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
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-'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....