As it happens, I share your dismay at the insularity of these organizations, though for the Jewish groups I think it results more from their narrow focus on working within the Jewish community than from political centrism. But what does it have to do with our discussion of the breadth and boundaries of OTD’s political umbrella? The weakness of one strategy doesn’t speak to the effectiveness of another.

Similarly, I share your disappointment with the disorganization and limited strategic vision of the June 5th initiative, which I initially tried to connect with. (I’m not sure, though, why they should feel more shamed by the marginally greater effectiveness of those on what you call their “left” rather than by the far weightier successes of the anti-Palestinian forces.)

But none of that bears on the specific question at hand. It’s very difficult for you to stand with both Tikkun and JVP, since Tikkun, unlike JVP, is not joining the June 10-12 actions by the U.S. Campaign and UfPJ for precisely the reasons we’re discussing: Those groups (including JVP) have chosen to embrace those who delegitimize the very idea of a Jewish nation-state.

I’m glad to hear that you do not think the U.S. Campaign holds an “Israel, maybe” viewpoint. That is a far lesser mistake than recognizing that they do, and finding it acceptable. On the question of one state or two states(which, as I wrote, is not my main concern), the U.S. Campaign’s FAQ says this:

“The US Campaign does not endorse either a one-state or a two-state solution, but rather upholds the Palestinian right to self-determination. We believe the Palestinians must be empowered to exercise this right, and that the international community has a responsibility towards the right of the Palestinian to self-determination.”

Nowhere does their website affirm Jewish or Israeli self-determination. By me, that constitutes “an official position…calling for Israel to ‘maybe not exist’” and, more importantly, declaring themselves hospitable to those who hold absolutely that it should not exist.

I find it disturbing, Charles, that in UfPJ’s decision “not to embrace a position that would exclude supporters of a two state solution” you see only a “victory over the extremists.” Consider an analogy: Say there were a large organization within UfPJ that was opposed to the war in Iraq and opposed to the creation of a Palestinian state. Say this group was able to mount a serious campaign within UfPJ for that coalition to adopt a position that would exclude supporters of Palestinian statehood. Say the majority of UfPJ voted down that proposal, but continued to welcome the membership of the group that initiated it. Would that be simply a victory over extremism? Wouldn’t it also be an indication of the sorry state of affairs within UfPJ, that it was open to such bigotry? Rather as if the Democratic Party defeated a southern-state delegation’s effort to exclude the integrated slate of a civil-rights wing of the Party in that state, and called instead for a half-segregated, half-integrated state delegation – as happened to the Georgia Loyalist delegation led by State Rep. Julian Bond in 1968. As a teenager, my joy over the Democratic Party’s refusal to adopt the position of the Klan (paralleled now by ANSWER and Al-Awda) was underwhelming. Please note, it is not these groups’ advocacy of a single state that puts them in the Klan’s camp. What does that is the denial of Jewish national rights that leads them to reject Israeli statehood.

To welcome such national chauvinism in the name of tolerance and inclusivity would be unworthy of OTD, and would render it unable to help bring about any progressive resolution of the conflict.

I haven’t seen an official position from the US Campaign calling for Israel to ‘maybe not exist.’ I was present when UFPJ formally rejected the kinds of positions that will imply something similar. Unlike International ANSWER, Al-Awda and other extremist groups, UFPJ and the US Campaign have been careful not to embrace a position that would exclude supporters of a two state solution. They were under a lot of pressure to do so; it would be counter productive to pretend that our victory over the extremists was actually a loss and walk away from participating.

On a strategic and tactical note, it is disheartening to note that most of the peace groups we might more enthusiastically support – Americans for Peace Now, Brit Tzedek, the American Task Force on Palestine – these groups have refrained from deciding to be part of the US peace movement. They have not worked to cultivate relationships with the progressive Democrats who support their cause the most. They prefer to play towards the center, instead of following their base. This is the failed strategy of playing it safe in the hope that it pays off in the future.

I wish that the June 5th events had been organized in a serious way with funding and participation from the more mainstream organizations. But.. they didn’t step up to the plate. They don’t organize rallies, they don’t seek out allies to their left, they don’t find common issues with potential allies. They have as little to show for their efforts as the US Campaign does. Or as much.

Let the J5 people and those who support them feel ashamed and out organized by their ‘opponents’ to the left who, whatever faults they have, have deeper roots in the progressive activist community. Maybe next year we can attend the ‘big rally’ organized by vocal two-staters. Until then, I’ll stand with Tikkun, JVP and others in choosing to work with the allies I have, as opposed to the allies I wish I had…..

There’s a version of ’sure you haven’t said or done anything problematic. But you are hanging out with group X, and group X is known to hang out with folks from group Y, and group Y is no good. So until you agree to join my refusal to engage in secondary and tertiary boycotts of folks with whom I have a disagreement, we can’t work together either’ going around. It does us no good at all…. I’m not saying that’s how you think, but I’m sensitive to it.

And by all means – if I’m making a mistake here, point it out! thanks for chipping in Hayyim, join us for the call!

If this group wants to actually be a player in Democratic politics, it needs to avoid positions and groups that are too extreme, not because we don’t agree with them, but because their policies are too far on the fringes even for the most liberal Dems. There are plenty of orgs with slightly more moderate language (like that found in OTD’s mission statement) that are still significantly to the left of the current discourse and would represent a major shift in the party.

Check out the June 5th Initiative: http://www.june5thinitiative.org/