By Ira Sharkansky
JERUSALEM–It is worth reading this item from the Jerusalem Post. http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?ID=175654
Senior Jewish advisors of the President, meeting with a selected group of American rabbis, said that the White House erred in its messages about Israel. Not only do they reiterate American support for Israel in general terms, but they express reasoning that should resonate with those who understand Israel.
The Americans appreciate that Israel’s frustration with peace efforts stems from rejected offers and Arab aggression.
The meeting might even satisfy Israelis on the touchy issue of Iran. The White House recognizes that Israel’s nuclear activities are different from Iran’s and cannot be defused without achieving a genuine peace that appears to be far into the future. Rahm Emanuel explained the Administration’s apparent dithering on sanctions as an important tactic. UN sanctions must come first to make it possible for the European Union to impose its own sanctions, and then for the United States to add its dose.
The White House selected the rabbis who were invited for their geographic and congregational diversity (i.e., Orthodox, Conservative and Reform), as well as records of expressing disappointment with the White House but refraining from outright condemnation.
Such a meeting tells me that the President and his advisors learn, and that the American Jewish community provides effective instruction. It also helps that the Israeli government is multi-faceted. Alongside the barely tolerated bombast of Benyamin Netanyahu and the rasping of Avigdor Lieberman is the moderate, but insistent voice of Ehud Barak.
Whoever thinks that Israeli politics are dysfunctional should think again.
Call all of this the power of Jewish voters and Jewish money if you will. For me, it is the strength of the Israeli argument bolstered by the capacity of Jews to express themselves to holders of power.
I can sign on to a much of what Netanyahu and Lieberman say, although I am uncomfortable with their style. Lieberman is unequaled in his capacity to bring forth condemnation. Yet he makes sense, even in details that are unpleasant to contemplate.
He has responded with typical shrillness to the statements of prominent Israeli Arabs on Nakba Day. The well known preacher, Sheikh Ra’ed Salah, got the most attention. As usual, he drew thousands to his appearance. He shrieked his opposition to Palestinian compromise with Israel, and demanded the right of refugees to return to their homes in Haifa, Safed, Ramle, and Lod.
Calmer voices note that surveys show a majority of Israeli Arabs content with their lives, but the incitement of the Sheikh led Lieberman to reiterate his assessment about the danger to Israel from its Arab citizens.
He sees them as a greater threat to the future of the Jewish state than Hamas or Hizbollah. On several occasions he has proposed trading the land and people of areas in northern Israel heavily populated by Arabs for areas of Jewish settlement in the West Bank.
There is as much chance of doing that as a snowball surviving in hell, but Lieberman’s point is worth considering by those who accuse Israel of being unfair to its Arab minority.
The extent of “unfairness” can be debated both on the grounds of reality and the fuzzier norms of justice.
An American analogy is appropriate.
In several of these notes I have reported on the better scores of Israeli Arab on indicators of living standards–relative to the Jewish majority–than those of African Americans relative to American whites.
Think also of a minority where individuals in leadership roles employ rhetoric like the most radical of those who gathered around the Black Panthers a half century ago. The same minority (i.e., Israeli Arabs) lacks the leavening provided by African American politicians who work within the establishment, advance to positions of power as chairs of committees of Congress, mayors of large cities, and power brokers in the politics of numerous states. Out of their actions came affirmative action and what it meant for the couple now residing in the White House.
It is not so much repression by Jews that keeps most aspiring Arab leaders from working with national leaders, but the temptation to score points among Arab voters by persistent and harsh criticism of everything Israel does in domestic and foreign policy. The few Arab politicians who have chosen to work within the major parties have gotten rewards for themselves and their constituencies.
Arab citizens of Israel need not worry about Lieberman. His most fervent supporters are a minority among Israeli Jews, and the Supreme Court is as much a bastion of civil rights as its American equivalent. More open than the question of transferring Israeli citizens to Palestine is the question of transferring the Arabs of East Jerusalem. The vast majority of them did not accept Israel’s offer of citizenship. Yet even that prospect of trading people and areas of the city is one of the details that is a long way from being decided, or even debated.
Ironically, the meeting in the White House may join previous good intentions of President Obama in pushing further away the prospects of accommodation. Arabs are as least as sensitive as Jews. The President cannot warm up to one without provoking antagonism from the other.
It will not be a short road, and 100 years into the conflict it is too early to predict success for yet another outsider intent on bringing peace to this region with a contentious history and jittery inhabitants.
*
Sharkansky is professor emeritus of political science at Hebrew University