A DIRE SITUATION INDEED.....

 

With attempts to reach an agreement to end the faltering war, an Israeli assessment suggests that the US president currently faces two options for dealing with Iran:

An Israeli source told the newspaper Yediot Aharonot that "Mr. Trump" now has two options: either a limited and controlled military operation that does not lead to escalation, or a temporary agreement that allows negotiations to continue and the Strait of Hormuz to be reopened.

The source added that Israel wants to resume fighting by launching strikes on energy and infrastructure targets, which would significantly weaken the regime, as well as bombarding to ground major parts of Lebanon.

But according to the newspaper at this stage, it seems that Israel and the United States view things differently. Trump is not keen on a full-scale resumption of fighting, and the interim agreement will calm the situation between the two sides, allowing the strait to reopen, but it will not resolve all the issues."

In contrast, the Israelis believe that "Trump neither desires nor longs for a full-scale resumption of fighting, because he believes that this will not improve his position, but will rather complicate matters for him domestically. With another rise in energy prices and harm to allied countries," according to Yediot Aharonot's assessment.

The newspaper reports, according to an Israeli source, believes that "Israel prefers a more assertive approach, but does not want to be accused of dragging the American president into renewed fighting."

It adds that "one of the possibilities under discussion in Washington, the Americans might choose a limited military operation and continue the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz; in that case, they might ask for Israel commitment to neutrality and non-intervention, recognizing that Israel's response would be harsh if Iran launched missiles at it, potentially leading to a full-blown war.

The Israeli source stated that "neither the Iranians nor the Americans want a full-scale resumption of the war, so Israel may remain neutral this time."

However, according to Yediot Ahronoth, "Israel is preparing for all eventualities, including a scenario in which Trump orders a resumption of hostilities and Iran resumes launching missiles at Israel."

The newspaper noted that there's "concern in Israel" that Americans are only discussing the nuclear issue and the Strait of Hormuz with the Iranians, without ever mentioning ballistic missiles or proxies in the region—two crucial issues for Israel.

However, it is likely in Israel that Trump will wait until his return from his visit to China early next week to take his next step regarding Iran. 

A good report/analysis translated from the Lebanese news site "Lebanon 24", based on Israeli newspapers reports, copied here for better understanding of the weird situation over the entire Middle-East affecting the safety of the entire world.

As always, my many thanks to all. 

 

A MULTIFACETED REPORT.....

 

A report in the Israeli newspaper Maariv warned that "the Egyptian military advance in Sinai under the pretext of Counter-terrorism. This will turn into a strategic threat to Israel, which calls for a careful review of the peace treaty commitments.
Maariv stated that "peace with Egypt is an indispensable strategic asset, and for this very reason we should be concerned about the accumulating violations of the agreement in Sinai and the Egyptian mobilization against Israel" On the international stage."

It added that "the peace agreement between Egypt and Israel, signed in 1979 following Anwar Sadat's historic initiative, has been considered for decades a cornerstone of regional stability," noting that "the agreement, which restored to Egypt a near-monopoly on relations with Israel, was a cornerstone of regional stability." The semi-island of Sinai includes clear provisions limiting the presence of Egyptian military forces in this region, with the aim of preventing friction and establishing and building mutual trust.

 However, the newspaper noted that "in recent years, it has become increasingly clear that the reality on the ground is moving further and further away from the original agreements." The newspaper stated that "Egypt's central justification for increasing its military presence in Sinai is combating ISIS and its affiliates, which have operated in the region and posed a real threat to the country's internal stability," adding that "there is no doubt that this terrorist activity required a firm response, and even Israel itself understood the need to allow Egypt a certain degree of flexibility in deploying its forces."

The newspaper added that "over the years, quiet, and sometimes even public, permissions have been granted to increase Egyptian forces beyond what is permitted under the agreement." It stated that "Egypt has not only increased the number of soldiers in Sinai, but has also introduced heavy weaponry, advanced military infrastructure, and established permanent logistical arrangements, all in violation of the spirit and letter of the agreement." 

The newspaper further noted that "international reports indicate that the Egyptian presence is moving closer and closer to the border with Israel," pointing out that "this is a quiet, almost imperceptible process, but one with profound strategic implications." It emphasized that "when large, well-equipped forces are near the border, a situation arises where any political change or regional crisis could lead to a rapid escalation." 

