When I was in Gaza, an Arab-American in one of our delegations told me that the Jewish identity piece of the puzzle was a "sideshow." I agreed with him at the time. The scale of the suffering and destruction, perpetrated with American tax dollars, is so monstrous that Jewish handwringing over what my brother's best friend who made aliyah is going to tell me at Passover seems so much indulgent distraction from the central political issue: end support for militant expansionist policies.
Then I heard Obama in Cairo — a speech aimed in good part at American Jews– and came home to the fact of the Israel lobby in American politics and the importance of breaking up the lobby's stranglehold so as to give Obama political cover to move the discussion forward. And I realized for the hundredth time that the Jewish identity stuff is a central part of the political struggle, for only by learning to ignore the political/social/religious messaging inside the Jewish community from your brother's best friend who made aliyah can we enable the most powerful political group in America on I/P policy (American Jews) to at last divide on a basic liberal issue, of equal rights.
Here is the great Rob Browne, at dailykos, offering other Jews a little identity politics so as to help them down the road [emphasis mine]:
As a religious person who
holds progressive views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, I have
been subjected to polite and not-so-polite criticism from family
members, friends, neighbors, and leaders of religious communities.
With experience and focus, I have been able to withstand their
accusations of being naive, anti-semitic, anti-Israel, self-hating, and
a terrorist-lover. I don't mean to state that those names don't hurt,
of course they do. What I do mean is that those words, generally,
don't get me into pointless arguments, don't get me to doubt my
religious and political views, and, most importantly, don't get me to
stop advocating for a more just and equal resolution for the people of
Israel and Palestine.
There are many people I know, however, who struggle with the
negative reactions to their political and/or religious views within the
I/P conflict. This causes many of them to shy away from getting
involved in solving the problem. Through my posts, I hope to reach
those people who have struggles between what they were taught and what
they view with their own hearts and minds. It is my desire to educate
them about about the D.C. related aspects to the conflict and help find
a way to put their knowledge into constructive action.
It seems, to me, that many religious, political,
business, academic, and media leaders with less progressive views of
Israel and Palestine have been able to define religions and craft U.S.
Middle East policy ideas by framing them within such direct narratives
as the Holocaust, anti-semitism, radical Islam, Islamo-fascism, nuclear
war, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and Adolph Hitler. By repeating these
emotional ideas in religious institutions, think tanks, the halls of
governments (local, state, and national), and the media, they have
successfully been able to convince many people that those ideas are
religiously, morally, and patriotically righteous. After fearfully
tapping into people's base feelings, they are able to get their
followers to passionately advocate for these policies and donate to
supportive candidates.
Since I view the policies of these groups to have been a failure in
obtaining a just peace, I work for the advancement of more progressive
I/P ideas.
Jewish ID is no side show because of the tremendous narrow focus and hence influence when combined with corresponding moneybags and media influence. Compared to it, every non-Jewish American is a lone atom, and a very poor one at that. 98% is thus offset by 2%. It's sort of like when the Private army corporation went into Sierra Leone and beat up the local terror regime though the latter were by far more numerous.
I recently added a comment addressing many aspects of Jewish identity to Professor Walt's blog.
Nice post. One caveat is that as the political issues are still not clearly or well-articulated even by the left (instead too damn often indulgently condemning rather than describing), that the moral questions don't have a clear reference to be asked and answered. Its not yet clear whether it is possible to achieve a real and just peace, whether there is a conditionally willing Palestinian populace and government sufficiently committed to their good name even to negotiate and fulfill the results of negotiation. Its also not clear if there is an Israeli intention for a real and just peace (considering both the sovereignty and the title questions). Dissenters too often rant at liberals (the majority) for being amoral, for not objecting to what is "obvious", what is clearly wrong, clearly oppression. But, until the discussion is conducted by skillful facilitation (which Phil could be if he wants to be), its not yet OBVIOUS, as very different conclusion is equally OBVIOUS to the converted or sympathetic. The most important action is education. So, Phil's trip to Gaza and subsequent good writing and speaking, had the potential to educate. To the extent that the content of Phil's or others editorial approaches distract from that good writing and good speaking (with the goal to inform and even persuade, but NEVER to assume or browbeat)., then they will FAIL at persuasion. The audience for BDS may get motivated, gullibly citing South Africa as precedent and prediction, but with Israel/Palestine, the outcome would not likely be as benign (and subsequently neglected, after the victory). We need to be informed. And, when informed, the Jewish community needs to dialog to determine our varying participations in public affairs. It will vary, even among ironic groups.
You seem to be assuming that the goal of all this work should be to "educate" and "persuade" the Jewish community. But if you think about it, the Jewish community is a very small minority of the American public. It would be nice if they would wake up and look honestly at what is going on, but it's much more important to break the back of the pro-Israel lobby (which is not entirely made up of Jews by any means) and to show the American public the reality of the situation. The Israel lobby has been successful only because they have managed to control the framing of the public discussion regarding Palestine. If that can change, then American policy will change, and what the Jewish community thinks won't really matter.
All Americans, not just the 2% Jewish, should be educated. Phil is doing his best to do so. The reason is that all Americans are impacted by our rubber-stamping of Israel's whims and concerns–we pay daily in lives and treasure supporting Israel and have done so for a long time–Why? The Jewish community should be no more important in terms of USA aid than any "white trash" trailer camp.
There is no center ring. For the desirablity of consent over coercion, the project to persuade is a better one.
If your goal is to convince Jews who already agree with you 100%, then you're doing fine. But if you are trying to convince Jews who are on the fence, then your rhetoric needs a little fine tuning. For example: you use the phrase "end support for militant expansionist policies". Maybe you are using the phrase in reference to the west bank, in which case it is probably justified. But since your primary topic seems to be Gaza, then "militant expansionist policies seems" way off base. Even if one considers the Israeli military action in December and January to be wrong, it was not an attempt to expand the borders of Israel. I realize that most of your audience on this site is an "amen chorus" and they will object to what I have just said. But that's why I ask you. Are you trying to recruit those that agree with you 100% or are you trying to influence those who are on the fence?
yonahred and Richard Witty: it seems to me that the contributors to mondoweiss.com (inter alia,) work with skill and eloquence to provide information to whomever takes events in Israel/Palestine seriously. We, the "commentariat," are able to join in the struggle with the uninformed, the fence-sitters and the militant, as well as struggling for understanding with each other, from left and right. I aspire to be of the center, myself. My response to "There is no center ring." is -well, then a center must be created- one in which "moral questions" gain new meanings; one in which violence does not serve as a tenet of faith and the rule of law is not commingled with religious authority. We have no 'right' to be safer than others. We do have the capability to come to agreements for safety. The threat of mutually assured destruction is a powerful weapon, sufficient to sustain foreign policy, IMHO. If we are to have peace in which to raise our young and live out our lives, unity behind that principle is a necessity. One cannot wage war with out reciprocation, no matter how mighty. If not directly, then indirectly, cost is incurred. Obama is changing the direction of US policy – just slightly. Using diplomacy rather than guns is change I believe in. Even that slight change seems to hold somewhat fearful potential. (Apologies to Craig11 – on some subjects, I remain sensitive.) I remain concerned about the direction of current US support for Fatah. Support for violence against and a refusal to negotiate with HAMAS is counterproductive. Members of HAMAS were elected by ballot to represent the voters of Palestine. Continuing lack of recognition of that political legitimacy does not represent good faith to me. What it represents is the powerlessness of the Palestinians people to protect themselves. Some would deny it's possible for a nation to protect the inhabitants of another country without war. One wonders, though, if what is missing is the will* to do so, rather than diplomatic means. I think Obama provides us with the latter. *requiring as it does foregoing perceived gain from territory and resources, as well as the business of warring, all of which are considered useful by some in driving the national economy – war being all about our "national interests". IMHO, even as state and religion need to be kept separate, US national security and profit for business interests must be, also. Defense is vital; profit is not. Social functions of government should be distinguished as different from commodities. Oddly enough, there is a criticism by 'western' troops of rampant "bribery" in the Middle and Central Eastern countries . Or at least it seems odd to me, because profit-making from war – or medicine or criminal justice – appears to me the same type of behavior, ramped up by industrialization. Sending children off to war, to kill and die, because it keeps our 'engines running' is a bankrupt policy, both morally and fiscally.