected the partition plan had been established states before World War I. Yes, the post-war mandates of the League of Nations gave control in the region to the British and the French for a few decades, but this was in place of the Ottoman Empire that had controlled the region for centuries. Thus, the image of countries emerging from long-standing colonial rule as a subtle attempt to justify their objection to the Partition Plan is simply false.

Obama tells the story of the establishment of the State of Israel in two sentences, which are nothing short of outright revisionist history: “As Britain withdrew, the two sides quickly fell into war. And with Jewish militias claiming victory in 1948, the state of Israel was officially born.”

Wow. I don’t even know where to begin.

The two sides didn’t “fall into war” when Britain withdrew; the two sides had been fighting for decades, with the Arabs — who rejected more than half-a-century of efforts to establish a Jewish state in the region — attacking the Jews, and the Jews defending themselves. When the British then left the area in May 1948, the Jews made a very difficult decision to declare their independence based on the UN Partition Plan, which gave the right for a Jewish state alongside an Arab state.

There were no “Jewish militias claiming victory.” There was a unified Jewish army that formed the Israel Defense Forces, which knew that the surrounding Arab countries would begin an all-out assault to destroy Israel the moment its Jewish leadership declared an independent fledgling Jewish state. And that is exactly what the Arab armies did. The new State of Israel fought off that assault for months, emerging in 1949 both weak and fragile.

Obama’s perspective on formation of the State of Israel no doubt affected foreign policy regarding the Jewish state. If one sees Israel as a colonial force occupying the land as a result of its armed militias, then it will be treated as an outsider that wronged others to establish itself as a state.

The most disingenuous sentence of Obama’s history of Israel is in his description of what happened during the 30 years following Israel’s establishment: “For the next three decades, Israel would engage in a succession of conflicts with its Arab neighbors …”

What? I had to read that sentence many times because I could not believe that a president of the United States could write such misleading, deceptive and damaging words about his country’s close ally.

Israel did not “engage” in any conflict with the surrounding Arab countries. The Arab armies and their terrorists attacked Israel again and again, and Israelis fought to defend themselves.( my comment: 1947-9, 56, 67, 73, etc, etc.always defensive) 

• • •

A straightforward history of Middle East wars involving Israel yields this basic truth. Facts are facts, and the former president’s misrepresentation of Israel as a country that sought conflict instead of peace — one that willingly engaged in wars with the Arabs — does an injustice to peace-seeking Israel and riles up anti-Israel sentiment.

Obama’s description of the 1967 Six-Day Way continues this revisionism: “A greatly outnumbered Israeli military routed the combined armies of Egypt, Jordan and Syria. In the process, Israel seized control of the West Bank and East Jerusalem from Jordan, the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula from Egypt, and the Golan Heights from Syria.”

Here he fails to address what led up to the war, when all those Arab armies gathered along Israel’s borders and declared their intention to wipe it off the map. He doesn’t describe Israel’s pleading with Jordan not to enter the war, nor that Jordan altogether had no legal rights to the West Bank, which it occupied in 1948 and annexed against international law in 1950.

Most significantly, Obama fails to mention Israel’s willingness, immediately after the war, to withdraw from all the areas that it won in its defensive battle in exchange for peace; and by extension, he also fails to tell of the Arab League’s “Three No’s” in response to that offer: no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, and no negotiations with Israel.

This omission serves once again to portray Israel as the aggressive occupier that seeks conflict and not peace.

The former president continues with another outright falsehood, which helps give insight into his policies regarding Israeli settlements in the West Bank.

The “rise of the PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organization)” was a “result” of the Six-Day War, he writes. That makes it seem like the Palestinian liberation movement, including its violent and murderous attacks against Israelis, was only a result of Israel’s taking control over the West Bank, eastern Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip.

It strengthens the message that if only Israel would vacate these areas, there would be peace between Israel and the Palestinians. This is what spurs leaders around the world to suggest that Israeli settlements in these areas are the obstacle to peace in the region.

