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:
