Why the American Jewish Establishment Won’t Condemn the Occupation

[Israeli]

Unless more U.S. Jews who oppose the occupation become members of established Jewish organizations and donate money, the establishment is unlikely to heed calls of those who want it to condemn the occupation.

Dov Waxman May 02, 2016

Once again, the American Jewish establishment has come under fire for its unwillingness to criticize Israel. Just before Passover, twenty-three young American Jews got themselves arrested in a series of sit-ins held at the offices of major Jewish organizations in Washington DC, New York, Boston, Chicago, and Berkeley. Staged by the activist group IfNotNow, the protesters called upon the American Jewish establishment to publicly oppose Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory. A few days later, Seymour Reich, a former head of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations — one of the main groups within the Jewish establishment — wrote a blistering op-ed in the largest circulation Jewish newspaper in the United States, calling upon the leaders of mainstream Jewish organizations to publicly condemn “the Israeli government’s assault on democratic values.” 

These demands are by no means new. For decades now, going to back to the formation of the group Breira in the mid-1970s, liberal and left-wing American Jews have been protesting the silence of the American Jewish establishment in the face of what they see as oppressive, reactionary, and anti-democratic Israeli policies and practices. Yet, despite countless protests and appeals, most of the organizations that make up the American Jewish establishment (which includes, among others, the American Jewish Committee, the Anti-Defamation League, and the Jewish Federations of North America) have consistently refused to voice any public criticism of the Israeli Occupation, although they have, on occasion, mildly rebuked Israeli governments and Knesset members for legislative proposals they deem undemocratic and, more often, for government initiatives that undermine the status of non-Orthodox Jews in Israel. Why, then, has the American Jewish establishment remained so silent about the occupation? 

While many on the left, both Jewish and non-Jewish, accuse the American Jewish establishment of actively supporting the occupation, the reality is more complex. Most of the leaders of organizations within the Jewish establishment actually support a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and have no desire to see Israel ruling over the West Bank and controlling the lives of millions of Palestinians. Whatever historic or religious significance the territory has for them, most mainstream American Jewish leaders believe that Israel must eventually give it up. But, unlike their critics on the left, they also believe that it is not safe for Israel to immediately end the occupation. They are convinced that the occupation can only end when Israel and the Palestinians make peace, and since this depends upon the Palestinians as much as Israel, the continuation of the occupation until then cannot be blamed on Israel. Thus, in their minds, it is imprudent and unfair to simply insist that Israel end the occupation.

But even if the leadership of the American Jewish establishment were persuaded that the occupation is largely Israel’s fault, or that continuing it poses greater dangers to Israel than unilaterally ending it, many of their organizations would still resist any open condemnation of Israel. It is simply not in their DNA. Having spent decades defending and celebrating Israel, mainstream Jewish organizations are profoundly uncomfortable criticizing it. Their corporate culture reflects and reinforces their traditional mission of doing “hasbara” for Israel. Even internal criticism of Israel is subtly, and sometimes not so subtly, discouraged. Getting these organizations to dramatically change course and actively oppose the occupation would be like getting the Republican Party in the United States to support raising taxes on the wealthy to cut the deficit. Even if it makes sense, it’s an almost impossible task.

Continued @ : http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.717349

[shira]

1. They won't do it because they legitimately fear another Gaza/Hamas takeover....

....of the W.Bank without any binding peace deal.

Pulling out w/o any peace deal is suicidal for 10's of thousands of Israelis on LITERALLY the other side of the street in Jerusalem across from Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Iran, ISIS....

[aranthus]

2. If Israel withdraws the Occupation, what happens then?

It's because we ask that question (and know that there aren't any good answers to it) that we don't condemn the Occupation. but I would appreciate your answer to it.

[Israeli]

3. Sorry aranthus....

.....did not see this until now .

I think I already answered here :

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1134127636

" Then you will see a chance for a Two State Solution "

Its either or ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1134127876

[shira]

6. IOW, let Hamas/Iran/ISIS take over the W.Bank & maybe there will be peace.

Gee, and you're shocked reasonable people ignore such idiotic views?

[Tony_FLADEM]

4. The settlements in the West Bank are a product of Zionism

You can say in general that you oppose the settlements (and resulting occupation) but what you are also doing is criticizing Zionism. That's why they can't criticize the occupation even if they want to because the issue is bigger than just that one aspect of it.

[Israeli]

5. Doesnt work both ways tho .....