In Part 1 of this essay, I addressed Rabbi Ira Youdovin’s characterization of Jewish Voice for Peace as “beyond the pale” because we supported the views of former President Jimmy Carter. Now, I’d like to address his other basis for drawing his arbitrary line between JVP and the Jewish community, divestment.
Simply by saying that “JVP supports divestment,” Youdovin misrepresents JVP’s position. Our stance is explained at length here, but in sum, JVP makes two points about divestment. One, that we support selective and targeted divestment that is aimed exclusively at the occupation, not at Israel itself. Two, that other groups who do support boycotts, divestment from Israel or even sanctions against Israel are not, by virtue of that fact alone, acting either out of anti-Semitism or in an anti-Semitic fashion. Of course, it is possible that such actions can be motivated by anti-Semitic malice, but the holding of those stances is not evidence of it by itself.
JVP is in fact quite scrupulous about ensuring that we target only the occupation with economic actions. These include, incidentally, other means such as purchasing and distributing Palestinian olive oil to help Palestinian farmers, as well as efforts to support Israeli peace groups such as Yesh GVul and New Profile.
But Youdovin’s characterization of JVP as “beyond the pale” because of our stance on selective and targeted divestment has implications beyond the misleading statement he made.
One of the major differences between JVP and at least some other Jewish peace groups is that JVP advocates action. We recognize that the Palestinians are under serious pressure to compromise for peace. Similar pressure is not being felt, however, in Tel Aviv. The result of this imbalance has been forty years of occupation and instability.
The lack of pressure to end the occupation is largely the result of the efforts of the United States. These days, the Arab boycott of Israel has lost most of its potency and is barely enforced in most Arab countries (Syria and a few others are holdouts). Even in its heyday, Israeli exports through a third party were very common. The European Union watches mute as products from the settlements flood into Europe, despite attempts to get the EU to enforce their own regulations against such imports. Terrorist attacks on Israeli civilians do not pressure Israel into withdrawing–quite the opposite, they create political pressure for Israeli leaders to adopt a harder line (the most obvious example of this is the 1996 elections between Netanyahu and Peres and the massive swing to the right in the Israeli vote in response to a string of Hamas attacks).
No country simply makes concessions because someone says “please.” Real political pressure must be brought. Leaders make decisions based on their perceived interests and what they think are the potential consequences of each choice. If there are no pressures for a withdrawal, the status quo will prevail, as has been the case.
Of course, advocating for applying that pressure means that we will be accused of wishing to harm Israel. Yet those accusing us of wishing Israel harm are in fact defending a status quo and a way of doing things that clearly has not worked for 40 years. They are defending systems and strategies that have done nothing to make Israel or Israelis safer or more secure but have caused massive suffering among the Palestinians and increased tension and risk for both sides.
This does not for a moment suggest that the Palestinians do not have their own responsibilities in this regard nor that the Palestinians do not also have to answer for things that have been done to Israelis and for their part in perpetuating the conflict. But, as stated at the outset, there is pressure on the Palestinians. That pressure is brought not only by Israel, but by the US, the international community and even other Arab states, all of whom have, at various times, exerted real pressure, political or economic, on the Palestinians.
That pressure led to PLO recognition of Israel and their agreement to pursue a two-state solution which would give the Palestinians only 22% of what had been Palestine under the British Mandate. Even now, we see that even as ideologically motivated a party as Hamas has offered a 100-year truce, has agreed in principle to limit its activities to the “1967 territories” and has explored various mechanisms of de facto recognition of Israel. That doesn’t come because that’s what Hamas wants to do, it is the result of political pressure, both internal and external.
Pressure on Israel has been absent, while Israeli politicians each try to outdo the other in their preaching of fear to the Israeli and world Jewish public. Attacks on Israelis sure help in this regard, one among many reasons why such acts are futile as well being immoral and illegal. Israeli leaders have seen clearly the political risks they take by withdrawing from any territory. Ehud Barak faced an extreme assault on his coalition after leaving Lebanon, and Ariel Sharon, hardly a “man of peace,” had to break with his own party to remove the settlers and military outposts from Gaza.
