reasonable people
It's important to be thankful for reasonable people. J Street, a progressive pro-Israel, pro-peace voice attempting to gain traction in the hostile, hawkish univocity of American politics, puts out this strong statement against the military campaign of the current israeli government. Israel has a special place in each of our hearts. But we recognize that neither Israelis nor Palestinians have a monopoly on right or wrong. While there is nothing "right" in raining rockets on Israeli families or dispatching suicide bombers, there is nothing "right" in punishing a million and a half already-suffering Gazans for the actions of the extremists among them.
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.
As ben smith of politico points out, this is a crucial time for American Jews who are moderates. The incoming administration may be more receptive to their message than administrations past AND the incoming administration may be able to both amplify the voice of moderate and progressive American jews as well as harness their support for more progressive action toward peace and away from killing civilians. The later being not only immoral, but also ineffective, if the goals are stopping terrorism and/or forging a viable peace.
On that point, in response to criticism received from the more traditional Union for Reform Judaism, the J Streeters respond:We are pragmatists grounded in the real world and the lessons it teaches. As such - and as avid supporters of Israel - we are asking whether the specific actions taken by Israel in Gaza actually do advance Israel’s and America’s interests. In this case, J Street believes they do not.
Yay for pragmatism! It's time for a generational change all around. The dominant voice for Israel in America should be no exception. It does strike me as an extremely good sign that what seems to be at stake in the debate between the Union for Reform Judaism and J Street is: who speaks for the mainstream? That creates a political opportunity to answer the question differently than it has been before. And boy do we need a different answer. And I mean that "we" as inclusively as possible: Palestinians, Israelis, American Jews, American Palestinians, America, the Middle East and the rest of the world.
What kinds of politics might be possible without this violent albatross around the neck of foreign policy makers? What avenues would a burgeoning peace in this region afford the West in dealing with Syria? Pakistan? Iran? And most importantly stateless terrorist organizations the world over? Hard to gin up membership when there's nothing to hate. Or at least, when hating and killing and dying are not the most promising prospective avenues of one's life.
Let's move forward shall we? Being helplessly and lethally mired in an age-old morass is so 20th century, don't you think?
Update: Here's Andrew Sullivan's take, including a nice riff on just war theory a la the Roman moral theory, codified in the catholic catechism, and modernized by professor michael walzer of the institute for advance study (otherwise known as the 'genius bungalow' at princeton).
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.
As ben smith of politico points out, this is a crucial time for American Jews who are moderates. The incoming administration may be more receptive to their message than administrations past AND the incoming administration may be able to both amplify the voice of moderate and progressive American jews as well as harness their support for more progressive action toward peace and away from killing civilians. The later being not only immoral, but also ineffective, if the goals are stopping terrorism and/or forging a viable peace.
On that point, in response to criticism received from the more traditional Union for Reform Judaism, the J Streeters respond:We are pragmatists grounded in the real world and the lessons it teaches. As such - and as avid supporters of Israel - we are asking whether the specific actions taken by Israel in Gaza actually do advance Israel’s and America’s interests. In this case, J Street believes they do not.
Yay for pragmatism! It's time for a generational change all around. The dominant voice for Israel in America should be no exception. It does strike me as an extremely good sign that what seems to be at stake in the debate between the Union for Reform Judaism and J Street is: who speaks for the mainstream? That creates a political opportunity to answer the question differently than it has been before. And boy do we need a different answer. And I mean that "we" as inclusively as possible: Palestinians, Israelis, American Jews, American Palestinians, America, the Middle East and the rest of the world.
What kinds of politics might be possible without this violent albatross around the neck of foreign policy makers? What avenues would a burgeoning peace in this region afford the West in dealing with Syria? Pakistan? Iran? And most importantly stateless terrorist organizations the world over? Hard to gin up membership when there's nothing to hate. Or at least, when hating and killing and dying are not the most promising prospective avenues of one's life.
Let's move forward shall we? Being helplessly and lethally mired in an age-old morass is so 20th century, don't you think?
Update: Here's Andrew Sullivan's take, including a nice riff on just war theory a la the Roman moral theory, codified in the catholic catechism, and modernized by professor michael walzer of the institute for advance study (otherwise known as the 'genius bungalow' at princeton).