J Street's Ben-Ami: 'U.S. Congressmen live in fear of pro-Israeli intimidation'

[azurnoir]

Many American senators and congressmen “keep quiet” and refrain from criticizing Israeli policies because they “live in fear” and are “intimidated” by pro-Israeli groups such as the Emergency Committee for Israel (ECI), according to J Street founder and President Jeremy Ben-Ami.

Ben-Ami’s bald assertion came during a debate with Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol, a director of ECI, held on Tuesday night at Manhattan’s palatial B’nai Jeshurun Synagogue and moderated by Jane Eisner, the editor of the Forward. Ben Ami said that because of accusatory ECI ads in the New York Times and other media outlets, members of Congress are afraid of being branded as anti-Israel and are deterred by the “ramifications” of voicing open criticism of Israeli policies.

It was a rare moment of tension in an otherwise civil and even friendly debate, which pitted representatives of the two diametrically opposed poles of the current Jewish debate on Israel – the controversial lobby J Street on the left and the no-less contentious Emergency Committee on the right. The crowd of 700-800, mainly from Manhattan’s Upper West Side, clearly favored Ben Ami’s positions though they were obviously pleased by Kristol’s agreement to debate him.

Another reason for the amicable nature of the debate was that Kristol “didn’t supply the goods," as Israelis would put it. He voiced surprisingly moderate positions about President Obama and about the creation of a Palestinian state, which seemed completely at odds with the harsh tone of ECI advertisements and especially of its popular 30 minute television film “Daylight: The Story of Obama and Israel.”

http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/west-of-eden/j-street-s-ben-ami-u-s-congressmen-live-in-fear-of-pro-israeli-intimidation-1.430842

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

Here is ECI's film “Daylight: The Story of Obama and Israel.”

[Lionessa]

1. Between EC and AIPAC, I don't see the idea of Legislators keeping siilent about

Israeli policies as anything new. I've known about the pressure they face for decades. What seems new is that someone is speaking out about it. If so many in the meeting share the J Street position, is it the same problem that all aspects of politcs seem to have?

The problem that the 1-2% have bought and paid for the outcomes of every issue? I see it says most came from the same part of town, but being rich doesn't make you a 1-2%er, so it sounds like the same o same o. Most people want one thing which will benefit many, but the 1% want more power and money, so everyone else is ignored or worse demonized.

[azurnoir]

13. it's not anything new at all your right what is newish is speaking out about it n/t

[shira]

2. And Jeremy ben Ami answers to the Oil Lobby. So which is worse? n/t

[azurnoir]

3. do you have solid proof of your claims, or are they just a nice sound bite? n/t

[shira]

4. Do a little research into Jeremy ben Ami's role in Qorvis and who funded that. n/t

[azurnoir]

5. In other words you have very little, it's circumstantial, or

you wish not to do the work , which is it?

[shira]

6. So tell me about his role in Qorvis. Who funded it. What Qorvis was about.... n/t

[azurnoir]

7. it's your claim why do you expect me to do your work?

either you've got something or you don't, which is it?

[intaglio]

8. Please provide your evidence or links to such evidence

Do not use snide asides or implications.

Qorvis is a PR and lobbying firm used by many organisations and countries. Some of these countries are (shock! horror!!) oil exporting countries; many of Qorvis' clients are not. Is Mr Ben-Ami an agent of Sri Lanka or the UK who are both clients of Qorvis? I suspect you are just echoing Zionist talking points about Mr Ben-Ami.

[shira]

9. I'm just echoing zionist talking points about Ben-Ami? But he's a zionist too, right?

http://www.thecuttingedgenews.com/index.php?article=11863&pageid=44&pagename=slices
http://pjmedia.com/blog/why-does-j-street-attract-the-friends-of-saudi-arabia/

Of course, absolutely nothing in the above articles can possibly be true.

[intaglio]

10. PJ Media a conservative and Libertarian group

I don't think their opinions about liberals is very relevant and they have close links to AIPAC amongst others

The Cutting Edge - proudly displays the logo of JINSA which in turn is a "think tank" which just happens to be, well, Republican and conservative based. Alumni of this Group include Michael Bolton, Dick Cheney, Richard Perle, R James Woolsey, Douglas J Feith and Michael Ledeen; there are also a couple of DINOs on the payroll.

The article in "The Cutting Edge" is by Lenny Ben-David an Israeli diplomat and member of AIPAC.

Just a suggestion, as you are posting on a Democratic and Liberal focused site I suggest you keep your references to right wing groups to a minimum.

[shira]

11. Conservative and Libertarian opinions are one thing. Facts are another.

I suggest you try disproving what you just read rather than dismiss it entirely with a logical fallacy like shooting the messenger. Personally speaking, I'll read any source from anyone no matter their politics. I then judge the credibility of article based on whether those sources have lied in the past or whether they lie in that article.

Within those articles you will also find sources from Iran and Saudi Arabia who fund J-Street. Ask yourself how that can happen if J-Street is a zionist pro-Israel group like they advertise.

[azurnoir]

12. the PJ media article castigates Ben-Ami for embracing the 2002 Saudi Peace Plan

Last edited Thu May 17, 2012, 12:26 PM - Edit history (1)

along with some shall we call them 'interesting' allusions about Barack Obama?

here is the main points of hated 2002 peace plan which Israel rejected out of hand

The Council also calls on Israel to assert the following:

Complete withdrawal from the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including full withdrawal from the occupied Syrian Golan Heights and the remaining occupied parts of south Lebanon to the June 4, 1967 lines.

To accept to find an agreed, just solution to the problem of Palestinian refugees in conformity with Resolution 194.

To accept an independent and sovereign Palestinian state on the Palestinian lands occupied since June 4, 1967 in the West Bank and Gaza Strip and with Jerusalem (al-Quds al-Sharif) as its capital in accordance with Security Council Resolution 1397.

In return, the Arab states assert the following:

To consider the Arab-Israeli conflict over and to enter into a peace treaty with Israel to consolidate this.

To achieve comprehensive peace for all the states of the region.

To establish normal relations within the context of comprehensive peace with Israel.

http://www.al-bab.com/arab/docs/league/peace02.htm


and UN resolution 194 which is claimed in the PJ's article to mean the destruction of Israel but I have seen a ProIsrael poster use here as a justfication for the Israeli RoR

Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible.

Instructs the Conciliation Commission to facilitate the repatriation, resettlement and economic and social rehabilitation of the refugees and the payment of compensation, and to maintain close relations with the Director of the United Nations Relief for Palestine Refugees and, through him, with the appropriate organs and agencies of the United Nations

This page was last modified on 24 April 2012 at 01:30.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolut