arrow7 Comments
  1. Dan Brown
    Feb 02 - 11:06 pm

    There are lots of contradictions between J Street’s and Birthright’s story, as you point out. Publishing the complete email exchange referenced will go a long way to help establish what took actually place.

  2. Yisrael Medad
    Feb 03 - 3:32 am

    There’s another oprion of expalantion: the recent actions and statements by J Street heads regarding a possible UN resolution and whether the US should veto, the denunciation of Gary Ackerman and actions by the Jerusalem J St. organizer all indicate that simply J St. is not pro-Israel. It’s not “politics” but the essence of the group.

  3. Bat Ami
    Feb 03 - 4:46 am

    Birthright’s decision is wise and correct.
    How can Birthright give its approval to J Street visits when J Street mobilizes student for Sheikh Jarrah demonstrations? Here’s an item from J St U’s Facebook page:!/event.php?eid=169882386374296
    And this is from Ben Birnbaum’s piece in the Washington Times:
    In a March 1, 2010, e-mail from senior Ben-Or partner Didi Remez to Noam Lekach — communications coordinator for Amnesty International’s Israel branch, a Ben-Or client — Mr. Remez suggested a fundraising vehicle through which they could “raise the necessary amount” to buy drums for an anti-settler demonstration in the disputed East Jerusalem neighborhood of Sheik Jarrah: “Maybe via the J Street student list,” he wrote. When reached by e-mail, Mr. Remez declined comment on whether he had used the list or had J Street’s permission to do so.

  4. James
    Feb 03 - 5:20 am

    Those blogs aren’t right-wing.. just anti the anti-Zionists like J street.

  5. howiej
    Feb 03 - 7:49 am

    If they were given the OK from Birthright, let them show us the emails or other communications. When JStreetU was set up, each group was allowed to leave out the pro-Israel designation in their name, if they wished. If they want to run a trip so badly, have Soros pay for it.
    Birthright cannot cancel a trip that wasn’t okayed.

  6. Jack Kessler
    Feb 03 - 2:12 pm

    I find it laughable that the author of this piece omits to mention the elephant in the room. Which is that J Street’s claim to being “pro-Israel” has been exposed as an outright lie. Its founding money, after repeated lying denials, has been found to have come from notorious anti-Israel hard-liner George Soros. Many of its leading members are also members of radical hard-line Israel-hater groups like ISM and ANSWER.
    The author of this piece seems to accept uncritically J Street’s claim to be “critics” of Israel. They oppose Israel and side with the Palestinians on every issue. They have been repeatedly exposed as enemies of Israel, not critics. They are wolves in sheep’s clothing.
    To pretend otherwise is to pull the wool over one’s own eyes.

  7. Jerry Blaz
    Feb 03 - 9:10 pm

    My experience forces me to disagree with the description of AIPAC as following the policies that “blows with the wind in an ideological sense.” At one time this was true. Not today.
    During the Shamir regime, when I publicly disagreed with that government’s policy I was told that this was not my place to oppose Israeli governmental policies. So I shut up. Then the Rabin regime succeeded the Shamir regime and the same folks who squelched my voice criticized the Rabin regime.
    Today, at a time when the NGOs are all that remains of a voice different from that of the current government, they are being attacked on all sides. So giving the right room to work has affected AIPAC and they represent the rightwing view that is today’s Israeli government’s policies. And J-Street is treated as though it is “unIsraeli.”
    Following the adage, “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me,” I side with J-Street who is bearing the burden of illiberality that permeates too many of mainstream Jewish organizations, including AIPAC, who those follow policies unquestioningly.