As a progressive Jew, I find myself compelled in part by Spencer Burger’s column in last week’s edition of the Maroon to point out the all-too-frequent polarization of debate about the Israeli-Arab conflict. What he and, by extension, the Chicago Friends of Israel (CFI), in addition to Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), argue, sometimes tacitly, sometimes explicitly, is that the other organization always uses “propaganda” and “demagogues” to support their views and that one’s opinion on the conflict must fully align with one of the groups’ positions. This tone of discourse is pernicious and virulent and undermines any hope of respectful, constructive dialogue. I aim to express an alternate point of view shared by many others, one that does not so much stand in opposition to the CFI and SJP as it stands in favor of a pragmatic and peaceful approach to constructive dialogue about the issue.
What the CFI and SJP both fail to acknowledge is that like any contentious issue, constructing a false dichotomy in the conflict is both disingenuous and dangerous. Faced with the choices available on campus, a student might conclude that a “pro-Israel message” (part of the mission statement of CFI) and “justice in Palestine” are mutually exclusive. This conclusion is counterproductive and regrettable, to understate. In fact, there exists rampant extremism on all sides of the issue. For every Mads Gilbert or Hamas, there is an Alan Dershowitz who advocates the wholesale destruction of Palestinian villages or an Avigdor Lieberman who calls for Arab Israelis to sign forced loyalty oaths to Israel as a Jewish state (a plan The Economist called “unabashedly racist”). Criticism of rival organizations for their choices of panelists is therefore fundamentally flawed if it is not accompanied by denouncement of the extremism to which one might be more sympathetic.
Furthermore, there is no such thing as a singular “pro-Israel” attitude. As a Jew, for instance, I can testify to the fragmentation of opinion about Israel within the North American Jewish community. Organizations like J Street and the Union of Progressive Zionists have sprung up in response to the mounting discontent of Jews with traditional hard-line points of view, working hard to communicate a message of tolerance and coexistence in Washington and on campuses nationwide, respectively. Often, the pro-peace message of these and other organizations is denounced as somehow “anti-Israel,” as if “pro-Israel” necessarily signifies unconditional support of the Israeli government’s policies and a disregard of the legitimate grievances of the Palestinian people. Am I “anti-Israel” if I believe that the country’s Bedouin population has been treated abysmally, that the recent rise in Israeli Defense Forces T-shirts printed with violent and racist messages is despicable, and that pamphlets framing the Gaza war as a “religious war” recently distributed by religious nationalists are incompatible with a democratic and just state? To answer a rhetorical question: No. I am simply critically evaluating Israeli society, a culture with which I identify to some degree (if it seems that the bulk of my criticism is directed at the CFI, this is why) and engaging in the process of free expression of ideas in search of a better future. Similarly, it appears as if SJP is adopting the same tack in failing to engage in public constructive dialogue. These practices discount differing opinions and as such do not adequately confront the issue. Thus, by implicitly positioning “justice in Palestine” as diametrically opposed to a “pro-Israel” attitude, both organizations further alienate Jews and non-Jews alike who already feel dispossessed about the tone of discourse on campus and in the media at large.
Perhaps it is most important, then, to note that the CFI, or rather its public face put forth in the events it chooses to sponsor and in its reactions in the media instead of its stated mission statement, does not by any means reflect the beliefs of all Jews. Many Jews would agree, for example, that it is understandable, given context, that Hamas institutionalizes anti-Jewish hate in its charter. Instead of solely condemning this practice, we should instead work to address the root issues that lead to such a characterization. We do not all believe that Palestinians are living stereotypes focused single-mindedly on terrorism or that Israel’s policies are beyond criticism. There are many of us who believe strongly that a peaceful coexistence between Israel and its neighbors can be reached without demonization and gradual yet definite dehumanization of the Palestinian people and Islam. Progressive and moderate Jews and anyone else who supports free and open speech but feels alienated by intolerant views should stand in solidarity against dangerous extremism. What is truly important is the active pursuit of a respectful, sustainable, and peaceful understanding, not clouding the issue with shrill accusations of bias. Another voice exists—quiet now, but alive and growing stronger.
Simon Wiener is a first-year in the College. He is a member of the Labor Zionist youth movement Habonim Dror and plans to spend the next academic year in its Workshop program in Israel.
Read this article and others relevant to places near you with the Chicago Maroon iPhone App. Also view upcoming campus events and find free food within walking distance.
Discussion