TNR BLOGS

November 20, 2008 | 3:55 PM
November 20, 2008 | 1:45 PM
November 20, 2008 | 1:06 PM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

November 20, 2008 | 2:15 PM
November 20, 2008 | 1:52 PM
November 20, 2008 | 11:06 AM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
25.07.2008
Nightmare on J Street

Writing today in Ha'aretz, J Street founder Jeremy Ben-Ami uses the question posed by my article on his organization -- "Who does the new Israel lobby represent?" -- to answer, "the silent majority of American Jews." Echoing previous allegations, Ben-Ami writes:

For a long time, it's been a cardinal rule of U.S. politics that American Jews are represented in Washington by a cadre of large political donors whose positions skew fairly far to the right of the American Jewish community as a whole. 

Yet, as per usual, he doesn't even bother to name who compromises this "cadre of large political donors whose political positions skew fairly far to the right of the American Jewish community as a whole." It is simply stated as fact, as it often is by Ezra Klein, Matthew Yglesias, Eric Alterman and the handful of other liberal bloggers who claim that it is their views which are "mainstream".  If Ben-Ami had bothered to read last month's New Yorker profile of Sheldon Adelson, the billionaire casino magnate who certainly does "skew fairly far to the right of the American Jewish community as a whole," he would have seen his allegations of right-wing domination of American Jewish institutions to be patently absurd:

AIPAC is not accustomed to being attacked publicly from the right; its critics generally charge that its conservative policies toward Israel favor the status quo over a peace accord. But AIPAC has traditionally insisted that it seeks to further a close American-Israeli relationship, whether the government of Israel is left, right, or center. In an interview with the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, Adelson said of AIPAC’s support of aid for the Palestinians, “I don’t continue to support organizations that help friends committing suicide just because they want to jump.” AIPAC has not made any policy shifts, and it is not clear whether Adelson will continue to contribute to the organization.

So AIPAC, the nefarious right-wing organization, is refusing to bow to Sheldon Adelson and his billions upon billions of dollars. Another question for Ben-Ami: is Steve Grossman, former AIPAC president and Chairman of Howard Dean's presidential campaign, also part of the "vocal right-wing minority?" He told me that he "would question whether any aspiring American political leader in either party or any critical mass would ever take funds from an organization a part of whose centerpiece philosophy is unconditional negotiations with Ahmadinejad or Hamas." That's your group's agenda. 

Moving on, so to speak, Ben-Ami puts J Street within the constellation of a larger, supposedly ascending, internet-based progressive movement:

Today, for the first time, technology enables a large number of small political donors to challenge - and topple - the status quo.That is an essential lesson from Obama's campaign for the Democratic nomination, with its roots in the success of movements like MoveOn.org and the presidential campaign of Howard Dean (for whom I worked as national policy director). 

"Success of movements like MoveOn.org and the presidential campaign of Howard Dean?" What success?

Finally, an embarassed press release today shows how J Street -- far from representing the "silent majority" of American Jews -- is run by politically marginal amateurs. Earlier this week, J Street had gleefully announced that Democratic Congressmen Robert Wexler and Barney Frank were dropping their co-sponsorship of House Concurrent Resolution 362, a non-binding measure co-sponsored by 252 Congressmen calling for stronger sanctions on Iran. J Street and other members of the "Hands Off Iran" lobby (so reminiscent of the Cold War-era Fair Play for Cuba Committee) have variously claimed that the resolution calls for a "naval blockade" or, in the case of the Israel Policy Forum hysteric M.J. Rosenberg, "put us in a state of war with Iran. Right Now." All this mendacity from J Street and its allies was apparently too much for Wexler and Frank to take:

J Street would like to express regret for having erred in stating earlier that Congressmen Wexler and Frank withdrew their names from H.CON.RES.362. They have not withdrawn their names and are still cosponsors of this resolution, although they have publicly expressed their strong desire to see changes made to the resolution that reflect the amendments that J Street is calling for. We express our regrets and apologies for any confusion that this may have caused.

One must presume now that Wexler and Frank, two of the most liberal members of Congress but certainly within the broad, pro-Israel consensus of American opinion, are also now part of the "vocal right-wing minority," despite J Street's endeavour to put a gloss over their gross misrepresentation of the congressmen's views (I guarantee that neither representative will be accepting a J Street endorsement this fall, and thus not join the, wait for it, 7 congressional candidates J Street has endorsed this cycle).

