Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

J Street’s Muslim Funding for Peace

Right-wing commentators are furiously working to discredit the liberal J Street organization, which lobbies for a two-state solution in Israel-Palestine, because a tiny percentage of its donors have Arab or Muslim names.

Print Friendly

(Inter Press Service)

Right-wing pundits and bloggers have been trumpeting news reports that Muslims and Arabs are among the donors to the J Street political action committee (PAC).

The J Street PAC lobbies for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and helps raise funds for candidates who share its views on promoting American leadership in the peace process.

The report that J Street PAC receives a small percentage of its contributions ——J Street’s Executive Director Jeremy Ben-Ami guesses it’s about three-percent— from people with Arab or Muslim names has gotten significant attention in right -wing publications and blogs such as American Thinker, The Weekly Standard blog, and Israel National News.

“Arab and Muslim donors are extremely rare for other organi zations that describe themselves as supporters of Israel, as J Street does,” wrote the Jerusalem Post‘s Hilary Leila Krieger in an August 14 article entitled “ Muslims, Arabs among J Street Donors. ”

While the Jerusalem Post took care to present these statistics without crossing the line into explicit allegations against J Street, far-right pundits quoted in the article and right-wing bloggers have not fe lt compelled to hold back— they have suggest ed that J Street’s willingness to take money from Arabs and Muslims undermines their pro-Israel credentials.

“This is one more indication that J Street should be looked upon warily and with a great deal of s kepticism when it tries to pass itself off as being a supporter of strong American-Israel ties,” writes Ed Lasky on The American Thinker, a conservative website.

“Twenty donors had what could be Arab or Muslim last names,” J Street’s Ben-Ami told Inter Press Service. “For all I know their families could have been in this country for two hundred years.”

“They are using this to delegitimi ze the voice of J Street as that of American Jews. This is impossible for an organi zation that gets well over 90 percent of its money from Jewish Americans.”

J Street’s position as a new  voice for moderate Jews in the United States (it was founded in 2008) and as a counterbalance to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) —which generally takes positions in line with the right-leaning Israeli Likud party —has not come without some difficulties.

Neoconservatives and other members of the far-right came into direct conflict with J Street in May 2008 when J Street issued a statement calling on Republican presidential candidate John McCain to “renounce John Hagee once and for all.”

Many Jews took offense with Hagee’s characteri zation of Hitler as doing God’s work by helping to bring Jews to Israel, and AIPAC found itself in the difficult position of fighting to keep its pro-Israel credentials while not severing its valuable ties to the Christian-Zionist movement and the Christian Right.

The divide between moderate Jews and neoconservatives —many of whom see the alliance with Christian Zionists such as Hagee as a valuable relationship —has proven to be a fault line for organi zations seeking to characteri ze themselves as pro-Israel.

AIPAC supporters continue to express animosity towards J Street and the latest report from the Jerusalem Post seems to only give them more ammunition.

“It seems this mythical group of Jews who were heretofore unable to speak for themselves are either unable or unwilling to support an organi zation like J Street all on their own. They need a little help from their Muslim friends,” wrote hardliner Michael Goldfarb on the Weekly Standard‘s blog.

“J Street focuses far more of its energy on purging the pro-Israel community of people like Hagee than it does on any other single issue,” Goldfarb writes, adding that Hagee’s controversial Hitler statements  “were bizarre, but not anti-Israel.”

Far-right commentators are expressing disapproval with J Street PAC’s willingness to take donations from Arabs and Muslims  by implying it undermines the organi zation’s commitment to Israel and the majority of American Jews.

But as J Street has been quick to point out, its contributions from non-Jews suggest that they have expanded the demographic of people willing to be label ed as “pro-Israel,” and that people who consider themselves pro-Israel don’t have to be anti-Arab or anti-Palestinian.

“I don’t actually see it as an accusation. I see it as a truth. A small percentage of money J Street raises comes from people who are non Jewish,” said Ben- Ami. “I’m thrilled to see there are non-Jews who are pro-Israel who see that Israel’s future depends on making peace with the Palestinians.”

“I wonder what the implications are for any effort to reach a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict if you really believe that anyone whose religion happens to be other than yours can’t share a common agenda ?”

Eli Clifton writes for the Inter Press Service.

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Although sometimes characterized as a Republican “maverick” for his bipartisan forays into domestic policy, Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is one of the Senate’s more vocal hawks.


Former CIA director Michael Hayden, a stalwart advocate of the Bush-era policies on torture and warrantless wiretapping, has been a vocal critic of Donald Trump


The former GOP presidential candidate and Speaker of the House has been a vociferous proponent of the idea that the America faces an existential threat from “Islamofascists.”


David Albright is the founder of the Institute for Science and International Security, a non-proliferation think tank whose influential analyses of nuclear proliferation issues in the Middle East have been the source of intense disagreement and debate.


A right-wing Christian and governor of Kansas, Brownback previously served in the U.S. Senate, where he gained a reputation as a leading social conservative as well as an outspoken “pro-Israel” hawk on U.S. Middle East policy.


Steve Forbes, head of the Forbes magazine empire, is an active supporter of a number of militarist policy organizations that have pushed for aggressive U.S. foreign policies.


Stephen Hadley, an Iraq War hawk and former national security adviser to President George W. Bush, now chairs the U.S. Institute for Peace.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly

The Trump administration appears to have been surprised by this breach among its friends in the critical Gulf strategic area. But it is difficult to envision an effective U.S. role in rebuilding this Humpty-Dumpty.


Print Friendly

A recent vote in the European Parliament shows how President Trump’s relentless hostility to Iran is likely to isolate Washington more than Tehran.


Print Friendly

The head of the Institute for Science and International Security—aka “the Good ISIS”—recently demonstrated again his penchant for using sloppy analysis as a basis for politically explosive charges about Iran, in this case using a faulty translation from Persian to misleadingly question whether Tehran is “mass producing advanced gas centrifuges.”


Print Friendly

Trump has exhibited a general preference for authoritarians over democrats, and that preference already has had impact on his foreign policy. Such an inclination has no more to do with realism than does a general preference for democrats over authoritarians.


Print Friendly

The President went to the region as a deal maker and a salesman for American weapon manufacturing. He talked about Islam, terrorism, Iran, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict without the benefit of expert advice in any of these areas. After great showmanship in Riyadh, Jerusalem, and Bethlehem, he and his family left the region without much to show for or to benefit the people of that war-torn region.


Print Friendly

Although the Comey memo scandal may well turn out to be what brings Trump down, this breach of trust may have had more lasting effect than any of Trump’s other numerous misadventures. It was an unprecedented betrayal of Israel’s confidence. Ironically, Trump has now done what even Barack Obama’s biggest detractors never accused him of: seriously compromised Israel’s security relationship with the United States.


Print Friendly

Congress and the public acquiesce in another military intervention or a sharp escalation of one of the U.S. wars already under way, perhaps it’s time to finally consider the true costs of war, American-style — in lives lost, dollars spent, and opportunities squandered. It’s a reasonable bet that never in history has a society spent more on war and gotten less bang for its copious bucks.


RightWeb
share