Website policy

We provide links to articles we think will be of interest to our supporters. We are sympathetic to much of the content of what we post, but not to everything. The fact that something has been linked to here does not necessarily mean that we endorse the views expressed in it.


BSST is the leading charity focusing on small-scale grass roots cross community, anti poverty and humanitarian projects in Israel/Palestine

JfJfP comments


06 May: Tair Kaminer starts her fifth spell in gaol. Send messages of support via Reuven Kaminer

04 May: Against the resort to denigration of Israel’s critics


23 Dec: JfJfP policy statement on BDS

14 Nov: Letter to the Guardian about the Board of Deputies

11 Nov: UK ban on visiting Palestinian mental health workers

20 Oct: letter in the Guardian

13 Sep: Rosh Hashanah greetings

21 Aug: JfJfP on Jeremy Corbyn

29 July: Letter to Evening Standard about its shoddy reporting

24 April: Letter to FIFA about Israeli football

15 April: Letter re Ed Miliband and Israel

11 Jan: Letter to the Guardian in response to Jonathan Freedland on Charlie Hebdo


15 Dec: Chanukah: Celebrating the miracle of holy oil not military power

1 Dec: Executive statement on bill to make Israel the nation state of the Jewish people

25 Nov: Submission to All-Party Parliamentary Group Against Antisemitism

7 Sept: JfJfP Executive statement on Antisemitism

3 Aug: Urgent disclaimer

19 June Statement on the three kidnapped teenagers

25 April: Exec statement on Yarmouk

28 Mar: EJJP letter in support of Dutch pension fund PGGM's decision to divest from Israeli banks

24 Jan: Support for Riba resolution

16 Jan: EJJP lobbies EU in support of the EU Commission Guidelines, Aug 2013–Jan 2014


29 November: JfJfP, with many others, signs a "UK must protest at Bedouin expulsion" letter

November: Press release, letter to the Times and advert in the Independent on the Prawer Plan

September: Briefing note and leaflet on the Prawer Plan

September: JfJfP/EJJP on the EU guidelines with regard to Israel

14th June: JfJfP joins other organisations in protest to BBC

2nd June: A light unto nations? - a leaflet for distribution at the "Closer to Israel" rally in London

24 Jan: Letter re the 1923 San Remo convention

18 Jan: In Support of Bab al-Shams

17 Jan: Letter to Camden New Journal about Veolia

11 Jan: JfJfP supports public letter to President Obama

Comments in 2012 and 2011



AIPAC ups its pressure for ‘military option’ against Iran

‘And then you bomb Iran – yes really’.  Too much even for George W. from AIPAC executive director Howard Kohr 
The Israel Lobby Is Killing Iran Negotiations In Favor Of War

By MJ Rosenberg, Tikkun
November 15, 2013

The Israel Lobby has truly gotten out of control.

The Obama administration is close to an agreement with the Iranian government to achieve a decade’s long goal. Iran would give up any plans it might have to develop nuclear weapons (verified by international inspections) in exchange for the lifting of some international sanctions that are doing significant damage to the Iranian economy.

This development — the possibility of ending a possible Iranian nuclear threat and ultimately normalizing relations with Iran after a four decade freeze — was made possible by an event few anticipated. That was the election of a moderate Iranian president, Hassan Rouhani, who has been authorized by the Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, to explore if the United States (and the Europeans) are serious about peace in exchange for a no-weapons pledge. Fortunately, in the Obama administration, the Iranians have a negotiating partner eager to improve U.S.-Iran relations if Iran gives up the nuclear bomb option.

Negotiations commenced and moved more swiftly than anyone expected. A week ago Secretary of State John Kerry was about to announce the first step toward a breakthrough when, apparently, the French government objected, putting the process on hold and giving the Israel lobby the opening it wanted to kill the negotiations. By itself, of course, the French position counts for very little in Washington. Two examples: the French opposed the Iraq war and they supported bombing Syria. They were simply ignored. No, France does not count for much in Washington. But the lobby, that is a whole other thing.

Nonetheless, the French have provided the delay the lobby needed. And it has gone to work. Here is the Anti-Defamation League’s Abraham Foxman saying that Kerry’s Iran opening is “chutzpah” that he hopes “will unite American Jews” in opposition. Here is Alan Dershowitz, the lawyer and pro-Israel spokesman, likening Kerry to Neville Chamberlain and, like Foxman, saying that the “entire pro-Israel community must unite” against the Iran deal.

Far more significant than either is the memo that the official lobby, AIPAC (the American Israel Public Affairs Committee) sent to Congress:

To avoid any misunderstanding in Tehran, America must clearly signal that it will consider no easing of sanctions until Iran has verifiably suspended its nuclear program. If Iran’s nuclear activities continue, the United States and the international community should escalate sanctions and reinforce President Obama’s message that a credible military option is on the table to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

Not surprisingly, AIPAC’s position is identical to that of Prime Minister Netanyahu and the very opposite of the Kerry approach. As is normal in any successful negotiations, Kerry is utilizing a step-by-step approach: offering some lifting of sanctions in exchange for some verifiable evidence that Iran is moving toward eliminating its nuclear weapons potential. AIPAC (and Netanyahu) are demanding that first Iran suspend its entire nuclear program (they make no distinction between civilian and military) and then the United States will consider the “easing of sanctions.” Chutzpah?

