It's Official: Jewish Progressive Criticism of Israel Is Now a Movement
Let's declare what's afoot right now: it's a movement. Progressive Jews all over are denouncing the mainstream leadership's staunch support of the hateful occupation, and some of them are linking it to the U.S.'s bloody occupation of Iraq. In England, Independent Jewish Voices, a group of anti-occupation Jews (including Harold Pinter and Eric Hobsbawm) is breaking away from the mainstream organizations to show how bankrupt their lobbying position is. In Australia, Antony Loewenstein sees "dissent growing." His book My Israel Question, which I gather is even more off-the-hook than stuff I write, is to be published in the States this spring. And speaking of the States, Jewish Voice for Peace, an Oakland-based group with chapters nationwide, has lately launched a fabulous website, Muzzlewatch, dedicated to fighting the smears and threats that the lobby has always used against Jews who want to treat Palestinian Arabs with dignity. Meantime, the Union of Progressive Zionists, which brought Breaking the Silence to the U.S. last fall to describe real conditions in the West Bank to young Jews, is fighting to keep its membership on the Israel on Campus Coalition, and winning—a battle with the ZOA whose onset I reported on this blog two months back. Some Hillel groups have welcomed Breaking the Silence.
The one comment I'd add is that I give credit to progressive gentiles for helping to break open this discussion. Yes, Meretz-USA has been tireless. Norman Finkelstein has given hundreds of speeches. But Mearsheimer, Walt, and Jimmy Carter released this movement last year by embarrassing Jews with statements about the immorality of the treatment of Palestinians that were mainstreamed. They gave license to the media to write about this stuff, and have spurred progressive Jews to play their part and recover progressive voices going back to Hannah Arendt and Elmer Berger. 60 years before Walt and Mearsheimer, Rabbi Berger warned in The Jewish Dilemma about the Zionist "machine" and the ways it would transform Jewish identity and politics in the name of nationalism.
Hark! I hear the sound of the tumbrils, rumbling through the streets of northwest Washington, collecting neoconservatives.
Yes, I also have a sense that a dam has burst on these issues. (However, I sometimes tend towards excessive optimism.)
Still, these developments and the accompanying seeming crack-up among self-proclaimed pro-Israel organizations and partisans (like ADL, AJC and Peretz) are unprecedented in my experience.
The seeds of this began when extreme Israeli partisans formed alliances with fundamentalist Christians (who pray for Greater Israel so Israelis can then be converted or killed in fulfillment of Biblical prophecies in Revelations).
Now the ad-hominem attacks on honest and responsible critics like Judt, Walt, Mearsheimer, Carter, Kushner, etc. are so over-the-top and devoid of substantive argument that the evidence of a crack-up can't be ignored. It is a clear sign that these organizations and partisans are not sure of the validity of their positions (beyond their emotional attachment to them) on an intellectual or moral level.
Simone Weil once said that justice is a fugitive from the side of the conquerors so we must be willing to change sides with justice. A person's adherence to his or her principles of truth and justice (coupled with some humility about certainty) is a higher form of group loyalty (and humanity) than denying truth and injustice out of some sense of group loyalty.
The JVfP Muzzlewatch site is indeed quite good. But if there is a new movement afoot then Phil Weiss must be be given a lot of the credit for founding it. He's been a very lonely voice for quite a while now.
It would be interesting to hear from Phil on the mechanics of movement building. For example, is he in touch personally with many of the other players, or is it his blog articles that do most of his speaking? Has there been coordination, or has it been a spontaneous phenomenon?
I love your passion Philip! This is a good development.
On a more cautious note, I remember the academic boycott organized by some well meaning British Jews (Steven and Hilary Rose) back in 2002 and it backfired. Although it backfired in large part because some of the gentiles associated with it (Mona Baker) were very vulnerable to charges of anti-Semitism. Those charges of anti-Semitism were lead, in the academic realm at least, by the counter-boycott organization Engage.
Dave wrote "It would be interesting to hear from Phil on the mechanics of movement building."
