Slimy. Nauseating. Disgusting. “Pro-Israel” J Street Cheers Defeat of Pro-Israel Candidates « News &Laquo; Articles

UPDATE 1 pm Israel time Thursday:

In what Israeli police scurrilously describe as a “nationalist incident” (read “Palestinian terrorist attack”), two cars were burned around midnight in the French Hill neighborhood of Jerusalem.

One of the cars burned last night.

This morning, your humble servant has been out and about in Ashdod sporting a red shirt and red hat. It has been refreshing to see hundreds of others doing the same.

Schoolchildren in the Eshkol region wearing red shirts this morning (photo credit: Merav Cohen).

Why are we all wearing “red” this morning? To show solidarity with southern Israelis, particularly those who live in cities, towns, moshavs, and kibbutzes along the Gaza border, and who spend their lives listening for the next tzeva adom (red siren) that signals incoming rockets from Palestinian terrorists in Gaza.

Why don’t you also wear red today and tell everyone why you are doing so?

TODAY’S BLOG:

The American election may be over, but the gloating has just begun.

Yesterday, J Street’s slimy PAC (JStreetPac) was quick to absurdly pat itself on the back for its “achievements”. Here is the beginning of an email sent to its supporters:

—————————–

“You should feel GREAT today!

All 49 JStreetPAC-endorsed incumbents in the House – elected.

All 7 JStreetPAC-endorsed Senate candidates – elected.

JStreetPAC’s challengers and candidates for open seats – elected in 13 out of 15 races (Ami Bera hanging on to a razor thin lead in his race for a Congressional seat in Sacramento would make it 14 of 15.)

. . . This is an incredible victory . . . you defeated some of the most outrageous voices on our issue.

——————————-

Your humble servant finds this email nauseating for two reasons:

1. The implication that JStreetPAC endorsements somehow helped the 49 House incumbents and 7 Senate incumbents is slimy in the extreme. Most of these incumbents were re-elected by huge margins of over 60% of the vote for reasons that had nothing to do with Israel. To these incumbents, accepting the J Street endorsement was not so much an expression of support for J Street as it was merely the acceptance of one of hundreds of such endorsements made by groups who knew that these incumbents would easily win.

Take the example of incumbent Senator Diane Feinstein of California. Feinstein was elected to her 4th term as senator by a margin of almost 2,000,000 votes (61.4% of votes cast). Feinstein has been alternately supportive and critical of Israel–but her positions on Israel either way certainly did not sweep her to victory.

Back in early June, when Feinstein accepted the endorsement of JStreetPac, her campaign adviser Bill Carrick was asked by the New York Times to comment on Feinstein’s acceptance of the endorsement. Carrick quickly distanced Feinstein from J Street when he told the Times: “We didn’t look at it as picking sides in the debate. They wanted to endorse her and, basically, she said fine.”

Should Feinstein have accepted the endorsement? Certainly not. Does Feinstein somehow feel beholden to J Street for its endorsement? Certainly not. Is it fraudulent for J Street to suggest that its support of Feinstein helped propel her to victory? Absolutely. And so it goes with the other incumbents that J Street “endorsed.”

2. The suggestion that the challengers who won seats over incumbents are somehow “JStreetPAC’s challengers and candidates” is also slimy in the extreme. None of these challengers were proposed by J Street, and none of these challengers were elected because of their stance on Israel. However, the candidates that each of the challengers and J Street opposed–all staunch defenders of Israel–shows yet again the total fraud of J Street calling itself “pro-Israel.”

Take the one example mentioned in the J Street email–the contest in California’s 7th Congressional District between J Street supported challenger Dr. Ami Bera and incumbent Congressman Dan Lungren.

It turns out that Bera has no public position on Israel at all; in fact the word “Israel” does not even appear on his campaign website (you can check yourself by clicking here). . . which begs the question of why supposedly “pro-Israel” J Street supports him. Obviously it is not because of Ami Bera’s nonexistent position on Israel; it is because of Dan Lungren’s position on Israel.

And what exactly has Lungren done to earn J Street’s description as an “outrageous voice”? All we have to do is visit the Arab American Institute (AAI) scorecard on U.S. Congressmen in the 112th Congress–a scorecard that is identical with J Street’s evaluation. It turns out that Lungren scored a (-2) on the 15 bills, resolutions, and letters by which the AAI measured a candidate’s solidarity with the Arab American community.

Six of these were directly related to Israel. Here are those bills and Lungren’s vote on each:

1. (HR 1006) The U.S. should recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and relocate the American Embassy to Jerusalem. Lungren voted Yes.

2. (HR 1501) The U.S. should withhold contributions to the United Nations until the United Nations retracts accusations of Israel “war crimes”. Lungren voted Yes.

3. (H Resolution 268) The U.S. should oppose any unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state. Lungren voted Yes. [Lungren’s position is the same as that of the Obama Administration].

4. (HR 2457) No U.S. government document should refer to “Palestine” until the Palestinian authority accepts Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state. Lungren voted yes.

5. (HR 2829) The UNRWA (United Nations Relief and Works Agency) should be defunded. Lungren voted Yes.

6. (Letter) The Price-Welch letter in which they called upon Congress to continue funding the Palestinian Authority. Lungren signed the letter. [Remarkably, Lungren’s position was exactly the same as that of J Street].

What it comes down to is that Lungren is found to be in disfavor by J Street because he recognizes Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, detests the characterization of Israeli defensive actions as “war crimes”, opposes the despicable UNRWA, and opposes the use of the word “Palestine” in government documents until the Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish country.

Think about all of that for a moment. Think about Lungren’s “extreme positions”. Think about how an organization that purports to be “pro-Israel” could possibly oppose Lungren.

Most of the other incumbents that J Street ecstatically claims to have helped defeat have the same pro-Israel stances as those of Lungren.

Slimy. Nauseating. Disgusting. Take your pick on which word you would use to describe J Street. Your humble servant will take all three.

—

Precautions: are taking any nitrate medication, such as nitroglycerin for angina, it is probable to origin a stern drop in blood pressure Bearing with liver or kidney issues Cardiac issue, stroke or heart attacks Bearing with abnormal blood buy levitra viagra stress going high or low every time Bearing from eye disorder such as non-arteritic anterior ischaemic optic neuropathy, which results with failure of vision, or if in case you have found tolerating from retinitis pigmentosa. So, you can use without generic cialis find here now any confusion of Kamagra products. As you can see all these doubts can become toxic and severely affect the health of the men in http://robertrobb.com/gop-congress-avoid-the-big-no-no/ cheap cialis soft a relationship is as important as of man. This problem can be cured by consulting sexologist in Delhi cheap levitra generic official website or any other metro city where you find a qualified sexology consultant.
A daily feature of this blog is the recognition of those of you who support Israel by donating to this website. Each month, your humble servant places each name on this wall of support into the Western Wall in Jerusalem. Today we are highlighting Lena K, of Lviv, Ukraine and Navin of Hyderabad, India.