The attempt by people like Ben-Ami,  Alterman, Yglesias, Klein et. al. to portray their advocacy of unconditional Israeli negotiations with Iran and Hamas, unconditional Israeli territorial concessions, the Palestinian "right of return," (among other extreme positions) as having any truck within the mainstream of Jewish, American or Israeli opinion, while also having the gall to allege that anyone remotely to their right is an extremist, is something that psychologists call "projection."

--James Kirchick 

Posted: Friday, July 25, 2008 2:26 PM with 38 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

mundye said:

KT for this post: 4.  Once I got to "J Street" in the title, I knew who the author was!  What do I win?

July 25, 2008 2:31 PM

FWright said:

Four words.

July 25, 2008 2:35 PM

benjamin81 said:

Surely you mean "to name who comprises," not "to name who compromises"?

July 25, 2008 2:40 PM

rozenson said:

KT was same for me as well.

Jamie, I'm glad you see that groups such as J Street and MoveOn.org are not influential at all, and that Democratic leaders do not shape policy around their views. So why do you (sometimes) continue to insist that they do? You have this dissociative identity disorder where sometimes MoveOn.org controls the Democratic Party and sometimes they have no influence at all. Which is it?

July 25, 2008 2:42 PM

mundye said:

Damn, I was hoping for a cookie.

July 25, 2008 2:48 PM

chrismealy said:

Oh man, this game is awesome! I'd been playing and didn't even know it. I must not be very good at it -- I was halfway through the block quote before I crossed the KT.

You start reading, then you think, "What is this guy's point?" then "What's with all the scorn?" then "Oh, yeah, that guy again." He always saves the ripest BS for the last paragraph, but I never get that far anymore.

July 25, 2008 2:56 PM

blackton said:

Turgid prose. I could not bring myself to slog through it. I thought this was supposed to short blogs, and feature articles for longer essays. I expect Kirchick will next be posting book length screeds here.

July 25, 2008 3:05 PM

anonevent said:

I got to Ezra before I realized I was reading a James piece.  I am seriously slipping, or maybe it's Friday.

July 25, 2008 3:26 PM

benberger said:

Put me down for 4 as well.  

So AIPAC is to the right of *somebody!  Is guess that means they are moderate.  Well argued!  

July 25, 2008 3:31 PM

Rhubarbs said:

Aaargh! There is sound substance here. But the author's intended message will reach exactly zero readers because it's so badly written. Stop with the name calling already! Enough with the adjectives and adverbs. This could have been said in one-third the length, letting slightly shorter quotations and the little bits of reporting speak for themselves, and doing so would have more than quadrupled the impact of the piece. Less. Is. More. Not only in terms of wordcount, but also in terms of the author's personal voice in a piece like this.

As much as Kirchick bugs me when he writes his usual dishonest, counterfactual crap, it absolutely infuriates me when, as today, he takes a solid idea (with a little actual reporting, no less!) and ruins it with the pompous tone of his self-righteous poseur bullshit. If this is really the best you can do, with subject matter about which you care deeply and actually for a change have a little bit of knowledge about, with time to kill on a mid-summer Friday afternoon in Washington, then screw it. You just don't have what it takes to do this job. Look for an opening in opposition research or something before you wind up as the next crank whose "syndicated" columns run in a few dozen suburban weekly newspapers. Because really, with the talent on show today, that's where this train is headed.

July 25, 2008 3:33 PM

bigm said:

Wow, it looks like it's really fun to wallow in smug self-satisfaction (while criticizing Kirchik for allegedly doing the same).

Isn't anyone interested in actually, you know, addressing any of the points that Kirchik makes here?  They appear to be almost uniformly valid.

I guess that's not as much fun.

