Nightmare on J Street

wasp? whoa. what if someone called you a k*ke? not cool, right?

It’s a no-brainer why an Arab prominent in the American-Arab community supports a group that wants to pressure Israel into unilateral concessions for the sake of “peace,” and it’s not surprising that she would dismiss the opposition’s substantive objectives — forced concessions that are not reciprocated will bring hostility and war — as so much pique at not controlling the agenda (more evasive ad hominem).

What’s not understandable (unless you accept the honor-shame explanation), is why Arabs and Muslims haven’t formed an A-Street, militating for Arab/Muslim/Palestinian concessions aimed at making peace more likely?

Instead you have given us a perfectly pitched discourse about how my supporting Israelis working for peace is my democratic right and who are you to question my motives. Well I do question them. If you want peace, do what the Israelis and Jews do: criticize your own people, demand that they back down from their crazy, hardline positions, denounce immature and unjustified rioting on Haram al Sharif as harmful to the process, and demand that they recognize Israel as a Jewish state just as every Arab state is a Muslim state (except, for the time being, Lebanon).

Or are you afraid that the opposition to your Lobby group will not be as mild as that — for which you show contempt — of people like Lenny David, who merely argue with those he opposes. Or are you afraid you could never get more than a dozen people to openly support you? Or has it not even occurred to you that this is how to help peace?

I think I can answer that in a way that makes AIPACs dealings (and their TOTAL lack of transparency) quite clear.

Two of AIPACs top officials were charged with espionage against the US for illegally receiving classified intel on Iran and passing it to Israel with the intent of fomenting war between the US and Iran. They admitted that they took this information, They took GREAT pains to hide their activities (changing exchange locations multiple times in one drop because of their paranoia) and the person responsible for giving it to them was convicted of espionage related crimes.

The Rosen and his associate (the AIPAC officials) held off their trial for years, and eventually used a greymail defense, threatening to expose so much classified material during their trial that the prosecution had to drop charges in deference to US national security. Again, they admitted that they took this material, and that they understood that it was classified, and admitted passing it to Israel. They simply felt that it was their right (apparently as lobbyists for Israel?) to do so.

During the trial, the FBI was also following another suspected Israeli spy, and happened to record him calling US Rep. Jane Harman ( a huge AIPAC supporter) and offering to have the billionaire democratic donor (and Huge AIPAC supporter) Haim Saban blackmail Nancy Pelosi into appointing Harman to chair a key intelligence committee in return for Harman's interference in the espionage Trial of the two Israeli AIPAC spies. Harman agreed, and Saban tried (but failed because the story broke before his Blackmail had its intended effect) and Harman was subsequently JUST ABOUT to be indicted for her (as the FBI called them) "completed crimes" when the Bush administration offered to make it all go away if she agreed to break ranks and defend their recently uncovered illegal wire tapping program, which she did.

So, given that AIPACs REAL dealings are in espionage, blackmail, and graft, "transparency" in the normal sense of the word is simply not applicable to them. They are a thoroughly corrupt organization that is damaging the US government by means that are usually (except through wire taps and FBI investigations) not "reported"

AIPAC has a tricky organizational structure. The national lobbying organization has a total of 6 full time lobbyists and a number of consultants of various sorts, but it controls a wide variety of satellite organizations including the think tank Washington Institute for Near East Policy and a branch of their organization in every state which are legally seperate but are in actuality very much controlled by AIPAC. Quite rigidly actually. As a former board member of my AIPAC affiliated student organization I had believed there would be some degree of independence there, but I was actually removed from the board of my CAMPUS group by officials in Washington by way of their fairly recently created AIPAC On Campus division. Because of these organizational tricks the national organization is free to make a number of not entirely honest claims. The national organization is not officially a Political Action Committee...the PAC stands for Public Affairs Committee. They claim they do not rate or endorse candidates or donate to specific candidates. But the individual state branches of AIPAC are free to do so and as congressional elections are held locally that actually does make more sense. In any case they have frequently made it policy to use their skills and organizational infrastructure for "regime change". Not that I personally disagree with their sentiments or their right to do so, but I wish they were honest about it.

