New J Street platform parrots Likud as membership continues to shift left

Recently, J Street send out a message to its members, claiming that it had created a new platform that would better address the concerns of its members. For some time, J Street’s open secret is that its members tend to be far to the left of the political spectrum from the leadership.

In the wake of the death of the peace process, J Street’s raison d’etre has been to stop the Boycott Divestment and Sanctions movement, and had little to differentiate itself from the group it was seemingly intended to challenge, AIPAC. During the Israeli atrocities on Gaza it has become apparent, even to the leadership of J Street, that something had to change. As a result, J Street has posted a new platform, under the title “Renewed Gaza Hostilities: Aim for conflict resolution, not a ceasefire.” To the erstwhile J Street supporters who have outflanked the leadership in their support of a more progressive platform, this appears to be a significant change in tack for the group. In this article, I will examine the meaning of this new platform and attempt to determine if the new platform represents any kind of meaningful change.

You can read the entire platform here but the key part are as follows:

• Meets the security needs of Israel, in particular by ensuring that the future Palestinian state – encompassing both the West Bank and Gaza – is de-militarized. The assistance of the Arab world, the Palestinian Authority and the international community will be needed to achieve this goal.
• Addresses the humanitarian situation in Gaza. As President Obama said yesterday, “Gaza cannot sustain itself permanently closed off from the world and incapable of providing some opportunity – jobs, economic growth – for the population that lives there.” The restrictions on movement of people and goods in and out of Gaza must be eased and a massive investment in infrastructure and economic development is needed.
• Empowers the moderate forces in Palestinian society: President Abbas, the PLO and the present government of the Palestinian Authority should be supported robustly following the collapse of negotiations and the end of this war. Additionally, all efforts should be made to explore the opportunities for reconciliation between Gaza and West Bank such that President Abbas emerges stronger. Palestinian partners for resolving the conflict through two state, diplomacy and non-violence must be strengthened now before it is too late.
• Adopts a comprehensive, regional approach to resolving the Arab-Israel conflict involving Egypt, Jordan and moderate states in the Gulf states willing to play a helpful role. The centerpiece of such an agreement should be the two-state solution, but its goal should be broader – drawing on the Arab Peace Initiative – providing security guarantees, economic investment and a common approach to shared interests, opportunities and threats.

This new platform begins with a non-sequitur and a non-starter. To suggest that the most important demand is to protect the “security needs of Israel” is at best hypocritical, and perhaps sociopathic. As I write this essay, Israel has resumed its massive aerial onslaught on the civilians of Gaza, and approximately 1965 Gazans have been killed (PDF), the vast majority civilians, and including over 450 infants and children.

The continued existence of Israel is not at stake. In this war of choice, Israel has killed almost 2000 Gazans, injured 10,000, displaced as many as 500,000, or one third of the entire population and destroyed civilian infrastructure across the strip. Hamas, though it fires rockets indiscriminately into Israel has killed 64 Israeli soldiers, and 3 Israeli civilians. Further, Israel is using some of the most sophisticated weapons of war available, they are easily able to pinpoint targets, while Hamas is using primitive rockets that are unguided in the hopes that they land somewhere in the vicinity of Israeli targets. The vastly disproportionate numbers of each side are a clear indication that Israel is indeed targeting civilians.  The safety of 1.8 million Gazan civilians from the violence of the seemingly unstoppable Israeli war machine is the only concern for people of conscience the world over. Israel has consistently violated the norms of international law, it has, by numerous accounts, including Human Rights Watch and the United Nations, committed war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza, while maintaining one of the world’s best equipped militaries. Israel has bombed hospitals, ambulances, clinics, schools serving as humanitarian shelters, and killed children playing on a beach. No amount of rockets from the besieged Gaza Strip can begin to justify these acts of wholesale murder of Palestinians.

The first plank is a non-starter, because it is a reproduction of the impossible demands of the very same military that has committed these atrocities. It demands that Gaza and the West Bank become demilitarized. While Israel often asks what country would allow themselves to be targeted by rockets, a more apropos question is what population in the world would put down its weapons in order to protect a state that has been engaging in ethnic cleansing since before it was officially founded, and in particular, one that has shown its preference of targeting soft civilian targets in order to promote its political goals? It is, in a term, state terrorism. The 2-state solution has been made impossible by the transfer of five hundred thousand settlers into the West Bank, itself a war crime, and a violation of international humanitarian law. Putting aside this problematic dogma, the notion that the conflict will be solved by maintaining the pipeline of lethal arms to Israel while disarming the resistance in Palestine is unconscionable as it is improbable. It is important that J Street has consistently opposed any motion to limit the sales of arms to Israel. The current platform is no different.

More problematic is the fact that this line is a parroting of the Netanyahu government. Although Israel has refused to send high-level negotiators to Cairo to broker a ceasefire, it has claimed that it would “allow Gaza to rebuild” if it is disarmed. Hamas could not agree to such an imposition, because it would be a betrayal of all it has fought for thus far. Further, as has been made clear by numerous reports on Gaza, the population of Gaza would rather die than return to the siege. This first plank of the platform is a clear indication that J Street’s new guiding principles are in line with supporting the Likud government of Netanyahu, at the cost of any real possibility of justice.

The second plank refers to the notion of “addressing the humanitarian situation in Gaza”. Note, this is phrased as though Gaza is suffering from a natural disaster. There is no analysis that the siege is entirely a political, not a humanitarian crisis. Israel has imposed the siege, it has coerced Egypt to support the siege, and the international community has supported Israel in this project. The siege itself is criminal, it is a violation of the basic human rights of Gazans, and J Street’s position appears to indicate that Israel should “ease the siege” but continue to maintain its illegal blockade of the strip. This again is in line with the Netanyahu government’s promises to Gaza should it overthrow Hamas, but is completely contrary to the rules of occupation. Israel has a responsibility to care for the well being of people under its occupation, a term that J Street is unwilling to use in reference to Gaza.

“Empowers the moderate forces”. The third plank is about a continued rejection of the will of Palestinians expressed through their democratic process in 2006. Israel, the United States, and J Street have no right to interfere in the internal politics of Palestine, although have certainly never hesitated to do so. The Abbas government praised by J Street has no legitimacy, and is currently facing major political upheavals as it attempts to placate its supporters in Tel Aviv and Washington at the expense of the Palestinian struggle for independence. This platform is a clear indication that J Street will continue to shut out the voices of the elected representatives of Palestine, in favor of a government placed into power in a coup d’etat in 2007. Again, fully in line with the Netanyahu government’s position.

The final plank is a bit of lip service to the notion that the conflict is regional in nature, and that so-called moderate nations, those that are beholden to the US foreign policy goals, are welcome to join Israel’s notion of how to promote peace in the region.

Later in the platform, J Street discusses the very real problem of racism and genocidal hatred apparent in Israeli popular and political culture. Though this seems at first glance like a departure, it should be noted that these policies have been promoted by the government itself, and this fact is missing from the J Street screed. Indeed, the very real problem of racism and ethnonationalism is not a matter of a few bad apples, or a society acting independently of its government, it is rather the logical outcome of Israeli government policy, and its unwillingness to approach Palestinians as partners, but rather as enemies that should be eliminated. From Israeli academics calling for the rape of Palestinian women to deter resistance, to the overt and willing targeting of civilians with bombs, rockets, snipers, and missiles, the racism that J Street discusses here is part of a much larger and more troubling shift in Israeli politics.

Perhaps the most troubling aspect of this new platform is that there is no mention of respect for human rights or the rule of law. Israel has continued to target the Palestinian population throughout the territory under its control, through the passage of racist legislation, the continued expansion of settlements, the destruction of Palestinian homes, the incarceration of Palestinians without charge, and the wholesale slaughter of civilians in Gaza. The platform explains that 80 percent of Israelis support a 2 state solution, but there is no mention of where these states are supposed to be, and no mention of the fact that when asked if Israelis support the notion of giving up territory for peace, the number is far lower. A 2-state solution consisting of bantustans and an open-air prison is again in line with Likud practice, if not their stated platform, and is completely unacceptable to Palestinians.

If J Street is interested in a true 2 state solution, there is the precedent of UN Resolution 242, which Hamas has used as a starting point for negotiations. If Israel withdraws to the 1967 borders, Hamas will enforce a 99-year peace. This notion is again missing from the platform, as acknowledgement would necessitate the inclusion of Hamas in any peace agreement, a proposition that Likud has sworn it would not allow. This is in the context of the real cause of the current Israeli atrocities: the destruction of the Unity government, a government that the US claimed it would recognize. If the Unity government were allowed to exist, the entire reasoning for the siege would collapse, and Israel would be forced to relinquish its stranglehold on Gaza, something it has no interest in doing.

From reading this platform, it is difficult to arrive at any other conclusion than one that insists that J Street is aligning itself with the Likud party. Five years ago, this would have been unthinkable, as Likud has long represented the right wing of Israeli politics. As Israel has shifted to the right, it appears J Street has traveled apace. At best, the result of this new platform will be J Street’s own collapse into irrelevance as the rank and file move to truly progressive organizations like Jewish Voice for Peace and the US Campaign Against the Occupation.

It should be noted that J Street maintains its opposition to Boycott Divestment and Sanctions, as it considers the grassroots nonviolent movement harmful to Israeli interests. The Israeli government is terrified of BDS, and as the Israeli atrocities continue in Gaza, the movement is getting a predictable boost. It is clear that J Street will continue to serve as a foil to true progressive movements in the US and abroad, at a time when the world reacts with disgust to the violence that Israel inflicts on the civilians of Gaza. At worst, J Street will remain a release valve for liberal Jews in the US who are uncomfortable with Israel’s unceasing violence, but are unwilling to challenge the root cause of the conflict, or to make any of the sacrifices necessary for peace. The latter option is one that exacerbates the conflict, and maintains a progressive cover for policies that are unjustifiable.