For over four decades, many Israel supporters have felt supporting Israel was a zero sum game. It was seen as an oxymoron to suggest one could support the Palestinian cause and still be considered “pro Israel.”
However, three year old J Street, a rapidly growing, primarily Jewish pro-Israel organization, argues that to be “pro Israel” is to also be “pro Palestinian.” Certainly not ”pro” in the sense that Jewish people support the violence allegedly perpetrated in the name of the Palestinian cause, such as the latest terrorism — a horrific murder of five members of the Fogel family in Itamar, a West Bank settlement. Or ”pro” in the sense that Jewish people support particular Palestinian leaders or negotiating tactics. But “pro” in the sense that the Jewish community supports the Palestinians’ ultimate right to have their own state alongside a safer and more secure Israel.
Helping Palestinians, the argument goes, is not only right but it also helps Israel overcome the economic drain — military expenditures project to 8% to 9% of GDP, giving Israel an unenviable (and hopefully unsustainable) top five world ranking — and furthers Israel’s diplomatic goals by addressing the complex political and social issues caused by what most of the world sees as an unjustified occupation of the West Bank, Gaza, and east Jerusalem.
But some Israelis and Israel supporters continue to question why Israel has to do anything to help the Palestinians: When was that last war the Palestinians won? It’s up to us to dictate, not negotiate terms. If they don’t like our terms, so what? Jordan is really Palestine — let them all go there. Why can’t other Arab countries absorb them? How can we help someone that wants to kill us all? They’ll take what we give them as a first step and go for the rest of Israel when they’re stronger.
That thinking has meant that for most of the last 43 years the only overarching peace strategy has been to avoid developing one. It’s been day to day and tactic to tactic with the tactic de jure based on whether violence, Israeli politics or American pressure — the Israeli “holy trinity” — was the hottest news or political item.
Certainly, it is inarguable that many of Israel’s tactics, particularly the cringe-inducing separation barriers and heavy West Bank security presence, have produced a successful reduction in violence against Israelis. But they have also served to reduce Israel’s sense of urgency and sensitivity to Palestinian and Israeli Arab civil and human rights issues.
The world, usually minus America, largely sees the lack of peace progress as Israel’s fault: Israel is Sampson and can afford to take chances for peace. The Palestinians don’t even have a David to fire their (too often lethal) slingshots. That has led to a perverse tendency on both sides to adopt a level of ”yes, it’s wrong, but you have to understand why” cognitive dissonance. Israel supporters decry terrorism against their civilians and Palestinian supporters counter with their objections to what they see as state-sponsored terrorism.
What is now a five decades long “Days of Our Palestinian and Israeli Lives” real life soap opera, with serial repeats, is playing to increasingly bad world reviews and has led to a deterioration in Israel’s diplomatic relationships and an often tense relationship with Israel’s two critical supporters — America and a large portion of the Jewish Diaspora community.
AIPAC, the pro-Israel community’s traditional standard bearer, does not have that tense relationship. It plays to a solid, less questioning Jewish constituency that unquestionably represents the largest portion of active pro-Israel supporters. They are largely seen as an ’”already converted” base that helps bolster Israel’s standing with the American government and support Israel’s tactical and strategic decisions, including Israel’s negotiating posture with the Palestinians. AIPAC’s sense of urgency mirrors what appears to be Israel’s: negotiate with the Palestinians at Israel’s pace, however many decades or Israeli and American administrations that takes.
J Street, on the other hand sees a negotiating clock that’s broken. They see, to borrow Martin Luther King’s words, “a fierce urgency of now,” in working harder to finally resolve Palestinian issues that harm both Palestinians and Israelis and only grow more complex as time passes. J Street also speaks to those pro-Israel activists who have more questions and doubts but who are uncomfortable with AIPAC’s “all in” approach. The fact that J Street supporters have now found a home where they can express their support is a huge positive. But the real potential is for J Street and AIPAC to find ways to turn more of the 98% of Jews, who are not financially affiliated with either, into more active and committed pro-Israel, and also what should logically be more pro-Palestinian, supporters.
That’s why it is critical for AIPAC, J Street and the Israeli government to recognize their shared interests and find ways to work together. Engaging in dialog, striving for detente and working to grow pro-Israel support beats ostracizing and demonizing J Street, which is clearly what some AIPAC supporters and the Israeli government have been guilty of doing. (Of course, this assumes that scoring cheap organizational and political points isn’t as critical to Israel’s success as actually identifying and solving Israel’s support problem.)
It’s not about changing minds. The Israeli government isn’t going to get J Street to support Israel’s positions or tactics in the same manner or to the same degree AIPAC does. AIPAC won’t get J Street to stop advocating for certain positions or tactics that may differ from the Israeli government’s. J Street won’t get AIPAC to embrace nuance. The Israeli government is unlikely to unquestioningly take J Street’s ideas and positions and suddenly adopt them.
