Who do you think J Street Director Jeremy Ben-Ami was talking about when he said this to the Washington Independent’s Spencer Ackerman:
We are deeply supportive of the diplomatic route. But if the diplomatic route is completely disregarded and the offer [rejected] — after probably ten or 20 warnings, they’re practically beyond saying no. They’re sticking a finger in the eye of the world. The U.S. has really tried to find a way to offer them a path to full engagement. There have to be consequences. We can’t just allow that kind of disregard of the international community.
Answer: Iran.
He was offering his justification for J Street’s support of Rep. Howard Berman’s Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act which would "would limit Iran’s ability to import and produce refined petroleum products by requiring the president to impose sanctions on companies helping Iran in these areas." Critics think the bill will only punish the Iranian people, and leave the Iranian government unscathed.
This exchange seemed especially ironic in light of J Street’s repeated efforts to undermine the grassroots boycott, divestment, and sanctions movement to hold Israel accountable for at least 42 years of Israeli intransigence in the face of the the international community (a bit more than "probably ten or 20 warnings"). And while they seem willing to back sanctions against the entire country of Iran, J Street has yet to offer the most basic form of accountability for Israel’s continued disregard for international law and US policy in the region other than to say that the US’s $3 billion a year in military aid "should not be on the table."
So which is it J Street – should countries that demonstrate "disregard of the international community" have consequences or not?
So J Street is, in a nutshell, AIPAC-lite? How predictable was that.
J-Street — looks like the neocon war hawks have new allies.
Although really, to me it looks like the same old allies, rebranded. The wolf wears sheep’s clothing now.
I sent the following to J Street after reading this post:
Greetings-
I note the following from Mr. Ben-Ami’s recent interview with The Washington Independent:
“But if the diplomatic route is completely disregarded and the offer [rejected] — after probably ten or 20 warnings, they’re practically beyond saying no. They’re sticking a finger in the eye of the world. The U.S. has really tried to find a way to offer them a path to full engagement. There have to be consequences. We can’t just allow that kind of disregard of the international community.”
Please explain why Iran’s “sticking a finger in the eye of the world” warrants sanctions while Israel’s far more long-standing eyepoke does not, particularly when the upshot of Iran’s transgressions is largely potential, while Israel’s have resulted in 40 years of actual dispossession, misery and death.
Also, please explain whom you think you’re fooling with your insistence that you provide a progressive alternative to AIPAC when you traffic in such blatant hypocrisy.
Yours,
I know, I know…one is meant to adopt a courteous tone in these circumstances, but I’m weak and succumb to outrage easily. And I don’t think there’d be a greater likelihood that Ben-Ami would smack his forehead and say, “Omigod, he’s right! What was I thinking?” if I were to have written in the prescribed manner.
I see that Berman is a worthy successor to Lantos’s mantle.
J Street is merely organized PEP.
Has Hamas undertaken any inquiry as a result of the Goldstone report? Anything published, accountable?
Not that I know of. But they and 1.5 million Palestinians have been subjected to a massive blockade, so you can be happy about that. And Israel isn’t being held accountable for this or their other crimes, so there’s more cause for rejoicing. Unfortunately they are at the receiving end of some harsh criticism at this blog, and this makes you very sad.
Israel has mostly whitewashed its own brutality, so the contrast you want to set up exists mainly in your own head. There was something better than a token effort (though not much better) with the Sabra and Shatila inquiry, but that was a long time ago. They certainly didn’t inquire into Israeli bombing back then either.
To be fair, under Obama the very notion that any of Bush’s war crimes will be investigated and prosecuted has gone completely off the radar screen–not surprisingly, since Obama may want the freedom to commit a few himself. And there’s been no official American investigation into our own role in instigating the Palestinian civil war, or in supplying Israel with weapons used to commit war crimes. All sorts of people are getting away with murder these days.
Kind of hard to write reports when Israel blockades even paper and writing implements, isn’t it?
Is Hamas considered a key partner for the United States?
Nope. Not at all.
Actually Hamas has said that they are preparing to do an internal investigation as the Goldstone report recommended.
But then again, Hamas was not the major violator of human rights during the IDF’s rampage through Gaza.
I mean seriously? 13 dead Israelis almost all of whom were soldiers, vs 1400 dead Palestinians, 5000 critically injured, and the complete destruction of Gaza’s infrastructure.
