Alternative Insight
The American Jewish Liberals and the Middle East Crisis
Liberal movements in the United States, which call for a re-evaluation of U.S. policy in the Israeli Palestinian crisis, recall a similar movement during the Vietnam War.Known pacifists, principally A.J. Muste and Dave Dellinger, together with Socialists, and a smattering of 'Old" Left led the early anti-war demonstrations during the Vietnam War. As the war spun out of United States control in the mid 1960's, and after the killing in Vietnam had reached its peak, the established Left of liberal Democrats and independent progressives organized mass rallies to protest the war. Simultaneously, a New Left, composed of Tom Hayden's Students for Democratic Society (SDS) and an assortment of anarchist and radical groups, associated with Abby Hoffman, took to the streets to argue more violently that the Vietnam war was not just a unique defensive action, but based upon deceit and falsifications, and a symptom of decline in American capitalism. Drastic measures were required to modify the system or similar conflagrations would occur.
The established Left upstaged the early pacifists, never soliciting their support and treating them as intruders. The New Left castigated the established Left as arriving too late with too little, shifting the debate to a single issue that prevented the public from grasping the larger picture of a corrupt system, unable to comprehend historical movements and misunderstanding the significance of the struggle. The established Left was more damaging than beneficial to the peace movement.
The New Left analysis proved correct. Despite the protests, the war dragged on, ending when President Richard Nixon and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger convinced one another that the U.S. could not defeat the National Liberation Front and had much to lose by continuing the war. And wars returned - the same system performed the same actions, only the names had changed. The established Left, as the radicals claimed, never learned and always yearned. A corollary - what would have happened if the established Left took a "lower key" approach and permitted the pacifists and New Left to gain more positive exposure? Would the war have ended sooner? Would Americans have re-examined their voting preferences and been more alert to the destructiveness of U.S. foreign policies?
After sixty years of oppression of Palestinians, destruction of their communities, usurpation of their lands, occupation of their territory, and deterioration of their national aspirations, a Jewish liberal Left, self-characterized by J-Street and Peter Beinart's Open Zion in the Daily Beast, has actively joined the decades of pacifist protests against Israel's policies toward the Palestinians. Similar to the Left during the Vietnam war, the self-characterized Jewish liberals disregard the arguments of the early and dedicated peaceniks who struggled for decades to alert the American public to the plight of the Palestinian people and the catastrophic direction of U.S. foreign policy. The liberal surge has taken the stage in the struggle and forced the more radical players to the background. And from those operations arise the same questionable charges; does this liberal Left shift the debate, is it unable to understand historical movements and is it more damaging than beneficial to the Middle East peace movement? Are the Jewish liberals only accomplishing, knowingly or unknowingly, the legitimization of Israel's seizure of Palestinian lands, the enabling of total control of Palestinian lives and the gaining of support from the Jewish American community for Israel's illegal behavior. And, will their efforts lead to return of the wars and to retain the same political system, in which only the names will change, that will continue past actions? Will the liberal Left ever learn?
Analysis of the rhetoric from recognized spokespersons of the Jewish Left provides answers to these questions. Peter Beinart, as one example, has achieved a reputation and a following as a leading spokesperson for those who characterize themselves as the Jewish liberals. Despite his intelligence and contributions to broadening involvement in the Israeli/Palestinian crisis, for which Peter Beinart deserves commendation, the senior political writer for The Daily Beast, associate professor of journalism and political science at City University of New York and senior fellow at the New America Foundation reveals similar characteristics to those that described the failures of the established Left during the Vietnam War.
No intent is being made to single out Peter Beinart for inspection. Nevertheless, his article, The American Jewish Cocoon, in The New York Review of Books, September 26, 2013, serves as a clue for evaluating the manner by which the Jewish liberals are skewing debate on the Middle East crisis.
In the first three quarters of the article, Beinart specifically criticizes and demonstrates the failures of the American Jewish public (why only them?) in learning more about the Palestinian antagonists, their hopes, their aspirations, their complaints, their cooperation. Representative examples of a lengthy dialogue.
The organization Birthright, which since 1999 has taken almost 350,000 young Diaspora Jews-mostly Americans-to visit Israel, does not venture to Palestinian towns and cities in the West Bank. Of the more than two hundred advertised speakers at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee's (AIPAC) 2013 Policy Conference, two were Palestinians.
By walling themselves off from Palestinians, American Jews fail to understand the very behavior they seek to prevent. This intellectual isolation also keeps the American Jewish mainstream from comprehending another phenomenon it deeply fears: the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel.
And it makes no sense to demand that American Jews endorse all aspects of the Palestinian agenda before-or even after-the dialogue begins. Jews have the right to their own opinions. But those opinions will be better informed, and more humane, if they encounter Palestinian opinions too.
Although this repetitive rendition of justified recommendations seems beneficial for understanding the realities of the situation, the first three quarters of the well phrased and well sounding exposition fail for three reasons.
(1) It can be assumed that the New York Review of Books engages informed audiences. The article addresses the uninformed Jewish liberal but is written for the informed. What's the point? If the article intended to advance a cause, it would be preferable to have the article published in mainstream media.
(2) The article effectively delineates cases where Jewish groups have displayed a lack of understanding of the Palestinian condition but does not include descriptions of the more serious oppression and destruction by the Israelis of the Palestinian people. This is similar to telling White America of the early 1900s to learn to understand the African-Americans and not inform the White public about the lynchings, beatings, discrimination, isolation and oppression of the Black public.
(3) It uses an age-old and distracting cliché - if we can just get to know each other, we can solve our problems.The last quarter of the article becomes questionable. It contains an abrupt change in delivery, which shows its own lack of understanding. The words equate Israelis, Zionists and Jews, as if they were one and the same and describes Israel in a context that associates its objectives with those of Jews from other nations around the world, as if they were also citizens of Israel. Parts of the article seem manipulative.
To say that American Jews need to hear from Palestinians is not to say that doing so will turn them into doves.
Is this a conflict that generates doves and warmongers? The narrative skews the meaning of the crisis, perceiving a one-sided and illegal occupation of Palestinian lands and an oppression of the Palestinian people as a conflict. It takes two warring parties to make a conflict. Where is the conflict?
American Jewish liberals generally believe in the legitimacy of both Jewish and Palestinian nationalism. Many hope, therefore, that if they endorse the basic justness of the Palestinian bid for self-determination, Palestinians will endorse the justness of Zionism.
Is this an effort to link all Jews to Zionism and Israel? What is Jewish nationalism? By definition, American Jewish liberals have a national identity - it is called the United States of America. Zionism, an experiment by some Jews, tried to establish a Jewish nationalism, but this was rejected almost unanimously by late 19th century Jews. A virulent nationalist Israel has emerged, populated by Jews who came either due to relief (Germany), finding themselves on airplanes (Yemen and Ethiopia), difficulties shaped by Israel's conflict with the Arab nations (Mizrahi), and economic reasons (Soviet Union). Less than a major portion of Israel's immigrants arrived as pure Zionists and with a belief in a national creed. Many from New York probably did not know anything of Jews from Kairoan, Tunisia, the leading Jewish economic and cultural center in North Africa during the Middle Ages. Jews from various parts of the world participated in the culture in which they lived, loosely identified with each other but did not strive for an unified national identity.
"I am an Arab Jew. Or, more specifically, an Iraqi Israeli woman living, writing and teaching in the U.S. When my grandmother first encountered Israeli society in the '50s, she was convinced that the people who looked, spoke and ate so differently--the European Jews--were actually European Christians. Jewishness for her generation was inextricably associated with Middle Easterness."
Reflections by an Arab Jew, Ella Habiba ShohatFor these reasons, Israel manufactured a new Jew for the secular, the secular Israeli Jew, who has only an indirect relation to the previous secular Jews who lived apart and still exist in separate nations. The history, heritage, and thriving communities of Jewish peoples throughout the Middle East and Africa has perished. The secular Mizrahi and their Sephardim have almost disappeared, physically and from the lexicon. Centuries old places of vibrant Jewish life have been erased from the map. Only myths and a constant repetitions of harm to specific European communities guide the new secular Israeli Jew.