I also think that strategy is key. But there is a wave of dissent right now. It may be that we are just entering into one of those critical periods in history where board assumptions and understandings reconfigure (in the spirit of applying the theory of punctuated equilibrium to history, which I think is roughly the case and its probably more precisely delineated somewhere that I haven't yet read.)
The key to having long-term impact is to copy the neoconservatives and construct an appealing long-term vision. This doesn't have to be done right away, but at some point a grand vision of an appealing future should be a component. One needs a new alternative for hope, not just a "push back" against the over use of the charges of anti-Semitism because that in itself will only be temporary.
I think a long-term vision must be more than just ending the occupation by withdrawing from the West Bank. More withdrawals by themselves are not a solution as the Gaza withdrawal demonstrates. Also, withdrawals from the West Bank are no longer controversial as even Dershowitz supports it in his book "The Case for Peace." I think that a binational solution may be a more optimal solution, or at least one worth serious exploration at multiple levels. For it to succeed one needs to get the Palestinians on board in creating a civil society in partnership with the Israelis -- something that George Soros could help with as he has done a lot of similar civil society advocacy in Europe. Also one needs to show to the Jewish community at large that the Palestinians, once removed from the zero-sum nature of the current conflict, are able to forgive (as the South African blacks did during the period of reconciliation) and not seek genocidal retribution (as many on the right fear would be the result of an attempt at a binational solution.) I think that by engaging critics of the binational solution one can move towards addressing their issues and thus lead to a richer and more attractive and robust proposal for a binational solution.
All of this activity is definitely getting to the mainstream, pro-Israel groups. They are getting nervous.
I have an update on one of Phil's promising items. He wrote:"Meantime, the Union of Progressive Zionists, which brought Breaking the Silence to the U.S. last fall to describe real conditions in the West Bank to young Jews, is fighting to keep its membership on the Israel on Campus Coalition, and winning
Harold Pinter, Antony Lowenstein, Jewish voice for peace. A more pathetic bunch of losers its hard to find. And it may interest everybody to know that the AJC isn't exactly seen has hardline. The fundamental difference is this. Guys like Phil Weiss want to see Israel destroyed. Call it offense. Guys like me want to see Israel exist. Call it defense. Always easier to conserve then destroy. I notice its never about the Palestinians here. Their society, what they do. Always the Jews. Very telling I think.
Alright! Let's see. Maybe there is hope indeed.
P.S. Bill, it is your recipe for Israel which will guarantee her downfall. Think long-term for a change. You seriously think Israel can continue these policies of confrontation and 'dynamic borders' and 'perpetual war' against the whole Arab world and survive among them in the long run? What are you smoking man?
All right Alan, Ben, Dave, and the rest of the crew. Lets say you realize your dream. Isreal is gone, the jews there are dead. And their is now another member of the Arab Bloc run by those Jeffersonian Democrats from Hamas. What would be achieved, is the world better. Would you feel like you've done something good. Tell me, I would really like to know the motivation here.
Jusr don't pretend like your a bunch of humanitarians, it doesn't pass the smell test.
Bill Pearlman wrote: "Lets say you realize your dream. Isreal is gone, the jews there are dead."
I'm coming from a human rights perspective thus that is not my "dream" in any way. As I said earlier, think that the current proposals for a binational solution are not fully developed and as I said in a long ago post, there needs to be obvious benefits to all sides for such a proposal to work.
As a brainstorming exercise a while ago, I made an attempt to suggest a reason for why it could be desirable to all: that it could lead to long-term regional stability. But I think that the full implications of a binational solution haven't been explored and thus there are large risk associated with it at this point. I am very aware of the fears many have associated with a binational solution, of which you are a good representative. Thus I did in my earlier post today talk about how to mitigate some of those concerns.
Also, as it should be obvious, for any binational proposals to work, it will have to be accepted by both the leadership of the United States and that of Israel. In order to pass such a review it will have to clearly be a good idea for all involved. Thus I think your concerns about ill intent are premature and out of place. If it is felt that the proposals have ill intent once they are fully developed, they would then have no hope of being enacted, thus the whole exercise would be moot anyhow.
