Doc's Talk: BLOG: Josh Block: J Street's 'worst nightmare'

Thursday, November 04, 2010

BLOG: Josh Block: J Street's 'worst nightmare'

Adam Kredo

Josh Block, AIPAC's former spokesperson, e-mailed me Wednesday night to offer a stirring rebuke of the group J Street, which bashed him yesterday for calling it a political liability to Democrats.

It crystalizes for the first time why precisely Block, a Democrat, lambasts J Street - both on and off the record.

I'll post his missive in full:

"Adam,

Sorry it took me a little while to respond. I just finished putting my children to bed, which brings me to Ms. Spitalnik and Jstreet's desperate, personal attack on me. I usually evince more discipline than to 'respond' to someone's welcome and predictable reaction to being confronted with uncomfortable facts and truths they would like nothing more than continue to hide and hide from, but given that I am now free to speak for myself, and not as the spokesman for a particular organization, I will indulge this special occasion, and I welcome you to run this note in full, starting at the top.

Let me begin by saying that having worked to elect more Democratic candidates, starting way back in 1984, than Ms. Spitalnik has probably ever met, she would do well to heed my political advice when it's offered. That is, if her sincere interest is getting Democrats elected, and not, as it appears to be, selfishly promoting a counterproductive agenda-driven and self-congratulatory group that effectively tarnishes Democrats with the taint of a tainted organization.

NEWSFLASH - dateline 1990s: It's no longer brave to say you are for a two-state solution. And everyone is pro-peace.

Since every mainstream group, elected official and pro-Israel American, myself included, strongly favors a two state solution and peace between Israel and her Arab neighbors - and Jstreet knows it - their silly 'response' is again an attempt to deceive and distract from their record of working hand-in-hand with groups and individuals hostile-to-Israel, ambivalent-to-Israel, and in some cases, out-and-out anti-Israel. Take Richard Goldstone, George Soros (see page 59) and Salam Al-Marayati - who spoke at their conference, but is best known for suggesting that Israel may have been behind 9/11 - just to name a few.

Democratic candidates should not give Republicans any opportunity to challenge their pro-Israel credentials, yet Jstreet does just that. The average, minuscule amount of support Jstreet claims to pass to their endorsees will again and again be offset by the grief and cost even the most pro-Israel candidates expose themselves to by associating with a group proven to be as duplicitous, deceitful and outright dishonest they have been exposed to be.

It is as simple as the difference between an asset and a liability.

If Jstreet believes they are helping pro-Israel Democrats get elected, then their understanding of the electorate is as bad as their other ideas, like opposing sanctions on Iran for two years in a coalition that included apologists for the Iranian regime like NIAC, or partnering with Churches for Middle East Peace - one of the major forces behind the Boycott, Divestment and Sanction (BDS) campaign that seeks to isolate, demonize and ultimately erase Israel. Maybe that's where Jstreet caught the fleas.

The more we learn about Jstreet, as the things they tried to hide and keep secret see the light of day, the more we should worry about candidates with competitive races getting anywhere near them. Virtually every reporter in the last three years who has spoken to Jstreet has been lied to. How many members of Congress have gotten the same treatment? These aren't questions that come from nowhere. They are the direct result of Jstreet's conduct and pattern of deception.

Jstreet made very clear that their #1 targeted race this cycle was the Senate contest in Pennsylvania. "There's no question that this race is a very important test of what kind of support J Street and its supporters can deliver," they said. Well, we all know how that turned out. In a race as close at that one, the Democratic candidate chose to repudiate his signature on a Jstreet initiative, and his ties to the group provided a major opening for his Republican opponent to contrast his support for Israel with the Democrats' ties to what was identified as "an anti-Israel organization," a description apparently accurate enough that when the ad making that statement was challenged by the Sestak campaign, it remained on the air.

That is why it bears repeating:

Being associated with a group that helped Richard Goldstone slander Israel on the Hill, that refuses to condemn his report that accuses the top leadership in Israel of PURPOSEFULLY targeted civilians in Gaza, that says there's no difference between Israel defending itself and Hamas terrorism, lies about their secret money from anti-Israel George Soros and half their budget coming from Hong Kong - not American Jews as they claimed - and lied again and again when confronted, even twisting the arm of a former Israeli MK to lie for them after she was recorded on tape exposing their ties to Goldstone, is HAZARDOUS to one's pro-Israel reputation.

That's because when you lie down with dogs, you get fleas. You can kill the fleas, but the treatment is unpleasant and it's not cost free.

The question candidates in competitive races will be asking themselves is this: IS it worth it to lie down with dogs if all you get is fleas!?

The answer, I predict, will increasingly be no, it's not worth it. Unless, of course, you're actually not pro-Israel.

Thanks,

Josh

PS - There is an old saying that asks, "How can you tell they are lying?" Answer: "Their lips are moving." Its been said a lot, by a lot of people lately (see above links) that whenever Jstreet speaks they misrepresent, attempt to deceive and lie. Well, for the record, it is true in this case as well.

The first words Jstreet says to you are false. In what appears to be a clumsy attempt to smear me somehow by putting words in my mouth and attributing to me a description of me, as a "partisan Democrat," that comes from someone else, they stumble again. While I don't describe myself that way, as most informed people who know the meaning of the phrase and read the original item can tell, "partisan Democrat" means staunch Democrat. And a staunch, and proud Democrat I am. That is why, like Alan Dershowitz and tens of million of other Americans, I am Jstreet's worst nightmare: A proud pro-Israel American, an original Progressive, a staunch Democrat, who knows the difference between truth and lies, and between hostile-to-Israel, ambivalent-to-Israel, anti-Israel, and actually being pro-Israel."

-----------------------------

Josh Block
202/997-4614 c
202/681-BLOCK (2562) office
http://www.twitter.com/JoshBlockDC

No comments:

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

Bedouins:

Bedouins are nomadic Muslims who were in Israel when modern borders were set in place and are now considered Israeli citizens. They are not required to draft but a growing number choose to enlist. In 2012, there were over 1,400 Bedouin Muslim soldiers doing regular IDF service and almost 1,500 in the reserves.

Read more:http://www.idfblog.com/2014/02/27/truth-idf-numbers-pictures/#more-34027

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.
More...

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’
-- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.
Clare M. Lopez

Who is being discriminated-facts tell the truth

Religious bias

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,409 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-bias offenses showed:

65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses.

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror Yemini
In 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").
Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state.
Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."
Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.

Doc's Talk