JANIP

19 Comments Add your own

• 1. Brian Henry  |  March 21st, 2007 at 7:03 pm

  What do you mean by your “concept of civil society” paragraph?

  Does resolving conflict “without violence” mean that Israel foregoes the right to self-defence? Can Israel make raids into Palestinian territory to arrest terrorists who are not being arrested by Palestinian authorites?

  Can Israel target rocket factories? Teams launching missiles against Israel, etc.

  Does “extra-legal activities” refer to targetted killings? If so, does this mean you disregard the rulings of Israel’s supreme court when deciding what’s legal and what’s not?

  If you disregard a highly respected supreme court, who does determine what’s legal?

  I, too, think direct negotians and mutual accomodations are the ideal, and if it ever becomes possible, I’m all for it. But what has this to do with current reality?

  Who is Israel to negotiate with? Hamas, which dedicates itself to genocide? Or Abbas who doesn’t even control his own Fatah movement?

• 2. Moises Salinas  |  March 25th, 2007 at 1:58 pm

  Dear Brian,

  Resolving the conflict without violence means that Israel should do every possible effort to arrive to diplomatic solutions before resorting to military means. Of course Israel should have the right to defend itself when attacked, but it also should jump at every opportunity for dialogue, and exahust diplomatic options before using military ones. Even at the height of the cold war, the U.S. and the USSR kept in constant communication.

  “Extra legal” means outside of the law. The supreme court in Israel is of course a legitimate judicial institution. While it did not rule out targeted killing as blanket “illegal,” it also said that “it cannot be determined in advance that every targeted killing is prohibited according to customary international law,” In other words, Aharon Barak explained that they were not inclined to prohibit the practice , because in some cases it might be legal, for instance, ticking bombs. It should then be the responsibility of Tzahal to find a procedure that would allow a legal expedited “due process” way to make those decisions. For now, the practice has stopped anyway.

  Finally, Israel should dialogue with anybody willing to dialogue. Negotiations, well, that is an issue of practicality. You negotiate with whomever can deliver. If the other party can’t deliver, then there is nothing to negotiate. But dialogue is something you can have with anybody.

  Now, I think your comment is naive because you ask questions but I’m pretty sure you do know what JANIP means in it’s statement. So, instead of questions, they are objections. Objections are fine, but I’d rather see them stated as such.

  I do admire your support for Israel, though. And keep up the dialogue, it is the only way we can all improve.

  Sincerely,

  Moises

• 3. Chris  |  March 25th, 2007 at 4:25 pm

  Moises,

  Thank you for articulating so eloquently what we believe. I think this statement sums up perfectly what I believe: “Israel should do every possible effort to arrive to diplomatic solutions before resorting to military means. Of course Israel should have the right to defend itself when attacked, but it also should jump at every opportunity for dialogue, and exahust diplomatic options before using military ones.” Of course Israel should defend itself; however, it should do everything it can do to avoid it and only engage in military action until all ther means have been utilized.

  I do not think Brian’s questions are naive, I think they are disingenuous. He does not believe in what we do and will not simply come out and say it. Dialogue requires that we are honest, frank and respectful with each other. Brian, you are worried about Israel as am I. I do not have all the answers but I can speak from my heart. Like Moises, I admire your concern for Israel and hope that our dialogue can make things better.

• 4. Brian Henry  |  March 30th, 2007 at 8:19 am

  “I do not think Brian’s questions are naive, I think they are disingenuous. He does not believe in what we do and will not simply come out and say it. ”

  Chris and, Moises, you seem like reasonable people with opinions that deserve respect, but yes, I’m doubtful about your group, and I’m trying to figure out what you do believe and what your aims are.

  I’m glad you support Israel’s right to defend itself, but you must know that among people who call themselves “progressives” or identify themselves as being on the left there is no “of course” about the sentiment.

  Similarly, “progressives” tend to use their special understanding of the law as a stick to beat Israel, so when you speak about “extra legal” actions, I want to know exactly what you mean.

  Moises agrees that targetted killings are legal when they meet the requirements set out by Israel’s Supreme Court. My reading of the judgement is that it was a clarifictation of existing practices. In any case, I’m glad we agree.

  Is Moises’ opinion a common sentiment in JANIP?

  I would also like to open a second hard legal question – what about the security barrier? It’s being contested in court virtually inch-by-inch, with the result that every inch that gets built has been determined to be legal.

