JDG Deliberation Guide - December 2012

GUIDEBOOK FOR DELIBERATION ABOUT THE ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN CONFLICT
WRITTEN By MITCH CHANIN & REBECCA ENNEN

EDITION #1 DECEMBER 2012
Guidebook for Deliberation about the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict by Mitch Chanin and Rebecca Ennen Published by: Jewish Dialogue Group PO Box 34726 Philadelphia, PA 19101 info@jewishdialogue.org Jewish Dialogue Group, 2012
The Guidebook is licensed with a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 License. Electronic and printed copies may be distributed free of charge. However, the document must be distributed in its entirety, and not excerpted. The image on the cover was created by www.tagxedo.com. It is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 License.
Contents
About the Jewish Dialogue Group & Acknowledgments..........................................................................3 Introduction to the Deliberation Project....................................................................................................4 About the First Edition: What is Contained Here and Why?....................................................................5 Approach #1: Peace for Peace, Not Land For Peace: Support Jewish Rights in the Whole Land of Israel..........................................................................................................................................................7 Approach #2: Take the Lead from Israel: Support Israel's Pragmatic Choices about Negotiation and Self-Defense.............................................................................................................................................15 Approach #3: Pro-Israel, Pro-Palestine, Pro-Peace: Challenge and Support Both Parties to Achieve a Two-State Solution................................................................................................................................23 Approach #4: Equality and Justice in Israel/Palestine: Advocate for Palestinian Rights and Work for Creative Solutions....................................................................................................................................31 Appendix #1: Choosing a Name for the Guidebook: Proposed Alternative Titles..................................39 Appendix #2: Additional Materials We Plan to Create............................................................................40
About the Jewish Dialogue Group The Jewish Dialogue Group is a grassroots organization that works to foster constructive dialogue within Jewish communities about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and other challenging issues. Our board members, staff, and volunteers have a wide range of political views. As an organization, we do not take positions on any issues, but focus solely on helping people to talk with each other in useful ways across differences. JDG organizes and facilitates structured dialogue programs in synagogues, colleges, and other venues across North America. Participants learn about each other's views; reflect on their experiences, feelings, and ideas; explore difficult questions; grapple with their differences and seek common ground; and strengthen their communication skills. JDG also empowers people to lead programs of their own by training facilitators, creating publications, and providing advice to individuals and organizations. The Guidebook for Deliberation is our second major publication. Together with the Public Conversations Project, we published a manual for facilitating dialogue programs in 2006, Constructive Conversations about the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. It is available to download free of charge through our website. For more information, visit www.jewishdialogue.org or email info@jewishdialogue.org.
Acknowledgments We are enormously grateful to all of the volunteers who have helped to create the guidebook, including: Orit Arfa, Jesse Bacon, Rabbi Joseph Berman, Sukey Blanc, Dan Brooks, Brad Brooks-Rubin, Alexis Buss, Rabbi Reba Carmel, Harvey Chanin, Jan Chanin, Katherine Cohen, Kirsten D'Aurelio, Patty Dineen, Aviva Joffe, Rachel Eryn Kalish, Austin Kelley, Josh Klemons, Adam Levick, Rachie Lewis, Carinne Luck, Josh Nason, Mariana Pardes, Beth Perry, Rhoda Posner Pruce, Jim Rosenstein, Danielle Selber, and Rebecca Subar. We are also grateful to our Contributing Editor, Leslie Hilgeman. Thank you also to our dedicated interns: Thea Berthoff, Rachel Braun, Jennifer Brown, Emily Carton, Michelle Fauber, Samantha Levine, Jillian Lipson, Mila Marvizon, Molly Moses, Jessie Posilkin, Emma Pulido, Brian Reeves, and Lauren Stern. We also thank all of the generous donors who have provided financial support for this project, including the Diane and Norman Bernstein Foundation, the Kibbutz Langdon Foundation, the Oreg Foundation, and the Sparkplug Foundation. Special thanks to David Lerman, of blessed memory, for his generous encouragement and support.
Jewish Dialogue Group, Philadelphia, PA 2012
Introduction to the Deliberation Project The Jewish Dialogue Group (JDG) is pleased to share the first edition of our new Guidebook for Deliberation about the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. The guide is designed to help Jews across the United States explore the choices they face as they consider how to respond to the conflict. We hope that Jews in other locations will find the guide helpful as well. What Is the Deliberation Guidebook? The guidebook describes four alternative responses to the question, How can Jews in the United States respond ethically and effectively to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Each response recommends a different set of actions and explains some of the hopes, values, principles, and interpretations of history and current events behind that approach. The four responses reflect a wide range of ideas and concerns that are discussed within Jewish communities, across the political spectrum. How Can the Guidebook Be Used? JDG and other organizations and individuals across the country will use the guide to conduct deliberation programsstructured conversations that give people a systematic way to explore the choices they face when considering how to respond to this controversial issue. Participants will: share their stories, experiences, feelings, and ideas about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict learn about the varied perspectives described in the guidebook clarify their values, concerns, and priorities explore challenging ethical and intellectual questions weigh their options for action, and consider ways to explore these issues in the future These programs will be facilitated in a way that creates a supportive, non-adversarial environment and fosters respect and mutual understanding. Some deliberation programs will be one-time events; others will involve multiple meetings over a period of weeks. In addition, we expect that many people will study the guide on their own and discuss it informally, without participating in structured programs. Next Steps for the Guidebook In the coming months, we plan to publish additional materials for use in deliberation. They include: a facilitator packet that will contain step-by-step instructions for leading deliberation programs, along with background information about the practice of deliberation supplements that describe the perspectives presented here in greater detail a companion website that will allow readers to deepen their learning by following links to articles, blogs, maps, and other resources
We also update this document as needed. If you would like to be notified when updates and new will materials become available, please join our email list. Visit: www.jewishdialogue.org. Note about Distribution: We welcome you to use and distribute this guidebook free of charge. If you wish to do so, please distribute the entire document rather than excerpting sections. Comments or Questions? We would value your feedback and suggestions. Please also let us know if you have any questions or if you would like to bring a JDG facilitator to lead a program in your community. Contact us at info@jewishdialogue.org.
4
About the First Edition: What Is Included and Why?

This document presents four short chapters that lay out alternative answers to the question: How can Jews in the United States respond ethically and effectively to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? We have formulated these approaches by consulting with Jews who have widely varied backgrounds and political perspectives, including activists, scholars, and leaders. There are many more than four ways to answer this question. It may be helpful to think of the four approaches as sections of a spectrum. Each exists in relation to the others, and comparing each option to the others can help you gain a better understanding of the spectrum as a whole. Each person who cares about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will respond somewhat differently. Our goal is not to fully describe the entire range of potential responses; instead, we hope to illustrate some of the most important choices that people make and some of the major factors that lead to those choices. We have written each chapter from a first-person perspective, as a collective we, rather than from a third-person standpoint. This makes it easier to convey the passions that shape each approach. The terminology used in each chapter and the titles that we have written for each chapter reflect the views of people who support that particular approach. Why These Four Approaches? We have chosen to present four approaches, rather than three or five, because this arrangement allows us to offer a framework for deliberation that is both complex and relatively easy to absorb. We do not suggest that each approach is supported by one quarter of the Jewish American population. Some of these ideas are held more widely than others. In order to foster thorough deliberation, we believe it is important to include approaches that are supported by smaller numbers of people, as well as approaches that are more widely advocated. Each approach that we have included plays an important role in conversations among Jews in the United States about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Proponents of each option share a concern for Jewish people's safety and well-being. However, they differ dramatically from one another in many other ways. We expect that everyone who reads this document will identify with some of the ideas that they encounter here, disagree with others, and find some highly objectionable and perhaps even dangerous. Many readers may find themselves identifying with parts of multiple approaches. Differences within Each Approach One of the goals of the guidebook is to illustrate how people with different beliefs and commitments may make similar decisions about the conflict. For example, each option has supporters who identify as religious, as well as supporters who identify as secular. The four chapters are composites. Each speaks in the voice of people whose backgrounds and ideas may vary in significant ways, but who share some key values and assumptions, and who therefore make similar decisions about important questions. In this first edition, we have briefly sketched a few differences within each approach; the additional materials that we plan to create will explore these differences more fully.
Each chapter includes four sub-sections: A. General Description Each chapter begins with a two-page abstract. These abstracts provide basic descriptions of the issue as seen by proponents of each approach, suggest actions to take, and outline some of the hopes, fears, values, and beliefs that motivate each approach. Each abstract presents different factual claims and different interpretations of history and current events. The additional materials that we plan to publish will describe the ideas and values behind each approach in greater depth. They will also provide references for some of the claims presented here, in order to help readers assess evidence and form their own judgments. B. Trade-Offs and Risks Following each abstract, you will find descriptions of some of the trade-offs and risks that proponents of that approach are willing to accept. A trade-off is a negative outcome that proponents believe they must accept in order to achieve the goals that are most important to them. It can be thought of as a necessary evil or a sacrifice that they are willing to make. A risk is a negative outcome that proponents believe may or may not result from the actions that they propose. Some risks seem to have a higher degree of probability than others. In some cases, the guide briefly explains why proponents accept a particular trade-off or risk, or mentions strategies that they use to offset these negative consequences. These sections of the document do not describe the risks and trade-offs that critics of each approach perceive, but only risks and trade-offs as understood by advocates of that approach. C. Choices within the Choice The guidebook also lays out some controversies that exist within each approach. People who agree in general about which approach to pursue may disagree about particular strategies or tactics, or have somewhat different visions of the future. We can only mention these choices within the choice briefly here, but they will receive more attention in the additional materials that we plan to publish. D. Organizations to Consider Finally, each chapter describes ten organizations that readers can join or support in order to take action in the ways that are recommended in that chapter. The groups that we have listed address multiple dimensions of the issue, through a variety of means. We have written each description from the perspective of people who support the approach described in that chapter, rather than quoting the organizations' official self-descriptions. Our goal is not to provide an exhaustive catalog or to categorize the organizations precisely, but just to provide concrete examples of how people take action. While proponents of each approach believe that the groups listed in their chapter do valuable work, the organizations may not endorse all of the ideas that are advocated in the chapter in which they appear. Some organizations could have been listed in two or more chapters, rather than only one. In addition, the organizations listed in each chapter may disagree with one another about a variety of questions. We hope that these lists will help to illustrate the diversity of views within each approach. Appendices After the four chapters, there are two brief appendices: a list of alternative titles that have been suggested for the guidebook, and a list of the additional materials that we plan to publish.
