Dear TEE community,

Over the past month of warfare in Israel and Palestine, I have been reading and listening to a wide variety of newspapers, articles, emails, and podcasts. I would describe most of them as offering more heat than light but there are two that have made me think differently about the situation and I want to share their insights with you.

The first is an article in The New York Times by Peter Beinart, a journalism professor and contributor to many national publications (Opinion – Guest Essay – There Is a Jewish Hope for Palestinian Liberation. It Must Survive). In the piece, he contrasts the approach and success of the African National Conference (ANC) in South Africa with the approach and lack of success on the part of Palestinians seeking a state. One significant difference between the two movements was the ANC’s early disavowal of violence against civilians. Nelson Mandela and the leaders of the anti-apartheid movement did not renounce armed struggle. They were clear, however, that harming civilians would not help their cause and reined in any rogue actors who tried to do so in their name.

In contrast, despite a long history of nonviolent actions, beginning in 1936, Palestinian liberation movements, came to public attention through actions such as hijackings and bus bombings. This quickly led them to be seen as terrorists. In 2005, when Palestinian civil society organizations called for boycott, sanctions, and divestment (BDS) from Israel along the South African model, they did not receive the same international support. not having acquired the goodwill the ANC had. I believe that it was also because the goals of the BDS movement were not as clear. The ANC was seeking to dismantle apartheid and bring democracy and civil rights to all the citizens of South Africa. They did not call for the overthrow of the country itself. In contrast, it is unclear from official statements or those of BDS supporters whether their goal is an end to the occupation or an end to the State of Israel.

Another comparison Beinart raises, is with the conflict in Northern Ireland. This is discussed more extensively by Guardian journalist, Jonathan Freedland, in a recent podcast he co-hosts with Yonit Levi of Israel’s Channel 12 news called “Unholy: Two Jews on the News.” Freedland covered the Northern Ireland peace process and Good Friday Agreement and he notes that the key to conflict resolution in such a situation is to support those who are willing to negotiate and isolate the extremists. While the IRA still exists, it has become marginalized and no longer plays the role in Irish politics it once did.

Unfortunately, the resistance to a Palestinian state on the part of successive Israeli governments led them to do the opposite. Rather than support and fully fund the secular, moderate Palestinian Authority, Prime Minister Netanyahu built up Hamas, seeing in the rivalry between the two an opportunity to stymie Palestinian unity. In March 2019 he oversaw an arrangement for Qatar to regularly transfer funds to Hamas, and was quoted by the Jerusalem Post as saying, “‘whoever is against a Palestinian state should be for’ transferring the funds to Gaza, because maintaining a separation between the PA in the West Bank and Hamas in Gaza helps prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state.” A recent op-ed article in the Times of Israel notes, “Most of the time, Israeli policy was to treat the Palestinian Authority as a burden and Hamas as an asset…Bezalel Smotrich, now the finance minister in the hardline government and leader of the Religious Zionism party, said so himself in 2015.” The most devastating point that Freedland makes is that because Hamas has no concern at all for deaths among the civilian Palestinian population, they intentionally provoked an Israeli response that would lend global sympathy to their cause. And Israel responded just as Hamas wanted them to.

The reason I’ve been thinking about these two pieces is absolutely not to blame the Israeli government for the horrendous Hamas attack last month. Rather, I believe they point the way to something significant we can do in response to current events. Like the successful conflict resolution paradigm modeled in Northern Ireland, we need to strengthen the reasonable voices among Jews and Israelis and seek out those in the Palestinian and Muslim communities with whom to make common cause. At the same time, we must do all we can to sideline and marginalize the voices of hate and extremism, especially within our own Jewish community. On the most basic level, this involves refraining from social media posts or emails that demonize “the other side” (or even see human beings as “the other side”). It means reading a wide range of sources to understand what is going on, including literature and history written from a Palestinian as well as Israeli perspective. Finally, it means acknowledging our fear and choosing to act out of hope.

Close to my neighborhood in Seattle was a beautiful mural depicting the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. It included a quotation he adapted from the Hindu text, The Bhagavad Gita, which has become a central moral guide for me: “Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hatred cannot drive out hatred; only love can do that.” Let us drive out darkness and hate with light and love.

Rabbi Drorah Setel

In addition to The New York Times and the Guardian, here are some other places I’m getting a range of perspectives about Israel and Palestine:

+972 Magazine: https://www.972mag.com/

Al Jazeera: https://www.aljazeera.com/

The Forward: https://forward.com/

Jewish Currents: https://jewishcurrents.org/

Mosaic: https://mosaicmagazine.com/

Sapir Journal: https://sapirjournal.org/

Tablet Magazine: https://www.tabletmag.com/

The Times of Israel: https://www.timesofisrael.com/