PEP, and Why You Don't Want to Be PEP

Last week I had a great post written by Anne Silver titled, It is an awful and uncomfortable situation to encounter Jews who are progressive on every issue but Palestine. I thought Anne had put her finger on something we've all felt. Well, the other night I found out that others have already turned this rock over, and they have a name for it: "PEP." As in, He's PEP. Or, yo mama is PEP. And PEP means "Progressive Except for Palestine." My mama really is PEP!

The friend who told me about PEP says that this conference I'm going to Sunday is "the outer shores of PEP," meaning as left as you can go and still be PEP, conservative/religious-nationalist on Palestine. We shall see. I think there are some non-PEPpers there, such as Amy Goodman. But there are bound to be a lot of PEP talkers. Jerry Nadler is PEP. Ralph Seliger is PEP. J Street is kinda PEP. Obama: PEP.

I'm planning to accuse a lot of people of being PEP in the days to come. It feels as good as it used to to say someone was PC. Hey stop with the PEP, man.

There's actually a little more of a point here. The danger to the PEP crowd is the Nakba Jews like Hannah Mermelstein, Aaron Levitt, and Anna Baltzer. These people are truly a movement. They weren't here in any force 10 years ago, so far as I can tell; and now they're here, grieving for Palestinian human rights and digging up the Nakba, too. The American Jewish Committee saw the wave coming two years ago when it did its Anti-Zionism = Antisemitism paper. The AJC was trying to head the anti-Zionists off at the pass, and failed. They're growing in number. The great weakness of PEP is that it is hypocritical, and is out of step with the post-racial age. Kids always sniff out hypocrisy and want to smash it.

I want to suggest (and people should correct me if I'm wrong) that the anti-Zionist Nakba Jews, who believe in the right of return pretty much, are to the mainstream PEP Jewish crowd as the two-state Jews of Peace Now were to the mainstream 20 years ago. People derided the Peace Now types as crazies. Now of course the Peace Now position is adopted by everyone--except for the neocons, and the neocons are history (believe me). But if the consensus two-state types dither, and it looks like they will, then the Aaron Levitt's of the world, with their strong and poetic sense of justice, and real feeling for the Arab experience, are just going to keep growing, and valorizing a lot of non-PEP principles. For instance: A Jewish state is a very problematic proposition (especially when the world is dissolving in ethnic factional war, as Chris Matthews observed tonight). So the two-staters better act fast, and with a modicum of fairness too. Because: no justice, no peace.

Comments

[Richard Witty]

And still the two-state solution is the ONLY viable option.

NOONE that I've ever heard (and I've heard a lot) has articulated a viable map of how to get to a single-state solution without gross warfare (and likely resulting in worse condition for Palestinians).

And, NOONE that I've ever heard has articulated a strategy (meaning their actions) that will enhance the likelihood that a single state solution occurs.

The only story proposed so far is force of some kind. We've had force with the dispossessions in the region, dispossessions of Jews, dispossessions of Palestinians. We've had Hezbollah shelling northern Israeli towns. We've had Hamas shelling southern Israeli towns. We've had suicide bombings. We've had threats of boycotts (a use of force that harms the victims as well as the targets).

While, in the present, we have the Israeli government (Peres and Olmert, granted that they are old or powerless) considering the literal Arab League proposal AT the green line.

Do you think the use of dissenting force will enhance the prospects for peace there, or is it possible to worsen it?

Peace only happens by consent (whether after force or not). The proportion of the Jewish population that is religious is increasing, that does not have prominent theological leaders advocating for "keep my commandments" rather than "subdue the land".

Are you pursuing a successful approach? Are you pursuing a cruel approach to some? Are you pursuing an approach that unnecessarily encourages and joins bigotry?

Are you rationalizing "collateral damage" in the name of opposing it?

[Richard Witty]

I would guess that most of your family are PEP's by your definition, Phil.

Mine is certainly. I fit your definition.

I am PROUDLY liberal Zionist. Proud of both, and urging reconciliation with Palestinians, consistent rule of law guaranteeing equal due process under the law in both states.

From my perspective, the anti-Zionist approach is reactionary more than it is progressive.

