SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Goldfarb Vs. J Street

JONATHAN CHAIT FEBRUARY 17, 2010

Goldfarb Vs. J Street

P.R. flack Michael Goldfarb, writing in the Weekly Standard, has an item entitled "Israel to J Street: We Know You're Not Pro-Israel." The basis for this turns out to be a comment from Danny Ayalon, to wit: "The thing that troubles me is that they don't present themselves as to what they really are. They should not call themselves pro-Israeli."

Who is Danny Ayalon? He's the deputy to the disgraceful racist Avigdor Lieberman. Ayalon himself took it upon himself to bizarrely humiliate the Turkish ambassador on Israeli television. In short, he's a total buffoon. Treating his remarks as official Israeli government policy is an odd move for a professed lover of Israel like Goldfarb -- sort of like citing some quote by Van Jones as the Obama administration's stance.

But a far more accurate measure of the official Israeli line on J Street comes from Israel's American ambassador Michael Oren, who approvingly notes that the group has moved toward the center:

“The J Street controversy has come a long way toward resolving,” he said. “The major concern with J Street was their position on security issues, not the peace process. J Street has now come and supported Congressman [Howard] 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.”

My relationship with J Street is somewhat complicated. But the disapproval of Danny Ayalon is not the sort of thing that should make any sane person think less of the group.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show 1 comment

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

1 comments

I don't think Goldfarb is insane or that he takes Ayalon's opinion seriously, just that he's willing to be dishonest in his arguments. That's not a surprise, and I guess I shouldn't be surprised by the Weekly Standard's lack of standards either, but it is a little disappointing.

- Simon Greenwood

February 17, 2010 at 1:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close