(Approach 1) Peace for Peace, Not Land For Peace: Support Jewish Rights in the Whole Land of Israel
Israel belongs to the Jewish people. We lived there independently for hundreds of years before the land was conquered and most of our people were exiled and scattered. Jewish people have continuously inhabited the land for the past 3,000 years, whether thriving in a sovereign state or struggling to survive in small numbers under oppressive foreign rule. Over the past 100 years, religious and non-religious Zionists have together built a vibrant Jewish state, fulfilling a shared vision for the rebirth of a persecuted, scattered people as an independent, strong nation, able to defend itself, at home in its own land. Some of us believe that we were given the Land of Israel by G-d, and that our return is part of the process of the redemption of the world. Others view Israel's history in non-religious terms, simply seeing Israel as the result of the courageous efforts of Jewish people working to assert our rights. After suffering persecution for centuriesincluding discrimination, pogroms, ghettos, expulsion, and attempted genocidewe know that we must defend ourselves first because we cannot count on others to protect us. In order to be secure, Israel must retain sovereignty over Jerusalem and all of Judea and Samaria, the West Bank territories that Israel regained during a defensive war in 1967. Many of us also believe we have a religious obligation to ensure that these territories, which are the historic heartlands of ancient Israel and the location of many of our holiest sites, remain part of our state. Though Jewish people wish to live in peace, Arab and Muslim societies are rife with violent antiSemitism. Since Israel's founding, more than 25,000 Jewish citizens have been killed as result of Arab and Muslim wars of aggression and terrorism. Millions of people are committed to the destruction of Israelterrorist leaders, clerics, government officials, and ordinary civilians. Israel's enemies have a variety of belief-systems, including chauvinistic forms of political Islam, Arab nationalism, and Marxism. They are united by the goal of reclaiming the land and subjugating or expelling the Jewish population. Their false accounts of history deny our claim to the land, vilify us as bloodthirsty conquerors, and celebrate Arabs and Muslims as the land's true owners. Even leaders who present themselves as pragmatic compromisers deny that we have a right to live in an independent Jewish state. Over the past decades, the Israeli government has made territorial concessions that have undermined the safety of Israel and of Jews worldwide. Fear, corruption, exhaustion, ignorance, misdirected empathy for Israel's enemies, and pressure from the US and Europe have led many Israeli and Diaspora Jews to support these concessions. There is a danger of further capitulation now, as the U.S. government and other forces pressure Israel to withdraw from Judea and Samaria, divide Jerusalem, and expel hundreds of thousands of Jews from their homes to make way for an Arab Palestinian state. Israel has no ethical, legal, or practical reason to give up land. Palestinian Arabs never had an independent state in the Land of Israel. They only began to consider themselves Palestinians, a nation apart from other Arabs, in the past few decades. Despite their claims to be the indigenous people of the land, many Palestinian Arabs are descendants of people who migrated to Israel less than a century ago. The withdrawal of the Israeli army from Judea and Samaria would give our enemies the means to intensify their war against Israel. The disastrous outcome of Israel's 2005 withdrawal from Gaza provides a demonstration of what would likely happen: the political empowerment of violent extremists, the importation and manufacture of huge quantities of weapons, and rocket attacks on Israeli civilians. Terrorist militias could operate unimpeded in the heart of Israel's territory,
compounding the dangers that Israel faces from terrorist forces on its Gaza and Lebanon borders. Such a withdrawal would also be a serious defeat in the psychological aspect of this war. The expulsion of Jews from lands that have so much historical, religious, and military value would demonstrate that we are not serious about defending our rights. Accepting a framework that declares that Arabs have a right to Jewish land validates false claims about history and calls into question the very existence of the state. Demands to freeze the growth of Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria are dangerous as well. While these settlements are often maligned as obstacles to peace, in reality their continued development makes peace more likely by demonstrating our confidence and strength. Eventually, the Israeli government may be able to give Arab residents of Judea and Samaria more opportunities to manage their own affairs and ease the security measures currently in place. Arab residents must first demonstrate that they are ready, by renouncing violence, giving up false claims about history, and changing their culture and educational system to stop anti-Semitic incitement. Similarly, the 1.5 million Arabs who are citizens of Israel must accept living as a protected minority in a Jewish state. Those who work for Israel's destruction should face sanctions, including forfeiting citizenship. Ultimately, Israel is not responsible for solving the problems of the Palestinian Arabs. There are 22 Arab states and only one Jewish state. Arabs who are not willing to live in peace within the Jewish state should be encouraged to move elsewhere. A secure peace may be a long way off, but we know that it can be attained only through courageous self-defense and perseverance, not surrender. We cannot imagine any circumstances in which ceding land would bring peace, even for a short time. However, assuming hypothetically that some of our enemies came to desire a territorial compromise, there could still be no guarantee of lasting peace. Throughout Jewish history, periods of acceptance and safety have been followed by renewed hostility and oppression. It would be wrong to sacrifice land that has so much value for our security and that is so important religiously and culturally in exchange for a temporary and partial cessation of violence. It is our responsibility to demonstrate our support for Israel at every opportunity, especially when the country is attacked, whether with terrorist violence, biased and fallacious media criticism, boycotts and divestment campaigns (BDS), or nuclear threats. We should call on the U.S. government to support Israel unequivocally as a Jewish state with defensible borders, to reject the creation of a Palestinian state, and cease providing funds to the Palestinian Authority. As calls to boycott Israel grow louder, we should vigorously oppose them. It is important to purchase Israeli products, invest in Israeli companies, donate to Israeli organizations, and visit and volunteer in Israel as often as possible. Many of us feel we should focus in particular on supporting Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria, and East Jerusalem. We must be ready to critique the Israeli government for actions that endanger Jewish life, weaken the state, or violate the integrity of the land. We should speak out against calls for ceding land, whether they come from political leaders in Israel, U.S. politicians, or American Jewish community leaders. Israel's success has resulted from bold action, self-reliance, and confidence. We must continue to put forward a hopeful vision of a strong, whole Israel, and to teach fellow Jews about the historical, ethical, and religious underpinnings of our approach. When fellow Jews become complacent, cynical, afraid, or exhausted, we should inspire them to find strength and courage. We encourage Aliyahor immigration to Israel. We also encourage Jews who continue to live in the US to forge the strongest possible ties with Israel, which is our homeland just as much as the country in which we now live.
8
Trade-Offs and Risks We Are Willing to Accept 1. While Israel's sovereignty is critically important, we have a responsibility as Jews in the US to oppose the Israeli government's concessions to its enemies and other self-destructive actions. Israel's government and political system, like those everywhere, are imperfect. Many of us believe that they are deeply flawed. The government too often fails to adequately defend the lives and interests of the Israeli people. It is also important to recognize that the Israeli society is not a closed system. Israeli officials and voters are influenced by many outside actorsforeign donors to Israeli political parties, Israeli non-governmental organizations that are supported by U.S. foundations and European governments, pressure from the United Nations, and more. These influences play an important role in generating policies that endanger Jewish lives and violate the integrity of the land. For these reasons, we are willing to speak out against government decisions with which we disagree, and we support organizations in Israel that challenge these policies. In addition, many believe it is important to support Israelis who take the risk to violate unwise and unjust laws imposed by the government. Those Israelis who build in Jerusalem, Judea, and Samaria without government authorization deserve our financial, political, and moral support. We recognize that as Jews who choose to live in the Diaspora, we cannot always understand the realities of Israeli life in exactly the way that Israeli do, and we do not have to live with the consequences of our actions in the same way that Israelis will. Nevertheless, we strive to take principled positions that serve the best interests of Israel and the Jewish people worldwide. 2. We regret the suffering of Palestinian Arabs in the conflict, though we believe it is inevitable for now. The suffering of Palestinian Arabs results from a conflict in which the Arab side is the aggressor. However, not every Palestinian Arab is equally responsible, and some are innocent. While many participate enthusiastically in hostile actions, others accept them passively or reluctantly. Dissenters who oppose such actions are ignored, silenced, or even killed. In addition, terrorists deliberately hide behind civilians and civilian infrastructure. No matter how much care the Israeli military takes to avoid causing unnecessary injury or death to innocents, Palestinians who are not directly responsible for harming our people will suffer. Finally, it is important to note that Palestinian Arabs are oppressed and manipulated by their own leaders, as well as by leaders of Arab states. These leaders perpetuate Palestinian Arabs' suffering in order to justify their campaigns against Israel, and they use Israel as a scapegoat to deflect attention from their own corruption and the ills of their own societies. We do not all agree about what ethical obligations we have to Palestinians Arabs, but many of us believe that it is important to seek a course of action that minimizes their suffering. 3. Some of us see a trade-off between the values of equality and diversity and the values of Jewish sovereignty and the integrity of the land. As American Jews, some of us perceive a tension between our ideal vision for the US, as a multicultural and pluralistic society, and our hopes for Israel as a country that is both a Jewish homeland and democratic state. It is critically important that Israel remain a country in which the Jewish people governs itself. In order to ensure the physical safety of the Jewish people and the
integrity and flourishing of Jewish culture, Israel must retain a large Jewish majority. We have different views about what status should be accorded to Israel's Arab minorityboth Arab citizens of Israel and non-citizens who reside in Judea and Samaria. Arab and Jewish citizens are treated equally in most ways, but most of us believe that Arabs cannot be accorded exactly the same status as Jewish Israelis. For example, Israel must impose immigration restrictions that limit the ability of Arab citizens to bring family members who live outside Israel to join them. In addition, Israel must maintain land policies that reserve sufficient territory for current and future Jewish inhabitants. Most of us believe that it would be unwise and dangerous for Israel to give citizenship to all of the Arab residents of Judea or Samaria. 4. We are willing to live with hostility and criticism, and we cannot compromise our most important values and goals in order to win the favor of inconsistent allies. We know that our commitment to a Jewish state that encompasses the whole Land of Israel is considered by many peopleincluding some strong supporters of Israelto be unrealistic, unwise, or even immoral. We expect that the continued development of Jewish communities throughout Judea, Samaria, and Jerusalem may create significant strains in the relationship between the US and Israel. Despite our best efforts as advocates, the U.S. government might one day respond by canceling some of its aid to Israel or withdrawing diplomatic support. Some pro-Israel advocates in the US might waver in their advocacy, because of their misguided attachment to the false promise of land for peace or because they give in to social pressure. We believe that our unwavering commitment to defending Israel will attract and inspire allies who we can truly count on. In the short-term, however, Israel may come to feel more isolated as some less reliable allies fall away. It is necessary to accept these risks. It would be riskier to appease people who are motivated by hatred, or to compromise core values in order to accommodate unreliable alliesespecially if their support is based on convenience and self-interest rather than principle. Israel's founding and survival have been possible only because an activist minority of Jews took decisive action in the face of anti-Semitism, indifference, and fearful calls for moderation. We should make our case as persuasively as we can, seeking to win people to our side and shift public opinion. However, we must also be ready to act in defiance of others' opinions when necessary. 5. While we value Jewish unity, we are willing to accept strained relationships with other Jews who see us as unrealistic or unethical. We recognize that conflict will inevitably result when it is necessary to condemn Jewish organizations and individuals whose actions harm Israel. In 2005, when most moderate pro-Israel organizations called for supporting the Israeli government's plan to withdraw from Gaza, we spoke out against this self-destructive policy, and we criticized the Jewish organizations that actively endorsed or passively accepted it. Though we were called extremists and attacked for our principled stand, we believe that history has vindicated our choice. We recognize that we share many values and goals with these organizations, and we seek to uphold alliances across political differences. However, we must be ready to oppose and critique their actions whenever necessary. In addition, we must be ready to strongly criticize Jewish organizations that actively seek to weaken or undermine Israeleven at the cost of serious ruptures within the community.
