Soccer Dad

When your enemy's a lightbulb

Q. How many psychiatrists does it take to change a light bulb? A. Only one, but the light bulb really has to want to change.

In defense of their stance on Hamas, J-Street writes (h/t Jennifer Rubin):

We also recognize, however, that one makes peace with one's enemies not one's friends. Hamas is a political movement that has an important and significant base of support within Palestinian society and politics. Ultimately, a political resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will require Palestinian political reconciliation and we support efforts by third parties to achieve reconciliation and a unity government, whose officials will work within a diplomatic process to achieve an acceptable two-state solution.

That platitude about making peace with one's enemies is a variation on a statement made by Yitzchak Rabin, and it is highly misleading. You make with your enemies when those enemies are willing to accept you. But if your enemy still maintains a hostile stance, no amount of concessions or recognition are going to lead to peace. This was the fallacy as Yasser Arafat pronounced his support for peace in English to international audiences and simultaneously encouraged his people to reject Israel and embrace terror. Hamas hasn't even bothered to soften its stance to the rest of the world. Other than certain limited goals, Hamas has earned the right to be shunned.

But what's disturbing here, is that J-Street - in defending itself no less - puts Palestinian reconciliation was a necessary condition for peace. That means encouraging the superficially moderate Fatah to give the implacable terrorists of Hamas a veto over the peace process. J-Street isn't just anti-Israel, it's anti-peace too!

J-Street can claim that it is not anti-Israel, but if after the Israeli withdrawals in 1995 were followed by a wave of terror in 1996; after the Camp David talks were followed by the "Aqsa intifada"; after Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon was followed by the strengthening of Hezbollah and the threat to northern Israel and after Israel's withdrawal from Gaza was followed by the strengthening of Hamas and the threat to southern Israel, it's impossible to argue that what the peace process needs is more American pressure on Israel rather than an Arab change of heart. But it's pressure on Israel that J-Street advocates. So yes, given the historical record of Israeli concessions and the belligerent response to them, advocating for American pressure for future concessions is objectively anti-Israel.

It's also interesting that J-Street has adopted the style of its nemesis, AIPAC by presenting its defense in the form of "Myths and Facts." Of course when the organization itself becomes the focus of its activism - as is the case now with J-Street - it no longer truly advocates anything, it's simply self absorbed. Yes, perhaps it is time to pack it in.

Crossposted on Yourish.