J Street, a road too narrow

“Those who learn nothing from history are bound to repeat it.” So goes a saying invoked by many, in a variety of different forms.

On Tuesday, you, the readers, heard from a member of the student body about her “self-loathing” because of her fellow students’ unwavering “ideological purity” when it comes to the issues surrounding the State of Israel. She, we are told, believes that “spitting on basic human rights” is wrong and, by her own admission, believes that current Israeli activism groups are doing so in name of Jews everywhere, by “hat[ing] others.” I must admit: I agree wholeheartedly with the author, at least on the fact that human rights are paramount. I contend, though, that the author’s view about current Israeli activism, and the role that J Street has to play in it, are woefully underdeveloped and, as such, almost certainly are counterproductive to the overall goal of a safe and peaceful co-existence between Israelis and Palestinians.

Israeli activism has, for years, been a heated discussion in and out of the Jewish community, especially here at Columbia. Many Jews believe that we as a people must support Israel simply because it is Israel. Many others, on the other hand, believe that to support Israel is wrong, as it engages in behavior that they find “reprehensible.” As with most issues, the reality must lie somewhere in the middle. We are fundamentally engaged in a discussion of Columbia University’s capacity to facilitate or detract from Jews’ abilities to identify with Judaism, in both its religious ideology and political identity. Opinions that might be considered more radical have “lamented” the fact that political influences from student groups, as well as national organizations, push political ideologies that they would consider broad or at least unbalanced. Yet much of what defines Judaism, nationally and globally, is how Jews connect to the State of Israel as a modern home for Jews, and as an intrinsically significant place. At a glance, the following would appear to be the previous author’s main argument: Let us widen the discussion and take a more pragmatic approach to the problem, “pressur[ing] both sides.” Unfortunately, the author, like many who have joined the J Street fold, misapply the concept of “pragmatism” because of their own view of the world. Israel activism, is, at its core, not about unwavering support for the government of Israel, not justifying every mistake and error made, and not about “blind obedience.” It is, instead, the recognition that Israel, as a country and as a people, must have the same rights as any other sovereign nation.

The quintessential duty of a state is to protect the rights of its citizenry. Failing to do so makes all other functions of the state moot. The fundamental problem with J Street is not its goal of peace, one which I and most other Jews and Israelis desperately wish for, but rather their ignorance of history toward achieving that goal. History has shown that, unfortunately, force is a necessary evil at times. History has shown that one cannot negotiate from a position of weakness, and most importantly: History has shown that to be “pressured” (as per the words of the author and J Street’s official position) by allies will not be worth a damn if one of the parties is not ready to compromise, and can in fact push both parties farther apart from reaching a resolution. The sad reality is the Palestinian people are too fragmented politically, socially, and geographically for any two-state solution to be viable in the near future. Not recognizing this and instead unilaterally pressuring and blaming Israel when the majority of obstacles are a lack of strong Palestinian leadership, increased government corruption, and the rise of Islamic fundamentalism, are not only a drain of precious time and resources, but, are in fact a detriment to finding solutions to the more important problems facing the Israeli and Palestinian peoples. Simply put: We do not discount the suffering of the Palestinians, we do not discount the goal of peace, and we are certainly not ideologically pure about supporting Israel. We, the unwashed masses, are realistic. We wish for a unified front on the goal of peace, not a fork in a road to it. It is the author and others at J Street who are banking on a narrow solution that is not viable, grasping hold of a reality which does not exist.

So I ask, who, in fact, is being ideologically pure?

The author is a School of General Studies and List College sophomore. He is the director of public relations for LionPAC.