Abe Foxman, head of the American Anti-Defamation League and currently in Israel says the U.S. and Israel ‘know that the common goal is to stop Iran from becoming nuclear’ but complains that Netanyahu has not been kept directly informed of the Geneva talks. Ha’aretz November 10th, 2013.

Given that the statement itself quickly segues to a military threat (“credible military option”), it is obvious that Netanyahu and the lobby understand that no country would accept a deal in which it gives up everything in exchange for maybe something later. No, the goal of the lobby’s position is achieving the “military option.” And that is what is so amazing about the lobby’s position.

It is one thing for the lobby to constantly thwart America’s efforts to achieve an Israeli-Palestinian agreement. Although it is short-sighted and not in the interests of the United States or Israel, the lobby’s position does not directly fly in the face of U.S. security interests. Yes, one can argue that continuation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will ultimately threaten American lives and regional interests in general. But that is a supposition, one that is not provable.

The Iran case is different because the Obama administration is seeking to avoid a war that would jeopardize American lives. Once the bombs fly, the United States would be in another deadly Middle Eastern war, which is the last thing the United States wants. As was demonstrated by the Syria debate, the American people virtually stand as one in opposition to another war.

Iranian Americans protest against a conversation between U.S. President Barack Obama and Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, outside the White House in Washington September 28, 2013.  Much of the ‘information’ about Iran’s nuclear readiness, like the information about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, comes from dissident expats from the country concerned. Photo by Reuters

But the lobby apparently feels differently. Although it says (following Netanyahu) that its goal is to prevent an Iranian bomb, it is rejecting the administration’s surprisingly successful effort to achieve that result by laying down conditions that it knows cannot be fulfilled. It wants the “military option” because its goal is not eliminating any Iranian nuclear threat but in eliminating the Islamic Republic as a regional power.

Barack Obama and AIPAC President Lee Rosenberg wave to AIPAC delegates assembled during a policy conference in Washington, D.C., U.S., on Sunday, March 4, 2012. Photographer: Ron Sachs/Pool via Bloomberg. President Obama says:“Iran’s leaders should know that I do not have a policy of containment; I have a policy to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. And as I’ve made clear time and again during the course of my presidency, I will not hesitate to use force when it is necessary to defend the United States and its interests.” 

In theory, neither the lobby nor Netanyahu should be able to get away with any of this. After all, the administration is acting in the interests of the United States while they are acting in support of Netanyahu’s.

They might get away with it. That is because Congress may allow them to. Republicans oppose everything President Obama does. By definition, if he does it, it is wrong. Choosing Netanyahu over a president they despise is as natural to them as shutting down the government or refusing to confirm judicial appointments. As for the Democrats, they receive a significant amount of their campaign funding from the lobby. Unlike supporting the Syrian intervention which was a minor lobby initiative, thwarting an agreement with Iran in favor of the military option is the lobby’s (and Netanyahu’s) number one initiative. Those who support negotiations could literally pay a price for it.

But it would not be as much of a price as Netanyahu and the lobby would like them to believe. According to the polls (see the American Jewish Committee poll here and the recent Pew poll here [sic: this is not a link to the Pew poll but to an AIPAC memo’Iran Must Suspend Nuclear Activities for Diplomacy to Succeed’.The Pew research is reported here], the overwhelming majority of American Jews are progressives who support Democrats because they find the Republicans to be antithetical to every value they hold dear. Jews are overwhelmingly pro-choice, pro-marriage equality, pro-affirmative action. pro-labor, pro-immigration, pro-regulation and, to put it in Republican terms, pro-big government. No matter how much they might earn, they are never with the anti-tax crowd, believing (as the Torah teaches) that it is the obligation of the well-off to support those who aren’t.

Forget all that. When it comes to real matters of national security — like avoiding an unnecessary war — a president and Congress need to do the right thing without regard to what any lobby is saying. The supreme national interest — American lives — must come first. And the lobby and Netanyahu need to be told that they are, to put it gently, out of line.

For the sake of world peace, of Israel and Iran, and, above all, of the United States, these negotiations must succeed.

Tikkun editor’s note:
Please be aware that “the Israel Lobby” is not equivalent to “American Jews.” As MJ Rosenberg notes, most American Jews are far more progressive than the organizations that officially speak for them (because most American Jews are not affiliated with those organizations). The Israel Lobby gets much of its strength from a minority of American Jews who back their positions with lots of money, and by the Christian Zionists.

Print Friendly

Comments are closed.