When bloggers attack: Weiss's war

In a fit of either bad judgment or masochism, I shared my previous posting on Joe Biden with Phil Weiss, the anti-Israel blogger whom Meretz USA and Ameinu dialogued with last year. Not surprisingly, he lashed out at the posting and lambasted Biden for basically being pro-Israel.

My point was that Biden's views on Israel are more complex than I had realized, that he's both sympathetic to Israel (even declaring himself a "Zionist") and critical on the settlements issue. We at Meretz USA are probably both more knowledgeable and a little more critical than Biden is regarding Israel, but his mixture of concerned criticism and warm existential support is close to where we are at as progressive Zionists.

All that Phil and most of his commenting readers would focus on is Biden's support for Israel – which to them is a bad thing. Phil and some of his readers point out that most of the JTA link is about Biden's warmth toward Israel. They glide over those sections that highlight Biden's differences with some Israeli policies:

Biden has been especially sharp in criticizing the United States and Israel in their failure to support Mahmoud Abbas in 2003, when he was the Palestinian
Authority prime minister attempting to establish a power base to challenge then-President Yasser Arafat. ...

"I've had my shouting matches over 25 years, privately, in my office and in the offices of prime ministers," Biden said in a March 2007 interview with the Forward. "I've had disagreements. Israel's a democracy and they make mistakes.
..."

Biden is correct that the conflict is about wrong doing and wrong-headedness on both sides. He is also right that Israel/Palestine and Iraq are totally distinct issues, that if peace suddenly broke out between Israel and all the Arabs that this would have no impact on Iraq. But we at Meretz USA believe that Israel needs to strive harder, more realistically and more justly toward the Palestinians in a sincere quest for peace.

I don't know if Phil believes in peace in the Middle East. He clearly does not believe in peace with me or with these terrible people he calls "progressive Zionists."

Since, to my understanding, he's busy writing a book that's likely to attack us as thoroughly as he can, it's apparently in his interest to regard us as enemies. This is sad and a disservice to truth.

Joe Biden: Pro-Israel and Pro-Peace

Barack Obama’s vice presidential running mate is a friend of Israel who nonetheless has a complex and sophisticated perspective on the Middle East that resists easy classification. This JTA news service profile of Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware should reassure both nervous pro-Israel voters and those who seek a reasonable end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict [This is not meant as a Meretz USA endorsement of a candidate, which our tax status does not allow] :

... The loquacious Biden, a senator since 1973, has sparred frequently with the pro-Israel community and with Israelis, particularly on the issue of settlements. But he has a sterling voting record on pro-Israel issues and as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has helped shepherd through key pro-Israel legislation.

His straightforwardness is considered an asset, even among those supporters who have disagreed with him. ... Biden has been especially sharp in criticizing the United States and Israel in their failure to support Mahmoud Abbas in 2003, when he was the Palestinian Authority prime minister attempting to establish a power base to challenge then-President Yasser Arafat.

Abbas eventually was sidelined by Arafat, allowing the Palestinian leader to continue his policies of corruption and stasis until his death – and creating a vacuum ultimately filled in large part by Hamas terrorists.

"I’ve had my shouting matches over 25 years, privately, in my office and in the offices of prime ministers," Biden said in a March 2007 interview with the Forward. "I’ve had disagreements. Israel’s a democracy and they make mistakes. But the notion that somehow if Israel just did the right thing, [the peace process] would work, I mean that’s the premise, give me a break."

In that same interview, Biden firmly rejected calls for the United States to distance itself from Israel and assume a more neutral role in brokering Middle East peace talks.

"The suffering is real on both sides, but there is a side that can impact on ending it," he said. "The responsibility rests on those who will not acknowledge the right of Israel to exist, will not play fair, will not deal, will not renounce terror."

Just two months earlier, Biden took the lead in the Senate in rejecting the Iraq Study Group's assertion that the United States would not be able to achieve its goals in Iraq unless it "deals directly with the Arab-Israeli conflict."