But there is one flaw with this story and logic. It’s not true. The PLO was established in 1964, three years before Israel was in control of any of those “occupied” areas and three years before there were any settlements.

What exactly was this Palestinian organization liberating at that time? Is there any conclusion other than the liberation of the Jewish state in its entirety? What other option could there be?

This is why the “Free Palestine” movement chants, “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.” They are against the existence of Israel anywhere between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. They see such a state as a colonial enterprise with armed militias grabbing the land of others, just as Obama leads readers to believe when describing the formation of the state.

The false description of the PLO rising after 1967 serves the narrative that the “occupation” and the settlements are the cause of the conflict, and this, no doubt, had a direct impact on Obama’s “not one brick” policy, including freezing settlement construction, in an effort to bring about peace between Israel and the Palestinians.

Obama describes the failed Camp David accords of 2000, in which former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered the Palestinians more than 90 percent of what they were asking for. “Arafat demanded more concessions, however, and talks collapsed in recrimination,” he writes. But the talks didn’t simply “collapse.” Sixty-six days later, Arafat unleashed the Second Intifada, in which 1,137 Israeli civilians were murdered and 8,341 were maimed by Yasser Arafat-funded terrorists who blew themselves up in Israeli buses and cafes.

Don’t trust my word on this. Mamduh Nofal, former military commander of the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, revealed that following Camp David, “Arafat told us, ‘Now we are going to fight so we must be ready’.”

In addition, Hamas leader Mahmoud al-Zahar said in September 2010 that in the summer of 2000, as soon as Arafat understood that all of his demands would not be met, he instructed Hamas, Fatah and the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades to begin attacking Israel. And Mosab Hassan Yousef, son of Hamas founder Sheikh Hassan Yousef, has verified that the Second Intifada was pre-planned by Arafat.

Not only does Obama fail to accurately connect the Second Intifada to Arafat’s not receiving everything the Palestinians asked for at Camp David — demands that would have prevented Israel from being able to defend itself against Palestinian terrorism — but he seems to place the blame for the intifada on Israel.

He describes the September 2000 visit of Israel’s opposition leader and subsequent prime minister, Ariel Sharon, to the Temple Mount in Jerusalem as “provocative” and a “stunt” that “enraged Arabs near and far.”

But Obama neglects to mention that Sharon only visited there after Israel’s Interior Ministry received assurances from the security chief of the Palestinian Authority that no uproar would arise as a result of the visit. In fact, Jibril Rajoub, head of Preventive Security in the West Bank, confirmed that Sharon could visit the sensitive area as long as he did not enter a mosque or pray publicly, rules to which Sharon adhered.

Even more incredibly, Obama describes the Temple Mount as “one of Islam’s holiest sites,” making no mention that it is the holiest site in Judaism. (This is where the 1st Temple of King Solomon stood, and the 2nd Temple was a rebuilt 1st on the same spot.)  

• • •

An innocent reader who is unfamiliar with the region and its history reads this and concludes that it was simply wrong for a Jewish leader to walk onto a Muslim religious site. On the other hand, if he or she knew that it is the holiest site for Jews, then they would more likely wonder why there was anything wrong with Sharon’s having gone there — except Obama omits that part, leading anyone to conclude that Sharon was in the wrong.

That omission, together with the exclusion of Arafat’s plans for the intifada right after negotiations at Camp David failed, would lead one to conclude that Israel was responsible for the five years of bloodshed during the Second Intifada.

Obama’s history lesson continues with the tension between Israel and Gaza. Remarkably, he makes zero mention of the Israeli disengagement from Gaza in 2005, when Israel pulled out all of its troops from the strip while forcing 9,000 Jewish citizens to leave their homes.

Anyone reading the president’s description of the wars between Israel and Hamas would never know that Israel no longer “occupies” Gaza, and that the Palestinians have been free to build a wondrous “Israeli-free” Palestinian state there for the last 15 years. That omission is glaring.

Finally, Obama’s misleading words describing Israel’s response to Hamas rocket fire on its civilian population only serves to inflame and incite anti-Israel sentiment worldwide. That response, he writes, included “Israeli Apache helicopters leveling entire neighborhoods” in Gaza — Apache helicopters that he identifies as coming from the United States, a subtle or not-too-subtle questioning of whether the United States should be providing Israel with military aid if it is used in this manner.

More importantly, what does he mean by “leveling entire neighborhoods,” other than to imply that Israel indiscriminately bombs Gazan neighborhoods, willfully murdering innocent people? And what human being wouldn’t be riled up to condemn Israel for such inhumane activity?

The problem is that it’s false.

Israel targets terrorist leaders and the rockets that they fire into Israeli cities. Tragically, Hamas leaders use innocent Palestinians as human shields by hiding behind them in civilian neighborhoods, and by launching rockets into Israel from there and from hospitals and mosques.

Israel does its best not to kill innocent people, even airdropping leaflets announcing an imminent airstrike, and calls off missions to destroy rocket launchers or kill terrorist leaders when there are too many civilians in the area. Israel most certainly does not launch retaliatory attacks that aimlessly “level” entire neighborhoods.

I have no problem with criticism of Israel. We can debate the issues in intellectually honest discussions, and in the end, we may have to agree to disagree about Israel’s policies. But no one should accept a book that is filled with historical inaccuracies that invariably lead innocent and unknowing readers to reach false conclusions. Such a devastating book has real-life ramifications and consequences.

It is terribly disappointing. I surely would have expected truth, accuracy and fairness from Barack Obama, America’s 44th president. But the falsehoods and inaccuracies in this memoir only feed the theory that Obama was, in fact, anti-Israel. Now, through “A Promised Land,” he seeks to convince others to join him.

American-born Rabbi Dov Lipman made aliyah in 2004 and served as a member of the Knesset in 2013-15.

In July 2004, the Lipman family immigrated to Israel, and moved to Bet Shemesh  where Lipman taught in post-high school yeshivot and seminaries Yesodei HaTorah, Machon Maayan, Tiferet and Reishit Yerushalayim. He had to renounce his dual citizenship as he could not serve on the Knesset otherwise.  


Resource:

https://www.thejewishstar.com/stories/on-israel-obamas-promised-land-is-seriously-fact-flawed-telling-a-dangerously-misleading,20065

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dov_Lipman

Arson on New Year's Eve At Congregation Beth Israel Temple

 Nadene Goldfoot                                                 


Last night on New Year's Eve or the night before, around 9:10 pm, a fire started in Congregation Beth Israel Temple in their educational building on the grounds.  This was in NW Portland, Oregon.  

Portland Police and the Fire Dept.  are investigating it which might be an anti-Semitic act.  This was at 1900 block of Northwest Flanders Street.

"After the flames were extinguished, fire investigators determined the fire appeared to be intentionally set. Police say they have no information at this point that the blaze is related to anti-Semitic activity and are seeking help from the public in their investigation."

KPTV has it happening on the night before, the 30th of December.  According to Fox 12, "Police say there is no information that this fire may be the result of bias-related activity, but they add it is concerning that a fire was intentionally set near a place of worship."

Yes, it's very concerning to the Jewish Community as well. Synagogues are favorite targets of anti-Semites.  It has happened many times in the USA.   Unless wiring in the building was the problem, what other reason is there?  

If anyone has information about this case, they're asked to contact PPB Detectives or PF&R Fire Investigators.

Resource:

https://www.thehour.com/news/article/Authorities-investigating-suspicious-fire-at-15839916.php

https://www.kptv.com/news/police-fire-investigators-looking-into-fire-at-jewish-center-building-in-portland/article_edf6df9a-4bc7-11eb-84d1-430937fdcbda.html


Wednesday, December 16, 2020

During Syria's Civil War Days in 2011-2014 and Israel's Hospitals

 Nadene Goldfoot                                            

Neighbors but enemies, that was the situation between Syria and Israel in 2014 and it remains so. 