The newspaper stated that "Egypt, for its part, continues to claim that all its activity is within the framework of counterterrorism and that it has no intention of harming the peace agreement," adding that "it must be acknowledged that combating ISIS in Sinai has been complex and difficult, and ultimately Egypt has succeeded in significantly reducing the organization's activity in the region." The newspaper added that "this particular success raises an expected question: if the threat has diminished, why does the enhanced military presence remain?" 

It noted that his does not stem from the assumption that Egypt is planning for an immediate war; on the contrary, security cooperation between the two countries continues and even deepens in certain areas, including agreements to supply Egypt with gas.

The Israeli newspaper stated: History teaches us that strategic situations can change rapidly, and agreements remain stable as long as there is political will to maintain them. When circumstances change, agreements can also erode."

 Indeed a multifaceted report, I copied and translated it from a Lebanese site, to indicate that it could be a genuine caution about a growing force on Israeli borders, but it could very well be a deliberate early prepping for another possible war or aggression toward an entire strategic area that Israel was and is looking steadily at controlling and/or annexing, all the way to the Suez canal. It once had it and had to give it back when as mentioned Sadat offered a peace plan, but the dream and geopolitical control of the area, including the Suez canal, like the straight of Hormuz are all part of the alleged Godly dream of the biblical Israel, plus of course the new Zionist inheritors complex dreams of a greater Israel, and its total control of the entire Middle-East. It could very well be a continuation of what started in Gaza, the occupied West Bank, Lebanon and Syria.... 

As always, my many thanks to all.     

IT IS WHAT IT IS ......

 

Once upon a time in America, the Republican Party devolved into a rightwing authoritarian regime that promoted white supremacist conspiracies, systematically dismantled democratic norms, and adulated some criminal vulgarians who once partied with a notorious pedophile.

Rather than acting as a robust opposition movement, the Democratic establishment, led by feckless somnambulists beholden to corporate money, decided to behave like Vichy collaborators. For more than a decade, they chose civility and assumed playing possum—a suggestion given by crypt keeper James Carville—would be the best course of action. The leadership opted for prevent defense, despite losing both the 2016 and 2024 presidential elections, and warned the country that Donald Trump posed an existential threat to American democracy.

As the Democratic Party’s favorability plummeted and their own voters derided them as spineless and ineffective, party leaders clung to restoration and moderation over transformation and progressivism. After spending millions in search of the “liberal Joe Rogan,” they were gifted a once-in-a-lifetime candidate, Zohran Mamdani, a democratic socialist who won the New York City mayoral race by championing affordability, challenging billionaires, and embracing wokeness and diversity.

So what did Vichy Democrats do?

They endorsed the disgraced politician Andrew Cuomo instead and played footsie with shameless Islamophobic attacks against the first Muslim mayor of New York City. In their desperation to destroy Mamdani and his populist message, they even unleashed former President Bill Clinton, ex-Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), and billionaire Michael Bloomberg, a former mayor of New York City, to try and take him down.

They failed.

---

After Mamdani’s victory last November, Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York, offered only muted praise, preferring the company (and hugs) of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—an alleged war criminal—Silicon Valley donors, and MAGA reek Marco Rubio, Donald Trump’s Secretary of State.

Meanwhile, Representative Hakeem Jeffries, Democrat of New York, continued to support AIPAC, despite revelations that the pro-Israel lobbying group funded by rightwing billionaires spent $2.3 million against Tom Malinowski, a pro-Israel moderate Democrat, in a primary race in New Jersey’s Eleventh Congressional District.

Democratic National Committee Chair Ken Martin chose to withhold the audit of the failed 2024 presidential election, despite promising his base that the results would be released. An Axios report revealed that the Biden Administration’s full-throated support of Israel’s genocide in Gaza was a major reason that Democratic voters stayed home.

It also bears remembering that former Vice President and presidential candidate Kamala Harris didn’t break away from President Joe Biden’s failed foreign policy and instead supported a politically suicidal decision to ban Palestinians from speaking at the 2024 Democratic National Convention.

Even as Trump unleashed armed and masked U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents to act as his personal Gestapo and terrorize American cities, many Democrats refused to embrace the call to “Abolish ICE.”