"I do not accept the notion of linkage between Iraq and the Arab-Israeli conflict," Biden said during his opening remarks at a Jan. 17, 2007 Senate hearing. "Arab-Israeli peace is worth pursuing vigorously on its own merits, but even if a peace treaty were signed tomorrow, it would not end the civil war in Iraq."

... Biden's son married into a Jewish family, but his keen interest in the region dates back to his first visit as a senator, not long before the 1973 Yom Kippur. He met Israel's then-prime minister, Golda Meir.

In an interview with Shalom TV last year, when he launched his own presidential bid, Biden said he came away from that meeting understanding that "there is this inextricable tie between culture, religion, ethnicity that most people don't fully understand – that is unique and so strong with Jews worldwide."

"When I was a young senator, I used to say, 'If I were a Jew, I'd be a Zionist.' I am a Zionist," he said. "You don't have to be a Jew to be a Zionist." ...

This entire article can be read at the JTA.org Web site. One can also get a glimpse of his interview on Shalom TV (our thanks to Werner Cohn for spotting this) for a sense of Sen. Biden’s sincerity and good will.

Georgia-Russia-Israel, Part 2

There was more from the JTA (Jewish Telegraphic Agency) news service on Friday regarding Israel’s delicate dance in balancing its sympathies and its interests between Georgia and Russia. Sunday’s NY Times had a fascinating little article on how language separates some 40 distinct ethnic groups in the Caucasus region, including the Ossetians who speak a language related to Farsi (Persian) and the Georgians whose tongue most closely resembles that of the Basques. There was also a captivating report in the PBS Newshour television program on the rebel Georgian territory of Abkhazia.

One was struck in the PBS program on how sympathetic the Abkhazian people seemed. In particular, there was the honesty and sensitivity of the young vice foreign minister and the earnest concerns of a spokeswoman for something called the "Centre for Humanitarian Programmes." It’s obvious that both Abkhazians and Georgians have suffered. In this, and undoubtedly with the struggle in the other rebel region of South Ossetia, innocents have suffered and crimes have been committed on both sides, as with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Russia has just recognized Abkhazia and South Ossetia as "independent" states. It is generally believed that Russia will annex these territories as "autonomous" republics or regions (like the old Soviet Union, Russia is officially a federal state). The Abkhaz and South Ossetian peoples are thought to fully expect and to welcome their incorporation into the Russian Federation. (One wonders how they will feel afterwards.) What follows is part of the PBS Newshour transcript:

... Abkhazia and another region within Georgia, South Ossetia, remained part of Georgia. Amidst the turbulence and national awakenings of the early '90s, both decided to push for independence, too. Although most people on both sides are [Eastern] Orthodox Christians, the Abkhaz consider themselves ethnically different from Georgians.

Georgia moved militarily against the breakaway regions in a war that lasted two years. There is a war memorial in the Abkhaz capital, Sukhumi, but you don't need to visit it to remember what happened here.

On every block, on every corner, empty shells stand where beautiful villas once hosted generals and leaders. Billboards all over town remind citizens of the heavy price they paid.

Both sides have made harsh accusations. The Abkhaz say deliberate attempts were made to erase them from history. The Georgians claim they were ethnically cleansed. And, indeed, even today, 15 years later, more than 200,000 people driven from Abkhazia during the war now live as refugees in Georgia, many in squalid settlements near the border, unable to return.

Maxim Gunjia is only 32, but he has already spent a decade in the Abkhaz government, and he remembers the 1992 war very well.

What are your memories of those days?

MAXIM GUNJIA, Vice Foreign Minister, Abkhazia: Very bad memories. It's a very strange situation when you start to understand human reality, human identity. And humans could be very cruel, very rough. It's very strange to see how people change in a second.

KIRA KAY: And there was a lot of violence against ethnic Georgians, too?

