Why the PA is like the NFLPA

This past summer NFL owners locked out the players in pursuit of a more favorable revenue sharing arrangement. The players responded by decertifying their union. It turns out that the players union actually protects the owners in some way. As long as the union is around, the owners are safe from antitrust lawsuits.

I believe there is similar logic at work as Fatah considers disbanding the Palestinian Authority. Israeli defense officials want the PA around, because the PA channels political energy into nonviolence. Obviously the PA is not always successful in this, and whether it even tried under Arafat is debatable. But these days I think its fair to say that the PA has this effect.

To clarify, in my analogy Israelis are the owners, Palestinians are the players, and the PA is the NFLPA.

gilad shalit part 2

Some support for my previous blog post. Haaretz:

Top Hamas official Mahmoud Zahar told Army Radio on Sunday that Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas "negotiated with Israel for a million years and hasn't achieved a deal like this one."

Former Netanyahu bureau chief Ari Harow writes in the Jerusalem Post:

The complex deal that has ended Gilad Schalit’s nightmare raises many difficult questions, not least its strategic wisdom. However, the agreement to bring Schalit home has brought clarity on one topic. It has answered the vehement critics of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu who increasingly portray him as an obstacle to peace.

The New York Times editorial board doesn't buy that argument:

As for Mr. Netanyahu, we saw on Tuesday that the problem is not that he can’t compromise and make tough choices. It’s that he won’t.

Furthermore:

Both Mr. Netanyahu and Hamas were looking for a political win after Mr. Abbas grabbed the international spotlight — and saw his popularity soar — when he asked the United Nations last month to grant his undefined country full membership.

You heard it here first.

gilad shalit

Gilad Shalit will be released "within a week". This is good news. It sounds different than the other times.

But why is it happening now? Negotiations have faltered for more than five years. Why the sudden breakthrough?

Because the Palestinian Authority is making progress with its statehood bid at the United Nations. Hamas and Netanyahu oppose the progress at the UN. Consummating the Gilad Shalit deal is a way for them to distract attention from the statehood bid. The deal gives Hamas an opportunity to argue that its tactics--and not Fatah's--are successful. The deal gives Netanyahu an opportunity to argue that he has proved his willingness to negotiate--see, he just made a deal with Hamas!--and therefore that the PA is to blame, and not him, for lack of progress on final status negotiations.

Until September 2011, there was no room for an agreement. Hamas was happier defying Israel than turning over Shalit without getting high value Palestinian prisoners in return. Netanyahu was happier letting Shalit remain in captivity than turning over the high value Palestinian prisoners. By going to the UN, Abbas changed the political environment such that Hamas and Netanyahu were both willing to budge a little.

I hope Gilad Shalit will be released soon. I also hope that Hamas is unsuccessful in its attempt to siphon support from Fatah. I also hope that Netanyahu spends less time on hasbara and more time on statesmanship.

Jewish terror

I'm having trouble figuring out how to preface General Avi Mizrachi's comments on the Israeli Meet the Press. The Haaretz story leads with his call to shut down the yeshiva led by the author of Torat Hamelech (see previous post).

He also said something I've been thinking for a while -- that settler attacks on Palestinian residents of the West Bank are "Jewish terror". I was reluctant to articulate this because I was afraid of the harsh reactions some people might have. But Mizrachi has emboldened me.

Apparently there is some dispute over the definition of terrorism. It's a toxic word, so people try to stick it to anything they don't like. The only definition that makes sense to me is violence for political ends by non-state groups or individuals against non-state groups or individuals. Lots of horrible crimes do not fit this definition. I'm not saying those crimes aren't horrible, I'm just saying they deserve their own distinct labels, like war crimes or human rights violations.

I fear that the word terrorism is more frequently used simply to mean violence by people who have a different skin color or nationality. But if terrorism still has any meaningful definition, then we ought to be using it for the settler attacks on Palestinians. The euphemism "price tag" is more common and more comfortable. "Terrorist attack" is more accurate.

profiles in delusion

There's been some activity recently with Torat Hamelech, which I blogged about previously here and here.

The police wanted to question Rabbi Dov Lior, the head rabbi of Kiryat Arba who endorsed Torat Hamelech. He refused to cooperate. In February, the police issued an arrest warrant. Now, at the end of June, the police finally executed the warrant. In response to news of his arrest, protesters tried to block the entrance to Jerusalem. Check out the photo gallery on that last article.

I'm posting now because I want to continue to follow the Torat Hamelech story and also because I want to point out a person who showed up in one of these stories. Gershon Mesika, the head of the Shomron / Northern West Bank Regional Council, has grabbed my attention several times now.

Haaretz:

Police said they stopped Lior's car near the tunnel at the southern entrance to Jerusalem. A policeman replaced Lior's driver and drove the rabbi to the offices of the Serious and International Crimes Division in Lod, where he was questioned for about an hour in an amicable atmosphere.

I'm not sure because the article in Arutz Sheva only has one quotation mark, but I think most of what follows is a direct quote:

Samaria local authority head Gershon Mesika said Rav Lior’s abduction was an attempt by Soviet Russia to make a comeback and take over the only democracy in the Middle East.

That was exhibit A.

Here's exhibit B: After an incident in which settlers obstructed the demolition of an illegal house, Haaretz quoted Mesika as saying that Israeli police had used "rubber bullets tipped with glass". That would indeed be a cruel weapon, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't exist. Police said they fired paint cartridges.

capitol hill

The culmination of the J Street conference was a day of lobbying. We were asking our representatives to sign the Schakowsky-Eshoo letter. One of my nine meetings was canceled, and only one was with an elected official. The rest were with staff, which I am told is not unusual.

The congressman I met in person was John Dingell, the representative of Michigan's 15th district, which includes Ann Arbor, where I currently reside. I am unsure about the propriety of publicizing anything that happened in the meeting, so I'll just say that I am proud that John Dingell is my representative in Congress.

The meetings with staff were pretty good. I would guess that three to six of the eight will probably sign the letter. Staffers were all very polite. Some were totally unacquainted with the issues, others knew what we were going to say before we said it.

bds

I'm psyched for a marathon of nine meetings with Michigan Congressmen or staff today on the Hill.

Highlights from yesterday:

Dennis Ross addressed a plenary session, followed by a panel discussion, and I attended a breakout session about Hamas, but I don't have much to say about either one of those.

I caught a glimpse of Haaretz reporter Natasha Mozgovaya interviewing the MKs in attendance.

The panel discussion on BDS was interesting. I thought Ken Bob and Bernard Avishai were convincing. They argued that BDS is an inappropriate tool for ending the occupation and advancing two states. Rebecca Vilkomerson, representing Jewish Voice for Peace, argued in favor of BDS on the grounds that it is nonviolent and Palestinian led. The student on the panel, whose name I forget, spoke about the unproductive tone of the debate on BDS.

A few sessions were devoted to preparing for lobby day.

arab world, twitter, united nations, MKs, muslim student

Long day. Highlights:

Heather Hurlburt was my favorite on the Iran panel.

On the "comprehensive approach" panel, Shibley Telhami said we're witnessing the most significant Arab awakening since World War I. Its impossible to know exactly what the result will be, but the protest movements enabled by the information revolution will continue to spread and change the political environment of the Arab world. Arabs are angry at Israel because of its treatment of Palestinians, but Arab anger does not imply nonacceptance; most Arabs would accept a two state solution, according to Telhami. The changes sweeping the Arab world make a bilateral agreement less likely and a comprehensive agreement--one that includes the Arab League--more likely.

Mona Eltahawy argued, among other things, for supporting nonviolent resistance in the Arab world. We Israel supporters are in the habit of condemning Arab violence, as well we should. When Arabs start struggling nonviolently, we ought to support it. Its in some ways frightening to ponder what would happen if the Palestinian struggle was entirely nonviolent, but it shouldn't be frightening. It should be our hope.

I was on Twitter for part of the day. The number of people tweeting about the conference (#jstconf) was impressive. There are quite a few tweeters who don't like J Street and cherry-pick statements and things that happen at the conference to make J Street look bad. For example:

• One statement retweeted widely was "overheard" at the conference. None of the panelists said it. It was in conflict with J Street policy. But this statement that was supposedly overheard is taken to be evidence of the kind of people who support J Street.
  
• The moderator of one panel misunderstood a question about the BDS movement (boycott divestment sanctions), so the folks who had asked the question started making a fuss. This was interpreted by a tweeter as "heckling".
• At one point, some panelist made a moderately long statement about Palestinians and a few people applauded. One tweeter chose the most controversial statement from the panelist's comment and simply said people applauded.

These might not be the best examples, but my point is that some misleading "reporting" via twitter was going on.

A UN envoy was on one of the panels, and the moderator used a question I had written. The question was: "The UN has a bad reputation with respect to Israel among American Jews. Does the UN deserve this reputation? How important is it for American Jews to trust the UN? Whose responsibility is it to build trust?" The video is here, Steve Clemons asks my question at 47:30, and Robert Serry answers at 52:33-55:50. I was not entirely satisfied with the answer.

Five members of knesset were in attendance. Their panel was quite funny. There are videos of a bunch of sessions including the MK panel here.

I registered for the conference as a student. I haven't been involved with J Street U at Michigan much, but I went to the session this evening for students anyway. Its a little strange for me because I started UPZ, the predecessor to J Street U, at Maryland like six years ago, so I feel like it would be weird to return to campus activism.

Anyway, I went to the student session. I'm glad I did because I met a Muslim girl who grew up in a staunchly anti-Israel home under the belief that all Jews hated Muslims. She got to college at Carleton, met Jews, and realized that what she learned growing up did not square with the people she was meeting. She organized a discussion on the question "Is anti-Zionism the same as antisemitism?" I think it is remarkable that someone coming from her background was interested in exploring this question. It was clear to me that she was approaching it from the point of view that antisemitism is unacceptable, that she was brought up to be anti-Zionist, and that she was coming to the realization that there might be a conflict between the two.

The discussion she organized was a disaster. It was hijacked by a professor and devolved into a shouting match. But this girl continued exploring the question. She was surprised and impressed enough by the J Street folks on her campus that she decided to come to the conference.

This girl is not a part of J Street's base constituency. I wouldn't be surprised if she disagrees with some of the things that J Street stands for. But it seems she is on the path to becoming an ally in pursuit of peace. Does anyone think that J Street's credibility should be diminished for including people like her at the conference?

opening plenary

The first evening of the conference was amazing. Rabbi David Saperstein started things off passionately, then the focus shifted to three honorees. Peter Beinart caused a stir last summer with an article he wrote in the New York Review of Books. Sara Benninga is an Israeli activist who has helped lead the protests in Shiekh Jarrah. I can't figure out how to introduce Dr. Izzeldin Abuelaish succinctly, but his story is tragic and awe-inspiring.

join me

I am reviving my blog to post about the J Street conference, which begins tonight and continues through Tuesday. A friend of mine is a liberal American Jew. He and I agree on most political issues, specifically dissatisfaction with certain Israeli government policies, but he does not support J Street. I want people like him to join me in supporting J Street.

A lot of the criticism that I have seen of J Street is laced with name-calling, innuendo, and guilt-by-association. I think responding to such criticism point by point is generally not fruitful. If any readers of my blog care to sift through the static to extract a salient argument, I'd be happy to address it. But there is also some thoughtful criticism out there, including emails from my friend, and addressing that criticism is my main goal with this post. I focus on three issues: Zionism, funding sources, and base constituency.

Zionism. My friend wants J Street to state unequivocally that it is Zionist. There is some controversy about the definition of Zionism. Birthright Israel, for instance, has recognized the controversy. Here's my definition for the purpose of this discussion: "commitment to the notion of a Jewish democratic state". J Street is doing Zionism by this definition even though it is not saying "Zionism". I think this is a wise approach. More on this later.

Funding sources. J Street was not entirely forthcoming about its relationship with George Soros. Jeremy Ben-Ami apologized, which I think was proper. There are some people from whom it would be inappropriate to accept money at all, regardless of how transparent you are about it, but I wouldn't put George Soros on that list. The huge donation from Consolacion Esdicul is kind of puzzling, but if there's a good reason not to accept money from her then I haven't seen it. Overall this issue seems to me like a red herring.

Base constituency. Jonathan Chait wrote an interesting critique about whom J Street is targeting. J Street's base constituency is both (1) American Jews who wear their Zionism proudly and aren't afraid to express their disagreement with self-destructive Israeli government policies and (2) American Jews who are uncomfortable with the word Zionism but are nonetheless "committed to the notion of a Jewish democratic state". People who oppose Israel's continued existence as a Jewish state are not in the base constituency.

The two groups who are in the base constituency are both significant. Leaving off the label Zionism has alienated some of the people in the first group, like my friend. I hope they have the wisdom to see that adopting the label Zionist would be the end of the discussion for their potential partners, and that saying Zionism is less important than doing Zionism.