I disagree with the previous poster about the espionage activities. Whatever their shortcomings the organization emphasizes the point that its members are advocating for America's interest first. But they have in recent years engaged in some rather unscrupulous policies that left them open to such problems and gave people like Larry Franklin perfect openings to engage in such activities. The relevant unscrupulous activity was extending their policy of "building relationships" that had worked so well with legislators to executive branch officials who are as career civil servants supposed to be above such influences.

I was interested in your post as to the AIPAC organizational methodology.

How does the organization actually operate at university/ college level?

AIPAC's On Campus division initiated the founding of campus groups some time ago that are outside the heirarchy of AIPAC's relationship with its individual state branches, but had more or less neglected them for years. My understanding is that most of them were initially created during the Intifadeh in the 1980s. AIPAC was more or less content to ignore them for some time. Around 2002 and 03 the situations on many college campuses became rather hostile as certain fairly well organized groups began gaining momentum, and a number of horror stories emerged. Eventually pressure mounted and AIPAC started reasserting its control of these organizations via their On Campus division.

Haim Saban made some rather generous donations to help them with this mission, so they began sending delegations from each campus group for fairly intense and thorough advocacy training. They paid the airfare and lodging in Washington D.C. to do it. They also began appointing board members themselves and issuing directives, and sent people to make sure the directives were being followed. They provided visual aids, resources, and eventually began coordinating with other pro israel organizations to connect students with resources. I was sent on an even more detailed training seminar called Hasbara- Jerusalem Fellowships. PR technique, education on israeli political issues, rhetorical techniques, persuasive writing, grassroots organizing techniques, financial management, lobbying skills, mass psychology, you name it.

Much of the funding of these organizations activities was indirect. Assistance from other pro israel and jewish community organizations through the "Israel On Campus Coalition" organized by AIPAC brought a lot of resources to bear.

The organizing and financial management techniques they use could really fill several books. I wont deny they are very good at what they do. But some of what they do with that power is problematic. Their policy of circumventing local board elections left me out of the first appointed board (in spite of the fact that I and a colleague who graduated at the end of 2002-2003 school year were the two people most instrumental in turning the situation around) because I could not afford the price of airfare to Washington D.C. that year for AIPAC policy conference. The following year, 04-05, the directives they issued were not in the best interests of my campus group. The intolerance for dissent, combine with aggressive tactics, had simultaneously alienated a large number of otherwise sympathetic people and discouraged the pro palestinian groups to the point of inactivity. The lack of anyone to dialogue with more than the alienation factor, I think, created severe membership retention problems for us that some of the bigger state schools that had been the focus of their attentions were not dealing with.

This sort of top down structure I think inherently lacks sustainability. It is useful for massive blitzkreig style mobilization but it takes what ought to be a grassroots effort and essentially hijacks it to the point of making it "astroturf".

Kadmonster,

When you say you "disagree with it" I am confused as to what you mean. Are you referring to reality? The two top officials of AIPAC WERE tried for espionage. At their trial, they described the function of AIPAC as a backchannel to Israel for all sorts of classified intel and therefore they did not think what they did was wrong.

They WERE helped by an Israeli spy under survielence who used blackmail and graft in the US government to interfere in their trial.

THE ENTIRE POINT is that AIPACs legal description may be what you described, but the criminal investigations into their activities and goals tell a completely different tale.

They admitted that they took the information. They knew it was illegal and that is why they tried to hide their activities, as opposed to simply doing so out in the open. An Israeli spy under surveillance of the FBI called a US Rep. and bribed her to interfere in the case, using the "ACTUAL" assets and influence that they wield, that is to say, blackmail using large sums of money used to "make things happen" that never are actually publicly associated with the organization at all.

