J Street, if you haven't heard, is an anti-Israeli lobbying group made of of useful (Jewish) idiots, funded by George Soros, which endorse every Palestinian atrocity and condemn every act of Israeli self-defense, while claiming that only by complete surrender can Israel ever find peace. Masquerading as a "pro-Israel" group, they are primarily made of of self-loathing American Jews, who have abandoned their Judaism for the socially convenient religion of Liberalism. Shoot, these guys are so far out of it, as far as their alleged religion is concerned, that they don't even offer Kosher food at their confabs. I'm sure, however, if you wanted a bacon cheeseburger...
Keith Ellison, for one.
The media gives J Street more credit than they are due, simply because they dovetail more with their personal views. But to get an idea of the revulsion many ordinary Americans and Israelis feel with this stealth pro-Palestinian stalking horse, one could do no better than to read the words of Daniel Gordis.
Who is Gordis? An American-born rabbi and Columbia University graduate (cum laude) who moved to Israel in 1998, of whom liberal Jeff Jeffrey Goldberg of the Atlantic has written, "If you asked me, 'of all the people you know, who cares the most about the physical, moral and spiritual health of Israel?' I would put the commentator and scholar Daniel Gordis at the top of the list."
So let's listen to Gordis take apart J Street. From his remarks back in May, as he addressed J Street Leadership Mission to Israel and Palestine, I thought this was a classic smackdown of the arrogant liberalism that permeates J Street, as well as the editorial boards of the MSM and the current occupants of the White House:
As most of you know, I disagree strongly with much of what you do. But I think that we have an obligation to meet with people with whom we disagree.
So, assuming that’s what you also seek, I assume our disagreement is about how to get there. You believe that people who are not willing to make major territorial concessions to the Palestinians right now are not serious about a two-state solution. You think that those of us who claim that we favor a two-state solution but who are not willing to give up the store at this moment are bluffing. Or we’re liars. Or, at best, we’re well-intentioned but misguided. But bottom line, if we’re not willing now to make the concessions that you think are called for, then we’re not really pursuing peace.
But that is arrogance of the worst sort. Does your distance from the conflict give you some moral clarity that we don’t have? Are you smarter than we are? Are you less racist? Why do you assume with such certainty that you have a monopoly on the wisdom needed to get to the goal we both seek?
.... a perfect example of the certainty and arrogance of which I’m speaking....Reacting to the most recent Fatah-Hamas agreement, this is what J Street had to say: “In fact, many who oppose a two-state deal have, in recent years, done so by arguing that divisions among the Palestinians make peace impossible. Obviously, reconciliation [between Fatah and Hamas] reduces that obstacle – but now skeptics of a two state agreement have immediately stepped forward to say that a deal is impossible with a Palestinian unity government that includes Hamas.”
“Obviously,” you say, reconciliation reduces the obstacle to a peace treaty.
But I would caution you against ever using the word “obviously” when it comes to the Middle East. Nothing here is obvious. If you think that something is obvious, then you simply haven’t thought enough....
Perfect. But I doubt it penetrated the ideologues that populate J Street. Their goal - the subjugation of Israel to the Palestinians - is impervious to logic and reason...