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

Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-KS), President Trump’s nominee for secretary of state to replace Rex Tillerson, is a “tea party” Republican who previously served as director of the CIA.

Richard Goldberg is a senior adviser at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies who served as a foreign policy aide to former Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL).

Reuel Marc Gerecht, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, has been advocating regime change in Iran since even before 9/11.

John Hannah, Dick Cheney’s national security adviser, is now a leading advocate for regime change in both Iran and Syria based at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

Dennis Ross, a U.S. diplomat who served in the Obama administration, is a fellow at the “pro-Israel” Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

Sheldon Adelson is a wealthy casino magnate known for his large, influential political contributions, his efforts to impact U.S. foreign policy discourse particularly among Republicans, and his ownership and ideological direction of media outlets.

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) is known for his hawkish views on foreign policy and close ties to prominent neoconservatives.

For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly

North Korea and Iran both understand the lesson of Libya: Muammar Qaddafi, a horrifyingly brutal dictator, gave up his nuclear weapons, was eventually ousted from power with large-scale US assistance, and was killed. However, while Iran has a long and bitter history with the United States, North Korea’s outlook is shaped by its near-total destruction by forces led by the United States in the Korean War.

Print Friendly

Europe loathes having to choose between Tehran and Washington, and thus it will spare no efforts to avoid the choice. It might therefore opt for a middle road, trying to please both parties by persuading Trump to retain the accord and Iran to limit missile ballistic programs and regional activities.

Print Friendly

Key members of Trump’s cabinet should recognize the realism behind encouraging a Saudi- and Iranian-backed regional security agreement because the success of such an agreement would not only serve long-term U.S. interests, it could also have a positive impact on numerous conflicts in the Middle East.

Print Friendly

Given that Israel failed to defeat Hezbollah in its war in Lebanon in 2006, it’s difficult to imagine Israel succeeding in a war against both Hezbollah and its newfound regional network of Shiite allies. And at the same time not only is Hezbollah’s missile arsenal a lot larger and more dangerous than it was in 2006, but it has also gained vast experience alongside its allies in offensive operations against IS and similar groups.

Print Friendly

Donald Trump should never be excused of responsibility for tearing down the respect for truth, but a foundation for his flagrant falsifying is the fact that many people would rather be entertained, no matter how false is the source of their entertainment, than to confront truth that is boring or unsatisfying or that requires effort to understand.

Print Friendly

It would be a welcome change in twenty-first-century America if the reckless decision to throw yet more unbelievable sums of money at a Pentagon already vastly overfunded sparked a serious discussion about America’s hyper-militarized foreign policy.

Print Friendly

President Trump and his advisers ought to ask themselves whether it is in the U.S. interest to run the risk of Iranian withdrawal from the nuclear agreement. Seen from the other side of the Atlantic, running that risk looks dumb.