They actually have the support of only a small segment of Jews, but unfortunately the ones they have are powerful and rich.
I wish Kerry would call on these Americans to see that they are not helping Israel when they ignore that Israel bears some responsibility for the worsening Israeli/Palestinian situation. This would be the best forum in which to do that. It will not be warmly received (and that is an understatement), but it is necessary that the US do so if they are to appear as honest brokers to the Muslim world. The fact is that, though they include important people who are "opinion leaders", in reality most of the US Jewish population is not following them. Among American Jews, people who support AIPAC are the most extreme in not wanting to hear any criticism of Iarael. There are other Jewish advocacy groups, but they do not have a fraction of the power of AIPAC. (My favorite is
http://www.btvshalom.org/ ) Speaking this way though carries the risk of closing doors behind the scenes that are now open to him.
Two things have recently made me rethink the need for someone important in US government to take a more even handed approach on Israel in their comments and to see the risk in doing so. The first thing that made me think is what I heard at my synagogue. A couple of weeks ago, I went to a synagogue event where an Iman originally from Turkey spoke to us about the impact of the war in Gaza on Israel's reputation in the middle east and world. He was part of a group working on interfaith issues that my rabbi is part of and he has become a very good friend of hers. He has spent the last several years speaking to US Muslims trying to improve the relationship between Jews and Muslims. He had 3 talks scheduled early this year at mosques - and all were canceled as the Gaza bombings worsened. He told us there are mosques where he is no longer welcome and Muslim friends he has lost because of his advocacy. He spoke of how that war lost Israel it's friendly relationship with Turkey and how some moderate Muslims that in the past always defended Israel against inflammatory charges within the Muslim world are now silent.
All this was said to a Jewish audience. Many were stunned to hear the degree to which things were made so much worse. He also spoke of how American Jews and Americans in general were less critical of Israel's actions than public opinion in Israel itself. In fact when someone asked for a good source of news that would better capture what was happening form the Arab point of view - he first recommended H'aaretz, which is a Jewish paper. He said that part of the difficulty recommending news sources is that the US and British media are heavily biased towards Israel.
The second thing had absolutely nothing to do with Israel, but with the somewhat analogous situation in Sri Lanka. Though there are many differences, Sri Lanka, which has been in a Civil War of different intensities since its independence, has a Buddhist (Sinhala) goverment and they are fighting the Hindu LTTE (Tamil Tigers) which is an internationally recognized terrorist group. Now it would be wrong to equate either the 2 powerful governments or the two terrorist groups, but some dynamics are similar. In both cases, there is no question that the minority group has little or no power within the government and the government will not agree to a solution of separate states. What connects this to my thoughts on Israel/American diplomacy and statements is the reaction of the Sinhalese to a very even handed statement by Chairman Kerry written after Senator Casey's hearing on Sri Lanka where they heard from representatives of international NGOs.
Like Israelis, the Sinhala see themselves as the good guys and they see the Tigers as terrorists. To make matters worse, over time, the Tigers have killed many people who were or could have been alternative leaders of the Tamil population. This is a stunning change from before independence. The Tamils were favored by the British - likely because they were 30% of the population. At the time of independence, they were the most educated and had most civil service jobs. Almost as soon as the country was independent (as a democracy), they designated Sinhalese as the only official language, made Buddhism the official religion and changed the name of the country. (It means something like sacred island - where "sri" (sacred) is considered Buddhist - leading some links to refer to "Lankans". ) All, of these things, added insult to the injury of having increasingly less power. Part of the reason they have little power is that the political parties are replicated for each religion - it would be like having Protestant Democrats, Catholic Democrats ... as independent parties. Not good for the Tamils who are 30% to the Sinhala 70%. For the last 18 years, the LTTE won and ruled a portion of the country in the North and east. There was a truce brokered by Norway that ended in early 2008 (right as my daughter started 4 months in Sri Lanka - great timing!).
Starting late last year, the government initiated a effort to eliminate the LTTE and take back all the land they controlled. At this point, the LTTE are in one small area along with civilians that they are not allowing to leave. Here is an article on their reaction to Western criticism -
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/01/world/asia/01lanka.html?scp=1&sq=Sri%20Lanka%20i&st=cse and here is an article about a Clinton statement -
http://www.nowpublic.com/world/sri-lanka-causing-untold-suffering-clinton and the main English language Sri Lankan Sinhalese paper's reaction - which attacks her as supporting the Tigers, which of course she doesn't.
http://www.dailymirror.lk/DM_BLOG/Sections/frmNewsDetailView.aspx?ARTID=46959Now, here is a Sinhalese article that contains Kerry's full letter. The article is actually fine, but look at the anger in the comments.
http://transcurrents.com/tc/2009/03/senator_john_kerry_urges_sri_l.html Ignoring the completely stupid - that the Tamils help support Kerry's affluent life style!, what is clear is that the US itself really has difficulty commanding the moral authority to call other countries on what they have done wrong. (This loss may be a great reason why we need investigation and prosecution where warranted on torture.)
I had read Kerry's letter from his Senate site before seeing the Sri Lankan article and one of my first thoughts was that it would be great had he or any Democrat written something similar on Israel/Palestine. Here, writing to the government, he acknowledges in detail the problem of the LTTE, but then addresses what international NGOs are saying the government, that has excluded journalists from the area, is doing. He then speaks of what has to be done going forward. What is clear is that the government is reacting with sputtering rage to all the international comments.
In the case of Sri lanka, the US has few levers - we really give them little aid and have no real historical relationship, so the statements and letters from the US might be the only thing we can do. That is not true with Israel. Looking at the anger in the Sri Lankan reaction, I wonder if perhaps the reason that Kerry and others haven't written letters - like the excellent Sri Lankan one - to Israel is because the reaction would be the same and would hobble the author's ability to promote better behavior quietly behind the scenes.
Putting these two lines of thought together, shows me that - even ignoring American politics, which Kerry may be one of the few who has the luxury to do so on this as long as his actions are seen as principled - choosing what things should be said to move things in the right direction is very complicated. But, the fact that AIPAC is NOT Israel, but a group of powerful American Jews suggests that this might be a group where he could do something like what was done in the Sri Lanka letter - speaking of the impact of the huge Gaza bombings - that to many seem pre planned (before the rockets were fired) to happen before Obama took office while Bush was in office. But, the more I think of it, the more confused I get as to what would be the best thing to do in terms of creating a better situation.
Politically, saying anything negative will likely be a loser. The left is so far out of the mainstream that they would see the Sri Lankan letter translated to the I/P situation as too easy on Israel and would not praise it, while AIPAC aligned journalists would take the same words as heresy.
(I apologize that this is chaotic and unfocused, but in trying to edit it - I realized the problem is not grammar and structure, but that my thoughts are going in both directions.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
