What the J Street NYT Ad doesn't say
Dr. Aaron Lerner - IMRA 22 March 2010

Here is the score:

Last year Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu made a major policy speach in
which he spoke of a two state solution.

And instead of putting him to the test as to what he meant by this the Arabs
decided that there was no rush to enter negotiations.

They did this because the Obama team, encouraged by folks like J Street,
were so busy salivating over the possiblity of deposing Netayahu and
enjoying the sheer pleasure of trying to screw him against the wall that
actually engaging in negotiations was of secondary or even tertiary
importance.

So we had demands on Israel as preconditions for talks that we never had
before.

J Street plunks down money for an ad in The New York Times (see below)

They warn that "time is running out"

But they don't call on the parties to cut to the chase and enter direct
talks.

In fact, J Street doesn't want negotiations at all.

They want an American imposed "solution,"

And instead of joining with others who reject the canard that Israel is to
blame for America's troubles elsewhere, they cite General David Petraeus
like someone putting a gun to Israel's head.

Damn it. We know better than those stupid Israelis. We, the holders of the
true faith. And we aren't going to waste our time trying to win the policy
debate through the democratic process.

So the Arabs can stay home.

We intend to deliver Israel on a silver platter.

That's the J Street message.

By the way. Here's the irony: J Street's idea is that we place our head on
the chopping block with our hands tied behind our back relying only on " the
sustained commitment of the United States."

Question: What balance breaking American weapons sale to an Arab country
has J Street taken the lead in opposing?

Question: What role has J Street played in supporting the allocation of
resources to U.S. defense spending so that America is equpiped to deliver on
its commitment in a multi-conflict environment?

J-Street terms itself the "Pro-Peace Movement". It would be more accurate
to term it the "Pro-Imposed-Peace-Agreement-Movement".

There is a world of difference between "Peace" and "Peace Agreement".

And, interestingly, this is something that most Americans and Israelis
understand.

Polls published over the last week show 73% of American voters and 82% of
Israeli Jews don't think that simply handing over land would bring Israel
true peace.

==========

IT'S TIME
http://jstreet.org/campaigns/our-full-page-ad-new-york-times-0

Friendship between Israel and the United States is based on common interests
and shared values. Friendship demands respect for each other's needs. And,
sometimes, friendship means telling hard truths - particularly if we're
going to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through a two-state solution.

For the U.S., it's a matter of national security. So says the commander of
American forces in the region, General David Petraeus.

For Israel, it's existential - the only way Israel can remain both Jewish
and democratic. So says its Defense Minister Ehud Barak.

This is no time for a business-as-usual peace process - no time for politics
as usual.It's time for the Obama administration to seize the opportunity for
bold leadership - putting concrete plans for a two-state solution on the
table with the sustained commitment of the United States behind them.

It's time for the Palestinians to end incitement to violence.

It's time for Israel to stop allowing extremist settlers and their
sympathizers to endanger not only the friendship of the United States, but
also the very future of Israel.

Time is running out.