Friends of Israel, indeed

Correction appended

The strengthened stature that J Street, the new “pro-Israel, pro-peace” lobby, has gained lately is good news for those who care about Israel. The interest shown in J Street when its executive director, Jeremy Ben-Ami, talked at the Columbia/Barnard Hillel on Nov. 22 is proof that while J Street is a new organization, its activities and message merit serious discussion.

J Street is now arguably the most Zionist movement in America. Indeed, its active support for a two-state solution is deeply rooted in the Zionist worldview. Classic Zionism stipulates that the Jewish state should be democratic. There is little one can say against the argument that when there is a vast majority of Palestinians between the sea and the Jordan river and only one sovereign state, Israel will cease to be a democracy. Thus, Zionists must strive for a two-state reality that the international community would recognize. This is not a “favor” Israelis should render to the Palestinians nor should Israel wait until the Palestinians become “Norwegians” to implement it. Rather, it is a strategic, indeed fundamental, Israeli interest—a view shared by Prime Ministers Sharon and Olmert.

Although the argument for the creation of two states is compelling, those that support it, namely, most of the liberal Jews in the United States, have been extremely careful to prescribe what Israel should do. This is a noble, but at the same time, a dangerous position. While the majority ponders whether or not it has the right to express its opinion, a minority of hawks promotes counterproductive policies. The last decade has unfortunately offered abundant proof that such policies will not result in the creation of two states. American Zionist Jews have an obligation to act. First, Israel implicitly presumes to act on behalf of all the Jewish people, and its actions have an impact on all Jews. Second, the extensive involvement of the U.S. in the region gives American Jews the responsibility to help navigate these policies in a constructive way. Last, if American Jews really care about the future of Zionism, they should actively help people realize the only plan that will sustain it in the future—the creation of two states for the two nations.
J Street still faces several challenges in its policy prescriptions. The first is that the creation of a Palestinian state does not necessarily assure the security of Israel. While there is reason to hope that such a state would be peaceful, the opposite is also possible. Although the seriousness of the security challenge is clearly overshadowed by the fundamental question regarding the future of Israeli democracy, this issue must be effectively dealt with. Although J Street does put forth a position about possible security arrangements, there is need for a more robust and detailed explanation of how security will be assured in a two-state scenario and how the U.S. and the international community can vouch for this.

The second challenge J Street should undertake is the elaboration of its position on the possible worst-case scenarios that may occur on the way to the creation of two states: what would J Street, for example, recommend that the U.S. government do if negotiations fail (if they ever begin) because one of the parties is not ready to go the extra mile for an agreement? Or, in an even worse scenario, what should the U.S. do in the case of another outburst of violence? These kinds of questions should not be left unanswered.

J Street’s third challenge stems from the fact that although J Street consists of the U.S. public and its political elite, J Street will also have to work together with the Israeli public. This will not be an easy task. Regardless of who the culprits are, years of violence have, for understandable reasons, rendered the Israelis suspicious of making decisions that may put them at any risk in the short term, even if such decisions are desperately needed in the long term. J Street will have to find a way into the hearts and minds of the Israelis.
 
J Street has a refreshing and complex understanding of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and of the role the U.S. public can constructively play to bring about positive outcomes. As a poll conducted last June by the Harry Truman Institute at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem shows, most Palestinians and Israelis support the two-state solution. This shows that the right-wing discourse portraying the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as an “Us vs. Them” zero-sum game is flawed. J Street is correct to assert that being pro-Israel does not mean being anti-Palestine or vice versa and that the futures of the two peoples are intertwined. These ideas are not just slogans—they compose a coherent worldview that still awaits implementation. Therefore, one can hope that J Street will inject new thinking into the debate over Middle East politics, both nationwide and on our own campus, and reinvigorate the Zionist call for the creation of two states. While this scenario may not solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it is an urgent necessity for both sides. 

The author is a graduate student in the School of International and Public Affairs.

An editing error in an earlier version of this op-ed resulted in phrasing that misrepresented the opinion of the author. The phrase "may not be the one and only solution for," which appeared in the final sentence of the earlier version, has been replaced by "may not solve" to reflect the author's original meaning. We regret the error.

Tags: Opinion, Daniel Safran-Hon, Josefina Leticia Freaney, J Street, Zionism