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.

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.

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.

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.

Everyone, tell Andrew not to stop!

Thank you so much to everyone for the support.

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