"Palestinians will endorse the justness of Zionism." Is this a serious statement? To be more facetious, it is probable that most Palestinians will view Zionism as a criminal enterprise. If it were a video game they would most likely entitle it Grand Theft Land.
When liberal American Jews think about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, they think about Isaac and Ishmael: brothers reared in the same land, each needing territory their progeny can call home.
This reference to a mythical biblical story is idealistic, and it is doubtful that many American Jews give attention to Isaac or Ishmael. Those who recognize these mythical persons probably never gave them a thought.
Because they see the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a struggle between rival but equally legitimate nationalisms, American Jewish liberals often suggest that the real problem began in 1967, when Israel became greedy and began to seize the land on which Palestinians could build a state. Palestinians, by contrast, often refocus attention on 1948, when roughly 700,000 Palestinians were displaced from their homes in Israel's war of independence, which Palestinians call the Nakba-"catastrophe."
This is not an Israeli-Palestinian conflict; it is a crisis, and only for the Palestinians? What harm are the Palestinians inflicting upon the Israelis?
Struggle between rivals? The Israelis are scarcely struggling in pounding the Palestinians into submission. What rivalry exists?
Equally legitimate nationalisms? Israel is already a nation. There is no Palestine. Is that equal nationalism?
Palestinian nationalism arose from a legitimate need to have a nation after the formation of the British Mandate deprived Palestinians of a homeland. The incursion of foreign Zionists into the Mandate accelerated the Palestinian demands. On the other hand, the legitimacy of a Zionist mission for people who already had passports and homes and its legitimate evolution are debatable. Did not world Jewry almost totally reject Herzl's Zionism and perceive it as a threat to security in their homelands? Have the Jewish liberals read the history of Zionism?Hadn't Israel already extended its territory beyond Resolution 181 partition line, seized lands and destroyed more than 400 Palestinian villages before 1967?
Is the wording "Palestinians often refocus attention" valid or should it be "Palestinians correctly focus attention?"In my own interactions with Palestinians, I have been repeatedly struck by the central place they assign the Nakba in Palestinian identity, and by their deep insistence that those Palestinians whom the Nakba made refugees, and their descendants, have the right to return to their ancestral homes. In many ways, this focus on 1948 is more challenging to Jewish doves-who envision Palestinians abandoning a large-scale right of return in exchange for a state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip with a capital in East Jerusalem-than for Jewish hawks who assume Palestinians will do no such thing.
The difference between a Jewish hawk and a Jewish dove is not between those who are belligerent and those who are peaceful. The difference contests how much harm should be inflicted upon the Palestinian community. Few Palestinians are harming Israelis and disturbing the peace.
"Repeatedly struck by the central place they assign the Nakba in Palestinian identity." Is that surprising? Hadn't UN Resolution 194,11 December 1948, par. 11, reinforced that position?11. Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible;
Instructs the Conciliation Commission to facilitate the repatriation, resettlement and economic and social rehabilitation of the refugees and the payment of compensation, and to maintain close relations with the Director of the United Nations Relief for Palestine Refugees and, through him, with the appropriate organs and agencies of the United Nations;
Palestinians don't need to believe in Zionism's legitimacy to make a pragmatic decision that because Israel isn't going away, they're better off accepting a state on 22 percent of British mandatory Palestine than waging a struggle for all of it that they can't win.
True, except the casual mention of the words "Zionism's legitimacy" smacks of another way to influence the reader into believing this controversial assertion.
I recently spoke to a group of Jewish high school students who are being trained to become advocates for Israel when they go to college. They were smart, earnest, passionate. When I asked if any had read a book by a Palestinian, barely any raised their hands. Even from the perspective of narrow Jewish and Zionist self-interest, that's folly. How effectively can you defend Israel's legitimacy if you don't even understand the arguments against it?
This is alarming and sinister - Americans are being trained to become advocates for a foreign nation and use this training to influence their fellow college students. Should not these persons be registered as foreign agents for Israel? Are these schools Jewish Madrasas?
