J Street, the most prominent American pro-Israel, pro-peace group, has packed its 2011 national conference with sessions on nearly every aspect of the Israel-Palestine conflict, U.S. Mideast policy, and American Jewish attitudes toward Israel. Conspicuously missing, though, is the most important topic of all: The narrative of Israel as a brave but insecure little nation, constantly forced to fight for survival. As long as that narrative frames American public conversation about Israel, nothing J Street or anyone else does to change U.S. policy will make much difference.
In Israel and Palestine, it's taken for granted that competing narratives play a central in keeping the political conflict going. But in the U.S., we are somehow blind to the role of narrative. So we get a J Street conference without a single session devoted to that absolutely crucial topic.
When I raised the point with a conference organizer, I was told that no separate session was needed because the issue "should be present throughout many of our conversations." It's like giving a course on how the human body works without devoting a class session to the bloodstream, because something about blood will probably come up in other classes.
The story of Israel as an innocent victim, constantly on guard against "existential threats," is the lifeblood of the right-wing pro-Israel lobby, which still has the upper hand in making U.S. policy despite the best efforts of J Street and others. As long that story holds sway, even Israel's most egregious acts will continue to be widely forgiven as unfortunate necessities. Though few Americans know the Hebrew mantras -- "ein breira" (there is no choice); "hacol bishvil bitachon" (all for the sake of security) -- most Americans take that underlying message for granted.
So Israel's occupation of the West Bank, its economic stranglehold on Gaza, its foot-dragging on peace-making, and the suffering that inflicts on Palestinians all get a pass from the U.S. public and policymakers because they sympathize with Israel's supposedly overriding need to protect its security.
Pro-peace groups spend little time promoting the obvious counter-narrative: Israel is by far the Middle East's strongest military power; no nation in the region has even the slightest chance of defeating Israel, as it has shown in every war since 1948; while we're bombarded with fears about a fantasy of a single Iranian nuclear weapon, Israel's 100 to 200 nukes are ignored; Palestinian violence against Israel has virtually ceased, since both the Palestinian Authority and Hamas are enforcing a nonviolent approach to the conflict.
Instead of hammering away at these obvious facts, the peace groups offer alternatives that will have little impact as long as the story of Israel's insecurity dominates the land.
J Street's preferred narrative is simple: As long as Israel occupies Palestinian land, Israel can be either a Jewish state or a democratic state but not both. But that view doesn't gain much traction with a public that makes national security a higher priority than democracy. If "the evildoers hate our freedoms," they'll wipe out those freedoms as soon as they get a chance; our first job is to make sure they never get that chance. That logic is a pillar of American political life.
It's only natural that it should be applied to our "endangered ally" Israel -- especially in the Jewish community. As long as most U.S. Jews credit Israeli claims of "existential threat" as realistic and reasonable, they'll continue to accept the argument that Israel can take no chances for peace. And as long as the American Jewish community tells that story, it will be hard to break its hold on the American gentile community.
So Obama, whatever his personal wishes, will find it politically too dangerous to do what J Street wants him to do: press both sides to define the border between the two states, and if they can't do it soon (which is likely) to present a U.S. map and demand a simple yes or no decision.
J Street's president Jeremy Ben-Ami has said publicly that Israelis' fear of unprovoked attack is the biggest obstacle to peace. What he doesn't say is that a similar fear for Israel's safety among U.S. Jews -- his main target audience -- is an equal obstacle to peace. Why won't J Street challenge the hegemonic Jewish narrative head on?
Staffers have told me privately that they don't want to risk closing down the lines of communication, and in some cases influence, they've opened up with the Jewish community and some members of Congress. Publicly, Ben-Ami now says that J Street will soften its critical tone: "We've come on slightly too edgy, too ready to hit away at people we don't agree with. That rough edge hasn't been helpful." It's not likely, then, that his organization will risk whatever success it's enjoying by challenging the foundation of the American-Jewish narrative about Israel.
Groups to the left of J Street, like Jewish Voice for Peace and the U.S. Campaign to End the Occupation don't have the same political worries, so they're free to take a more aggressive approach. And they probably assume the narrative of Israeli insecurity is so absurd it's not worth mentioning; so they don't mention it. Instead, they work day and night educating the public about Israel's immoral violence and human rights abuses.
But the public already has a fair idea of the facts. They see it on TV. The problem is that so many don't define what they see as outrageous or abusive. What counts as a human rights abuse or moral outrage depends on the context. Suppose you strike out at someone who is menacing you or your child? Isn't that just self-defense? That's how most Americans see Israel's use of force and its human rights offenses.
This views prevails partly because it's repeated endlessly by top political leaders. When Barack Obama made his most famous statement on the Israel-Palestine issue, in Cairo, he started off with a full paragraph about the horrors of the Holocaust, proclaimed that "threatening Israel with destruction... is deeply wrong," and insisted that "Palestinians must abandon violence." He never said a word about the Israeli violence that has so decimated the Palestinian nation.
