Website policy

We provide links to articles we think will be of interest to our supporters. We are sympathetic to much of the content of what we post, but not to everything. The fact that something has been linked to here does not necessarily mean that we endorse the views expressed in it.


BSST is the leading charity focusing on small-scale grass roots cross community, anti poverty and humanitarian projects in Israel/Palestine

JfJfP comments


06 May: Tair Kaminer starts her fifth spell in gaol. Send messages of support via Reuven Kaminer

04 May: Against the resort to denigration of Israel’s critics


23 Dec: JfJfP policy statement on BDS

14 Nov: Letter to the Guardian about the Board of Deputies

11 Nov: UK ban on visiting Palestinian mental health workers

20 Oct: letter in the Guardian

13 Sep: Rosh Hashanah greetings

21 Aug: JfJfP on Jeremy Corbyn

29 July: Letter to Evening Standard about its shoddy reporting

24 April: Letter to FIFA about Israeli football

15 April: Letter re Ed Miliband and Israel

11 Jan: Letter to the Guardian in response to Jonathan Freedland on Charlie Hebdo


15 Dec: Chanukah: Celebrating the miracle of holy oil not military power

1 Dec: Executive statement on bill to make Israel the nation state of the Jewish people

25 Nov: Submission to All-Party Parliamentary Group Against Antisemitism

7 Sept: JfJfP Executive statement on Antisemitism

3 Aug: Urgent disclaimer

19 June Statement on the three kidnapped teenagers

25 April: Exec statement on Yarmouk

28 Mar: EJJP letter in support of Dutch pension fund PGGM's decision to divest from Israeli banks

24 Jan: Support for Riba resolution

16 Jan: EJJP lobbies EU in support of the EU Commission Guidelines, Aug 2013–Jan 2014


29 November: JfJfP, with many others, signs a "UK must protest at Bedouin expulsion" letter

November: Press release, letter to the Times and advert in the Independent on the Prawer Plan

September: Briefing note and leaflet on the Prawer Plan

September: JfJfP/EJJP on the EU guidelines with regard to Israel

14th June: JfJfP joins other organisations in protest to BBC

2nd June: A light unto nations? - a leaflet for distribution at the "Closer to Israel" rally in London

24 Jan: Letter re the 1923 San Remo convention

18 Jan: In Support of Bab al-Shams

17 Jan: Letter to Camden New Journal about Veolia

11 Jan: JfJfP supports public letter to President Obama

Comments in 2012 and 2011



A zero sum game: media 1, Palestinians and Israelis 0
Netanyahu’s win is Israel’s loss

Once the dust of the media storm settles down, the citizens of Israel will be faced with the stark truth: The specter of Israel’s ever-growing isolation and of increasing international pressure looms large.
Carlo Strenger, Haaretz

The only winner of the weeklong showdown at AIPAC and Congress is the media: there was a lot to write about; pundits could abound with feverish speculations about who would win, who would lose; who was leading in points against whom. But if you look at the dry facts, it is quite clear that everything was played out according to the predetermined script.
Netanyahu came to the U.S. with only one agenda: to make a good impression and to score points at AIPAC and Congress. Netanyahu knows that no Palestinian leadership can accept a deal without compromise on Jerusalem. Netanyahu is neither willing nor able to do this, so there is no use in even starting negotiations. So Netanyahu got his accolades for well crafted speeches that rehashed his old, known positions, and he has done what he does best: gain some more time.
The problem is that he gained very little time indeed – at most until September. The European media was in no way impressed with Netanyahu’s performance and saw it for what it was: sowing dust in the eyes of well-meaning American friends. Netanyahu made clear, once again, that the Palestinians have only one option, namely to continue their drive toward a bid for UN recognition for their state along the 1967 borders, a bid almost certain to succeed. And with Netanyahu in power this means that Israel will pay a heavy price in isolation, pressure and mounting criticism.
The Palestinians received further evidence that there is no use in negotiating with Netanyahu’s right-wing government. Their current strategic goal is broad international recognition, and they will soon have embassies in most of the world. This will create a much stronger position for them in negotiations with a future Israeli government more amenable to compromise.
The only interesting thing about last week was how Obama played his cards: he wants to be reelected in 2012, and any move seen as enforcing a non-negotiated solution on Israel would have brought him into collision course with a strong Christian Zionist constituency in the U.S. that supports Netanyahu. It would also have invited AIPAC’s ire, even though AIPAC no longer represents the majority of Jewish voters in the U.S.
But Obama also needs and wants to be seen as supporting change in the Arab world and the creation of a Palestinian state. Ergo: he expressed support for a two-state solution based on the 1967 borders. But he also stated that he will not accept unilateral moves by the Palestinians such as seeking recognition for a Palestinian state at the UN. Officially he therefore rejects imposing a non-negotiated solution to the conflict on Israel.
So far there are constraints on what he could say publicly. His actual position seems to be somewhat different: he knows that, given Netanyahu’s political constraints and his worldview, chances for productive negotiations with the Palestinians are practically zero. He also knows that the Palestinians’ bid for recognition by the UN General Assembly, where the U.S. does not have veto power, is likely to receive more than two-thirds of the vote, probably including Britain and France.
Hence Obama’s strategy is really quite interesting: he will let the international community do the work of establishing the 1967 borders as a fact of international law without paying a heavy political price at home. He can step into the ring after his reelection, when he will have a much freer hand, and will be able to argue legitimately that he is representing the international community in moving toward the only solution of the Israel-Palestine conflict – two viable states for two peoples.
The clear losers in Netanyahu’s short-sightedness wrapped into grandiose verbal pyrotechnics are the citizens of Israel. Once the dust of the media storm settles down, we will be faced with the stark truth: The specter of Israel’s ever-growing isolation and of increasing international pressure looms large. Once the Palestinians succeed in their bid for statehood, the Netanyahu government will be facing international criticism of its settlement policies unprecedented in force and intensity.
The tragedy is that Israel’s growing isolation and the Palestinians’ unilateral move could be avoided. Instead of fighting the Palestinians’ bid for recognition, Israel should support it. Israelis have an overriding and legitimate concern: they fear that the Palestinians really see the two-state solution as a two-stage solution; that they will continue to press for the right of millions of Palestinians to return to Israel after they have a state of their own, thus effectively turning Israel into a bi-national state. This fear is not unfounded, particularly since Hamas has so far refused to accept Israel’s existence and promises to use any means to wipe it off the face of the earth.
Israel’s best strategy to defuse this concern would be to cooperate with the Palestinian bid for UN recognition – with a caveat. Israel could demand that recognition of Palestine within the 1967 borders be conditional on the Palestinians renouncing any further claim west of this border, a demand likely to be met by the international community, and supported by the Arab League Peace Initiative.
UN recognition of Palestine along the 1967 borders is really in Israel’s interest, because it preempts the creation of a bi-national state; it would finally provide Israel with internationally recognized borders for the first time since its foundation; and it would leave Hamas with no choice but to recognize Israel’s legitimacy.
But Netanyahu is incapable of looking that far ahead, and incapable of bold moves. That much was clear when, after the 2009 elections, he preferred a narrow right-wing government to a coalition with Kadima, and when he put Avigdor Lieberman into the Foreign Ministry. Netanyahu’s rigid worldview and his petty struggle for political survival prevent him from taking a creative approach in resolving the Israel-Palestine conflict, and we Israelis will have to pay the price.

Print Friendly

Comments are closed.