Talk:J Street

Media people

Do we really need to quote Jennifer Rubin? I don't disagree with her opinion, necessarily, but she is a journalist and blogger. I only referenced her blog post because it contained (sourced) information relevant to the topic, but I just have this sinking feeling that including her actual words on the topic trivializes this CZ article. Rep. Engel's attitude to J Street is, in my view, the main point in this section; Rubin's opinions don't interest me. Anyone have another view? Michel van der Hoek 04:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I think Jennifer Rubin trivializes everything she touches, and sources very poorly and selectively. No, I don't think her blog post had any relevant information, other than essentially coming back with exactly the sort of snarkiness about which the J Street op-ed had complained.

Neither the op-ed, nor Rubin, nor Engel, actually spoke to the 54 Congressmen, J Street, and Americans for Peace Now letter to Obama. I haven't yet found a copy of the letter online, but the Haaretz article gave more substantive detail about it. In dealing with Israeli politics, it's often wise to look at the Haaretz and Jerusalem Post positions. With the Post, it's also useful to look at the particular writer. Haaretz is fairly consistent across the Israeli left, while the Post, a more mass market publication, may either do centrist coverage or jump far right with someone such as Caroline Glick.

Without having researched it, I'm not sure how authoritative Engel might be, as opposed to, say, AIPAC. J Street is, in the opinion of many, intended to be the anti-AIPAC, although still supportive of a two-state solution. The Zionist Organization of America is more zero-state. There are American groups to the "left" (if that's really meaningful) of J Street, who argue for one-state solutions that, demographically, would not preserve the Jewish character of the State of Israel.

If Rubin is cited at all, I believe the quote must be there, as her language is far more judgmental than either J Street or Engel. It would not bother me, however, to remove all of the Rubin material here. --Howard C. Berkowitz 04:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Fine, remove Rubin, as long as we replace the info I originally found in her blog post with better sources. I don't feel so strongly against her--after all, she is PAID to write BLOGS, what do you expect?-- but we really don't need her material if we already have the original op-ed.

I also don't know how important Rep. Engel is, but the fact that he is a Democrat, representing part of New York City with generally very liberal positions (pro-choice, pro gun control, pro single-payer health care), and nevertheless states that J Street makes him uncomfortable provides at least a modicum of context for J Street's political leanings.

By the way, here is a copy of the text of the letter sent by the Congressmen. Michel van der Hoek 02:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Blogs do not need to be vitriolic and hyperbolic. She is paid to write for periodicals that are, but I don't see how that makes her a terribly valid source.

What unique material was in her blog post? I'm speaking specifically of J Street, not of any discussion of the Gaza situation. This is a serious question -- I simply didn't see much. Her article, however, is an attack on the op-ed, which was, in turn, an attack on what the authors perceived was a Republican group going after a position taken by Democrats.

As far as Engel, support of Israeli government positions is not especially a left versus right position, especially in a New York City district. One could interpret Engel's position as simply representative of his constituency. It's certainly not a Republican vs. Democratic question if U.S. support for Israeli government positions, in its present form, is first beneficial for the U.S., second for the Middle East, and third for Israel. Nevertheless, what is the point you are trying to establish? The entire article should establish that J Street was established to counter some of the dominant lobbying groups such as AIPAC. --Howard C. Berkowitz 03:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Support for Israel may or may not be representative of his constituency but is, in my perception, unusual for someone with Engel's political viewpoints. I can only observe as statistical fact that the vast majority of American Jews vote Democratic and that Democratic politicians tend to be more critical of Israeli policy on the Palestinian question than Republican politicians. Engel stands out to me for those reasons (though he is by no means unique).

Let us remove Rubin's material. There is nothing in it that is unique; it was simply among the first places I read of this topic. We do not need to argue this point to death, since there is no substantial disagreement between us that her blog post is of no significant value in this CZ article. Michel van der Hoek 03:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)