Thursday, March 4, 2010
[The following is crossposted from JStreetJive. Note addition at end.]
More Than an "Analogy"
Following this blog's noting J Street's silence on the blood libel of Israel Apartheid Week (on Solomonia, here), Jerermy Ben Ami has finally published a response. In typical, studied, tortured and almost diplomatic prose, the statement nowhere rejects the substance of the campaign, namely, that Israel IS an apartheid state. IAW is not constructing analogies - it defines "Israel as an apartheid system."
Rather than simply and emphatically stating that Israel is NOT an apartheid state, J Street nibbles at the edges by saying: "We also reject comparisons of Israel to South African apartheid. The analogy clearly implies that Israel is illegitimate." (our emphasis).
There is no "analogy" - according to IAW, Israel IS an apartheid state, clear and simple. Continuing, the J Street statement criticizes the BDS (boycott, divestment and sanction) crowd by claiming that they are: "making no distinction between West Bank settlements and Israel proper, and refusing to support a two-state solution..."
In other words, J Street would probably be quite delighted were the BDS movement to target the "settlements" per se. Moreover, if IAW would only sign onto J Street's idee fixe of the two state solution, then they might go along with them.
Clearly and irrefutably, Israel - including the "settlements" - are not "apartheid states". Why won't J Street come out and unequivocally state that obvious fact? Because they have the agenda juggernaut of "no settlements and a two state solution".
I suppose we must issue a muffled congratulations to Ben Ami, but nibbling at the edges of this modern blood libel will not suffice.
[Martin Solomon adds: At first I thought Hillel might be a little harsh in his judgment, but then I saw that Charles Radin, in his Jewish Advocate column this week, corroborates the view of J Street having a tepid attitude in an otherwise friendly piece: The word on J Street (paid sub required):
...Two notes were off key. Let's deal with them first.
The first was his answer to what should be done in response to Israel Apartheid Week. It's actually Israel Apartheid Fortnight - 14 days of primarily campus-based Israelbashing boycott promotion that began March 1.
Ben-Ami said he did not think it worthwhile to spend time screaming "How dare you use the A word?" at another side that was screaming "Israel is an apartheid state." He noted that Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak had actually used the A word at the most recent Herzliya Conference.
Ben-Ami glided by the fact that Barak said apartheid is in Israel's future if the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories don't get to be self-governing. The Apartheid Week-niks say it exists now, and it is quite clear from the tsunami of stuff in which they are drowning the Internet that they do not see any place for a Jewish state in the region now or in the future.
There may be no magic right answer to how to respond, but blowing off the issue is not going to place J Street in the common-sense center or moderate-left of the overall debate...
I was talking to my dad last night about the difficulty of choosing the right language when discussing sensitive political issues.
It's one thing when you're preaching to the choir, and it's something else again when you are trying to persuade and convince people who are opposed to your point of view.
Simply yelling "You are dead wrong and we have nothing further to discuss," or worse, firing off volleys of insults is counterproductive.
Being on the Left I am intimately familiar with the problems of trying to educate people about Israel - often young people who know little and who empathically identify with the Palestinians because they are the weaker party - which in itself is not a bad impulse. Many times too I speak with people from the Middle East including Palestinians and other Arabs - not to mention hardliners like the "asajew" antizionists - and I've encountered various tactics from other proIsrael people, some which I think are totally a waste of time or worse, create more alienation.
So, responses that might not seem strong enough might be the only way to begin a conversation with people whose point of view is dead set against Israel, period, and this can come from a wide range of people who have various motives.
Not all are antisemitic or unprincipled, although the consequences for the Jewish people, were Israel to be lost, would be enormous - this is something I think just isn't considered by those who are arguing ideology, and along these lines one can form an argument; also correcting the historical record is important.
Obviously with hard core bigots it's impossible - but it is possible to counterattack simple ignorance and it's also possible to communicate with ideologues.
Some for example are arguing that any nationstate is obsolete. Others are sincere antiracists, post-colonialists etc who simply aren't considering all the angles - and who don't realize the devastating consequences of using Israel as a stand-in for the British Empire.
So, what might seem like a tepid response can actually be more persuasive, and open more minds, than a more bellicose argument.
I hope this makes sense - believe me I understand the difficulties here and the frustrations; I've lost friends over this issue because I myself prefer a softer, more measured tone.
I gotta agree w/ Sophia on this. I read the entire J-Street post and it is really not that bad. If J-Street and the more mainstream supporters of Israel have some topic in common, I don't see any reason to diss J-Street on that particular topic. Why not give them credit for being more or less right, and be happy to be in agreement. I have this strange feeling (like 100%) that there will be plenty of room for disagreement later ....
The Fallacy of the Superior Virtue of the Oppressed....doesnt just apply to the Israel-Palestinian situation.
Unfortunately, many people that apologize for Israel, cant seem to then apply those lessons to other situations and peoples. No matter how polite and patiently you try to explain to them.
Whitey = Bad and People of Color = Good
is a tough meme to break, especially with regards to People of Color.
You run into the same thing with regards to Israel/Palestine.
The British Empire wasnt all bad, but alas...
Trying to discuss things with bigoted tribalists is depressing.
EVil, thanks for letting us know your kkklan is depressed.