10
Choices Within the Choice 1. Should we advocate for a specific plan for resolving the conflict? Some of us believe that Israel should implement a comprehensive plan for resolving aspects of the conflictone that preserves Israel as a Jewish state that encompasses the core of its historic land and increases security while also addressing Palestinian Arabs' humanitarian needs. Several plans have been proposed. Most would require dramatic shifts in Israeli and U.S. diplomatic strategies, large-scale public relations campaigns, and redirecting billions of dollars of aid funding. A few proposals include: Annexation of the regions of Judea and Samaria that are inhabited primarily by Jews, but not major Arab population centers. The Israeli Stability Initiative (proposed by Naftali Bennett, head of Israel's Jewish Home party) calls for Israel to formally annex the regions of Judea and Samaria where virtually all Jewish residents live, as well as other areas of great importance about 60% of the territory. The 50,000 Arabs who live in those areas would be offered Israeli citizenship. The much larger number of Arabs who live in population centers areas that are not annexed would have substantial self-government rights and could move freely throughout the territory. Israel would retain full control over the external borders of Judea and Samaria. Full annexation of Judea and Samaria, plus a treaty to enable Arab residents to become Jordanian citizens. The Israeli Initiative, proposed by former parliament member Benny Elon, call for Israel to form an agreement with Jordan that allows Arabs in Judea and Samaria to gain Jordanian citizenship while remaining in their homes as legal permanent residents of Israel. (Already now, a majority of Jordanians identify as Palestinian. Proponents of this option believe that Arabs in Judea and Samaria should therefore exercise their right to self-determination as citizens of Jordan, though we do not wish to compel them to leave their homes.) The Palestinian Authority and other armed groups in Judea and Samaria would be dismantled. UNRWA, the UN agency that perpetuates the refugee status of millions of Palestinian Arabs, would be shut down. An international aid program would help those refugeesincluding people who live in Judea and Samaria, Gaza, Lebanon, and other locationsto build prosperous lives in other countries. Annexation of all of Judea and Samaria, with an offer of Israeli citizenship to the Arab residents. Several leaders in Israel's Likud Party, as well as Israeli civil society and religious leaders, have begun to advocate this option. There are several plans, each with different timeframes and different procedures for excluding individual Arabs who present a serious security risk. Some demographers report that while Israel's Jewish birthrate is increasing and immigration continues, the Arab birthrate is falling. In addition, some argue that Arab leaders have drastically inflated estimates of the Arab population of Judea and Samaria in order to scare Israel into giving up land. In light of current data and population trends, we believe Israel can now grant citizenship to Arabs in Judea and Samaria while retaining a Jewish majority. Some advocates favor one plan in particular, while others work to foster debate about a range of options. On the other hand, many of us feel that none of these plans are likely to succeed in the foreseeable future. Rather than seeking a solution to Israel's problems, we should simply focus on defending ourselves and strengthening Israel. Pursuing an unrealistic comprehensive solution could distract us from these urgent responsibilities. In addition, efforts to promote any of these options might exacerbate international hostility and generate more conflict among Jews. Once we have achieved greater strength and security, Israel may be in a better position to consider long-term options.
11
2. How should we relate to Israel's Arab citizens? We have different views about how Israel should relate to its Arab citizens (about 20% of the citizenry). Some of us believe that we should encourage Arab citizens to integrate as fully as possible into Israel, and that Jewish and Arab Israelis can and should co-exist with mutual respect. At the same time, it is important to restrict those Arab Israeli groups and individuals that support Israel's enemies and seek to overturn the Jewish state. Others of us would like to see the Jewish percentage of the population be as large as possible and believe that we should encourage Arab emigration rather than integration. 3. Should we support proposals to remove Arab residents from Israel? Most of us do not believe that forcibly expelling large numbers of Arabs residents (citizens and/or noncitizens) would be an ethical or practical way to protect Israel, except under extreme circumstances. If attempted, it would likely provoke intense violent resistance by Palestinian Arabs, protest and civil disobedience by large numbers of Jewish Israelis, attack by neighboring states, and international sanctions. This strategy should be considered only if a full-scale violent uprising of Arab Israelis in combination with attack from outside were to threaten the survival of the state. On the other hand, some of us believe that expulsion could be ethical and practical in a wider range of situations, and that Israel should consider employing this strategy proactively. 4. What policies should we advocate to address the threats posed by terrorists in Gaza? We believe that it was unwise and unethical for the Israeli government to expel Jewish residents and withdraw the army from the Gaza Strip in 2005. However, we have different views about how Israel should respond to the attacks and threats emanating from Gaza now. We see two main possibilities: ContainmentSome of us believe that Israel's current defense policies are appropriate: using the air force to destroy rocket launchers and kill or incapacitate terrorists who are planning attacks; implementing missile defense systems to shoot down incoming rockets; and conducting a blockade to restrict the ability of terrorists to import weapons and military materials. We do not believe it is feasible for Israel to achieve a decisive, lasting victory over Hamas and other terrorist groups in Gaza in the near term, but only to contain the threats they pose. Decisive VictoryOthers believe Israel should act much more assertively. We criticize Israel's government for failing to take decisive action and the US for pressuring Israel to sign truces with enemies rather than defeating them. We have different views about which strategies might be most effective. Options include: tightening the blockade to better restrict importation of dangerous materials; cutting off fuel and electricity in order to force terrorist groups to surrender, or to induce the population to rise up against them; working more intensively to root out terrorist leaders, using air power and ground troops; and restoring a long-term IDF presence in Gaza. Proponents of containment believe that attempts to overthrow or fully defeat Hamas would put too many Israeli soldiers and civilians in danger. More intensive military action would also kill or injure more Arab civilians. In addition, a dramatically tightened blockade would cause greater harm to civilians, damage Israel's image, and possibly lead to more serious conflict with the US or other world powers. On the other hand, proponents of decisive action believe that containment leaves too many Israelis vulnerable to attack and makes Israel appear weak. More assertive policies would involve risks, but those are preferable to the risks of allowing these threats to continue.
12
Organizations to Consider 1. Zionist Organization of America (US) www.zoa.org: Founded in 1897, ZOA unites religious and secular Jews in advocating for Israel's security and integrity and for the rights of Jews around the world. ZOA promotes a unified Israel, including all of Judea, Samaria, and East Jerusalem, and opposes the creation of a Palestinian state. Through educational programs, lobbying, and electoral activism, ZOA aims strengthens the U.S.-Israeli alliance and curb harmful pressure on Israel. ZOA has taken the lead in uncovering the deceptive tactics of Palestinian leaders who present themselves as moderates. They advocate for a suspension of all U.S. aid to the Palestinian Authority until its leaders recognize Israel as a Jewish state, dismantle terror groups, and end incitement. They also work to establish and strengthen sanctions against countries that support terrorism and threaten Israel. ZOA vocally critiques Israeli concessions to Palestinian violence, providing a source of encouragement to Israelis who dissent from their government's self-destructive policies. ZOA's Campus Activism Network and Center for Law and Justice engage students and attorneys to combat anti-Israel bias. They have a membership of 30,000 and chapters throughout the US. 2. The Middle East Forum (US) www.meforum.org: MEF is a think tank that seeks to promote U.S. interests in the Middle East and curb the influence of radical Islam around the world. Defending Israel is essential to U.S. security and a key element of MEF's work. Programs include: Middle East Quarterly, a scholarly and political journal; Campus Watch, a project to monitor and challenge anti-Israel and anti-Western bias in U.S. colleges; Islamist Watch, which combats the ideas and institutions of radical Islam in the US and promotes the work of moderate Muslims; and the Legal Project, which defends researchers who study terrorism and radical Islam when they are targeted by lawsuits designed to silence them. MEF Campus Clubs create an environment of rational thinking and intellectual exploration of issues pertaining to the Middle East through lectures and discussions. 3. One Israel Fund (US) www.oneisraelfund.org: One Israel Fund (OIF) provides aid to pioneering Jewish communities throughout Judea and Samaria. Many Jews in Judea and Samaria, especially those in small or new communities, lack access to adequate medical, social, and education services. Since these communities are at the forefront of the struggle to assert Jewish sovereignty over the Land of Israel, they also face the constant threat of attack and have special security needs. OIF supports organizations that supply critically needed emergency medical equipment, surveillance and lighting systems, armored vehicles, education and recreation facilities, and more. OIF also aids Jewish families who were uprooted from their homes in Gaza by the Israeli government in 2005. 4. One Jerusalem (Israel and international) www.onejerusalem.org: An Israeli organization with supporters around the world that advocates for Israeli sovereignty over an undivided Jerusalem. They educate activists, organize grassroots events and lobbying campaigns to protect Israels rights to its eternal and undivided capital, and protest moves towards partition. One Jerusalem empowers individuals across the world to participate in online activism and grassroots organizing. 5. Women in Green (Israel, US, and Canada) www.womeningreen.org: Grassroots women's organization with chapters throughout North America and Israel, dedicated to the security and Jewish heritage of the entire Land of Israel. Their public protests and street theater call attention to harmful government policies and inspire resistance. (Members often wear distinctive green hats at protests, a custom that began as sign of their opposition to pro-Palestinian Women in Black demonstrations.) They also raise money to build new Jewish homes in Judea and Samaria.
13
6. Hebron Fund (US) www.hebronfund.org: The Hebron Fund raises money from Jewish communities in the Diaspora to assist the Jewish revitalization of Hebron. They support the construction and maintenance of residences, parks, playgrounds, and religious sites, as well as security for Jewish residents. They continue a centuries-old tradition of Diaspora Jewish support for Hebrons educational, social, and religious structures. The Hebron Fund also educates the American Jewish community about Hebrons rich Jewish past and present. 7. Ateret Cohanim/The Jerusalem Reclamation Project (Israel) www.ateret.org.il and www.jrpisrael.com: Ateret Cohanim promotes Torah learning, army service, and Jewish sovereignty in the liberated Old City and Holy Basin of East Jerusalem. Ateret Cohanim operates one of Israel's most important yeshivas; students become leaders in the army, as well as in business, law, media, high-tech, and education. The school is located on the site of a prestigious yeshiva near the Temple Mount that was forced to vacate during the Arab riots of 1936. Ateret Cohanim's Jerusalem Reclamation Project raises money to acquire property and renovate buildings in the Old City and the Holy Basin, creating houses, apartments, synagogues, and schools for the growing Jewish population. They also provide security for Jewish residents. Ateret Cohanim organizes educational tours of the Old City and East Jerusalem that are open to visitors from abroad. 8. Legal Forum for the Land of Israel (Israel) www.haforum.org.il/newsite/english.asp: The Forum protects human rights and civil rights in Israel, seeks to preserve the integrity of the State and the Jewish people, and promotes sound government. Initially formed to seek justice for Israelis evicted from the Gaza Strip by the Israeli government in 2005, the Forum monitors Israeli government actions and works for change through the court system. They initiate legal action to protect the rights of Israeli Jews, especially citizens who seek to build in Judea, Samaria, and East Jerusalem; preserve Jewish religious sites; stop police brutality against Jewish settlers; challenge the release of Arab terrorists from Israeli prisons; and challenge government corruption. They are staffed by legal and financial experts and volunteers. 9. Zionist Freedom Alliance (International) www.zionistfreedom.org: Grassroots young peoples' organization that champions Israels national aspirations and rights. Promotes the vision of Revolutionary Zionism, a liberation movement that combines Jewish national aspirations with a commitment to social justice. ZFA advocates for Jewish self-determination and for the rights of all indigenous peoples to live in their own lands, as we Jews wish to live in ours. ZFA has active chapters on many college campuses, which educate students and lead the fight for Israel's national rights. ZFA also organizes service trips to Judea and Samaria, where volunteers can help plant crops and build Jewish homes in communities that are threatened with displacement by the government. 10. The Israeli Initiative (Israel) www.israelinitiative.com: Headed by former Knesset Member Benny Elon, the Israeli Initiative is a non-governmental organization that proposes a comprehensive plan for achieving peace. The Initiative proposes that: (a) Israeli sovereignty be extended officially over Judea and Samaria; (b) an international fund be created to provide Palestinian Arab refugees with the means to thrive as citizens of new home countries; (c) Israel recognize Jordan as a strategic partner for peace and the national home of Palestinians, and conclude an agreement with the Jordanian government on that basis. Arab residents of Judea and Samaria would become citizens of Jordan. Volunteers assist with grassroots media monitoring and responses, translation, and web design. They also promote the Initiative through presentations, discussions, and social media.
