Hawkish Israel Project Inflating its Numbers?

The Washington Independent reports today that a pro-Israel group may have inflated its numbers to show overwhelming support among its members for stricter sanctions against Iran. The Israel Project distributed the petition, which shows 90,000 signatories, to… well… just about everyone urging “severe sanctions as a means to convince Iran to stop its nuclear program.” Spencer Ackerman explains the problem with the Israel Project’s supposed supporters:

But clicking through that link to take a closer look at those signatories raises substantial questions about their authenticity. For instance, signatories 84,854 through 85,071 are all named “Vince Vince” — although the Israel Project claims that all those different Vince Vinces are from different states. Well, sort of. Some of them are from states listed by recognizable acronyms like MN or AZ or PA. Others, however, are from the great states of GU and AA and XX.

Nor does the curious reader even have to examine the list that far down. Signatory number five is listed as Comfylovely ……. — and no, those aren’t ellipses I’ve placed in for dramatic effect; that’s Comfylovely’s listed last name — from the proud city of Davao in the historic state of XX.

That’s not even the most disturbing part of the signatories. The Israel Project lists the following as enthusiastic supporters of sanctioning Iran: Viagra Kaufen Viagra Kaufen, London, N.Y. (signatory #84,570); Porn Sex Video from London, N.Y. (signatory #62,751-62,756); Stupidwhiteman V, who declined to list an address (signatory #83,780); and Xbox 360 accessories — that’s a first and last name — from New York, N.Y. (signatory #90,046).

The problem here isn’t about the Israel Project intentionally inflating its numbers. It’s pretty clear to me this is a mistake. But the group was clearly negligent in not checking those numbers before boasting the strong showing of support.  The Israel Project would not need these extra 500-or-so names to push the message that the US should impose stricter sanctions. Even more dovish groups like the National Iranian Affairs Council have moderated their position on Iran, saying that the belligerent middle eastern country has not moderated as much as it should. And earlier this week, J Street announced its support for Iran Refined Sanctions Act of 2009.

Ackerman called the group’s executive director to ask about the questionable names. Her response is very interesting:

But when I read Mizrahi some of the dirtier signatories listed on her petition, she replied, “Oh yuck,” and said, “I didn’t personally go through all of them, but they go through the system, so if they got in like that with that kind of email name, that’s pretty horrible.” She elaborated, “It’s not like we called every person and verified ‘are you the person.’ But we emailed it through our usual activists.” Asked what this suggests about the Israel Project’s vetting procedures, she replied, “It suggests this is America and that in any country, there are always some people who are inappropriate.”

Mizrahi subsequently emailed and called me to say that the Israel Project “accidentally posted the wrong file” and is in the process of replacing it with the correct one. A bright spot for the organization? Mizrahi added that the petition itself has yet to be physically released to elected officials and religious leaders — the press release announcing the petition’s large volume of signatories was sent first. She thanked TWI for alerting her to the error.

Michael Oren Sheds Restraint, Slams J Street

In an unusually brash move for an international diplomat, Israel’s Ambassador to the US Michael Oren slammed J Street in an address to the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism. Oren has always been cold toward the dovish lobby group that has picked up steam this year. Earlier this year, he sat on an invitation to attend J Street’s yearly conference, only to decline later, saying his embassy would be “privately communicating its concerns over certain policies of the organization that may impair the interests of Israel.”

But Oren must have had a change of heart:

Ambassador Michael Oren described J Street as “a unique problem in that it not only opposes one policy of one Israeli government, it opposes all policies of all Israeli governments. It’s significantly out of the mainstream.”

After a speech that touched on the spiritual basis for and the threats to the state of Israel, Oren issued an unscripted condemnation of J Street.

“This is not a matter of settlements here [or] there. We understand there are differences of opinion,” Oren said. “But when it comes to the survival of the Jewish state, there should be no differences of opinion. You are fooling around with the lives of 7 million people. This is no joke.”

