One of the beefs you hear about beefs about Israel’s closure of Gaza is that they are not contextualized; the critics of Israel’s closure never explain what led Israel to close the strip, the complainers say.
Another is that Israel is not solely responsible for the closure, Egypt also has a border crossing (as opposed to Israel’s three, and its control of air and sea access, but fine.)
A letter recently from 54 Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives addresses both contexts: As I noted when I wrote it up as a brief, it sympathizes "deeply with the people of southern Israel who have suffered from abhorrent rocket and mortar attacks" and recognizes that Israel’s restrictions arise out of a "legitimate and keenly felt fear of continued terrorist action by Hamas and other militant groups." The letter, to President Obama, also urged him to press Israel and Egypt on the matter.
Now, the signatories have come under fire; one has even withdrawn her signature. Behind the pressure is a Republican Jewish Coalition campaign. The RJC action alert contains at least one untruth:
These 54 Democrats expressed no concern whatsoever about the consequences their ideas might have for Israelis living under the threat of terrorism from Gaza!
In fact, the letter directly addresses those consequences —
Easing the blockade on Gaza will not only improve the conditions on the ground for Gaza’s civilian population, but will also undermine the tunnel economy which has strengthened Hamas. Under current conditions, our aid remains little more than an unrealized pledge. Most importantly, lifting these restrictions will give civilians in Gaza a tangible sense that diplomacy can be an effective tool for bettering their conditions. Your Administration’s overarching Middle East peace efforts will benefit Israel, the Palestinians, and the entire region.
Perhaps the letter’s writers are wrong, maybe they are naive, maybe they are disingenuous, but that’s not what the RJC is saying. [UPDATE: Right about here, an earlier version of this post crossed the line between criticism and name-calling, which I regret. The offending words have been removed.]
At the New York Jewish Week, Jim Besser uncovers something even more potentially pernicious: The tendency among email-blasters campaigning against the signatories to identify the letter solely with one of its signatories, U.S. Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), although Ellison was joined by Jim McDermott (D-Wash.) in introducing the letter — and, according to Besser, it was drafted in McDermott’s office. Ellison happens to be the first Muslim elected to Congress. (Let me make it clear, this tendency does not, as far as I know, emanate from the RJC; my concern with their alert is a separate matter.)
Take it away, Jim:
Every time I’ve heard [Ellison] speak, including on a recent panel that was clearly skewed to the anti-Israel point of view, he’s stressed his belief that both sides in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict need to do more to live up to past commitments and take greater chances for peace. He’s spoken clearly about Israel’s need for security as part of any ultimate settlement. He speaks the language of compromise – for both sides.
In short, he sounds pro-Palestinian without sounding anti-Israel.
I’d add one thing: When Ellison and another Washington Dem, Brian Baird, toured Gaza after last winter’s war, it was Ellison — not Baird — who continued to Sderot to survey the aftereffects there.
JTA has documented Jewish history in real-time for over a century. Keep our journalism strong by joining us in supporting independent, award-winning reporting.
