Sterman: A New Israel Conversation
By David Sterman, Guest Columnist
Published on Friday, February 10, 2012
The lack of nuance in the arguments set forth by both Don Casler (“The Case Against the Israel Lobby,” Feb 7.) and Adam Schneider (“Preserving the U.S.-Israeli Alliance,” Feb. 9) about the United States’ relationship with Israel sparked conversations that quickly became trapped in a polarized debate. Such conversations do not take into account the personal stories and histories involved in the conflict and fail to recognize the value of maintaining a strong alliance between the United States and Israel while still advancing Palestinian statehood. Casler ignores the real causes of terrorism in the United States and fails to distinguish between particular Israeli policies and the U.S.-Israel alliance as a whole when he falsely asserts that the close alliance between Israel and the United States is the source of the United States’ terrorism problem. Numerous security experts, American officials and others have noted that radical terrorist groups and authoritarian governments have exploited the festering wound of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to obtain recruits and money. Among those who recognize the importance of combining a strong alliance with a push for the two-state solution is President Barack Obama, who has called resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict “a vital national security interest for the United States.” However, we cannot pretend that Israel and the United States do not face real security threats motivated by other issues. The specter of terrorism will not disappear with a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Labeling those who voice support for continued and stronger cooperation between Israel and the United States for security and moral reasons as the “Israel lobby” denies the diversity of views held by those who favor the U.S.-Israel alliance. Casler’s use of the phrase the “Israel Lobby” — a label that is simply too vague and impersonal to be useful — groups together diverse opinions and organizations that advocate for a strong relationship between the United States and Israel into a single category. It denies the existence of organizations, including those on our campus, that are staunchly in favor of the U.S.-Israel alliance for reasons similar to those pointed to by Schneider. These groups advocate for a two-state solution to the conflict, Palestinian statehood and respect for human rights. Rhetoric that refers to the “Israel Lobby” prevents us from engaging with each other as fellow students, rather than as manifestations of political forces. On our campus, I see students like me trying to form their views amid the hailstorm of nasty criticism by all sides that too often diverts the discussion elsewhere. Grouping students together based on their stance on one aspect of the conflict without acknowledging the complexities of their views only contributes to the negative atmosphere. It is exactly this desire for neat labels that has narrowed the realm of what can be discussed. It is the fear of being called “anti-Israel” that deters many people from entering discussions on these topics. Pro-Israel ought not be defined narrowly to align with one political position, regardless of whether the people narrowing the definition come from those criticizing American support for Israel or from those who wish to strengthen it.
As Schneider discusses, maintaining strong relations between the U.S. and Israel is important for both moral and security reasons, this alliance cannot mean that the U.S. ignores the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. It is imperative that the case be explicitly made for a democratic Israel alongside a democratic Palestine. We cannot simply list the good things Israel does without reference to the ways in which occupation harms American security, Israeli security and Palestinian human rights. Schneider is right to point out Israel’s many successes in the realm of democratic rights, but we must view these successes as achievements to be protected and expanded rather than as excuses. The failure to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict threatens Israel’s democratic achievements. Addressing the two-state solution as a secondary issue is not sufficient and often results in no real action being taken as pro-Israel advocates rest on their laurels.
We ought not divide our community with generalizations about each other’s politics. Being pro-Israel and supportive of a strong U.S.-Israel alliance is not incompatible with promoting Palestinian statehood. This is a false polarization of our discourse.
David Sterman ’12 is the co-president of J Street U at Dartmouth.
J Street is a traitorous organization. You do not speak for me – I would endeavor to say that you do not speak for the vast majority of American Jews. This is by no means the forum for an exhaustive list of the ways in which you are mistaken, so suffice it to say that the consensus among Jews is against you, and you do nothing but aid the cause of the hate mongering anti-semites and terrorists who the “Palestinians” choose to represent them.
By D’13 on Feb 10 | 5:19 am
WHAT occupation of Gaza? There’s not a single soldier in Gaza. There’s not a single settler in Gaza. As far as I know, there’s not a single Jewish person in Gaza!
Israel does not allow free travel from Israel into Gaza and from Gaza into Israel, but that is neither an occupation or unique–it’s called exercising control over one’s own borders, and Egypt is doing the exact same thing on it’s border with Gaza. If the United States ever chose to close border crossing with Canada, it would be a jackass move for relations with our Northern neighbors, but would anyone be calling it an occupation? And if Israel is occupying Gaza by not allowing free border crossing, so is Egypt!
The West Bank and Gaza, even under pre-1967 conditions, are not geographically linked. Undisputed Israeli land (well, undisputed by those not seeking an Arab state from the river to the sea) is in between the two. That’s not an occupation. That’s geography.
By Anon ‘05 on Feb 10 | 8:38 am
Is anyone noticing the fact that Dartmouth student writers are writing the left wing line on everything. They are either uninformed or credulous or just retelling the falsehoods they’ve been told. Falsehoods about Israel, Arabs, global warming, conservatives, capitalism, Planned Parenthood, health care, religion and sports. And these aren’t just little facts here and there, these are massive checkable errors. In propaganda this is called “The Big Lie.” Lies so big that they obliterate all history and all of the truth. The Big Lie is rampant on the campus in certain quarters and the students who know the truth need to speak up.
By Anonymous on Feb 10 | 10:57 am
Well said David. As an alum, I am particularly glad J Street U has a presence at Dartmouth. We will not let those on the far right (or left) be the only ones whose voices are heard.
By J Street Supporter on Feb 10 | 12:18 pm
David, Thank you for acknowledging the complexity of the issue and for promoting a respectful conversation.
“In speaking of lies, we come inevitably to the subject of the truth. There is nothing simple or easy about this idea. There is no ‘the truth,’ ‘a truth’ — truth is not one thing, or even a system. It is an increasing complexity. The pattern of the carpet is a surface. When we look closely, or when we become weavers, we learn of the tiny multiple threads unseen in the overall pattern, the knots on the underside of the carpet.
That is why the effort to speak honestly is so important. Lies are usually attempts to make everything simpler — for the liar — than it really is, or ought to be."
—Adrienne Rich
By James ‘11 on Feb 10 | 9:51 pm