Jewish Voice for “Real” Peace

This is part of Marc H. Ellis’s “Exile and the Prophetic” feature for Mondoweiss. To read the entire series visit the archive page.

A few days ago, Jewish Voice for Peace released a statement on the Hamas-Fatah unity agreement and Israel’s withdrawal from the peace talks. Title: “Real Peace.” Now the press reports that John Kerry used the word “apartheid” referring to Israel’s refusal to embrace a two-state solution.  Kerry’s a seasoned politician. I doubt he’d use apartheid without President Obama’s green light.

Are JVP and the Obama administration moving closer together?

Part of me is intrigued. Part of me is wary. John Kerry’s warning about the end of the two-state solution at the beginning of the peace process was a “demographic” scare tactic. His prediction of apartheid as the peace process collapses is an angry response to his efforts being rebuffed.

What does it all add up to? American foreign policy language has certainly taken a provocative turn. But the outlines of Kerry’s as yet unannounced principles for the settlement of the Israel/Palestine conflict seem very much like a legalized apartheid system.

Obviously real peace in Israel-Palestine, however defined, continues to be elusive. Whether the peace process is salvaged or not, my best guess is that it will remain so. Does JVP have anything to contribute to real peace?

Overall the JVP’s statement is strong. Its opening paragraphs set the tone:

Israel’s sudden withdrawal from peace talks and its threat to punish the Palestinians for the Fatah-Hamas reconciliation agreement is a tactical move meant to deflect from the main cause of the failure of decades of peace talks — Israel’s ongoing settlement expansion and the entrenchment of the occupation, materially and diplomatically supported by the United States.

Given decades of failed US-orchestrated peace talks that have deepened the hold of Israel’s occupation, Jewish Voice for Peace will be grateful for an official end to the current round of talks. They appear to be all but dead, and show virtually no promise of achieving a just agreement.

The statement continues:

We do believe a fair and lasting resolution will be possible one day when Israel and Palestine sit at a negotiating table with relatively equal power. But today is not that day. Until the balance of power changes, negotiations will only lead to more of the same: failed diplomacy with terms dictated to the Palestinians by the occupying power, Israel, and its unconditional backer, the United States.

What is JVP’s bottom line?

The only peace process that will work is one that recognizes and compensates for the massive power imbalance of the occupier and the occupied.

The framework of the current peace negotiations does not recognize that imbalance. When the official “peace process” ends, it may finally be possible to work toward negotiations where Israel and the Palestinians come to the table with equal power, and the U.S. no longer plays the role of Israel’s enforcer.

That is why we believe that the Palestinian-led Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, and other non-violent tools that create real consequences for Israel’s continuing violations of human rights and democratic principles, are an essential part of changing the balance of power and moving toward negotiations that could end in a just peace.

For a group vying for space on the Jewish political spectrum, JVP’s statement is measured, firm and, perhaps unavoidably, limited. On the one hand, JVP confirms that the United States is not an honest broker; BDS and other nonviolent strategies must be employed. On the other hand, if there is outrage it is well-hidden. Any possible solution outside the two-state framework is not mentioned.

In the world of realpolitik, JVP remains within the normative understandings of a possible solution to the Israeli-Palestinian crisis. Yet for decades these normative understandings have failed completely.

JVP’s equal power equation, while quite sensible in theory is, in actuality, not on anyone’s radar screen. No political analyst with any credibility thinks that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will be resolved through equal power arrangements. Nor will equal power be achieved through the methods JVP promotes.

It’s difficult to fault JVP for not moving the issue forward. No one knows a formula beyond the present impasse – if there is one. That’s the juncture we’ve arrived at. Even John Kerry thinks we’ve come to the end of the two-state solution, heading down the apartheid road. But since he’s part and parcel of the impasse, where does this leave us?

If JVP argued for a one-state solution as the only way to achieve equal power sharing of Jews and Palestinians, they would be banished from whatever political space they have acquired on the issue. If we’re honest, though, equal power to bring about the two-state solution and promoting the one-state solution to the conflict carries about the same small percentage of realizable hope.

The situation is much more distressing. If you read the late 1980s statement by Michael Lerner in the kick-off of Tikkun’s influence “The Occupation: Immoral and Stupid; A Strategy to End It,” side-by-side with JVP’s statement the difference in noticeable – and not enough. True, Lerner’s special pleading for Israel, Jews and the Holocaust is missing in JVP’s analysis, as is his condescending insistence that Palestinians secure Israel’s future. Lerner’s consistent work behind the scenes to thwart the Jewish Left is thankfully also missing from JVP’s forward-looking advocacy work.

These are gains to be noted. But sometimes missing in JVP’s political work is an argumentative passion that something Jewish is at stake. Responding to Palestinian initiatives is crucial but Jews have a history and destiny as well. JVP has the difficult task of mixing American politics and Jewishness. The two don’t always go together easily.

Progressive Jews want to walk the fine line of remaining inside the Jewish mainstream with the hope that one day they will become the leaders of a reformed, ethical Jewish establishment. But in the Golden Age of Constantinian Judaism, vying to be part of the Jewish establishment-in-making is a fatal error. JVP knows that the Golden Age of Constantinian Judaism is here to stay. Why walk the establishment-fine-line if it means blunting your critique and opting for a position that you know will go nowhere?

The situation is much darker for Palestinians – and for Jews, too. Wanting to be a Jewish power-broker, however laudable, is a strategy destined to fail. Interestingly, JVP’s 2012 Haggadah (PDF) hits closer to home. The Ten Plagues of Occupation are a milestone in the history of Passover interpretation. Passover will never be the same.

Yet if we’re honest, Passover is already passé. I doubt there will be another Passover where Jews can honestly celebrate our liberation without the obvious shadow of the oppression of the Palestinian people.

Should there be a separation between realpolitik and Jewish identity? At certain times, yes. But we may have reached a point where such a separation only serves illusions like equal power and nonviolent resistance.

Whether Jewishness can exist for long without justice at the center is uncertain. Whether Jewishness without justice can exist without devolving into apathy and cynicism is unknown. Does JVP – do Jews of Conscience – have another Jewish gear that can get us out of this dark place?

Though we don’t have an answer about the next step of Jewish life, the danger is obvious. If you stay in the American political and Constantinian Jewish space too long, there’s no telling who you might become.

Ineffectual is the least of it.