Response to Michael Lerner ByMichel Warschawski
I was asked to react to Michael Lerner’s article on divestment, a topic which, indeed, is at the core of my current political reflection and action. This article, however, raises many topics beyond just divestment: the question of the Palestinian refugees and the right of return, the issue of historical responsibility, the “realistic” political solutions to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and their “ideal” horizon, and more.
I would have loved to have a dialogue with Michael Lerner on all these topics, out of a double common goal: to promote an “as just as possible” solution to a hundred-year-old bloody conflict and to build the largest possible front, in Israel/Palestine as well as in other countries, to help achieve this goal. We may have other occasions to develop such an exchange. Right now, I would like to express a few thoughts concerning the issue of pressure on and proposed sanctions against Israel, which obviously is a broader issue than divestment only.
I speak from my position as an Israeli activist, involved not only in the movement against the Occupation in my country, but also in the framework of the global social justice movement, in which this issue has been and still is being debated. Unlike Michael Lerner, my starting points are the concepts of Right and rights. I will claim that in our era, this starting point is not only right, but smart too.
As a people who, in modern history, have been the target of racist discrimination, persecution, and even genocide, Jews have long been at the forefront of the struggle for a world based on Right and the respect for human as well as collective rights. Is it a coincidence that Rene Cassin was, together with Eleanor Roosevelt, the architect of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, until now the most progressive document adopted by the international community on that issue? I don’t think so. It is not an accident either that this declaration, as well as the Geneva Conventions, were adopted just after World War II and the victory over Nazism. Behind these historical documents is a lesson the international community drew from the dark days of fascism: the duty of humankind (and its institutions) is to protect itself from tyranny, discrimination, and racism by creating rules and laws that lay out what is and is not tolerable, and by implementing these rules, by force if necessary.
Rights and the rule of law usually represent the interests of the weak against those of the strong, of the powerless against the powerful. The strong don’t need laws to protect them; they have the power. In that sense the true alternative for humankind is the law of the jungle, which is the rule of might, or the rule of law based on rights.
Today, Israel is strong and believes it can ignore international law and disrespect the basic rights of the people under its domination. It is definitely not right. It is not smart either, because the day after tomorrow Israel could be the weaker power again. This is why I believe that those who defend a climate of impunity for Israel, rather than demanding that the Israeli state enforce international law and the UN resolutions are not serving the true interests of the Israeli people. To be a true friend sometimes means stopping someone from harming others, because it is not right and because it may, sooner or later, harm the one who is ignoring the law. I must add that I suspect some unconditional “friends of Israel,” especially some Christian fundamentalists, of backing Israel in order to push it to its own destruction. On the other hand, many of those calling for international pressure on Israel to respect what is Right, do so out of a true friendship towards the Jews and a sense of responsibility towards the Israelis.
Of course, Israel is not the only country in the world that violates international law. So what? As a Jew and as an Israeli, I feel more responsible for the misdeeds of Israel than for those of any other country. I call for sanctions, not only to “punish” it for its war crimes and violations of basic human rights, but also to help steer it away from a situation of impunity that may lead it right to the abyss.
Pressure sometimes means sanctions. At the World Social Forums, in Mumbai and Porto Alegre, we had hot discussions about the most efficient types of pressure to exert on Israel: selective civil actions (boycotting of products from settlements), selective boycotts (of the arms trade), sanctions (suspension of international agreements that give some privileges to Israel), or diplomatic pressure?
It is my opinion that the the most effective strategy must take into account two central concerns:
(a) What can be concretely achieved in a specific country at a specific moment. It is obvious that a concrete objective that can mobilize tens of thousands in Belgium may have no echo in the United States, or that the European Union can, in certain circumstances, be pushed to take measures, while such a perspective is impossible in the United States, with the present administration. In other words, one must be concrete and motivated by the will to have a real effect on the Israeli public and/or the Israeli government.
(b) Not to create any ambiguity whatsoever with a campaign of “boycott the Jews.” (This is a real concern in some European countries.)