Withdrawing from the West Bank will be much more difficult for an Israeli leader than either of those. It is simply inconceivable that any Israeli leadership will pull off the kind of withdrawal that will be required without outside pressure. It is true, of course, that ending the occupation is a risk for Israel. And politicians don’t take risks unless there is a compelling reason to do so. This is a risk Israel must take if there is ever to be a day where Israelis and Palestinians can move forward outside the shadow of conflict.
The pressure to take that risk is not going to come from petitions or grandiose political statements. At some point, someone has to create that pressure in the real world. And because Israel’s situation is fraught with many potential problems, it is important that the pressure brought be specifically targeted at the occupation. That is precisely why Jews must take the lead in pushing for an end to that occupation, just as far too many American Jews have taken the lead in perpetuating the conflict and proliferating the settlements.
To quote the late former head of Israeli Military Intelligence, Yehoshafat Harkabi: “Given that Israel’s predicament also affects Jews in the Diaspora, they too should take an active part in the debate… They must also dare to speak their minds candidly, without being afraid to disagree with Israel. The reticence of the American Jewish leadership is not to their credit. Instead of publicly expressing their concern, they act as apologists for policies and conduct of which many of them privately disapprove, abdicating their responsibilities as leaders in America and as influential advisers in Israel.”
The so-called American Jewish leadership has abandoned what Harkabi called “reticence.” Their “support” of Israel has bred a warmongering intransigence that seeks not to end the conflict, but only to ensure that Israel doesn’t suffer the worst of it. That so-called “leadership” has pressed for the increasing militarization of Israel and at least part of it has supported, either tacitly or actively, the expansion of settlements. This is all despite, not in accordance with, the wishes of most American Jews.
Of course, most American Jews do not support significant, practical pressure on Israel either. Yet.
In my view, this is precisely why our opponents have struggled so hard to portray our stance as an attack on Israel, as an attempt to undermine the economy of the entire country. If more Jews realized that we are actually targeting the occupation and only the occupation, I believe many more would support us and, over time, that would spread. Most Jews realize that the Israeli government is a government like any other, and that political pressure is required for it to make the sort of compromises everyone knows will have to be made for this conflict to end. Most Jews believe that there should be pressure on both Israelis and Palestinians to make peace. Contrary to what our opponents would like to portray, JVP advocates nothing more or less than that.
So, I would ask Rabbi Youdovin: If we are pushing for an end to the conflict, one which both Israelis and Palestinians can live with, while you resist pressure on Israel but support pressure on the Palestinians, which of us is really working for Israel’s best interests? And which of us is really “beyond the pale?”
You wrote:
“One, that we support selective and targeted divestment that is aimed exclusively at the occupation, not at Israel itself. Two, that other groups who do support boycotts, divestment from Israel or even sanctions against Israel are not, by virtue of that fact alone, acting either out of anti-Semitism or in an anti-Semitic fashion”
Me say:
In either event, the general public often interprets accusations against the nation of Israel as accusations against Jews. Particularly so when these claims often involve clandestine (and improper) control over medias and governments. Even if a particular group were to be more precise in its ‘boycotting’, the net-effect would be to add to the total clamor of anti-Jewry. Does this reality necessarily mean that one needs to avoid all criticism of the policies of the government of Israel? No. I have at times been critical of their specific policies myself. Even though a certain unavoidable trade-off exists, it would not be fair to blanket immunize the Israelis, because of the tendency for people who DO harbor hate for Jews (including some other Jews) to find comfort in their condemnation. What I do say is that due to the particular unique nature of the parties involved, i.e., that people typically have a hard time separating the Nation of Israel from Jews (at large) one must take extra steps to avoid either factual (or warped-perspective) libeling of Israel. Those, like Mr. Carter, who repeatedly go over the factual edge in their condemnations, do so at the result of bringing a world of hate down on Jews and non-Jewish Hebrews. Those who (also like Mr. Carter) maintain no functional perspective, namely, an obsessive focus on the admittedly brutal actions of Israel (while trying to defend itself), while ignoring many other, far more deadly and often genocidal conflicts, or, rationalize the blame for those on Israel as well (such as Ahmadinejad, Chavez and crew), are fairly to be characterized as Anti-Jews.