MAXIM GUNJIA: You're right. This is war. There was a lot -- a lot of crimes, I would say. When the fighting starts, you already can hardly say who is right and who is wrong. It is a very sad situation. Click here for the entire report in both transcript and video forms.

We are running out of time for a two-state solution

The following is from Meretz USA's electronic newsletter on August 22:

For some time now, Meretz USA, has been warning that, when it comes to peacemaking, time is not on Israel's side.

We have cautioned that the situation in the Middle East is never static: That if options for peace exist today, they must be seized with full force, for they might not be there tomorrow.

We have insisted, together with other American Jewish organizations dedicated to Middle East peace, such as Americans for Peace Now, Brit Tzedek V'Shalom and Ameinu, that Israel does not have the luxury of blithely waiting for "perfect timing", or until the "ideal Palestinian leader" emerges - for this will mean that meaningful peace talks will never progress.

These arguments unfortunately received even further validation this past week, when the President of Al-Quds University in Jerusalem, Prof. Sari Nusseibeh, was interviewed in Haaretz by journalist Akiva Eldar.

Perhaps more than any other Palestinian figure, Prof. Nusseibeh represents a nonviolent Palestinian political realism, which translated a generation ago into his courageous, wholehearted, unswerving support for a two-state solution. So when Prof. Nusseibeh was quoted last week as contemplating the imminent death of the two-state solution, it should have come as an earthquake for any lover of a peaceful Israel.

This interview, in which Nusseibeh expresses the belief that, if peace doesn't happen soon, the Palestinian Authority should be disbanded and Palestinians should press for equal rights within a single state, should be taken very seriously. Nusseibeh is not a games-player; he is an intellectual with a keen eye for where developments are moving the peoples in the region. It would be folly to dismiss his projections.

Click here to read the interview with Nusseibeh.

Georgia-Russia-Israel

Evidently, there are some marginal Israeli connections to the Georgian-Russian conflict that broke out the other week. There’s an Israeli ex-general, who was booted from active service in the IDF for poor performance during the Lebanon war of two years ago, who worked in Georgia as a private contractor/consultant. Apparently, the Georgians might have been better off if this guy, Gal Hirsch, had stayed home.

There were also other Israeli arms and security contracts to supply and assist the Georgian forces. According to the JTA news service, Israel's defense contracts with Georgia are worth $200 million (small by comparison with those of the US), but Israel is now backing away from other such deals, as it very much needs Russia's good will in dealing with Iran. Russia's looming profits in supplying anti-aircraft missiles to Iran and Syria and in assisting Iran's nuclear facilities make such help dubious, but Israel needs to at least be in a position to try.

My overall impression of the conflict is pretty much the same as expressed by Tom Friedman in the NY Times, "What Did We Expect?" The US, Europe and NATO have overreached in pushing NATO’s borders to Russia itself, by incorporating Poland, the three Baltic states, the Czech Republic and some other former Soviet Warsaw Pact allies. The prospect of NATO membership for Georgia and Ukraine has pushed Russia beyond its capacity for patience.

Powered by its now prosperous oil and natural gas industries, Putin’s Russia has not only gone most of the way toward a new dictatorship based in the Kremlin, but also toward reasserting itself as a major military power. It’s more a case of Russia stretching its imperial muscles to rid itself of the taste of humiliation and defeat emanating from the collapse of the Soviet Union, than that Russia has justice on its side. But the practical reality is that its effective exercise of armed force in Georgia marks Russia’s coming out party as one of the five major world powers – alongside the US, China, Europe and India. Other important powers include Brazil, Japan and South Korea, but Russia is now clearly back as one of the big five.

And the US is no longer the sole superpower that it was in the 1990s and prior to our recent difficulties in Iraq and Afghanistan. In fact, the US is no longer a superpower at all; there are no current superpowers.

Russia’s conflict with Georgia has rights and wrongs on both sides. In this, and in this alone, it resembles the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Clearly, Georgia had a legal right to try to reincorporate the rebel territories of South Ossetia and Abkhazia by force. Just as clearly, this was foolhardy to attempt, since Russian "peacekeeping" troops were surely among those killed in Georgia’s offensive in South Ossetia that began this war. There was no way that NATO, the US or anybody else could effectively defend Georgia from Russia’s powerful (and from their point of view, justified) counterattack. That Russian forces are now lingering in Georgia, should hardly be a surprise.

Lost in all this are the rights of the ethnic peoples of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, who currently must regard the Russians as their saviors. But these, as well as the Georgians, must all regard themselves as long-suffering small peoples who exist in the shadow of, and at the sufferance of, greater powers.

In this, we Jews may sympathize with all of them. But Israel needs to see to it that this newly resurgent and assertive Russia does not regard Israel as an enemy, unlike the Soviet Union of yore. It is especially important that Russia (and China) be persuaded to help in containing the nuclear ambitions of Iran; since this is less likely now (due to Russia’s more feisty and uncooperative attitude toward the West), the conflict in Georgia may have cost Israel grievously.

Middle East ‘Meetup’

It was Thurs, Aug. 14 at the Irish Rogue, a very pleasant tavern at 44th St. and 9th Ave., Manhattan, that I attended a "Meetup" about Middle East peace. It began with some socializing and then a screening of "Blood and Tears," a 70 minute documentary on the Israeli-Arab conflict. The event’s sociable organizer, David Greene, mentioned that he's a member of Brit Tzedek V'Shalom and is interested in what we do at Meretz USA. We chatted amiably.

The film was selected for its relative objectivity. It did indeed attempt balance and presented a wide gamut of views, including two or three brief comments by Yossi Beilin, the immediate past leader of the Meretz party (and also from his predecessor, Yossi Sarid). Yet, due to its modest length, the film had to be less than comprehensive.

We broke into small groups for discussion around a list of questions. A discussant sitting opposite me, bitterly criticized the film for showing most Israelis to be reasonable and many Palestinians to be extreme. I think her criticism is valid. This reflects a flaw in the film in not revealing more about the difficulties and injustices confronting Palestinians as a result of the settlements and the behavior of extremist settlers, soldiers and police.

I also noted how the film telescopes history by ignoring (as do so many sources and analysts) the fact that the Palestinian Arabs themselves launched a serious effort to destroy the Jewish community in Palestine half a year before Israel declared its independence on May 15, 1948 and was promptly attacked by four outside Arab armies.

The subject matter is extremely difficult. One pro-Palestinian discussant called my citation of this historical detail, "the Zionist narrative." My response is that since you find this in the work of the New Historians (known for debunking the official "Zionist narrative"), it is nothing of the sort. But my disagreement with this gentleman, and with another who I believe is of Arab origin, was polite; both were open to the possibility of compromise.

Alas, my disagreement with a young woman who is apparently an activist for the Palestinian cause, was bitter. She could not see anything the Palestinians did or ever do as explaining their plight. It had to be entirely and completely the fault of the Israelis. Even when I said that I consider many or most Israeli security measures to be disproportionate and that I'm opposed to the settlement enterprise and occupation, she could not acknowledge common ground.

Sadly, I lost my cool and started to scream at her, calling her a bigot. Still, she did note the name of Hashomer Hatzair (which she had never heard of), when I brought up our lineage with a Zionist current that didn't even support the concept of a Jewish state until after the Arab onslaught of 1947-48.

As I left for the evening, another group participant (who felt he was too ignorant of the issues to register an opinion) expressed concern for my welfare, stating that talking to somebody like that young woman was like "talking to the wall." I had to agree that she was not worth raising my blood pressure, but I admitted that this was just such an emotional issue for me. Even so, I felt validated by, and grateful for, his kind words.