Elaborating on the claim that J Street opposes all of Israel’s policies, Oren specified his disappointment that the group  supports talks with Hamas, opposed Israel’s 2008 Gaza invasion, and refused to reject the UN Goldstone report, which emphasizes Israel’s human rights abuses during that war.

I’ll update tomorrow with a statement from J Street.

J Street and American Jewish Committee on CNN

Don’t know how I missed this. Jeremy Ben-Ami, executive director of J Street and David Harris, executive director of the American Jewish Committee, appeared on CNN in late November and spoke with Christiane Amanpour about the evolving Israel lobby and Israel’s international standing on a variety of issues. See the video:

Notably, Amanpour mentioned that AIPAC refused to appear on the show to debate Ben-Ami. The group’s communications director Josh Block told the network that “J Street is fringe and far to the left” and that they should be accompanied by a similarly fringe group from the right. David Harris did not share this view and said he supports a “big Jewish tent” with a variety of contrasting views. Watch the video – these are very smart guys with a lot of influence in the American Jewish community.

Profile of Lefty Jewish Organizations Raises Iran Dilemma

This year, we’ve seen a slew of well-researched articles about the growing rift in the American Israel lobby. This week, JTA has published another, which basically tells us what we already know: pro-peace Jews are coming together to challenge the hegemony of more hawkish groups like AIPAC. But the piece brings up an interesting tension among pro-peace groups like J Street and Brit Tzedek v’Shalom, which have decided to merge. These groups are having trouble navigating the troubled waters between criticizing Israel for its peace in peace and remaining a viable organization for Americans Jews to get behind. In a decision that was probably simultaneously sincere and political, J Street has decided to distance itself from groups like the National Iranian American Council (NIAC) and support tougher sanctions against Iran:

Conservative critics have focused on alleged links between J Street and the Iranian group, lumping together the two organizations. Yet J Street officials have always stopped short of publicly ruling out sanctions, arguing that the time was not right for tougher measures, but might be in the future to stop Iran’s nuclear ambitions. And, indeed, J Street this week came out in favor of proposed sanctions legislation being considered in the U.S. Congress.

Americans for Peace Now, on the other hand, has joined the Iranian group, known by the acronym NIAC, in portraying the sanctions as inhumane and likely to reinforce support for the regime. In at least one mass e-mail, Americans for Peace Now directed readers to NIAC’s talking points outlining the case for opposing sanctions targeting Iran’s energy sector.

NIAC has repeatedly said that boosting sanctions on Iran will only hurt Iranian citizens and won’t serve the cause of peace. “Now is a time when we need to be building up trust and this is a step in the wrong direction,” NIAC’s acting policy director Patrick Disney told me last month. “Mistrust is our biggest enemy, and if we believe that Iran isn’t negotiating in good faith, we won’t get anything out of this. The same is true if Iran doesn’t believe the United States is negotiating in good faith.” But many Jewish organizations across the political spectrum are beginning to say that Iran has not come far enough to promote peace. JTA reports:

“There’s no lack of appetite for passing the sanctions,” said an official of one of the centrist pro-Israel groups that has pushed for legislation targeting third parties, including countries that deal with Iran’s energy sector.

“It’s evident,” the official said, that the Iranians “do not want talks. They’re not going full speed ahead, they’re going full nuclear ahead.”

Even a leading opponent of sanctions, such as Trita Parsi, who heads the National Iranian American Council, conceded that such a measure now seems inevitable — and that the Iranian government’s behavior in recent weeks was behind the accelerated pace.

“There’s a very justified disappointment with how the negotiations have gone and with how the Iranians have conducted the negotiations,” he said.

Strengthening this message, Parsi slammed the Obama administration this week for worrying more about Iran’s nuclear ambitions than the human rights of the Iranian people. Unless Obama focuses more on these rights, Parsi wrote on NIAC’s website, “the administration will unintentionally signal that the rights of the Iranian people are used solely as a pressure tactic against Iran when it fails to compromise on other issues.”

ADL: Arm of Democratic Party?