It reacts, rather than constructs.

You said it yourself, "I don't propose" (not a direct quote).

[Richard Witty]

I DO propose.

I propose that Israel accept the Arab League proposal with the exception of retaining the Jewish quarter of Old Jerusalem. (How you create a state boundary in the middle of a walled city, is beyond me. I'll leave that to the magicians.)

And, that the 1949 -52 laws prohibiting return to former homes, and the laws transferring title to "abandoned" lands to the Isreali state (then to the Jewish National Fund) be repealed.

And, that EVERY Palestinian with a plausible land claim, gets their day in court, with the ability to research and argue their case directly and with the right of appeal.

BUT, that courts rationally value CURRENT residence as primary, and result in compensation in the vast majority of cases.

That the same standard apply in the West Bank, in a color-blind manner, including for claims by Jews.

For this to happen, MANY steps by both communities are prerequisites and/or simultaneious.

For example, it will be necessary for Palestine to repeal its law prohibiting sale of land to Jews in the area of its jurisdiction as well, and allow current residents the ability to perfect their title to contested land by compensation.

Otherwise the result is a rationalized ethnic cleansing. A pendulum swing, substituting one injustice and cruelty for another.

[Ana Sanchez]

Yes, we know, Richard. The 2-state solution is the ONLY viable option: the whole of Mandate Palestine for the Jews and a closet for everyone else.

[Michael W]

I agree with my fellow PEP the Witty Richy. It's one thing calling for peace negotiations for eventual withdrawal to approximately pre 1967 borders. It's another thing to call for the return of Palestinian refugees to Israel proper. Peres, in a badly done interview with Al Jazeera, said that no past, current, or future prime minister will accept Palestinian refugees (unless they are gay and persecuted by other Palestinians).

Also, the PA (progressive always) hasn't done anything constructive. Almost like the real PA. It will never be accepted by main stream Jews because there's no difference with what they say and what today's Palestinians say.

You also make the argument very badly. You have to make main stream Jews relate to Palestinian struggle. Say: "Be kind to the stranger among you because you were once a stranger in the land of Egypt." You are using a very well known story among Jews and Christians. All the Jews read this story once a year, at least.

But that story of the Exodus isn't exactly the kind of justice the Palestinians want. They (the one state advocates) want all of Egypt. Not just all of Egypt but also compensation for 400 years of slavery. They also want to dominate Egypt thru having a majority in a democratic system. But they haven't shown to be tolerant to minorities either which would probably lead to the same system as with the Pharaoh.

Some want all of Egypt and kick out almost all of the Egyptians but dominating over a small minority.

In conclusion, Palestinians must ask from the Jews, like Moses asked from Pharaoh at first, to let them go and create a state else where (let say West Bank and Gaze and not return to Israel, unless for work). Don't ask to be equals with the Egyptians because they know you'll want to dominate with your numbers. Ask for some compensation like the Israelites got some gold jewelry. Even though your land will have economic difficulties (like the Israelites had difficulties in their land (giants and stuff). It will take them a long time to make a viable state (40 years in the desert) but they'll get a lot of foreign aid because a lot of people want to see it succeed.

[Richard Witty]

Was that really Michael W?

[Committee for Historical Accuracy]

The new Macmillan Encyclopaedia of Race and Racism is under attack from our ruling elite for its chapter on Zionism. Joachim Martillo posted about the AJC's campaign here. Now it seems some saucy plebeians are daring to push back with a petition to the publisher. Which side are you on?

[Ed]

"Progressive Except for Palestine...conservative/religious-nationalist on Palestine."

Isn't it easier and more accurate to simply call them what they are? Hypocrites.

[cogit8]

Jews are eating their own:

http://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org/publish/article_1140.shtml

[cogit8]

Be kind to the stranger among you because you were once a stranger in the land of Egypt."

I believe that is "avadim ha'inu"

[Zvi]

Is it "progressive" to support HAMAS and other would-be-genocidal Palestinian terrorist groups? Unfortunately, that is what is generally required for someone to be considered "progressive about Palestine" ("PAP"?) Anyone who remembers that Israel, like Kuwait and Brazil and the USA, has the right to exist is condemned by many Leftists as being non-progressive (and much worse things).