Then, the Syrian public had been fed the line that Israel wanted to kill all Syrians, wanted to murder them all!  Truth was that terrorists came from Syria to kill Jews of Israel.  After 3 years of a bloody war on the border with the Syrians, Israel saw Syria in a Civil War with other factions.  Israel wound up providing medical aid to Syrians at the border.  

The Syrian civil war was an ongoing multi-sided civil war in Syria fought between the Ba'athist Syrian Arab Republic led by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, along with domestic and foreign allies, and various domestic and foreign forces opposing both the Syrian government and each other in varying combination, starting on March 15, 2011.  Over the course of the war, a number of peace initiatives have been launched, including the March 2017 Geneva peace talks on Syria led by the United Nations, but fighting has continued. It's even more of a threat to Israel with Hezbollah terrorists.  

                                                

       Netanyahu visiting injured Syrian treated by IDF

Some Israeli NGOs also provided humanitarian aid across the border to refugee camps in Jordan, as some 600,000 Syrians had fled to Jordan and the Jordanian kingdom's financial and social welfare systems now were under enormous strain, as they had been overwhelmed by the previous wave of Iraqi refugees.  Turkey and Bulgaria had also become refuge centers for Syrians, and a few had gone to Egypt as well.

 In 2013, Israel had opened a new neurosurgical department at the hospital near the border which was the only one in northern Israel at that time.  Syrian wounded, mostly combatants and also civilians began arriving at Israel's Western Galilee Hospital, and the Ziv Medical Center in Safed, and Rambam Hospital in Haifa and the smaller regional Poriya Hospital near Tiberias.  The most serious patients went to the one nearest the border.                        

The new neurosurgical department after a few months found that 20% of the patients in the neurosurgical department were Syrians.  By June 2014, the hospital had treated 250 Syrian war wounded, most with horrendous trauma with head injuries showing there had been attempted execution-style shootings and attempted machete beheadings.  One patient arrived with his whole lower jaw missing and was illiterate so couldn't write.  17 hours of surgery by doctors rebuilt his jar from part of a leg bone.  Injured Syrian women and children were also being treated.

Syria had 120,000 dead and more homeless suffering from disease and injuries and no treatment. In the beginning of the conflict, the Syrian government made it illegal for Syrian doctors to give medical care to anyone who supported the opposition.  Many doctors became targets.  Almost half of Syria's doctors, about 15,000 had fled the country.  About 60% of their hospitals were destroyed.  

The city of Aleppo, Syria had 1,171 doctors.  The opposition took this city.  292 doctors were left by last September 2013.  Just outside Damascus in Aghota, only 30 doctors out of 1,000 remained.  All other medical personnel escaped as well.  

Refugees didn't make a bee-line for Israel but got to Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey and Egypt. Then word was out that they could find aid in Israel.  They coordinated with the IDF and how they did it remains a secret.  

It was early in 2013 and the first 7 wounded Syrian fighters arrived at the Golan Heights border with Syria.  Medical ethics in the army is clear; the IDF doctors gave them help.  Then all the IDF wound up helping Syrians who had been taught to hate Israelis, and here they were, receiving medical aid from them!  

They had taken almost 1,000 Syrians into Israeli hospitals with some 450 treated at the IDF field hospital-like in MASH, The IDF were even protecting their patients from Katyusha rockets fired into northern Israel from Lebanon by Hezbollah.  

At the Western Galilee Hospital in Nahariya, a Syrian mother watched as a medical clown performed for her wounded daughter who was receiving treatment there.  What she must have wondered; the female clown looked really clownish!    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrCnrpWQlnk&vl=en

"In this world, we hope that someday there will be peace, but now we are "enemies." said Dr. Salman Zakar of the IDF field hospital.  "For them, it is being told that we, the enemy, are Satan and then seeing how suddenly it is not true.  They see professional, ethical people who are doing everything they can for them."

