There is a resolution to be voted on in Congress tomorrow condemning the Goldstone Report. J Street is against the resolution as presently worded, and wishes it to be watered down.
I don't know if the J Street folks have read the report in its entirety or not. I have. So I feel comfortable in stating that while I'm not in a position to say how supportive of Israel J Street is or isn't, this particular action seems to put it firmly in the camp of Israel's enemies. Not Israel's worst enemies, mind you, but I can't see how this might be a relief to anyone.
The vote will be an interesting test of J Street's power. Can they bring Congress to their line, or can't they, and if they can't, how close will they come. They're a lobby; that sort of thing is their reason to exist. Big conferences are merely the means, not the goal.
With supporters like JStreet, Israel does not need too many more enemies.
ReplyDeleteI wrote on CiFWatch:
http://cifwatch.com/2009/10/29/why-i-oppose-j-street/
"On ideology, the JStreet big tent includes a swathe of anti-Israeli warhorses, inveterate Israel haters and “one-staters” (a position opposed to JStreet’s “two-state” platform and greatly supported by the Guardian). The latter include Richard Silverstein, frequent CiF contributor, who blocks comments on his blog that dispute his bizarre and generally ignorant commentary about Israel. He was apparently a moving spirit behind a “progressive bloggers” panel that JStreet had a hard time either accepting or disavowing.
This panel, which was apparently held in a room rented by JStreet, with JStreet advertising material (banners, posters and such) included such fine examples of Arab liberalism as “Gaza Mom” (Laila el Hadad), who invited all to come to Washington on her blog with a promise that among topics to be discussed would be some not exactly supportive of JStreet’s avowed “pro-Israel” stance such as “[the] Goldstone Report, human rights & BDS”."