After witnessing the brutal murders of Renée Good and Alex at the hands of ICE and U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers, respectively, a majority of Americans soured on ICE, an agency that had become notorious for recruiting unqualified extremists from the fringes of society. For the first time, a plurality of Americans embraced “Abolish ICE” and questioned why their taxpayer dollars were funding a rogue entity that harassed, tortured, and kidnapped citizens and immigrants with impunity.

However, “moderate” Senator Elissa Slotkin, Democrat of Michigan, whom the Party chose to respond to Trump’s unhinged 2025 address to Congress, refused to embrace “Abolish ICE,” stating, “You need law enforcement.” That same “law enforcement” agency then announced plans to spend $38 billion to convert warehouses across the country into concentration camps, like the one that already exists in Dilley, Texas, where media and protesters recorded the wails and cries of children kept in squalid, inhumane conditions.

Nonetheless, Democratic leadership persisted in being weak possums, instead opting for “Rein in ICE,” without articulating a robust, progressive vision for immigration reform.

---

When it came to fighting the oligarchy, Democratic centrists like Slotkin argued that the slogan was too vague for average Americans. Progressive leaders Senator Bernie Sanders, Independent of Vermont, and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Democrat of New York, decided to test that message by touring the country, including the Rust Belt, which is populated with the magical, white, centrist voters that the Democratic establishment so desperately coveted. These white voters, including Republicans and independents, enthusiastically embraced taxing billionaires, reflecting a growing rage against the elite Epstein class who grew wealthier at the expense and suffering of the majority.

The Democratic establishment continued to sideline rising progressive candidates in favor of corporate candidates, such as California Governor Gavin Newsom, who refused to embrace a wealth tax and insisted that his “big tent” included billionaires. Unfortunately, Newsom’s tent wasn’t large enough to include transgender people, whom he threw under the bus during one of his numerous “civil” conversations with rightwing extremists like the late Charlie Kirk and the ghoul Steve Bannon.

In a CNN interview, Newsom argued that Democrats should be more “culturally normal” and stop focusing on pronouns. Apparently, that could include partying with pedophile billionaires, disavowing climate change, and praising Adolf Hitler. Newsom did find time to agree with paid rightwing propagandist Ben Shapiro that Israel was not committing genocide, putting himself at odds with many Democratic voters and a majority of Americans.

The Democratic establishment’s “big tent” did, however, expand to include “pro-growth” organizations like Next American Era, funded by Silicon Valley broligarchs advancing artificial intelligence, cryptocurrency, and anti-regulation policies. Nothing says helping the average Rust Belt American than promoting the talking points and policies of billionaires Peter Thiel, Elon Musk, and Alex Karp, who are openly committed to replacing democracy with a techno-fascist “utopia.”

With Vichy Democrats like these, who needs MAGA?

Fortunately, a majority of Americans decided they were tired of being permanently hijacked by a Democratic Party that refused to evolve and respond to the challenges of the moment. Harnessing their numbers and grassroots momentum, they championed progressive, populist policies, organized boycotts against complicit corporations, and challenged entrenched Democrats in primary races.

Whether these efforts will result in meaningful progress toward justice, equality, and freedom or be stymied by corporate Democrats in bed with billionaires and a rightwing authoritarian regime remains to be seen.

A good description of what the Democratic party is facing today under its classic leadership and the actual political atmosphere, by the talented Wajahat Ali with the Left Hook, originally published in the May issue of the Progressive. Copied here for a good and better understanding of an important aspect of American politics. 

As always, my many thanks to all. 

EXISTENTIALISM..... The Global Sumud Flotilla

 

by Jonathan Kuttab

On Wednesday, a flotilla of 55 ships carrying humanitarian relief to Gaza was intercepted in international waters off the Greek Islands by armed Israeli naval vessels. The Israelis forcefully boarded 20 ships, kidnapping 175 of their occupants, who come from many countries, and destroyed the equipment of some ships and towed others towards Ashdod.

This confrontation could not provide a more stark contrast between two opposing world views:
On the one side was the fully armed Israeli navy, projecting its military power hundreds of miles (700 miles actually) away from its borders, in full contempt of international law and maritime regulations, as well as the interests and sovereignty of others. It was a declaration to one and all that “might makes right.” As Netanyahu stated recently, Israel is now not only a regional power but a world power. It will set its own rules and do what it wishes because it can. This, it did not do in defense of its own security or the well being of its population, but with the declared purpose of maintaining its cruel siege over Gaza and its people , including its authority to control any food, fuel, medical supplies or any civilian goods from even approaching, much less entering Gaza waters or territories without its express approval. After Israel devastated the ability of Gazans to live any normal lives and began subjecting them to an ongoing genocide, it is actually declaring that those who show any sympathy with Gazans are criminals whom it can arrest, detain, question and imprison anywhere they exist. While the arrestees belong to many countries, including Europe and the United States, Israel counted on the cowardice of their politicians and their unwillingness to challenge Israel's power.

 

The United States even issued a statement supporting Israeli actions because some of the arrested were under its sanctions and considered “sympathizers of Hamas.” Only President Trump, among the nations of the world, matches the arrogance of Israel and its disdain for international law and norms, and its exceptional claim to do whatever it wants because it has the power, holds the cards, and can force its will upon others.

On the other side were unarmed citizens from multiple countries. Artists, activists, parliamentarians, doctors, and ordinary citizens who want to show concretely their care for the people of Gaza. They do not use force or violence, but they act in a concrete, nonviolent manner. Many think they are naive and unwise to challenge the overwhelmingly powerful forces of Israel (and its ally, the United States) but they choose to act nonetheless out of love, care and dedication. They assert their belief in universal values that apply to all. Their actions are not meant to hurt anyone or cause harm to Israel and its population, yet they are brave enough to confront the horrors of the genocide and to do something about it at great risk to themselves. While their governments dither and vacillate while failing to take any concrete actions, the flotilla participants are willing to stand up and be counted.

In classic terms of the nonviolence movement, they are exposing the failures of their respective governments to protect their citizens or the international rule of law. They are asserting the primacy of international law. They are reminding the world of the ongoing genocidal situation in Gaza.  They are deepening the isolation of Israel and reasserting the relevance and vitality of international law and norms that are universally binding on everyone, with no special exception for Israel and the US. They are restoring faith in the relevance of solidarity and collective action against rogue states. They are asserting their own agency in the face of the helplessness of their own governments.

All of us are being called upon to take a position on this issue as well. Do we stand with Empire, and its power to bully others that, in the words of Trump, feels no restraints other than “its own morality” (such as it is) or do we insist on resistance, based on international law, universal human rights, and nonviolent but sacrificial resistance to ongoing injustice and oppression. It is incumbent on all of us to raise our voices and to truly choose whether we support unrestrained power and lawlessness or whether we stand with nonviolent resistance, law, and justice.

Friends of Sabeel North America · PO Box 3192, Greenwood Village, CO 80155, United States. Friends of Sabeel North America · PO Box 3192, Greenwood Village, CO 80155, United States. A Christian voice for Palestine. 
This email was sent to bbagh@gmail.com.

Its war in Lebanon, and its continued bombing in Gaza – despite so-called “ceasefires” in place – did not stop Israel from conducting violent raids in the occupied West Bank and conducting “piracy” at sea.
 
more sad and tragic episodes of the ugly situation over that area, the way it's going in Lebanon, Israel's other front,  the remaining and isolated populations of southern Lebanon will need flotillas to nourish them, medicine and humanitarian aid to compensate for the Israeli blocades, destruction and genocide/transfer of the entire remaining population of the southern parts of the country. 

As always, my profound many thanks to all. 

A LANGUAGE OF REASON......

 

Calling Out What's Wrong Isn't Anti-Israel. It's Pro-Israel.

Silence won't secure Israel's future. Honesty might.

Jeremy Ben-Ami Apr 26

Last week, I argued that Israel’s cratering support in the US and globally isn’t simply the fault of one man: Bibi Netanyahu. While he bears significant responsibility, Israel’s current predicament stems from policies and actions that have unfolded over decades.

If I’m right, then an election in October and a change in prime minister won’t solve the problem. Something more fundamental is required: a change in direction.

While Netanyahu, Ben-Gvir, Smotrich and their allies are shaping Israel into something unrecognizable to many long-time supporters, there remains a real opportunity to choose a different path – one that leads to a secure, democratic homeland for the Jewish people living in peace with its neighbors and ensuring freedom, dignity and prosperity for Palestinians in a state of their own.

In elections this fall, Israelis will face a stark choice: continue down a path toward being a kind of “super Sparta,” condemned to live forever by the sword, or move toward a future that brings regional acceptance and normalization.