Recently, many Israelis, and not necessarily from the radical Left, have been discussing the issue of sanctions against Israel—last month B’Tselem initiated a seminar of Israeli Human Rights organizations, under the title “Calling for Sanctions?”—and it is fair to say that most Israeli human rights organizations are divided on the issue. More recently, a group of Israeli political, social, and human rights activists have issued a call that says: “We call upon the international community—states, NGOs, international civil organizations—for help, and ask them to help us ‘protect Israeli society from itself’.… to force the Israeli government to respect the international humanitarian norms, and if it will not do that, to impose ‘smart’ sanctions on Israel…” This document goes on to list many “smart” sanctions, which mainly involve the suspension of privileges granted by the international community to the state of Israel; suspension—until Israel decides to respect the UN resolutions and international humanitarian law.
I wish to leave the last word to a great lady, a great Zionist, and a great Israeli leader. Former general secretary of the Israeli Labor Party and former Minister of Communication and the Arts Shulamit Aloni wrote, four years ago: “Our only hope today is that an international intervention will oblige us to accept an imposed peace, before we commit crimes against humanity” (Ha’aretz, May 8, 2001).
Michel Warschawski is a veteran journalist and peace activist. He founded the Alternative Information Centre in Jerusalem, a Palestinian-Israeli organization that disseminates information, research, and political analysis on Palestinian and Israeli societies as well as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, while promoting cooperation between Palestinians and Israelis.
Divesting From the Occupation By Mitchell Plitnick
Divestment from Israel is a very touchy subject, but one that needs to be part of any strategy aimed at ending the Israeli Occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Rabbi Michael Lerner, in his own article on the subject, makes many excellent points as to why to support a limited form of divestment and why divestment can backfire if done improperly.
As Rabbi Lerner points out, the outcry over the Presbyterian Church’s (PCUSA) intention to investigate limited divestment has been misguided. The PCUSA has been attacked for proposing full divestment from Israel. In fact, it is merely divesting from businesses that profit from or perpetuate the Occupation. This is precisely what needs to happen more broadly. What we need is a clearer explanation as to why it is necessary. The Need for Outside Pressure for a Just Peace
Peace is going to require concessions. Neither side has been able to triumph by force, but Israel remains much more powerful than the Palestinians. So, Israel needs a reason to make the sorts of concessions that will be necessary for a just and lasting peace for both peoples. Governments do not make such concessions out of kindness or recognition of what is fair. They make such concessions because of pressure. Right now, there is no such pressure, and we in the United States can’t do very much to create such pressure within Israel. We must look at what we are capable of doing here.
Economic pressure has to be one option we explore. At some point, more than talk is going to be needed if Israel is to make the painful concessions peace will require. The Geneva Initiative may be the best that can be achieved right now, although it falls short of full Palestinian sovereignty. But Israel, even including the Labor and Meretz parties, is not ready to make those concessions. And anything less is a non-starter. Any hope for progress rests on the creation of some outside pressure on Israel. And such pressure can only be effective if it comes with guarantees of Israeli security. That would seem to indicate that American pressure, along with its continuing alliance with Israel (an alliance that is clearly unshakable at this point anyway), is the best way forward. Groups with some significant dollar power, like the PCUSA, labor unions, and investor groups can lead the way to such pressure through selective and considered divestment from businesses profiting from the Occupation. Why Targeted, Rather than Full Divestment?
We also have to look at what is effective and just. Many activists have drawn a parallel between Israel and apartheid South Africa. This has led to calls for full divestment from Israel. But the analogy fails on many levels, especially when it comes to divestment. The South African divestment campaign came at the end of many years of activism and education that turned the vast majority of the American population against the apartheid government. Most Americans do not understand the devastation of the Occupation, but are well aware of attacks on Israeli civilians. The South African divestment campaign was aimed at bringing down that government, which is not what this movement is supposed to be about. We’re supposed to be trying to end the Occupation. So, calls for full divestment à la South Africa are inappropriate, although they are not usually anti-Semitic, as is often alleged. A Clear Message Feeding into a Strategic Program
It is not enough to say that a tactic is not meant to target the Israeli or the Jewish people; our tactics themselves have to be truly and visibly guided by that principle or we will sacrifice both the moral high ground and a great deal of potential support.
A targeted divestment program must be part of a larger strategy, as Rabbi Lerner suggests. Where I would differ with him is that, in my view, the ultimate goal for American Jews is to be the force that pushes the Jewish and Israeli leadership into the concessions needed to bring a just peace to the region, while ensuring the safety of Jews in Israel and elsewhere. Our education must be geared toward action. That action must push Israel into the necessary concessions, just as the Occupation, along with the American and Israeli governments, has pushed the Palestinians into the concessions they have made. They conceded 78 percent of what was Palestine under the British Mandate, and have shown themselves willing to make more concessions in the Oslo agreements and the Geneva Accords. Now Israel and the United States must respond in kind.