I should also say that if I were Weiss, I would remove the last line of the blog post as it bares too much similarity in imagery to a pogrom. Such talk can give ammunition to critics.
Ben, your being disingenuous in the extreme, first, why should Israel, out of all the countries in the UN accede to this. Why not a binational state in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan. Second, if you were a Jew in Israel would you want to live at the mercy of the jihadists. I think we all know what would happen if the military balance ever reversed. Again, its a back door wipeout of Israel. Singled out from all the countries on the planet. What possible motivation can that have except classic anti-semitic thought.
Bill, I am very serious when I say that any proposal that clearly isn't in the interests of Israel or the United States will only every be a moot exercise.
There are semi-binational states. Canada has two official languages, English and French. Also Quebuc, the French region has its own legal system (based on the Napoleonic code rather than the rest of Canada which is based on the British system) and laws which give prefers to the French language in public spaces. Historically there were battles between the English and the French in Canada, but in the end they came together to create a single nation that is stronger than the separate pieces.
I understand clearly your concern about "what would happen if the military balance ever reversed." I think it is a very real risk, but I think there is a way of approaching the problem to remove that risk. Right now, both sides often take irredentialist positions or extreme ethnocentric, be it Hamas or Lieberman. I think that a lot of the problem is the zero-sum nature of the conflict, which makes these tendencies worse. The Israeli Arabs, who are much better off than the Palestinian Arabs, are not jihadists and do serve in the Israeli military and are productive members of society. I think that a quick change to a binational solution is a recipe for chaos. And I think that the jihadi resort to violence virus is also a long term problem, although I think that it has been significantly nutured in part by the zero-sum nature of the current Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
I think you are right that a rushed or poorly implemented binational solution could easily turn out to be a "back door wipeout of Israel." That is a very legitimate concern that must be adequately addressed if the proposal is ever to gain traction.
I think that this statement is ill informed but I can understand the sentiment: "Singled out from all the countries on the planet." The precedent is South Africa, which faced a 50 year coordinated international campaign. I've done my research in this area and I can say that it was a fact that white South Africans did feel unfairly discriminated against and that they felt the whole world was against them. They also felt that to relinquish control would result in a "white slaughter" as they termed it. The "white slaughter" never happened in part because of significant formal efforts towards reconciliation between the two peoples. The demographic situation in South Africa at the time was significantly more lopsided than they are in Israel.
The Palestinians do need a visionary and peace seeking leadership, and a lack of one will only further empower radicals on both sides. There are positive Palestinian voices, but they (instead of Hamas) need to gain the support of core of the Palestinian population. It may be that a moderate Palestinian leader seeking a true Jewish-Palestinian binational solution could succeed where Abbas (who seeks a two-state solution, which displeases many Palestinians) and Hamas (who seeks a radical Islamic one-state solution, which is simply unacceptable) have failed. It is true that we don't talk about Palestinians on this blog, but they are just as key to the solution as Michael Kinsley pointed out in his review of Jimmy Carter's recent book:
He's probably been assassinated, or is lost in an Israeli prison.
David wrote: "He's probably been assassinated, or is lost in an Israeli prison."
Mandela was imprisoned by the South African government for 30 years or so wasn't he? Mandela was, before he was imprisoned, an advocate of violent means. The anti-apartheid movement continued for decades and in many ways was responsible for making the situation ripe for a Mandela-like person. People are flexible and rise to occasions/opportunities, they are not as predestined as one often erroneously thinks. If there is an opportunity, even if it is an opportunity that is aided along by outside forces, a leader is likely to arise to take advantage.
Indeed we live in interesting times. The question is, will the good guys get their act together before WW3 starts?
Here is Robert Parry writing for Consortium News, Feb. 3,
'War on Iran: Stop Bush Before He Starts'
"Washington's drift on the Iraq resolution rolls on with almost no one pointing at the gathering speed of Bush's confrontation with Iran.
