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.

checking in on shalom simhon

At my Hebrew level, reading a serious news article is a huge chore. But Nadav and Google Translate tell me that this article says Shalom Simhon lost a court case and will not be chairman of KKL in the near future.

orientation

I'm in Ann Arbor. The first few days of classes were a hyperspeed review of the Real Analysis course I took at GW. So far the people who have run class or orientation sessions have spent far more time than I expected massaging egos--saying things like "you deserve to be here" and "don't worry if it seems hard, you'll be fine". Apparently impostor syndrome is common among graduate students.

The econ program at UM styles itself as a collaborative program. The administration wants everyone to work together and succeed. This is apparently different from some other programs, where individuals in each cohort are ranked and the lower half are rejected after several years.

The administration put us in suggested study groups, which are intentionally diverse. Mine has a Filipino man, a Chinese woman, an Indian woman, and a man from Missouri. Second and third year students told me their study groups became more homogeneous eventually, but so far our study group has worked out very well.

The general paradigm at UM is that PhD econ students take two years to complete course work and three years to write a dissertation. It seems like most students here are now taking at least four years to write a dissertation. I think students are taking extra time to avoid entering a crummy job market. Hopefully that won't be a factor for me.

beit ben gurion, palmach, ha'apalah

Yesterday I went to two museums. David Ben Gurion's house in Tel Aviv and the Palmach Museum. There's not much to see at Beit Ben Gurion, but its free and in central Tel Aviv. Ben Gurion amassed a huge library in Tel Aviv and also in his other house in Sde Boker, which makes me want to read more books.

The Palmach Museum is a very unusual museum. Its sort of like watching a movie from the set where it was filmed, and moving to a new scene every 5 or 10 minutes. Well worth the visit. Makes me want to be a soldier. (But not really.)

I'm also reading a book about illegal immigration from Europe between 1945 and 1948 (Aliyah Bet or Ha'apalah). Its a first-hand, journalistic account by I.F. Stone called Underground to Palestine. Very good so far.

more wzc - the settlement enterprise

The three days of the World Zionist Congress can be roughly broken down as follows:

Day 1 - Siyurim (field trips), corresponding to some committee
Day 2 - Committee meetings, where proposals on a particular topic are discussed
Day 3 - The general plenary session, where resolutions are voted on by the entire assembly of delegates

I attached myself to the sixth committee, "The Settlement Enterprise." Settlement has come to be associated with settlements in the West Bank, but the scope of the committee included the peripheral areas of the Galilee and Negev as well.

The siyur for members of my committee focused on Gush Etzion, the region of the West Bank bounded by Jerusalem to the north, the Green Line to the west, Hebron to the South and the Dead Sea to the east.

It was interesting to go on a siyur planned by someone else after spending the last several months planning siyurim for other people. I couldn't stop myself from deconstructing the siyur into the implied messages that the organizers sent through each component.

Herodiom - An ancient hill fortress, somewhat resembling Masada. The messages: Judea is beautiful, Jews have an ancient connection to the land (and therefore a right to it), anyone who tries to force Jews out of the land is like the Roman Empire.

Kfar Etzion - A kibbutz, abandoned several times under threat of violence and resettled in 1967. The messages: settlers in the West Bank are just like the chalutzim of the second aliya, settlers are heroic because they persevere in the face of technical and political obstacles, Arabs are destructive and violent.

Shaul Goldstein - The mayor of the Gush Etzion Regional Council. The messages: settlers are innovative and provide technologically advanced products to the world market, settlers have very good relations with regular Arabs, Arab leaders undermine their friendship and cooperation.

I asked the mayor, "Do you think there should be a Palestinian state?" He said no.

I honestly enjoyed the siyur, even though I felt it was inappropriate for the organizers to have so obviously taken one side (the wrong one) on a controversial issue.

Alternates (like me) were, as a rule, not permitted to attend committee meetings or vote in the general plenary session, but I subbed in for actual delegates in both the committee meeting and the general plenary.

After some initial turbulence, the committee meeting settled down into a very respectful atmosphere, which I attribute partially to the even-handed chairmanship of Hadar Susskind. The final resolution, which I presented on behalf of Habonim Dror, Ameinu, J Street, Hashomer Hatzair and Meretz, recognized a two-state solution as an urgent priority. It passed with a vast majority and the support of Likud after the Labor-Meretz-Reform faction accepted some of Likud's amendments.

After the resolution passed, an orthodox man praised the process even though his political beliefs forced him to vote against the resolution.

Susskind discusses the desertion of the committee by some of its right-wing members and the subsequent fiasco in the general plenary in this blog post. I would add that Liam Getreu from Habonim Dror was one of the "two young Australians from opposing political perspectives" referenced by Susskind.