Dan Fleshler responded to my critique of J Street, and began by pointing out a factual error:
There are about a dozen premises worth discussing here, but I do want to point out that the basis of Phil’s complaint is false (or mostly false). On the J Street web site, there is an OBVIOUS endorsement of dividing Jerusalem as that is part of the Clinton parameters. There is CLEARLY a commitment to a solution that entails evacuating settlements (not nearly enough settlements, I agree). No one familiar with the terminology of this conflict would think otherwise. I don’t know why they didn’t say more about the solution for Jerusalem in that section, and perhaps they should have. But here is what they say in the section on the two state solution:
“In 2000, President Clinton outlined parameters for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict…It is a formulation that has broad support among Israelis and Palestinians, including their current leaders.
“The outlines of an agreement are by now well-known and widely accepted: Borders based on the 1967 lines with agreed reciprocal land swaps allowing Israeli incorporation of a majority of settlers as well as Palestinian viability and contiguity; a division of Jerusalem that is based on demographic realities, establishes the capitals of the two states, and allows freedom of access to all holy sites; robust security arrangements; and resolution of the refugee issue that focuses on resettlement in the new state of Palestine, financial compensation and assistance.”
I know that much of this formulation disturbs some people here. There is understandable resistance to the idea of a solution that incorporates most of the settlers into Israel proper (the vast majority live on the outskirts of Jerusalem and a few other blocs on the western edge of the Green Line), even though that idea has been accepted by Palestinian negotiators who live in the real world, as opposed to the parallel universe of this blog.
And I am sure everyone here knows more about how to end the occupation and suffering of the Palestinian people than the PA leaders who begrudgingly accepted this premise because their people must be rescued from a daily emergency and not wait for perfect solutions.
But Clinton’s plan, in turn, will mean the removal of an untold number of settlers (100,000?). Is that sufficient? Not to me. Is that just? No. Is it possible that doing so would help to end the occupation? Maybe. Are there better ideas out there? NO. Should the entire conflict be settled in the pristine universe of the blogosphere, as opposed to a land where political realities have defied dozens and dozens of peace plans since the Peel Commmission? No.
My response to Dan is: It’s clear I didn’t do enough homework on the J Street site. I should have seen that direct statement about Jerusalem (excuse: it was not filed under their Jerusalem heading).
More generally, the problem is, We hear all this fanfare about an alternative lobby. You tell me last year, We need a lobby for the rest of us! Then the lobby emerges and it refuses to criticize AIPAC and none of its statements is morally strenuous (as so many of yours are and always have been) and the urgency re Jerusalem and the settlement is modulated–even Sarkozy and Gordon Brown have been more emphatic–and when Obama says at AIPAC that Jerusalem must remain undivided, J Street doesn’t boom out, This is wrong, Jews will support you if you call for a division of Jerusalem! The problem I believe is constituency. J Street knows its following are very wary on these issues; they’re Jewish. Dan you make fun of my community as a parallel universe. But working within the system, in which Jews are the only real constituency at the table, and people must be familiar with “the terminology of the process,” has produced an empty peace process for 15 years, especially in times when AIPAC was working to preserve the settlement process. Isn’t it time to reach out to a broader audience in a big way? Israel Policy Forum and J Street have included non-Jewish board members. If it actually cultivated that community, J Street’s statements could be much stronger. If you have a response, I’ll put it right here:
Related posts:
{ 11 comments }
This is nonsense.
Implying an acceptance of the Clinton parameters without specifically spelling out your position on Jerusalem is anything but "OBVIOUS". On the contrary, it is cowardly hypocrisy aimed at using fuzzy terms and concepts to avoid actually ever taking a good stance.
But more importantly, the problem with Dan's defense of J-Street is the dishonesty with which he excuses the racist and pro-occupation stances of J-Street (on settlements, Jerusalem and sovereignty) based on the fact that these are solutions that can work in the real world, and are acceptable to the Palestinian leadership.
The problem with this argument, of course, is its self-serving circularity. The reason that (SOME, certainly not all) the Palestinian leadership supports this position is because this leadership is hand-picked by the American government to agree to these terrible, racist and oppressive arrangements. Those who don't are killed or subdued with CIA money in the hands of those who do. And the reason that the American government continues to push these racist arrangements as a solution is simply down to AIPAC and the rest of the domestic forces in America who continue to live in the fantasy world where Palestinian lives are expendable for the sake of an anachronistic and racist Zionist project. Here, one would expect J-Street to challenge this racist and oppressive status quo by challenging the line of AIPAC, CUFI and the rest of the garbage that shape current US policy in the region. If they could mobilize a movement rallying around the notion of Palestinian humanity, instead of around the AIPAC racist line, then they could possibly make a difference.
