By Sam Asher, Zara Bohan, Alexandra Chen, Melanie Harris, Paul Katz, Daniel May, Oded Na'aman, Adam Shinar, Tidhar Wald
As members of J Street U Harvard, we were dismayed to read Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz's recent attack on J Street (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-dershowitz/j-street-can-no-longer-cl_b_546841.html). His ire was sparked, astonishingly, by the moderate words of J Street's executive director Jeremy Ben-Ami who, in a letter to the New York Times, wrote that peace between Israelis and Palestinians is "not only necessary to secure Israel's future, but also critical to regional stability and American strategic interests." Such is the culture of irrationality surrounding this issue that uttering these words was enough to inspire Professor Dershowitz to declare that J Street has "gone over to the dark side," and that it cannot call itself pro-Israel any longer.
Dershowitz's language should concern all who are committed to a peaceful resolution to a conflict that has cost so many lives. For, in effect, he is arguing that that those who believe that the United States has an interest in ending the 43 year occupation of the West Bank and Gaza are, de-facto, anti-Israel. This kind of rhetoric, hardly new, is intended to perpetuate a simplistic politics of "us" versus "them." Such polarization obscures difficult realities and serves only to undermine the mutual interests of the United States, the Palestinian people, and Israel. It also alienates many students from the pro-Israel community who deeply care about Israel and are committed to a more just and sustainable future.
Despite the claims of some on the political right, ending the occupation is in the urgent interest of Israel. As numerous prominent Israeli politicians have noted, the window of opportunity for a feasible two state solution is closing fast. With the continued settlements in East Jerusalem and the West Bank, a peaceful separation of Israel and the future state of Palestine is rapidly becoming unattainable.There are some - namely ideological settlers that have a tight grip on Israeli politics - who would readily sacrifice peace and stability for total control over the land between the Mediterranean and the Jordan. Those who believe that the US has no business urging Israel to cease actions clearly intended to undermine negotiations side with such extremists against those who believe that the Jewish state should be a democratic one.
As every American president since Carter has recognized, a negotiated peace is also in the interest of the US. Dershowitz notes that many terrorist organizations hate Israel simply for its Jewish character. He is right; that is not controversial. But the reality of an occupation - the daily humiliations of life under occupation in the West Bank, a siege on Gaza that prevents all but the most basic supplies in and prevents all movement out, a policy in East Jerusalem that evicts families from homes they have lived in for generations - provides these terrorists a tool for recruitment and radicalization. While the creation of a Palestinian state is no panacea, the continued occupation serves the interests of violent extremists throughout the region. Such a view should not be controversial.
Last but certainly not least, a resolution to the conflict is crucial for the simple, obvious, and undeniable fact that the Palestinian people have been subject to Israeli military rule for far too long. Like the United States, Israel was founded on the premise that all people deserve self-determination. Both nations should do all in their power to guarantee that Palestinians may exercise this right.
In light of these shared goals, labeling those who link US interests to a peaceful resolution of the Israel-Palestinian conflict as "anti-Israel" is both intellectually dishonest and politically destructive. It is, in a word, cynical, and it is such cynicism that makes it so difficult and yet so necessary to affirm that one can be Pro-Israel without being Pro-denial, without being Pro-occupation, without being Pro-eviction. In urging that the United States use its influence to bring the parties together, J Street recognizes that the future of all three peoples -- Americans, Israelis, and Palestinians -- are inextricably tied. Recognizing this reality is in the urgent interest of all parties involved; denying it serves none.
Patrick Barry: Conservatives Peddle Myths on Obama Administration's National Security Policies
It was Tony Blair who said that there will never be an end to the war on terror until the Israeli palestinian conflict is fairly resolved.
The Iraq study group concluded that most of our aspirations in Iraq and the middle east are unattainable until the IP conflict is ended.
Are they all on the Dark side as well, along with the UN, the head of the CIAs Bin Laden unit, and countless other middle east experts?
Dershowitz got OJ off. This is simply what he is good at; presenting the MOST guilty parties as somehow hopelessly misunderstood. In this case, he wishes to cover for the settlements program, which will ironically lead to Israels destruction if it persists.
Dershowitz is no friend to Israel.
I believe that the Israelis are stirring the hornets nest and at the same time claiming the hornets are unreasonable. If I lived in an occupied land where the most basic daily existence was made unbearable by "occupiers" I would be mad as well. The Palestinians have put up with being put into Ghettos and given inferior schools and their daily lives intruded into by any passing Israeli soldier in a bad mood. So I was pleasantly surprised by this very balanced article. I find it unduly divisive to claim anyone having gone to the dark side. So thanks Huggpost for giving me a balanced viewpoint. Now all we have to do is stop paying for the Palestinians torture with 3 billion tax dollars. I think we might have a use for that right here at home.
So in conclusion I see no end to this conflict and may it last for as long as possible so that we in the rest of the world can enjoy the high tech weapons the Isreali army own.
btw, isnt Israel also the thrid biggest manufacturer of weapons in the world? So the way I see it is that it is an economic decision to occupy palestine not so much an idealogical one.
then again, i might be very very very wrong..
This is a classic example of disiingenious straw man fallacy.
From a basic freshman college hand out:" In the straw man fallacy, the arguer sets up a wimpy version of the opponent's position and tries to score points by knocking it down. But just as being able to knock down a straw man, or a scarecrow, isn't very impressive, defeating a watered-down version of your opponents' argument isn't very impressive either."
VOILA!
Unwillingness to quote Dr. Dershowtiz is additional proof
Pro- every Palestinian demand and caprice is not. Far from it.
This says better than I the thrust of all of my posts- that pro peace is pro Israel.
Pro occupation and settlement (colonization) is a prescription for perpetual war.
It is clearly in everyone's interest to end the occupation and start the healing.
Everything else is just details.
Why would Israeli's have any reason to believe the outcome of withdrawal won't result in eveactly the same result as Gaza ?
Many thousands of Israelis and Palestinians paid with their lives for Arafat' s belligerence and staggering lack of political maturity.
Whatever were the pros and cons of Camp David?Taba deal, Palestinians have no chance to get anything even remotely close. Maybe ever.
Never losing and opportunity to lose an opportunity.