I am a moderate on a lot of issues. On Israel, I am also a moderate. I oppose the Settlements (for many reasons, including the fact that they are a leech on the side of Israel). I think that settlers who attack Palestinians should be jailed. I support one of Clinton's practical solutions for Jerusalem. I support a 2-state solution (or maybe it's a 3 state solution, if Gaza and the WB continue on their current trajectory, and maybe that is for the best). But I only support this when I see evidence that the Palestinian leadership is reforming Palestinian society and ideology as a peaceful one, where genocidal ideologies are not taught in the textbooks and preached in Friday mosque sermons. Unfortunately, I think I'll be waiting for a long time. I also recognize that until the Arab world as a whole ceases to create blood libels that inflame both non-Palestinians and Palestinians, this won't happen.

I certainly will not ask Israel to allow terrorists to shoot rockets at its civilians without responding, any more than I would ask France or Brazil or India to do so. That is not "progressive." Anyone who insists that Israel has no right to defend itself, but that other nations have such a right, is simply an anti-Semite.

:-)

[Rowan Berkeley]

Phil, I think it is a bad idea to post half a dozen little items every day. It makes sustained development of discussion on any given post much harder and less likely. I suggest that you produce one large multi-topic post each day, where convenient, and thus each day in return you will get a convenient, handy and consecutive discussion beneath it.

[Michael W]

Yes, Richy Witty. That was moi.

[Michael W]

Yes, Richy Witty. That was moi.

[Rowan Berkeley]

Freudian or what? according to Aluf Benn, "Tzipi Livni seeks a deep withdrawal from the territories."
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1038959.html

[observer]

To understand the discriminatory impact of Witty's proposed land dispute scheme posted above, go here:

http://www.internal-displacement.org/idmc/website/countries.nsf/(httpEnvelopes)/45AD0FD7DA2B1D66C12574B8004741F6?OpenDocument

[Richard Witty]

Phil,
I think that you are PEP, in your zeal, as to adopt a strategy that willingly villifies a religious group, a sentiment, a reasonable analysis, you are expressing a manner that is the opposite of progressive.

Live and let live is progressive.

Anger isn't usually in my estimation.

[Judy]

Richard, how does a PEP-world force the intransigent government of Israel to do the right thing?

While we argue about what is best for Israeli Jews, TPTB in the gov't of Israel are busying implementing the no-state solution.

[stevieb]

"I certainly will not ask Israel to allow terrorists to shoot rockets at its civilians without responding, any more than I would ask France or Brazil or India to do so. That is not "progressive." Anyone who insists that Israel has no right to defend itself, but that other nations have such a right, is simply an anti-Semite."

Rubbish as usual.

Israel isn't France or Brazil. It doesn't currently occupy and colonize another peoples country and hold them under brutal, military occupation.

You seem to think like some other seriously misguided individuals that Israel is a western democracy - just like "us". They aren't.

This is an aparthied, militaristic rouge state. It had committed countless war crimes against it's neighbours, zionist propaganda notwithstanding.

That's the reality one needs to consider when discussing a 'progressive' solution to this conflict.

Israel is the bad guy and the Palestinians are the victims.

Lets not forget that.

[observer]

Live and let live.
A little understanding.
Do the Palestinians have a cabaret?
If so, where is Witty in this picture?

And where would his son be in the new Dirty Dancing?

[D.]

Another way of defining PEPers is not in terms of their de-prioritizing Palestinian rights, but of their prioritization of the big A.

These are the folks to whom nothing has ever or will ever matter as much as "antisemitism." When the country was protesting against the coming war, they stayed home rather than have their exquisite sensibilities offended.

And since this fetishization lies so near the base of modern secular Jewish identity, there's really not much reason for optimism, at least in the near-term.

[Rowan Berkeley]

there is no such thing as a 'rouge state', stevie. This term started out as a misprint for 'rogue state' and went viral.

[observer]

Blood libel. Think about it in the modern age. Don't the rabid Zionists accuse their opponents of blood libel?

Listen to an Israeli settler, especially if they came from the USA.

Who is poisoning the well of humanity?