Conservatives advocacy organizations have targetted the Anti-Defamation League for its recent report Rage Grows in America. Critics say that the group did not respond similarly to Hitler comparisons during the Bush administration, and that by targeting right-wing conspiracies and conservative personalities like Glenn Beck, the report shows the ADL to be a liberal-minded group. Since ADL was established in the early 19oos, it has tried to steer clear of political stances and has focused on eradicating antisemitism worldwide. If anything, the group’s national director Abe Foxman is known for his hard line tendencies. But as I write below, ADL’s report marks an opportunity for Israel advocacy organizations in the US to branch out and call out hatred against all groups. But branching out into uncomfortable terrority can have unexpected circumstances. And in this case, the ADL has drawn the ire of conservatives:

Republican Jewish Coalition executive director Matt Brooks argued that the ADL was disproportionately focusing on the right when there were “equally troubling and disturbing actions on the left.” Brooks cited U.S. Rep. Alan Grayson (a Florida Democrat) for comparing the U.S. health care system to the Holocaust and Rep. Brian Baird (a Democrat from Washington) for comparing town hall attendees to “brownshirts.”

And here’s Glenn Beck’s reaction:

Beck himself responded on his Nov. 25 radio show to the ADL report and a Los Angeles Times piece that mentioned the report and compared Beck to the 1930s antisemitic radio broadcaster Father Coughlin.

Beck slammed the ADL, saying it was “nothing … but a political organization at this point — and it kills me to say that.”

The ADL maintains they have always denounced and repudiated Hitler and Holocaust analogies. “The comments are coming from people who have not read the report,” an ADL spokesman said. “They’re reacting to the media spin and not its substance.”

MJ Rosenberg: ADL Offers Strong Model for Jewish Organizations

M.J. Rosenberg has started a Friday column for the Media Matters Action Network. This is a good thing because Rosenberg is very smart and the former Policy Director of the Israel Policy Forum, one of the leading lefty Israel organizations. His first column is a full-throttle admonition of Glenn Beck and a celebration of the Anti-Defamation League‘s recent report about hatred and extremism in the United States. Rosenberg writes:

Historically, the ADL has monitored activities by racist groups and individuals (with special emphasis on anti-Semitism).  It has also taken a very hard line on Israel, quite often attacking critics of Israeli policies, particularly those on the left. In fact, it has appeared reluctant to take on right-wing bigots if they were not critical of Israel.That has bred great skepticism about the ADL among progressives who tend to see it giving a pass to anyone — no matter how odious — if he or she was viewed as strongly supportive of Israeli policies.

The unsaid focus of Rosenberg’s column is the reach of Israel policy organizations does not stop at issues that directly influence Israel and its Middle East neighbors. The ADL, in its decades-long quest to end antisemitism has morphed into a more general and important role: advocating for the eradication of hatred among all people, Jewish or not. By embracing this new role, American Jewish organizations can both increase their power in Washington and enlarge their scope.

NYT: ‘Half-Truths’ on Settlement Freeze Limit Its Effect

A New York Times news analysis published today argues that despite Israel’s historic 10 month West Bank settlement freeze, observers should not expect peace talks to commence any time soon. The article’s author, Ethan Bronner, blames both sides for this impasse. First, the Israeli government’s incomplete settlement plan:

The 10-month settlement freeze excludes 3,000 units being built or recently authorized. The moratorium leaves out schools, synagogues and community centers, just the kind of “natural growth” banned by the dormant 2003 “road map” for peace, agreed to by the United States, the European Union, the United Nations and Russia. In other words, although this represents a painful political concession from the Israeli government and is causing it internal trouble, there will never be a moment in the coming months when construction will stop in West Bank settlements.

And Israeli building in East Jerusalem, which the Palestinians want as their capital, will be unaffected.

