J Street’s progressive illusion

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

No doubt toothless is the right word for the recent letter that the Lutheran’s sent to the White House but it was stronger than J Street’s statement yesterday. Herein lies the story. The Lutherans and J Street are more or less on the same Palestinian-less page.

Despite some rhetorical differences, the Lutheran’s are representative of the churches on Israel-Palestine. They and J Street are more alike than different. The differences on divestment and aid to Israel are mostly rhetorical; they don’t mean anything on the ground.

Progressive Christians and progressive Jews are birds of a feather. These Jews and Christians flock together.

Are there any in more active complicity in the destruction of Palestine than Palestine’s well-wishers? This seems a contradiction because Palestine’s well-wishers are the “realistic” vanguard, standing firm with President Obama’s obvious struggle with Prime Minister Netanyahu. And yes, Netanyahu and his crowd, along with the right-wing here in the US, are more direct and more troubling.

Nonetheless, the supporters of peace between Israel and the Palestinians have much to answer for. Supporting President Obama is a non-starter, if real Palestinian freedom is the goal. Instead of incredibly repetitive and similar letters/statements, Christian and Jewish supporters of Palestinians would do better to confess their complicity and turn in a radical new direction. This would mean breaking with the President and with American foreign policy in general. It would mean becoming the opposition.

Textually, the Lutheran church statement and the latest by J Street, issued just days apart, are so similar they are almost interchangeable. They’re both championing President Obama as the defender of the faith. They’re both pushing band-aids when only major surgery will do. They’re recidivists of the highest – or lowest – order. Policies, warnings and threats that haven’t done a thing – nothing – are supported as if continual failure is somehow victory.

So yet another text, thankfully short, that tells us all we need to know. Which is the following: If the Lutheran church and J Street dreams come true, Palestine will indeed come into existence – as a severely truncated, dependently autonomous, economically dominated and militarily occupied “state.”

J Street’s October 28 statement is found below paragraph by paragraph with my commentary following:

Recent statements by Prime Minister Netanyahu and Israeli Ambassador to the United States Ron Dermer are inflammatory and irresponsible. They damage peace prospects and erode Israel’s standing in the world.

“Inflammatory and irresponsible” – as opposed to being wrong in principal and unethical in practice? They “damage peace prospects” – have I missed those prospects and, if they exist, where would they lead? As for eroding Israel’s “standing in the world,” please fill us in on how Israel’s standing in the world could be eroded further. Does Israel have any standing left in the world?

The statements follow a series of Israeli government moves to ramp up settlement construction especially in neighborhoods of East Jerusalem across the Green Line. The latest announcement on Monday cleared the way for 1,060 new housing units and was condemned by the State Department as “incompatible with Israel’s stated desire to live in a peaceful society.”

Yes, like the churches, constantly appealing to American power – as if that power has been holding Israel back and as if indeed US admonitions took hold Palestine would be anything more than it is right now. What the President has offered Israel is everything it already has taken from Palestinians. Just don’t take too much more.

Israel’s stated desire is another illusion – which no one in the world, including people in the State Department, believe is genuine. Of course, looking at the quote more closely, it might be believed, at least for Israel, or rather for Jews within Israel. Israel does want to live in a peaceful society – of its own making and with the extended boundaries it seeks. Palestinians are not part of that envisioned peaceful society except as those who live as second-class citizens with their mouth and aspirations shut.

In response, Netanyahu told the Knesset that it was the criticism and not the decisions to build settlements which made peace more distant. “These words are detached from reality. They foster false statements among the Palestinians,” he said.

Netanyahu went even further when answering a lawmaker’s question, saying that he was “committed to construction in every part of Judea and Samaria (the occupied West Bank).” If this is the prime minister’s true commitment, it would negate his policy of ever reaching a two-state agreement with the Palestinians.

Netanyahu, Netanyahu – soon J Street will welcome Shimon Peres and then Ehud Olmert to the rescue but who is kidding who. At best only a truncated autonomy has ever been discussed. This is the prime minister’s and Israel’s state policy “true commitment” – against the two-state solution. But here, though unstated, J Street is right with Netanyahu. J Street doesn’t want a real two-state solution either, otherwise they would abandon the rhetoric they were founded upon. Israel first, Israel last, Israel always. Is that why the only Palestinian named in this entire statement is Mahmoud Abbas, a total captive of the Israeli and American peace without justice camp?

These government decisions erect one obstacle to peace after another and the prime minister’s statements only further isolate Israel internationally and alienate its supporters.

As State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki said earlier this month, in response to yet another Israeli settlement announcement:

“This development will only draw condemnation from the international community, distance Israel from even its closest allies, poison the atmosphere not only with the Palestinians but also with the very Arab governments with which Prime Minister Netanyahu said he wanted to build relations and call into question Israel’s ultimate commitment to a peaceful negotiated settlement.”

True for the State Department, this was a strong statement – which leads nowhere. Though using the plural referencing to Israel’s allies is pushing it. That is, except those who love the battle-tested arms that Israel offers, which are many, including those European countries that also offer redlines to Israel that amount, more or less, to J Street’s vision of an dependent, occupied Palestinian state.

Thus these two-faced sensibilities have to be extended far beyond the churches and J Street. It seems that most of the world that criticizes Israel is double-tracking Israeli arms purchases. Which means that “peaceful negotiated settlement” that the arms buyers proffer is much like the churches and J Street offer. Not much for Palestinians, not really for Palestinians at all, rather mostly as a salve so that other military business lines remain open.

In addition, we are greatly concerned by a statement by Israel’s ambassador to Washington, Ron Dermer, which alleged that President Abbas promoted hatred of Jews and which said that it was “an embarrassment that anyone in the world embraces this man as a peacemaker.”

I’m surprised that President Abbas is thus addressed rather than the more familiar Mahmoud. Since he is such a complacent darling who lets the US and Israel provide for his security and the security of his people – whatever security means in the context of extending occupation and the repeated destruction of Gaza. And Abbas’s newly negotiated governance of Gaza – also in the hands of the US and Israel – and the United Nations – and Egypt.

Abbas the Outsourcer of Palestine. No wonder J Street comes to his aid. Or does J Street use Abbas as a foil simply to get their point across that Netanyahu is threatens J Street’s image of Israel – and the image of Jews everywhere.

J Street has been consistent in demanding that all leaders avoid inflammatory language and we are critical of statements by Abbas that we believe have gone too far.

Build Abbas up and discipline him too. It does seem that Abbas goes rogue in some of his public pronouncements. Like suggesting Auschwitz and genocide during Israel’s latest invasion of Gaza. J Street’s lesson for Palestinians: If you want “our” aid, act like we need you to act – otherwise. Is there really an otherwise or are the consequences of being on script or off essentially the same?

However, Dermer’s words contradict the testimony of other Israeli leaders. Only last June, Israel’s then-president and elder statesman, Shimon Peres, hailed Abbas as a great leader, calling him the best peace partner Israel has ever had, and saying he was “risking his life” to take a principled position against terrorism.

And former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said at the 2012 J Street National Conference: “No one can say to me after hundreds of hours of discussing peace with Abu Mazen (Abbas) that he is not a partner because he doesn’t want peace. He wants peace with Israel and he accepts the existence of Israel as Israel declares itself to be.”

I forget if Olmert was on trial or convicted for corruption at the time of his speech. Regardless, notice Olmert’s words – that Abbas “accepts the existence of Israel as Israel declares itself to be.” That’s a diplomatic and political mouthful. Is that acceptance, Israel as a Jewish state? Israel with the settlements in Jerusalem and the West Bank as they are? With Gaza hemmed in by Israel and Gaza? Read: J Street accepts Israel as Olmert and Abbas declare Israel to be. Is this substantially different – on the ground – than Netanyahu’s declaration of Israel’s being?

It is tragic that Dermer, echoing the words of Netanyahu, seems to have written off Abbas as a partner. He may not be ideal but he has renounced violence and stuck by that policy and he has consistently stated his desire for peace and a two-state solution.

There isn’t any closure here. J Street has run out of steam or the ability to parrot symbolic markers that have no basis in reality. Now Abbas isn’t ideal – what Palestinian could be for Israel and for Jews – but he surely has done everything a collaborator who remains politically viable can do.

So there we have it, the loyal opposition to Netanyahu and Israel’s policies of occupation and war. Should Palestinians congratulate the loyal opposition and thank them for burying them with the kindness of a victor who wants all of the spoils with a clean conscience?