Tragedy of Ehud Olmert by Hillel Schenker

A dramatic, prime-time televised announcement that he would resign as prime minister after his Kadima Party held primaries in September signals the end of Olmert's political career. ... Ehud Olmert's fate can definitely be viewed as an Israeli tragedy.

He began his life as an outsider–a "prince," as it's known in the Israeli jargon, of a leading right-wing Revisionist family (his father, Mordechai, was a member of the 3rd and 4th Knesset for the Herut Party). When David Ben-Gurion and his social democratic Mapai party reigned supreme in the first decades of the state, he declared that every party was a candidate for a coalition government "except for Herut and Maki" (the Communists). In those days, Ben-Gurion even refused to mention the name of Herut leader Menachem Begin...

Thus, when the young Hebrew University student Ehud Olmert met his fellow student and future wife, Aliza, who came from a Communist family, it was a meeting of outcasts. They have apparently managed a successful marriage over the years, despite the fact that Aliza and all of their four children have remained on the left. Olmert has even admitted that discussions around the family table have influenced his views. ... Read the entire article by our Israel-based colleague online at The Nation's website.

Two views of Iran’s nuclear threat

The following is the reaction of Meretz USA board member, Ken Brociner, to M.J. Rosenberg’s column of August 8, "Those Obscene Holocaust Analogies."

MJ:
I too was horrified by [Benny] Morris' [NY Times] op-ed piece and share your basic view of it. But your response here is quite inadequate. You mock the possibility that the Iranian regime might sacrifice "Tehran for Tel Aviv."

Clearly it is hard to imagine - and I do think it is a highly unlikely scenario. But in order to be serious and intellectually honest about addressing this nightmare scenario, you really do need to directly and specifically address the quotations and information in Yossi Melman and Meir Javedanfar's "the Nuclear Sphinx of Tehran" (Chapter Three – "A Messianic Vision").

My understanding is that Melman is a highly respected and credible reporter (and yes, he may also be writing in the service of Israeli intelligence for all I know, but the stuff he has written about is real and verifiable, not fictional). But putting his credibility aside, this chapter is full of factual information that is harrowing and deeply troubling. Your "wave -of -the -hand" dismissal of this utterly bizarre part of the story doesn't come close to doing justice to the on-the-ground situation in Iran. Plus this book is, by no means, the only book or article that contains the documented evidence that these wackos just might be capable of doing something that to us would seem totally irrational.

MJ., I find it hard to imagine you have NOT read about this - but if you haven't seen any version of it that you find at all semi-convincing (of the potential, not the certainty) of Iran launching an attack based on their religious fanaticism, then I would strongly urge you to simply read pages 41-59 in Melman's book.

If after doing so, you still feel that this scenario is so far out that it doesn't represent a real threat, that's your right, but you do need to address it with more seriousness in the future – by referring to it and rebutting the specific information that Melman, and many others, have been pointing to.

To be completely candid, your dismissive tone is pretty insulting to lots of people who are not on the lunatic fringe of the Israeli right. There are extremely weird, but undeniable aspects to this story – and they just cannot be dismissed as casually as you have done here.

Sincerely, Ken Brociner

P.S. I would add to Ken’s note the allegation that one or more Iranian leaders have mused about Israel’s nuclear destruction. The following is a quote attributed to Iran’s former president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani in 2001 (Rafsanjani was the "moderate" opponent to the current president Ahmadinejad):

If one day, the Islamic world is also equipped with weapons like those that Israel possesses now, then the imperialists' strategy will reach a standstill because the use of even one nuclear bomb inside Israel will destroy everything. However, it will only harm the Islamic world. It is not irrational to contemplate such an eventuality. (December 2001).