They used a greymail defense, and I believe them to be guilty, despite the findings at trial, especially because they admitted taking classified intel and passing it to Israel, and because from a governement emplyee who himself was charged and convicted with espionage for his crimes.

Are you saying that you feel it is expected behavior for ANY lobbyist to seek out classified intel and pass it to foreign governments? THEY did that, and that is a fact. They admitted that. Are you suggesting that it is ok for ANY lobbyist to obtain assistance in legal proceedings against them through Graft and Blackmial? According to the NYtimes and many other sources, that is exactly what happened.

That is AIPAC. That is indisputably who they are, regardless of the outcome of the trial.

That is why J street is so threatening to them, because EVERYONE knows how utterly corrupt and dysfunctional AIPAC has become.

Hi John,

You raise fair questions, and if I may, I would like to reply

comparable Arab-American lobbying organizations working for peace with a similar approach towards the other side?

J-street is trying to use the US's influence to modify/push israel towards moderating its aggressive tactics. US influence comes from israel being the largest recipient of aid from the us, as well as economic, political, military, intelligence, and technological support.

if there are "arab-americans" doing the same, where would the influence come from?

i guess my answer is, israel receives far more from the us, and so the us can (and should according to jstreet) ask for something in return.
the US doesnt really give much to the Palestinians, so why would palestinians listen?

Without such efforts being made on the other side, at some point the strategy of pressuring only Israel will reach an impasse, if it hasn't already done so.

at some point... well, at some point setlements would have spread over the wb, preventing the creation of a state for palestinians to go to. until then, palestinians will live in poverty, israelis will live on one of the highest gdp/capita, they will keep developing their military, and killing people.

an impasse, correct me if you disagree, seems more like the status quo, since they are gaining from the impasses. if you want to break an impasse, you change the equation, or the rules of the game. that means, pressuring israel, or providing more support to the palestinians.

The US in actuality has plenty of influence on the Palestinians and is in point of fact their largest financial backer. there are arab american organizations who advocate what Johnchen suggests but they have never been as effective nor had the political savvy of AIPAC. It is not for lack of trying. They have made progress over the years but are still not a major force in american politics.

As for the Foreign Agents Registration Act and AIPAC, the issue has been brought up several times over the last several decades and each time it has been determined that they do not meet any of the criteria for Agent of a Foreign Government. They know the law well and will not be so foolish as to run afoul of it.

Why aren't these Muslim and Arab Americans standing up and stating how the violence used in the course of "legitimate armed resistance" is wrong, and should be stopped, immediately.

i believe there are, actually. why dont we see them in mainstream media?
let me ask you another question, what role does having 80% of revenue in hollywood being connected to people of jewish faith have on the portrayal of arabs, asians, and other races?

simple answer:
(a) jewish people have an extra-ordinary influence on american media not reflected by its small population. this is seen by the stereotypes portrayed in america, and compared with portrayals in other countries where the jewish influence is weaker.

(b) jewish people are nice, plain and simple. my experience has been of strong intellect, decent respect, modesty. i am not surprised that there are jewish people who would join j-street, to defend what they (and me) believe is right, even arguing against their own.
i am surprised though, that people who have suffered so much would do so much to others. it might not be well know, but elsewhere in the world, the majority of decent people support j-street. eg Desmond Tutu , goldstein, even einstein was anti-zionist. you should read BBC, or other news media, for "our" perspective.

Einstein was very much a zionist. In fact he bequeathed a massive fortune and the rights to most of his writings to Hebrew University in Jerusalem, and was a long time zionist activist. People who think he was antizionist usually cite a fragment of a quote taken out of context.