14
(Approach 2) Take the Lead from Israel: Support Israel's Pragmatic Choices about Negotiation and Self-Defense
The State of Israel is a modern, progressive country with a strong democratic tradition that leads it to act in a pragmatic and reasonable manner. Israel is often portrayed unfairly as the oppressor of the Palestinian people. In fact, Israel faces real threats and lacks partners for peace, and Israel has the right and the responsibility to defend its citizens. Anti-Semitic incitement, terrorism, rocket attacks, and even the threat of nuclear annihilation are directed at Israel by Palestinians, neighboring states, and radical Muslim groups around the world. Over the past hundred years, the Jewish people have taken great risks to build and secure our state, and also to treat others fairly, even when they attack us. The Israeli government may make mistakes along the wayin some cases, trusting its enemies too much, and in others, being overly zealous in its defense. Over the long term, however, the democratic process in Israel leads to policies that balance principle and compromise, self-preservation and ethics. Ultimately, Israel must remain a democratic and Jewish state in order to ensure the safety and wellbeing of its people and of Jews around the world. Israel must maintain a significant majority of Jews and cannot absorb the Palestinian people. We have different views about whether or not there is an ethical imperative for Israel to give up parts of the land that it now holds to Palestinians. However, regardless of our varying beliefs about the validity of Palestinian land claims, we recognize that it is necessary for Israel to move in the direction of a two-state arrangement. The shifting demographic balance between Jewish Israelis and Palestinians, the limits of military power to achieve political goals, and the international consensus in favor of two states for two peoples mean that it is not realistic or desirable for the Israeli government to seek to hold all of the land in perpetuity. In principle, we support the creation of an independent Palestinian state in much of the West Bank and Gaza if and when Palestinian society and its leaders move definitively towards peace. It is up to Israelis to decide when a durable peace agreement is possible and what borders and other arrangements they can accept. Israel has demonstrated its willingness to compromise many times. Some of Israel's concessions have led to greater security and more peaceful relations; many have been rebuffed; and some have led to further attacks. Before Israel gained independence in 1948, the leaders of the Zionist movement agreed to partition the historical land of Israel. They accepted a state that would be limited to only part of the territory and agreed to live side by side with an Arab Palestinian state that would encompass the rest of the territory. Palestinians and neighboring states rejected compromise and launched a war to annihilate Israel. In the course of that war, many Palestinians fled their homes. In 1979, Israel signed a peace treaty with Egypt, which required withdrawing from a vast territory in the Sinai and uprooting thousands of Jews from their homes. In 1994, Israel signed another treaty with Jordan. Since establishing these treaties, there have been no direct hostilities with either country. During peace negotiations in 2000 and 2001, Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat again rejected Israeli offers to allow Palestinians to build a state in virtually all of the West Bank and Gaza. After Israel's unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza Strip in 2005, extremists used their new control over that territory to intensify their rocket attacks. Based on these experiences, Israelis are open to further compromise but are appropriately cautious. A Palestinian state will be created if and when Palestinians are ready to agree to a fair compromise and when the Israeli people are assured that the new state will not present an unacceptable threat to their security. While there are Palestinians who are open to compromise, rejectionists who call for the
15
elimination of the Jewish state wield great military and political power within Palestinian society. Palestinian and other Arab media outlets and religious leaders demonize Jews, fostering hatred and violence. Wealthy and powerful foreign backers, especially the government of Iran, provide arms and money to Palestinian terrorist groups. Moderate leaders have less influence, and most are ambivalent rather than fully committed to compromise. Palestinians must make many changes in their society and government before a two-state solution can be achieved, building more democratic institutions, embracing compromise, halting anti-Semitic incitement, and rebuffing the outside backers who use them to perpetuate conflict. Progressive forces in Palestinian society and other Arab societies must win out over extremism before peace will be possible. Until then, Israel will continue to manage the conflict pro-activelydefending itself, negotiating when appropriate, and encouraging Palestinian civil and economic development. Israelis know best how to run their own country, and Americans should not pressure Israel's democratically elected government from outside. We should defer to the judgment of those whose lives and well-being are at risk. The most crucial thing for American Jews is to support the State of Israel morally, politically, and financially. Israel's economy, social fabric, and morale have remained strong, and we should do all we can to strengthen Israel further. We should work to uphold the robust relationship between Israel and the US, and to ensure that our government continues to provide Israel with economic, military, and diplomatic support. Despite tensions and disagreements, the two countries have had a strong, multi-layered alliance for decades, based primarily on shared democratic values. Israel enjoys enormous popular support among Americans, and elected officials recognize that the two countries' goals, needs, and interests overlap. However, many interest groups lobby American officials to pressure Israel in ways that would harm both countries. We must add our voices to the debate, calling on our government to maintain this alliance and respect Israel's sovereignty. We should buy Israeli products, invest in Israeli companies, and visit often. It is important to defeat the BDS (boycott/divestment/sanctions) movement, which promotes boycotts of Israeli goods, cultural institutions, and universities, as well as divestment from companies that operate in Israel. This movement aims to isolate, weaken, and delegitimize Israel, and ultimately to eliminate Israel as a Jewish state. We must speak out against these activities and organize broad coalitions to oppose them. In addition, we must participate in the intellectual struggle against anti-Semitism and anti-Zionist hatred, correcting distorted narratives of the conflict when they appear in our schools and communities. When media outlets represent Israelis as oppressors or fail to make clear that Israel is seeking peace, we must challenge biased reporting with facts and context. Like every country, Israel makes mistakes, and we should feel free to speak up about them. However, when we question a policy or action, it is important to remember the larger context. We should avoid expressing concerns or criticisms in ways that could be misconstrued as blaming Israel for the conflict, thereby harming Israel's standing in the world. Overall, Israel's cause is just, and the threats it faces are very dangerous. Many of us also believe that it is important to encourage dialogue, mutual understanding, and positive relationships between Jews and Palestinians, and between Jews and other Arabs and Muslims. We should develop friendships and cultivate potential allies, while taking care not to compromise our core principles. These actions may play a role in moving Palestinian society towards peace.
16
Trade-Offs and Risks We Are Willing to Accept 1. For many Israelis and some of us in the US, territory in Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) that Israel may cede to Palestinians has enormous religious, historical, and personal importance. The loss of that land would be very painful. Even those of us who do not feel a strong religious or historical sense of connection with land in the West Bank would be troubled by the suffering of Jewish residents who would lose their homes. Nevertheless, we recognize that most Jewish Israelis are willing to live with these losses if they are required for peace. It is also possible that Israel will one day decide to withdraw from more territory unilaterally in order to establish more defensible borders or to ensure that Israel retains a Jewish majority, even if this does not lead to real peace. We trust that Israel as a strong democracy will make decisions that are in the best interest of the Jewish people. For some of us, ceding territory to Palestinians means prioritizing pragmatism over justice. We believe that Palestinian land claims are not legitimate. Lands that are now unfairly described as occupied are the historic heartland of ancient Israel. Israel regained them in the course of a defensive war in 1967. For these and other reasons, we believe that a truly just resolution to the conflict would leave Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) under Israeli sovereignty. However, we recognize that this outcome is not feasible. We are willing to accept a scenario that is less than just in order to attain greater security. Others of us believe that, on the contrary, partitioning the land would be a just solution to the conflict. We sympathize with the desire of Palestinians to establish a sovereign state in the land where they have lived for generations. Some of us even feel that Palestinian opposition to the creation of Jewish state in the period before 1948 was understandable (though we also believe that it was misguided and that Palestinians had much to gain from the creation of a democratic Jewish state). We believe that both peoples' claims to the land are legitimate, and that a two-state partition would be a fair compromise. However, the majority of Palestinians have not embraced compromise, recognized the legitimacy of the Jewish state, honored the Jewish people's connection to the land, or respected the Jewish people's rights. A just resolution will be possible only when Palestinians accept compromise. 2. We recognize that there is a moral cost involved in any war or policing action. Many of us feel pained by Palestinian suffering, but we know that there is an inevitable trade-off right now between Jewish safety and Palestinian safety. We believe that, overall, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) act reasonably and fairly to ensure that both Israelis and Palestinians are as safe and as free as possible. We do not wish for Palestinians to suffer harm, but when there are attacks and threats coming from that population, Israel must use force and erect physical barriers to protect itself. The army's rules of engagement direct soldiers to take significant risks to avoid killing or injuring civilians. However, the IDF must of course prioritize Israelis' well-being over Palestinians' in many ways. Innocent civilians are sometimes hurt or killed. The IDF has a difficult role to play in the conflict. Hamas and other armed groups in Gaza fire rockets from civilian areas and use hospitals and schools as bases of operation. No matter how carefully the IDF responds to these attacks, some civilian casualties are inevitable. Many of us believe that these groups deliberately use civilians to shield themselves and then exploit any casualties that result in order to defame Israel. In the West Bank, the security fence and IDF checkpoints cause inconvenience, frustration, and economic hardship to ordinary Palestinians. However, these structures are a response to real threats; they will be removed when Israelis are reasonably sure that they will be safe without them.
17
Whether fighting to stop rocket bombardments from Gaza or maintaining security in the West Bank, Israeli soldiers by and large maintain dignity, professionalism, and humanitarian values in the face of constant threat. Some former soldiers feel their actions may be morally questionable or unfair, and they suffer guilt and regret. There is a moral cost to fighting wars and policing a hostile population, and their concerns are part of a natural human response to these challenges. In addition to these inevitable trade-offs, some of us also perceive a risk: We cannot be certain that all of the IDF's actions and the government's policies, without exception, are perfectly calibrated to the threats that Israel faces. It may be that some actions are excessive or unnecessary. However, we believe it is best to err on the side of caution. We may not have enough information to be certain that a particular action (or roadblock) is necessary. However, we also cannot know for sure that such an action or roadblock is unnecessary, and we recognize that critics of the IDF often misrepresent the facts. If we cannot be sure, we must err on the side of publicly supporting Israel. 3. Some of us have serious questions about some Israeli policies, but we believe that our position as non-Israelis limits the role that is appropriate for us to take in addressing them. For example, some of us fear that the continued expansion of some Israeli settlements deep in the West Bank is unwise. We believe it may weaken Israel's strategic position or may make peace harder to achieve. Others of us worry that when the Israeli government institutes policies that drastically limit settlement construction, those policies may make Israel appear weak. As Americans, we do not have to live with the consequences of any public criticisms we might offer in the same way that Israelis do. Even careful public critiques from U.S. Jews may be exploited by lobbying groups that seek to force Israel to change its policies. We may respect and admire those Israelis who vote for political parties that seek to limit settlement construction or who criticize their government's policies, and we may expect that we would make similar choices if we were in their place. We are not in the same position, however. Israelis may choose to take particular risks, but it is not legitimate for outsiders to insist that they do so. There are other ways to act on our concerns that may be helpful. For example, we can communicate our ideas and questions privately to Israeli officials or to Israelis or Israeli-Americans who are part of our families or communities. Those of us who are concerned about the growth of outlying West Bank settlements that would likely need to be evacuated as part of a peace agreement can withhold financial support from organizations that provide funding to those settlements. 4. We must sometimes prioritize maintaining a strong relationship between Israel and the United Statesthe Jewish state's most important allyover other important concerns. It is crucial for Israel's safety that the US remain a close diplomatic and military ally. At times, the U.S. government pushes for policies that some of us believe are unwise or unjust, such as freezing the construction of Jewish homes in the West Bank or entering into negotiations with untrustworthy Palestinian leaders. Israel may agree to these demands at times, in order to further the goal of maintaining strong alliances. We sometimes disagree with these policies and believe that they may harm Israel's interests or well-being. However, we must compare the negative impact of these decisions with the benefit that is gained by strengthening Israel's alliance with the US. We do not think that the U.S. government will make demands on Israel that could imperil its existence, or that the Israeli government would ever enact policies that are suicidal just to placate the US.