Like Ken, I do not advocate a military strike against Iran, because it would not likely succeed and it also would stir up all sorts of violent and economically destructive acts from Iran by way of retaliation. The Iranians need to be reassured by the US that it is not threatening the Islamic regime, but it’s not entirely clear that a diplomatic tool box of carrots and sticks will do the trick in preventing Iran from going nuclear. We have no choice but to hope that it will. In the meantime, Haaretz reports that the US is refusing to assist Israeli preparations for an attack on Iran, warning that such a move runs counter to US interests. – R. Seliger

Meeting with Congressman Rangel

My thanks to Shirley Rausher of the Meretz USA board and the New York chapter of Brit Tzedek V’Shalom, and to Gil Kulick of Brit Tzedek, for inviting me to join a local BT meeting with my Congressman, Charlie Rangel. It was a very pleasant and illuminating get together at the conference room of Beit Shalom, the New York headquarters shared by Meretz USA with Brit Tzedek, Ameinu and other Israel-oriented inhabitants of the floor.

As chair of both the House Ways & Means Committee and the Congressional Black Caucus, Mr. Rangel is one of the very top leaders of the US House of Representatives. Still, he met with us on our turf, coming alone with no aide. Personal warmth and charm are his stock & trade.

He expressed a concern for the peace and well-being of both Israel and the Palestinians and a desire to advance relations between Jews and African Americans. In this connection, he voiced satisfaction with the landslide primary victory of Rep. Steven Cohen, a Jew who represents a majority Black district in Memphis, Tenn.

He agreed that there was a need for the new US administration to be energetically engaged in moving Israelis and Arabs together toward peace, but also stated the need for the Arab world to do more to advance the prospects for peace. We had some discussion on the mainstream Jewish community’s nervousness about the concept of "even-handedness" in relation to the Israel-Arab conflict. It was clear that he believes in a genuine even-handedness, not as a way of distancing from Israel, but in assisting Israel to achieve peace and security.

Reality check for Tony Judt

Monday’s report in the NY Times on the widespread and worsening divide between French-speaking Walloons and Flemish (Belgian-Dutch) speakers, which threatens to split Belgium apart politically, brings me back to Prof. Tony Judt’s naive pronouncements on the supposed eclipse of ethnic-based nationalism. He’s used the post-nationalist example of the European Union as a club to beat upon the head of the State of Israel, which he’s loudly declared "an anachronism" as an "ethno-religious" state.

Soon Brussels, the seat of the European Union, may itself cease to be the capital of a unified Belgium. Why? Because of this supposedly anachronistic phenomenon of ethnic nationalism.

Women excluded from Knesset Choir

We at Meretz USA were mortified to discover that the female members of the Knesset Choir were excluded from singing Hatikva at a ceremonial Knesset session to hear UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown – so as not to offend ultra-Orthodox members. The Haaretz headline reads: "Fearing Haredi ire, Knesset choir excludes women singers at Brown session." Curiously, this decision was made by a woman, Dalia Itzik, the current Speaker of the Knesset.

This story is updated, with news of a protest, in a recent (Aug. 3) Ynet article. As progressive Zionists, we oppose the unequal treatment of women, reminiscent of the theocracies in Iran or Saudi Arabia.

Olmert departs

One of the most memorable political cartoons I recall from my youth is of Yogi Berra and Nikita Khrushchev, depicted from behind, walking off together. In 1964, within a short time of each other, Berra was fired as manager of the New York Yankees and Khrushchev was deposed as boss of the Soviet Union.

There was nothing to dislike about Yogi Berra but Khrushchev had to be viewed with mixed feelings: a welcome relief from the murderous rule of Stalin but very incomplete as a reformer. He can be remembered as a butcher of Hungarian freedom fighters and a Cold War adventurer who brought the world to the brink of nuclear catastrophe over Cuba before prudently backing off.

Both Khrushchev and Olmert were opportunistic career political operatives, who worked their way up and came to represent change but ultimately failed. Some of their failure may have had to do with defects of character, but much also with overwhelmingly difficult circumstances. We have to remember them wistfully – of what might have been if they had been bolder, more proficient or luckier.

M. J. Rosenberg's generous view of Olmert, expressed in his latest Israel Policy Forum essay, is in contrast to this scathing piece by Uri Avnery, the radical Israeli peacenik.

