If Jennifer Laszlo Mizrahi's recent attack on J Street are so-called "facts" that her organization circulates in Washington, it's no wonder why many pro-Israel, pro-peace Americans are frustrated with the state of pro-Israel advocacy.
J Street's actual position on settlements appears to either be lost on Laszlo Mizrahi or intentionally ignored to score a political cheap shot.
To clarify, we do believe settlements are a serious obstacle to peace and continued construction is a moral, strategic, and security nightmare for Israel. And no, we do not believe that settlements absolve Palestinian and Arab leaders from living up to their own commitments and doing more to advance the cause of peace.
Furthermore, her statement raises serious questions about her own organization's views about settlements.
- Does Laszlo Mizrahi believe settlements even rise to the status of an obstacle to peace? Would they even qualify as a mild annoyance? Her statement studiously avoids saying settlements are a problem at all. If she does believe that, she should say so.
- Does Laszlo Mizrahi acknowledge that Israel faces an inevitable and terrifying choice between democracy and its Jewish character if there is not a negotiated two-state solution soon? If not, does she then disagree with former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and current Defense Minister Ehud Barack who made similar assessments? If she does agree with these Israeli leaders, then why is she so flip about the impact of settlements on the peace process and the death blow that continued settlement construction may very well deal to the two-state solution?
- Does Laszlo Mizrahi disagree with President Obama that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu should extend the partial settlement moratorium and give a chance for these nascent peace talks to succeed? If yes, she should say so.
- Does Laszlo Mizrahi believe that the use of Holocaust imagery and language is kosher in defending settlement expansion? Just last year, her organization came under fire from J Street and others for using the term ethnic cleansing (!) to describe the evacuation of settlements as part of a negotiated peace deal. She later retracted the language. But now she's used the term "Judenrein" in her latest statement. Which is it? Does she understand that many Americans find the use of such language offensive and wrong to make a political point?
TIP's strategy on settlements appears to be, both then and now, when they can't win the argument, use white-hot rhetoric, distortions, and maybe even hint at the Holocaust to distract from the substance of the matter.
But if her organization is to truly spread the "facts" about the Middle East in Washington, it would behoove her to not just answer these questions directly, but also to tell the truth about settlements and about J Street. Israel and the cause of peace would the better for it.
Follow Isaac Luria on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/isaacluria
.
Now that we know the truth about your sources of funding (anti-Israeli billionaire activist George Soros) and your "broad appeal" to a wide Jewish community which is fake- it is much easier to understand a poorly disguised anti-Israel (and alas anti-Peace) agenda in your lobbying work.
This is part of Jennifer Laszlo Mizrahi's response to attacks from you and MJ Rosenberg - I can sign under any of her statements:
"...The real problem with J Street, however, is not that it misled people by hiding the fact that it received contributions from people whose support of Israel is suspect. Rather, it is that J Street uses a false premise to take time and resources from thousands of people – including American leaders -- whose concern for Israel is unquestioned.
J Street – like MJ Rosenberg -- mislead when they assert that the main obstacle to a peace agreement between Israelis and Palestinians is settlements. They argue as if settlement expansion suddenly stopped, the conflict would magically disappear. This is not only hogwash – it is dangerous. Yes, settlements are an issue. But they are no more an issue than security, incitement, final borders, Jerusalem, water and refugees. All of these issues must be dealt with at the negotiating table -- something Israel is eager to do. "
You are fanned.
of Hamas or Gaza, not Israel
I don't think that rises to the issue of whether or not Israel is a democracy. It questions whether there are equal rights, but not whether there is a democracy.
The question you're tangling with, the status of the Palestinians in Gaza, Jerusalem and the West Bank, is a sticky wicket, because Israel retains military and civil control over the occupied territories, while denying those people under their control participation in the government...
Hopefully it will be resolved by negotiation -- I think we all hope that, with varying degrees of optimism.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Society_&_Culture/gazaaid052510.html
Take time and courage in your case to stick to the facts!