J Street: Rumble on the Hill or Mumble on the Hill?
October 27th, 2009 § 1 Comment
As I write, well over 1000 overwhelmingly Jewish peace activists are gathered in the sub-sub-sub-basement of the Grand Hyatt Hotel in Washington, D.C. because they think that the AIPAC line of Israel-right-or-wrong—but really, Israel is right—is intolerable. They want a different sort of American policy towards Israel and probably a different sort of Israel. That means a sharp change in Israeli policy. Mass characterization is hazardous. The J Street attendees have a lot of different views. But generally, I imagine they want a two-state solution, an end to the occupation, and, perhaps, an end to the degradation of the Palestinian people.
Is all this a good thing? It’s definitely a better thing than AIPAC. Let’s start from there and then quibble about substance and rhetoric. On those fronts, the J Street plenary was a bit of a disappointment. There was much talk of Israel being a Jewish homeland, and way too much talk of a “strong” Israel and a “secure” Israel: Strong + Secure = Safe. That equation seems like it’s missing something–the phrases “Palestinian” and “occupation” have been conspicuously missing from most of the conference thus far, ushered politely off-stage in the name of “pragmatism” and politesse.
At the opening session, Jeremy Ben-Ami referred to Israel as a “vibrant democracy.” I thought maybe this was ironic, but then audience clapped a bit–not irony but demagogy. So let’s all repeat together: a racial or ethnic democracy is a diminished democracy, diminished very minorly to the extent that its ethnic stratification is merely formal or marginal, diminished severely when the ethnic character of the state or democracy is correspondingly severe. And there is, as the conference speakers repeatedly intoned when tapping one of their feet a touch to the left of AIPAC, nothing anti-Semitic about pointing this out.
I had no expectation that Jeremy Ben-Ami was going to emit some dazzling discourse outlining a plan to channel American Jewish sentiment into support for the establishment of a Buberite democratic commonwealth in Palestine, although it would’ve been cool. But when Cast Lead is described as “militarily justified,” when the “fallout” is cited as the reason that the winter massacre was “unwise,” as Ben-Ami did, and when aid is not on the table, as Ben-Ami has said; when Rabbi Eric Yoffie comments that the notion that Israel bears primary responsibility for Gaza’s suffering is non-sense, that Hamas is anti-Semitic as well as the primary obstacle to peace, what are we to think? How are we to expect that J Street is going to force Israel to change its policies? Well-placed blandishments?
This point is not just righteous posturing. Any tactic to change Israeli policy must be evaluated in terms of its likelihood of doing so. Israeli society as currently configured won’t make that change without compulsion. J Street is a step forward and it’s what we have and it’s good. Still, it must be said: Indulging in fantasy about the nature of Israeli society may be pleasant, or comforting. But it’s not helpful to the Palestinians. And it’s about as helpful to Israel as passing car keys and a bottle of whiskey to a shit-drunk friend, too.
[...] J Street: Rumble on the Hill or Mumble on the Hill? By Max Ajl 2009 October 26 by kanan48 Via: Pulse. [...]