Pro-Palestinian Zionist
Over the past few weeks, I have been paying a lot more attention to the far left wing of the Jewish community. Here we find a lot of folks who are considered anti-Semitic for their critic of Israel. Some are clearly self-hating Jews. While most are not; they are strong, ardent, and passionate people who stand up for their Jewish identity.
I was just in a tough race for a blog award. The real prize in this competition is increased traffic to my blog, so I won in that category hands down. But I was fighting HARD for second place because I was in the same sub-group with the instant mega-blog MuzzleWatch.
Now for the most part I dig what the folks have to say at MuzzleWatch, but sometimes it is over the top and conspiracy theory heavy. But I respect them for what they try to do, bring another perspective forward on the Israeli Palestinian conversation. Within weeks they were mentioned in the San Fransisco Chronicle and I believe the New York Times.
There was some commentary that MuzzleWatch should not be involved in the Jewish and Israel Blog Awards (also know as JIB) It was said – in comments on my blog – that because MuzzleWatch and its parent organization Jewish Voices for Peace don’t follow the true rules of the JIB Awards. They tend to promote a few issues that could be seen as an inverted way towards the destruction of the State of Israel, such as right of return for Palestinians.
Is the Jewish Voices for Peace a Pro-Israel organization? I can’t answer that question but I can offer some insight. I am a post-Zionist to some people’s definition. I am an anti-Zionist to other definitions. I am a colonial oppressor by some other definitions. But to me, I am a pro-Palestinian Zionist. What does that mean? I can only tell you what it means to me, an American liberal Jew.
It means I support the idea and reality of a sustainable democratic and Jewish State in the Land where Israel is currently recognized by most of the International Community. It means I enjoy traveling to Israel and spending time inside the Green Line. It means I support progressive religious and cultural cause in Israel. It also means I support the creation of a democratic state of Palestine to live peacefully next to Israel in a sustainable and manageable manner. Do I see this in my life time? I am not sure, but that is why it is an ideology and not a reality.
Now the question remains should we be judging others by titles or by their content of character? (Clearly I think the later.)
So to those who say the possibly different view on the same issue is anti-whatever, it really is a definition problem. There are clear rights and wrongs in this conflict. There really is not need to continue to create divisions based on words, we need to start looking for allies. All of us need to look for allies.
Join the Conversation
Jewish Voices for Peace (I am assuming there is only one, correct?) is a good organization. However, sometimes their local chapters partner with really extremist groups in the Arab community, as they have done recently in a Chicago-based event to which I was invited … the groups seem to spend most of their time worrying abut how should be listed as “co-sponsors” at the end of event notices. They never reach out to other groups, and tend to partner with grousp that I think are two-faced in the Arab community, groups that claim they support peace, but advocate the “One State” solution which is not a solution at all in my personal Palestinian opinion. Groups that advocate two-states have been excluded from their events … for example, we have a group called Salam al Ann in Chicago and several Palestinian groups in Chicago won’t work with us. Why? Because we support two-states, denounce suicide bombings are immoral crimes and call for compromise on issues such as the Palestinian Right of Return … while also hammering Israeli government policies that we feel are wrong, also.
Anyway, the mainstream media loves these leftist groups because they fill a “need.” The media (as a friend pointed out in another comment elsehwere) is a business. That doesn’t mean they don’t go out of their way to muzzle some voices and augment others. They can afford to do that because covering the Middle East is not a moiney-making revenue source so they can be driven by bias in MidEast coverage and not worry about losing money, unless they become excessively critical fo Israel and too supportive of the Palestinians.
Just some random thoughts I wanted to share
Ray Hanania
http://www.hanania.com
The people behind MuzzleWatch and involved in Jewish Voice for Peace are all great people. I really have to disagree with Ray’s position that they only care about being listed as co-sponsors, or that they don’t reach out to other groups, or that they partner with “two-faced groups” (whatever those are). I personally know a number of them, and some of them even work with a group I’m involved in (Students for Justice in Palestine). They are an important organization, and they provide a good outlet for liberal Jews or Zionists who feel out of place with the “mainstream” (but quite reactionary) Jewish/Zionist groups in the US. Of course, the cost of this for them is that they face constant harassment from others, and even from Palestinians and others who disagree with them. While they can be legitimate criticized on a few issues (sometimes I tend to think that they are too soft on certain issues), I don’t think any of these justify a boycott.
That said, Ray, I haven’t heard of your group, but I just read about it on your website. I think it’s rather disingenuous of you to say that the reason other Palestinian advocacy groups might oppose it is because you “denounce suicide bombings as immoral crimes,” as if the rest of them support that kind of attack. I don’t think that’s so right, and I think it probably has more to do with the following principles that your group espouses: 1) accepting the creation of 2 religiously or ethnically defined states in one contiguous piece of land; 2) in effect renouncing the right of return; 3) treating Palestinians and Israelis as if they are in equivalent positions, and as if the violence either way is always equivalent, whether measuring it quantitatively or qualitatively, just to name a few. My point is that there are many legitimate reasons why your group is encountering opposition, besides that everybody else is “two-faced” or supports terrorism.
Hi Ray and Yaman, I think that the conversation you are having is an interesting one. The divergence in your opinion reminds me a lot of that which I encountered at an event recently at NYU which featured Rafi Dajani of the American Task Force on Palestine and Riham Barghouti, who heads an organization in NY calling for Boycott, Sanctions and Divestment. I’ll post that as a separate entry since it’s long, but in general it was really interesting to hear Riham support one state, and a full right of return, and to hear Rafi talk about two states and the necessity of working within the limits of the current political discourse (largely determined by America and Israel). However, when I asked the speakers whether they saw each other as competition/foes, Barghouti surprised me; she said that the likelihood of what she was calling for happening was slim, but she thought it was important to raise the stakes of what is possible, so that when the two sides sit down at the negotiating table there is something to give up. Go for the moon kind of philosophy, and I guess there is a difference of opinion as to whether a two-state solution with an agreed-upon and multifaceted solution to the refugee problem bears any resemblance to the stars.
I suppose the most important take-away lesson, if you buy it (I’d love to hear what you think) is that the message of SJP and groups with less mainstream demands can actually have an extremely powerful impact on widening the public discourse and actually make the realization of the goals of Salaam Al-Ann etc. more likely, and these groups should not be positioned as foes.
I’m rabidly binationalist, but the right of return is in international law and I don’t see any kind of bilateral treaty or established Palestinian state necessarily taking any legimitacy from any individual Palestinian’s desire to exercise that right. It seems like the two state solution’s popularity is in serious decline these days, though, so I wonder how realistic it is to expect even that to happen in my lifetime.