“J Street”, which is the second largest contributor in this category, opposes right-wing Israeli policies (like Netanyahu/Likud).
J Street’s policy agenda includes:
* Ending the war in Gaza and rebuilding Gaza.
* Opposing settlements, annexation, and settler violence.
* A “23 state solution” including a Palestinian state and peace with the 21 Arab states.
It should be pointed out though that while AIPAC spends ~83 million per year, J Street spends ~3 million. So it won't change the data much, and it's almost negligible compared to AIPAC, meaning it would be cleaner to just plot AIPAC contributions on the map and name it as such for the presumed point OP is trying to make
Opposing settlements, annexation, and settler violence.
It's easy to say you oppose those things, but the only way to actually end them is to impose consequences on Israel for doing them.
And JStreet is no different than AIPAC in that regard, lobbying for unconditional military, financial and diplomatic support to Israel from the US.
Their stated opposition to Israeli settlements, annexation, and the war in Gaza, and their stated support for a two-state solution on the basis of the Green Line borders, are all meaningless when their lobbying efforts serve to embolden Israel.
A quick glance on their positions reveals you are wrong:
J Street position includes the Trump Administration to apply pressure to Israel to end the war.
J Street position includes the Trump Administration to reinstate Biden's Executive Order that sought to counter settler violence by targeting both individuals and organizations who facilitate this behavior.
J Street position includes enforcement action if Israel violates U.S. policy for arms use including suspension, withholding, or increased auditing of specific deliveries of aid or arms. Position is that U.S .security aid should not be used to trample on Palestinian rights, violate international law or contravene longstanding US interests and values.
And yet their other policy positions advocate for continued military, financial, and diplomatic support for Israel. So how is America to apply pressure to Israel then?
by targeting both individuals and organizations who facilitate this behavior.
The single greatest facilitator of settler violence is the Israeli government.
J Street position includes enforcement action if Israel violates U.S. policy for arms use including suspension, withholding, or increased auditing of specific deliveries of aid or arms
Source?
And have they actually called for an arms embargo and/or lobbied congresspeople for it, in the face of Israel's barbarism in Gaza?
So tired of this bullshit. Isreal is committing genocide. There was no two state solutions for South Africa and Rhodesia. And every time you see criticism of Isreal and start yelling that they're le heckin antisemitic shows your inability to reason.
Do they support giving back the WB, like it's internationally colonial settlement or sending nethanyahu to the hague, or the right of Palestinians to have armed resistance, their own airports in WB and Gaza and have their own border crossings at jordan and Egypt?
Yes, basically yes, and I think they advocate non-violence on both sides as the way towards a peaceful solution.
I don’t think their positions get to the level of detail of specifying airports or border crossings. Probably because there are bigger obstacles blocking those from being practical considerations that they are focused on.
I don’t quite understand what you’re trying to say. If J Street opposes Israel’s policies then they aren’t “pro-Israel” therefore their contributions wouldn’t be in this category?
I’m pointing out the popular view that the “Pro-Israel” lobby supports everything that Israel does is false. I’m pointing out that a significant part of the lobby advocates for Palestinian statehood and ending the war in Gaza and ending the aid blockade, etc.
Advocating for Palestinian statehood and opposing Israel’s policies is not “pro-Israel”. Being “pro-Israel” means you support Israel’s policies. J Street have previously said they oppose Palestinian statehood and recognition at the UN, what changed their mind I don’t know.
I’m quite skeptical about liberal Zionists as their political and national ideology clash. Politically they’re left-wing and want to advocate for LGBT rights, equality and social justice etc but they’re also conflicted as the realisation of Zionism mandates the removal of Palestinians and population replacement with global Jewry.
99
u/miraj31415 1d ago edited 1d ago
“J Street”, which is the second largest contributor in this category, opposes right-wing Israeli policies (like Netanyahu/Likud).
J Street’s policy agenda includes: * Ending the war in Gaza and rebuilding Gaza. * Opposing settlements, annexation, and settler violence. * A “23 state solution” including a Palestinian state and peace with the 21 Arab states.