One more Jewish Voice for Peace

Update 7/7: Haaretz, voice of what's left of the Israeli left, published an astonishing indictment of Israeli society and culture in a staff editorial today:

No less responsible for the murder are those who did not halt, with an iron hand, violence by Israeli soldiers against Palestinian civilians, and who failed to investigate complaints “due to lack of public interest.” The term “Jewish extremists” actually seems more appropriate for the small Jewish minority that is still horrified by these acts of violence and murder. But they too recognize, unfortunately, that they belong to a vengeful, vindictive Jewish tribe whose license to perpetrate horrors is based on the horrors that were done to it.

Prosecuting the murderers is no longer sufficient. There must be a cultural revolution in Israel. Its political leaders and military officers must recognize this injustice and right it. They must begin raising the next generation, at least, on humanist values, and foster a tolerant public discourse. Without these, the Jewish tribe will not be worthy of its own state.

That makes me feel moderate in my little manifesto, originally posted on July 4, below.
 ----
A personal note here that I have joined Jewish Voice for Peace, which "seeks an end to the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem; security and self-determination for Israelis and Palestinians; a just solution for Palestinian refugees based on principles established in international law; an end to violence against civilians; and peace and justice for all peoples of the Middle East."  JVP campaigns to induce organizations and investors to divest from companies that profit from the Israeli occupation of the West Bank.

As a Jew, I feel a vital chord is struck by the JVP assertion that "we are among the many American Jews who say to the U.S. and Israeli governments: 'Not in our names!'" Not in my name the land theft, the caging of people in cantons via roads to which they're barred access, the legal codification of second class citizenship, the rampant housing discrimination, the mass arrests and consequence-free killings, the disproportionate assaults and bombardments, and the enablement of all of the above by obscene amounts of military aid showered on a first-world country by a U.S. Congress and executive branch forever in the pocket of a toxic combination of Jewish and Evangelical Christian lobbies.

I note that JVP is noncommittal as to the form of a just resolution of the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians, and that's as it should be. If conditions change to a degree almost unimaginable at the moment, and an Oslo-type two-state solution becomes acceptable to both sides, who would gainsay it?  I have come to believe, though, that a just state in which citizenship is defined by religion and ethnicity is impossible. Ultimately, by course of nonviolent evolution -- perhaps in a hundred years -- I would hope that a single democratic state with no special status accorded to any religion or ethnicity might emerge in present day Israel-Palestine.

Two presidents on popular sovereignty

Last week, Andrew Sullivan rather arrestingly juxtaposed George Washington's warning against a nation indulging "passionate affection" for another nation and Obama's declaration in his speech upon arrival in Israel that "our alliance is eternal, it is forever – lanetzach.”

So now we know that Obama laid on the schmaltz as precondition to challenging Israelis a day later to secure their own future by offering justice to the Palestinians. In that challenge, Gershom Gorenberg sees a vital fusion of  venue and message:

The first breakthrough was in method: Obama started by negotiating with the Israeli public. The choice of venue, an auditorium full of university students rather than the Knesset, was not a glitch, as many people thought beforehand. The venue was the message: The politicians have been too slow, so I'm stepping around them to talk to normal Israelis first.

That appeal directly to popular sovereignty suggests another presidential pairing across the centuries.  First, consider Obama's understanding of bottom-up sovereignty in the Jerusalem speech:

Does Netanyhau know whether Netanyahu has been "bluffing"?

Jeffrey Goldberg, who's been warning us for two years that Israel is likely to strike Iran's nuclear facilities, recently mused aloud whether Netanyahu might not have been bluffing all along -- threatening a strike to induce the U.S. and the world to ramp up economic pressure on Iran. That stirred some indignation, since Goldberg has projected a kind of mind meld with Netanyahu, relaying his purported thinking and motive in detail.  If he's been played, he's been a main conduit for the rest of us being played.  James Fallows, accordingly, in his genteel way, has challenged Goldberg (via blogalog) to make a judgment. What's his best guess now? Bluff or strike?  Would he like to reassess his past analyses in light of what he's recently learned?

When I read that challenge, I thought of what I'm learning now about the Israeli government's conduct of policy in the wake of the 1967 war -- at least as presented by Gershom Gorenberg in The Accidental Empire: Israel and the Birth of the Settlements, 1967-1977. Then, an analogous question might have been posed: annexation or land-for-peace?  (There is a crucial difference, in that there was not a short-term clock running on that decision, but the analogy still holds to a degree.)  And Gorenberg's thesis is that the leadership -- Levi Eshkol in particular at the outset -- never decided: their de facto policy was not to decide.