In June 2016, from the territory of the Golan Heightsoccupied by Israel since 1967 and annexed in 1981, the Israeli military began Operation Good Neighbor, a multi-faceted humanitarian relief operation to prevent starvation of Syrians who live along the border and provide basic or advanced medical treatment.

The aid consisted of medical care, water, electricity, education or food and was given to Syrians near the ceasefire line between Israel and Syria, often escorted across by Israeli soldiers. Over 200,000 Syrians received such aid, and more than 4,000 of them were treated in Israeli hospitals from 2013 to September 2018. Many of the treated victims were civilians, often children. Allegations have been made that some were rebel fighters from the Free Syrian Army. This theory is supported by the claim that Israel had a strategic interest in aiding the rebels; they fought against both ISIL and Iranian-allied forces. 

All Israeli doctors follow the Hippocratic oath.  The Hippocratic Oath is one of the oldest binding documents in history. Written in antiquity, its principles are held sacred by doctors to this day: treat the sick to the best of one's ability, preserve patient privacy, teach the secrets of medicine to the next generation, and so on.

At the border of Israel and Syria, people will see the IDF doctor

It's sad for the doctors when they do their best and must let the patients return to the battlefield as they request.  They most likely will not get any follow up care and might again be wounded.   "What we are seeing here is an indiscriminate lack of respect for human life."  

Syria's total population now is estimated at 18,000,000 with 16,000,000 being Muslims.  That's 87% Muslims.  They had a population in 2011 of 22,505,000 and 90% Muslims and were the 17th largest Muslim country.  Israel now has 8,424,904 population with 1,516,482 Muslims in their population.  Muslims make up 18% of Israel's population.  There are no known Jews left in Syria.  

Resource:

The Jerusalem Report, June 16, 2014

https://www.jpost.com/jerusalem-report/the-region/treating-the-enemy-354474

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_civil_war

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%27s_role_in_the_Syrian_Civil_War

Sunday, November 8, 2020

What AIPAC and J Street Stand For Concerning Israel

Nadene Goldfoot                                       

We all know that anti-Semitism is very strong everywhere right now and AIPAC has been receiving the attacks.  "Progressive groups are demanding that Democratic presidential candidates, who in past cycles might have rushed at the chance to address such a large and engaged crowd, stay away. At least six, including Senator Kamala Harris, who addressed the conference in 2017, have said they would comply. (New York Times).                                          

It was a shock to read this, "In her very first foreign policy vote in January 2017, for instance, Harris sided with President Trump in criticizing the outgoing President Obama’s refusal to veto an otherwise-unanimous, very modest, and largely symbolic UN Security Council resolution on Israeli settlements. Among other things, that resolution reiterated previous Security Council calls for Israel to stop expanding its illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank, which violate the Fourth Geneva Convention and a landmark ruling by the International Court of Justice."  This has been my point of contention with Obama.  He voted against Israel on his last day in office in this UN decision.  
Harris highlighted the co-sponsorship in a 2017 speech at AIPAC’s policy policy conference, saying it would help “combat anti-Israel bias at the United Nations and reaffirm that the United States seeks a just, secure and sustainable two-state solution.”

While considering him a close friend, Biden has not shied away from criticizing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and has joked about not agreeing with “a damn thing” the premier says. Harris on the other hand has yet to publicly spar with Netanyahu, who several democratic candidates went as far as to call him a “racist.” Harris's husband is Jewish. (Douglas Emhoff is an American lawyer and the husband of U.S. Senator and vice president-elect of the United States Kamala Harris. He is set to become the first Second Gentleman of the United States.) Asked about the prime minister’s plans earlier this year to annex large parts of the West Bank, Harris told Pod Saves America last year that she is “completely opposed” to the move and would “express that opposition.” However, she avoided calling out Netanyahu by name.

