Trita Parsi, the National Iranian American Council, and a Farcial Claim

Yaniv Salama-Scheer..
The Times of Israel..
22 July '12..

First the good news. It would seem, as Trita Parsi, head of the National Iranian American Council, would have us believe, that in these exceptional days before Tisha B’Av, the exceptional has happened: Sacrifices are once again burning at the behest of the Jewish people’s highest office in Jerusalem. The charred carcasses, however, are not Paschal lambs, sheep bulls or rams burning on the temple altar, but the ordinary, innocent Israelis condemned to sacrifice upon Netanyahu and Barak’s alter of political expediency.

In a column in the Daily Beast, Parsi notes that Netanyahu wasted no time in fingering the Iranians and Hezbollah for Thursday’s attack on Israeli tourists in the Bulgarian resort of Burgas. But the rub was the devious plot through which Israel would finally hatch its own the equivalent of the “shots in Sarajevo in 1914” — an excuse to bomb Bushehr, Natanz, Fordow, and all the other Iranian nuclear sites, happily bringing about the great war of Gog and Magog.

He quotes American officials who have apparently expressed grave concern that “one of the purposes of Israeli attacks in Iran has been to generate an Iranian response that could serve as a casus belli for Israel. That way, Israel could target Iran’s nuclear facilities without paying the heavy political cost of starting a preventive war.”

What's Missing from NY Times Article on J Street

Snapshots/CAMERA

14 September 09

James Traub's fawning "news analysis" (read promotional plug) on J Street in the New York Times Magazine notes that the organization is "named after the street missing from Washington's grid and thus evoking a voice missing from Washington's policy discussions." Traub's admiring article is itself guilty of missing critical information about the upstart lobby group.

Repeating without challenge J Street's assertion that polling data (polls, polls, always polls with J Street) indicates that Jewish Americans largely support its agenda, Traub writes:

J Street maintains that most American Jews share its views on the Middle East. . . . The question is how much of an exception they make for Israel. J Street sought to answer this question by commissioning an extensive poll of Jewish opinion on MIddle East issues. The survey, taken in July 2008 and repeated with almost identical findings in March, found that Americans Jews opposed further Israeli settlements (60 percent to 40 percent), that they overwhelmingly supported the proposition that the U.S. should be actively engaged in the peace process even if that entailed "publicly stating its disagreeements with both the Israelis and the Arabs" and that they strongly supported doing so even when the premise was revised to "publicly stating its disagreements with Israel."

One wonders if the New York Times Magazine writer bothered to actually look at the poll in question before he breathlessly recounted J Street's wishful thinking that the results indicate that the American Jewish public is behind them. Shmuel Rosner, a veteran reporter on American-Israeli affairs, wrote about that very same March poll:

1. J Street's press release reads the following: "Instead of holding the hawkish, hard-line positions often expressed by many established Jewish organizations and leaders, American Jews actually overwhelmingly support assertive peace efforts and an active U.S. role in helping Israelis and Arabs to resolve their conflict? American elected officials and politicians have for years fundamentally misread the American Jewish community," said Jeremy Ben-Ami, J Street's executive director in the press release.

But here's what the poll says: More people agree that "established" and "traditional" Jewish organizations represent their views than the number of people who say such organizations do not represent them. Even when AIPAC - supposedly the great Satan - is mentioned by name, more people (34 percent) believe it accurately represents their views than those (23 percent) who don't. The 40 percent who do not have an opinion also represent a group that can hardly be considered "fundamentally misread."

2. J Street opposes military action against Iran, "a terrible option for the U.S., regional stability, and for Israel." But American Jews will be more likely than not to vote for a Congressional candidate who believes that "America must do everything it can to protect Israel's security. This means militarily attacking Iran if they pursue a nuclear weapons program, supporting an Israeli pre-emptive strike against Iran, cutting off aid to the Palestinians if their schools allow textbooks that don't recognize Israel, and letting the Palestinians know where we stand on Jerusalem by moving the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem." . . .