But the most powerful reinforcement of the Israeli insecurity narrative comes from the mass news media, who take it for granted as the frame for all their reporting on the Middle East. Consider the reporting on the Egyptian upheaval in the New York Times. The Times offered a steady stream of stories from Israel in the days before Mubarak's fall, as if the impact on Israel were somehow of paramount importance. The gist of it all was a picture of Israelis "fearing that the more time passes the more the region is against them." "Anti-Israeli sentiment runs high in the neighboring countries." Israelis "believed that whoever followed Mr. Mubarak would be less friendly to Israel," and they "could be left without an ally in the region." So Mubarak's departure left Israel with "abiding worries about the future."
On the op-ed page, the Times' most influential writer, Thomas Friedman, reported from Cairo that the uprising "is not owned by, and was not inspired by, the Muslim Brotherhood. Most of all, it is not about some populist upsurge that craves restarting the war with Israel." He reaffirmed his call for the Israelis to make more concessions for peace. And, in a surprising about-face, he went even further than J Street in calling for President Obama to put forth his own peace plan now.
Yet Friedman prefaced all this by reaffirming the common wisdom: "This is a perilous time for Israel, and its anxiety is understandable." "Everyone can or should understand Israel's strategic concerns. They are totally valid... Of course Israelis are worried about convulsion here."
The Times' coverage offered a fine example of what Henry Siegman, former head of the American Jewish Committee, once decried (on the Times' own op-ed page) as widespread "pathological" fear about Israel's security. But the Times presented it all as straightforward factual reporting.
As long as pathological fear passes for fact, none of the arguments presented by J Street and other peace groups will make much of a dent in the American political scene, no matter how logical and well packaged they are.
It will remain too politically risky for the Obama administration to change the decades-old pattern: Though U.S. leaders do criticize specific Israeli policies and actions, when the chips are down the U.S. will side with Israel.
Before its next conference, J Street will have to make a choice. It can go on broadening its appeal in the Jewish community by avoiding a direct challenge to the insecurity narrative -- and see little, if any, progress toward its goal of serious U.S. pursuit of a two-state solution.
Or it can change direction and attack the insecurity narrative head on. That won't guarantee a shift in administration policy. But it will open up the possibility for J Street to do what Ben-Ami says he wants to do: replace the debilitating narrative of fear with a narrative of hope that is the only road to a lasting peace. And at least it will guarantee that we can have, for the first time, an honest and meaningful public debate about the Israel-Palestine conflict.
Ira Chernus is Professor of Religious Studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder. Read more of his writing on Israel, Palestine, and the U.S. on his blog.
Israel has always enjoyed military superiority either in numbers of troops in the field, as in the 1948 war, or via its superior weaponry- acquired from Czechslovakia, France and the US, in that order; yet, it can take credit for one solid victory- that achieved in the sneak attack in '67; the others have resulted in stalemates, partial victories, or humiliations- such as the disgusting anti-civilian campaign in Grapes of Wrath. Cast Lead does not deserve the name of "war"; it was a massacre.
It is clearly emboldened by its superpower patron,whose role would appear to be analogous to that of a sympathetic welfare case worker and/or parole officer, whose assignee is at the same time a malingerer and an incorrigible recidivist.
The US-Israeli relationship is a one sided abusive relationship, wherein the US doles out over 2 billion dollars courtesy of the US taxpayers to support this basket case, looks the other way when
it initiates war after war, violates international law on an ongoing basis, and causes whatever moral standing the US has left in the world to deteriorate to zero.
The US should say goodbye to this Albatross, and let it go.
Many Jews like me believe strongly that the threat is real but do NOT believe "that Israel can take no chances for peace." Many like myself and other J Street Members ( I will be at the conference) believe that the threat is greatly exacerbated by Israel's recalcitrance. As long as Israel continues to refuse to negotiate in good faith and reach a quick and just settlement on borders for an independent Palestinian State, those who would see Israel's destruction will be able to find supporters. Having the Palestinians and Israelis at each others throats is a tool for giving the Arab "man on the street" a boogeyman to hate rather than blaming their problems on the leaders causing them.
We are seeing the first signs ever that this may fail. While still having an intentionally embedded antisemitism, Arabs are realizing how much they suffer at the hands of their leaders and not some Jewish/Western conspiracy. That makes this the perfect moment for Israel to make peace with the Palestinians. Israel can be one of the forces that promotes freedom for Arabs or one of the last left resisting it. In the years following the Egyptian Revolution, THAT is the yardstick Israel will be judged by.
"Arabs are realizing how much they suffer at the hands of their leaders and not some Jewish/Western conspiracy."
Very good point. In fact, leaders like Mubarak encouraged friction not only against Jews, but between Muslim and Christian. There's strong reason to believe that the bombing of the Coptic Christin Church in December/January was a government operation.
What was most encouraging about the demonstrations was the mutual show of solidarity between Christians and Muslims in the square. There is no reason to believe that this sentiment would not have been extended to Jews.
POLITICIANS (Democrats & Republicans) support Israel in its CAGING of Palestinians is :
the LOSS of BUSINESS to US COMPANIES!
Germany and 13 other Countries voted
YES in a UN Resolution while
the USA was the ONLY Country that voted
NO
and guess what ....
