For the past weeks and months, the US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation has been organizing for what was billed as a large national protest in Washington, D.C., on Sunday, June 10th. Many of us who want to end the occupation through a two-state, end-of-conflict peace settlement between Israel and Palestine kept our distance, however, because of the campaign’s “Palestine, yes; Israel, maybe” politics.
In terms of its own goals, the campaign appears to have been a failure. Even though the rally was scheduled to coincide with the National Convention of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee,the Detroit News estimated the turn-out at only “Hundreds.” And one of the campaign co-sponsers claimed only “more than 5,000.” Progressive media appeared to have ignored the event.
In light of the considerable, and amply justified, unhappiness with the Israeli occupation, what lessons should be drawn from the failure to the campaign’s national rally?
One major cause, I suggest, was the campaign’s failure to take a principled stand in favor of two states — Israel and Palestine — for two peoples. On this litmus test of fairness and realism, the campaign equivocated. It expressly affirmed “the Palestinian right to self-determination,” without equally affirming the Israeli-Jewish right to self-determination:
Q. By advocating for the end of occupation does the US Campaign advocate a two-state solution? Or does it endorse a one-state solution?
The US Campaign does not endorse either a one-state or a two-state solution, but rather upholds the Palestinian right to self-determination. We believe the Palestinians must be empowered to exercise this right, and that the international community has a responsibility towards the right of the Palestinian to self-determination. . . .
But by supporting an unlimited Palestinian right of return to Israel, the campaign, in effect, takes a position against Israel’s continued existence as a Jewish state. As Noam Chomsky observes in Justice for Palestine?, however, such a right “will not be exercised, in more than a limited way, within Israel. Again, there is no detectable international support for it[.]” At the rally, however, there was no equivocation. Here’s a photograph of a placard at the rally from Al-Awda, the Palestine Right to Return Coalition, one of whose members sits on the 11-person campaign steering committee. The placard reads: “From The River To The Sea, Palestine Will Be Free!”
In sharp and encouraging contrast, recent polls of Arab and Jewish Americans show broad agreement in favor of two states for two peoples:
- 98% of Jewish Americans and 88% of Arab Americans agree that “Israelis have a right to live in a secure and independent state of their own.”
- 90% of Jewish Americans and 96% of Arab Americans agree that “Palestinians have a right to live in a secure and independent state of their own.”
(See Arab and Jewish Americans Agree. So Can We.)
In Advocacy and Realism, Noam Chomsky says that “Attention to feasible programs of action is sometimes dismissed as ‘realism’ or ‘pragmatism,’ and is placed in opposition to ‘acting on principle.’ That is a serious delusion. There is nothing ‘principled’ about refusal to pay attention to the real world and the options that exist within it . . . . Those who ignore or deride such ‘realism’ and ‘pragmatism,’ however well-intentioned they may be, are simply choosing to ignore the consequences of their actions.”
If we are to marshal broad-based support to end the occupation and achieve peace, friends of Palestinians and friends of Israel must not be enemies. We must seek to broaden coalitions, not narrow them. The only effective way forward, I suggest, is a principled stand for two states for two peoples. “Palestine, yes; Israel, maybe” should be as unwelcome as “Israel, yes; Palestine, maybe.” In particular, as members of a community dedicated to electing Democrats, we should be aware that support for two states for two peoples expresses a broad consensus within the Democratic Party.
- The 2004 Democratic Party Platform affirms that our Party “is fundamentally committed to the security of our ally Israel and the creation of a comprehensive, just and lasting peace between Israel and her neighbors,” including the creation of a democratic Palestinian state dedicated to living in peace and security side by side with the Jewish State of Israel.”
- President Jimmy Carter endorsed, indeed, he gave the keynote address at the public announcement of, the Geneva Initiative, a model peace treaty drafted by senior Israeli and Palestinian political figures. “This Geneva initiative,” President Carter said, “offers the crucial and unavoidable elements of a permanent peace in the Holy Land. . . . This agreement would resolve the conflict’s most critical issues, including border delineations, Israeli settlements, the excessive occupation of Palestinian lands, the future of Jerusalem and its holy places, and the extremely troubling question of Palestinian refugees. It is unlikely that we shall ever see a more promising foundation for peace.”
- The Geneva Initiative also has been endorsed by President Bill Clinton: “For both sides to have confidence that their core concerns will be met, they must achieve a common understanding of what peace will look like. That, in turn, can bolster peace constituencies, isolate extremists and empower Palestinian moderates to crack down on violence, all of which will energize a political process leading toward peace. That’s why the agreement in Geneva is so important . . .”