3. My friends at the Orthodox Union (I have friends all around town) were quick to note, that J Street's PR for their poll conveniently omits mention of its findings on an issue we feel is of the utmost importance - the indivisibility of Jerusalem. Even among their respondents - who support 'assertive peace efforts and an active U.S. role' (i.e. pressure) and withdrawal from the West Bank - a majority do NOT believe Jerusalem should be re-divided with its eastern neighborhoods becoming part of a Palestinian state."

And here are our own observations about the gaps between J Street's poll results and the organization's positions:

-- J Street called for lifting the blockade of the Gaza Strip, while 75 percent of its poll respondents "support Israel's blockade of Gaza if the Palestinians block the agreement from being reached."

-- During Cast Lead, J Street maintained that "there is nothing 'right' in punishing a million and a half already-suffering Gazans for the actions of the extremists among them," but its poll found that 69 percent of respondents disagreed with the statement "With hundreds of Palestinian civilian deaths and a humanitarian crisis resulting from a month of no electricity and clean water throughout Gaza, Israel's response to Hamas' attacks was disproportionate." Hardly a ringing endorsement of J Street's views.

Thus, for all the mighty efforts of the pollster who carried out this poll, Jim Gerstein, a former J Street VP (can you say conflict of interest?), J Street was still able not to get the results it had wanted. But the lobby group was able to convince the New York Times otherwise.

Related: Protecting the QB in the White House

J Progressive Tsedek Forum? J Street Acquisitions And Mergers

Ami Isseroff

Israel News

06 September 09

In the end, it's all about money. That's what brought the nominally Zionist Union of Progressive Zionists under the umbrella of the very nominally pro-Israel J Street, which gets money from the American Iranian Council among others, and "boasts" (if that is the word) people like Henry Siegman on its board. And that will evidently bring Brit Tsedek Veshalom into the fold too. It might also bring the moribund Israel Policy Forum, which seems to spend $1.7 million on just about nothing (they had 3 staffers, but one, the main one, left). $1.7 million doesn't buy what it used to, I guess.

Peace Now (actually, American Friends of Peace Now) is mentioned in the article as well. If they are merged into J Street, it will mean that the entire Zionist peace camp has been vaporized by the charm of J Street lucre.

Considering its relatively small budget ($3 million) J Street has made quite a bang compared to AIPAC, the real pro-Israel lobby group, which has a budget of $70,000,000. It is not really known what size segment of Jewish opinion J Street represents. Part of the secret of J Street's is the ability to mobilize grass roots volunteers. Traditional Zionist organizations in the United States are not very good at doing that and are not oriented to grass roots activity or integration of volunteers.

J Street Makes a Strategic Acquisition

By Nathan Guttman
Published September 04, 2009.

Washington — The dovish Washington-based Israel lobby J Street is about to take over the Jewish community's largest likeminded grassroots organization.

The anticipated merger of Brit Tzedek V'Shalom with J Street will give the lobby its own national network of volunteers. It is but the latest in series of seemingly strategic acquisitions through which J Street -- which calls for increased U.S. involvement in the Middle East peace process -- is seeking to develop a multi-tiered operation mirroring that of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, its much larger, mainstream rival.

According to unofficial accounts, J Street and Brit Tzedek V'Shalom are in advanced talks that are expected to lead to the latter's absorption in J Street as the lobby's field operation branch.

The move is yet another demonstration of how the 18-month old lobbying group has been changing the political landscape on the Jewish left and consolidating its power at a time when other groups are struggling to survive.

Brit Tzedek officials have stressed that talks with J Street are only at their initial phase and would probably be concluded by October, in time for J Street's first national conference. But the emerging bottom line is clear: Brit Tzedek's operation will become part of J Street, although the groups will not formally merge and they will not have a joint board.