In 2010, an Orthodox professor of Jewish philosophy named Charles Manekin noticed a photo in The Wall Street Journal. It was of American Jewish students, likely in Israel for a year between high school and college, screaming at a Palestinian woman in Sheikh Jarrah, a neighborhood in East Jerusalem where settlers have evicted Palestinians from their homes. In response, Manekin wrote an open letter to American Jewish leaders entitled "Recognizing the Sin of Bigotry, and Eradicating It." In it, he proposed that Jewish "schools should invite Palestinian refugees to speak to the students about their experiences." The speeches, he explained, would not be "about politics" but "about humanity."
The beauty of Manekin's proposal is that Jews, of all people, can relate to stories of dispersion and dispossession. To have your family torn apart in war-to struggle to maintain your culture, your dignity, your faith in God, in the face of forces over which you have no control-is something Jews should instinctively understand. Indeed, in strange ways, encountering Palestinians-the very people we are trained to see as alien-can reconnect us to the deepest parts of ourselves.A twist - No expression of indignity that American Jewish students are "screaming at a Palestinian woman in Sheikh Jarrah, a neighborhood in East Jerusalem where settlers have evicted Palestinians from their homes." Is this the training in these Jewish Madrasas? Should not this be investigated? Instead the dialogue shifts to "that Jews, of all people, can relate to stories of dispersion and dispossession. To have your family torn apart in war-to struggle to maintain your culture, your dignity, your faith in God, in the face of forces over which you have no control-is something Jews should instinctively understand."
The article is addressing the American Jewish liberal community and suddenly switches to an international perspective that has no historical reference to the Jews in America. The dialogue should more appropriately read: "Can American Jews today relate to stories of dispersion and dispossession. To have their family torn apart in war-to struggle to maintain their culture, their dignity, their faith in God, in the face of forces over which they have no control."-is this something American Jews should instinctively understand?" The answer is no, and that is one of the problems in reshaping U.S. foreign policy. Americans do not comprehend the disastrous effects of Washington's policies upon others.By seeing Palestinians-truly seeing them-we glimpse a faded, yellowing photograph of ourselves. We are reminded of the days when we were a stateless people, living at the mercy of others. And by that we ensure that statehood doesn't rob us of our own.
Jews, at the time of the establishment of the state of Israel were not stateless people, nor did they live at the mercy of others. They were recognized citizens of nations throughout the world, from Iraq to Argentina to Canada, and had responsible positions of authority in most nations, including the Soviet Union. After emancipation in the early 1800s, Jews, except for those in Russia, were allowed to integrate themselves into European life and progress. Zionism did not interrupt their progress but posed problems - intimating that Jews had divided loyalties.
The most troubling aspect of the Jewish liberal Left is the attempt to divide the liberal Left into Jewish and non-Jewish. This conveniently removes a portion of the liberal Left from cooperating with others on the issue of U.S. foreign policy and specifically those concerning the Middle East. Noticeably, the thrust is to drown out the vocal opponents of Israel, who accuse Israel and Zionism (Beinart, Open Zion, J-street and the Americans for Peace Now are all outspoken Zionists) of being virulent nationalist, militarist, and racist, betraying the Jewish people and causing them grief.
Are the Jewish liberals only accomplishing, knowingly or unknowingly, the legitimization of Israel's seizure of Palestinian lands, the enabling of total control of Palestinian lives and the gaining of support from the Jewish American community for Israel's illegal behavior. And, will their efforts lead to return of the wars and to retain the same political system, in which only the names will change, that will continue past actions?
Despite worthwhile intentions, this seems to be true. The liberal Zionist Jews are not guided by the realities of present Israel but by a romanticized vision of Israel, and they inflict this romanticized vision of Israel upon others.
Will the liberal Left ever learn?The year is 2013, more than fifty years after the beginning of the destruction of the Palestinian community. The crisis for the Palestinians has inexorably moved forward to reach an incomprehensible disaster. Peace negotiations have retreated back to square one as if nothing had previously occurred. What have the activities of the liberal Left accomplished? Apparently nothing but allowing the disasters to occur. The liberal Left never learns.
alternativeinsight
september, 2013HOME PAGE MAIN PAGE 
No Need to Login to post a comment.
comments powered by Disqus