18
Choices Within the Choice 1. When, if ever, is it appropriate for us to advocate for U.S. policies toward Israel and the Palestinians that differ from those endorsed by Israel's government? Supporters of our approach believe that when we advocate for Israel, we should generally endorse the choices of the Israeli government, or at least refrain from critiquing them. However, some of us feel that certain strategic and diplomatic policies are crucial, and that in certain circumstances, it is therefore appropriate to contradict the government. For example, some of us believe that it would be harmful to Israel if the US were to cease funding the Palestinian Authority (PA) as punishment for the PA's request to the United Nations for recognition of Palestinian statehood. Suspending U.S. aid could contribute to the collapse of the PA, thus enabling Palestinian groups that are more hostile to Israel to gain power. This could seriously damage Israel's security. Leaders in the Knesset and in Israel's security agencies have expressed a variety of views about U.S. aid to the PA. Since this question is not yet settled and Israeli policy is evolving, it may be appropriate for us to follow our own best judgment rather than hewing to the official policy at all times. Some of us also feel we should choose an alternate path when the Israeli government makes strategic errors in its relationship with the US. For example, some of us believe that Israel's request for a pardon for Jonathan Pollard, an Israeli citizen who was convicted of spying on the US, is unlikely to succeed. Advocating for a pardon could make it harder for us build strong relationships with elected officials and other potential allies, because many Americans feel little sympathy for his position. Since a pardon for Jonathan Pollard is not essential to Israel's security, some of us decline to take up his cause. 2. How important is it to build relationships between Jews and Palestinians, and between Jews and other Arabs and Muslims? How can this best be done? Some of us believe that respectful engagement with Palestinian Americans and other Arab and Muslim Americans can reduce hostility toward Israel, and perhaps advance peace. We take part in formal dialogue programs, organize joint activities, and seek to build positive relationships. In addition, some of us donate to projects that foster communication between Israeli Jews, Arab Israelis, and Palestinians in the disputed territories. We hope these efforts will foster greater understanding and acceptance of Jews and Israel. They may help to diminish anti-Israel political advocacy and lead Israel's opponents and critics to adopt more moderate stances. We also hope that constructive individual relationships may inspire Israelis and Palestinians, as well as other Arabs and Muslims, with greater hope for peace. We have different views about how important these efforts are and how much energy we should devote to them. In addition, many of us are concerned about the possibility of appearing to legitimize hateful anti-Israel rhetoric, extremist beliefs, and harmful actions by partnering with particular individuals or groups, or even by meeting with them. We have different views about how great these dangers are, who we should build relationships with, and which kinds of engagement are appropriate. 3. Should American Jews address the particular needs of Arab Israelis, and in what ways? Some of us support programs that foster greater integration of Arab Israelis into Israeli society. Like all countries, Israel faces challenges related to the status of ethnic and religious minorities. Arab Israelis have more political, religious, and personal freedom than minorities elsewhere in the Middle East, and
19
many are succeeding. However, they also experience high rates of poverty and unemployment and face discrimination. There are a variety of initiatives to promote civic participation, entrepreneurship, education, and women's empowerment within this population. Some of us advocate investing in these programs, with the belief that they contribute to Israel's development as a democratic society, reduce the appeal of Islamist and Arab nationalist movements for Israel's Arab citizens, and improve Israel's standing in the world. We also hope that a well-integrated Arab minority will serve as a bridge to Arab and Muslim countries. We have different views about how important these efforts are and how much of our resources we should devote to them, in comparison with the other needs we must address. 4. With which political forces should we ally ourselves here in the US? How should we relate to groups that share key goals but also differ from us in important ways? Christian Zionist organizations Many of us believe that we should accept support from and build alliances with any organization that shares our goal of defending Israel and strengthening the U.S./Israeli relationship. However, some of us worry about the motivations and impact of organizations like Christians United for Israel. Most of us believe that, in general, Christian Zionists are motivated by genuine sympathy and admiration for the Jewish people, and by a strong concern for U.S. security. However, some Christian Zionists lobby the U.S. government to favor perpetual Israeli control over the West Bank rather than a two-state solution, while funding the expansion of settlements deep in the West Bank. Apocalyptic theology plays an important role in some of these activists' motivations; they believe that Israel must possess all of its historic land in order for Jesus to return. Some of us fear that these groups may harm Israel in the long term by making it harder to achieve a peaceful resolution to the conflict, and by propelling Israel in a direction that alienates many potential supporters. We argue against working closely with these groups. Others of us believe that the good that they do outweighs any potential for harm; therefore, we seek to strong build partnerships with them. Moderate Left organizations that criticize Israeli policies but defend Israel's legitimacy One of the greatest dangers facing Israel is the growing delegitimization movement. This global campaign portrays Israel as uniquely and intrinsically immoral, and unworthy of continued existence; it employs the strategy of boycotts, divestment, and sanctions to undermine the state. In order to defeat this movement, is important to build the broadest possible coalition of Israel's supporters. Some of us believe that this big tent should include organizations that push Israel to make territorial concessions, but also advocate for Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state. These groups can play a unique role in blocking the spread of delegitimization within liberal constituencies; we believe it is important to welcome them into the communal conversation about Israel, and perhaps even coordinate with them at times. Others believe that their public criticism of Israel and attempts to pressure Israel make it dangerous to ally ourselves with them in any way. Their actions are so harmful that we should avoid taking any action that may seem to endorse or validate them. 5. How should we weigh candidates' positions on issues related to Israel when voting in the US? Most of us feel we cannot support candidates whose actions and positions toward Israel are overtly hostile, even if we agree with the rest of their agendas. When candidates take particular positions that put them at odds with the Israeli government, but they otherwise support Israel, our choices may be more difficult. If we disagree with a candidate's stances on particular issues, we must consider carefully how harmful those positions are. We each evaluate these concerns differently at different times.
20
Organizations to Consider 1. AIPAC (US) www.aipac.org: Americas largest pro-Israel lobby, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee is a 100,000-member grassroots organization that works with both the Democratic and Republican leadership to ensure a close US-Israel relationship. AIPAC advocates sanctions against Iran to stop its development of nuclear arms and increased foreign aid to Israel to strengthen the country's defenses against the multiple threats it faces. AIPAC organizes frequent seminars and community briefings across the US and in Washington DC, trains grassroots leaders, and provides supporters with numerous resources for congressional activism. AIPACs young leadership programs organize campus chapters, educate students, run summer seminars on Middle East politics and effective advocacy strategies, and send diverse student leaders on missions to Israel. 2. StandWithUs (International) www.standwithus.org: Education and media organization that ensures Israels story is told, and Israels interests represented fairly, in universities, libraries, churches, and communities worldwide. StandWithUs (SWU) corrects misinformation about the conflict in the Middle East, and creates educational materials about Israel and Zionism for students of all ages, focusing on issues that include ancient history, arts and culture, environmentalism, and more. Local chapters hold demonstrations, marches, and educational events. SWU organizes letter-writing and petition campaigns, offers training workshops and tools for student organizers, and hires college students for an on-campus organizing campaign. SWU is a leading organization in the fight against the BDS (boycott/sanctions/divestment) movement. 3. CAMERA (US) www.camera.org: The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America is a media watchdog committed to promoting accurate and balanced coverage of, and dispelling myths about, Israel and the conflict. CAMERA systematically monitors and documents Middle East coverage, and contacts media producers to refute distortions. CAMERA takes no positions on political issues, but works to rectify incorrect and unbalanced reporting that could shape public opinion and policy. Supporters are encouraged to stay current on news about Israel, and to respond directly to inaccurate reporting by contacting media outlets. CAMERAs website lists news sources to monitor and contact information for major media organizations. Members can join a nationwide email team and sign up to receive frequent action alerts. 4. Lend for Peace (US, Israel, and West Bank) www.lendforpeace.org: A nonprofit person to person micro-finance mechanism allowing individuals to lend directly to Palestinian entrepreneurs launching small-scale businesses in the West Bank. They focus in particular on women's initiatives, collaborating with local partners to screen borrower applications and ensure that the loans will be used well. Lend for Peace's work promotes economic development and stability, which can contribute to moderation and will be essential to any eventual peace settlement. 5. Seeds of Peace (International) www.seedsofpeace.org: A non-partisan organization that equips young leaders from regions of conflict with relationships, understanding, and skills needed to advance lasting peace. Since 1993, Seeds of Peace has given exceptional young people, including Israelis and Palestinians, unique opportunities to meet their historic enemies at its International Camp in Maine. Participants learn communication and negotiation skills, develop respect and confidence, and build friendships. Then they participate in year-round local programs at home. More than 5,000 alumni participate in its leadership network. In the Middle East, Seeds of Peace operates with the cooperation of the Israeli and Palestinian governments.
21
6. Interagency Taskforce on Israeli Arab Issues (US) www.iataskforce.org: A coalition of 90 Jewish American organizations that promotes civic equality for Arab and Jewish Israelis. Their goal is to help build a stronger society in which all citizens can participate and contribute fully. The Task Force educates American Jews about the need for economic development, education, and social service programs in Arab Israeli communities; works with Israeli organizations that seek to develop more effective Arab and Jewish leadership to address these problems; and channels funding to Israeli projects that foster integration and civic equality. Member groups include Jewish federations, foundations, service organizations, denominational groups, and more. 7. American Jewish Committee (International) www.ajc.org: AJC is a think tank and advocacy organization that works to enhance the well-being of Israel and the Jewish people, and to advance human rights and democratic values in the United States and around the world. Its current focus is combating anti-Semitism and all forms of bigotry; promoting pluralism and shared democratic values; supporting Israels quest for peace and security (including proactive efforts to oppose BDS campaigns); advocating for energy independence; and strengthening Jewish life. AJC is a leader in building interfaith and inter-ethnic coalitions with non-Jews to pursue these goals and to strengthen bonds between peoples. It works primarily through its New York headquarters, Office of Government & International Affairs in Washington, D.C., regional offices across the US, and more than 25 offices and global partnerships outside the US. 8. Palestinian Media Watch (Israel) www.palwatch.org: PMW studies Palestinian society, the Arab world, and the Palestinian Authority (PA) by monitoring and analyzing their media and schoolbooks. PMW focuses primarily on communication from leaders of the PA, Fatah, and Hamas; Palestinian popular culture; and mechanisms by which foreign aid funds are used for incitement. PMW presents reports and studies before political leaders around the world, at universities and conferences, and to the general public, resulting in changes in legislation and funding procedures. Their website offers thoroughly researched and accessible materials to the public. 9. Buycott Israel (Canada and International) www.buycottisrael.ca: An initiative of the CanadaIsrael Committee that organizes to defeat boycotts of Israel goods and services. When anti-Israel organizations initiate boycotts against products made in Israel, Buycott Israel mobilizes its supporters to purchase those products, organize rallies, and write letters to retailers who have been pressured to join the boycott. Buycott Israel provides supporters with alerts on boycott campaigns to combat, and with buying guides. The project also mobilizes supporters to challenge boycott campaigns in academia, sports, and the cultural sphere, by writing letters to institutions that have been pressured to exclude Israeli researchers, athletes, or artists. 10. NGO Monitor (Israel) www.ngo-monitor.org: NGO Monitor works to promote accountability in the non-governmental sector, which has become highly influential in shaping public discourse about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but has not until recently been subject to thorough and independent scrutiny. Many self-described humanitarian organizations engage in politically and ideologically motivated attacks on Israel, despite claiming to advocate for universal human rights. NGO Monitor researches the partisan agendas that influence many organizations' statements, reports, and activities, and traces the organizations' sources of funding. They publish their findings and encourage people to hold these NGO's accountable, along with the governments and foundations that provide their funding. Volunteers may join NGO Monitor for internships in Israel, and can access detailed information about dozens of organizations on their website.
22
(Approach 3) Pro-Israel, Pro-Palestine, Pro-Peace: Challenge and Support Both Parties to Achieve a Two-State Solution
Both Jews and Palestinians have long histories of serious trauma, which prevent many of us from fully recognizing our common humanity. Collectively, our two peoples continue to victimize each other and are locked in a zero-sum struggle, where each side seems to believe it can win only by making the other side lose. Extreme nationalists, religious ideologues, and militarists on both sides (including Jewish settlers and Palestinian terrorist groups) control the public dialogue through words and actions that divert attention from a critically important fact: we already know, substantially, the terms of a two-state agreement that both peoples can live with and benefit from. For many years, majorities on both sides have indicated their willingness to accept a pragmatic solution that includes: creating a non-militarized Palestinian state in the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem, alongside a secure, democratic state of Israel with a large Jewish majority; dividing the territory along the pre-1967 border, with land-swaps that annex some Jewish settlements to Israel and some Israeli territory to Palestine; evacuating settlements that fall outside those borders; acknowledging Israel's role in creating the Palestinian refugee crisis; enabling a limited number of Palestinian refugees to rejoin their families in Israel; and offering other refugees the opportunity to move to the new Palestinian state and to receive compensation. However, the fear, loss, shame, and anger that many Israelis and Palestinians experience lead them to distrust each other and to support the use of violence. The cycle of violence, threats, and reprisals empowers extremists in each society and generates hopelessness among those who would otherwise seek reconciliation. Palestinian individuals, leaders, and organizations have contributed to the perpetuation of the conflict, through maximalist demands, anti-Semitic discourse, and violence against civilians. However, as the more powerful party, Israel bears greater responsibility for the unacceptable status quo. Israel's government has missed opportunities for peace by failing to offer terms that would satisfy Palestinians' basic needs for sovereignty, dignity, and territorial integrity. The US government has provided military, economic, and diplomatic support for the Israeli government over several decades without holding it accountable in appropriate ways. This unbalanced support has fueled the continuation of the conflict, with harmful consequences for both Palestinians and Israelis. A two-state solution is within reach. The leaders of the Palestinian Authority are ready for compromise. The leaders of Hamas have signaled that, despite refusing to consider Israel morally legitimate, they will not block an agreement that is supported by a majority of Palestinians in a referendum. However, the longer the conflict continues, the more difficult it will be to achieve this solution. As settlements grow, it will become harder to remove them. Some moderate Palestinians, believing that a two-state solution is no longer feasible, have begun calling instead for Israeli citizenship and a one state solution. Within Israel, militarism, religious fundamentalism, and ethnic chauvinism are growing stronger. Israel must act immediately to negotiate a solution that is acceptable to the majority of Palestinians and Israelis. Both peoples have legitimate claims. A two-state solution is the best way, and perhaps the only way, to reconcile those claims. It will not make every Israeli and Palestinian completely happy, but it can meet the most important needs of virtually everyone who is affected by the conflict. We also see the potential for a two-state solution to open the way for Israel and Jews to become more accepted in Arab and Muslim societies, and to help Jews become safer and more welcome everywhere.
23
Through the Arab Peace Initiative, Israel's neighbors have offered to normalize relations as part of a regional peace agreement with a two-state solution at its core. Anti-Semitism has many causes, and anti-Jewish language, discrimination, and violence are never justified. A two-state solution would not eliminate anti-Semitism from the world. However, it would eliminate a real grievance that fuels anger and stereotypes, and would make it easier for Jews and our allies to challenge anti-Semitism. We are concerned about the well-being of both Jews and Palestinians. Many of us feel deeply connected and committed to Israel as a Jewish state. We know that we must also act in the interests of Palestinians in order to help bring about peace, and to build a state that reflects the value of justice. Others of us do not feel personally invested in the Jewish state, but are nevertheless committed to the safety and well-being of Jews and Palestinians, and see that a two-state solution is the only viable path forward. Neither people can attain safety and security unless the other people's needs are met as well. We must bring our dual concern for Jews and Palestinians as fully as possible into our actions, and pursue all avenues to achieve a future that is good for both sides. Living at a distance from Israel gives us a valuable insider/outsider perspective. American Jews have an opportunity to reflect more calmly on what it will take to resolve the conflict than many Jews in Israel are able to do, since we are not ourselves engulfed in it every day. We can empathize with people on both sides, learn about their needs and interests, analyze competing claims, and challenge assertions that there is no partner for peace. Our power as U.S. citizens and our relationships with Israelis give us many opportunities for action. We should critique Israeli and U.S. policies from a pro-Israel stance. This means viewing the Israeli government with the same skepticism that we would apply to any government, and viewing Israelis as complex human beings who are susceptible to the same misperceptions and ethical lapses as everyone else. We critique Israel's current actions, particularly the growth of the West Bank settlements and the human rights abuses that take place under Israels military occupation of Palestinian land, as harmful to Israel and the Jewish people, as well as to Palestinians. To be pro-Israel requires us to learn and think about Israels faults and how to fix them. Further, in order to help Israel survive and thrive as a Jewish and democratic state, we must ensure that Palestinians gain a state of their own. The two peoples are interdependent: neither can experience freedom and security unless the other does as well. As citizens of the USIsrael's most important backer and the most powerful country in the worldwe have the responsibility to see that our government responds to the conflict constructively. Our government is deeply implicated in the conflict, and it will play a decisive role in determining what happens next. We must call on our elected officials to create balanced policies, using support and pressure to move Israel's government and Palestinian leaders to negotiate a fair settlement. Although a majority of American Jews share our hopes and values, the most well-organized and well-funded Jewish advocacy groups have largely used their influence to push for our government to support Israel's actions unconditionally. These organizations play an important role in shaping policy. When others lobby on our behalf for policies that we believe are destructive, we must speak up. And we should help to elect leaders who commit to working for a two-state solution, in opposition to advocacy groups and donors that make acceptance of the status quo a litmus test for candidates to public office. In addition, we should support Israeli individuals and organizations that speak out for human rights, build alliances between Jews and Palestinians, and seek to move the public towards justice and peace. Palestinian civil society also needs our supportwe should invest in business development, donate to educational and humanitarian organizations, and fund people-to-people peace-building initiatives.
24
Risks and Trade-Offs We Are Willing to Accept 1. Our approach necessarily balances politically achievable goals against visions of perfect justice or complete reconciliation. A two-state solution that is possible to achieve in the near future does not fully reflect all of our hopes or values. The plans that we endorse would prevent most Palestinians who fled or were expelled from Israel in 1948 from being able to return. For some of us, this choiceIsrael's self-definition as a Jewish state over and against Palestinians' rights to their families' former homesfeels unfair but necessary. Many of us believe that a large scale return of Palestinian refugees to Israel would be dangerous, and perhaps catastrophic, since it could lead to Jews becoming a minority within the country. Those of us who do not personally feel it is important for Israel to retain a Jewish majority nevertheless believe that calling for a Right of Return is a dead end. Israeli Jews are willing to accept the return of a modest number of refugees, but they overwhelmingly reject the possibility of full-scale return. In addition, many of us believe that many refugees would not want to move to Israel if they received acknowledgment of the injustices that they and their families suffered, and the opportunity to move to the future Palestinian state, and financial compensation. Ideally, some of us would prefer a one-state solution, a bi-national state, or a confederation, because we believe that those arrangements would be fairer for Palestinian refugees, while also allowing Jews to settle freely throughout the Land of Israel. It seems unlikely that any such solutions could be achieved in the near term. The two most likely scenarios for the future are a peaceful two-state solution or continued occupation and escalating violence. Without a durable peace agreement, Palestinians living under the Occupation will continue to be deprived of basic human rights, and Israelis and Palestinians will continue to be murdered and to fear for their lives. The challenge of balancing ideals and realism runs through our approach. Advocating for the two-state solution must go hand-in-hand with laying the groundwork for two peaceful societies, creating the facts on the ground that allow for a positive partnership between Israelis and Palestinians. We are working for a realistic and achievable solution, not a dream of universal friendship and love. The implementation of the two-state solution will require hard choices and accepting continued separation between the two peoples. For example, though the West Bank Separation Barrier cuts unfairly through Palestinian land and should be moved, it may be important to have a physical barrier on the final border for now. Many of us hope that future generations will achieve greater reconciliation after the two-state solution is successfully implemented and people have had time to heal and develop trust. 2. We call for a pragmatic approach to land sharing with Palestinians, although some of us feel a deep sense of loss in giving up access to certain parts of the land, and some of us feel that a full return to the pre-1967 borders would be fairer. Among the most important elements of a negotiated peace agreement will be clearly defined borders between Israel and the Palestinian state. The plan that seems most viable involves evacuating outlying settlements deep in the West Bank, including a few large settlements like Ariel, while annexing the most populous settlement blocs that are closest to the Green Line. Tens of thousands of settlers who will have to move will be offered compensation or given new homes inside Israel. Polls indicate that most Israelis and Palestinians would accept this plan, though few would describe it as ideal.
