Many if not most political coalitions that were able to significantly affect a serious political outcome are constituted by different groups with major internal ideological divergences. The key to these coalitions' success is that they aligned on a particular demand or set of demands and the circumstances were favorable.
This applies to the Cedar Revolution in Lebanon, the Arab Spring, the feminist / women's rights movement in many places, and many more outside of a Middle Eastern context. Often, the movements are built around a core of people that are directly effected, although problematic gaps can appear sometimes (e.g. the reification of the proletariat).
There are always "hardliners" that have and create the most problems with the coalition and some of its members. Nevertheless, these hardliners' role is as crucial as the one of those choosing the right alliances. Alliances that are too "distant" can cause too much internal divergence - in other words there's a trade-off between the mass of the movement and its volatility (in the sense of the opposite of robustness). As a movement evolves, policing the border of that movement is the subject of intense and often difficult debates.
As you might have guessed from the title of this post, I'm focusing on the movement that (let's define it very loosely to start) people who are outraged with what is happening to the Palestinians and thinks they deserve a better future.
I consider myself close to that movement or even part of it. To be a bit more specific, I'm talking about the movement that does not support Hamas or Hezbollah - more on that later - this movement condemns violence against Israeli civilians, although some would say the scale and/or criminality of the violence is not comparable on both sides.
Going back to the configuration I was talking about, there are certain groups that the "mainstream" of the movement does not want to associate with. A prime example is the antisemites that were protesting in Germany and in France. They have no place in this movement -- the biggest question mark is about who gets to say who is and who is not part of the movement, but I think these groups are marginal enough to most of what people agree on within this movement. Hamas and Hezbollah are open questions because then it becomes about a different coalition with maybe some shared actors but a different center of gravity.
Anti-zionism from within the movement is opposed to the state of Israel based on the atrocities committed against the Palestinians, the oppression, the military occupation with very little, or even no rule of law. I will not go into the ethics of anti-zionism and Israel's right to exist and the alternatives or solutions.
The question I'm thinking about is whether a group like J Street can be a good ally for the pro-Palestinian movement - especially outside of Palestine. On the one hand, they are openly opposing crazy hardliners like AIPAC and Netanyahu; they sometimes seem to want to change Israel's policies in directions (but probably not to extents) compatible or similar to the ones the pro-Palestine movement wants. On the other hand, like Jewish Orthodox anti-zionism, J Street - at least in its rhetoric - is more worried about the massacre or oppression of Palestinians as a PR problem than as an utterly cruel, preventable, and undeserved human tragedy inflicted by the IDF (and Hamas, in my opinion).
My take on it is that it really depends on the context. When pro-Palestine people want to work with J Street, they need to make sure that their views are not being distorted and that they're not being used - which is an understandable tendency for J Street to have. They have an interest in portraying a "moderate voice" on the "other side" that can work with you. But often, Palestinians and pro-Palestinians can be type-casted into this position while having any sort of agency stripped from them, and this can end up hurting their cause.
Here's an excerpt from a CNN article about a statement J Street released earlier in the most recent conflict in Gaza: While adding to the chorus of pro-Israel voices in the U.S. condemning Hamas and expressing support for Israel's right to defend itself, J Street tagged on a series of emphatic "ands." "And ... we grieve for families in Gaza whose innocent children are dying," the statement said. "We take issue with those who say that discussing how to end the violence in the long run is not pro-Israel."
I understand where this is coming from. But Palestinian children are not an "and." They are why this is so urgent and outrageous and terrible. People should care about this situation because of these children, because of the conditions the Palestinians are forced to live under, because of the fundamental asymmetry and injustice of this conflict. We should care about this conflict because we want a better life for Palestinians and Israelis taken collectively, because they deserve it as persons and are capable of it, not because of possible harm to Israel's interest.
That's the problem. But missing critical strategic opportunities can be a problem too. I hope that I can get more insight by hearing what other people think.
This applies to the Cedar Revolution in Lebanon, the Arab Spring, the feminist / women's rights movement in many places, and many more outside of a Middle Eastern context. Often, the movements are built around a core of people that are directly effected, although problematic gaps can appear sometimes (e.g. the reification of the proletariat).
There are always "hardliners" that have and create the most problems with the coalition and some of its members. Nevertheless, these hardliners' role is as crucial as the one of those choosing the right alliances. Alliances that are too "distant" can cause too much internal divergence - in other words there's a trade-off between the mass of the movement and its volatility (in the sense of the opposite of robustness). As a movement evolves, policing the border of that movement is the subject of intense and often difficult debates.
As you might have guessed from the title of this post, I'm focusing on the movement that (let's define it very loosely to start) people who are outraged with what is happening to the Palestinians and thinks they deserve a better future.
I consider myself close to that movement or even part of it. To be a bit more specific, I'm talking about the movement that does not support Hamas or Hezbollah - more on that later - this movement condemns violence against Israeli civilians, although some would say the scale and/or criminality of the violence is not comparable on both sides.
Going back to the configuration I was talking about, there are certain groups that the "mainstream" of the movement does not want to associate with. A prime example is the antisemites that were protesting in Germany and in France. They have no place in this movement -- the biggest question mark is about who gets to say who is and who is not part of the movement, but I think these groups are marginal enough to most of what people agree on within this movement. Hamas and Hezbollah are open questions because then it becomes about a different coalition with maybe some shared actors but a different center of gravity.
Anti-zionism from within the movement is opposed to the state of Israel based on the atrocities committed against the Palestinians, the oppression, the military occupation with very little, or even no rule of law. I will not go into the ethics of anti-zionism and Israel's right to exist and the alternatives or solutions.
The question I'm thinking about is whether a group like J Street can be a good ally for the pro-Palestinian movement - especially outside of Palestine. On the one hand, they are openly opposing crazy hardliners like AIPAC and Netanyahu; they sometimes seem to want to change Israel's policies in directions (but probably not to extents) compatible or similar to the ones the pro-Palestine movement wants. On the other hand, like Jewish Orthodox anti-zionism, J Street - at least in its rhetoric - is more worried about the massacre or oppression of Palestinians as a PR problem than as an utterly cruel, preventable, and undeserved human tragedy inflicted by the IDF (and Hamas, in my opinion).
My take on it is that it really depends on the context. When pro-Palestine people want to work with J Street, they need to make sure that their views are not being distorted and that they're not being used - which is an understandable tendency for J Street to have. They have an interest in portraying a "moderate voice" on the "other side" that can work with you. But often, Palestinians and pro-Palestinians can be type-casted into this position while having any sort of agency stripped from them, and this can end up hurting their cause.
Here's an excerpt from a CNN article about a statement J Street released earlier in the most recent conflict in Gaza: While adding to the chorus of pro-Israel voices in the U.S. condemning Hamas and expressing support for Israel's right to defend itself, J Street tagged on a series of emphatic "ands." "And ... we grieve for families in Gaza whose innocent children are dying," the statement said. "We take issue with those who say that discussing how to end the violence in the long run is not pro-Israel."
I understand where this is coming from. But Palestinian children are not an "and." They are why this is so urgent and outrageous and terrible. People should care about this situation because of these children, because of the conditions the Palestinians are forced to live under, because of the fundamental asymmetry and injustice of this conflict. We should care about this conflict because we want a better life for Palestinians and Israelis taken collectively, because they deserve it as persons and are capable of it, not because of possible harm to Israel's interest.
That's the problem. But missing critical strategic opportunities can be a problem too. I hope that I can get more insight by hearing what other people think.
No comments:
Post a Comment