J Street Opposes Palestine's UN Bid; US Increasingly Isolated

[xchrom]

http://www.thenation.com/article/163450/j-street-opposes-palestines-un-bid-us-increasingly-isolated

In a setback for progressive peace forces, J Street—the liberal Jewish alternative to AIPAC—has decided to oppose United Nations recognition of a Palestinian state this month. J Street is also urging President Obama to veto the statehood bid if it comes to the UN Security Council.

The normally rational and liberal New York Times takes the same position, making an inflated claim that the UN vote would somehow be “ruinous.” With Israeli-Palestinian talks chronically stalemated, however, it is difficult to understand what would be ruined by bringing the Palestinians further into the global diplomatic process. The Times and J Street describe the tensions as alarming, but offer no evidence that continued negotiations will be productive. If the UN vote proceeds, the Israelis and many in the US Congress are warning that hundreds of millions in funding for the Palestinian Authority will be terminated. The default position of the liberals at the Times and J Street is their belief that the funding cutoff would be counterproductive.

The progressive Jewish American community is crucial to providing support for evenhanded or pro-Palestinian initiatives by the White House or Congress. Therefore the J Street position, reinforced by the New York Times, effectively shuts down any American maneuverability as the UN decision nears. As a result, the United States is likely to be sidelined and isolated at the UN session. US opposition to any UN recognition will further unite the Arab world in its suspicion of Washington as a possible ally. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Erdogan and Turki al-Faisal, the former director of Saudi intelligence services, are the latest powerful leaders to weigh in. The Saudis are threatening to refuse recognition of the US-backed Maliki regime in Iraq and “might part ways with Washington in Afghanistan and Yemen as well.”

[shira]

1. Funny. I've been told opposition to the bid is rightwing. n/t

[kayecy]

2. Could someone opposing Palestinian UN membership please explain why it is different to Israel's bid?

Could some non-Jewish US citizen explain why they oppose the recognition of a Palestine state?.....

Israel applied to the UN in 1948 and was granted full UN membership even without defined borders and with a major conflict with its neighbors in the offing...Why should not the Palestinians be granted the same status?

Everyone knows that any negotiations between Israel and Abbas will be unbalanced.....At least allow the Palestinians to have the same membership rights and privileges as Israel.

[holdencaufield]

4. Why a non-Jewish US citizen?

Don't forget -- you're not suppose to say Jew, you're supposed to say Zionist.

[azurnoir]

6. I took that as meaning why would' Bill and Betty Johnson' from

Omaha be against Palestinian statehood you know typical mid-west or other area goyim, but I'm sure you read it your own way

[Violet_Crumble]

7. Jew and Zionist are two different things...

Not all Jews are Zionists, and not all Zionists are Jews. And if the two were the same that'd mean that post-Zionism is actually post-Jewish, which makes absolutely no sense at all

btw, you really shouldn't be telling people to say Zionist instead of Jew, as it's against the rules of the forum.

'Do not use the term "Zionist" to mean "Jew" or "Israeli." Do not use the term "Jew" to mean "Israeli".'

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x21970

[oberliner]

14. I think the point being made is that sometimes people do make that substitution

There are people who simply use the word Zionist rather than Jew because they know it is socially acceptable to speak negatively about Zionists in ways that one can never do about Jews.

I think that is part of the reason why that rule of the forum that you cited is in place.

[Violet_Crumble]

16. If so, that's some very clumsy wording...

When kaycey asked for the opinion of a non-Jewish American, the response directed at him was: 'Don't forget -- you're not suppose to say Jew, you're supposed to say Zionist.'

I think the point being made was that poster sees no difference between Jew and Zionist and it came across as a bit on the snarky side...

And the rule I cited isn't one that applies to just pro-Palestinian DUers. It applies to all who post in this forum....

[aranthus]

27. Because Israel in 1948 really was a state. Palestine isn't yet.

There's no elected government anymore, but the big problem is which Palestine gets to be the UN member? There are separate governments in the West Bank and Gaza, and they don't get along. Then there's the question of whether either part has a reasonably functioning government. Then there's the issue of whether Palestinian statehood should be contingent on a peace agreement with Israel as was contemplated by the Oslo accords. More and more I think not, but there's still the huge hump to get over of there not being an actual Palestinian state in fact.

[Violet_Crumble]

3. This is what I don't understand...

From the article: 'The Obama administration has had to retreat in the face of the so-called Israel Lobby. Initially, the administration had nominated an independent critic of the Israelis, Chas Freeman, to a high intelligence assessment post, and the widely respected George Mitchell as a special representative for the Israel-Palestine talks. Both are gone. Obama’s initial conflict with Netanyahu over settlements has receded as the 2012 elections approach. The neocons, the Christian right and AIPAC may be taking brinksmanship over the cliff.'

Why has the Obama administration had to retreat? Neocons and the Christian right are never going to vote Democrat, so it's not like retreating is going to damage their chances electorally....

[shira]

8. So Obama and J-Street are bowing to the Israel Lobby? n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

9. When I ask a question, I kind of expect an answer...

Sometimes the answers even make sense, which is a bonus when it happens. Unless you want to try to answer what I asked, yr on yr own to flail around in this thread...

[shira]

10. So here's your answer. Obama and J-Street are "retreating" from a very extreme rightwing...

...anti-Israel agenda they know they cannot defend.

It's not the "Lobby" exerting pressure.

It's just bad policy dictated by the Oil Lobby.

Simple as that.

[Violet_Crumble]

12. That one falls into the Makes No Sense category...

Supporting Palestinian statehood isn't 'a very extreme rightwing anti-Israel agenda'...

