The anti-Israel lobby

[Behind the Aegis]

This week saw the launching of the Independent Jewish Voices initiative by a group of prominent left-of-center Jews in the U.K. The initiative intends, according to its founding statement, to "promote the expression of alternative Jewish voices." Its sponsors believe that "individuals and groups within all communities should feel free to express their views on any issue of public concern without incurring accusations of disloyalty." The signatories wish to contend that voices critical of Israel are receiving insufficient attention in British discussions of the Middle East. The claim is a strange one.

Do opponents of Israeli government policy in the U.K., Jewish or non-Jewish, truly feel that their arguments are not being heard? Is it really their contention that the British Jewish leadership is setting up "unwritten laws," which establish the boundaries of what may or may not be discussed? If the Board of Deputies of British Jews, the main U.K. Jewish communal body, is indeed attempting to create unwritten laws and to foster anxiety to silence opponents of Israeli policy, it is doing a remarkably poor job. The public debate on Israel in the U.K. affords willing space to the most extreme of anti-Israel positions.

If we take, as an example, contributors to the Guardian, which published the IJV's founding statement, Jews who have successfully found the courage to resist the Board of Deputies and its anxiety-inducing unwritten laws include Daphna Baram, who wrote in a recent op-ed that Israel is an "apartheid state"; Jacqueline Rose, whose book, as her Guardian interviewer reminded us, "draws tentative analogies between Israel's treatment of Palestinians and Nazi Germany's treatment of Jews," and Ilan Pappe, the Israeli academic who recently wrote in support of a boycott of Israeli academia.

These opinions fit comfortably into parts of the British debate, in which denial of the right of Israel to exist and allegations of conspiracy theory are accepted within the parameters of polite discussion. British-born Jew Tony Judt, for example, was able to promote his thesis advocating the dismantling of the Jewish state in the London Review of Books.

more...

[pelsar]

1. i dont understand....

if jews and others who disagree with israeli policies are "not being heard"....then why do i find myself constantly having discussions with them, reading their opinions hearing their protests etc?

what i actually think, is that because they're "not getting their way"....they're complainng that no one is listening. Infact many of us listening, and what we hear does not connect to the reality on the ground....they're simply wrong.

[bemildred]

2. I find the use of language here interesting.

This whole piece is a sort of giant straw man argument. The "leftists" want to push their point of view, like everyone else, and this fellow spends his time pointing out that they are already doing a pretty good job of that, which is true.

[breakaleg]

3. Here is the declaration from the group: Independent Jewish Voices

"We have therefore resolved to promote the expression of alternative Jewish voices, particularly in respect of the grave situation in the Middle East, which threatens the future of both Israelis and Palestinians as well as the stability of the whole region. We are guided by the following principles:

1. Human rights are universal and indivisible and should be upheld without exception. This is as applicable in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories as it is elsewhere.

2. Palestinians and Israelis alike have the right to peaceful and secure lives.

3. Peace and stability require the willingness of all parties to the conflict to comply with international law.

4. There is no justification for any form of racism, including anti-Semitism, anti-Arab racism or Islamophobia, in any circumstance.

5. The battle against anti-Semitism is vital and is undermined whenever opposition to Israeli government policies is automatically branded as anti-Semitic.

These principles are contradicted when those who claim to speak on behalf of Jews in Britain and other countries consistently put support for the policies of an occupying power above the human rights of an occupied people. The Palestinian inhabitants of the West Bank and Gaza Strip face appalling living conditions with desperately little hope for the future. We declare our support for a properly negotiated peace between the Israeli and Palestinian people and oppose any attempt by the Israeli government to impose its own solutions on the Palestinians. "



http://jewishvoices.squarespace.com/declaration-2/


---------------

sounds pretty reasonable to me. Isn't it often pointed out that many of the pro-Israeli lobbies profess to speak for all Jews but don't necessarily? And isn't it about time we make the distinction between voicing opposition to Israel's policies and opposition to Israel itself?

[Tom Joad]

4. Palestinians and Israelis alike have the right to peaceful and secure lives. This is "anti-Israel"?

It used to be called human rights?

Except by those who can stand no dissent, like Mr. Spyer.

Just like Cheney sayin' anyone who opposes bush policy "wants the terrorists to win" and is "anti-american".

Glad this article was posted. Astounding the idiocy that still exists in this world-- this J. Spyer fellow really takes the cake.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[breakaleg]

6. and what you fail to acknowledge is that it isn't right to hold millions of people responsible

for the actions of their pocket of extremists. Just like Israel isn't held responsible for their few extremists - you know, the settlers that wreck havoc on the lives of innocents on a daily basis and that drive this quest to steal another's land.

