The legal precedents set by the profligacy of Israel’s legal institutions were not extended to the evicted Palestinians, many of whom owned homes in Jaffa and West Jerusalem before 1948. Some Israeli critics decried the decision, claiming that Israel was making a two-state solution with East Jerusalem as Palestine’s capital impossible because of the high number of Jews living in Palestinian areas of the city.

The evictions spurred a handful of hearty solidarity activists into holding weekly demonstrations against the ruling. The small demonstrations grew as hundreds of Israelis started showing up on Friday afternoons to protest their government’s policies. The movement became a gateway drug of sorts for a new generation of activists who sought joint struggle with Palestinians as their preferred exercise of political expression.

Just Vision, the production outfit behind the critically acclaimed documentary Budrus, has just released a series of short films which explore the people who make up this historic movement. From a Palestinian boy who has become active in the joint struggle to an American-born Israeli mother of two Jewish activists, Just Vision’s new film demonstrates the unique mélange of faces present every Friday peacefully demonstrating against Israeli occupation. If you have ever wondered what drives Israelis and Palestinians to jointly demonstrate against Israel’s occupation, this film is a great place to gain important insight.

Last week, Max Blumenthal and I published an article, based on extensive reporting, which described the core problems that we see in the tent protest movement. We argue that the separation principle and the form of cognitive dissonance which upholds it in Israeli society has been left untouched by the tent protests in an attempt to garner massive public support. Ultimately we claim that the tent protests are an example of the successful implementation of the separation principle in so far as they officially ignore the rights of all under Israeli rule.

More than two years ago, a social movement arose in Israel which has steadily grown despite incredible pressures from various forces. The Sheikh Jarrah Solidarity Movement, ostensibly embracing and acting for social justice through direct action, began in East Jerusalem as Israeli activists started to demonstrate in solidarity with Palestinians evicted from their homes by Israel in an attempt to solidify control over the conflicted city.

SJ Solidarity began as a reformulation of the Israeli left but its steadily rising numbers of Israeli participants over the years, many unfamiliar with political activism let alone Palestinian solidarity, have pushed it closer to the mainstream in Israel.

Many have been critical of SJ Solidarity, myself included, but there is little doubt that the movement is here to stay. Instead of harassing hope for a shared future with Palestinians through the deployment of flowery language of vague togetherness, Sheikh Jarrah has focused on action. It has been clear about its intentions, political positions and goals. After six weeks of unprecedented protests, it is time for the tent protesters to follow a similar program and define their political positions and, more importantly, their goals.

In the absence of concrete goals and positions, rifts have emerged between traditional partners over the tent protests. For the most part, Palestinians have been clear that a social justice movement that maintains official silence on the occupation is virtually impossible for them to support.

The occupation aside, some of the rifts created by the tent protests between Israelis and internationals, center on an important issue, Israeli normalcy. As seen in the emotional comments of my colleague Noam Shiezaf, the ability of Israelis to live as a normal people and exercise their right to hold political demonstrations about issues of their choosing is an important part of how the tent protests have been internalized in Israel. The tent protests are an example of this right in action. Therefore, the perceived rejection of this right  is akin to a personal attack and even as a rejection of Israeli identity in total. This is, perhaps, the most profound demonstration of the cognitive dissonance which Blumenthal and I address in our piece.

The demonstrators in SJ Solidarity, however implicitly, do not argue that Israel is a normal society. They argue for change, understanding that the actions of the Israeli government in occupied East Jerusalem are a symptom of a society anything but normal. Far from denying the Israeli right to normalcy; SJ Solidarity has, in practice, rejected the type of hopeful language employed by the tent protests in order to work on changing the issues which cause Israel’s normalcy problem.

A movement willing to suspend criticism and embrace forms of cognitive dissonance should and must be criticized using the existing social and political structures of the society. Papering over Israel’s dysfunctions with vague notions of social justice while lashing out at critics is not a recipe for a lasting revolution. The sooner that Israelis recognize this, the greater the prospects for a true revolution of consciousnesses inside Israeli society.  Hope left unfulfilled can result in tragic outcomes.

This is not a new story, it has been happening for years. We now have ultimate confirmation that this is what was happening behind closed doors. However, I am left with a lingering and specific question regarding the United States. During negotiations regarding Jerusalem, the Palestinian Authority was ready to give up part of the contentious East Jerusalem neighborhood of Sheikh Jarrah. Israel simply rejected the offer and began moving settlers into Palestinians homes in the neighborhood. Apparently the Israeli rationale was that the Palestinians were ready to give it up, might as well move settlers in, create facts on the ground and force them to ‘give up’ different territory. A simple land grab. What is striking is that the United States monitored this entire process. American officials were aware of the Palestinian offer and then watched in relative silence while Israel created a new settlement. Hilliary Clinton did deplore the actions of Israel in Sheikh Jarrah but the language was more tempered than that of the Europeans who literally watched the take over from their consulates in the neighborhood.

We are left with a number of revelations that are not surprising or new. Israel is not interested in an equitable two state solution, preferring a one state in which the Palestinians are controlled without democratic recourse. The Palestinian Authority is an effective instrument of Israeli occupation which is not representative of Palestinians. Finally, the United States is a dishonest broker who is acting like Israel’s lawyer and main supplier of aid. Again nothing new, now we just have concrete proof. These documents do not represent the death of the two state solution, they show that it never really began.