"The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC /ˈpæk/ AY-pak) founded in 1963, is a lobbying group that advocates pro-Israel policies to the Congress and Executive Branch of the United States. The current president of AIPAC is Betsy Berns Korn.   Aipac was never the big spender its antagonists claim. Its total lobbying expenditures in 2018 came to $3.5 million, which doesn’t even put it in the top 50. (Realtors spent $72.8 million.) Instead, Aipac depends on grassroots organizing in every state. It is built on people power.

One of several pro-Israel lobbying organizations in the United States, AIPAC states that it has over 100,000 members, 17 regional offices, and "a vast pool of donors." Representative Brad Sherman (D-California) has called AIPAC "the single most important organization in promoting the U.S.-Israel alliance." In addition, the organization has been called one of the most powerful lobbying groups in the United States. The group does not raise funds for political candidates itself, but its members raise money for candidates through political action committees unaffiliated with AIPAC and by other means.   AIPAC is not a political action committee and does not donate to political candidates.

Its critics have stated it acts as an agent of the Israeli government with a "stranglehold" on the United States Congress with its power and influence. AIPAC has been accused of being strongly allied with the Likud party of Israel, and the Republican Party in the U.S., but an AIPAC spokesman has called this a "malicious mischaracterization." 

                                              

The Washington Post described the perceived differences between AIPAC and J Street: "While both groups call themselves bipartisan, AIPAC has won support from an overwhelming majority of Republican Jews, while J Street is presenting itself as an alternative for Democrats who have grown uncomfortable with both Netanyahu's policies and the conservatives' flocking to AIPAC."  

"J Street is a nonprofit liberal advocacy group based in the United States whose stated aim is to promote American leadership to end the Arab–Israeli and Israeli–Palestinian conflicts peacefully and diplomatically. J Street was incorporated on November 29, 2007. It is believed that George Soros was behind its beginnings and helped financially."  Being that they are a very liberal group, I doubt very much if they were backers of Trump, who ran on the Republican ticket.  Trump has been the president during 3 Muslim states making peace with Israel by moving their embassies to Jerusalem and a Christian state in Africa; a first since Israel's birth on May 14, 1948.

J Street does support political parties financially.  "

Contributed 40 percent of all pro-Israel money to US congressional campaigns

Raised over $3 million in political giving in 2016

Endorsed 110+ Congressional candidates, including more than half of the Democratic caucus

                                              

Jared Kushner, Trump's son-in-law-has worked on the plan for the past 3 years.

Asked what J Street thinks about Trump's peace plan, they said, "We need to be clear: This is a “two state solution” in name only, just as it is a “peace plan” in name only."  I take it they did not approve.                                   

J Street's goals say that "the contours of a workable negotiated outcome that would be broadly supported by both peoples are well known. Various initiatives by the parties and others have spelled out the principles and even many of the the details of such a resolution, including President Clinton’s parameters in 2000, Israeli Prime Minister Olmert’s proposal in 2008, the offer by Arab states and the Palestinians in 2013 to adjust and negotiate based on the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative, and the official US principles put forward by Secretary of State Kerry under President Obama in 2016."

J Street believes that Israel’s capital is in Jerusalem and will be internationally recognized as such in the context of an agreed conflict-ending resolution, through which the majority-Jewish areas of Jerusalem are recognized as the capital of Israel and Palestinian areas of East Jerusalem become the capital of the future Palestinian state."

"J Street believes the next US administration should reinstate an independent US diplomatic mission to the Palestinians in East Jerusalem that is physically and institutionally separate from the US Embassy. While the next administration is likely to keep the US Embassy in Jerusalem, it could offset much of the harm caused by the Trump administration’s move by declaring that it is the intention of the United States, upon the achievement of a negotiated resolution to the conflict, to open an embassy in East Jerusalem to the Palestinian state."