"Congress and the major U.S. news media appear to be taking Bush at his word that he is not planning to bomb Iran, although he has dispatched two aircraft carrier strike groups to the region, deployed Patriot anti-missile missile batteries, has British mine sweepers in place, and accuses Iranian agents of helping to kill American troops in Iraq.
"This wishful disbelief around Washington that a wider war is looming remains steadfast even as Israeli officials call Iran's nuclear program an "existential threat" and reportedly train their pilots for bombing runs against Iran's heavily fortified nuclear facilities.
"Yet, instead of front-page stories about the dangers of an expanded war in the Middle East or an examination of alternative strategies that might be tried, the major U.S. newspapers act as if nothing is happening."
-- Don't dally, boys, and keep those tumbrels rolling through the streets of Washington collecting neocons for the dock. (It's only a French revolution reference, Ben, unlikely to disturb Jewish sensibilities) Here's more of the Robert Parry piece, with some radical ideas that might turn the tide. (let's face it, it will take a miracle) --
"Though the Israeli government of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is expected to join in or at least support the attack on Iran, the war ultimately might damage Israeli interests by cutting off opportunities to defuse regional tensions.
"Some Middle East analysts believe Israel would be better served in the long term by tamping down the fiery rhetoric and working in more collaborative ways with the Muslim world, including returning land captured during the 1967 Arab-Israeli war.
"The United States also could reestablish its credentials as a peacemaker if it openly cooperated in such an endeavor.
"If, for instance, the United States redeployed its forces from Iraq, some could be sent to Israel, both to remain in the region if needed for a quick return to Iraq and to reassure Israelis about the American commitment to their security. U.S. troops also could assist in the peaceful withdrawal of settlers from the Golan Heights and West Bank.
"The image of U.S. troops assisting Israel remove settlers would be graphic evidence to the Muslim world that both Washington and Tel Aviv were serious about a commitment to a new era. The removal of the settlers could coincide with peace negotiations with Syria, the Palestinians and Lebanon.
"As unlikely as a Middle East peace initiative might be at this time, it should be an alternative that is part of a pre-war debate."
Ben - I'm not personally opposed to a bi-national solution that would work, I just can't see it working in this region, and your reasoning seems more like hoping than anything based in reality.
And you guys say the neo-conservatives are dreamers?
That being said, I'm not sure the other solutions are much better, but can you explain why Abbas and Peres are wrong and why a two-state solution with perhaps a shared Jerusalem would not have an equally good chance of success as a bi-national state?
Assume for arguments sake that the Israelis and Palestinians work out a land swap solution that satisfies both sides.
I think Ben is right about Phil's last comment. I'm sure if Bill Kristol used that comment to describe left wing Jews Phil would have a problem with it.
Ok, Brenda, the plan is to round up the neo-cons, ( or should I say the Jew zionist war mongers ) for eventual trial and execution. then American troops are sent to Israel to make the west bank, I believe it's called "jundenrein", At that point negotiations will commence because of course the Arabs having attained the strategic ground overlooking the coastal population areas will make peace because thats just the kind of happy go lucky guys they are. Oh and I forgot, Iran is going to have the bomb. Which will mean the Sunni's are going to want their bomb, not to mention Turkey. And everything is going to be just peachy and this won't affect us at all. It must be nice to live in your bizzarro world
It is a bizzarro world, but it's a comforting bizzarro world.
I know the neo cons in the Pentagon were wrong about WMDs. And maybe some of them lied.
But what if there were a possibility that the President of Iran is serious? What if there were at least a chance that he and his spiritual master in Qum sincerely want to wipe Israel off the map? These are hypothetical questions, not arguments one way or another...But if there were actually solid evidence that the Iranian President and the Revolutionary Guards and his other followers really were interested in annihilating Israel, would that bother any of you at all? Would you feel any moral obligation to try to stop it?
This is not an argument for any actions against Iran. It really isn't. Don't get all hopped and call me an advocate of World War III or bombing Iran. I am not. I am asking a question about what it going on inside of your heads? Would you want the U.S. to stand by and do nothing?