Oh, well. Hopefully someone will come along and provide a sensible answer to my question. Thanks for trying, though...

[shira]

15. It's as J-Street argued, it hurts the peace process. Negotiations and concessions...

...are the only way.

The PA intends to concede nothing and that's why they don't wish to negotiate - not even during a 10 month settlement freeze.

That's what the Oil Lobby wants, as well as some of their "Leftist" drones.

[Violet_Crumble]

17. Palestinians can still negotiate after the UN declaration

By DAOUD KUTTAB
08/21/2011 21:17

Despite the overblown Israeli hype, Palestinians are not holding their breath as to what will happen in September.


In their frantic efforts to stop the Palestinian leaders from going to the UN, Israeli officials and propagandists present their case in a misleading fashion.

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has called on the Palestinians to hold direct talks, and even offered to meet Palestinian officials anywhere if they choose these direct talks instead of taking unilateral action.

On the surface of it, this position seems logical, but if one digs just beneath the rhetoric, it becomes obvious that the position is a continuation of Israel’s policy of obfuscation.

Palestinians have been in direct negotiations with Israel since the Madrid peace conference in 1991. Despite the signing of a five-year interim agreement in 1993, which was supposed to lead to an independent Palestinian state, Palestinians are nonearer a state today than they were back then.

<snip>

Israel and its army will continue to rule Palestinian territories no matter what the international community says. Palestinians can and will have direct talks with Israel regardless of what status they hold after the UN vote.

It is accepted by all concerned that the Palestinian move at the UN will not, by itself, bring about a Palestinian state. But this move, which reflects Palestinian and international aspirations, will strengthen rather than weaken the Palestinian position when it returns to the talks.

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-EdContributors/Article.aspx?id=234799

[shira]

19. Then they would have negotiated under a 10 month settlement freeze.

They would have also countered with something reasonable to Olmert's 2008 offer.

They're not desperate.

[Violet_Crumble]

21. Israel refused to extend the freeze...

There has to be a point to negotiating, and Nutty's government made it abundantly clear they were going to continue with their settlement expansion. Only a moron would demand that there be negotiations when one side was being so utterly intransigent and not willing to make good faith moves...

on edit: The point stands that despite yr false claim, negotiations can resume after Palestine is recognised as a state. Getting statehood will more than likely have the effect of forcing Israel and the Palestinians to the negotiating table as two states, rather than one state and one non-state.

[shira]

22. How do you know the PA would have wanted to negotiate after an extension?

Face it, a desperate PA wouldn't have rejected Olmert's offer without making a counter-offer.

A desperate PA looking to have their own nation within the framework of a peaceful 2 state solution would have quickly countered with something reasonable - and would have looked to the UN and media to pressure Israel into accepting such a reasonable counter offer.

Instead, they want a state on their terms, without concessions, without peace. The phased plan...

That much is obvious.

[Violet_Crumble]

25. Common sense and not thinking the Palestinians are evil...

Most people don't think it's unreasonable for the Palestinians to have their own state in the West Bank and Gaza. Statehood is more likely to draw both parties back into direct negotiations than not, so in the end it'd be a win-win for both...

[ellenrr]

18. This article in the Nation refers to the NYTimes as "liberal"...

that gives me an idea of how to take anything they say.
if NYTimes is liberal, then sarah palin is moderate.
nytimes is completely steadfastly mainstream.
Unless these days, if you believe in evolution, that makes you liberal.

re yr question- I dispute the premise.
The obama administration has shown itself to be as big a friend of Israel as any other administration.
Recall that while Israel was killing 1400 Palestinians and dropping white phosphorous on women and children, many of us begged obama to offer some criticism of these war crimes.

his response: silence.

He does the same thing here as he does on all the issues. Tries to play both sides. So 1st he calls for Israel to go to back to the '67 borders, knowing that isn't going to happen {unless they're forced to}.

Then, he is for Palestinian statehood...until he is against it.

Same song.

[Violet_Crumble]

20. Thanks. That's pretty much what I thought...

The Obama administration hasn't had to retreat from anything. They've done it because that's what they want to do....

[bemildred]

24. US political discourse gets quite bizarre at times.

And it almost never makes sense. As here in this case, it is largely speculative, wallows in false dichotomies, and very emotional, about how people "feel". And 90% of it proves to be wrong as time goes on.

[Exilednight]

26. In today's political climate, a president doesn't want to be seen in any way shape or form

as anti-Israeli. You are correct in the fact that Orthodox Jews are not going to vote Democrat, but Obama doesn't want to risk isolating the zionist reform Jews. My father-in-law is a reform Rabbi and is strongly Democratic on US social issues, but he'd change his vote in a heartbeat if the party switched its stance on carte blanche support for Israel.

[azurnoir]

5. Abbas has stated several times recently that the UN bid does not negate negotiations

it is Netanyahu and the US including sadly J-Street that make the claim that this is instead of negotiations leaving the conclusion that it is indeed Israel who will refuse to negotiate after the UN bid, the question is why?

[LiberalFighter]

11. I don't like either Israel or the Palestine state people with their bickering

but it would seem that we would be better off if we let this happen. If might be even better if the Israeli's were to support the recognition by the UN to help mend some fences and provide a better process to reach an agreement between the two.

[leveymg]

13. It would've been nice to get an email from them warning me they would take this position

so I could have at least given J-Street some feedback on that misguided step.

One more reason to conclude there really is no organizational alternative to AIPAC on the big issues, except to be independent and critical.

[TomClash]

23. Note the reaction to the OP

No need to debate the merits of the article. Let's focus on the straw man - whether support for Palestinian Statehood via the UN is "anti-semitic." Deflect and denounce - use any means necessary to support everything Israel desires. :puke: