Leaders of Meretz USA joined with Judy Gelman, policy chair of Ameinu, to jointly lobby Congress on May 24, as it struggled to conclude business in time for the summer recess. Through the initiative of Meretz USA president Lawrence I. Lerner, the delegation visited the offices of New Jersey Senators Frank Lautenberg and Robert Menendez, plus NJ Representatives Donald Payne and Albio Sires; the group also met with the foreign policy specialist of New York Representative Jerrold Nadler. These were mostly meetings with staff, but the group also spoke to Sen. Lautenberg, who greeted his long-time acquaintances, Larry Lerner and Rabbi Israel (Sy) Dresner, with special warmth.
The staff persons were attentive but varied widely in terms of the knowledge they displayed on the Israeli scene. We referred them to news sources informed by our overall viewpoint favoring an active US role to facilitate a negotiated two-state solution for Israel and the Palestinians, and we left them with copies of ISRAEL HORIZONS. The delegation argued the point that Jewish opinion on Israel is not monolithic and not in lock-step with hardline views generally associated with AIPAC, and that this is true even for pro-Israel Jews like ourselves.
In terms of specific legislation, the only item on hand was a resolution congratulating Israel on the 40th anniversary of the victory in the 1967 Six Day War. We advised that such a resolution should not be offered in a triumphal spirit but rather as a reminder of the need to end the conflict through negotiations. We also would object to wording that applauds the reunification of Jerusalem as if it were an undisputed fact, a city that is one-third Palestinian Arab and remains disunited in important ways and whose ultimate status must be negotiated. (In this connection, I suggest reading M.J. Rosenberg’s fine piece, “Congressional Time Warp,” his latest weekly column, which he writes under the auspices of the Israel Policy Forum.)
In addition, we offered advice to Congresspersons intending to visit Israel, including the promise of contacts in Israel with dovish Members of Knesset and other prominent moderate and progressive Israelis and Palestinians. Meretz USA intends to follow up in cultivating relationships with members of Congress and to cooperate with like-minded organizations, including among moderate Palestinian Americans, with this purpose in mind.
Hi Ralph,
I’m a bit confused on a few points here.
1) “We also would object to wording that applauds the reunification of Jerusalem as if it were an undisputed fact, a city that is one-third Palestinian Arab and remains disunited in important ways and whose ultimate status must be negotiated.”
It sounds like you avoided the reality that East Jerusalem is under Israeli military occupation according to international law. Military occupation is not intended as a permanent status. Is Meretz also unable to recognize international law (like the US government, the Israeli government, the Sudanese government, Chinese government, etc.)? That would be a sad statement from a “left” political party.
2) “Meretz USA intends to follow up in cultivating relationships with members of Congress and to cooperate with like-minded organizations, including among moderate Palestinian Americans, with this purpose in mind.”
To that end I would have imagined that this to mean that Meretz USA would be endorsing and participating in the June 10 march in Washington DC and June 11 lobbying day organized by the US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation and UFPJ.
If Meretz USA is unable to work with these moderate groups, I’m not sure what Palestinian Americans remain, except for perhaps the American Task Force on Palestine and some others who may actually be on the payroll of the Israeli government.
Let us know. Thanks.
Zack
Obviously, Zack has serious principled differences with Meretz USA.
We are happy to work in tandem with any organization that supports a two-state solution. Although I had a polite dialogue with a representative of UFPJ last year, we have no working relationship with organizations that do not endorse two states. And this is precisely why we have cordial relations with the American Task Force on Palestine and others who support PA Pres. Mahmoud Abbas.
The question of Jerusalem is badly in need of negotiations; otherwise, we’d either be supporting the current status quo of Israeli rule or the status quo ante that upheld the Jordanian conquest of the entire Old City from which Jews were expelled in 1948. We support the “Clinton Parameters” that proposed that the Western Wall, the Jewish Quarter and other Jewish areas of East Jerusalem be part of Israel and that Palestinian areas,
including the Muslim parts of the “Holy Basin” be incorporated into the Palestinian state.
Hi Ralph,
Fascinating.
1) Since you side-stepped my question about international law and East Jerusalem, my conclusion is that, at least on Israel and Palestine, you and seemingly Meretz USA do not support international law.
Will you write that?: “Meretz-USA opposes the application of international law to Palestine and Israel.” Or do prefer to sidestep it again.
If we have “principled differences” I think it’s me that has the principles, and you “differ” with the principles.
2) You “have no working relationship with organizations that do not endorse two states”? First of all and for the record, UFPJ and the US Campaign have not taken a position on one or two states. Rabbi Lerner tried to falsely claim that they endorse a single state, and was forced to publicly apologize. In fact, the US Campagn and UFPJ’s positions can fit with either two or one states.
So you cannot even have a working relationship with them because, though they leave open the option of two states, they do not say it is the only possible outcome? Fascinating. How narrow. Again,the spectrum of “the left” you can actually work with must be miniscule. I wish you the best of luck finding allies.
Thank god you have the the American Task Force on Palestine. I think Abu Mazen is further left than the ATFP.
By the way, do you realize that Ami Ayalon said in 2000 that Israel was creating Apartheid in the West Bank? In other words, Ayalon said what the much maligned Carter said before Carter said it. If he’s elected as Labor’s leader you and Meretz-USA would be to the right of Labor’s leader on that issue!
Fascinating once again.
Zack
Zack needs, rather childishly, to label this position or that as “left.” First of all, I’m not a spokesperson for the Meretz party in Israel. Secondly (and more importantly), for Zack to contend that “international law” is against negotiations to decide the final borders of Israel and its Arab neighbors (including a future state of Palestine) is nonsense.
I do in fact agree with Ayalon and Carter that the ongoing occupation of the West Bank is creating a situation that resembles apartheid in certain ways, but I think it’s not the best word to use in this connection (and even Carter makes it clear that he’s using the word metaphorically). I even see Carter as more generous toward Israel than I would be in describing it within the old Green Line boundaries as a “liberal democracy”; I see Israel as a democracy with some illiberal features in treating its non-Jewish citizens as less than equal. But these are failings that can be remedied by court rulings and legislation and their remedy is a core purpose of Meretz. Furthermore, I see Carter’s book as factually flawed in how it recounts the recent and past history of the conflict.
The ATFP is very supportive of Abu Mazen; they are in agreement on a two-state solution, negotiations with Israel, and an end to violence.
We have individuals within Meretz USA who participate in anti-war activity coordinated by the UFPJ. And, as I’ve said, I have publicly discussed issues with a UFPJ staff person. But the UFPJ’s agnostic position on a core principle of ours, two states vs. one state, makes it impossible for me to conceive of our groups working closely together. Still, if the UFPJ approached us with a proposition to work together, that would have make an impression on our board.
Hi Ralph,
A few points here:
1) Negotiations are of course vital. But if you begin from a point where you refuse to acknowledge international law – ie in this case you don’t seem to be able to type the words “occupied East Jerusalem” – then your beginning point is flawed.
2) “I do in fact agree with Ayalon and Carter that the ongoing occupation of the West Bank is creating a situation that resembles apartheid in certain ways, but I think it’s not the best word to use in this connection (and even Carter makes it clear that he’s using the word metaphorically).”
It seems that you are now softening your previous emphasis on disproving Carter’s apartheid thesis:
http://meretzusa.blogspot.com/2007/03/ajc-is-not-conservative.html
In the end, there was consensus that a good response to the Apartheid analogy can be a nuanced statement that would contain the following elements: “Apartheid is not the issue” but the issue includes ending settlement expansion and occupation on the one side and the need to end violence/terror and to recognize Israel on the other. This concluding formulation was the product of a friendly collaboration between Meretz USA’s executive director Charney Bromberg and one of our new friends from the Canadian Jewish Congress, Manuel Prutschi.
Ralph Seliger said…
We discussed Mr. Dugard. For one thing, Dugard doesn’t understand that Jews are not a “race.” The problem is not racial, which is why referring to apartheid is not appropriate.
I repeat how we concluded: “‘Apartheid is not the issue’ but the issue includes ending settlement expansion and occupation on the one side and the need to end violence and terror on the other.”
Maybe you are going to claim I don’t get nuance, but I’d say you are now displaying more openness to and less hostility towards the Carter, Ayalon, Aloni, etc. analogy of Apartheid.
Zack
East Jerusalem is “occupied” by Israel, just as it was previously occupied by Jordan (thru the triumph of the Trans-jordanian Arab Legion in 1948). The key to settling the issue of Jerusalem, as with the other occupied territories, is to negotiate in good faith.
I remain critical of Carter, but I have never regarded him as totally wrong. The title of our book review in ISRAEL HORIZONS magazine by Doni Remba indicates our complex view: “Carter’s ‘Palestine’: Badly Flawed with a Large Kernel of Truth.”
Zach, as with Nusseibeh, whom I greatly admire, my expressions of criticism or a difference of opinion should not be taken as indicating hostility. All of us should be big enough to give and take criticism or express differences in the interest of constructive dialogue and not as a measure of enmity.