Hark! I hear the sound of the tumbrils, rumbling through the streets of Chelsea, collecting homosexuals.
Problematic?
I have no idea if Phil is gay or not, my point is to test Phil's words here.
What if? Please understand what the rules are here. When Phil and his cronies David and Alan and Brenda say they are for Free Speech and having frank conversations about foreign policy that does not include anything that is offensive to Muslims in any manner and which can be construed as possibly in the best interest of the Israeli people. David and Alan will be along shortly to tear you a new one. I'm just trying to help you clue in.
Norton wrote: "Ben - I'm not personally opposed to a bi-national solution that would work, I just can't see it working in this region, and your reasoning seems more like hoping than anything based in reality. And you guys say the neo-conservatives are dreamers?"
First, I think there are a couple different people with differing views. I'm just playing around with creating an attractive alternative, there are too many missing pieces to really advocate strongly for a binational solution at the moment. Going forward, there would have to be a lot of people thinking about it and its various details for it to work. Thus, yes it is just a dream, but I think that it wouldn't be as horrible as some make it out to be, it might even be a good thing.
Norton wrote: "That being said, I'm not sure the other solutions are much better, but can you explain why Abbas and Peres are wrong and why a two-state solution with perhaps a shared Jerusalem would not have an equally good chance of success as a bi-national state? Assume for arguments sake that the Israelis and Palestinians work out a land swap solution that satisfies both sides."
I was very much for a two-state solution up until watching the aftermath of the Gaza withdrawal, I even wrote a prominent and well-received (in my circle, probably not in yours) essay in support of "ending the occupation" via withdrawal from the territories. I am now concerned that a further withdrawal won't achieve much for either the Israelis or the Palestinians in terms of security or peace over and above what has been achieved via the wall. Withdrawal will mostly be a lot of news stories and a traumatic experience for Israel with regards to its settlers in the West Bank. I don't think a Palestinian state is viable, and it will degrade into what people call a "failed state." There are multiple reasons in my opinion for why it will turn out to be a "failed state." A "failed state" next door to Israel will remain a breeding ground for resentment and hate, no better than the current situation and Israel will likely retain defacto responsibility for the Palestinian territories. Thus I think a two-state solution can be achieved in a technical sense, it just won't made any difference on the pragmatic level for anyone involved. I am searching for a solution that actually works, that achieves a workable peace while still allowing all the peoples involved the freedom to live and aspire to their dreams, and I think that there might be a workable solution in some type of a binational solution.
What if?, there has been rhetoric on our side that easily matches the other, and unlike the other side, we've realized some of our rhetoric. In the 2003 State of the Union speech Bush named Iran as member of 'the axis of evil'. We took out Iraq but we left North Korea alone -- NK had the bomb, is there any wonder why Iran might also like to have this protection? Unlike US or Israel, Iran has not attacked another country in 250 years.
In the past few weeks and months, the rhetoric coming from Israeli press easily matches/surpasses Iran -- "If US doesn't attack, we'll have to do the job ourselves... " -- Unlike Iran, Israel does have the bomb, in fact has many. More than Britain. There was a much analysed report/leak from Israeli security service to British press very recently, "Israel has plans to nuke Iran".
I don't know if you read what I posted from the Robert Parry piece carefully, probably not or you wouldn't be asking me this question, but I like very much Parry's idea about US troops being redeployed from Iraq to Israel. And for the reasons that Parry mentioned -- to assure Israel's security, and to finally, after 40 years, facilitate/encourage/kick-ass Israeli gov't compliance with the agreements of the 'peace process'.
As far as the architects of the Iraq war goes -- yeah, I'd like to see every last one of them in the dock. That includes Cheney, Bush and Rumsfeld as well as the others. As far as I know left-wing Jewish progressives haven't contributed to this disaster, other than being overly concerned about the rhetoric of countries much weaker than Israel and in no position to do anything about it.