With regards to Freeda2's claims: I'm coming to this dialogue a little late, so pardon the tardiness of this response. But Freeda2's statements about Jewish control of the media -- which were offered up as an explanation for the lack of US coverage of Arab-American peace groups -- are utterly outrageous and merit a response. This FP essay by Abou-Chedid was written as a response to an individual who insinuated that the ethno-racial identities of J Street supporters were ipso facto proof of the group's lack of sincerity with regards its pro-Israel bona fides. Now we learn that the ethno-racial identities of *some* members of the U.S. media should be taken as proof of the U.S. media's general failure to cover these groups. (Of course, Freeda2 offers insinuations and suggestions, but offers us no examples to buttress her claims.)

Freeda2: Shame on you! Especially considering that, based on the tone of your comments, it almost sounds as if you're Ms. Abou-Chedid herself. If you are indeed the author of this article, you seem not to have absorbed the true spirit of the remarks that you so eloquently purport to believe in.

it is not. some will argue for, aipac will argue its not, i dont know the details.
other groups that are, are all registered, and so are tax treated as foreign lobbies and have to meet disclosure rules and regulations.

Aipac is not treated as an israeli lobby, and so does not pay tax, disclosure, etc.

i dont know if you think it should be treated the way the saudi's or other government lobbies are, i know i think its a pro-israel lobby. however the fact is, it isnt.

lobbies would register as a "foreign agent". given that their membership is also made up of US citizens (pro-taiwan group comes to mind). unless you mean dual citizens (its not clear what you mean).

Before criticizing Jews for having a State of their own, albeit tolerant of other religions and their public worship, one might with profit consider the many Arab states which discriminate against non-Muslims and even ban or persecute Christian, Jewish, Bahai and other public worship. One might also, with profit, note that Arabs have about 20 percent of the votes in the Israeli Knesset; much more than enough to make them decisive in closely voted matters. In how many Arab states do Jews have similar representation?

A State is not racial or racist simply because it honors its ethnic history. It is when it discriminates against those of other ethnicities in law or governance. Thus Israel is not racist; most Islamic States are.

Those who get excited about Israel's minor imperfections might usefully direct their energies instead to States with more massive discrimination and racist/sexist behavior.

By the way, I should have ignored the troll I replied to, since it, too, has nothing to do with the accusations against CAIR; the subject of this thread.

For "CAIR" just above, read "J Street".

"America was once their country. They sense they are losing it. And they are right."
Zionist liberals can mock Pat Buchanan but they have the same concerns regarding Israel.

I don't defend an ethnic German state, or an ethnic French one. And I don't defend the BNP.
Israel calls itself modern. Is it willing to be? If it isn't then we have to accept that, but we don't have to accept hypocrisy.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/10/buchanan_white_americans_are_losing_their_country.php

Interesting turn of the facts, from a fellow Jewish person who ought to know better then the anti-Israel propaganda you cite. Israel does not seek racial separatism. Indeed Israelis come from many different "races" in the modern conception, including white, Black, Hispanic and even Asian. In fact, the Mizrahi Jews--Jews from the Arab countries--were, until the concept became part of the conflict, historically considered by themselves and others, Arabs of the Jewish faith. Israel also annually grants asylum to a not insignificant number of Arabs because they fear for their safety in Arab countries--usually women, homosexuals and people with various birth defects or disabilities, but also some Arabs who support Israel.

Israel is about 1/5 Arab (not really a race separate from the majority Jews, but again, your comment was just as silly) and while it would likely seek to swap some Jewish communities bordering the "green line" for some Arab communities bordering the "green line," to avoid an impossible and unaffordable evacuation of large cities, the proportion of Israelis who consider themselves Palestinian-Arabs (or Arab-Israelis) would not really change even under such a land-swap.

Rather, it is the Palestinians who insist that no Jews may live in Palestine. Sure, a few leaders have come forth to insist Jews would be welcome in Palestine, but the unmistakeable majority insist Palestine must be free of all Jews. It is, you recognize, a death penalty offense to sell land in Palestine to Jews--though they are usually shot before they are tried (Salem?). Well, actually that law is of more recent vintage, as large swaths of the urban areas of the WB were purchased by Jews at least a hundred years ago but often quite a bit further back. Anyhow, there are many settlers (not a majority, but I don't know exactly how many) who would prefer to live in their homes, even if the political control of that area is transfered over to Arab control. That remains highly unlikely, if for no other reason then neither the PA nor Israel would be able to protect them.