  Does JANIP accept the barrier as a lawful structure?

  More generally, as you know, most people who identify themselves as progressives view Israel maliciously and assign responsibility and blame exclusively to Israel and rights and sympathy exclusively to the Palestinians.

  I’m afraid Barbara Epstein – who is a co-chair of your organization – illustrates this tendency when she states: “This does not mean equating the two sides: there is an Israeli occupation of Palestine, not a Palestinian occupation of Israel.”

  Israel occupied the West Bank and Gaza (which it no longer occupies) when surrounding Arab nations started a war against Israel with the professed goal of driving the Jews into the sea.

  Israel retains the moral and legal obligation (not merely the right) to continue occupying the West Bank until there is a Palestinian partner that is both willing and able to negotiate in good faith or until Israel unilaterally decides it’s in its own best interest to end the occupation.

  I supported the Oslo process. Arafat betrayed it. I supported unilateral withdrawal from the territories. The Palestinians responded with continuing terror.

  The sad fact is that getting rid of Israel remains the goal of most Palestinian factions - Hamas, the PFLP, much of Fatah, etc. They pursue this goal through terrorism and propaganda, and simplistic statements such as Barbara’s aid them in their goal.

  I too prefer diplomacy over war. Unfortunately, our enemies don’t care about our prerences. How does JANIP propose to put pressure on the Palestinian factions? Or does JANIP’s actions (never mind its sentiments) assign responsibility solely to Israel?

  I notice, by the way, that Rabbi Arthur Waskow has posted on the thread re Barbara Epstein’s piece, “Anti-Israel Sentiment on the Left”. I can’t say that Waskow seems like a reasonable with opinions that deserve respect. Does he just post here or is a more active member?

• 5. Chris  |  March 30th, 2007 at 11:04 am

  Brian,

  The opinon held by Moises is merely that, his opinion. I am not sure we would all agree on particulars such as targeted killings. You would need to ask various people what they think of each issue. Those of us who sign on to this statement, do it from our understanding of that statement. I do not think those who demonize israel would be able to do that but perhaps I am wrong.

  How we define these concepts will differ but we have come together to end the polarization on our campuses, to lend a more civil discussion to this conflict. If you have questions about Barbara’s post, you can always ask/probe/challenge.

  I do think people on this board deserve respect, whether I vehemntly disagree with their opinions or agree. Rabbi Waskow is simply someone who posts here with his opinion, just as you are. You have every right to challenge people and I hope that you do. But people will be challenged. For instance, you state:

  “Israel occupied the West Bank and Gaza (which it no longer occupies) when surrounding Arab nations started a war against Israel with the professed goal of driving the Jews into the sea.” No one can deny this but your next paragraph could be examined:

  “Israel retains the moral and legal obligation (not merely the right) to continue occupying the West Bank until there is a Palestinian partner that is both willing and able to negotiate in good faith or until Israel unilaterally decides it’s in its own best interest to end the occupation.”

  Where does this statement come from? How do you “prove” this?

• 6. Noga  |  March 31st, 2007 at 3:51 pm

  Moises’ response to Brian Henry is disappointing. Henry asks some very pertinent questions which must be faced with honesty and courage. What you have done, Moises, is re-categorized them as disenguously-masked “objections” and thus gave yourself permission to avoid answering them .

  This is too important an issue to try and obfuscate with a rhetorical sleight of hand.

  What is your definition of “dialogue” with Palestinians, as distinct from “negotiations”? Who are those Palestinians that Israel must dialogue with? Where are they to be found? What are the topics of this dialogue? Is Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state a topic for dialogue?

  I can think of only two prominent Palestinians who might fit the bill: Sari Nusseiba and Saeb Erekat. Where are they? Who among the Palestinian people listens to them?

  Fine words and noble sentiments are all very well for feeling virtuous but where are they getting us? What are the hard facts underneath these nicely-worded good intentions? ?

• 7. Moises Salinas  |  April 1st, 2007 at 10:20 am

  Dear Noga,

  The difference between dialogue and negotiations is that dialogue is meant to understand your counterpart. Negotiations are meant to reach a specific outcome when you disagree on a point. You can’t conduct negotiations when you don’t trust the other side, because every offer made is seen as a “bad faith” offer, a way of taking advantage of you. So, first we need to rebuild trust first.