I’m sorry but the Israeli “our intentions weren’t to harm the civilians” argument just won’t hold up here. Its crystal clear who violated what.
And weren’t at least four of those Israeli deaths the confirmed result of friendly fire? I don’t remember the precise number off the top of my head.
Four is correct, off the top of my head.
Leaving nine Israelis killed by Palestinians, six of whom (66% of the total) were soldiers. Scale difference aside, the combatants/civilians killed ratio for the IDF was approximately the reverse. Should Hamas now claim the mantle of “most humane military in the world”?
Right on, Adam.
This same question needs to be asked of the Obama Administration after he emphasized human rights and international law–and the diplomatic isolation of consistent violators of said rights and law–in his Nobel Prize acceptance speech. Let’s hold him accountable to his words.
Adam Horowitz accuses: “to hold Israel accountable for at least 42 years of Israeli intransigence in the face of the the international community.” Maybe he is referring to the presence of settlers in occupied territory. But he sounds to me as if he is referring to the mere possession of occupied territory, which in fact is not against international law.
I want to raise the topic of what did the world expect Israel to do after Jerusalem was captured in the six day war. Did they expect it to leave the Jewish Quarter in ruins? Did they expect it to leave the Western Wall neglected and a tiny site accessible only to tens of people at a time? I am not asserting that the actions actually taken were “just”, but what did the world expect?
That same set of international laws makes resistance by Palestinians, as an occupied people, legal as well. But of course, you’re a Zionist, so one application applies to Jews and another, false, disadvantageous application applies to everyone else, apparently.
Is this the right to resistance that you are referring to?
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.
For a follow up, why don’t you throw lines from the “Elder Protocols of Zion” at me? It’s about as valid and relevant to the debate.
Oh, my mistake, you didn’t supply any quotations so I just presumed before reading it that you were quoting the so-called Hamas Charter.
Those laws apply to the State of Palestine too.
Easy one, wj: the world expected Israel to grant full Israeli citizenship rights or independence to the people of the West Bank and Gaza. (Preferably based on Palestinians’ stated preference. You know, self-determination.)
The (current) policy of denying both is tyranny. A 42-year repressive military despotism. With state-backed colonists, it’s also apartheid.
Let me put it this way, wj: what would you expect and demand for your home region if it was ever conquered by a foreign state? Anything less than full integration or independence? Any status not based on self-determination?
They might have expected Israel not to immediately bring in bulldozers and level all the homes in the quarter, rendering the residents homeless.
Israel has always mistaken military occupation of a territory as ownership of everything within that territory. My house lies within US territory, but the US does not own it and can not take it from me except through the due process of the law. There are rules for this sort of thing, and the international community had every right to suppose Israel would obey them, instead of going berkserk and looting the entire West Bank.
Looters, in a civilized state, are shot or at least arrested. Israel is a state of looters.
Actually, potsherd, a closer analogy would be your house lying within US territory, but Canada is occupying it military. A French-Canadian family comes down and claims your land because they have distant relatives who originally mapped and discovered the part of the US where you live, so they claim your house and land.
The point is the distinction between private property and national territory.
When the US acquired territories from France in the Louisiana purchase, it acquired sovereignty over the territory, it acquired the rights of taxation, etc. But it didn’t mean that Yankees from New England could just show up and kick the Creoles out of their houses and move in. The US had to honor the private property rights of the existing inhabitants.
In contrast, Israelis immediately assumed that their national right to occupy the territory nullified any rights of the existing inhabitants, including their property rights. They didn’t need any claim from relatives. They saw the wall, they wanted the wall, they took the wall – and the property rights of the residents of the quarters simply didn’t exist.
This is the same rationale for the settlers who drive the Palestinians off their farms and take them over – “this is my land.”
I’m afraid that there isn’t really any good metaphor for what Israel does, in fact. They take land from Palestinians by force to make it state land, then hand it over to Jews and Jews alone.
Well. Okay. I suppose I can think of one thing that parallels that…
I’m not groping for a metaphor, Chaos, I’m making a simple distinction. A metaphor is not necessary. What Israel does is quite clear.
I apologize. I’m an artist, it is in my nature to construct metaphors by reflex. :)