And you know what, what if?, people like me have a dog in this fight. I know that people like you worry about every 'existential threat' announced by the gov't of Israel. You know what I think about quite a bit? I think about all those American soldiers coming back from the ME without arms and legs. I think about all those American children half-orphaned by a war that should never have happened. All those young widows. All those untreated PTSD hellish lives to be lived. I really think all of us need to have the courage to make peace, even though it is a little scary. Think about the alternative.
It may be that I am wrong about Palestine ending up as a "failed state." But the character of the Palestinian state in a two-state solution would be outside of the control of Israel, thus it would be a risk that can't be properly mitigated, whereas in a binational situation, it would be a partnership and thus all risks would be directly addressible by appropriate social engineering (such as encouraging civic education in the spirit of George Soros and police action against radical troublemakers to prevent the rise of Islamists) by the state.
I view an independent state of Palestine as a prime candidate for its takeover by radical Islam.... what do you forsee?
Brenda, I know it agravates you that unlike the ever so sohisticated Europeans the American people are on Israel's side. Not because they intrinsically are better people who know who the good and bad guys are. but because they have been led astray by the Jewish cabal. But, I can't think of anything that reduce support faster that America troops interposed between Israel and Hamas/Hezbollah/ the Al Aksa brigade, islamic jihad, and the 80 other kill the Jews fraternal organizations. Israel has never asked for American troops, ( unlike the kuwati's, the gulf emirates, the kosovars, and has never physically intervened to save israeli's, has opposed to Moslems. The American people aren;t going to stand for American troops in the Golan and on the green and blue lines and do you know what, they shouldn't. Somehow Americans killed in wounded in Iraq are the victims of the Jewish conspiracy. But American soldiers killed and wounded in Ramallah are going to be ok. Back to the bizzarro world for you.
I should say that I am not sure what the future would hold for an independent Palestinian state. They are relatively well educated and while they elected Islamic-associated Hamas, Fatah was pretty corrupt since it was in power for so long. I really don't know what the future would hold.
I don't know what the key factors are that will determine whether a newly created Palestinian state descends into continued dysfunction and reliance on foreign aid or prospers as a proper member of the international community.
Brenda,
I asked a simple question.
Based on what you told me, you would feel no moral obligation to stop Israel from being annihilated... Who care about those poor Jews, they don't deserve to be there anyway...Have I got that straight? Moral obligations only come into the picture when it is Palestinianm or Iraqi or American or Sudanese lives at stake?
"Bill Pearlman" and "What if?", I am interested in your thoughts. What do you think the future would hold 1 year, 5 years and 25 years out for a independent Palestinian state assuming the successful negotiation of a two-state solution?
Bill, here is more of the Robert Parry piece, describing/imagining an alternative to WW3. I hesitated to post it earlier because it represents such a shock to the system of someone who can only imagine all-war-all-the-time ..... and in spite of everything, Dude, I don't want you keeling over from something I've posted.
The whole article is at
http://www.alternet.org/story/47564/?comments
"The removal of the settlers could coincide with peace negotiations with Syria, the Palestinians and Lebanon.
"Israel also could move to engage Iran with a positive commercial relationship, possibly including technological help in building Iranian oil refineries. Business ties would give Israel some positive leverage to discourage Iran from building a nuclear device or at least the chances would be better than just bombing.
"Israel also might initiate a conference on nuclear disarmament that would seek to make the Near East a nuclear-free zone with India, Pakistan and Israel phasing out their nuclear arsenals while securing international guarantees about Iran's nuclear program.
"Eventually, other smaller nuclear powers, such as the United Kingdom and France, might relinquish their nuclear bombs, and the major nuclear powers -- the United States, Russia and China -- might agree to reduce their stockpiles.
"As unlikely as a Middle East peace initiative might be at this time, it should be an alternative that is part of a pre-war debate."
Another sighting that rare bird called "Judeo-Christian" values--
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1170359780973&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
"The Canadian government is establishing an "Israel Allies Caucus" this week meant to mobilize support for the State of Israel and promote Judeo-Christian values amid a groundswell of Christian support for Israel around the world."