But they're obviously not interested in any crazy notions of Palestinian humanity. Instead, we get Dan Fleshler coming here to virtually argue for the position of AIPAC, with a few pathetic bells and whistles, under a false pretense of pragmatism, and therefore, with typical Zionist dishonesty, he sells us the status quo as a "pro-peace” position. This isn’t pragmatism, this is cowardice and wholesale acceptance of the racist agenda of AIPAC, CUFI, the ADL and their like.
I was slightly optimistic about J-Street when it started, and even used to defend it in front of skeptics. Now I am entirely convinced that this is nothing but a pathetic attempt to play "good cop, bad cop" and pretend that not all the American pro-Israel nuts are just rabid murderous racists, and that some are less rabid, less murderous and slightly less racist.
The idea, of course, is that instead of talking about limiting the influence of pro-Israel groups like AIPAC, CUFI and their likes, we can now count on some of these same pro-Israel groups themselves to do this, coz, Hey! Dan and J-Street are here to fight for peace!
This charade no longer holds. Only someone dumb enough to believe Israeli Foreign Ministry propaganda could possibly believe this nonsense.
But, in FACT, a large portion what a lobbying organization does is behind the scenes.
It doesn't really matter if you or Phil think that their position is sufficient to make a change in the ranges of conditions and actions on the part of the American Congress.
The test is of the effect. If as a result of their stating that a pro-peace position is pro-Israel (and accepting of Palestinian humanity simultaneiously), they will have affected a change in the actual math.
The ice will have turned to water, just by an increase of 1 degree.
Its too damn easy to play tweedle-dee – tweedle-dum. ("They are all the same".)
By taking an habitual antagonistic line "Zionism is racism" for example, you exclude yourself from actual influence.
Rather than trying to change red ice to red water, your effort seems to me to attempt to change red into green.
It all depends on what is, is?
Leave it to J Street to say the answer to the never ending I-P conflict is to go back to the failed Clinton model, which was basically to stack the “US” negotiating team with a bunch of Jewish Zionists posing as an objective third party, and then later throw up their hands and walk away, declaring that the Palestinians were irrational and intransigent, when all they were was understandably (considering the history and the makeup of the US negotiating team) skeptical and suspicious.
This is a microcosm of how the plutocratic, US two-party scam works, where when one side in the duopoly inevitably fails miserably to represent average Americans, it tags off to the other, declaring a successful “change” for the American people, when in reality the only change is back and fourth between the two swindlers who comprise the team.
J Street is merely positioning itself ahead of the pending "liberal" US "shift" to play tag team with AIPAC, hence creating the illusion of change by changing the packaging, but not the underlying content: Jewish Zionist compulsive control freaks who want to rig the outcome of any American “change” vis-à-vis the I-P conflict to their advantage.
Fleshler is understandably defensive towards his left-liberal critics because he knows that they know that he is, underneath it all, just another Jewish Zionist who can't really be trusted. And look at whom Obama is surrounding himself with on this issue and others already: more Jewish Zionists.
"Change America can believe in." Yeah, right.
.
It appears to me that the JStreet page pertaining to Jerusalem has been changed.
A couple of months ago, I quoted that page as calling for an "undivided Jerusalem." I believe there was even some debate here about what "undivided" might mean.
Now, JStreet's Jerusalem page no longer uses the word "undivided":
http://jstreet.org/page/jerusalem
Unfortunately, the old version of the page isn't available at archive.org yet, so I can't prove my contention. But if I'm correct, Dan Fleshler is being disingenuous by not revealing that JStreet has modified its stance on Jerusalem. I believe he's jerking Phil's chain. Don't mess with the big dog, Dan.
"The reason that (SOME, certainly not all) the Palestinian leadership supports this position is because this leadership is hand-picked by the American government to agree to these terrible, racist and oppressive arrangements."
Accepting something along these lines is absolutely part of understanding what is going on here.
"But Clinton's plan, in turn, will mean the removal of an untold number of settlers (100,000?). Is that sufficient? Not to me. Is that just? No. Is it possible that doing so would help to end the occupation? Maybe. Are there better ideas out there? NO. "
There are much better ideas out there, like removing ALL the settlers, including all the ones in and around East Jerusalem. Only Jewish chauvinism and its enablers are keeping them there. And those people who say, we must be pragmatic and accommodate Jewish chauvinism, like AIPAC, like J Street, are the main part of the problem in US politics. The pragmatism they want constitutes the hatred of Arabs.
During his offer-counteroffer back and fourth negotiations, Clinton vetted his every personal response to Arafat with his Jewish-American negotiating team before he took it to Arafat.