July 25, 2008 3:34 PM

adamvaught said:

mundye,

Good News: You did win a cookie! But you have to make it. Here's how:

2 1/4 cups all-purpose flour

1 teaspoon baking soda

1 teaspoon salt

1 cup (2 sticks, 1/2 pound) butter, softened

3/4 cup granulated [white] sugar

3/4 cup packed brown sugar

1 teaspoon vanilla extract

2 eggs

2 cups (12-ounce package) NESTLE TOLL HOUSE Semi-Sweet Chocolate Morsels

1 cup chopped nuts

COMBINE flour, baking soda and salt in small bowl. Beat butter, granulated sugar, brown sugar and vanilla in large mixer bowl. Add eggs one at a time, beating well after each addition; gradually beat in flour mixture. Stir in morsels and nuts. Drop by rounded tablespoon onto ungreased baking sheets.

BAKE in preheated 375-degree [Fahrenheit] oven for 9 to 11 minutes or until golden brown. Let stand for 2 minutes; remove to wire racks to cool completely.

PAN COOKIE VARIATION: PREPARE dough as above. Spread into greased 15"x10" jelly-roll pan. Bake in preheated 375-degree [Fahrenheit] oven for 20 to 25 minutes or until golden brown. Cool in pan on wire rack.

FOR HIGH ALTITUDE BAKING (>5,200 feet): INCREASE flour to 2 1/2 cups; add 2 teaspoonfuls water with flour; reduce both granulated sugar and brown sugar to 2/3 cup each. Bake at 375 degrees Fahrenheit, drop cookies for 8 to 10 minutes and pan cookies for 17 to 19 minutes.

July 25, 2008 3:41 PM

Androscoggin said:

"Once I got to 'J Street' in the title, I knew who the author was!"

Ditto. And if the title weren't obvious enough, this whole post is solid Kirchick gold. Scare quotes, a couple lists of liberal nemeses, overwrought language, heaping piles of sarcasm -- it's all there. As usual, he's his enemies' best advocate.

July 25, 2008 3:51 PM

rozenson said:

I think I did to some extent, bigm. Now can I wallow in smug self-satisfaction for having said something substantive earlier?

July 25, 2008 3:53 PM

jobeek2 said:

KT for me about half a sentence. Not quite as well honed to Kirchik's turgid prose as the sharpest readers here!

July 25, 2008 4:00 PM

bigm said:

Knock yourself out rozenson.

July 25, 2008 4:15 PM

thejauntyboulevardier said:

I saw J in the title, took a whiff and dang, sure nuff, there was another pile...1.5 seconds...

again, on kirchick's assertions, I have been reading the journalists he cites - Alterman, Yglesias, & Klein - and predictably, this upstart deliberately misrepresents their views and positons. I really believe that kirchick just cannot read those who disagree with him and then report back honestly what they say. They have a name for someone who consistenly does that...and liar comes to mind.

bigm, the "points" that kirchick asserts are distortions of the views of these journalists.

J Street is a liberal alternative to the established lobbies like AIPAC and the AJC. Some of their positions are certainly too left for many Jews and non Jews to support but it does have an audience and a growing niche. The fact that the very existence of J Streets gives specimens like kirchick a bad case of the heebee jeebies is proof positive that even with some of its hard left politices, it is doing something right and is starting to challenge the more established and establishmentarian groups like AIPAC and this is a good thing...

July 25, 2008 4:26 PM

tomeg said:

What a relief, just as I had begun to adjust to a newer JK, the former one reappeared with his characteristic opacity of yore.

July 25, 2008 4:29 PM

tomeg said:

RE: Toll house cookie recipe, using margarine in place of butter results in a crispier cookie, if that is your preference. I believe that was the shortening used originally. My mother swore by Nucoa margarine, which has fewer milk solids. I haven't used it in years, but use as solid a margarine as I can find. Fleishman's is good, and you can get it unsalted.

July 25, 2008 4:40 PM

thejauntyboulevardier said:

I have been reading this rag for almost 25 years and throughout that time period, there has been one constant: When I get around my cronies and we talk politics and magazines, many of my compadres would raise the ghastly specter of marty peretz and ask me how I could continue to subscribe to a magazine where this embittered crazy old coot could have a forum. I always had a pat answer: coot peretz owned the magazine yes but over the years, the staff of the magazine, particularly the newer, younger blood, were  more liberal, less embittered, less obsessed, more insightlful, and a zilliion times more professional and relevant than the tired old man. That always worked for me.

