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.

(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

Update was slow, but still no lag in the editor window, and footnotes are intact.     This has been updated – Bernard Lewis, who passed away in May 2018, was a renowned British-American historian of Islam and the Middle East. A former British intelligence officer, Foreign Office staffer, and Princeton University professor, Lewis was…


Bernard Lewis was a renowned historian of Islam and the Middle East who stirred controversy with his often chauvinistic attitude towards the Muslim world and his associations with high-profile neoconservatives and foreign policy hawks.


John Bolton, the controversial former U.S. ambassador to the UN and dyed-in the-wool foreign policy hawk, is President Trump’s National Security Adviser McMaster, reflecting a sharp move to the hawkish extreme by the administration.


Michael Joyce, who passed away in 2006, was once described by neoconservative guru Irving Kristol as the “godfather of modern philanthropy.”


Mike Pompeo, the Trump administration’s second secretary of state, is a long time foreign policy hawk and has led the public charge for an aggressive policy toward Iran.


Max Boot, neoconservative military historian at the Council on Foreign Relations, on Trump and Russia: “At every turn Trump is undercutting the ‘get tough on Russia’ message because he just can’t help himself, he just loves Putin too much.”


Michael Flynn is a former Trump administration National Security Advisor who was forced to step down only weeks on the job because of his controversial contacts with Russian officials before Trump took office.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Trump is not the problem. Think of him instead as a summons to address the real problem, which in a nation ostensibly of, by, and for the people is the collective responsibility of the people themselves. For Americans to shirk that responsibility further will almost surely pave the way for more Trumps — or someone worse — to come.


The United Nations has once again turn into a battleground between the United States and Iran, which are experiencing one of the darkest moments in their bilateral relations.


In many ways, Donald Trump’s bellicosity, his militarism, his hectoring cant about American exceptionalism and national greatness, his bullying of allies—all of it makes him not an opponent of neoconservatism but its apotheosis. Trump is a logical culmination of the Bush era as consolidated by Obama.


For the past few decades the vast majority of private security companies like Blackwater and DynCorp operating internationally have come from a relatively small number of countries: the United States, Great Britain and other European countries, and Russia. But that seeming monopoly is opening up to new players, like DeWe Group, China Security and Protection Group, and Huaxin Zhongan Group. What they all have in common is that they are from China.


The Trump administration’s massive sales of tanks, helicopters, and fighter aircraft are indeed a grim wonder of the modern world and never receive the attention they truly deserve. However, a potentially deadlier aspect of the U.S. weapons trade receives even less attention than the sale of big-ticket items: the export of firearms, ammunition, and related equipment.


Soon after a Saudi-led coalition strike on a bus killed 40 children on August 9, a CENTCOM spokesperson stated to Vox, “We may never know if the munition [used] was one that the U.S. sold to them.”


The West has dominated the post-war narrative with its doctrine of liberal values, arguing that not only were they right in themselves but that economic success itself depended on their application. Two developments have challenged those claims. The first was the West’s own betrayal of its principles: on too many occasions the self interest of the powerful, and disdain for the victims of collateral damage, has showed through. The second dates from more recently: the growth of Chinese capitalism owes nothing to a democratic system of government, let alone liberal values.


RightWeb
share