But the blame is two-sided, Bronner writes. Despite the claim among Palestinian leaders that violence has ceased, most Israeli officers claim that this is not nearly the case:

As for the Palestinians’ claim to have successfully ended violence, the Israeli military begs to differ. Yes, its officers say, the Palestinian forces are better trained than in the past and yes they have worked seriously in their new roles. But without nightly Israeli raids into Palestinian cities, the violence would never have stopped.

“Last night we carried out between 15 and 20 actions,” noted a top Israeli commander, speaking of the West Bank raids, in a recent interview under military rules of anonymity. “That was a fairly typical night. It’s like throwing a blanket on a fire. If we stop for a minute, we will go backwards very quickly. We call it cutting the grass.”

And, Israeli officials note, even if the Palestinian Authority were to receive full credit for the sharp reduction in West Bank-based violence, there is still Gaza. It is ruled by the Islamists of Hamas who remain dedicated to Israel’s destruction. Since Palestinian Authority officials dare not even set foot there, it is hard to credit their claim to have dismantled terror networks.

That last point is important. Though the Palestinian Authority maintains control in the West Bank and has the ear of international negotiators, its legitimacy has diminished significantly in the past year. And if Palestinians begin taking their cues from the Hamas, the militant political party that controls Gaza, then hopes for peace will be dashed in the forseeable future.

Israel Announces 10 Month Settlement Freeze

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced today that Israel will stop the construction of new settlement buildings  in the West Bank. In a number of ways, this does not go as far as leftists had hoped; the agreement does not apply to East Jerusalem and is not permanent. But as the US’ special envoy to the middle east George Mitchell points out, the move goes further “than any Israeli Government has done before, and can help move toward agreement between the parties.” In agreeing not to construct new buildings on land that most agree would become Palestinian territory if the two-state solution goes into effect, Israel has taken a significant step toward meeting the preconditions requested by the Palestinian Authority — and backed by the Obama administration — to begin peace talks.

Americans for Peace Now acknowledged these important steps and said that the plan, if implemented properly, could serve peace. But the group also noted the drawbacks of Netanyahu’s plan:

The Israeli decision also falls short of Israel’s own interests, which are best served by a complete freeze. Expanding settlements creates new points of friction between Israelis and Palestinians. It burdens Israel’s security services. It drains Israel’s financial resources. It increases the barriers to the creation of a viable Palestinian state and thus creates a false impression that Israelis are not interested in a two-state solution.

This announcement is a clear demonstration of the impact that President Barack Obama’s disciplined diplomacy can have. But this is no time for Senator Mitchell and his team to rest on their laurels. This moment must be leveraged for progress towards a negotiated two-state solution.

Jeremy Ben-Ami, executive director of J Street struck a similar tone, arguing that despite the benefits of the plan, it “does not address the deteriorating situation in East Jerusalem” and all sides will “need to do far more if we are to see real progress toward resolution of the conflict.”

AIPAC’s press release responding to the announcement was unsurprising in its praise for Israel and demand that Palestinians do more:

The move, which goes further than any previous Israeli government in restraining activity, underscores the Jewish State’s unyielding commitment to achieving peace with the Palestinians and all of its Arab neighbors. It also provides a deep expression of Israeli confidence in American diplomacy and Israeli dedication to cooperation with the United States in the pursuit of peace in the Middle East

As Israel acts to fulfill its Roadmap obligations, the Palestinians must meet their reciprocal obligations, come to the negotiating table, and cease incitement against Israel at home and in international bodies.

Israel took a major step toward peace today, and AIPAC’s statement hits the pulse of the likely tone of international opinion in the next ten months if Israel does, in fact, freeze settlements: the ball’s in the PA’s court.

The Zionist Organization of America does not endorse AIPAC’s applause for Israel leading by example. In a press release, ZOA’s President Morton Klein said that the Israeli government should only freeze settlements in return for significant concessions from the PA:

We would oppose freezing Jewish construction in any event, as Jews have a right to live in their religious and historic homeland. It would be wrong to deny Jews the right to live and build in these territories, simply because they are Jews. But we particularly oppose a freeze on Jewish construction in this instance as it is unilateral. Israel has not received any comparable, reciprocal concessions from either the Palestinians or the Arab states.