When we at J Street focus on what’s going wrong on Israel’s current path, we do it because the stakes are literally existential. We see the potential loss of Israel as a secure, democratic homeland for the Jewish people.

Still, I know that this focus leads many – sometimes critics, sometimes people genuinely wrestling with whether they should engage with us – to ask: If you’re truly pro-Israel, why spend so much time criticizing what Israel is doing? Why not highlight what’s good?

It’s a fair question. But it rests on a misunderstanding of what it means to support a country you care deeply about.

Being pro-Israel can’t mean going easy on policies that endanger its future. It means confronting them – even, and especially, when doing so is uncomfortable.

And it means standing with Israelis who are doing exactly that – often at great personal pain and cost.

---

One of the clearest examples of that kind of leadership comes from Commanders for Israel’s Security (CIS), an organization made up of many of the most senior figures ever to serve in Israel’s defense, intelligence and diplomatic corps.

These are people who have devoted their lives to defending the state. They understand, better than almost anyone, the cost of weakness and the necessity of strength.

And, in recent weeks, they have issued a stark warning about a growing threat from within.

In a letter to the head of the IDF’s Central Command, they wrote that settler violence in the West Bank has become “a daily, permanent, and terrifying phenomenon,” not the work of a few fringe actors but “an organized system” aimed at driving Palestinians from their land.

Even more striking is their warning about the consequences. Settler violence, they write, is not just a moral failure – it is a strategic one. It “radicalize[s] Palestinians… risks igniting a broader conflict, and causes enormous damage to the State of Israel” internationally and within the Jewish diaspora.

In a follow-up letter, they underscored that allowing such violence to continue is “a blow to state security” that diverts forces and risks opening another front.

This is not the language of Israel’s adversaries. It is the language of some of its most seasoned defenders.

And it is, in my view, the very definition of patriotism.

These are individuals who built the institutions now under strain – and are now willing to say publicly: this is wrong, this is dangerous, and it must change.

These are also the Israelis who organized an alternative Independence Day celebration this week, warning that the country has been “hijacked.”

Two former leaders of the nation’s military - yes, former Chiefs of Staff of the Israeli Defense Forces - wrote in an op-ed inviting fellow citizens to join them that the country’s leaders:

“… are trampling over the values by which this country has been founded: equality, liberty and justice.”

That is what it looks like to fight for Israel – not just with weapons, but with values.

It is also a reminder that criticism and love of country are not opposites. Often, they are inseparable.

---

There is another Israel I want people to see as well.

This week, in Tel Aviv, Israelis and Palestinians gathered for a joint Memorial Day ceremony – bringing together those who have lost loved ones in the conflict to mourn and to affirm a shared commitment to a different future.

Writing in Haaretz, Linda Dayan captured the ceremony’s spirit:

“This is the Israel I love. This is the Israel I choose each day to stand in, to make my home, to work toward improving.”

That line captures, in a very human way, what being pro-Israel actually means for those of us loudly opposing where it is heading.

The Israel of Commanders for Israel’s Security – the Israel willing to confront moral failure because it understands the stakes. And the Israel of the joint Memorial Day ceremony – the Israel that insists on shared humanity even amid grief and loss.

That is the Israel I advocate for.

That is the Israel J Street stands for.

Not an Israel that accepts endless conflict and domination as its destiny, but one that believes its future lies in peace. Not an Israel that turns away from hard truths, but one that faces them with courage. Not an Israel defined only by power, but one guided by the values at the heart of our Jewish identity.

If Israel is to regain its standing in the world – if it is to maintain the support of even a fraction of Jewish America under age 35 – that is the Israel we have to fight for.

And fighting for that Israel – by telling the truth about the one we see today – is what being pro-Israel demands.

One more obviously reasonable article depicting the other opinion, the opinion of peace and fairness and civility, not just simple brutality and bestiality, I'm copying the article that I received by email and forwarding it to all our readership for better understanding of what's happening and possibly what could be done in this Levantine surroundings.   PS, I must  clarify that I'm not a member of this group or organization, and don't have any contact with them, more so no official authorization to transmit any of their opinions or writings, except what I personally find of interest as explained above.  

As always, my many thanks to all.  

THE LOGICAL AND REALISTIC OTHER SIDE.....

 

Democrats Aren’t Turning on Israel. They’re Rejecting the Occupation.

This isn’t about Netanyahu or PR - it’s about the reality on the ground.