"We always believed that in order to have a greater impact we need to be as big as possible," said Steve Masters, Brit Tzedek's president, "that's why having an opportunity to work together is important." The two groups already have some joint programs and, according to Brit Tzedek leadership, there is full agreement on the political line, which supports a two-state solution, opposes settlement activity and advocates greater U.S. involvement in the Middle East peace process.

Still unclear is what, if anything, will be left of Brit Tzedek once the cooperation agreement is finalized. "We've not reached any conclusion yet," said Diane Balser, the group's former executive director, who is now consulting on the cooperation talks. "We don't know if the brand will remain," she added.

Jeremy Ben-Ami, J Street's executive director, made clear that any future cooperation would be within the framework of his organization. "They [Brit Tedek activists] will have to decide how they'd like to become active with us as individuals," he said.

J Street currently has a budget of approximately $3 million and 22 employees on staff. This is dwarfed by AIPAC's $70.6 million budget, of course. But it represents a solid financial base for a new group on the dovish end of the spectrum. Americans for Peace Now, for example, a much older, well-established group, took in just $2.25 million last year.
(Continue)
.

Exposing The J Street Fraud: Why is a "pro-Israel" Lobby Closely Cooperating with an Iranian Regime Front Group?

Barry Rubin
The Rubin Report
24August 09

Lenny Ben David has written a wonderful article on the J Street fraud, the anti-Israel lobby with the thinnest guise of being a pro-Israel lobby, extensively promoted by the media and even the White House.

He provides a lot of specific examples of why this group is being seen as hostile to the country it pretends to support. Research is only beginning into this nefarious organization and already the results are shocking.

But let me add some points. After listing support for J Street from anti-Israel individuals, including donations by them, Lenny writes:

“Why should a National Iranian American Council board member give at least $10,000 to J Street PAC? Perhaps it is because of the very close relationship between the two organizations. In June the directors of both organizations coauthored an article in the Huffington Post, `How diplomacy with Iran can Work,' arguing against imposing new tough sanctions on Iran.

“The two organizations have worked in lockstep over the last year to torpedo congressional action against Iran. Why would a supposedly pro-Israel, pro-peace organization work so hard to block legislation that would undermine the Iranian ayatollah regime? Ostensibly, any step to hinder Iran's nuclear development and aid to Hamas and Hizballah would be a step toward regional peace. Deterring Iran through sanctions would lessen the need for military action against Iran. This, as well as championing Hamas's cause, just doesn't make sense.”

But the situation is even worse than Lenny points out. The National Iranian American Council is widely viewed—and some researchers have presented evidence—as the unofficial lobby in America for the Iranian regime.

In other words, J Street is getting money and working with the group which supports President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the world's most powerful antisemite who seeks to wipe Israel off the map.

Does that suggest something rather phony about its aims and claims? Is this really a group that the Obama administration wants to be promoting, because to do so sends a very negative signal both to Israel and to American Jews.

But let me raise two other questions. The organization’s leader is fond of saying that his group has supported Israel in the past. Yet I have never seen a single statement made or position taken which has backed the state of Israel on any issue or made any criticism of Hamas, Hizballah, Iran, Syria, or the Palestinian Authority.

What is astonishing is that the media has not pressed for such proof or researched the organization’s actual record.

A second issue is: precisely who is connected with the organization in Israel. AIPAC is the lobby for Israel and, despite baseless criticisms; it has always supported the positions of the government in power, left or right.

The Israel Policy Forum was historically linked with the Labour party, though this connection has seemed to have weakened in recent years as that group has moved ever leftward. Peace Now is another legitimate organization, though one can certainly disagree with its positions which, at best, are badly outdated by events.

But who are J Street’s supporters in Israel? Again, no indication is given and one is suspicious that there are no credible public figures who would take such a stance.

At least it does say something about the strong, popular American support for Israel that an anti-Israel lobby can only be organized effectively in Washington if it pretends to be the opposite.
.