At a minimum, Palestinian Arabs should also freeze Arab construction in J S o as not to permit P Arabs to prejudice a final settlement. As Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu himself said in April to former Czech Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek, ‘If Israelis can build homes on the West Bank, Palestinians shouldn’t be allowed to either … If someone wishes to build a home in an existing settlement, I don’t think this is a problem.

Sarah Palin Ignites Spat Over Settlements

There’s no doubt that Sarah Palin is everywhere. Hot on the trails of her new book Going Rogue, Palin is touring the country and making headlines. She’s also ignited a shouting match between two of the Israel lobby’s most influential figures. Adding to the chorus of Republican leaders critical of the Obama administration’s policies toward Israel, Palin told Barbara Walters last week that Israel should be allowed to continue building settlements because “more and more Jewish people will be flocking to Israel in the days and weeks and months ahead.”

J Street’s Executive Director Jeremy Ben-Ami was especially pointed in his opposition to Palin’s remarks:

Palin’s pandering to her right-wing base comes at the expense of the security of the State of Israel, the lives of those actually living the conflict, and the fundamental American interest in achieving a two-state solution in the near term. Her words reveal a glaring ignorance of damaging facts and a callous disregard of past and present U.S. policy.

Anti-Defemation League National Director Abe Foxman called JTA to repudiate the statement, calling it “over the line” and “the height of chutzpah.”

“They’re attacking a celebrity for supporting Israel, but not in the way they want her to support Israel,” Foxman said.

Foxman acknowledged that he thought Palin’s remarks were a “simplistic effort to be supportive of the Israeli government,” but also insisted that they were “clear and well-intentioned” and “didn’t put any lives at stake.”

The ADL leader also questioned whether J Street should be calling itself “pro-Israel.” Foxman noted that In addition to its negative reaction to Palin’s comments, J Street has criticized Israel’s invasion of Gaza, opposed new Iran sanctions at the present time and failed to support last month’s congressional resolution condemning the Goldstone report.

Ben-Ami has so far offered the last word, defending J Street’s anti-settlement position and saying that Foxman has “no right to decide who is and is not pro-Israel based on whether they agree with your views.” But this debate is far from over, and will continue as long as Israeli officials continue to resist the Obama administration’s call for a settlement freeze.

White House Repudiates Settlement Construction… Again

In the past few months, the Obama administration has drawn the ire of Palestinians for easing off its demand that Israel freeze the construction of new settlements as a pre-condition to peace talks with the Palestinian Authority. This came after Obama’s initial pledge to crack down on settlements, a message that crescendoed in his Cairo speech to the Muslim world in June. But responding to news reports that the Israels have jump started settlement construction in East Jerusalem, Obama press secretary Robert Gibbs voiced the administration’s objections. Here’s a section of the statement:

We are dismayed at the Jerusalem Planning Committee’s decision to move forward on the approval process for the expansion of Gilo in Jerusalem. At a time when we are working to re-launch negotiations, these actions make it more difficult for our efforts to succeed. Neither party should engage in efforts or take actions that could unilaterally pre-empt, or appear to pre-empt, negotiations. The U.S. also objects to other Israeli practices in Jerusalem related to housing, including the continuing pattern of evictions and demolitions of Palestinian homes. Our position is clear: the status of Jerusalem is a permanent status issue that must be resolved through negotiations between the parties.

I’ll post the response of American Jewish organizations when and if they start rolling in.

Double Take UPDATE: Spencer Ackerman points out that the Obama administration moderated its remarks on Israel’s settlement construction since they were first released earlier today. Writes Ackerman:

When the White House press shop sent out its statement criticizing Israel this afternoon — I received mine at 2:14 p.m. — the headline above the statement read: “Statement by White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs on the Approval of Settlement Expansion in Jerusalem.” But the version that appears online has the headline “Statement by White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs on Jerusalem.”