When not opposing the construction of houses in Israel, the advocacy group J Street, working alongside far-left and pro-Iranian organizations, has been lobbying the U.S. Congress to suspend sanctions against Iran. In doing so, it gives the lie to its claim that it is really a pro-Israel organization dedicated to a diplomatic solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict. It seems more likely that it has made itself into an extension of the Obama administration. Eric Greenstein writes:

This wouldn’t be the first time J Street has worked together with the National Iranian American Council (NIAC) to prevent either a military strike or the strengthening of sanctions against Iran. Already in 2009, J Street head Jeremy Ben-Ami and Dr. Trita Parsi of NIAC worked against sanctions, and the two organizations have developed warm ties. A Jerusalem Post investigation showed that J Street received donations from Muslim and Arab bodies, including those with connections to NIAC.

The character of the organizations and the timing of their “grassroots” pressure on Congress raise serious questions about J Street’s role as an arm of the White House. The timing of the petition is no coincidence. On November 24, the ultimatum set for the Iranians in the framework of the nuclear talks will expire. Along with other powers, the United States is working intensively to reach an agreement with Iran that would reduce the number of [but not eliminate] its active centrifuges.

Tamir Hayman analyzes the latest reports about an offer by Hamas to release three female soldiers in exchange for 150 captured terrorists, of whom 90 have received life sentences; then, if that exchange happens successfully, a second stage of the deal will begin.

If this does happen, Israel will release all the serious prisoners who had been sentenced to life and who are associated with Hamas, which will leave Israel without any bargaining chips for the second stage. In practice, Israel will release everyone who is important to Hamas without getting back all the hostages. In this situation, it’s evident that Israel will approach the second stage of the negotiations in the most unfavorable way possible. Hamas will achieve all its demands in the first stage, except for a commitment from Israel to end the war completely.

How does this relate to the fighting in Rafah? Hayman explains:

In the absence of an agreement or compromise by Hamas, it is detrimental for Israel to continue the static situation we were in. It is positive that new energy has entered the campaign. . . . The [capture of the] border of the Gaza Strip and the Rafah crossing are extremely important achievements, while the ongoing dismantling of the battalions is of secondary importance.

That being said, Hayman is critical of the approach to negotiations taken so far:

Gradual hostage trades don’t work. We must adopt a different concept of a single deal in which Israel offers a complete cessation of the war in exchange for all the hostages.