If the Vatican were (for example) engaged in an ongoing conflict involving the repression of a violent ethnic minority revolt in Vatican City, the world would undoubtedly see these issues as being:
a) The Italians (world-wide) beating up on the minority
b) The Catholics (world-wide) beating up on the minority
c) The Christians (world-wide) beating up on the minority
The primary difference would be that with over 1-billion Christians in the world, they would not be as easily viewed as a ‘puppet-masters’ over world governments and besides, with that many Christians, soccer-style fights might develop, involving those who would just as soon wipe-out this hypothetical minority group, and never mind the details.
You wrote:
“That pressure led to PLO recognition of Israel and their agreement to pursue a two-state solution which would give the Palestinians only 22% of what had been Palestine under the British Mandate. “
Me say:
This claim is blatantly misleading. It is exactly this type of misinformation that I refer to at the top of my post. While technically (probably) true, is nonetheless missing a vital key to the fair understanding of the history. The British mandate was 45,000 Sq. miles. 37,000 of those sq. miles was given up to the royal monarchy of Jordan. All the persons who lived within those 37,000 sq. miles were (at that time) technically “Palestinians”, including the Jews. Those Jews so mentioned were ultimately denied Jordanian citizenship, based solely on their religion. The world maintains this (mainly fabricated) idea of a “Palestinian” (Arab) culture and/or separate ethnic identity, merely as a sword by which to battle the Hebrews.
The relatively small population of Arabs, who have lived in and around the Jewish neighborhoods (now Israel) for a long period of time (more then 100 years) were a slightly separate culture. They were:
Rich (by the local standards)
Better educated
Mainly Secular
Happy enough to be the “shabis goys”. It did NOT bother them one bit. It was in fact their tickets out of abject poverty and hyper infant mortality rates.
The offspring of these people still exist. They are no longer separately identifiable from the far larger groups, who moved in specifically to block Jewish settlement during the 1st half of the 20th century, AFTER international treaties and law supported same.
I repeat. The Israelis [read: Jews] are the functional equivalent of the “canaries in the coal mine.” It has been this way since time immemorial. Before the world can prove that it is ready for a giant war, it first has to prove that it is willing to sacrifice its Jews, after which, no injustice or indecency seems either improbable or out-of-the-ordinary.
It would certainly help if more American Jews, the majority of whom I believe are significantly to the left of the Likud regime in Israel, would speak out and loudly against Israeli policies with which they disagree and make the point to their representatives in Congress that Likud does not speak for all Jews. Likewise, American Christians need to make it clear that the Christian-Zionists do not speak for all Christians.
John:
Let me put it this way:
After 6+ years of Bush II, I think most people in the USA are ready for a Democratic President. However, the Democratic candidates tend to overplay their hands and the result has been a Republican White House all but 3 times since Johnson left office. The same dynamic is true regarding the Israeli government and people’s perspectives. I have heard people on this blog characterize Mr. Barak as some sort of hardliner, somehow indistinguishable from the far-right Likud. When people hear these comments, it only creates a state of intransigence and confusion and a loss of credibility for groups like this. It is almost always the independents [read: eclectics or moderates] who decide the outcome of elections in the USA. I personally think this blog’s positions are excessive and more importantly, not generally attractive to most Americans. This is why a phantasm of “Zionist” manipulation had to be contrived, to explain why the average (non-Jewish) American supports Israel.
I don’t support everything the Israelis do.
I agree with Kamal Nawash that there is no military solution to the conflict.
I have proffered other solutions, including an intellectual solution and a spiritual solution. The Muslims I converse with generally listen. You fellows call my historical references frauds and some disqualify them as works of Jewish bias. So much for any intellectual solution.
