There’s a huge need for a strong national organization to give voice to the many Jews who oppose Israel’s occupation and annexation of Palestinian territory. Up till now the Jewish anti-occupation movement has consisted mainly of individual activists and small local groups. We’re largely shut out of the mainstream Jewish organizations. Our influence on policy is meager, and we haven’t been very successful in reaching the “silent majority” of Jews who are disturbed by Israel’s actions but afraid to speak out.
I think, though, the tide may be starting to turn…
I had an interesting conversation last week with Cecilie Surasky of Jewish Voice for Peace. JVP is a terrific Bay area group whose mission is promoting justice and human rights in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The exciting part is that JVP is starting to expand into a national organization. There are already chapters in Washington DC, Boston, Philadelphia and Seattle.
What induced me to call Cecilie was this passage from The Forward:
The American Israel Public Affairs Committee is making the isolation of Hamas its chief agenda item at its annual policy conference early next month.
Thousands of AIPAC activists will gather on Capitol Hill on March 7 to lobby for the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act, which would ban all direct aid to the P.A. and severely limit indirect financial assistance.
It’s bad legislation, which is likely to plunge the occupied territories into poverty and chaos and close off any American diplomatic options in dealing with Hamas. Few American Jews have even heard of the act, and most would oppose it if they understood the suffering it’s likely to cause. Yet, here is AIPAC mobilizing five thousand members to tell Congresspeople that American Jews want them to vote for it.
I knew Howard Lenow was working on linking Visions of Peace with Justice to JVP. I belong to VOPJ but it’s a long way from here to Boston and I don’t attend many meetings. I began to think: why not a Berkshire County JVP Chapter?
The anti-occupation movement is still at the grassroots stage. We don’t have the money or the influence of groups like AIPAC. But the fact that we’re coalescing into a national movement is a very good sign. Cecilie points out that it’s easier to bring off events like speakers’ tours when you have a critical mass of local groups you know will host talks. There’s also the opportunity for larger-scale fundraising, coordinated letter-writing and other forms of political activism; maybe, eventually, even a Washington presence.
Jewish Voice for Peace is well-equipped to serve as a central node for a nationwide movement. It’s a stable organization with a clear philosophy and a staff of experienced community organizers. And, mainly, it’s willing to step into the breach.
Here’s a bit about JVP, from the mission statement:
Jewish Voice for Peace is a diverse and democratic community of activists inspired by Jewish tradition to work together for peace, social justice, and human rights. We support the aspirations of Israelis and Palestinians for security and self-determination.
We seek:
- A U.S. foreign policy based on promoting peace, democracy, human rights, and respect for international law
- An end to the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem
- A resolution of the Palestinian refugee problem consistent with international law and equity
- An end to all violence against civilians
- Peace among the peoples of the Middle East
We are among the many American Jews who say to the U.S. and Israeli governments: “Not in our names!”
I asked Cecilie how JVP is different from Brit Tzedek - also a national Jewish organization opposed to the occupation. Brit Tzedek, she told me, retains Zionism as its basic philosophy. It makes a case that the occupation should end because it’s bad for Israel.
JVP is neutral on Zionism - neither embracing nor rejecting it. Instead, JVP’s philosophy stems from the long Jewish tradition of human rights advocacy. The values of peace, justice and freedom supercede allegiance to any national interest.
Brit Tzedek is an important alternative to AIPAC, etc. and already enjoys broad support from the more liberal end of the mainstream Jewish community. It has a petition going against the Ros-Lehtinen-Lantos bill mentioned above, by the way - the link is here, and you should sign. Brit Tzedek’s success is one sign of the broad discontent with the Jewish establishment’s hard-line support of Israeli settlement activities.
But Brit Tzedek’s strategy of staying within the perceived mainstream tempers its activism in many areas where community groups are moving forward. For example, the statement on divestment reads:
Divestment campaigns from corporations doing business with Israel alienate many Jews and divert focus and energy from the shared goals of the Israeli-Palestinian peace movement… We support investment in economic support and development projects that have the potential to bring people together rather than driving them apart.
JVP supports divestment as a non-violent way to pressure Israel to end the occupation. In fact, it was one of the key Jewish groups that helped organize the Caterpillar shareholder protest.
Our group, Visions of Peace with Justice, resisted joining Brit Tzedek because some of our members were uncomfortable with the strong pro-Zionist approach. Also, Brit Tzedek does not seem particularly open to assimilating existing groups with divergent philosophies. The model is to start local chapters to promote the message crafted by the main governing board.
As Cecilie says, Brit Tzedek is a top-down organization. JVP is more of a grassroots-up structure. Local leadership and decision-making is encouraged. Individual chapters may opt in or out of JVP positions and activities. JVP will provide a structure for inter-group communication and collaboration, and an umbrella organization to represent shared positions at the national level.