But the point isn’t to strive for position switches. This isn’t about trying to turn water into wine or even liberal Democrats into conservative Republicans. What it is about is recognizing we are all on the same team and have the same ultimate goal: Israel as a vibrant democracy that serves as the Jewish homeland living side by side with a viable Palestinian state. It’s also about trying to win the battle for Israel’s moral compass by gaining more loyal and strategically thinking supporters, even the ones who may occasionally or even frequently disagree with an Israeli policy or tactic. Welcoming them aboard and also winning over what can only be said to be an overwhelmingly unconnected majority can have the greatest positive impact on Israel’s and a new Palestinian state’s future success. Israel absolutely needs sustained Jewish Diaspora support and the best way to ensure that is to work together to appeal to a broader cross section of the Jewish community.
Birthright trips, where young Jewish adults are sent to Israel to learn and experience the “Israel story,” guarantee interest for the length of the trip, and probably help create, at least in the short term, a higher level of support for Israel. But an Israel that works together with a broader Diaspora community to build more pro-Israel support, and strategically positions itself to better engage in actions that are more often in sync with Jewish values, greatly increases the odds that the ten days turns into sustained long-term interest and support for Israel, Palestinians and the entire region.
The hardest step may be the initial step and who makes it, but isn’t it more pro-Israel to identify points of shared agreement rather than working to find problems with each others’ tactics? A J Street supporter who tires of the tsuris of fighting off AIPAC or Israeli government brickbats may just abstain from active pro-Israel support rather than jump aboard an AIPAC ship that doesn’t take the pro-Israel support route they want. Is that really what we want?
Unlike the professional naysayers who argue that there are no real leaders on the Palestinian or Israeli side to negotiate with or that any negotiated deal may not get approved by the Israeli or Palestinian people, both AIPAC and J Street leaders are fully capable of selling the value of working together to their memberships and then to the Israeli government. Both are supremely positioned to identify a few significant goals they mutually support and can more easily achieve by working together and capitalizing on their core strengths.
One place to start would be with young Jewish adults. AIPAC, J Street, the Israel government as well as virtually all Jewish organizations, are deeply worried about a younger generation that is now so far removed from the Holocaust and Israel’s major wars that the “connection” has begun to fray. Restoring and strengthening that connection requires a multi-faceted approach. And a broader approach should ultimately result in a demonstrably improved, more successful outreach.
The traditional model has been to provide young Jews with positive facts, figures and perspective that can foster pride in Israel and instill a greater level of comfort in replying to those on campus and elsewhere who maliciously attack Israel. This has been the Alan Dershowitz “The Case For Israel” model that has been widely utilized throughout Jewish schools and synagogues. It is also the model now followed by AIPAC in defending Israel. But while playing defense has had some success, it has not proven to be enough to reinvigorate youth support. Attachment levels keep dropping.
So should we ”double down” and seek to play the defending Israel game better, or should we consider supplementing what has partially worked with something else, something that may seem counterintuitive to those who have spent their lives following the traditional model? There would appear to be a portion of the young Jewish pro-Israel constituency that needs more. They still need to know why it is important to support Israel, but since they may have concerns about settlements or Palestinian or Israeli Arab civil rights issues, for example, and haven’t been willing to check their concerns at the Israeli border, additional ways need to be found to reach them.
That’s where J Street can help with its more nuanced message: Yes, it is important to support Israel and advocate for a democratic Jewish homeland, but it is also acceptable to advocate for policy or position changes. You don’t have to abstain from supporting Israel just because you may disagree with building settlements or the disparity in funding Israeli Arab schools. Just as in America your advocacy for minority rights doesn’t mean you are not pro-America, your advocacy for a Palestinian state and Palestinian rights does not mean you are not pro-Israel. Indeed, the fact that you care enough about Israel to work to make her stronger is possibly the highest level of pro-Israel advocacy.
Fans come in all sizes and shapes and have different interests. Israel now, unfortunately, has a narrow market appeal. Unless Israel and its supporters want to intentionally limit that appeal to a declining niche market that passes some type of pro-Israel vetting test, Israel is better served by working to sustain and expand Jewish support, even if some of that support is not perfectly aligned with Israel’s policies and actions.
It needs to be far less about winning Jewish organizational debating points or proscribing how to support Israel than it is about recognizing the value of reaching out in multiple organizational ways to create broad and sustainable pro-Israel support. That’s when American Jewry, Israel, and what we all should hope will soon be a new Palestinian state, really win.
{ 1 trackback }