J Street continues the criticism of The Israel Project
J Street has responded to The Israel Project's criticism of it as too interested in attacking other Jewish organizations (see here) by continuing to attack The Israel Project.
In a statement on the group's website, the group's campaigns director, Isaac Luria continues to blast the group for using the term "ethnic cleansing" when talking about removal of settlements, while bringing up evangelical Christian leader John Hagee and charging the group with not helping the image of Israel:
It is time for The Israel Project and its supporters to consider whether the important effort they launched several years ago is actually advancing or undermining the purpose for which it was established – promoting and improving the image of the State of Israel. ...
Does allying the pro-Israel community further with Pastor John Hagee by appearing at his conference hurt or help – even after he was seen in the last election cycle to be so far outside the mainstream of American politics that even the campaign of John McCain rejected his endorsement?
In fact, does the very concept of “Israel-right-or-wrong” advocacy really work on an issue and in a time when solving this problem requires recognition of complexity and nuance?
Meanwhile, Newsweek got a copy of the document that started this whole controversy, The Israel Project's 116-page Global Language Dictionary. What is strange is that the magazine posted the document Thursday night without any accompanying story or comment --nothing about the "ethnic cleansing" controversy nor even any explanation of what The Israel Project does or what the "Global Language Dictionary" is. So anyone who just happened to surf across the page on the Newsweek website would have no idea what they were looking at and why. (Newsweek, you're free to link to JTA if you want to provide some background to your readers.)
Interestingly, the portion of the document (which says no distribution or publication at the bottom of each page) on settlements uses the term "ethnic cleansing" at the very beginning of the chapter, in a sample monologue called "the best settlement argument." The remainder of the four-page chapter, with tips on how to talk and not talk about settlements, never uses the term again.
Share
Facebook
3 Comments
Comments RSS Feed Reader Comments
The invocation of “ethnic cleansing” has been applied in quite the opposite direction, and I’m not sure introducing this concept will serve Israel’s interests in any case.
For those supporters of settlements who oppose both a two state solution and a single state in which all residents (including Arab residents of the territories across the Green line) participate as equal citizens of a democratic state, the question naturally arises as to what they intend for the future. Most publicly deny that they desire an apartheid state. What then remains as a logical possibility is a “disappearing” of the Arab population. That, it seems to me, fits any plausible definition of “ethnic cleansing.”
I would be interested if those disagreeing with this analysis could attempt to avoid calling me names, and respond to the substance of the analysis.
My own preference is for a secure two state solution, perhaps evolving over time to a multi-state economic confederation. I would abhor an undemocratic, apartheid state--or the forcing of Palestinians out of their ancestral homeland (yes, I know about the arguments about Arab immigration to Palestine during the early Zionist period). For those who disagree, what alternatives do you propose?
(BTW, I have no principled objection to a negotiation that allows some Jewish settlements to continue within the sovereign territory of a Palestinian state living in peace alongside Israel--although I doubt that many settlers outside the anti-Zionist Satmar community would be much attracted to that prospect. Some Palestinian leaders are beginning to discuss such a possibility, with the settlers living subject to Palestinian law, as Arab citizens of Israel live under Israeli law.)
--The Wise Bard
To Michael Hess:
The use of invective and spurious international law against the settlement project may work for you and Jimmy Carter but it wont pass the test of reality. Julius Stone, Eli Lauterpacht and Stephen Schwebel whose knowledge of the subject surpasses yours viewed Israel’s position as totally consonant with international law. When you engage in an agressive war and lose you pay the consequences that is why Danzig is today Gdansk and Koenigsberg is Kaliningrad.
To Alan: from the original Palestine mandate there are no Jews in 78% of it (the Hashemite Monarchy of Jordan that imposes the death penalty on the sale of land to Jews) within the 1949 Armistice lines there are 1,200,000 Arabs. If the area of a putative Palestinian state is devoid of Jews the same should apply to areas under Jewish sovereignty paraleling what happened between Greece and Turkey that even resulted in a Nobel Peace Prize.
There are no Satmar Jews in Judea and Samaria they are to busy writing letters of encouragment to Obama for getting tough with Israel. The main problem with living as a religious minority under Muslim sovereignty is the problem of physical security. Take a look at what happened to the Christian population of the area. In Bethlehem the Chrisitians are a distinct minority and we are talking about fellow Arabs. With all your wisdom do you seriously envision a situation where a Jewish community under Palestinian sovereignty will be able to thrive and expand the way the Arabs have in the state of Israel? There is nothing wrong with the term ethnic cleansing or judenrein. This is the reality that confronts us.
Leave a Comment
To leave a comment, you must first be logged in to JTA. If you are not registered, please click here.
Already a JTA member?
Need to know? Get JTA's free e-newsletters!
Michael Hess
07/10/09 09:22 PM
J Street is correct. It cannot be “ethnic cleansing” as those 300,000 colonists are there illegally, even more egregious they were encouraged to take the land by successive governments even though they know and the world knows that it is forbidden to transfer one’s citizens to an occupied territory.
The Israel Project is a reflection of just how twisted things have gotten. Most Americans are not aware that Israel is in severe contravention of UN resolutions and international laws and at least one treaty.
The Israel Project is trying to rewrite the language of history and the law at the same time by trying to claim that criminals must be able to keep the land they have stolen, (with government support), and they must not be removed lest it be called ethnic cleansing.
That is sick and twisted, immoral and downright wicked to try to do.