We are not going to build a lobbying group as effective as AIPAC overnight, obviously. But if we persist, we may be able to make a dent in the monopoly that right-wing Zionists have over Jewish political expression in the United States.
That monopoly is no accident, by the way. Cecilie tells me the Jewish Anti-Defamation League has actually mounted a formal campaign against JVP. Rumor has it that the ADL has instructed its members not to appear on panels with JVP speakers. Jewish organizations that try to host a JVP event report that they receive calls of protest from the ADL, with demands that the event be cancelled.
VOPJ reports similar experiences. Not a single synagogue in Boston would allow presentations from a Jewish medical group that travelled to the occupied territories. Several rabbis told them the synagogue was afraid of becoming the target of a smear campaign for hosting the talk.
The Zionist media watchdog group CAMERA went out of its way to trash “Munich” screenwriter Tony Kushner for sitting on the Board of JVP.
The truth is that the Jewish leadership has used its power to promote a hard-line position on Israel that represents a minority sentiment among American Jewry. If groups emerge that represent differing positions then the Conference of Presidents, the ADL and AIPAC can no longer carry an ultra-Zionist message to Congress and the White House and claim to be speaking for all American Jews.
I’m pretty excited about JVP. In favor of starting a Berkshire chapter is all of the above. Against it is the fact that I hardly have time to keep up this blog - or, for that matter, eat and sleep - much less take on a community organizing project.
But I’ve been asking myself how effecting blogging is as a means of activism. Hopefully, this site is a source of information and perspective, and maybe it raises questions for some people, or encourages others who are starting to question the common wisdom on Israel. In the end, though, I think that structures on the ground hold more real potential for creating social change.
I’ve always believed that if the Jewish community itself - or some significant segment of it - mobilized effectively against the occupation and in support of Palestinian rights, we could change American and Israeli policy. Maybe my energy would be better spent working locally, building one small segment of a larger Jewish Peace Movement.
Readers? What do you think? And, is anyone interested in taking over this blog?
Andrew: I’m bummed that you’re giving up yr blog. The blog world needs progressive Jewish voices like yours writing about this subject. I’ll miss that voice.
I wish success to the efforts of all progressive groups around the I-P conflict. I think you generally got right your characterization of Brit Tzedek. But it is NOT a ‘top down’ organization. It may be more top down than the two groups you compare it to–but there is plenty of grassroots lobbying done by individual BT chapters & this could not happen unless the group encouraged such individual initiative.
While I’m sympathetic to divestment (depending on how it’s formulated), I think it’s foolish to think that this idea will ever resonate for any more than a fringe in the mainstream Jewish community. That doesn’t mean it’s not worth talking about. But we should be realistic about what will work & what won’t. I think that BT has made a calculated choice not to focus on this issue for that reason.
Well, as my wife points out, I’ve been talking about giving up the blog for about six months, but I keep posting to it. But thanks so much for your words of support - it is good to know that people read it and find some value in it.
I’m glad you corrected me re Brit Tzedek. I was trying to draw a distinction and perhaps drew too sharply. Basically from all I can tell it’s a good organization and I’m glad it’s out there. You’ve been active in with Brit Tzedek in your area, yes? And if it can attract someone like you , it’s got to be a strong org.
I wouldn’t be too quick to write off Jewish support fo divestment.
The basic dilemna is: what would induce Israel to withdraw from the post-1967 land and cut a fair deal with the Palestinians? If we don’t support military action (which, as waged by the Palestinian militias, relies heavily on anti-civilian terror) then what do we support?
To me, the only answer is financial and political pressure. Under all the bluster, I think Israel’s leaders are quite frightened that it will wind up as the target of a South Africa style divestment campaign. This would be major motivator to Israel to negotiate a settlement.
The basis of Jewish support for divestment is what I hinted at above: that, as Jews, we put justice and human rights issues ahead of national loyalties.
How many Jews feel this way? It’s hard to tell. But I don’t think we should accept what is really a conscious attempt by the right to marginalize this part of the discourse. (The same tactic worked very well in the U.S. in the run-up to the Iraq invasion. Antiwar protesters were declared a fringe element and were ignored by mainstream media, politicians, etc.)
I don’t expect the whole Jewish community to come out in favor of divestment. But if even one Jewish organization with a national base and a substantial membership supports it, this can have a tremendous impact. For on thing, it serves to blunt charges of anti-Semitism. For another, it’s very powerful when we, ourselves, as Jews, articulate the basic ethical principles within our religion that lead us to support divestment.
I’d love to see a Berkshire chapter of JVP. I’d join!
Perhaps we could do a presentation or talk about it at my shul…
That said, I hope you won’t shut down the blog. Even if you only post sporadically, yours is a valuable voice; the progressive Jewish blogosphere would be lessened by your departure.
Wow, thanks Rachel! You are awfully nice to say so. I will definitely let you know if I start something.
Maybe I will find some way to keep the blog going at the same time.
BTW I’m thrilled that you can attend the Progressive Faith Bloggers Conference. That’ll be my next post.
A shonde! Your writing is too important to stop. Maybe you just need a little encouragement, but I know I always look forward to reading your blog and benefitting from your incisive and wise comments. Maybe you just need some help or guest authors, but please don’t stop. Maybe when you join JVP, you can continue as a chapter page. I would be happy to explain this to you.
Everyone, tell Andrew not to stop!
My goodness. Howard, thank you! I’m really touched and encouraged by all these comments. I guess, if people don’t mind my posting sporadically and disappearing for intervals when things get busy… then I’ll keep doing what I can.
Thank you so much to everyone for the support.
1. There have always been Jews in decent from the common “body-politic”. Its a traditional phenomenon.
2. The Israelis neither “occupied” nor annexed any portion of lands from any Arab neighbor. This is a fallacy (and shared fantacy) deriving from certain people’s conception that the “world community” has inherent discretion to change and re-change national borders, at will and retroactively. To quote from Kamal Nawash, esq., (a well known Palestinian-American immigration attorney): “From the point of view of many Israelis, the two state solution is difficult because they would have to give up their religious and historical attachments to the West Bank and Gaza which they call Judea and Samaria. Many Israelis simply cannot fathom giving up the West Bank and Gaza and maybe they should not have to.”
3. Without wasting too much time on this, because what is required is time and attention from both factions and the “liberal” or “Progressive” faction does not wish to have an in-depth intellectual discussion–as such would surely reveal the weakness of their arguments, they need to therefore “cut-to-the-chase” and tell us how many of the 3.4 million Palestinians–presently living nation-less in about 15 Arab countries, get to reclaim their (perceived) rights as Israeli property-owners and voting citizens. Any other avenue of discussion is a grand and gross waste of everyone’s time, including especially, their own. Any other line of discussion is an embarrassment to all Jews, as it divides their numbers and does so with zero possibility of any coherent solution. If that (self-division and humiliation) is the aim of this “Jewish Voice for Peace” group then I denounce them. If it is not their aim, let them take a formal and specific position on this critical question rather then wasting everyone’s time creating fairy-tale sound-bites for the consumption of the Arab propaganda machine.
4. Infra: “silent majority” of Jews who are disturbed by Israel’s actions but afraid to speak out.” There is not even a “silent majority” of Christians in the U.S. who are so disturbed. The proof of this can be found in the recent Senate conference, whereby President Bush (II) was faced with a veto over the Dubai ports question, which, came down to the collective Arab financial boycott against Israel and the U.S. laws against it.
5. Sound bites are cheap and exceedingly phony. Let these so called “peace activists” also put forth a coherent position paper on the legal aspects: originated in the global political and legal settlements, conceived during World War I and carried into execution in the post-war years between 1919 and 1923.
The peoples for whom these were designated, would be placed under the Mandates System and administered by an advanced nation until they were ready to stand by themselves. The Mandates System was established and governed by Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, contained in the Treaty of Versailles and all the other peace treaties made with the Central Powers – Germany, Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria and Turkey. The Covenant was the idea of US President Woodrow Wilson and contained in it his program of Fourteen Points of January 8, 1918, while Article 22 which established the Mandates System, was largely the work of Jan Christian Smuts who formulated the details in a memorandum that became known as the Smuts Resolution, officially endorsed by the Council of Ten on January 30, 1919, in which Palestine as envisaged in the Balfour Declaration was named as one of the mandated states to be created. The official creation of the country took place at the San Remo Peace Conference where the Balfour Declaration was adopted by the Supreme Council of the Principal Allied Powers as the basis for the future administration of Palestine which would henceforth be recognized as the Jewish National Home. The moment of birth of Jewish legal rights and title of sovereignty thus took place at the same time Palestine was created a mandated state, since it was created for no other reason than to reconstitute the ancient Jewish state of Judea in fulfillment of the Balfour Declaration and the general provisions of Article 22 of the League Covenant.
6. “Zionism” as a practical concept, ceased to exist when the national Jewish homeland was legally born–with the above international treaty law. Therefore, it matters not one fly speck, whether this group is pro, anti or neutral to “Zionism” as that issue is but another smoke-screen to divert attention from the core legal and moral issues and to absolutely pro-actively forget (or re-cast) history, both ancient and modern..
Isidor Farash