As for the spiritual solution, here the Jews would be least likely to pay any attention. Following right behind them are avowed leftists, many of whom would rather the “Zionists” DO take over this world, then have to involve themselves with anything as objectionable as a group spiritual dynamic.
I therefore suggest you convince your friends in the Arab leadership of the following:
“Make money, not war” and definitely not a new set of history books. Then, 99% of the problems would disappear. This has consistently been their option, since the horse-and-wagon was replaced by the oil-burning car.
To solve the problem, one must identify the problem and you guys have not identified the problem.
The Israelis DO NOT control the U.S. Government.
The U.S. Government controls the Israelis and always has since Pat Buchanan was Nixon’s adviser. The U.S. voters control the U.S. government. You want to convince them? Begin with a reasonable platform.
Have a nice evening.
May the Troll be with you.
):>>>={
‘The fourth way’
This is a superb essay, Mitchell. I found these two passages particularly telling,
Terrorist attacks on Israeli civilians do not pressure Israel into withdrawing–quite the opposite, they create political pressure for Israeli leaders to adopt a harder line…
and
They are defending systems and strategies that have done nothing to make Israel or Israelis safer or more secure but have caused massive suffering among the Palestinians and increased tension and risk for both sides
I recall a column by Uri Avnery in which he discussed spurious charges of anti-Semitism against critics of the neoconservatives, and he made the statement that Arik Sharon must be the real anti-Semite because his policies have gotten more Jews killed than were killed during the terms of all his predecessors combined.
I support targeted divestment.
We Americans must also find a way to bring more pressure to bear on our own leadership. I was very disappointed that the Democratic leadership disavowed President Carter’s positions in less than a heartbeat. The views of what I believe are the majority of American Jews have clearly not gotten through to them at this point.
I agree with Mitchell’s argument, but I need some more information and I have a comment.
Mitchell says “products from settlements flood into Europe.” My questions are: (1) what goods are produced in the settlements, and (2) what fraction of Israeli exports are from the settlements. My guesses are that the goods are agricultural, and they don’t make up a few percent of Israeli exports.
Mitchel says that the present military Israeli policy that has been in effect for 40 years is a failure. That is true if the policy is designed to being Israeli citizens peace and security. But Jeff Halper argues ( http://tikkun.org/magazine/tik0611/frontpage/responsibility1106) that the Israeli policy is not that. Rather Halper argues that the Israeli policy has been to “manage” the military situation with the goal of controlling the land. If that is the goal then the policy is working.
the policy is working.
True. And as long as we keep renewing our long-term commitments to provide them military aid, you’d have to say that whatever they are doing seems to be working.
http://rawstory.com/news/afp/US_Israel_begin_talks_on_new_10_yea_03012007.html
BTW, if your annual income is $100K or less, 100% of your federal taxes is paid to contractors, most of whom are defense contractors.
John:
You wrote:
“BTW, if your annual income is $100K or less, 100% of your federal taxes is paid to contractors, most of whom are defense contractors.”
That is NOT true, its just a fancy way of looking at the admttedly depressing numbers. Everyone pays a percentage of their taxes to the military machine. You guys never stop with the spin-meistering. You disrespect the authority of your own core arguments by over-kill. Its like a ‘spin-addiction’.
):>>>={
Mr. Trollstein.
That is NOT true, it’s just a fancy way of looking at the admttedly depressing numbers
Who knows where any given dollar goes? But the truth is that it takes all the taxes paid by about 90% of us to cover what’s owed to federal contractors (“the military-industrial complex”).
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17133.htm
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/03/spyagency200703?printable=true¤tPage=all
The truth is that we are a vastly over-militarized society. The sadder truth is that we are actually dependent on “military Keynesianism” to keep our economy afloat. And the saddest truth is that this is eroding our constitutional form of government as well as bankrupting us.
John:
If our problem is that we devote too much vital resources towards being a super power, then the most sensible LONG TERM strategy would be to scale this down, perhaps, (incrementally), dramatically.