Probably Rosenberg is overly generous and Avnery, as usual, is overly critical, but Olmert's tenure as prime minister was a terrible disappointment and we have to keep hoping for an unexpected miracle on the diplomatic front to make Israel's situation vis-a-vis the Palestinians, Hezbollah and Iran look other than grim. We also need to hope that Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni can defeat the more clearly hawkish Shaul Mofaz in September's Kadima party leadership primary and then manage the formidable task of holding together a governing coalition as the new prime minister or fend off Likud's Bibi Netanyahu in elections early next year.

Benny Morris on C-Span

C-Span 2 ("Book TV") is broadcasting Prof. Benny Morris’s talk at a Brooklyn synagogue back in May, today (Sunday, August 3) at 7:00 PM. You can probably catch a rerun in the weeks to come and you will be able to view a video recording of it at the Book TV website during this coming week and weekend.

Morris was a little plodding in spots, but overall he handled himself well. Most of his talk is about his new book on the 1948 war. (In past postings, I have indicated how I applaud him as a historian while deploring some of his conclusions as a commentator on current events.)

Unsurprisingly, when questioned in the Q & A afterwards, he was pessimistic about the prospects for peace. I can certainly understand why he feels that way, but he exaggerates the extent to which the Palestinians have supported Hamas. He does not take into account that Hamas won only a plurality (44% ) of the vote in 2006 and that many of these voters were punishing Fatah for its corrupt and incompetent rule rather than supporting the rejectionist ideology of Hamas.

A new Zionist discourse

For years, Meretz USA has been an invaluable source of information, opinion and analysis about Israel and the Middle East. We have hosted lectures and conference calls with prominent figures on the Israeli left. We publish our thoughtful quarterly magazine, Israel Horizons, and a biweekly e-newsletter. We host the Meretz USA blog. We issue press releases and statements, and we continue to conduct our unique annual weeklong seminar in Israel, the “Israel Symposium”.

But the one thing we haven’t done enough is to let you, our supporters, make your voices heard on the issues we progressive Zionists care about so deeply.

This is about to change.

Starting this summer, Meretz USA will be launching a new initiative that will let you direct your concerns about Israel straight to the people that matter most: the Israeli decision-makers who are determining that country’s future.

Meretz USA invites you to join us in a new Zionist discourse. When additional West Bank settlements are built, we will let you tell Israel’s Housing Minister what you think about these obstacles for peace. When members of Knesset try to pass laws that institutionalize discrimination against Israel’s Arab citizens (as they did only recently), we will initiate a campaign that allows you to tell the bill’s sponsors that we can’t rightly defend a policy which severs Zionism from democracy and equal rights.

Of course, we also look forward to campaigns that express support, not only disappointment. If an Israeli Prime Minister bravely moves to dismantle unauthorized West Bank outposts, for example, we’ll want him (or her) to know this step has the support of thousands and thousands of concerned American Jews.

Prime Minister Olmert recently called for a “new paradigm” in the relationship between Israel and Diaspora Jewry. Well we agree, and we are guided in this regard by the clarion words of the late Rabbi Arthur Hertzberg:

“The American Jewish community is torn right now between its love of Israel and its distaste for Israel's policies. We who love Israel have an obligation to say what we believe... We have long lived with the notion that Israeli governments, from right to left, have tried to inculcate in us - that they determine policy, and we are privileged to say amen on cue. This nonsense is now bankrupt.”

Keep your eye out for our leadoff campaign calling on the Housing Minister of Israel to stop building in disputed territory around Jerusalem, and when you receive it, we encourage you to sign on, and then share it widely with your colleagues, friends and family.

It is time for progressive American Jews who care deeply about Israel’s future to tell its leaders what we think – not count on our government to do so on our behalf. It is time to engage with Israel, not turn our backs in despair. It is time for a clear, unapologetic progressive Zionist voice!