25
For some of us, the idea of withdrawing from areas of historic Jewish residence, such as Hebron, and dividing sovereignty over Jerusalem is painful, because we feel strongly about the religious, historic, and cultural significance of these areas. Even those who do not feel a strong connection with these lands regret the loss that Jewish settlers will experience when they have to leave their homes. Tens of thousands of people will have to abandon the houses and communities in which they have grown up or raised their children. For some religious settlers, vacating land that they consider to be sacred may also mean losing hope in a deeply important promise for the future. We feel that these sacrifices are necessary to preserve Israel as a Jewish homeland and a democratic state. Others of us would prefer a full return to the pre-1967 borders. That scenario would provide Palestinians with more resources and restore more of the land that they feel has been unfairly seized. However, partitioning the land exactly along the border would require displacing hundreds of thousands more settlers. Removing all the large settlements is not politically feasible. 3. The path we propose could involve a short-term escalation of violence as extremists try to derail the peace process. In the current political landscape, extremist groups and political leaders on both sides gain power by threatening or using violence, and by inciting fear, anger, and hatred. Progress toward an agreement will incense those who hold maximalist positions. Some may lash out with desperate anger; others may use carefully calculated acts of terrorism to preserve their power. We expect that some Palestinian extremists will use violence against Israeli Jews, and perhaps against fellow Palestinians, in an attempt to prevent a peace agreement from successfully taking hold. For example, we imagine that the majority of Hamas's constituents and leaders will accept the agreement, but Hamas splinter groups and smaller Islamist organizations might violently oppose it. Some Jewish settlers will likely retaliate against Palestinians, and a smaller minority could use violence against Israeli soldiers or even Jewish civilians. Israel will likely become even more sharply divided than it is now, as dramatic steps are taken to evacuate settlements. We see this violence as an unavoidable byproduct of the desperation of extremists, and believe that moderate leaders and citizens must not allow it to deter them from implementing a peace agreement. Both societies will experience upheaval, but we believe that they will become more cohesive after a period of self-assessment and redefinition. 4. If it turns out that most Palestinians are not satisfied with a state in the West Bank and Gaza, Israel could face ongoing violence by people who feel emboldened by Israel's concessions. It is possible that the balance of forces within Palestinian society is different from what we believe. Based on public opinion data, we feel confident that a majority of Palestinians would accept the kind of two-state arrangement that we call for. However, we recognize that our knowledge is limited, and it is possiblethough unlikelythat large numbers of Palestinians could continue making claims against Israel after the establishment of their state and use violence to pursue their goals. On the other hand, if nothing is done to end the Occupation, Israel is sure to face increasing diplomatic pressure, growing boycotts, international legal action, and possibly increased terrorism and military attack. We cannot perfectly predict the future, but we believe the risks created by maintaining the status quo are more dangerous than the risks involved in seeking a comprehensive peace agreement.
26
Choices Within the Choice 1. How much more negotiation is needed to create a mutually acceptable peace plan? What role should we urge the U.S. government to take in defining the terms of an agreement? Most of us believe that past negotiations have come close to outlining a viable peace deal. Recent polls of Israelis and Palestinians provide additional evidence about the kind of peace treaty that majorities on both sides would find acceptable. There are still important details to discuss, but we believe it is now clear how the most important issues would be addressed in a workable agreement. The challenge today for the U.S. government is not to broker lengthy negotiations, but rather to create the conditions under which the Israeli and Palestinian leaders will come to an agreement on the remaining issues and confront rejectionists within their own populations so that they can implement a peace plan. Some of us believe that the US should formulate a detailed proposal and present it to the Israeli and Palestinian governments, the Hamas leadership, the Arab League, the UN, and other key actors. It should rally as many parties as possible to endorse the plan, and make clear what Israelis and Palestinians will gain from implementing it and the consequences they will suffer if they do not. Others believe that much more exploration is needed. The US should urge leaders from both sides to consider new ideas for a two-state solution. For example, some peace activists have proposed enabling Jewish settlers to live in the West Bank as citizens of Palestine. Others have proposed forming a twostate confederation. In that scenario, Palestinian refugees could come to live in Israel as resident noncitizens, while holding citizenship in Palestine. Likewise, Jewish Israelis could live in Palestine as resident non-citizens. These possibilities have not been thoroughly considered. We believe that the US should help initiate a wider discussion that explores these and many other options. 2. What U.S. policies should we advocate in order to support and pressure Israeli and Palestinian leaders to take the needed steps? How should the US use its power at the United Nations? Israeli leadersMost of us believe that the US should not place conditions on its financial aid to Israel or threaten to use aid policies as a lever to exert pressure. Aid reductions could endanger Israelis by diminishing the army's capacity to deter or repel attacks. In addition, threats to restrict aid could diminish the US's effectiveness as a peace broker, by leading Israelis to feel more threatened and less willing to take risks for peace. The increased sense of danger and feeling of betrayal that many Israelis might experience could lead them to reject U.S. mediation and support more aggressive policies. Without resorting to this kind of counterproductive pressure, the US has many tools at its disposal. It can offer incentives, such as increased economic aid and security guarantees; fund person-to-person peace-building efforts; and influence the Israeli public through diplomatic pressure and open criticism. On the other hand, some of us feel the US should use its aid policies as a source of leverage if other strategies fail. At a few times in the past, when the US has insisted on Israeli policy changes as a condition for financial aid packages, those conditions have influenced Israeli leaders to adopt a more conciliatory path. We believe that this could be an effective tool now. Palestinian leadersWe believe the US should continue providing aid to the Palestinian Authority (PA). This aid bolsters moderate leaders, reduces poverty, and fosters security cooperation with Israel. Some of us feel the US should attach more stringent conditions to this aid, and some believe it should
27
offer more aid. We have different views about US policy toward Hamas, though we are all concerned about Hamas's ambitions, violent tactics, and anti-Semitic rhetoric. Some believe that the US should seek only to marginalize Hamas. Others believe that the US should seek ways to foster moderation within Hamas; encourage reunification between Hamas and the PA, on terms that commit Hamas to a accepting a two-state solution; and work to promote and maintain ceasefires between Hamas and Israel. Policies at the United NationsWhen UN resolutions that challenge Israeli policies are proposed, we have different views about whether the US should support them, oppose them, or stand aside. For example, manythough not allof us believe the US should endorse UN Security Council resolutions that criticize Israeli settlement expansion in the West Bank. Other resolutions are more controversial. For example, in 2012, the PA asked the UN General Assembly to recognize a Palestinian state in the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem. The General Assembly voted to approve the request, despite US opposition. Some of us feared that this resolution would make peace less likely, by encouraging Palestinians to be less flexible in their demands and to call for legal action and sanctions against Israel rather than negotiating. Others believed that it could advance peace, by reminding Israelis that Palestinian leaders and international institutions recognize Israel within its pre-1967 borders, while increasing the cost of continued occupation. 4. How should we relate to boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) campaigns? Most of us do not support BDS efforts that indiscriminately target Israeli goods, companies, colleges, or other institutions. These tactics alienate potential allies and create fear and hostility. Many BDS campaigns call for an unrestricted right of return for Palestinian refugees. The political impact of that demand is very harmful. It is enormously threatening to Israeli Jews, and it fosters the illusion that there is a viable alternative to a two-state solution. We believe that some BDS proponents wish to harm the Jewish people rather than pursue peace. Even when proponents are well-intentioned, broadly focused BDS campaigns with radical demands may generate and exacerbate anti-Semitism. We do not agree about how to respond to these campaigns. Some of us speak out against them and participate in campaigns to stop them. Others believe that anti-BDS activities are a distraction from our most urgent tasksadvocating for a two-state solution and assisting peace activists on the ground. Some of us support carefully targeted boycotts that focus only on products made in West Bank settlements. In concert with the other activities we have described, boycotts of those particular products could help to foster a negotiated two-state-solution. 5. How much energy should we invest in each of the activities that we think are important? (a) pushing for high-level diplomacy to achieve a comprehensive, long-term solution to the conflict (b) supporting Jewish-Palestinian dialogue and person-to-person peace-building initiatives (c) human rights work (challenging specific harmful policies and injustices in the short term) (d) peace education and grassroots education of our communities in the US Most of us believe that the first avenue is especially critical. In addition, we hope that each of the other activities will support our efforts to push power-holders to create a comprehensive peace agreement, and make those efforts more likely to succeed. However, we cannot be sure what impact particular actions will have, and we do not agree on which are most important.
28
Organizations to Consider 1. J Street/J Street U/J Street PAC (US) www.jstreet.org: With more than 175,000 supporters, J Street represents Americans who support Israel as a Jewish and democratic state, and the right of Palestinians to a sovereign state. They call for the US to take a strong leadership role in brokering a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and a comprehensive regional peace agreement. J Street urges the US government to provide the incentives, encouragement, criticism, and pressure that are needed to move all parties in the conflict toward a negotiated agreement. Their grassroots chapters and Internet-based campaigns mobilize people to lobby elected officials. Their student wing organizes educational events and advocacy campaigns on campuses, and their political action committee raises money and endorses candidates who support their pro-peace, pro-Israel approach. 2. Rabbis for Human Rights (Israel) www.rhr.org.il: Made up of rabbis from all of the major streams of Judaism, RHR brings a humanistic, pluralist understanding of the Jewish tradition to the Israeli public, and champions the rights of Palestinians, impoverished Israelis, asylum seekers, and others who are harmed by Israeli policies. They carry out service projects, such as efforts to help Palestinian farmers cultivate their land; and hold protests, including actions to block the demolition of Palestinian homes. RHR also creates study guides, sermons, and other materials, and holds a variety of educational events. Their North American sister organizationT'ruah: The Rabbinical Call for Human Rights (www.truah.org)conducts education and advocacy campaigns that address human rights abuses in the US, Canada, Israel, and the Occupied Territories. 3. New Israel Fund (Israel and North America) www.nif.org: NIF promotes equality and justice for all Israelis and works to strengthen Israel's democracy. A leader in Israel's civil society, NIF provides funding and training to hundreds of Israeli organizations that empower the marginalized and advocate for change. The groups that NIF supports advocate for civil and human rights; the rights of women, LGBT Israelis, asylum seekers, Palestinian and Bedouin citizens of Israel; religious pluralism; and environmental sustainability. NIF's Social Justice Fellowship Program brings young Jews from North America to Israel to volunteer with social justice organization. NIF also organizes educational programs in the US and leads delegations to Israel. 4. Breaking the Silence (Israel and Palestinian Territories) www.breakingthesilence.org.il: An organization of IDF veterans who document the consequences of the Occupation of the West Bank and Israel's policies toward Gaza, challenging Israeli society to address realities that are otherwise ignored or concealed. They collect testimonies and photographs from fellow soldiers in order to publicize the human rights abuses that result from the IDF's policies in the Occupied Territories. They also bring to light the effect of these policies on the soldiers themselves and document how serving as an occupier induces and requires ordinary soldiers to dehumanize Palestinians. They share their findings with the media and arrange speaking tours and photo exhibits in Israel and abroad. Members lead tours of Hebron that allow participants to learn about Palestinian life in the occupied city and witness the harm that is caused by the actions of Israeli settlers and soldiers. 5. Just Vision (International) www.justvision.org: Just Vision's documentary films and Online Network for Peace bring attention to grassroots Israeli and Palestinian activists' efforts to promote justice and peace. While traditional media focuses on the actions of political and military leaders, Just Vision raises awareness about dialogue and peace-building initiatives and non-violent protest campaigns. Their most recent films tell the stories of people from both groups who come together
29
to protest evictions of Palestinians by Israeli settlers in East Jerusalem and to stop the construction of the Separation Barrier in a West Bank village. Just Vision's films are screened and discussed in Israel, Palestine, and around the worldin schools, houses of worship, and many other settings. 6. Combatants for Peace (Israel and Palestinian Territories) www.cfpeace.org: A grassroots organization made up of former combatants (Israeli soldiers and Palestinian fighters) who have come to believe that the conflict cannot be resolved through violence and have dedicated themselves to cooperation and non-violent action. CFP promotes dialogue, through house meetings and speaking tours; direct service, through assisting farmers in the South Hebron area to cultivate their land in the face of settler violence; and education, through guided tours of East Jerusalem that reveal the consequences of Israeli control over Palestinian residents. 7. Peace Now/Americans for Peace Now (Israel and US) www.peacenow.org: Israel's oldest and largest peace organization, Peace Now upholds Israelis' right to safety and independence and Palestinians' right to self-determination in a state based on the 1967 borders, with negotiated adjustments. They press Israeli officials to end the Occupation and negotiate for peace, and call on the US to support and push both sides to take the steps needed for peace. They organize educational programs, lobbying efforts, and protests, and publish educational materials. Staff and volunteers monitor the growth of settlements and conditions in the West Bank, raising awareness of the harm that the Occupation causes to both societies. Their U.S. branch educates American Jews, organizes supporters to lobby U.S. officials, and provides funding for Peace Now's activities in Israel. 8. OneVoice (Israel, Palestinian Territories, and International) www.onevoicemovement.org: Grassroots organization founded by moderate Palestinians and Israelis who believe that peace can be achieved by a mutually-agreed-upon two-state solution. Aiming to address the needs and selfinterest of both sides, OneVoice helps Israelis and Palestinians influence their elected representatives to enact a just peace. OneVoice sponsors taboo-breaking town hall meetings, youth leadership programs, petition drives, and rallies in Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza. Their international staff organizes education and lobbying initiatives in North America and Europe. 9. Peace Research Institute for the Middle East (Israel and Palestinian Territories) www.vispo.com/PRIME: An organization of Israeli and Palestinian researchers who work cooperatively to foster peace-building. PRIME seeks to generate new ideas for resolving key issues in the conflict, to help create a strong civil society, and to educate new leaders who are dedicated to making peace. PRIME has published a groundbreaking textbook, Side by Side: Parallel Histories of Israel-Palestine, that focuses on disarming the teaching of Middle East history in Israeli and Palestinian classrooms. Created jointly by Jewish and Palestinian teachers, the book enables students and people of all ages to explore both groups' historical narratives. 10. BTselem (Israel, Palestinian Territories, and US) www.bstelem.org: An Israeli NGO that seeks to protect the human rights of Palestinians in the Occupied Territories. B'Tselem researches human rights abuses by recording testimonies and obtaining evidence from victims and witnesses, examining official documents, consulting with authorities, and through other means. Their Camera Project provides video cameras to Palestinian volunteers in the Occupied Territories so that abuses can be documented in real time. B'Tselem creates written reports and videos and shares them with policymakers, the media, and the public. The name B'Tselem means in the image of in Hebrew; it refers to a biblical quote that states that all people are created in the image of God.
