When I was a little girl, sometimes I wanted things I could not have. Candy before dinner, for instance. And no matter how much I wanted it, my mother said no.

Still, I never walked into a synagogue and hacked anyone to death with a meat cleaver.

According to J Street however, if I had, my mother’s denial to grant me my wish would have, by all accounts, been a contributory factor. By the same token, J Street would have us believe that you don’t have to think it’s a good idea for a little girl to spoil her appetite with candy in order to see that my mother went WAY too far saying no to me.

Of course, my mother and I are just stuck. I’ve been demanding that candy for too long, my mother saying no for too long, for either of us to see the other’s side.

J Street's immediate response after the Har Nof Massacre was to quote Boston Globe reporter Michael Cohen
J Street’s immediate response following the Har Nof Massacre was this quote from Boston Globe reporter Michael Cohen (The Mike Report)

Imagine a rape, if you will. Is it an act of aggression? Or is it the victim’s fault for wearing tight or revealing clothing?

According to J Street, the rapist cannot be excused for his actions. At the same time, we can understand how his lust got the better of him as he watched beautiful young girls walking by him, for years on end. Anyone would snap.

By the same token, the victim should understand that if she is going to be beautiful, someone will desire her. If she would just offer herself to the rapist, he wouldn’t have to force himself on her.

But both sides are still stuck in their own, self-centered ideologies. The rape victim can only think that she doesn’t want to be raped. While the rapist can only rape.

No wonder that rape continues. Until both sides are ready to compromise, more of the same is to be expected.

Turn The Other Cheek

According to Jeremy Ben Ami, founder and president of J Street, there is a proper and an improper response to the massacre. The proper response is to give way to violence and simply turn the other cheek.

The improper response is to respond.

The solution is to “end the conflict.”

What he means rephrased: the solution is for Israel to give in to all the demands of the enemy. The solution is to give the rapists everything they want. Because if you freely give them what they want, it changes these acts from rape to consensual sex. It redefines rape and makes it okay. And then everyone lives happily ever after.

Punitive Demolitions

What are we really talking about here? We are talking about Prime Minister Netanyahu’s decision to bring back the punitive measure of destroying the homes of terrorists’ family members.

This is meant to serve as a deterrent to future acts of terror. It is hoped terrorists will think twice before walking into a Jerusalem shul and hacking rabbis to death with meat cleavers if they know their families will lose their homes.

Ben Ami calls the demolitions a “human rights violation” and “collective punishment.”

Technically, he’s right. Why should innocent people lose their homes because of something their sons/brothers/siblings did?

Rich Rewards

But what can you do to stop people who are eager to die for all the wonderful sex they are told they will have if they will only hack Jews to death with meat cleavers? What can you do to stop terrorists if they know their families will be entitled, after they the terrorists are imprisoned or killed, to significant financial awards, to monthly stipends underwritten by the U.S. and the EU?

You have to hit the families hard enough that the monies they receive will not cover the debts incurred. Housing is expensive. The generous monthly stipend allotted to the families of terrorists will not pay for the construction of new homes.

Even Jeremy Ben Ami submits that terror calls for a response. According to the Israeli Prime Minister, the proper response is one that serves as a deterrent to future violence.

Ben Ami speaks of “due process.” But the terrorists who perpetrated the Har Nof Massacre are dead. There can be no due process when the perpetrators are dead. The dead cannot be judged by a jury of their peers.

And in fact, the dead terrorists are lionized, held up as heroes, as symbols. The deeds that killed them serve as an example: serve to inspire other young Arabs to emulate them and do the same.

Screen grab Channel 10, via Times of Israel
Jordanian Parliament observes moment of silence for perpetrators of the Har Nof Massacre (Screen grab Channel 10, via Times of Israel)

Ben Ami would have us go beyond the monetary benefits afforded the families of terror victims. He would have us give in to all Arab demands. He would have us give up Esau’s birthright for a bowl of lentil stew. He would have us be nine miles wide at our waistline and subject to rocket attacks from inside of Judea and Samaria.

He would dissolve the State of Israel, because like the rape victim, it’s just too attractive to the rapist.

Rape happens because rape victims are sexy.

Israel is a bad idea, because it brings strife.


There are certain defining moments in the history of my nation that I wish had never happened. Disengagement, for instance. 8,500 Jews expelled from their homes by Jews. The homes destroyed, the territory given to the enemy as a gesture of peace, to offer them a chance to engage in statecraft.

And now? Disengagement is something we can point to whenever anyone suggests we give up Judea and Samaria. It’s been nine years since Disengagement. Nine years and over 11,000 rockets.

Every one of us knows what would happen if we gave the Arabs Judea and Samaria.

Oslo was another defining moment. Peres and company brought Arafat over from Tunisia. They said, “You don’t make peace with a friend, you make peace with an enemy.”

Bringing Terror Into The Tent

So we brought this terrorist to live among us, we brought him into the tent and he ran true to form, as terrorists will, and fomented the Second Intifada. He killed us from within instead of from without, from a distance. We gave him every advantage.

And we learned:

Negotiate with terrorists, get bloodshed.

The Har Nof Massacre was yet another defining moment in a history of defining moments for my people. The pogrom in Har Nof tells us that the “conflict” has nothing to do with contested territory, a homeland for a displaced people, or self-determination. It tells us that the conflict is a not a conflict, but a war against the Jews.

A Pogrom

Because as it turns out, a pogrom is still a pogrom.

You can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear. Jew-hatred smells the same no matter how much you douse it with cologne.

We can point to Disengagement, which should never have happened, to prove that given resources, Arabs will not carve out lives for themselves, but will strive to kill Jews and more Jews.

We can point to Oslo, which should never have happened, to prove that making nice to terrorists and inviting them into our tent, brings death to our people.

We can point to the Har Nof Massacre, which should never have happened, to prove that Esau hates Jacob.

Pretty Colors

Paint the “conflict” with pretty colors called “homeland” and “self-determination” but the rose will continue to fester and stink with Jew-hatred. Boil it down, distill the essence, and you still get Kill the Jews.

Point to the Har Nof Massacre, to Disengagement, to Oslo, and expose the truth. But the lie is louder still, a relief to the masses.

The lie will always be louder.

J Street is loud. Louder than say, The J Street Challenge. The Jewish Federation of Seattle helped sponsor an event featuring Peter Beinart, a pro-BDS activist who claims, just like J Street, to be pro-Israel. The Jewish Federation of Seattle refused to help sponsor a screening of The J Street Challenge, which is a critical examination of J Street’s ideology. The Washington Coalition of Rabbis (WCR) condemned the screening.

The Scorpion And The Camel

J Street is like the old joke with the scorpion, wanting a ride on a camel’s back to get across the river. The camel says, “If I give you a ride, you’ll sting me and I’ll die.”

The scorpion says, “Would I do that? Trust me. Wouldn’t happen.”

The camel is persuaded, gives the scorpion a ride across the river and as they reach the half-point in their journey, the scorpion stings the camel.

The camel says, “Why did you sting me? Now we’ll both drown!”

To which the scorpion replies, “This is, after all, the Middle East.”

J Street Wants In

J Street wants Israel to die. J Street doesn’t care who it takes down in the process. This is why J Street fights so hard to get inside the tent. It wants the Jewish State to disappear. It wants those Jews gone.

J Street wants the rape victim silenced. J Street feels no sympathy for the victims of the Har Nof Massacre, or their families. It is J Street’s nature to worm its way into our culture and kill us from within with its poisonous sting.

J Street lures us with promises of peace and harmony. It lulls us into thinking we will be safe if we give in to the rapist/terrorist. It tells us that we need to see beyond our own selfish will to live, to die for the sake of the other.

J Street is Arafat brought over from Tunisia by Peres. J Street is the expulsion of 8,500 Jews from their homes by Sharon. J Street is the Har Nof Pogrom that never had anything to do with land or self-determination, or sides in a conflict.

J Street is death.

Choose life.

33 thoughts on “The Proper Response To J Street”

  1. My Congressman a dem but not an extreme Leftist said no one in congress takes Jstreet seriously they all know 2 things it anti Israel,and it’s an hussein obama front

    1. Norman_In_New_York

      The American public doesn’t take J Street seriously either, and with Obama’s favor among the public going down the toilet, it is not likely to recover no matter how hard the news media try to prop it up.

    2. ahad_ha_amoratsim

      My excuse for a Senator takes it seriously and says you can’t call him anti-Israel if he’s been endorsed by J Street. Which he has been, with good reason.

        1. I loved your article, but I think you’re giving the “court Jews” a bad rap. They were often the people on the spot who did their best to protect their brothers.

            1. This really isn’t my impression. Perhaps we’re talking semantics. Wasn’t Rabbi Don Yitchack Abarbanel (as he was known in the period) a Court Jew? Rabbi Yoselin of Rosheim?

      1. May I ask who that is? I would take be endorsed by J Street to be proof of being anti-Israel. And being endorsed by the New Israel Fund as being an opponent of Israel, not to mention an anti-Semite.

  2. Norman_In_New_York

    It is noteworthy that during Protective Edge, when the Israeli Left, even Ha’aretz, supported the war effort, J Street was left high and dry and was silent until the current ceasefire. Unlike Kerry, they felt some discomfort doing Qatar’s bidding.

  3. ahad_ha_amoratsim

    Thinking back two Shabbosim ago to Parshas Vaera, wasn’t Ben Ami the name of the second mamzer recorded in the Chumash?
    What is he complaining about? By committing these murders knowing the demolition law was on the books, the terrorists gave their consent to the demolitions. And if they consented, doesn’t that mean there’s no human rights violation?

    1. And father of a nation in Southern Jordan (Amman is named after them), an eternal enemy of the Jewish people, whose characters are so degraded that their men cannot intermarry with them even after converting.

  4. Hard Little Machine

    The left doesn’t hold mass murderers accountable. Not mass murderers of any stripe. In fact the left’s always been torn over how much to support genocidals head cases. Because remember the ratio sum ultra is kill the west, kill the Jews. Everything flows from that even if it means kill all the people the left purports to support otherwise eg. women, children, gays, etc.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top