Jeremy Ben-Ami Apr 19 Following the vote this week by 40 Democratic Senators to disapprove sales of bombs and bulldozers to Israel, I’ve been hearing a lot of anxiety across Jewish America – in chat groups, in the media, in communal conversations – asking a version of the same question: Has the Democratic Party turned anti-Israel? The short answer is no. Democrats refusing to sell bulldozers used to demolish Palestinian homes in the West Bank isn’t evidence of abandoning Israel or the Jewish people. It’s evidence of something else: a party trying to reconcile its values with the reality of what an American ally is doing – with American support and American weapons - in Gaza and on the West Bank. This isn’t about Israel’s legitimacy. It’s about its policies. And that leads to the next question I keep hearing: will this tension go away when Benjamin Netanyahu is no longer prime minister? Can things just go back to “normal”? Again, no. That hope – that everything can return to a more comfortable “before time” once Netanyahu is gone – was actually at the core of early Biden administration thinking when the Bennett-Lapid government took office in 2021. The assumption was simple: new leadership, more moderate tone, fewer problems. So the strategy became: don’t push too hard. Don’t force big changes. Manage the conflict. We now know where that mindset led. For years, “managing the conflict” meant accepting a reality in which millions of Palestinians live without basic rights, under indefinite military control, with expanding settlements and periodic eruptions of violence. It wasn’t stable or just – it just looked containable for a while. But here’s the problem: a system built on denying another people freedom and self-determination doesn’t produce security. It produces recurring violence – and it leads to growing opposition to Israel, including here in the United States. Saying that doesn’t ignore the other reality: Israel faces real threats. It has enemies. It needs to be strong and able to defend itself. And the senators who cast these votes were clear about that as well – they want to stand with Israel and its people. But they are no longer willing to provide a blank check for permanent occupation. What’s changing – especially among Democrats, but also among Republicans – is a growing recognition that unconditional support for policies that entrench occupation and deny Palestinians basic rights is at odds with both American values and American interests. And there’s another piece of this that often gets missed. Those – like J Street – criticizing Israeli policy aren’t just reacting to what they oppose – they have a vision for what Israel’s future could be. A future where Israel is fully integrated into the Middle East: secure, recognized and normalized not just with a handful of countries, but across the Arab and Muslim world. What we’ve called a “23-state solution” – Israel alongside a sovereign Palestinian state, with normalization across the region. But that future isn’t compatible with permanent occupation. You can’t have both. You can’t deepen normalization while indefinitely denying millions of Palestinians basic rights and a path to self-determination. And that reality won’t change with a new Israeli prime minister. Because the issue isn’t one leader - it’s a system that’s been in place for nearly six decades. I’ve been struck by how many people still believe that once Netanyahu exits, things will reset – that tensions will ease and bipartisan consensus will return. I think that’s a misread. Netanyahu has made things worse. But he didn’t create the underlying reality. The occupation and the inequality that come with it no longer align with the values of a growing share of the Democratic Party – or, frankly, of the American or Jewish public. And as long as that’s true, the political pressure in the United States to do something is only going to grow. Meanwhile, Israel finds itself in a kind of strategic cul-de-sac – stuck in a pattern of recurring wars and ongoing control over another people, without a real political horizon. More force – more raids, more demolitions, more military operations - hasn’t resolved the conflict. It can’t. You can’t bomb or bulldoze your way out of a political problem. Only a political solution – one that ensures rights, freedom, security and self-determination for both Israelis and Palestinians – can do that. And only that kind of shift can put the U.S.-Israel relationship back on stable, sustainable footing in American politics. So what happened in the Senate this week isn’t Democrats turning on Israel. It’s Democrats refusing to ignore the contradiction between supporting Israel and supporting a permanent occupation. That tension has been building for years. Now it’s out in the open. And it’s not going away with a change in leadership or better messaging. Because this isn’t about Netanyahu. It’s about the occupation – and the growing insistence in American politics that it has to end. J street is a leading American Jewish organization, with different ideas, ideology and opinions than most other similar organization or lobby groups and influential Jewish donors who automatically back any regime in Israel, including the actual one. A courageous and illuminated position from within, I'm copying its president's message, that was received directly by email, for its clear, factual and realistic message, I believe it should seriously be read and considered, and stop the wars, the expansions and annexations of others territories, and transfers and/or genocide of entire populations. As always, my many thanks to all.