Powered by WebAds

Thursday, February 11, 2010

Guess who's in bed with J Street

Remember Nadav Tamir, the Livni holdover (shown here with Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick - another loser on his way out) who attacked the Netanyahu government's handling of its relations with the United States, and was nearly forced out of his position? Well, now that the Netanyahu government has decided to turn Left with its 'settlement freeze,' it has apparently also sanctioned Tamir attending J Street events in Boston.
Three months after Ambassador to the US Michael Oren pointedly turned down an invitation to attend J Street’s first annual convention in Washington, Israel’s consul-general attended one of the group’s functions last week in Boston.

The Jerusalem Post has learned that the consul-general, Nadav Tamir, went to the event only after seeking, and getting, a green light from the Foreign Ministry. The Post learned that Tamir was told by the ministry that he could attend the event, but not be one of its speakers.

...

One senior government official denied that the decision to let Tamir attend the event represented an overall change of policy toward the organization, but said rather that permission was granted on an individual basis for Tamir to attend a “local event.”

Another diplomatic official, however, said the permission given to the consul-general indicated that the original policy toward the organization – the one reflected by Oren’s snub – was “unsustainable” in the long run.

The event in Boston, the official said, was co-sponsored by other Jewish organizations, and Israeli officials cannot refuse to attend events sponsored by a number of different groups just because J Street is involved.
My first reaction to this was "Michael Oren must be thrilled," but apparently Oren has also been ordered to tone down opposition to the pro-Israel pro-'peace' Leftist loons.
In an interview with The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles published this week, Oren said that his dispute with J Street is close to resolution and that the group was “much more in the mainstream.”

“The major concern with J Street was their position on security issues, not the peace process,” he said.
What does that mean? Since when doesn't the 'peace process' include 'security concerns'? And since when are we not concerned about J Street's opposition to sanctions against Iran?
Oren cited J Street’s support in December for the Iran sanctions bill advanced by US Rep. Howard Berman (D-California), the chairman of the House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee, and its call on the UN not to be one-sided in its handling of the Goldstone Commission’s allegations of Israeli war crimes in the Gaza Strip.

“J Street has now come and supported Congressman Berman’s Iran sanction bill; it has condemned the Goldstone Report; it has denounced the British court’s decision to try Tzipi Livni for war crimes, which puts J Street much more into the mainstream,” Oren said.
Okay, so J Street did come out in favor of Berman's bill after the battle was won. But I don't recall them retracting their opposition to the resolution against Goldstone. So why is the Netanyahu government suddenly bringing them back into the fold? Grrr....

4 Comments:

At 11:29 PM, Blogger NormanF said...


Off Topic: Carl you wrote you're opposed to enfranchised Israelis abroad. Moshe Feiglin has another take on the issue here:



Israeli Voting Rights For Expatriates And Diaspora Jews



Read it all.

 
At 1:42 AM, Blogger Carl in Jerusalem said...

NormanF,

Saw it earlier. Feiglin and others on the Right think that the Right would benefit from having ex-pats vote. I think they're wrong now and I know they'll be wrong in the future. The secular are leaving and the religious are staying. The secular are mostly Left - not Right.

Aside from that, I think that giving 10% of your vote to expats who don't pay taxes, don't serve in the army and don't endanger themselves by exposing themselves to terror attacks here on a daily basis is a dangerous move - regardless of how they would vote today. It's shortsighted and foolish.

 
At 1:58 AM, Blogger NormanF said...

I think his point is that Zionism has severed Judaism from Israel and his larger point is Israel is the Jewish State. Not an Israeli state. That's why Jews should be enfranchised, not just Israelis and every effort should made to bring them home to a Jewish country. Not politically correct but worth thinking about.

 
At 10:40 PM, Blogger ~JP~ said...

A very interesting take on an issue I'm highly interested in studying. I wrote about it at the Israel Situation. Feel free to stop by and comment on it; I think we may disagree on some fundamental issues, which would make for a lively discussion.

I look forward to reading more of your work!

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Google