The Third Way: A Different View of the Middle East

In Part 1 of this essay, I addressed Rabbi Ira Youdovin’s characterization of Jewish Voice for Peace as “beyond the pale” because we supported the views of former President Jimmy Carter. Now, I’d like to address his other basis for drawing his arbitrary line between JVP and the Jewish community, divestment.

Simply by saying that “JVP supports divestment,” Youdovin misrepresents JVP’s position. Our stance is explained at length here, but in sum, JVP makes two points about divestment. One, that we support selective and targeted divestment that is aimed exclusively at the occupation, not at Israel itself. Two, that other groups who do support boycotts, divestment from Israel or even sanctions against Israel are not, by virtue of that fact alone, acting either out of anti-Semitism or in an anti-Semitic fashion. Of course, it is possible that such actions can be motivated by anti-Semitic malice, but the holding of those stances is not evidence of it by itself.

JVP is in fact quite scrupulous about ensuring that we target only the occupation with economic actions. These include, incidentally, other means such as purchasing and distributing Palestinian olive oil to help Palestinian farmers, as well as efforts to support Israeli peace groups such as Yesh GVul and New Profile. (more…)

In a recent op-ed in the Jewish weekly, The Forward, Jewish Voice for Peace was described as being “beyond the pale” because we “support divestment and … urge Congress to heed Carter’s words.” Interestingly, JVP receives a huge amount of support from the great many Jews all across the country and around the world who believe we not only embody the spirit of tikkun olam (repairing the world), but are also working more than most for the best interests of both Israelis and Palestinians.

Be that as it may, let’s examine this rather arbitrary line that the writer of that op-ed, Rabbi Ira Youdovin, draws.

Let’s start with Jimmy Carter. The hysteria surrounding that book has, at least in public discourse, badly obscured the substance. Carter makes an eloquent and clear case that the suffering of Palestinians is intolerable and must end and that it is unrealistic for Israelis to believe they can ever be safe from attacks while that suffering is going on. This is hardly controversial to anyone paying attention to the realities on the ground. (more…)

Although I’m something of a historian by trade and inclination, in this space I try to keep to current events. But some historical events are of particular importance because they continue to shape today’s events. This is especially true of the failed attempt at Camp David in 2000 to cobble together a final peace agreement based on the Oslo process between israel and the Palestinians.

The common view that Arafat was solely responsible for the Camp David failure is false, but it is widely believed and that belief has colored the politics of the conflict to this very day. But some alternate versions, where Arafat is held blameless and painted as an innocent victim of American and Israeli machinations are equally false. (more…)

The primary purpose of the Palestinian unity agreement this week was internal Palestinian unity. But Palestinian security also depends on the lifting of the economic blockade they have been under since the election of the Hamas government.

In the short term, this agreement is not going to change the stances of the main actors in that blockade, the US and Israel. In fact, it may well harden their stances. Israel has already made some allusions to this agreement “tainting” Mahmoud Abbas. In their view, the unity arrangement is to be seen as bringing Abbas under Hamas’ umbrella rather than modifying any of Hamas’ stances. That they’re well aware this is not the case is not likely to change the political posturing.

In the long term, however, there could be some impact. Saudi Arabia has obviously given the agreement its blessing. That will mean some Arab money coming into the Occupied Territories. Saudi Arabia also enjoys the added benefit of largely blocking increased Iranian influence among the Palestinians. Neither Fatah nor Hamas is particularly interested in Iranian help if they have any choice in the matter. Up until now, they didn’t. (more…)

The preliminary deal struck in Mecca this week for a Palestinian unity government was greeted with a good deal of fanfare and a lot of questions. First and foremost among those questions was whether the deal would be “acceptable” to Israel and the United States and be adequate to lift the economic blockade those two countries have imposed on the Palestinians since Hamas’ election last year.

As was the case with the Prisoners’ Agreement last year, the question misses the point.

The primary goal of the unity agreement was just that–to create Palestinian political unity and to end the horrible fighting that has marred the Gaza Strip (and to a much lesser degree, the West Bank) in recent weeks.

That’s not to suggest that the US-Israel reaction was not a significant factor, but it wasn’t the primary one.

Under this agreement, Hamas and Fatah will each have 12 representatives in the 25-person Palestinian cabinet. The 25th will be a bone of contention and could derail the agreement. (more…)

The wonderful Israeli organization, ICAHD (the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions), headed by my friend and colleague, Jeff Halper, has worked tirelessly against this part of the occupation. Finally, the Jerusalem Post reports today that Jeff and ICAHD are working with Judge Juan Guzman (the judge who indicted Augusto Pinochet for his crimes against humanity in Chile) to determine if there is some action that can be taken against this abhorrent practice.

The issue of home demolitions has got to be the winner of the most underrated cause of anger and hatred in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

Imagine for a moment that you are head of a household that includes several generations as well as siblings and cousins. Your home is impossibly crowded, but in an occupied territory it is virtually impossible to move, you are forbidden to build an extension on your home without a permit, which is just about impossible to get. So, you do what you must, build and hope no one notices. Then your house gets knocked completely down by the occupying power. Not just the new part,but all of it, leaving your entire family homeless.

In Israel, there used to be a pretense that home demolitions were done for security reasons. This was never true–less than 10%, and most years less than 5% of home demolitions had anything to do with any attacks on Israel. This is aside from the fact that punishing the family of a suicide bomber or any attacker of civilians is collective punishment, illegal under international law, and obviously immoral. How would you feel if you were made to suffer because your relative committed a crime? (more…)

A supporter of Jewish Voice for Peace sent me this article by Patrick Buchanan and asked for my response to it. Here is a slightly edited version of that response.

I am always loathe to agree with Pat Buchanan, and fortunately, while he gets a few things right, his analysis here is sufficiently shallow and simplistic that I don’t have to.

There’s a great deal of quite understandable hysteria in both Israel and the American Jewish community at the prospect of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons. The Iranian regime has, since the 1979 revolution, expressed quite a bit of hostility toward Israel, in both word and deed. Since it is a religious regime, people are even more fearful.

There’s no doubt that Israel wants a military strike on Iran to eliminate their nuclear capacity. There’s no doubt that the neocons want a military strike on Iran as well. Is that because of Israel? Well, that’s one reason, but it’s unlikely the most immediate or important one. (more…)