Now, this kirchick germ is really causing me some trouble. When my friends bring him up, what the hell can I say? Why is this guy on the staff?  I really have no answer to that other than he must have some very incriminating photos of marty peretz that allow him to blackmail the old Grudgemeister and eel his undeserved place on the masthead. This guy is makes Michael Kelly seem like a paragon of professionalism and even handed temperament.

Sure, it is fun to kick this clown around when he drops his loads on the Plank but the brutal reality is that his presence on the masthead is an embarrassment and negates the positives that people like Foer, Chait, Zengerle, Cottle, Fairbanks, Scheiber, and Crowley bring to the revitalization of tnr. As the old adage says, you are only as strong as the weakest link in your organizational chain and on that premise, tnr is screwed if they don't dump this guy...

July 25, 2008 4:50 PM

Rhubarbs said:

bigm, the fact that Kirchick's points are generally sound here is precisely why he deserves the flogging he's getting. Again, I don't complain about him because I disagree with what he writes; I complain about him because his writing is crap. When, as today, I basically agree with him, his poor quality bothers me most of all. I have minimum expectations of quality, and time and again Kirchick falls far short. To call his work "amateurish" is an insult to amateurs; most amateur bloggers are better writers and journalists than Kirchick.

The proper analogy here is if an untrained artist drank enough Gatorade to turn his pee blue and then he pissed on a canvas to make the letters, "SUPPORT ISRAEL", and hung it on the wall. Would that be great art? I submit that, even though I agree with the artist's message, it would nonetheless be a disgracefully bad work of art. Thus Kirchick.

July 25, 2008 5:03 PM

bigm said:

thejauntyboulvardier-

You write "bigm, the "points" that kirchick asserts are distortions of the views of these journalists."  I disagree.  Klein, Alterman, and Yglesias do represent that they portray the mainstream of American Jewish political positions as to Israel.  That is all that Kirchick said above.

When you write:

"J Street is a liberal alternative to the established lobbies like AIPAC and the AJC. Some of their positions are certainly too left for many Jews and non Jews to support but it does have an audience and a growing niche."

I couldn't agree more.  That's not what Ben-Ami said and what Kirchick criticized though.  Ben-Ami said that those "established lobbies" do not represent the majority of mainstream Jewish American citizens and J Street does.  Here and previously, Kirchick makes a persuasive case that they do.

July 25, 2008 5:08 PM

bigm said:

thejauntyboulevardier-

I need to amend my previous posting.  At the end, when Kirchick says that Alterman, Klein, and Yglesias support unconditional negotiation, Palestinian right of return, etc., I have no idea whether those writers do support those extreme positions.  J Street does, however, and Kirchick should have limited his statement to that organization unless he has support that those writers do hold those opinions.

My apologies.

July 25, 2008 5:14 PM

blackton said:

cookie, he crowds out the entire plank with his long essays screeds, that is also unfair to the other writers who will be overlooked, as well as cutting short some interesting new threads which get pushed way down to the bottom.

bigm, I come to TNR to be edified, to post my opinion, I don't come here to slog through pieces written in bad 10th grade English. Even when I agree with Kirchick, he comes across as such an ass. I really believe they should put him on the Spine or give his own blog and call it the sphincter.

July 25, 2008 5:39 PM

ndmackenzie said:

bigm accuses J Street of supporting "extreme positions." The following is from the "Israel-Palestine: The Two State Solution" issues page of the J Street website:

-- The outlines of an agreement are by now well-known and widely accepted: Borders based on the 1967 lines with agreed reciprocal land swaps allowing Israeli incorporation of a majority of settlers as well as Palestinian viability and contiguity; a division of Jerusalem that is based on demographic realities, establishes the capitals of the two states, and allows freedom of access to all holy sites; robust security arrangements; and resolution of the refugee issue that focuses on resettlement in the new state of Palestine, financial compensation and assistance.

Far from being an extreme position, this is close to what everyone believes will be the eventual solution. If anything it is more pro-Israel than the standard US line. There clearly are some extremists, however, who decry the following statement: "[t]hat is why pressing for a comprehensive, negotiated solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will be J Street's number one priority." They typically post on The Spine.

