This commentary is by Michael M. Cohen, rabbi emeritus of the Israel Congregation in Manchester Center and a faculty member of the Arava Institute for Environmental Studies and Bennington College.
I would describe myself as a Zionist, but not pro-Israeli. One of the stumbling blocks preventing an agreement between Palestinians and Israelis are the pro-Palestinian and the pro-Israeli orientations of too many Israelis and Palestinians and their supporters. That bearing creates a closed-minded tendency about self-reflection and self-criticism.
If I am anything pro, it is pro working toward a just solution for Palestinians and Israelis. I place myself in the Albert Einstein, Ahad Ha’am camp of Zionism with its questioning eye vis-a-vis Jewish nationalism and, by extension, Arab nationalism as well as all nationalisms, including in the United States.
In 1920, in response to the Balfour Declaration, Ha’am wrote, “But this historic right (of the Jews) does not override the right of the other inhabitants (of the Palestinians), which is a tangible right based on generation after generation of life and work in the country. The country is at present their national home too, and they too have the right to develop their national potentialities as far as they are able.”
In 1891, six years before the first Zionist Congress, Ha’am spoke about the necessity for Zionists to take into account the reality of Palestinians living in the land.
Early in this conflict, the inability of both sides to understand the legitimacy, needs, and desires of the other created entrenched perceptions and patterns of mistrust, hate and violence that we see to this day.
Decade after decade, the search to end this conflict that answers the aspirations of Israelis and Palestinians continues to be elusive. In 1950, Ralph Bunche became the first African American Nobel Peace Prize Laureate for arranging the ceasefire between Israel and the Arab states, ending the war after the establishment of the modern state of Israel in 1948.
Since 2005, the Boycott, Divest, Sanctions (BDS) movement has tried its own approach to the conflict, stating it is “inspired by the South African anti-apartheid movement.” While many Israeli policies in the West Bank resemble apartheid, there is a difference between policies that may resemble apartheid and being an actual apartheid state, which Israel as a state is not. After the last Israeli elections, the Islamic party Ra’am held the balance of power for the establishment of a new Israeli government.
As a tactic, BDS does not advance peace. BDS only hardens the position of those Israelis, whose views on the occupation needs to be changed, when they see Israel denounced, more than any country in the world, at the UN and other international bodies. This plays into the centuries-old trope that it is OK to pick on Jews. And now the Jewish state.
Where are the resolutions and boycotts of the brutal Chinese occupation of Tibet or the Chinese discrimination of its Muslim minority, the Uyghurs? Similarly, where is the outcry about the discrimination and violence against the LGBT+ community in Iran?
Moreover, while boycotts were effective vis-a-vis South Africa to end apartheid, the BDS movement has failed when it comes to Israel and its policies vis-a-vis Palestinians. This is where BDS statements and actions fall short. In this case, BDS conflates two oppressions: South African blacks and Palestinians under Israeli rule. In doing so, it misses important nuances and differences. It does a disservice to both struggles, as not all oppressions are the same and, therefore, different responses are called for.
The 100+ Palestinian-Israeli People2People NGOs of the Alliance for Middle East Peace offer ways to change the dynamics of the conflict. Their work is essential and a potential game changer because it:
- Tills the soil by creating the conditions for an agreement that has the support of both peoples.
- Gives the leadership on both sides the backbone for difficult choices they will need to make.
- Creates a dynamic that will be able to withstand the backlash to an agreement that will come from both Israeli and Palestinian extremists.
One of the greatest challenges those organizations face is being heard. Pete Seeger wrote on his banjo, “This Machine Surrounds Hate and Forces It to Surrender.” The forces of violence, hate and division are much better at being heard. The song of peace, goodwill and cooperation must be amplified to sing much louder.
To that end, the Burlington City Council should consider adopting organizations of the Alliance for Middle East Peace, such as the Arava Institute for Environmental Studies, with its Vermont connections, and the Jerusalem Peacebuilders, based in Brattleboro.
What we need when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not more separations, which have only increased mistrust and hate. Rather, there needs to be support raising the profile of those brave organizations that create constructive contacts, where trust and understanding have a chance to grow. Where difficult questions are raised. Where passions can be wedded to compassion.
Hubert Humphrey said, “Peace is not passive, it is active. Peace is not appeasement, it is strength. Peace does not ‘happen,’ it requires work.” BDS does not advance the work of peace. The truer path to resolving this conflict is through those Palestinians and Israelis engaged in their extremely hard work on the grassroots level.
