Palestine as an exclusively Jewish issue in the US

[Violet_Crumble]

Are Palestinians only relevant by what they mean to Israel, instead of how they are related to the bigger picture?

A Jewish-Jewish debate has heated up in recent years in the United States with new critical voices of Israel taking centre stage. Such healthy debate is not unique in American politics. Immigrant communities like Cubans, Irish and Armenians do the same.

But confining the US debate on Palestine and the Arab world to a mere intra-Zionist debate is counterproductive. It's narrowly defining and largely dictating the larger debate over US policy towards the Arab-Israeli conflict.

It renders the Palestinians relevant only by what they mean to Israel, not for who they are or how they are related to the larger Arab or Muslim worlds.

They are judged to be moderate or extremist, enlightened or primitive, peace loving or evildoers according to their tolerance of Israel's occupation or rejection of a "Jewish state" on "their" lands.

This approach has culminated in utter US failure to conclude a successful peace process to end the conflict. A failure that could further diminish US leverage to the detriment of its policy towards the region.

But this is neither inevitable nor irreversible.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/04/palestine-as-an-exclusively-jewi-20144215592192884.html

[TomClash]

1. Decidedly true

There can be no serious argument with this. Virtually every politician must pay fealty to Israel, particularly in NYC. Any person who speaks openly against Israel in even mild terms earns the wrath of the American Jewish leadership, which ironically aligns to the right of the average American on this issue. Many people have been tarred unfairly with tripe slurs of antisemitism, which in turn debases the claim in the many instances when it is real and serious.

On this issue, the USG is as fair and balanced as Fox News.

[Jefferson23]

2. Excellent, recommend. n/t

[Mosby]

3. Bishara questions the involvement of American Jews in the peace process

Right here:

I personally don't know and don't look for who's a Jew and who isn't. Nor do I judge people by their religion. But the dominant presence of staunch supporters of Israel in the US establishment, Jewish or otherwise, is certainly a cause of concern. Does the name Martin Indyk ring a bell? Like his predecessor Dennis Ross, this close ally of Israel is spearheading the US day-to-day negotiations between Palestinians and Israelis.

Having Jews on the American negotiating team is a "cause of concern" according to Bishara, is that something you agree with Violet?

[azurnoir]

4. he is talking of only Jews or is it strongly biased supporters of Israel? The 2 are not synonymous

here's the comment you posted perhaps you should review it

Star Member Mosby (3,772 posts)
3. Bishara questions the involvement of American Jews in the peace process

Right here:

I personally don't know and don't look for who's a Jew and who isn't. Nor do I judge people by their religion. But the dominant presence of staunch supporters of Israel in the US establishment, Jewish or otherwise, is certainly a cause of concern. Does the name Martin Indyk ring a bell? Like his predecessor Dennis Ross, this close ally of Israel is spearheading the US day-to-day negotiations between Palestinians and Israelis.


Having Jews on the American negotiating team is a "cause of concern" according to Bishara, is that something you agree with Violet?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/113462351#post3

[Mosby]

5. Indyk and Ross are both Jewish

So if he really was trying to differentiate between "supporters of Israel" and Jews then why did he pick two Jews as his examples?

He's not as subtle as he thinks.

[azurnoir]

6. he picked the 2 ME envoy's one current and the other recent

and one had a history of meeting with Israel while refusing to speak with the Palestinians

but someones apparently not too subtle

[TomClash]

7. Re-ead your own post.

But the dominant presence of staunch supporters of Israel in the US establishment, Jewish or otherwise, is certainly a cause of concern.

You conveniently omitted the words "or otherwise." It is obvious that the author is talking about the pro-Israel view of the entire American negotiating team.

[Violet_Crumble]

8. I think that entire paragraph's a bit of a mess, fwiw...

*If* he was saying American Jews being on a negotiating team because they're Jewish is a cause of concern, then of course that's something I'd totally disagree with. *If*, and I suspect this is what he was saying, outspoken American supporters of Israel who don't behave as impartially as possible being on negotiating teams is a cause of concern, then I agree with that.

The problem I see with that paragraph is the 'but' at the start of the third sentence. It can be read as a thing where it's introducing an exception to the rule, which is what most but's do, so I understand why you read it like that.

[aranthus]

9. But how do they and the Arab world see them?

The headline seems to be about the claim that Americans only see Palestinians in terms of the I/P dispute. As opponents of Israel. From my observations that is a true statement. The question is what else do the Palestinians show us? How do they see themselves if not as the victims of Israel's existence? How does the larger Arab world see them? I didn't see anything in the article that even discussed what other way there was for the US to see them.