July 25, 2008 5:45 PM

thejauntyboulevardier said:

bigm,

good points matey though my take on the Alterman/Klein/Yglesias pov is slightly different: My sense is that they go to great lengths to show that the perspective of organizations like AIPAC do not necessarilty represent the views of all American Jews, and most of the time, not that of American Jewish liberals. Now, would they prefer - and have their writings reflected the wish - that their politics could be generalized across the entire spectrum of American Jewry?  Probably, but I often wish that everyone would just be as smart as me and that I could get my way. The brutal reality of my life is that I am married, thus I never get my way, never win the big arguments (not unless I am willing to go an extended time with a big 0 on the conjugal scorecard - but that doesn't stop me from trying...

July 25, 2008 5:59 PM

bigm said:

To clarify, I'm referring to extreme positions among the Jewish American community.  With that caveat, I stand by my statement.  Here are a few of J Street's extreme positions:

(1)  Support for the "Arab Peace Initiative"  (www.jstreet.org/.../the-us-israel-and-arab-world).  The Arab Peace Initiative supports the "right of return" of the millions of ancestors of Palestinian refugees from 1948 to territory within Israel.  Whatever the merits of this position, it is not mainstream among American Jews.

(2)  Ben-Ami advocates negotiations with Hamas  (www.washingtonpost.com/.../AR2008050801521_pf.html).  Right or wrong, this is pretty clearly not mainstream among the Jewish American community.

These are pretty big positions.

July 25, 2008 6:21 PM

ndmackenzie said:

bigm --

1) J Street does not "support for the Arab Peace Initiative." The link you provide to the J Street website states:

-- J Street believes that the US should actively promote and facilitate reconciliation between Israel and the Arab world and the establishment of diplomatic relations and relevant security guarantees – in the context of a comprehensive peace agreement. US leadership can be deployed in these efforts to normalize relations between Israel and the Arab world, utilizing the Arab Peace Initiative and helping to create institutional frameworks for regional cooperation.

You can "utilize" something without "supporting" all of it - or indeed any of it.

2) J Street commissioned a poll of American Jews and found:

-- Large majorities support negotiating with Israel’s worst enemies (76 percent), withdrawal from the Golan Heights in exchange for full peace like the arrangements with Egypt and Jordan (58 percent) and withdrawal from most of the West Bank (59 percent).

www.jstreet.org/.../media-advisory-new-survey-american-jewish-community

Which interestingly are not that far away from the results of a Haaretz poll of Israelis which found:

-- Sixty-four percent of Israelis say the government must hold direct talks with the Hamas government in Gaza toward a cease-fire and the release of captive soldier Gilad Shalit. Less than one-third (28 percent) still opposes such talks.

www.haaretz.com/.../958473.html

Far from holding "extremist" views even among American Jews it is quite possible, indeed likely, that J Street is actually quite close to the norm in American Jewish opinion. Certainly, there is a set of elite opinion (Peretz, etc.) which would dispute that. However, there has clearly been a change in the desire and ability of American Jews to voice opinions that differ from AIPAC and it is ludicrous to describe them and organizations they support "extremist."

July 25, 2008 6:46 PM

Barnacle said:

I crossed the KT at "my article" -- I guess I was a little slow today. How anyone could have gotten past that kind of shameless self-promotion and not exclaimed "Kirchick!" is beyond me.

I think that thinking that the head of a lobbying group is worrying about the musings of a smart-mouth, dumb-ass conservative wanna-be 20-something is called "projection." Or "delusional." It's sort of like when you spend 800 words slamming and bashing an organization that you claim is completely powerless and uninfluential.

Sadly, this is only the second worst posting regarding Israel and Palestine on The Plank this week. Michael Oren won that hands down. Kirchick you'll have to write some particularly shameless and irrational criticism of the left to reclaim your title!

July 25, 2008 6:51 PM

bigm said:

ndmackenzie-

You can utilize a plan without supporting it?  I'll have to think about that.  In any case, J Street doesn't say they will utilize "most of" the Arab Peace Initiative or that they will utilize the Arab Peace Initiative generally.

As for that poll, it's interesting you bring that up.  In that poll, only 23 percent of Jewish Americans state that AIPAC does not represent their views.  But as to your statement such as "large majorities support negotiating with Israel’s worst enemies (76 percent)," I encourage you to look at the actual questions asked in that poll.  For that "question," for example, respondents were asked whether they agree with this paragraph:

"Israel's recent cease fire with Hamas has resulted in Hamas ending its rocket attacks from Gaza into southern Israel.  This agreement between Israel and Hamas demonstrates that it is important for Israel to negotiate with even its worst enemies, whether it is directly or through third parties."