Israelis and Palestinians can create their future themselves and are far better qualified to both model that future and create it. We need to enable them to do it, not show them how. We need to build our movement on a foundation of moral principles and around a plan of action. The plan needs to involve activism in media and government as well as programs like the campaign to get the Caterpillar Corporation to stop allowing its bulldozers to be used for home demolitions in the Occupied Territories. It needs to be a plan that pressures Israel in real ways, without trying to devastate the country and bring down the government.
Our fundamental moral principles must respect and preserve the rights of everyone in the region. We must not be reluctant to condemn attacks on Israeli civilians just as harshly as those on Palestinians. And we must keep our perspective. Israel is doing terrible things in the Occupied Territories, but painting Israel as worse than other countries is disingenuous and in some cases anti-Semitic, although this last is the exception rather than the rule.
Not long ago, I was at a local rally protesting an AIPAC dinner. One of the chants that went up was “2-4-6-8 Israel is a racist state.” I couldn’t help but stare at the chanters in dismay. A crowd of Americans chanting these words about Israel just sounded so absurd. Our government is devastating Iraq and continues to occupy Afghanistan, and there are many more examples of racism in our foreign policy. Our own legacy of racism is well known, and it persists to this day. Israel, even behind the Green Line, has serious problems with racism, and they’re getting worse, not better. The problem is most severe regarding Arabs, but extends also to Mizrahi Jews and foreign workers. But for Americans to hurl this accusation at Israel given our own problems with racism here reinforces the idea that Israel is held to a higher standard than other countries.
We must talk about the horrors of the Occupation. We must not let the suffering of the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank be obscured. But that doesn’t mean that we should ignore the damage the Occupation does to Israeli Jews. More important, we should not ignore the pivotal role our own government plays in the Occupation. The United States provides the political cover for the Occupation by limiting the role of the European Union and United Nations in mediating the conflict. It provides the diplomatic cover for it by vetoing resolution after resolution in the UN Security Council. And it provides the weaponry and funding for it through massive aid, loan guarantees, and sweetheart deals on arms. As Americans, we have the most credibility when we talk about our own government and corporations. Improving Our Messaging
It still isn’t easy. As the Presbyterians’ situation shows, even divestment and boycotts that explicitly target the Occupation will be painted as attacks on Israel and even as anti-Semitic. But we can also draw lessons from the Presbyterians’ experience.
We progressives have a pretty poor record on getting our message across in a productive and effective manner. The Presbyterians helped the pro-Occupation forces paint their decision as anti-Israel when they said that the Occupation was the root of the conflict. This allowed the other side to say that the Presbyterians were blaming Israel for everything. It was also an inaccurate statement—the Occupation may be the cause of much of the current violence, but the conflict existed before the Occupation, and issues will remain after the Occupation ends. Ending the Occupation is the most important step that can be taken toward a just peace. But even after its end, Israel, the Palestinians, the United States, the international community, and the Arab states will still have much work to do to create a peace that can endure.
The Presbyterians also announced their divestment decision at the same time as they announced a renewal of funding for two parishes that explicitly proselytize Jews as part of their mission. This was the result of two different branches of the church’s assembly operating independently of the other, but it reinforced the case that the Presbyterian divestment decision was based on animosity towards Israel and the Jewish people.
Economic pressure on Israel will have to be part of any program for peace. But it can only succeed if we effectively communicate our ideas and if those ideas are grounded in concern for Palestinians and Israelis equally. We need to move beyond supporting one side or the other. We need to push our own government toward a peace that is just for both sides. But we can only be effective politically if we are thoughtful in how we present our ideas and strategic in our planning. These are the very theories that are the basis for Jewish Voice for Peace’s operations. We can build an American movement for a just peace in the Middle East because it is in the interests of Jews and Arabs everywhere for there to be one.
Mitchell Plitnick is Director of Education and Policy for Jewish Voice for Peace. Join JVP at our web site at www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org. Find out more about the Caterpillar campaign at www.catdestroyshomes.org