"Israel does not support racial separatism--it fights it"
"Israel does not seek racial separatism. Indeed Israelis come from many different 'races' "
"Israel is about 1/5 Arab (not really a race separate from the majority Jews"

You're confusing yourself more than you are me.
As Livni has said the point of the two state solution is that the Palestinians, Muslim ad Christian would want to leave. Avnery has said the Jews want to live alone. I'm sure plenty of Germans feel the same way about their country, but I don't have much sympathy. And I have less for immigrants to the middle east, even returning after 2000 years, who've kicked the locals off their land. After all the Palestinians are descendants of those who never left.

Throwing three quarters of a million Germans out of the Rhineland makes better moral sense.
Stop lying to yourself first, then we'll talk.

>>After all the Palestinians are descendants of those who never left.

Apart from the implication that the Palestinians are the descendants of the Jews who lived there until expelled by Rome and/or killed by the Muslim invaders, this claim is the central falsehood underlying the whole Israel-Palestine problem. The evidence is very strong that the territory that is now Israel, Gaza, and the West Bank were largely depopulated by the Seventeenth Century and remained that way until the Zionist immigration began. Credible estimates of the total population in the mid-Nineteenth Century are around a quarter million. Contrary to the "Palestinian narrative" there was no flourishing Palestinian national entity or culture present in the land.

The Ottoman overlords understood that the population vaccuum there posed a strategic threat to them and thus welcomed not just the Jews but other ethnic groups as well, anything to get the population up. The Jews brought with them both capital and skills and this led to economic growth which eventually served as a magnet for Arab and Turkic groups that came to settle there. The Ottomans even transferred thousands of Bosnians there after they lost Bosnia to Austria-Hungary.

The Palestinian claim is thus that their immigrants have a greater right to live in this country than do Jewish immigrants, a view that is unabashedly racist.

"Apart from the implication that the Palestinians are the descendants of the Jews who lived there until expelled by Rome"
There was no mass expulsion and the Palestinians are descendants of earlier inhabitants (including Jews):
themagneszionist.blogspot.com/2007/07/no-rivkele-there-wasnt-roman-exile-of.html
And again:
mondediplo.com/2008/09/07israel
And again,
jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?apage=1&cid=1249418656478&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Ben Gurion ""The greater majority and main structures of the Muslim Falahin in Western Erez Israel [modern Israel, West Bank, and Gaza Strip] present to us one racial strand and a whole ethnic unit, and there is no doubt that much Jewish blood flows in their veins -- the blood of those Jewish farmers, "lay persons," who chose in the travesty of times to abandon their faith in order to remain on their land."
-
You write: "The evidence is very strong that the territory that is now Israel, Gaza, and the West Bank were largely depopulated by the Seventeenth Century and remained that way until the Zionist immigration began."

My response:
"A land with no people is for a people with no land". The man who came up with that line was not referring to Palestine. He was opposed to the founding of the Jewish state there because it was too populated and he predicted trouble.
Your other "facts" are similar, including your numbers.

As I said to the previous commentator, stop lying to yourself and to us.

There is a tremendous disparity between the picture that you try to paint and the actual situation at hand.

The REAL conduct of AIPAC has been made quite clear by the investigations of it and it's supporters, and NONE of it is "on the books".

If the FBI had not been listening in, no one would have ever known that an Israeli spy interested in interfering in the trial of the two AIPAC officials accused of espionage against the US could marshal MILLIONS of dollars of seemingly unrelated campaign donations from Haim Saban and use it to blackmail nancy pelosi into giving Jane Harman a key intelligence chairm In exchange for Harman's help in interfering with the trial. No one would know that Harman would agree, That Saban would agree, and the world will never know if Pelosi would have acquiesced, because she was alerted before she could act, but NOT before Saban called and tried to blackmail her by withholding the donations at the behest of AIPAC friendly forces. She made a big stink about it in the press, but only because she was already alerted to the situation by the FBI.

