Besser on the “Gaza 54”: Pro-Palestinian is not anti-Israel
One of the beefs you hear about beefs about Israel's closure of Gaza is that they are not contextualized; the critics of Israel's closure never explain what led Israel to close the strip, the complainers say.
Another is that Israel is not solely responsible for the closure, Egypt also has a border crossing (as opposed to Israel's three, and its control of air and sea access, but fine.)
A letter recently from 54 Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives addresses both contexts: As I noted when I wrote it up as a brief, it sympathizes "deeply with the people of southern Israel who have suffered from abhorrent rocket and mortar attacks" and recognizes that Israel's restrictions arise out of a "legitimate and keenly felt fear of continued terrorist action by Hamas and other militant groups." The letter, to President Obama, also urged him to press Israel and Egypt on the matter.
Now, the signatories have come under fire; one has even withdrawn her signature. Behind the pressure is a Republican Jewish Coalition campaign. The RJC action alert contains at least one untruth:
These 54 Democrats expressed no concern whatsoever about the consequences their ideas might have for Israelis living under the threat of terrorism from Gaza!
In fact, the letter directly addresses those consequences --
Easing the blockade on Gaza will not only improve the conditions on the ground for Gaza’s civilian population, but will also undermine the tunnel economy which has strengthened Hamas. Under current conditions, our aid remains little more than an unrealized pledge. Most importantly, lifting these restrictions will give civilians in Gaza a tangible sense that diplomacy can be an effective tool for bettering their conditions. Your Administration’s overarching Middle East peace efforts will benefit Israel, the Palestinians, and the entire region.
Perhaps the letter's writers are wrong, maybe they are naive, maybe they are disingenuous, but that's not what the RJC is saying. [UPDATE: Right about here, an earlier version of this post crossed the line between criticism and name-calling, which I regret. The offending words have been removed.]
At the New York Jewish Week, Jim Besser uncovers something even more potentially pernicious: The tendency among email-blasters campaigning against the signatories to identify the letter solely with one of its signatories, U.S. Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), although Ellison was joined by Jim McDermott (D-Wash.) in introducing the letter -- and, according to Besser, it was drafted in McDermott's office. Ellison happens to be the first Muslim elected to Congress. (Let me make it clear, this tendency does not, as far as I know, emanate from the RJC; my concern with their alert is a separate matter.)
Take it away, Jim:
Every time I’ve heard [Ellison] speak, including on a recent panel that was clearly skewed to the anti-Israel point of view, he’s stressed his belief that both sides in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict need to do more to live up to past commitments and take greater chances for peace. He’s spoken clearly about Israel’s need for security as part of any ultimate settlement. He speaks the language of compromise – for both sides.
In short, he sounds pro-Palestinian without sounding anti-Israel.
I'd add one thing: When Ellison and another Washington Dem, Brian Baird, toured Gaza after last winter's war, it was Ellison -- not Baird -- who continued to Sderot to survey the aftereffects there.
Share
Facebook
7 Comments
Comments RSS Feed Reader Comments
Except Kevin, Israeli retaliation was just that, retaliation for hamas attacks. The hamas chicken came before the Israeli egg. And to pretend otherwise is, yes, antisemitic. Because when you condem Israel for doing what EVERY other country would have done. Well, what do you call that.
Dear Bill, After the 67 war Israel had by ‘force majest’ captured Gaza and the West Bank. No other state lays claim to this territory. Israel could and arguably should have annexed these territories at this time. Israel has instead chosen to administer these territories as an occupying power. Israel therefore has a ‘duty of care’ as the occupying power to the Arabic people in the territories many of whom choose to refer to themselves as Palestinians.
International law never envisiaged that occupation could be a state that would persist for some 42 years.
The effect of occupation is deny Palestinians any internationally recognised identity so making participation in the modern world virtually impossible for them (a condition that has persisted for some 42 years).
No other country that I know of is administering another people as non-persons (My own country Australia in effect granted citizenship to our aboriginee people in 1967).
Take away the occupation/control over Gaza borders and I will support Israels’ right to retaliate.
Say I stipulate to your argument. The fact is that Israel has the right to control its OWN borders. If the entity on the aother other side is a hostile entity. Has hamas surely is, what would you do ?what would Australia do?
The key to resolving a controversy (I teach Risk Management) is to design a process that all parties will accept as legitimate even if the result goes against them.
For me a problem in this is that Israel itself hasn,t resolved its own controversy “Do we annex the territories or accept a two state solution”, Normally I say there is a tool for resolving a finely balanced decision, its called flipping a coin the key is to make a decision, stick to it, deal with the fall out and move on (the alternative is paralysis) but a referendem works as well.
The the world wants this crisis to be resolved so it probably will be possible to get significant help to compensate the inevitable losers on this issue.
Let me come at this from another angle. ( lets leave aside whether hamas has in your words resolved their own thing, not to mention the Iranians, Hezbollah, the Al Aksa brigades, the Syrians. And I don’t know Palestinians for the metric system. I’d be interested how you would handle one small part of this. I think that most reasonable people believe that Israel can’t, simply can’t, have a hostile military entity on the west bank ridge line. Particularly one allied with Iran that can put the coastal population centers under attack. Yet the Goldstone report says to Israel that self defense is not allowed them . That attacks must be absorbed. How would you resolve this?
I’m not sure that I said Hamas has resolved any of its own things as you suggest and in the final analysis I support Israel’s right to self defence, I simply point out that violence is a very imprecise form of communication and the only behavior you can consistantly change is your own.
My readings of Goldstone (Major RAINF) is not that self defence is denied Israel but rather that ‘excessively lax rules of engagement’ which my opinion appear to cross the line into a reckless disregard for innocent bystanders is not acceptable (part of the problem is in my opinion is that after years of conflict there appears to be a perception in Israel that there is no such thing as an innocent Arab).
I agree nobody needs hostile neighbors and given the history in the area attitudes will not change overnight but I still believe “You get more flies with honey than with vinegar”.
Given ballistic missiles, IEDs and globalisation the old ‘good fences make good neighbors’ approach to defence is rapidly becoming less effective.
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!
Kevin Walsh
02/12/10 04:06 AM
You may be making a serious mistake if you expect RJC to respect evidence, belief is enough, to quote an important Republican ‘I am a gut player’ indeed belief despite evidence may be even more virtious.
I see the same thing in rants about Hamas’ ‘unprovoked’ rocket fire on Israel as if bombing the tunnels, targeted killings and the seige are not provocations.
I do not agree with Hamas’s firing on Israel but to call such actions unprovoked denies that Gazans may have grievances that can be adddressed.