This paragraph relies upon a factual error and is more than a bit loaded.

As for the statement about Syria and the Golan Heights, the question also stipulated that such a peace agreement would involve Syria no longer supporting Hezbollah and/or Hamas.  It's no surprise that Jewish Americans support such a policy.  That doesn't make it within the realm of a real world possibility though.

As for withdrawing from most of the West Bank in exchange for peace with the Palestinians, I don't contend that's an extreme position.

By the way, one final point from that survey, a majority of Jewish Americans surveyed oppose the division of Jerusalem with neighborhoods from East Jerusalem becoming part of the capital of the new country of Palestine.  This is pretty clearly a fundamental requirement before there will be peace.  So how can Jewish Americans hold this position and still purportedly seek peace?  As Shmuel Rosner persuasively argues, Jewish Americans likely don't know what they're talking about on the subject.  www.haaretz.com/.../rosnerBlog.jhtml

July 25, 2008 7:08 PM

ndmackenzie said:

The New Yorker profile on Adelson mentioned by James Kirchick states:

-- Adelson, who is seventy-four, owns two of Las Vegas’s giant casino resorts, the Venetian and the Palazzo, and is the third-richest person in the United States, according to Forbes. He is fiercely opposed to a two-state solution; and he had contributed so generously to Bush’s reëlection campaign that he qualified as a Bush Pioneer.

Adelson is "fiercely opposed" to a two-state solution. THAT is what I call extremism.

July 25, 2008 8:07 PM

bigm said:

As you can read above, Kirchick and AIPAC also consider THAT extremism.  Maybe they're all mainstream after all.

July 27, 2008 5:29 PM

perseus353 said:

Good article. Spot on.

Do the same jerks still flood the comment threads??

July 27, 2008 8:30 PM

thejauntyboulevardier said:

perseus...

Not that you're here, the answer is yes...

July 28, 2008 9:12 AM

ndmackenzie said:

Eric Alterman drinks Kirchick's milkshake:

-- Well, excuse me, young man, I've never taken any position at all on Israeli negotiations with Iran or Hamas, the Palestinian right of return, or even "unconditional" territorial concessions, much less advocate for them. You are simply making that up. My guess is that neither have Matthew Yglesias or Ezra Klein, but they can speak for themselves.

-- So Kirchick is accorded what remains of the good name of The New Republic simply to invent positions and attribute them to people who happen to have criticized his boss, Marty Peretz, at some point. And apparently there is no one at the magazine willing to take responsibility for calling him on it.

-- The rest of his post is similarly delusional and McCarthyite. Again, just to be clear, no one in their right mind could care less about what someone this young man thinks about anything. If he were blogging under his own name -- or stuck to John Podhoretz's Commentary, where he belongs -- he would be justly ignored. My point, rather, is how the many talented and important writers associated with The New Republic allow this institution to be continually dishonored by his presence there, writing things that no sane person would support and appear to emanate entirely from his fevered imagination.

-- And by the way, TNR, I'd like a correction.

mediamatters.org/.../200807280001

July 28, 2008 2:50 PM

thejauntyboulevardier said:

mack...

exactomundo...

the making-stuff-up proclivity of this payaso is going to expose tnr to legal proceedings. As I mentioned in the beginning, I read Alterman, Klein, and Iglesias and kirchick's allegations seemed to be from Mars, or whatever weird galaxy this ill-starred upstart occupies.

Funny time is over. tnr needs to boot this clown before he costs CanWest some big time money with his lying and fabulations.

July 28, 2008 3:00 PM

richards1052 said:

<blockquote>I guarantee that neither representative will be accepting a J Street endorsement this fall</blockquote>

<blockquote>JStreetPAC Endorses...Wexler

   --JStreetPAC <a href="jstreet.org/.../JStreetPACEndorsements2_072808_0.pdf">press release</a> (pdf)</blockquote>

Jokes on you, Kirchick...

July 30, 2008 4:55 AM

The Plank said:

Both Matthew Yglesias and Eric Alterman claim that I&#39;ve misrepresnted their views vis a vis J Street

July 30, 2008 9:46 AM