
A cleansing battle over settlements
J Street and The Israel Project are firing shots at each other after the disclosure that The Israel Project was advising its activists to say that the removal of Jewish settlements would be a version of "ethnic cleansing."
Syndicated columnist Doug Bloomfield got his hands on an internal TIP document on how to talk to journalists and opinion leaders about the Arab-Israeli conflict. First, Bloomfield said, TIP suggests changing the subject instead of trying to defend settlements. But if that doesn't work, the group says the "best" argument is to"try accusing those who advocate removing Jewish settlements of promoting 'a kind of ethnic cleansing to move all Jews' from the West Bank":
“The single toughest issue” to defend among Americans generally and American Jews in particular is settlements, says the manual, and “hostility towards them and towards Israeli policy that appears to encourage settlement activity.” ...
Instead of defending settlements, go on the attack, advises TIP, a Washington-based group that seeks to enhance Israel’s image among journalists and policy makers. ...
TIP says the “best argument” for settlements is this: Since Arabs citizens of Israel “enjoy equal rights,” telling Jews they can’t live in the Palestinian state “is a racist idea.” (Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad said this week that Jews would be welcome to live in the Palestinian state and enjoy the same rights Israeli Arabs enjoy in Israel.)
Until Israeli policy changes, TIP suggests deflecting critics by mentioning Israel’s “willingness to negotiate” and stressing how “Israel has already sacrificed in the name of peace” and got terrorists’ missiles in return.
The TIP talking points raised the ire of J Street, which sent out an e-mail Thursday urging its supporters to demand that "The Israel Project's Executive Director Jennifer Laszlo Mizrahi remove any pro-settlement, fear-mongering talking points from herorganization's materials":
Unbelievable. As someone who cares about Israel's future, I know that stopping settlements - as well as Palestinian incitement and violence - are first steps towards a secure, Jewish, and democratic Israel through a two-state solution. Using terms like "ethnic cleansing" to undermine that agenda is incendiary and dangerous - and, I believe, not pro-Israel.
Mizrahi defended her use of the term "ethnic cleansing" in an interview with JTA Thursday afternoon, saying that the document that Bloomfield saw is simply telling the truth about what happened when settlements were dismantled in Gaza, something she and her organization supported and which she was in Gaza herself to see.
"What happened in Gaza was ethnic cleansing," said Mizrahi. "Every Jew left Gaza, including the dead Jews," whose graves had to be moved, she noted.
"Israel did that with the hopes of trying to jump start a two-state solution," but instead it just led to Hamas rocket attacks and more Israelis and Palestinians dying.
Thus she believes that anyone who thinks "unilateral" Israeli concessions on settlements will move the peace process forward is mistaken, and she says that any future Palestinian state should allow Jews to remain living inside it. Mizrahi adds that she was very happy with Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salam Fayyad's recent comments that Jews would be free to live under Palestinian rule in such a state -- although she doubted Hamas would accept it.
And she criticized J Street, which she feels focuses lots of attention on settlements -- and what others in the Jewish community are doing -- but rarely speaks out about the obligations that the Palestinians have and doesn't back tougher sanctions on Iran.
"I get up in the morning and say 'How can I attack the Iranian nuclear threat," said MIzrahi. J Street "gets up in the morning and says 'How can I attack other Jewish organizations?'"
3 Comments
Share This
Comments RSS Feed Reader Comments
The statement, “"What happened in Gaza was ethnic cleansing,” said Mizrahi. “Every Jew left Gaza, including the dead Jews,” whose graves had to be moved, she noted.” is emotional and inappropriate. The removal of Jewish settlements from Gaza was mandated as part of the peace process. The settlements were illegal; consequently the use of the term ethnic cleansing is completely bogus, and only used to incite trouble rather than resolve problems. On this one issue, I have to say J Street is correct. I think it is apparent that Jewish groups must be sensitive to the appropriate use of language in public statements. These kinds of arguments/disagreements should be conducted behind closed doors to develop a unified position on issues of importance to us.
John Q. is entitled to his perspectives, especially on target as to inappropriate terminology. However, it must be clearly understood that there is not a united position among Jews, neither here nor in Israel, and it is extremely questionable why the settlements are believed to be illegal, when enforcing the (unanimous) ruling of the League of Nations that the Mandate for Palestine authorized Jews to dwell in the whole of the Land of Israel. Britain’s severing 77% of the Mandate for a Judenrein Arab state (Jordan) and present desires of remaining Palestinians does not make such a position either kosher or legal, nor do advisory opinions of the General Assembly and the World Court stand up either (as the American judge on the ICJ noted at the time of its ruling on the separation barrier).
Leave a Comment
To comment on this article, you must first be registered with JTA.
Not Registered?
There are real advantages to a FREE registration with JTA.org:
- Make your voice heard through comments on articles
- Receive our e-mailed Daily Briefing, an invaluable quick-read
- Help decide what Jewish news matters most with interactive tools




Howard White
07/10/09 11:05 AM
‘How can I attack the Iranian nuclear threat,” easy strap on a bomb, sneak into the Iraqi facility and blow it up. That sentence is one of the most extreme examples of hubris I have ever read.