The two liberal Zionist organizations J Street and Americans for Peace Now are demanding that the Obama administration condemn the recent Israeli announcement of a new settlement bloc in the West Bank. The two groups argue that the two-state solution is in jeopardy, and Obama must act now. J Street’s statement is adamant:
Tell President Obama: Stand up for a two-state solution and demand a reversal to the E1 settlements.
So is Peace Now:
Tell Secretary Clinton that if the Obama Administration is truly committed to Israel’s security and its viability, it must intervene and compel the Netanyahu government to reverse its reckless, provocative, and dangerous decisions. These include the announcement of the approval of 3000 new settlement units in the West Bank and East Jerusalem – an announcement that, on its own, sends a message that Prime Minister Netanyahu is eager to undermine Abbas and pander to his right-wing political base in the run-up to Israeli elections early next year.
Tell Secretary Clinton: Get tough now. If not now, soon it will be too late.
Lara Friedman of Peace Now concedes that Netanyahu has humiliated Obama but says that Obama can turn the tables and maybe play a part in the Israeli elections. Notice that she does not come out for sanctions, though she says the two-state solution is disappearing:
Netanyahu and Lieberman believe they are unaccountable because they have never been called to account. They’ve seen that their defiance of Israel’s closest allies carries no price, either diplomatically or in the domestic arena. The two are, of course, linked: Israel’s allies acquiescing to Netanyahu treating them as underlings and enemies has only strengthened Netanyahu politically…
The reality is that world leaders, especially from the U.S. and EU, have tremendous leverage in dealing with Netanyahu and Lieberman. … For the first time, Netanyahu is getting real push-back [in Europe], sparking a long overdue debate in Israel about the costs Netanyahu’s reckless actions are imposing on Israel….
President Obama has plenty of options for action that don’t require Congressional approval. These include summoning the Israeli Ambassador for a talking-down, recalling the U.S. ambassador in Israel for “consultations,” and strong demarches at the level of Foreign Minister or Netanyahu himself–and making these actions public. They include in a meaningful way turning up the heat on settlements, for example by adopting stronger rhetoric (using words like “obstacles to peace” and “illegal,”), by pursuing special labeling requirements for products produced in settlements, or by launching a review of the activities of U.S. groups that support settlements. …
Given Netanyahu’s serial humiliations of Obama during his first term in office and his apparent efforts to see Obama defeated in the last election, such a change in tone seems a long time coming. If world leaders return to the usual approach of crying foul over Netanyahu provocations but imposing no consequences, then it will soon be impossible to avoid the conclusion that the game is over for the two-state solution….
This is obviously an important moment for American liberal Zionists. They seem to understand that the two-state solution has vanished because of Israeli expansion. They hope that U.S. outspokenness will somehow upend the Israeli electoral process and allow Kadima to create a centrist ruling coalition that will somehow revive the peace process.
Wearing rose-colored glasses, I have often said here that the American Jewish community could knock Netanyahu out of office. But Annie Robbins has pointed out that 40-50 members of the Knesset (about 1/3 of the body) are beholden to the settler community; and Yousef Munayyer has demonstrated that bloc’s power over the entire political order; and David Remnick, observing that trend, has pronounced the Israeli political class a lost cause.
It will be fascinating to see whether the liberal Zionist community can mobilize opposition to Netanyahu in the U.S. While I hold out hope for some shift, B’nai Jeshurun’s cave on Palestinian freedom yesterday suggests that the U.S. Jewish community is still too rightwing to do anything to speak out against Israel’s apartheid leadership.
Does not come out for sanctions? Oh, how surprising. But if not sanctions, then what? Harsh words? Maybe VERY harsh words?
The mistake they are all making (and deliberately, I believe) is in pretending (and assuming and by modeling also inviting all others to assume) that ALL EXISTING SETTLEMENTS ARE PERMANENT and NONE must ever be dismantled or destroyed. (Read UNSC 465: it calls for removal of all settlers and dismantling of all settlements. In 1980 when there were fewer, but, still, ALL.)
Hogwash. We must model a different behavior, namely, demanding the removal of all settlers and dismantling of all settlements, ALL, because it is the law and because it is necessary for Palestinian human rights, and because the settlements are an impediment to peace, and because the settlements IN NO WAY provide for Israeli security. And we must demand that this requirement be backed by SERIOUS SANCTIONS FOR NON-PERFORMANCE BY ISRAEL.
Peace Now, J-Street, are you listening? If you disagree with what I said, please explain why you disagree. Explain cogently. If you can. And if you find that I am right, say so. To your members, too. Thanks. RSVP.
For the first time, Netanyahu is getting real push-back [in Europe]
Show me sanctions. Show me one “special-partnership” agreement that has been suspended. Show me one arms deal that has been cancelled.
Merkel and Netanyahu have “agreed to disagree”. Hollande and Cameron have reassured Israel that sanctions are not and option (bite your tongue!). Monti has pledged Italy’s undying friendship (although Mr. Netanyahu really shouldn’t have done that).
Is this what JStreet and Peace Now really want from Washington? Netanyahu and Lieberman (and the Republicans) would like nothing better.
What the Liberal Zionists seem to be asking for is an upgrading of language from “this is unhelpful” to “this is most unhelpful” only when words, if not acted upon, are followed by action will anything meaningful change,the American political elite see no need to do anything because they themselves are under no pressure, Saudi Prince Turki threatened the US last year in an op-ed in the NYT with dire consequences in its [the US relationship with Palestine], maybe just hot air, but the Arab spring or the threat of it will come to Saudi Arabia and force the dictatorships to change or fall, preferably the latter, cancellation of the 60 billion dollar arms deals and the threat to cut off the oil spigot as they did in 1973 would change US attitudes to the settlements overnight, here’s hoping.
” They include in a meaningful way turning up the heat on settlements, for example by adopting stronger rhetoric (using words like “obstacles to peace” and “illegal,”), by pursuing special labeling requirements for products produced in settlements, or by launching a review of the activities of U.S. groups that support settlements. …””
ROTFLMAO…oh yes, stronger rhetoric and launching reviews and more talk should do it.
They are delusional, delusional, delusional, in denial, in denial, in denial about the monster they have created……it is now permanently Mr Hyde.
I think a change in the community’s attitudes and activism can be an important factor, like changes among US whites and white South Africans during the civil rights eras in those countries.
Still, I am skeptical how easily this can move to be a major factor. We find a range of cases, like JVP, where dissidents play a leading role. But it seems hard for the everyday community as a whole will play the main leading role.
Whites in the US North played a supporting role in the US Civil Rights movement, and there were liberals in the South too that went along and helped too. But the leading role was played by Blacks themselves. This is because it is the Blacks’ rights and the blacks’ interests that were being protected and promoted. Giving them equality to whites seemed like not a strong direct interest for US whites, particularly in the South.
I encourage your desire and work to reach and activate the community in the US. But the moderate, liberal, typically-egalitarian rank and file have to overcome the power of the other side within their own community. That means alot of footwork or activism to balance it.
Second, you would have to get those liberals to care alot about the IP conflict and the situation there, while as you know, young people in the community care less about it than their predecessors as part of a trend. So it becomes harder to activate them to care.
Third, you have to motivate them out of a feeling of responsibility and moral duty, rather than immediate self interest which is alot harder to do. Obviously having a strong, wealthy modern state dedicated to one’s own culture where someone can emigrate to almost automatically is a serious self-interest. Human rights and other people’s democratic rights is more indirect and idealistic, despite being inspiring.
Fourth, it seems like it is alittle bit painful for someone to play a leading role in criticising a state dedicated to their own ethnicity. They end up pointing things out, and this seems emotionally tough, because there could be a sense on the side they are criticising themselves. Obviously some people are tough enough and brave enough inside they do this. It’s admirable, but I think still a difficulty that’s out there.
That’s why I think this is much harder to do than, say, working in the oppressed community directly: but that has its own difficulties, like government surveillance backed by the advocates of the system, and the fact you would often be dealing with lower-income people who have had a hard time working ahead in general.