MORE Mercedes and Audis and BMWs will be purchased WORLDWIDE
than GMs & Fords.
Think about it!
Will the people (of Countries that are NOT CONTROLLED by Israel like the USA is)
buy US GOODS when they see on TV/Internet/You Tube/etc...
the "MADE in the USA" on the Tear Gas Canisters?????
USA USA! We are # 1 in making WMD and Weapons of IRRITATION!
Try and think what would happen to Americas economy if every day 5 rockets would hit New York another 10 hit LA 3 in Chicago and so on.
Day in Day out Americas major cities are pounded by rocket and mortar attacks what will happen to the stock market?
Will it only be a small tend in the economy when ALL the people in LA and New York will hear sirens 2 3 times a day and will have to stop what ever they are doing and rush to shelter?
When all the cars will stop in the middle of the street and people start running .
Every couple of weeks a Terrorist from the safety of his own home could take out passenger planes in New York with anti air missiles. What will such panic do to the economy ?
If what happened after the Gaza withrawl become reality in the West Bank this is what Israel will be facing.
daily attacks on Tel Aviv and Jerusalem is not something Israel can live with.
"Terrorize the civilian population, assuring maximal destruction of property and cultural resources... The daily life of the Palestinians must be rendered unbearable: They should be locked up in cities and towns, prevented from exercising normal economic life, cut off from workplaces, schools and hospitals, This will encourage emigration and weaken the resistance to future expulsions" Ur Shlonsky, quoted by Ghali Hassan, Gaza: The World’s Largest Prison, Global Research, 2005)
Try to think what would happen in America if this invasion was followed by the closing off all our borders, prevented food, building supplies and medicine from getting into the country.
Is that supposed to be some kind of Israeli offical?
Completely ridiculous , If Israel wanted "maximal destruction of property " a random firing of the same fire power into Gaza city would cause 100 times more damage.
Tell ya what Israel has held Palestinian tax recipts ever since Hamas was Elected by Gazans to govern them . Subtract all damages for repairs and compensate the familys of victums of rocket attacks from Gaza from these funds. Then Israel pays for the repair of all the damages during Cast Lead and compensates Palestinian familys AT THE SAME RATE that Israeli familys were paid . Who knows it could even be the start of peace between two people
The article says "Palestinian Authority and Hamas are enforcing a nonviolent approach to the conflict" can the enlighted author remind us how many hundreds of rockets and mortar shells have landed in Israel since they enforced this approach. Some even landed on preschools.
Amr, what would you do if the school where your children go is shelled? I know what I would do.
I have heard both sides of the story, and let me tell you, you don't get decades of conflict like this if the truth is one-sided. Sure, rocket attacks suck, but they don't just happen in a vacuum, they happen in response to something Israel did. It has been tit-for-tat mistake after mistake by both sides of the conflict for decades. We need to recognize that fact if we are going to make any headway for a peaceful solution. I say lets humanize both sides of the story.
PM on Beersheba attack: 'No one should test our resolve'
Polish PM tells Netanyahu in joint meeting: We will not let anyone deny Israel's existence, says Israel "has a real friend in Europe."
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu on Thursday commented on the firing of a Grad rocket on Beersheba late Wednesday, saying, "I do not recommend that anyone test Israel's determination. We will not tolerate anyone bombing us. This is something that no country in the world would agree to and we will act accordingly."
Two Grad-model Katyusha rockets struck Beersheba late Wednesday night for the first time since Operation Cast Lead in the Gaza Strip over two years ago.
Spokesman for Palestinian medical services Adham Abu Selmeya told Xinhua that the Israeli army had shot wounded about 130 gravel workers from the Gaza Strip since February, adding that six gravel workers have been killed since March, most of them are in their early twenties.
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2011-02/24/c_13746612.htm
"GAZA, Feb. 23 (Xinhua) -- Israeli army carried out several strikes in the Gaza Strip on Wednesday, killing a Palestinian militant and wounding several others, promoting rocket attacks on southern Israel.
The violence began around noon, when the Israeli forces entered eastern Gaza City and clashed with Palestinian militants, according to witnesses and security sources."
Is having enemy tanks entering your city and shooting people something "no country in the world would agree to"?
The game is changing in the ME, and the secure southern flank has been lost. At least our own Secretary of Defense said recently that anyone who suggested ever again a major American initiated war in Asia should have their head examined.
No more heavy lifting by the US.
The Author writes:
"So Israel's occupation of the West Bank, its economic stranglehold on Gaza, its foot-dragging on peace-making, and the suffering that inflicts on Palestinians all get a pass from the U.S. public and policymakers because they sympathize with Israel's supposedly overriding need to protect its security".
Sympathy? No so much. It is the votes and money AIPAC and its sattelites can bring added to the threat of smear campaigns against those senators who vote against pro-Israel motions that keep ouw lawmakers in-line far more than ideology or narrative. The system is rotten - Americans blind spot with regard to Israels ongoing crimes against humanity are just a symptom
They are just the other side of the same coin. Its like voting for a democrat over a republican. They might sound very different at first but if you keep watching and listening it becomes clear they believe mostly the same things