Since when is Israel the 'stronger' party and "Palestinian" Arabs the weaker? Israel is surrounded by Arab nations many times its size, with millions of more people and millions of dollars in oil revenue. She has been attacked man times in he short life and has come close to annihilation more than once. She is surely the underdog in this situation.
Israel only appears stronger if you limit your view to what you want to see instead of what is there, which is what anti-Israelists do all the time.
Well exactly Nappy - this is my point about education and context.
That's why it is important to educate and persuade.
It's an uphill battle considering the imagery in the media, the propaganda and also commentary that is common in Europe and the Middle East - for example, "crude, homemade rockets" is the usual term for the rockets that are launched from Gaza. More appropriate might be "canisters full of shrapnel and nails that scream in at supersonic speeds, packed with several kilos of explosives, aimed at civilians" but that isn't the way the information is presented.
Similarly when the Israelis do counterattack, they are better armed than the Palestinians and therefore can inflict severe damage. This goes without saying, and the body count alone is extremely skewed.
So one can in fact argue that the Israelis are "more powerful" because they are a hi-tech society, but obviously if the entire Arab League with all its people, space and resources is taken into consideration, plus the weight of EU support for the Palestinians (plus formerly the Soviets) the picture changes.
Also of course if people want to count bodies there are 6 billion people on the planet and maybe 14 million Jews, so....
Eddies comment reminds me of a typical CIFer responding to a pro Israel poster.
"Thanks for letting us know your ZioNazi Klan is depressed."
KoraNazis can't get over the fact that the Israelis aren't willing to "sit in the back of the bus" for the sake of "muhammed".
That's what they call a NAKBA.
No one is expecting J Street to mount a counter UC Irvine movement with equivalent thuggery.
But is it so much to ask that they do what every damn other group that actually deserves the "pro-Israel" label did and issue a STRONG, UNEQUIVOCAL CONDEMNATION of IAW. And do it BEFORE the goddamn events begin. How about that? Jebusf*ckingcripes how the hell hard is that? A statement on their web site isn't there as an argument or debate contribution to convince people, it's to tell their own people where they stand and what they care about, and it is obvious that Jeremy Ben-Ami doesn't -- care that is -- because he SAYS SO. He does...not...give a shit. It's not a priority for him. As Hillel says, they have an idee fixe about "settlements" and that's all they care about. Not the campus battle for hearts and minds, NOT IRANIAN NUKES (I'll be getting to that subject tomorrow). NOTHING ELSE.
Ooops - my apologies! I am having a bad day!
Well I think it should be condemned strongly too.
I don't think it is asking too much to expect J-Street to condemn IAW strongly -- before it happens. I guess they didn't, and that is worth criticizing. But the text of their condemnation is pretty reasonable. I just think they deserve credit for that (the content), leaving room to point out that it was not issued in a timely fashion. There are many areas where (I feel) J-Street does *not* deserve credit. So criticize 'em for those.
I'm beginning to suspect that Jerermy Ben Ami suffers from some reading miscomprehension. He doesn't seem to understand what words mean. I completely agree with Solomon that "There is no "analogy" - according to IAW". So Ben Ami either cannot grasp the meaning of words or he imagines that he has some sort of insight into the minds of the IAW's redactors and can read their concealed INTENTIONS! He KNOWS they don't really mean what they say!
___________
The shortest, pithiest and bull's eye explanation for why IAW is evil, here, in Dvar Dea's comment:
"Calling Israel, apartheid, Nazism, colonialism and racism is anti Semitic because of one simple reason. These are all evils to be abolished, and when someone describes the very existence of Israel as an evil to be abolished, that someone wants to abolish Israel. And if the security Israel gives to each and every one of its citizens is also apartheid, Nazism, colonialism and racism, then the very existence of every Israeli person is also apartheid, Nazism, colonialism and racism. And what could possibly be more racist then abolishing an entire people?"
http://blog.z-word.com/2010/03/combating-the-apartheid-slander-resources/
Mr Jerermy Ben Ami's behaviour when in Israel attempting to force his congressional coalition on Israel's Foreign Ministry was enough for local folks to question his agenda, especially on learning who his cohorts were.
To me, it is far more important that we Americans take action against the crimes committed by our government (including crimes committed in collaboration with other states) than it is for us to criticize the crimes of others. As Americans, we are responsible for the crimes our government engages in and can do much more to prevent future crimes. When we make accusations against others - for example, when we ask "why don't they have an Iranian Apartheid Week" - our accusations may be valid and correct, but one can understand why we are hypocrites.
I worked with the Boston University SJP on Israeli Apartheid Week. I believe this week is necessary, because - as Americans - we need to take responsibility and show our fellow citizens the atrocities that the government we live under is participating in.
I do not understand why it is wrong to criticize states. I support no state nor would I ever advocate for the image of one.
Julia, it is MOST important to me that YOU and your islamofascist, [national] Socialist, Progressively EVil friends,
become so demoralized with continual Nakba,
that your ONLY choice is to
SURRENDER UNCONDITIONALLY.
The topical creams and ointments can only treat, remedy or cure what is outside, or on top of, the nail - not the athletes foot fungus, toenail, fingernail fungus or foot fungus under the nail. The pills, such as Lamisil or Sporanox, do get inside the body; however there can be serious side effects and can wreak havoc on your entire system.