J Street Board Sticks With Ben-Ami After Soros Flap

[oberliner]

Washington — On September 25, a day after J Street, the dovish Israel lobby he helped found, was revealed to be funded by George Soros, Jeremy Ben-Ami convened a conference call with members of his group’s board.

Ben-Ami, the lobby’s president, had already alerted board members by e-mail about an upcoming report in The Washington Times revealing that Soros, a controversial figure in the Jewish community, had donated or pledged some $750,000 to the group — support that contradicted Ben-Ami’s earlier avowals that Soros had given it nothing.

According to participants, Ben-Ami told his board members that he does not think the flap will damage the group’s credibility. He added, however, that he knew his own credibility could take a hit.

Now both Ben-Ami and the organization are trying to contain any blemish on their image. Early signs suggest that damage-control efforts are paying off. Doors on Capitol Hill and in the administration remain open, and according to J Street officials and political insiders, Ben-Ami’s leadership of the group has not been challenged.

For Ben-Ami, 48, it was the first test in a real-time political crisis. It was a chance for the newcomer to Jewish politics to prove his mettle and to kick the wimpy image that has stuck both to him and to the organization.

“I told our team, I am not Gandhi and I am not Rahm; I’m somewhere in the middle,” Ben-Ami recalled in an October 5 interview with the Forward.


Read more: http://www.forward.com/articles/131949/#ixzz11xFPMlcQ

[shira]

1. Remind me why an Anti-Zionist like Soros would choose to donate loads of $$$ to a pro-Israel group?

[oberliner]

2. I do think J Street has an identity crisis

They are not sure what they want to be.

Personally, I think it would be more productive to work towards making AIPAC more open and welcoming to a broad range of views with respect to what it means to support Israel.

[shira]

3. Agreed. n/t

[shaayecanaan]

7. On the contrary, I would say the same of you...

you seem to have a critique for everything, but you don't actually have a position that you advocate.

[Ken Burch]

14. self-delete.

n/t.

[shira]

17. I'd like nothing more than an end to conflict via something along the lines of the Geneva Accord.

[oberliner]

20. s/d

Confusion explained!

[oberliner]

18. That post wasn't directed at Shira

At least I don't think it was.

[Ken Burch]

21. Sorry...got confused on the "thread tree"...

There were a lot of Shira responses(I can always tell by the number of "ignored" responses I see)and I got mixed up. Apologies to all, even to Shira.

Have now deleted the message.

[oberliner]

19. Was that post directed at me or Shira?

I am confused by response #14.

If it's directed at me, I have stated at least a dozen times that the position I advocate is expressed perfectly in the Geneva Accords.

[shaayecanaan]

4. Quite disgusting, really...

as if Soros had anything to apologise for. He stands head and shoulders above most of his critics.

He has chosen to give away half his fortune to people in genuine humanitarian need. He should be applauded for that. No doubt had he given it to Jewish organisations all would be forgiven and he would not be referred to as a "controversial" character.

[oberliner]

5. Why weren't they up front about it from the outset?

That is the bit I don't fully understand.

[shaayecanaan]

6. Why would I care?

I don't know who funds AIPAC either. Given Soros' considerable moral standing in the world, I can't see this as causing any great flap for anyone except right-wing Jews, and this probably says more about them than it does about Soros.

[oberliner]

10. You aren't curious about who is funding AIPAC?

I think this is only a flap insomuch as they were somewhat deceptive about his role early on.

[azurnoir]

8. why were they not upfront ? IMO Soros would have been

latched onto as a means of delegitimizing J-Street judging from some of what I have been reading about this and what I know of Soros personal life story, this just puts the "cherry on the sundae" so to speak


















'

[shira]

9. Because he's openly anti-Zionist? Here's Barry Rubin recently on Soros...

http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/2010/09/fear-and-survival-tragedy-and-threat.html

Soros wants to be on the winning side.

Read the article to see what he means by that.

[azurnoir]

11. thank you as you made my point perfectly what Soros did as a child

is used to castigate him today couldn't have done it better myself

[shaayecanaan]

12. Absolutely. Quite a disgusting piece of journalism, really...

"Did watching the extinction of his fellow Jews in Hungary make him feel guilty? No, Soros replied. This is an extraordinary answer. It was decades later and Soros could have done the polite social thing, which would have made him look better, of pretending to feel bad about it."

Again, this kind of tripe says far more about his critics than it does about him. The funny thing is that being a Jewish billionaire Soros gets equally as much bile dedicated to him by neo-fascists. It must be hard sometimes to distinguish which is which.

Anyone who manages to be the target of both Kahanists and fascists is a pretty stand-up guy in my book.

[azurnoir]

13. Quite true n/t

[oberliner]

15. Why didn't J Street embrace this stand-up guy from the outset?

It seems clear that they wanted to put some distance between themselves and him. Why?

[shaayecanaan]

23. I honestly don't know. Perhaps you could tell me? (nt)

[oberliner]

24. I thought I already had

I think it is because J Street has an identity crisis.

There is some internal tension among their membership and leadership as to what their core principles and beliefs are or should be.

[shaayecanaan]

25. Presumably, their core principles are the same as yours? (nt)

[oberliner]

26. As stated on their website - they are

This is on their website's About Us page:

The organization gives political voice to mainstream American Jews and other supporters of Israel who, informed by their progressive and Jewish values, believe that a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is essential to Israel’s survival as the national home of the Jewish people and as a vibrant democracy. J Street’s mission is two-fold: first, to advocate for urgent American diplomatic leadership to achieve a two-state solution and a broader regional, comprehensive peace and, second, to ensure a broad debate on Israel and the Middle East in national politics and the American Jewish community.

J Street represents Americans, primarily but not exclusively Jewish, who support Israel and its desire for security as the Jewish homeland, as well as the right of the Palestinians to a sovereign state of their own – two states living side-by-side in peace and security. We believe ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is in the best interests of Israel, the United States, the Palestinians, and the region as a whole.

J Street supports diplomatic solutions over military ones, including in Iran; multilateral over unilateral approaches to conflict resolution; and dialogue over confrontation with a wide range of countries and actors when conflicts do arise.

http://jstreet.org/about/about-us

However, I would argue that there is some debate among the membership with respect to one or more of these points.

[shira]

16. There's nothing disgusting about it at all. Soros admitting he wishes to be on the winning side...

...opposite of Jews who have been historically persecuted (meaning he wishes to be on the side of their oppressors) actually is quite disturbing, don't you think?

If you disagree, how else do you interpret that?

[shaayecanaan]

22. I imagine we all do...

most of us would prefer to be amongst the living than the dead. Soros got a lucky break and he lived. As he said, life is just like the markets, sometimes you win and sometimes you lose. He didn't feel as though he "ought" to have died.

That is altogether quite different from the smear that you have sought to attribute to him.

[LeftishBrit]

27. I have been staying out of this, because I am not eligible to join or donate to J-Street...

therefore, while I agree with their stated principles, I have not investigated anything to do with their administration and how they are run. Therefore I have no comments on the main issue of the thread.

However, I think the article you quote here is disgusting. There may be genuine criticisms to be made of Soros in his role as funder; but attacking him over things that happened in his childhood, and applying 'pop psychology' to him when the author presumably doesn't know him, is a form of vicious journalism that is sadly too common. Moreover, he quotes Melanie Phillips, who is one of the vilest creatures in UK journalism, as his source of evidence against Soros. While I have not had the opportunity to check out all her specific allegations against Soros, she has made many statements in the past about other people and situations, which were very misleading, and has an incredibly nasty agenda.

This is not a defence of Soros in particular; it is an attack on nasty RW journalism. And yes, I would similarly criticize pro-Palestinian journalism of a nasty and RW sort; and have done so. Would you accept an article that quoted Mondoweiss as a main source as likely to be valid? That's how I feel about any article that quotes Melanie Phillips as a main source.

[shira]

28. What other way is there to interpret his statement?

And Barry Rubin is a liberal, not a Rightwinger.

Not that that matters to the Gideon Levys of the world who think all Liberal Jewish Zionists are worse than Rightwingers who are more 'honest'.

As I see it, the pro-Castro Left are Rightwingers, as is the pro-Palestinian Left which is similar in overlooking gross human rights violations by Castro, Hamas, the PLO, etc. Those who shrug or are indifferent to these human rights violations are no better than their Rightwing counterparts. Liberals, by definition, cannot simply choose to ignore the Castros and Arafats of the world, and in particular, their victims.

Soros is an anti-Zionist, by definition someone who wants to see the end of Israel as a liberal democracy - which it couldn't possibly be with an Arab majority voting Hamas or the PLO into power. Only a Rightwinger would choose to turn Israel into another failed tyranny rather than let it remain a liberal democracy. Only a warmonger would advocate for one-state, more bloodshed, etc. There is simply no way a one-state solution, whether binational or whatever, would work. How would such a state deal with Islamic Jihad, Hamas, etc.?

[LeftishBrit]

30. If Rubin is a liberal then he should not quote Melanie Phillips!

(To be charitable, maybe he doesn't know who she is. Still, if he's working in this area, he should.)

And he should concentrate on what Soros is saying NOW, not on his childhood or on what is wrong with him as a person.

And I don't support Hamas (yes, they're very right wing), or think that a one-state solution would work; and I don't support Castro, but I'm not quite sure of his relevance to this particular topic.

ETA: While I am aware that Soros is critical of many of Israel's actions; of America's support for them; and has made some rather intemperate comments about AIPAC, I was not aware that he endorsed a one-state solution. Where does he say this?

[shira]

31. I mostly posted WRT your comments on who/what is Rightwing...

There's a difference between authentic Liberals and certain Leftwingers who have Rightwing values....
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6342632.ece?print=yes&randnum=1243217106687

What do you think of that, before we move on?

[LeftishBrit]

32. Two issues...

One is the issue that people on all sides are very tempted to assume that 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend'. Thus, some pro-Palestinians may develop sympathies with some xenophobic-isolationists, extreme Islamists and frank antisemites because they are critical of Israeli actions. Some pro-Israelis, and even some people who are just concerned about antisemitism, may develop sympathies with hawkish neocons, Islamophobes and anti-immigrant bigots, and other right-wingers, because they seem to be opposing antisemitism.

Some left-wingers may assume that anyone opposed to Bush, Thatcherism, etc. is a Good Thing, which in extreme cases may lead to sympathies with Mugabe, Ahmadinejad, and other RW 'enemies of my enemy' - forgetting that right-wingers often fight with each other as rivals for power, and that just because someone hates Bush doesn't mean that they can't be just as RW or even more so themselves.

(Right-wingers for that matter often equate very different 'enemies'; e.g. accusing people of being Socialists and Islamists at the same time, when the two are utterly incompatible.)

A separate but sometimes related issue is the equating of criticism of a government or political system with a desire for military intervention. In the UK, this had involved memories of the dire effects of British imperialism; just as such memories were fading, they were updated by awareness of Bush's disastrous actions and British collaboration with them. In the USA, from what I can see, they tend to involve reaction to Bush combined with memories of the Vietnam War. This can mean that *some* left-wingers equate criticism of the human rights record of say, Iran or North Korea, with a wish to bomb it! On the other hand, some people *do* use a country's human rights record or undemocratic government as an excuse for proposals for military action against it. I do wish that Bush's baleful influence in these matters (it's got worse on all sides since Bush) would just disappear and that more people would stop looking at the world as a military battleground, and instead support human rights everywhere through peaceful means.

[shira]

33. Good points but...

...I think a fault of yours is that you're more likely to label as "Rightwing" a Liberal more than someone who claims to be a Leftwinger.

For example, the Gideon Levy crowd. These are anti-Zionists who could care less about individual Palestinian rights under Hamas/PLO, Lebanon, Jordan and are silent when the UNHRC virtually ignores gross violations elsewhere on the planet because it's more important that Israel continues to be demonized. Only Rightwingers, in theory, would be against all of Israel's Liberal Jewish Zionists, be for more bloodshed in a one-state scenario, not give a rip about Palestinian human rights violations under Arab regimes, and remain silent when the UNHRC works against the cause of peace and human rights by using Israel as a scapegoat to cover for the crimes of the nations making up the majority of the counsel. Apologists for Castro who could care less about the basic human rights of Cubans are theoretically Rightwingers against individual civil liberties. Violations of women's rights, gay rights, freedom of speech, etc... are not so terrible so long as they're only happening in certain nations.

We both know full well that Leftwingers who fit these descriptions subscribe to a worldview that is a complete betrayal to Liberalism.

Who else besides a Rightwinger hesitates before harshly criticizing an extremely far Rightwing nutter outfit like Hamas? Who hesitates to criticize far Rightwing freeper fascist regimes for fear that doing so paints Israel in a much better light and better contextualizes Israel's actions...other than theoretical Rightwingers?

I'm curious what you think - the people described above - they're Rightwingers, right? Or apologists for Rightwing behavior? How about saying their views are Rightwing? :shrug:

From the article...

When you encountered someone of professed left-of-centre opinions, you used to be able to draw broad but important, and generally reliable, inferences about what these entailed.

They included, at a minimum, commitments to secularism, freedom of expression, individual liberty against collective authority, women’s rights, homosexual equality and the combating of xenophobia. Times have changed. Now these stances are unusual, even heterodox.

