[Peace-discuss] Israeli massacre in Gaza [and J Street PAC's call to end the violence and the blockade]

[Stuart Levy]

On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 11:30:52PM -0600, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
> But you have to tell the truth, even in political statements.

Surely far more truth exists than we can fit in *any* statement.
Just as there's more on and under a landscape than a mapmaker
can fit in any map.

As with maps, (political) statements are made, and the truth that
goes into them is selected, for a purpose.  Neglecting to assign blame
doesn't have to be misrepresentation.

If this were for a brief being drawn up for the International
Criminal Court then assigning blame and considering proportionality
of force would be central.  (As I think Mary Robinson said during the
bombardment of Lebanon, those who ordered it "should look to their
personal exposure.")  But that's not the intent here, and we
shouldn't judge it as if it were.

> I suggest J Street means to play Good Cop to AIPAC's Bad Cop.  --CGE

That makes sense in a way.   Though I don't think J Street's aims
have all that much in common with AIPAC's.   Although both say they
"support" Israel, they have wildly different views of what they'd
approve of Israel doing -- re attacking Iran, or returning
West Bank settlement land, for example.

>
> Stuart Levy wrote:
>> On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 10:15:34PM -0600, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
>>> Stuart Levy wrote:
>>>> ... 
>>>> http://action.jstreet.org/t/3251/petition.jsp?petition_KEY=508&tag=gazaemail-txt
>>>>  Here's their call:
>>>>> ... And there is nothing to be gained from debating which injustice is 
>>>>> greater or came first.   What's needed now is immediate action to stop
>>>>>  the violence before it spirals out of control...
>>> That's surely wrong.  It's obvious to the world "which injustice is 
>>> greater
>>> or came first."  The attempt to equalize the crimes is disingenuous at 
>>> best.
>> Yes, it is obvious to 'most anyone in the world, outside the US and 
>> Israel.
>> But remember, making this call is a political statement.  The point is to
>> convince US citizens -- including plenty who do see Israel's actions now 
>> as
>> "understandable" -- and congresspeople, and especially the new
>> Administration.
>> By declining to assign blame (even where it is due), J Street has crafted 
>> a
>> statement that's far harder to say No to -- while still calling for an end 
>> to
>> the siege of Gaza, and a prompt active return to a comprehensive peace
>> process leading to a viable two-state solution.  And calls all this a
>> fundamental American interest.
>> This is a statement that my mother might well sign (I'm sending it along 
>> in
>> hopes she will).  I don't think she would sign one that simply called on 
>> the
>> US to suspend military support to Israel, for example.   I'd be happy to 
>> see
>> that, but it will not happen any time soon.  We are not strong enough. The 
>> US
>> will be out of Iraq and Afghanistan first.
>> As the J Street statement says,
>> American politicians are already hearing from those who see only one side.
>> I'll bet they are.  In this situation, a broad call, letting our 
>> politicians
>> know lots of people support something more humane than the terrible status
>> quo -- and support listening to the Palestinians and not only to the 
>> Israelis
>> -- is 'way more valuable than a less moderate call which only a few of us
>> would agree to make.
>> Whatever the J Street leadership themselves believe, I think they're wise 
>> to
>> choose this way to mobilize people.
>> Stuart