The LEAST sensible strategy (in my opinion) is to have the biggest and baddest military and yet run scared. That is a sure ticket to disaster because any (perhaps every) tin-pan dictator will find some reason (real or make-believe) to become our enemy, just to leap-frog into the position of world’s baddest despot.
This was another major weakness of President Carter. And a significant contributing factor to the 18% interest rates he had while in office.
The explanation goes thusly:
Going back to the days of Lawrence of Arabia, you will note that oil has been traded in U.S. Dollars. This was part of the arrangement whereby the Arab nations had our (U.S.) support to win their independence. G.W. Bush’s grandfather, Sen. Prescott Bush was involved in this chorography.
As long as oil is traded in U.S. Dollars, the U.S. economy can seemingly survive any possible hardship (or more often, malfeasance).
Soon after Saddam Hussein (may his filthy soul rot in hell) discontinued U.S. dollars in favor of Euros, U.S. troops were on the ground in Baghdad.
We could stand him being a Nazi holdover after ww2. Noooo problem monn.
We could stand him being the Soviet’s big stick in the Mid East during the height of the Cold War.
We could stand him moving on Kuwait and he remained in power.
We could stand him shooting scuds into Israel.
The problem the U.S. faces is that if oil stops being traded in U.S. dollars, our economy may collapse. We are therefore somewhat dependant on being a superpower, just to be able to afford to be a super-power. It’s a much larger problem then just taking a vow of pacifism. We are the cops.
Is this what you mean by:
““military Keynesianism”??
):>>>={
Military Keynesianism is the attempt by the government to create economic growth through massive military spending.
Ah. . .
Well, everyone knows that occurs. Its not even a subject of denial by the ‘right-wing’. Like ‘trickle-down’ economics, they seriously believe that taking a dollar away from a minimum wage earner and giving it to a defense contractor is somehow an efficient method to fertilize the economy. Even L.B. Johnson (Mr. Civil rights) believed it. I’m not sure how Carter felt (when president), although, I do not recall him ever arguing against this widely accepted concept. He was, after all, a tri-latteralist.
Isidor, you said that: In either event, the general public often interprets accusations against the nation of Israel as accusations against Jews. Particularly so when these claims often involve clandestine (and improper) control over medias and governments. Even if a particular group were to be more precise in its ‘boycotting’, the net-effect would be to add to the total clamor of anti-Jewry.
I wonder if it’s not the Jewish people in the U.S. who link their own identity and Jewish pride with the ups and downs of Israel.
I also think that while speaking out is certainly important, unless you act on your beliefs you are less than fully committed to those beliefs.
Leah:
racism takes many forms. The Jewish “identity” is hard to define in terms of race because Jews come in all colors, from blond to black. Nonetheless, its not hard to identify most Jews by sight, speech and/or mannerisms. Most Jews (in the USA) are either of Israeli or East European heritage. They can not go unnoticed as Jews.
When people hate Blacks or Spanish or Polish, the conception among the haters is that these people are somehow inferior. They rationalize their hate in the same way that the Native Americans were considered ‘sub-human’ and therefore, subject to any injustice.
People who dislike Jews generally do not consider us racially inferior (this is sometimes the case, as in WW2). They consider us evil. Accordingly, when people hear about boycotting Israel, they have a hard time mentally separating this concept with boycotting all Jews, in every venue. Because in their mind, it is the same evil which drives Israel and every other Jew.
I have seen toooooooooo much.
I am in a business which used to be largely Jewish owned and run. in 2007, the Jewish control a minority segment and only that segment of the business has endemic problems. My only customers are themselves other Jews, as are the only customers of the other Jewish vendors.
We have either been sued, screwed, defrauded, dumped, obsolete, or any number of other circumstances, all ending up the same, namely, loosing money.
Looking outside my marketplace, the same situation is easily identified. Even in markets that have grown considerably, such as security and insurance, my Jewish compatriots are either out of business or well on their way. Its not even remotely close to being potentially coincidental.
Its 10x more blatant then global warming.