Authentic Liberalism is being hijacked by professed Leftists with Rightwing views.

True or False?

[LeftishBrit]

34. Dunno about America...

but in the UK, there's more of a problem of authentic liberalism being hijacked by professed *right-wingers* and sometimes professed centrists with a right-wing agenda.

First the Labour Party being taken over by Blairism; now the LibDems being corrupted by coalition with the Tories.

Ugh.

Anyway, I think that you tend to attribute too much power and influence to the 'left-wingers' whom you feel are corrupted by right-wing attitudes - and that as a result you seem far more preoccupied with dodgy statements by leftists, however obscure, than those of the far more influential Right. Most far-leftists have no real power in the UK; still less the USA. Compare the number of people who have read or even heard of Gideon Levy with those who have read Melanie Phillips; there's just no comparison.

'(Views of left-wing people) included, at a minimum, commitments to secularism, freedom of expression, individual liberty against collective authority, women’s rights, homosexual equality and the combating of xenophobia. Times have changed. Now these stances are unusual, even heterodox.'

I disagree STRONGLY that times have changed in this respect. In fact, the 'enemy of my enemy' problem was probably greater among leftists in the past than now. For every left-winger who nowadays sympathizes with RW dictators because of their opposition to the Bushies , there were probably several a generation or two ago, who sympathized with the Soviet Union and, after disillusionment with the Soviets, Mao. There is nothing really to attract a leftist in Iran or Zimbabwe, except anxiety about Western military action against them. There *were* genuinely left-wing aspects to the original impetus of communism, and therefore it was harder for the leftist to admit how bad most so-called communist countries were on freedom of expression, individual liberty, opposition to xenophobia, etc.

Fings Ain't What They Used to Be - but then they never were.

My prediction, for what it's worth, is that once the Bushies fade a little in memory, that there will be some restructuring, for good or bad, in the right-wing and left-wing alliances. In particular, I predict that within 10 years, there will be a significant problem with collusion between Christian Righties and Muslim Righties against secularists.

[shira]

35. The enemies of liberalism are easy to identify WRT Israel....

IMHO, any group opposed to liberal Jewish Zionists like Oz, AB Yehoshua, Grossman, Strenger, etc.. all of whom are genuine humanitarians, peace activists, and pro-Palestinians....are Rightwingers.

From their enemies like Hamas, Pat Buchanon, and Avigdor Lieberman to Gideon Levy and his groupies.

[LeftishBrit]

36. Well, I tend to think that opponents of Left-wing Zionists are *wrong*

But not necessarily right-wing. Right-wingers, in their many forms, generally oppose the Israeli and Zionist Left. But that doesn't mean that only right-wingers do so. People may oppose them for a number of reasons; e.g. because out of opposition to nationalism in all its forms (which is great in principle; but often dangerously unrealistic in practice at the present time).

Similarly all right-wingers are against President Obama, but not all opponents of President Obama are right-wing.

In any case: Gideon Levy and his 'groupies' hardly compare in power and influence with the right-wingers you list. Hamas are a governing party; Lieberman is his country's Foreign Secretary; Buchanan, though without the same official power, is a very well-known and influential journalist, who reaches huge numbers of people through his writings and TV appearances. By contrast, how many people have read or heard of Levy? How many 'groupies' does he have?

[shira]

37. At best then, the anti-Zionist Left are useful idiots because...

....what they advocate is a 1-state scenario that puts either the extremely Rightwing PLO or Hamas into power for a long time. Their political views are the polar opposites of all that's Liberal. Think Feiglin and Lieberman in power but 100x worse...

More bloodshed, the reversal of every and anything liberal in Israel, chaos, war...

Advocating for the dream scenario of the most fascist far Rightwing religious, tyrannical extremists is not Rightwing in your opinion?

Just wrong?

Seriously?

[alanquatermass]

42. Pure sophistry...

Sorry but I have been reading your posts for DAYS now, Shira, and they have the patina of logic to them. That is, they may look sensible at the outset, but when you get them under the light and really examine them closely the seams start to show.

There is a little something called Cultural Relativism (maybe you've heard of it) which has been PROVEN -- carefully -- through syllogisms devised by various professors at numerous universities around the world -- to be the only sane worldview for conflicts such as these (Arab/"Israeli")... and according to the dictates of Cultural Relativism we can -- indeed, MUST -- hold "Israel" to a higher set of standards than its neighbors.

[Jim Sagle]

43. Shorter aq: Arabs rool, Israelis drool, facts to the contrary notwithstanding.

[azurnoir]

44. so its the reverse? n/t

[Jim Sagle]

47. Certainly not.

[shira]

46. Your cultural relativism is nothing but racism...

It makes molehills out of mountains for Hamas actions, even against its own people.

Accordingly, Palestinian people aren't accorded full human rights when they suffer under Hamas and apparently you're okay with that.

Millions are dying in Sudan and the Congo, but rather than put energy and resources into that, cultural relativism means to downplay and ignore what goes on there - and in essence deny full human rights to the victims there.

Better to focus on Palestinian suffering than those brown-skinned third worlders, right?

But only when Israel is perceived as the oppressor, not Hamas, Syria, Lebanon or Jordan?

:shrug:

That's perverse.

[alanquatermass]

48. You're the perverse one!!! --

-- just ask anybody on these boards. Your beloved Israel CLAIMS to want peace, but still they answer stones with bullets, and the odd, stray rocket with a BARRAGE of mortar-fire.

Jimmy Carter (you know, the ex-President of the far-from-Liberal United States) HIMSELF said on Charlie Rose that the rockets being fired out of Gaza were a cry for help.

[shaayecanaan]

29. I agree totally (nt)

[Crunchy Frog]

38. I've never understood the right wing demonization of George Soros.

The only thing he's done is be rich and use that wealth to promote his own political views. Same thing as Richard Mellon Scaife and Rupert Murdoch (though not nearly as successful).

[shira]

39. Soros is despised by the Left too

Follow the links here...

I think one point that these pundits are overlooking is that Soros is despised not only by the Right, but also by elements on the Left. He’s been attacked as a predatory capitalist who plunges entire nations into debt; he’s been accused of being a tool of American imperialism, using his foundation to undermine and overthrow sovereign governments; and he brought down the ire of the Green Party and the Ralph Nader crowd, through his support of the Democratic Party and funding for Democratic candidates.

http://www.thejudeosphere.com/?p=1653

[shira]

40. J Street: Lies Again, Gets Caught Again (Barry Rubin)

http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/2010/10/j-street-lies-again-gets-caught-again.html

In the wake of its lies about pretending not to be getting money from George Soros, trying to help anti-Israel campaigner Richard Goldstone lobby Congress, cooperating with Iran's lobby to try to protect Iran from sanctions, and on other matters, here's another one. J Street founder and its leading "expert" on Israel, Daniel Levy--one of the mass media's favorite people to interview about Israel--was caught saying that Israel's creation was wrong. J Street lashed back calling its critics "far right" and issuing a video purporting to show that Levy never said such a thing.

Levy made the statement near the end of his talk. J Street cut out the end. This could not have been a mistake. It had to be deliberate so they could say: See! He didn't say it, he's only speaking regrettably about the creation of the Palestinian refugee problem, these critics are lying, so you should all continue supporting J Street.

What? It's not there? Well, J Street: That's only because you edited it out of the video!

This is the moral level of these people.

J Street critics--who span the political spectrum--laughed because they already knew they had the evidence, just as they did in the tape of the telephone call where the offer to help Goldstone was made.

So here it is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UomQvNHCo5Q&feature=player_embedded

(To be fully accurate, Levy said that the Holocaust was a rationale for him to accept Israel's existence but otherwise it was a mistake.)

Why is J Street so reckless in lying? Because it knows the mass media will protect it and that many of its followers won't believe the accusations--even if documented thoroughly--because those presenting them will be dismissed as extreme right-wingers. (Incidentally, the two bloggers who have brought out most of the information on J Street could be more accurately described as center-left.)

Nevertheless, each such exposed lie and demonstration of J Street's anti-Israel agenda further reduces its support. Already it has become too toxic to gain support from any American member of Congress or Israeli politician.

[shira]

49. J Street Israel-office vs. Zionism/Oppression

There's this guy, Drew Cohen, and he's apparently the Israel-office representative for J Street. I know nothing about him, but Barry Rubin discovered this blog in which some details about Mr. Cohen were being revealed. Take a look:

J Street’s pretty pleased with Cohen’s appointment – see below for the full email he’s passing around on the organization’s behalf – which is kind of weird for a “pro-Israel” organization, given how he’s proud of being an anti-Israel ideologue:

* Here’s him explaining that he “sees his role” as deliberately altering the emphasis that American Jews place on Israeli security concerns, since it’s futile to “wait patiently for Israel to come around.” Elsewhere here’s him indicating that American Jews need to be shown “the truth of what is going on” in Israeli civil society, and no he doesn’t mean “truth” in a positive “let’s tell people about how the Jewish State is a Middle East beacon of human rights” sense.

* Here’s him explaining that he can’t be comfortable unless he’s “with people who I am certain do not espouse Zionism or any form of oppression.”

* Here’s him condemning Operation Cast Lead, an Israeli defensive campaign supported by the far leftwing Meretz party and understood by Egypt and the Arab League, as an “unjust and even criminal” act by which he was “shocked and appalled at the mass destruction.”

more...
http://blogs.jpost.com/content/j-street-israel-office-vs-zionismoppression

[shira]

41. Josh Block: J Street's 'worst nightmare'

Let me begin by saying that having worked to elect more Democratic candidates, starting way back in 1984, than Ms. Spitalnick has probably ever met, she would do well to heed my political advice when it's offered. That is, if her sincere interest is getting Democrats elected, and not, as it appears to be, selfishly promoting a counterproductive agenda-driven and self-congratulatory group that effectively tarnishes Democrats with the taint of a tainted organization.

NEWSFLASH - dateline 1990s: It's no longer brave to say you are for a two-state solution. And everyone is pro-peace.

Since every mainstream group, elected official and pro-Israel American, myself included, strongly favors a two state solution and peace between Israel and her Arab neighbors - and Jstreet knows it - their silly 'response' is again an attempt to deceive and distract from their record of working hand-in-hand with groups and individuals hostile-to-Israel, ambivalent-to-Israel, and in some cases, out-and-out anti-Israel. Take Richard Goldstone, George Soros (see page 59) and Salam Al-Marayati - who spoke at their conference, but is best known for suggesting that Israel may have been behind 9/11 - just to name a few.

Democratic candidates should not give Republicans any opportunity to challenge their pro-Israel credentials, yet Jstreet does just that. The average, minuscule amount of support Jstreet claims to pass to their endorsees will again and again be offset by the grief and cost even the most pro-Israel candidates expose themselves to by associating with a group proven to be as duplicitous, deceitful and outright dishonest they have been exposed to be.

It is as simple as the difference between an asset and a liability.

If Jstreet believes they are helping pro-Israel Democrats get elected, then their understanding of the electorate is as bad as their other ideas, like opposing sanctions on Iran for two years in a coalition that included apologists for the Iranian regime like NIAC, or partnering with Churches for Middle East Peace - one of the major forces behind the Boycott, Divestment and Sanction (BDS) campaign that seeks to isolate, demonize and ultimately erase Israel. Maybe that's where Jstreet caught the fleas.

The more we learn about Jstreet, as the things they tried to hide and keep secret see the light of day, the more we should worry about candidates with competitive races getting anywhere near them. Virtually every reporter in the last three years who has spoken to Jstreet has been lied to. How many members of Congress have gotten the same treatment? These aren't questions that come from nowhere. They are the direct result of Jstreet's conduct and pattern of deception.

Jstreet made very clear that their #1 targeted race this cycle was the Senate contest in Pennsylvania. "There's no question that this race is a very important test of what kind of support J Street and its supporters can deliver," they said. Well, we all know how that turned out. In a race as close at that one, the Democratic candidate chose to repudiate his signature on a Jstreet initiative, and his ties to the group provided a major opening for his Republican opponent to contrast his support for Israel with the Democrats' ties to what was identified as "an anti-Israel organization," a description apparently accurate enough that when the ad making that statement was challenged by the Sestak campaign, it remained on the air.

That is why it bears repeating:

Being associated with a group that helped Richard Goldstone slander Israel on the Hill, that refuses to condemn his report that accuses the top leadership in Israel of PURPOSEFULLY targeted civilians in Gaza, that says there's no difference between Israel defending itself and Hamas terrorism, lies about their secret money from anti-Israel George Soros and half their budget coming from Hong Kong - not American Jews as they claimed - and lied again and again when confronted, even twisting the arm of a former Israeli MK to lie for them after she was recorded on tape exposing their ties to Goldstone, is HAZARDOUS to one's pro-Israel reputation.

http://washingtonjewishweek.com/main.asp?SectionID=4&SubSectionID=14&ArticleID=13769&TM=53603.46

[Ken Burch]

45. Why is it unacceptable for J Street to be funded by Soros?

n/t.

[shira]

50. Because it claims to be grass-roots funded and pro-Israel.

Soros is a major contributor along with 1 or 2 other people and he's definitely not pro-Israel.