jlink
Sunday, September 15, 2019

Once again, J Street is getting it wrong.

The group, according to the website Politico, is circulating a memo among members of the Democratic Party’s drafting committee calling for a “balanced position” that includes recognizing Palestinian claims to Eastern Jerusalem.

In a petition headlined “Support Israeli security and Palestinian rights,” J Street calls for adding language “noting concern about the expansion of settlements, which entrench the occupation and endanger peace.”

What other information does J Street need to understand that historically Israel has offered land swaps, at one point almost 90 percent of the West Bank and all of Gaza? Israel has thrown peace offerings to the Palestinians over the years, resulting only in rejections, and yet, whether the leader is named Abbas or Arafat, there have been no reciprocal steps taken for peace.

What J Street doesn’t get is that the so-called Palestinians aren’t interested in a true peace. The real interest is in Israel not existing any longer. Why can’t J Street ask that this be discussed as a Democratic platform? Why aren’t Democrats concerned that the real intent of BDS is to dismantle Israel?

J Street, Bernie, Democrats: what part of existential threat to Israel don’t you understand? As long as Iran is pulling the strings in this arena, there is no plank in the Democratic platform that is anything but meaningless blather.

If J Street really wanted to be fair, how about a plank in the platform calling on Hamas to stop using concrete to create an infrastructure of terror by tunnel instead of an infrastructure of civility? How about J Street creating a plank recognizing the aid Israel is giving to the migrants forced out of Syria and Iraq?

How about a plank renouncing the proliferation of stabbings that happened earlier in the year?

J Street, you should be careful just how far you are willing to go, especially with a candidate in Bernie Sanders who is willing to weaken Israel just to get himself heard.

J Street, is that what you are about as well?

We’re thinking so.