FEATURED JOBS
Comments (0)Two high-profile advocacy upstarts are butting heads over the question of whether the removal of Jewish settlements from the West Bank would be a version of “ethnic cleansing.”
The squabble erupted after syndicated columnist Doug Bloomfield reported on an internal manual put together by The Israel Project that suggests “accusing those who advocate removing Jewish settlements of promoting ‘a kind of ethnic cleansing to move all Jews’ from the West Bank.”
Aimed at helping advocates sway journalists and opinion leaders on an array of issues, the 2009 Global Language Dictionary states that the “best argument” for settlements is this: Since Arab citizens of Israel “enjoy equal rights,” telling Jews they can’t live in the Palestinian state “is a racist idea.”
The 116-page manual—Newsweek posted a copy on its Web site—deals with a wide range of subjects, but describes settlements as “the single toughest issue” to defend when it comes to Americans generally and American Jews in particular.
Bloomfield’s report raised the ire of J Street, whose campaigns director, Isaac Luria, sent out an e-mail urging supporters to demand that “The Israel Project’s Executive Director Jennifer Laszlo Mizrahi remove any pro-settlement, fear-mongering talking points from her organization’s materials.”
Luria asserted that “using terms like ‘ethnic cleansing’ to undermine that agenda is incendiary and dangerous—and, I believe, not pro-Israel.”
The clash pits two relatively new advocacy organizations that have sought in different ways to transform and refocus Israel-related activism.
The Israel Project has tried to utilize more sophisticated polling data, media outreach and marketing tools to boost Israel’s image. J Street is a leader among Jewish organizations in utilizing social networking and other Internet tools, with the aim of building and demonstrating Jewish support for U.S. efforts to pressure Israel and the Palestinians.
While J Street and some liberal bloggers slammed the language on settlements, the manual also offers advice that appears to be at odds with the Netanyahu government’s recent emphasis on insisting that Israel be recognized as the nation state of the Jewish people.
The manual, which was compiled by Republican pollster Frank Luntz—The Israel Project also uses a Democratic pollster for some projects—cautions against any language that would reinforce an image of Israel as a “religious state,” saying it would lead people to think of Israel as being “just as extreme as those religious Arab countries they criticize.”
“Therefore, even the mention of the word ‘Jew’ [in] many Israel contexts is going to elicit a negative reaction—and the defense of Israel as a ‘Jewish State’ or ‘Zionist State’ will be received quite poorly,” the manuel says. “This may be hard for the Jewish community to accept but this is how most Americans and Europeans feel.”
Mizrahi defended her organization’s use of the term “ethnic cleansing” in an interview with JTA, saying it accurately describes what happened when all Israeli settlements were dismantled in Gaza – a move her organization supported and which she was in Gaza herself to see.
“What happened in Gaza was ethnic cleansing,” Mizrahi said. “Every Jew left Gaza, including the dead Jews,” whose graves had to be moved, she noted.
“Israel did that with the hopes of trying to jump-start a two-state solution,” but instead the move was followed by Hamas rocket attacks and more Israelis and Palestinians dying, she said.
Mizrahi said that any future Palestinian state should allow Jews to remain living inside it, and praised Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salam Fayyad’s recent comments that Jews would be free to live under Palestinian rule in such a state—although she doubted Hamas would accept it.
She criticized J Street for focusing so heavily on settlements instead of speaking out on unfulfilled Palestinian obligations and pushing for tougher action against Iran.
“I get up in the morning and say, ‘How can I attack the Iranian nuclear threat?’ ” Mizrahi said. J Street “gets up in the morning and says, ‘How can I attack other Jewish organizations?’ “
In response to The Israel Project’s defense, Luria accused the organization of hurting Israel’s standing by working the Rev. John Hagee, a leading figure in the evangelical Christian Zionist movement who has been accused of making anti-gay remarks and who has apologized for making comments deemed by some to be anti-Catholic.
“It is time for The Israel Project and its supporters to consider whether the important effort they launched several years ago is actually advancing or undermining the purpose for which it was established—promoting and improving the image of the State of Israel,” Luria said in a follow-up statement.
“Does allying the pro-Israel community further with Pastor John Hagee by appearing at his conference hurt or help—even after he was seen in the last election cycle to be so far outside the mainstream of American politics that even the campaign of John McCain rejected his endorsement?”
This story was adapted from Capital J, JTA’s politics blog (http://blogs.jta.org/politics).