[Tom Joad]

7. That was one of the most hateful, pro-terror posts i've ever seen.

glad it's no more.

[msmcghee]

8. breakaleg, your opinions on this topic are usually . .

. . pretty bizarre and I am used to letting them pass by with a smile and a chuckle.

In this case though I feel compelled to point out that your concept that Israel's actions are motivated by their desire to "hold millions responsible for their few extremists" cries out for rational comment.

A more objective observer might admit that Israel has great motivation to protect its citizens. Also, that it is the intention of Palestinian militants to prevent Israel from doing that. It is a cat and mouse game where new tactics are constantly being tried by the terrorists and new defenses are constantly being tested and adopted by the IDF. (Like the bombs disguised as large rocks in N. Israel by Hisb'allah.)

It is not the Israelis who have pledged for 70 years to destroy Palestine and annex their land and who elect governments committed in their party's charter to accomplish that goal. It is the Palestinians who have pledged to destroy Israel.

It is no surprise that as the terrorists have refined their tactics over the years and benefited from newer technologies - that the plight of the Palestinians has gradually worsened - especially since the terrorists see that as a benefit - in terms of inciting hatred of Israel by the general populace of the territories.

I suspect that Palestinians would have little patience for the terrorists among them if their own lives were not severely impacted and Israel could not be blamed.

The proof however, is that the wall - that has made life so difficult for many Palestinians - seems to be the measure that has proven most effective in stopping the attacks against Israelis. I'm sure Israel could find far less expensive ways of making their lives miserable if that was their true motive.

I know you believe that Israel would rather see its own citizens killed and maimed if that could exact a worse punishment on the Palestinians - but only someone who sees Israel as the embodiment of all evil - would think such a thing in the face of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

I know this won't change your mind - but generally, I think if your side could use more rational arguments you'd be taken more seriously in this discussion.

[breakaleg]

9. And I thank you for the many many chuckles your posts give me.

Isn't the 'protect their citizens' line getting old? Is there no limit to the actions committed by Israel to "defend" themselves? Are they allowed to break laws, kill whomever they wish in this quest? Is Israel responsible for their actions?

"I know you believe that Israel would rather see its own citizens killed and maimed if that could exact a worse punishment on the Palestinians - but only someone who sees Israel as the embodiment of all evil - would think such a thing in the face of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary."

As usual, you know nothing. Yet you still persist in accusing me of unimaginable things.

In order to appear "rational" by you, I suspect I would have to tow the pro-Israeli line. Unfortunately, my conscience precludes that.

[msmcghee]

10. This one last comment on this.

"Isn't the 'protect their citizens' line getting old?"

Getting old? The protection of its citizens is the primary reason that states exist - especially democratic states like Israel. I am certain their need to protect their citizens will be around at least until the Palestinians stop trying to kill them.

"Is there no limit to the actions committed by Israel to "defend" themselves?"

Yes, there are limits. But generally, as long as Israel makes a reasonable attempt to avoid the death of innocent Palestinian civilians then there are few limits to what a state may do when defending its citizens from deadly attack. That's the international law on the matter. Naturally, the world expects Israel's mortal enemies to claim that Israel's actions are excessive and illegal. But, anyone with a brain knows that if the attacks stopped - Israel's counter measures would stop. Israel has treaties signed with Egypt and Jordan that prove that to be true.

"Are they allowed to break laws, kill whomever they wish in this quest?"

When a state is being attacked they have the right of self defense and that often means killing those who are attacking them - as well as others who may be in the way - as long as Israel tries to avoid that. But Israel does not have to avoid killing innocents if by doing so would cause more of its own citizens to be killed. Mistakes will occur in war and innocent people will die. If the Palestinians called off the war - the war would stop - no more innocents will die on either side.

What's more important to you? That no more innocents die on either side - or that the Palestinians get to keep attacking Israelis until they get what they want through force? If you had to choose between them - what would you choose?

[breakaleg]

12. thanks for the chuckle.

[Porcupine]

11. "The Wall" formalizes the imprisonment of the Palestinians.

It also steals a vast amount of territory from them. Of course now every muslim in ther world has a symbol of anti-arab hatred to point to also.

The wall is indefensible since it was not built inside Isreal's territory. It's a vast, physical, human rights barrier. Inside the wall you have no rights; not even to food and water. Outside you do.

People will visit that wall in a hundred years just to witness it's evil.