Regardless of the outcome of the trial, (we will never know what OTHER tactics were brought to bear that did NOT become known by the FBI in order to alter the outcome) it is clear that the defendants ADMITTED that they recieved classified into on Iran and passed it to the Israeli government. As they claimed at their trial, they feel that they are a legitimate back channel to Israel that is secretly used by Israeli friendly people in the US government.

So, to suggest that they are NOT trying to influence policy of both the US government and the Israeli government, including things such as war between the US and Iran, (the documents were all about Iran, and passed to them by someone who wanted to promote war between the US and Iran) is ridiculous.

Multiply ALL of this behavior by about 365, and you get a clear picture of why politicians are (or were, in any case) TRIPPING over themselves to suck up to this organization. God willing, J street will bite a BIG chunk out of their influence and pervasive reach.

AlanFJR's facts are correct but unfortunately he has been sucked in by the diversion created by those unable to answer the charges against J Street, the subject of this thread. It isn't about AIPAC but about J Street. Let's keep our eye on the ball here.

The Article is ABOUT AIPAC trying to discredit J street, a new lobbying group that actually REPRESENTS the interests of most Jewish Americans.

Why was J street founded? Because most Jewish Americans are SICK of having their views mistakenly associated with AIPACs, which are of the ultra far right variety.

Did you even read the story? Eye on the ball? Your weak obfuscations are hilarious. Stop trying to influence the discussion of aspect of the story .

Heres the first few sentences, in case you think we all forgot;

This week, former AIPAC and Israeli embassy official Lenny Ben-David published an article revealing that I had given a donation to the "pro-Israel and pro-peace" organization J Street. Because I am of Lebanese descent, this clearly indicates that my dollars must be intended to advance some pernicious anti-Israel agenda -- and that J Street must be the vehicle for those aims.

>>They are starting to ask "what's in it for us?"

Proposal: those on the Left and in the younger generation give up the use of all the various technologies developed in Israel, from medical devices to cell phones, etc. On a per capita basis, Israel is the largest contributor to technological development in the world, rivaling countries more than ten times its size.

We often give our congressmen a hard time for "Congressional Junkets" but on foreign policy issues they actually do need to see the areas they legislate on. These are not golf trips to Bermuda, it is an educational trip. A "political contribution" would be a $2,300 or $4,600 check to their reelection campaign--AIPAC does not contribute to candidates.

Don't know anything the prosecutors, but if they did, he wouldn't be able to be involved in that same case for the opposite side. He would have to be walled off from the defense if he was involved in the prosecution.

An Israeli spy and AIPAC advocate called Jane Harman, and told her that if She would interfere with the espionage trial of 2 top AIPAC officials, He would get Haim Saban (also a major AIPAC supporter) to blackmail Nancy Pelosi into giving Harman a Key intelligence chair by threatening to withhold MILLIONS in democratic party contributions if he did not agree to his demands. Harman Agreed, Saban tried, and Pelosi might have acquiesced, If not for the fact that the FBI let her know that the entire thing was recorded by them before she could act on Saban's (of the Saban center) threat. She publicly read Saban the riot act for threatening her in such a way.

So, there is how AIPAC ACTUALLY does Business. Espionage (to help foment war), Blackmail, and graft. All off the books.

WOW. You've convinced us all, I'm sure.

Although Choi writes with outrage, his underlying facts are correct.

Precisely what facts are you referring to? All I see is baseless accusations without a SINGLE actual example of anything that He asserts, and ridiculous, groundless generalizations.

It's clear that you are easily swayed by silly, groundless rhetoric, but please don't expect the rest of us to enjoin you in your gullibility.