  As part of my research for my new book, I conducted interviews with hundreds of Palestinians. Most of them want to reach an agreement, but they don’t believe we do (by the way, very much the same thing happens with Israelis). There are many in the leadership who want to sit and negotiate: Mohammad Dahlan, Marwan Barghouti, Yasser Abed Rabbo, Mahmud Abbas, Salam Fayyad, Ahmed Qurei, Hannan Ashrawi, just to name a few. Their position, however, is similar (but even worst) that ours, Progressive Zionists, in which their own people tell them negotiations are a waist of time because Israelis are untrustworthy and we really don’t want peace.

  Trust and confidence building is a long process, but it will never happen if we don’t start with dialogue. Then, perhaps, we would be able to move to negotiations.

• 8. Moises Salinas  |  April 1st, 2007 at 10:48 am

  Dear Brian,

  Progressive Zionists are, first and foremost, committed to the existence and welfare of Israel as a Jewish state. Some people who called themselves Progressives where Ber Borochov, Nahman Syrkin, A.G. Gordon, and yes, even David ben Gurion. JANIP is a progressive Zionist organization, and people who support our position include politicians like Yossi Beilin, writers like A.B. Yehoshua and David Grossman, and academicians like Amnon Rubinstein and Avishay Braverman.

  I myself am the chairman of the American Zionist Movement in the Hartford area, and a recipient of the World Zionist Organization Herzl Centennial Award.

  On the other hand, it is true that many (I don’t know if the majority) Progressive people worldwide do condemn Israel unilaterally and some even deny its right to exist as a Jewish state. That is part of what our mission is, to try to change the perception of Israel within the Progressive movement.

  As for the barrier, first let me say that it is Israel’s right to set up any barriers it wants in its sovereign territory, specially for security purposes. The supreme court also agreed that as long as the purpose of the barrier is ONLY for security considerations, it is lawful to put it surrounding Israeli settlements in the territories (as long as they are not too imposing on the livelihoods of the Palestinians). However, even if it is lawful, it does not mean it is smart. Like the barrier the U.S. is putting in the border with Mexico, nobody will claim its not legal, but it is souring relations between the two countries. So, is it smart? Well, we could dialogue about that one too. I personally believe it would be smarter to put the barrier on the green line. People living in the territories do so of their own will and with the understanding that it is dangerous (and that one day they might even be evicted of their houses). So, if they are willing to live with that risk, its up to them to stay there. On the other hand, having the barrier on the green line would save Israel a number of diplomatic and political headaches at a time when we need international diplomatic support instead of picking fights up with the EU and the UN.

  That’s all for now. Take care.

  Moises

• 9. Brian Henry  |  April 8th, 2007 at 8:29 pm

  Moises and Chris,

  Moises, Thanks very much for your response. I understand much more clearly now where you stand politically, and if part of JANIP’s mission is “to try to change the perception of Israel within the Progressive movement,” then you have my full support in that.

  I’m still concerned about whether you (and Chris) represent the mainstream of JANIP. There is nothing in JANIP’s mission about it being Zionist – progressive or otherwise. And the piece by one of your co-chairs, Barbara Epstein, (“Anti-Israel sentiment on the Left”) implies that Israel is the problem.

  Chris suggests I challenge Barbara on this point. Well, I have but have gotten no response.

  Concerning the security barrier, I find that again that Moises and I agree - it’s legal.

  As to whether building the barrier is “smart,” I don’t think Israeli policy should be based on the reaction of the EU or of any other foreign power. However, the government of Israel certainly is responsible for the security of all its citizens, including those in the West Bank. These citizens aren’t there in defiance of the state. They were encouraged to move to the West Bank by successive governments. The state can’t at this late date simply shrug and leave them to their own devices – regardless of what the EU or anyone else might like.

  In short, “smart” or not, Israel is obliged to give its citizens the best protection it can. Israel has decided that means putting up a security barrier. I don’t’ think I’m in a position to tell them they’re wrong.

  Chris challenges my statement that “Israel retains the moral and legal obligation (not merely the right) to continue occupying the West Bank until there is a Palestinian partner that is both willing and able to negotiate in good faith or until Israel unilaterally decides it’s in its own best interest to end the occupation.”

  Chris asks, “Where does this statement come from?”

  It comes from the first obligation of a state: to provide security to its citizens. Israel isn’t obliged to help its enemies – it doesn’t have to hand over the West Bank to the Palestinians so that they can have a go at destroying Israel.

  On the other hand, if the Palestinians are willing to make peace and are able to deliver on their side of a peace deal, then Israel is obligated to negotiate in good faith (as of course it did).

  Moises mentions that many Palestinians do want to negotiate. I don’t doubt it. But so what? They can’t deliver. Supposing Abbas and Israel were to reach a peace agreement. Israel still wouldn’t have a peace agreement with the Palestinians, only with some elements of Fatah – and Abbas wouldn’t be able to deliver on the Paelstinian side of the deal; i.e., an end to the conflict.

  What’s really needed is for the Palestinians to get their house in order. A nation in which every political faction has its own militia is a nation that can’t make peace – or indeed carry out any coherent policy.

  For decades, I’ve considered the West Bank a millstone around Israel’s neck. But for the present and for the next decade or two or more, I think Israel just has to learn to swim with a millstone.

  Hag sameach.
  Brian.

• 10. Brian Henry  |  April 8th, 2007 at 8:35 pm

  P.S. Chris. I notice you post on Engage. Are you the author of “Stereotypes in the Academy: Anti-Zionism and Anti-Semitism on US College Campus”?

• 11. Chris  |  April 9th, 2007 at 11:08 am

  Brain, thank you for answering my question. I do appreciate it. Yes, I am the author of that piece and do contribute to Engage. I am also on the advisory board of the H-Net Antisemitism list of which you are a member.

• 12. Moises  |  April 12th, 2007 at 12:59 pm

  Hi Brian,

  Thanks for your comments. JANIP is a pluralistic movement, but I do believe Chris and I probably represent the “median.” (besides the fact that he and I happen to agree on many other things and have many common things in our background). Regarding any mention of Zionism in the mission, you are right, and there was a debate about that. You should bring it up again. I wish we had included the word Zionist (even in the name of the organizations) but many of the founder members felt that they did not want to alienate other academics who were supportive of Israel but, unfortunately, felt uncomfortable with the term. It was clear, though, from the discussion that all the current members are Zionists in which all support a Jewish state for the Jewish people in the land of Israel.
  You are right that in todays circumstance no Palestinian leadership could deliver real peace. Changing minds is a long process, but if the minds of the Palestinian people are to change so they will support peace, we need to start the road. At this point, is all I ask. In my book I talk about lots of things (social, cultural, economic) that we could be doing to foment that process, and we are not. The road is long, but If we never start to walk, we will never make it to its end…

• 13. dave  |  November 24th, 2007 at 6:13 pm

  Please stop to ask always thr jews to make effort while you just don’t ask to Palestinian to sign a petition to support THEM TOO your project.
  This is enough to always asking us more and more and always less and less to Plaestininas;
  this is not seroius;
  When the muslim world will really want to speak, it will begin
  to stop hysterical refusal of the jewish fact it denies in itself and in its origin (remember the Kuran - if at least you know it - call to kill Jews as “the previous ones” and “the hypocrits”.Only when muslims will do something serious about this, your project will be itself serious, vbecause this depends on Muslim mmuch more than on Jews, and you know it, even if you d’on’t aknowledge it ; i know you are too intelligent not to see this reality. thanks to publish my word

• 14. dave  |  November 24th, 2007 at 6:20 pm

  I propose, Dear Moises, you to change JANIP for JEWISH MUSLIM etc so that we will see if muslim make the same effort you ask from us; If not, why should we one more time play to this game?
  We are tired of comedy and want real things or nothing, definitly.

• 15. Gino Barcal  |  February 23rd, 2008 at 7:47 am

  A rational

  If we take revenge upon the enemy or rivals, then it creates a kind of vicious cycle. And especially when this happens at the community level, it can go on from generation to generation. The result is that both sides suffer. The whole purpose of life becomes spoiled. You can see this in the refugee camps, where hatred is cultivated towards another group. This happens from childhood on.

  Even if your rival is made unhappy through your actions, what is there for you to be so joyful about?

  Some people consider that strong hatred is good for national interest, and this is very negative. It is very short-sighted. Counteracting this way of thinking is the basis of nonviolence and understanding.

  In some of the most developed societies, a lot of attention is paid to the attitudes towards the rivals or enemies. This is because hatred can be the greatest stumbling block to the development.

  If you can learn to develop patience and tolerance towards your rivals, then everything else becomes much easier, your tolerance towards all others begins to flow naturally. So, one’s enemies or rivals play a crucial role, There is no fortitude similar to patience, just as there is no affliction worse than hatred.

  One must exert one’s best efforts not to harbor hatred towards the rival, but rather use the encounter as an opportunity to enhance one’s tolerance. In fact, the enemy or rival is the necessary condition for practicing patience. Without an enemy’s action, there is no possibility for patience or tolerance to arise. From this standpoint we can consider our rival as a great teacher, for giving us this opportunity to practice patience.

  It’s the very struggle of life that makes us who we are. And it is our enemies that test us, provide us with the resistance necessary for growth.

  Peace to all,
  Gino Barcal.

• 16. Gino Barcal  |  March 4th, 2008 at 5:26 am

  Non-violence

  As long as human beings remain on this earth there will always be disagreements and conflicting views. And it is actually impossible to eliminate disagreements through violence. Violence only brings even more resentment and dissatisfaction.

  Non-violence, on the other hand, means dialogue, it means using language to communicate. And dialogue means compromise, listening to others views, and respecting others rights. Nobody will be a hundred percent winner, and nobody will be a hundred percent loser. That is the practical way. In fact, that is the only way.

  The concept of “us” and “them” is almost out-dated. If our interests existed independently of those of others, then it would be possible to have a complete winner and a complete loser, but since in reality we all depend on one another, our interests and those of others are very interconnected, and gain a hundred percent victory is impossible. Without this approach, reconciliation is impossible.

  The reality of the world today means that we need to learn to think in this way: “The middle way approach”.

  Therefore, in the spirit of reconciliation, we should advocate a sharing of interests so that genuine progress is possible. Compromise is the only way. Through non-violent means we can share views, interests, feelings, rights, and in this way we can solve the problem. The principle of non-violence should be practiced everywhere. It means work and effort, and yet more effort. And this cannot be achieved by simply praying.

  It is not a question of one nation or two nations, but of the survival and health of humanity in the region. If we let hatred guide us, then we can be so cruel and so destructive. But on the other hand, if we promote good human qualities, then wonderful actions and marvelous things can happen.

  The reality of the existence of other cultures and other communities cannot be ignored. The nature of modern existence is such that the well-being, happiness and success of one’s own community are very connected with the well-being and interests of other communities and other societies.

• 17. Rachel Hershberg  |  March 10th, 2008 at 11:47 am

  This JANIP is a wonderful thing. and thanks for creating it. I too have a political/moral quandary that perhaps some of you like-minded progressive Zionists can answer.

  Does Israel make every effort to reduce the amount of bloodshed when it retaliates to those firing rockets into Israel? This is a big question for me because I too believe Israel needs to defend itself but Israel’s means of defense does not seem to work to its benefit in that rockets continue to be fired and Israel’s strong retaliation only destroys the image of Israel further–and this image is hugely important because Israel needs real allies if a secure two-state solution is to come about.

  100 Palestinians died a few weeks ago and my first impulse was to say that Israel was lawfully defending itself and its citizens. As Mark Regev said, children are growing up in fear of rocket fire–Israelis are not being killed by rockets en masse, but they are still disrupting life and injuring civilians. I agree with Regev that this is unacceptable.

  However, the argument that Hamas uses civilians as human shields–what can Israel do?–does not satisfy my question or my hope that Israel believes in a moral obligation to protect civilian life– whether they be Palestinian or Israeli.

  I don’t know enough about the IDF’s military strategies but does anyone know whether it’s possible for Israel to (or whether Israel should) make a stronger commitment to protect the lives of innocents/civilians Hamas surrounds itself with, in its means of defense? It seems that if Israel vocalized or enacted a more humane retaliation policy– the rest of the world would more sensitively understand the complicated situation Israel is in.

  I realize this is a complicated question but I appreciate your comments/answers.

  Thanks for JANIP–the questions on this post are of the sort I ask constantly but usually my fellow academics are not interested–this will be very helpful.

  -Rachel

• 18. Halo  |  March 15th, 2008 at 6:47 am

• 19. Jane  |  March 15th, 2008 at 2:49 pm

Leave a Comment

Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed