The Pincer J Street Is In

The putrefaction of the peace process has compelled the Palestinian non-fanatic leadership to seek a statehood vote at the United Nations this month. I could rend my garment in sorrow about what a folly this is or whatever, but can you really blame Fatah? The Netanyahu government has the available alternatives to rebuke its West Bank fanatics and resume substantive negotiations aimed at resolving the conflict. The Obama administration has the available option of pressuring Netanyahu to that end. Fatah sees nothing for its patience -- except a status quo that favors Hamas. If you were a Palestinian, you would push a U.N. gambit as well. 

So what's a liberal pro-peace pro-Israel pro-Palestine American to do? Demand Obama pressure Netanyahu, for one thing. Suggest that Obama flirt with not vetoing the U.N. statehood resolution, for another, to see if that captures Netanyahu's attention. What you shouldn't do is exactly what J Street is doing: denouncing the statehood maneuver. All of a sudden, J Street is essentially telling Palestinians that it's not fair of them to use the only option they've got left, and draws dangerously close to siding against statehood. I know it doesn't mean to do that, but this is the constellation of political forces as they are.

Noam Sheizaf puts it very well:

Dictating the Palestinian path to independence as a pre-condition to dealing with them is the mistake the Israeli left has done again and again, usually with the help of the United States. The administration is repeating it now, and J Street follows. With both, it seems that it’s not the understanding of the current moment in the geo-political conversation which dictates policy, but rather short-term political considerations and the fear of a rightwing backlash. It’s partly understandable for the administration (especially near elections), less so for an organization which was all about opening up the debate.

Instead of expanding the conversation on Israel, J Street is reaching out to the consensus. This is the kind of political thinking that got Israel and its supporters in the United States to the impasse in which they are today. For the first time, I get the feeling that J Street has lost the desire to take a leading role in finding the way out of it.

Lining up with AIPAC is not going to win J Street any good will from the traditional, moribund American Jewish organizations it formed to challenge. I get that it's emotionally and politically difficult to side with the Palestinian statehood resolution. But we are where we are. It will be much, much more emotionally and politically wrenching to see Israel maintain its 44-year injustice; to see the Palestinians continually denied a state on their homeland; to see Hamas grow in strength from the status quo; to see Israel slouch into perpetual, apartheid-like injustice; and to see the United States either acquiesce to it, appear impotent in the face of it, or actually encourage it.

I thought J Street existed to push the debate about Israel/Palestine leftward. What a shame to see it devolve into the same sort of failed institution it used to counterbalance. 

Comments

[mikey]

It has become clear to me that ultimately, the model that offers the likeliest path to a viable solution is that offered by the international anti-apartheid movement of the seventies. Divestment, cultural and economic boycott, political pressure. The goal is to replace Likud, Netanyahu and Lieberman with an Israeli government that actually WANTS a sustainable peace.

This process doesn't require the US to change its policies, at least not at first. As the pressure builds and the rest of the world acts in concert, the US will be shamed into beginning to change course and the Israeli public will begin to demand their government change policies in order to avoid becoming a pariah state.

It's the best chance that everybody, including the Israelis and the Palestinians, gets out whole...

[Nathaniel]

How can you honestly say that state hood will somehow improve the situation, at the same time that the relationship with Egypt is falling apart? Land for peace only worked with strongmen. I doubt land for no peace but with strongmen will be a better solution.

Secondly, you can draw a pretty straight line from the Gaza pullout to Cast Lead. Is that price worth it, if you're a Palestinian (not saying one way or the other, just something that you should consider, if you're going to put yourself in a Palestinian's shoes)? Because if the Israelis left, there would probably be a civil war between Fatah and Hamas, Hamas would probably win, then the rockets would come, then the Israelis would have to respond. Don't see why the situation in the West Bank would be different than Gaza--especially if elections are encouraged and not opposed.

In all these scenarios, it's unclear how Israel is left better off--so it'd be weird for Israel advocacy group to support such a step.

[shopping reviews]

Good day! this is one of the most interested statement I have heard anyone said. I have always say to myself there are no rules telling us what to do, but rules telling us what not to do. We need to start making rules telling us what to do and we will see how creative our world would be. thanks,

[Moncler Jakke]

I just sent this post to a bunch of my friends as I agree with most of what you’re saying here and the way you’ve presented it is awesome.