Looks like Obama will be doing the same–so much for even-handed treatment by the American lead.
Saif wrote, and others concurred, with the following:
"The reason that (SOME, certainly not all) the Palestinian leadership supports this position is because this leadership is hand-picked by the American government to agree to these terrible, racist and oppressive arrangements. Those who don't are killed or subdued with CIA money in the hands of those who do."
Which Palestinian leaders are you talking about? Seriously, I am completely baffled by this statement and would like to be educated. I take it you are referring to the leaders from Tunis like Abu Mazen who fought side by side with Arafat for many years, and now are representing the Palestinians in negotiations? Were they hand-picked by the Americans? Sure, the Clinton and Bush administrations supported them, but why does that make them traitors to your people? Weren't they elected by the Palestinian people? Were all the people who voted fools and dupes of the Zionists? How about Sari Nusseibah, who came up with a plan with Ami Ayalon that also calls for the sorts of compromise on the settlers envisioned in the Clinton parameters? Is he a traitor who has accepted "racist" propositions because the Americans picked him? And all of those Palestinians who put together the Geneva Initiative? Are they stooges of the CIA?
Why can't you just assert that you disagree with them instead of acting like the whole region is some kind of John LaCarre novel…?
Dear Teddy,
Please check this out: http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/04/gaza200804
This is the most clear-cut case of what the US and the Israelis did with the will of the Palestinian people.
But of course, this is not all. Since the 1990's it was made abundantly clear to the elected leadership of the Palestinians that they must not upset the Israelis too much and must not demand too much in the negotiations. And they were given money and guns to suppress dissent.
In a nutshell, since then, in some periods, the leadership would do what the Israelis and Americans want, and then would have to resort to suppressing the people. In other periods, the leadership would find it impossible to continue going along with the US's terrible plans, and the US and Israel would react with closures, murder, more settlements and increased hardship on the people.
This all came to a head in 2006, when people were so sick of the situation that they elected Hamas, who until then had been completely opposed to the whole sham of the peace process. And since then, America's disgusting role has gone public.
But don't worry, Dan Fleshler is here to save the world.
Saif,
I think it was made abundantly clear to the Palestinian Authority that if Hamas continued to slaughter Israelis in buses and supermarkets, especially in 1996, the negotiations would not get anywhere. That was the goal of Hamas, as I'm sure you know. They wanted to disrupt any possibility of success in the Oslo talks as part of their power struggle with Arafat. They succeeded. Peres lost the elections and Bibi won. I assume you see no difference between Peres and Bibi though, so that makes no difference to you.
But what so many critics of Oslo fail to remember or understand was that it was a gigantic experiment, a process that some hoped would engender trust between the parties, trust that they could work together and live side by side and, on that basis, negotiate. There had been no trust of any kind before between the PLO and the Israeli government. Both parties blew it, big time, with settlement expansion by the Israelis and largely unrestrained terrorism –and incitement– by the Palestinians. If there had been many less provocations by BOTH sides, the negotiations could have gone differently. You don't know what the final settlement might have looked like and neither do I.
But your version of those events bears no resemblance to mine. So there's probably no point in going on with this. We will have to agree to hopelessly disagree
hmmm? New term, Parallel Universe. Is that Dan's equivalent to stormtroopers?
*******************************************
Magnes Zionist: Acts of Injustice and the Three Weeks.
1. Akiva Eldar reported a few days ago in Haaretz about a Palestinian family named Khurd that is being evicted from its home in East Jerusalem. It seems that the building belonged to Jews before 1948, and when Israel took control of the area, the Jewish owners (or their agents) sued to have that ownership recognized. The court ruled in the Jewish owners' favor, but allowed the Palestinian residents to stay, provided they pay rent. They are now in default on their payments, and they will be evicted. (All this, according to the article in Haaretz. )
What gives the story its special poignancy is that the Palestinian family lived in West Jerusalem until 1948 and they owned property there. They are now being evicted from their homes to make way for Jews, but they cannot get restitution for their own property, which they left during the 1948 fighting. Some estimates say that the Palestinians owned as much as 62% of property in West Jerusalem. Even if that is an exaggeration, Palestinian ownership was considerable.
Now, I ask you – why is a Jew allowed to reclaim Jewish property in East Jerusalem whereas a Palestinian, who lived, perhaps, two blocks away from that Jew, is not allowed to reclaim Palestinian property in West Jerusalem? If you argue that it is not the right time for Palestinians to make claims for property abandoned sixty years ago, then wouldn't it be right to postpone Jewish claims until the same right time?
But that's not the way Israel works. Because we have the power.
********************************************
Comments on this entry are closed.