The U.S. diplomatic presence in Jerusalem, first established in 1844, was designated a Consulate General in 1928.  In March 2019, the U.S. Consulate General was merged into U.S. Embassy Jerusalem.  As part of U.S. Embassy Jerusalem, (the Palestinian Affairs Unit (PAU) operates out of our historic Agron Road property to promote our overarching strategic objective of achieving a just and lasting solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.) It happens to be in the heart of Jerusalem. 

AIPAC has maintained high levels of participation from Democratic and Republican lawmakers. AIPAC describes itself as a bipartisan organization, and the bills for which it lobbies in Congress are always jointly sponsored by both a Democrat and Republican. AIPAC's supporters claim its bipartisan nature can be seen at its yearly policy conference, which in 2016 included both major parties' nominees—Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican Donald Trump—as well as high-ranking Democrats, including former Vice President Joe Biden and senator Kamala Harris (both of whom ran for president in the 2020 Democratic presidential primary), and high-ranking Republicans, including Speaker of the House Paul Ryan."

                                             

      Jeremy Ben -Ami, one of founders of J Street,  became President 

Worked under Bill Clinton as Deputy Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy

"J Street was created to serve as the political home and voice for pro-Israel, pro-peace Americans. The views of the majority of American Jews were previously underrepresented and ignored in our politics. We’re changing that, and in the process transforming our national conversation about what it means to be pro-Israel. We advocate and engage on every level – in Washington, in political campaigns, in our communities and on campuses." 

If they are advocating Israel's viewpoints on campuses, they're not doing so well, as campuses are the hotbeds of anti-Israelis.  BDS is doing well on campuses.  

J Street endorsed the nuclear disarmament deal with Iran, which Obama supported and Netanyahu and AIPAC opposed.

The feelings between Israel and J Street have not been like Israel and AIPAC.  According to Nathan Guttman, "J Street and its supporters have never made a secret of their opposition to Netanyahu and his policies." But on October 22, 2009, then–opposition leader of the Knesset, Tzipi Livni, sent a letter congratulating J Street on its inaugural event. She said she would not be able to attend but that Kadima would be "well represented" by Meir Sheetrit, Shlomo Molla, and Haim Ramon."  Kadima is closer to J Street's ideal than 

other Israeli parties. It's left of others.  


The Israeli Embassy stated that Ambassador Michael Oren would not attend J Street's first national conference because J Street supports positions that may "impair" Israel's interest. Oren continued his criticism after the conference, telling Conservative rabbis meeting in Philadelphia that J Street "is a unique problem in that it not only opposes one policy of one Israeli government, it opposes all policies of all Israeli governments. It's significantly out of the mainstream." Hannah Rosenthal, head of the Office to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism in the Obama Administration, criticized Oren, saying his comments were "most unfortunate." 

After several American Jewish groups criticized Rosenthal, the U.S. State Department said that "Rosenthal has the complete support of the department."] 

In April 2010, Oren had a meeting with J Street Executive Director Jeremy Ben-Ami to discuss the issues. After leaving his role as Israeli ambassador to the U.S. and campaigning for an MK position in the Knesset, Oren described his view as follows: "We have to understand that people who aren't anti-Israel have criticisms of specific Israeli policies. We have to show greater flexibility on the peace issue. Israel is willing to go a serious distance on peace."


Resource:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Israel_Public_Affairs_Committee

https://jerusalemspirit.com/?utm_source=gs&utm_campaign=us100&gclid=Cj0KCQiAy579BRCPARIsAB6QoIZrVKUwYReVlm2qNYpYdH_cIeL3HjVY98fgBq_fBez2AMGIpPt1_RoaAuwcEALw_wcB

https://jstreet.org/policy/jerusalem/#.X6hayWhKiUl

https://il.usembassy.gov/palestinian-affairs-unit/

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/22/opinion/aipac-2019.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J_Street#:~:text=Political%20vision,-J%20Street's%20stated&text=J%20Street%20%22recognizes%20and%20supports,sovereign%20state%20of%20their%20own%22.

https://fpif.org/more-aipac-than-j-street-kamala-harris-runs-to-the-right-on-foreign-policy/