30
(Approach 4) Equality and Justice in Israel/Palestine Recognize Palestinian Rights and Work for Creative Solutions Beginning in the late 19th Century, the Zionist movement brought Jews from Europe and around the world to settle a land that was already inhabited by Palestinian Arabs who were deeply attached to it. The movement included varied ideologies, but its largest and most powerful factions sought to build a state in which Jews would be the dominant majority. A small population of Jews had lived in Palestine for centuries before, at peace with the much larger Muslim and Christian Arab population. The influx of Jewish settlers, who began creating Jewish-only institutions that laid the foundation for a state of and for Jews, led quickly to Palestinian protest, resistance, and escalating conflict. Among the motivations to create a Jewish state were experiences of persecution and fear of genocide, a sense of Jewish pride, and a longing for wholeness and liberation. Further, Jews have been connected with the land for centuries through liturgy, tradition, and memory. However, most settlers and their supporters abroad failed to honor the rights and aspirations of Palestinians. The Zionist movement and Israeli government have dispossessed Palestinians of their land since the beginning of colonization. This process was most intense in the months before and after Israel declared independence, when Zionist militias and the Israeli army expelled more than 700,000 Palestinians. Palestinians call this the Nakba, or catastrophe. Dispossession continues now through settlement expansion, house demolitions, construction of the Separation Wall, and destruction of Bedouin villages in the Negev. Outside governments have abetted this injustice with diplomatic support, economic aid, weapon sales, and direct military force. As the colonial power that controlled Palestine from 1917 to 1948, Britain permitted Zionist settlement, ignored Palestinian demands for self-government, and crushed resistance. The US has been the Israeli government's most important backer since 1967. Palestinians have responded through many means, including non-violent protest, cultural preservation, negotiation, self-defense, attacks on soldiers, and violence against civilians. The Israeli government has responded to violence with overwhelming, often indiscriminate force, and has used imprisonment, torture, collective punishment, and other tactics to suppress non-violent resistance as well. Some of us believe the creation of a Jewish state has meant greater freedom and safety for Jews, while others do not. In either case, it has meant conquest, displacement, and occupation for Palestinians. Recognizing this injustice does not invalidate the right of Jews to live in Israel/Palestine or diminish our desire for Jews to thrive there. However, it requires us to work to repair the harm that has been done and to seek a future in which Jews live as equals with Palestinians, rather than dominating them. Several main injustices concerns us: In the West Bank, 2.5 million Palestinians are restricted in their movements and activities by Israeli soldiers, checkpoints, fences, and roads. Many are also subject to arbitrary violence from settlers. In Jerusalem and the West Bank, the Israeli government and settlers continue to appropriate Palestinian homes, land, and resources. The ongoing siege of Gaza imprisons 1.7 million people, causing poverty, isolation, and humiliation. More than 1.5 million Palestinian citizens of Israel suffer discrimination and exclusion. Finally, millions of Palestinian refugees and their descendants who live in the Occupied Territories, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, and beyond, claim their right supported by international lawto return to their homeland. We recognize that the conflict involves many complexities. We do not condone every action taken by
31
every Palestinian, and many of us believe that attacks on civilians are always unethical. In addition, we recognize that the conflict has drawn in many other governments and non-state actors. Further, we recognize that the anger generated by the conflict often targets Jews as individuals, and not just the Israeli government and army. We do not discount the fear that this provokes. However, we believe that challenging Israel's oppression of Palestiniansand our government's complicityis our most important ethical responsibility in this situation and the most effective way to help bring about peace. A durable solution to the conflict will require negotiation, but negotiation can succeed only when Jews and Palestinians face each other as equals, rather than as dominator and dominated. The negotiation processes that the US has led over the past 20 years have failed for two main reasons: First, Israel's military and economic power far exceeds Palestinians'. Rather than mediating evenhandedly, the US has bolstered Israel's power and pushed Palestinian leaders to agree to Israeli terms. Second, the twostate formulas that are now on the table ignore Palestinians' basic rights and needs. Transforming the conflict will require a different kind of negotiation, based on recognition of rights. Israelis, Palestinians, and all of us will have to address the roots of the problem and think more creatively about the future. We do not advocate for a specific blueprint, but we believe that any viable solution must address both Jewish and Palestinian needs. As it becomes clear that the current two-state formula has failed and that unilateral solutions are impossible, increasing numbers of Israeli Jews, Palestinians, and international activists are exploring alternatives. One option is a unified democratic state that encompasses all of Israel/Palestine, with a constitution that provides equal rights to all citizens. Another is a confederation that encompasses a Jewish-majority state and a Palestinian-majority state. Borders between the states would be open, as in the European Union. Residents could live, work, and worship in either state, while holding citizenship in only one. In both scenarios, Palestinian refugees would be welcome to return. A lasting solution may be many years off, but there is much we can do now. We must seek to redress the power imbalance between Israel and the Palestinians, while supporting efforts by Jewish Israelis and Palestinians to envision a future based on values of justice and equality. We should provide financial, material, and political support to Jewish Israeli and Palestinian activists who are nonviolently resisting injustice and militarism through protest, direct action, dialogue, and education. As U.S. citizens, we should call on our government to halt its unconditional supply of funds and arms to the Israeli government. Most of us also advocate joining boycott, divestment, and sanctions campaigns (BDS), in response to a request from grassroots Palestinian organizations around the globe. BDS is a non-violent strategy to pressure Israel to honor Palestinian rights by: (1) ending the Occupation of the West Bank and siege of Gaza, (2) stopping discrimination against Palestinian citizens of Israel, and (3) allowing Palestinian refugees to return. BDS campaigns demonstrate to Israeli leaders that unjust policies will result in financial, cultural, or professional lossesthough not physical harm. Over the long term, we believe they will help to create the conditions for successful negotiations. A key task is to promote education, countering myths that shape our communities' and government's policies. We must bring forward Palestinian perspectives and dissident Jewish views, while calling attention to the destructive role of the US in the conflict. Some of us also seek to foster self-reflection in Jewish communities. To become effective agents for justice and peace, we must confront the past honestly; heal from our traumas; realistically assess our fears, power, and privileges; and think creatively about how we can attain true freedom and safety. Finally, it is important to challenge antiSemitic actions and language, including within peace and justice movements.
32
Trade-Offs and Risks We Are Willing to Accept 1. Pressuring Israel's government and people may lead to harsher policies in the near term. As the BDS movement and other campaigns for justice gain strength, many Israeli Jews are reacting with fear and anger and giving their support to more repressive and unjust policies. Others are simply digging in and defending the status quo, rather than seeking a just resolution to the conflict. At the same time, more Israelis are also beginning to embrace just solutions. We predict that this move toward justice will accelerate, although there can be no certainty about how quickly it will develop. We are committed to non-violent strategies and to opposing anti-Semitism. These commitments will help to reduce the backlash and to foster the positive shifts we wish to see. Nevertheless, we believe it is necessary to accept risk of more repression in order to change the status quo, and we do not see a path to peace and justice that avoids polarization and backlash in the short term. 2. The lack of a clear, widely-held vision for a just and peaceful future may amplify the risks associated with pressuring Israel. There is not yet widespread support among Palestinians for a coherent plan for the future that meets the needs of both Palestinians and Jewish Israelis. This results from the geographical fragmentation of Palestinian society, competition between political factions, repression and co-optation by the Israeli government, the corruption of many Palestinian institutions, and other factors. Further, the number of Jewish Israelis who support the principles we have articulated is still small. During the democracy struggle in South Africa, the African National Congress's Freedom Charter provided a clear vision for the future that united the majority of black South Africans, while also addressing the legitimate concerns of white citizens. Those conditions are not present in this conflict, and so peace and justice activists in the US face uncertainties that South Africa solidarity activists did not. We believe that Palestinians will become more unified in the coming months and years, and that the debate about solutions will lead to a program that is shared by a growing number of Jewish Israelis as well. However, we recognize that in the absence of a unified vision that addresses Jewish Israelis' needs and fears, strategies that pressure Israelis could have the opposite effect from what we intend. 3. People in Israel/Palestine will experience economic losses and other suffering as a result of BDS campaigns. Most of us are willing to accept these kinds of suffering in the short term if they help to stop worse forms of suffering and to bring about a just peace. BDS will cause some Israelis to lose income or opportunities for career advancement. They include Palestinian citizens of Israel and foreign guest workers as well as Jews. West Bank Palestinians may lose income as well; their economy is tied closely to the economy of pre-1967 Israel, and many are employed by settlers. However, we expect that the political impact of BDS will be greater than the economic impact. We do not seek to impoverish the Israeli population, and we do not believe that BDS has the potential to do that. Israel's economy is large and strong, and we believe that pressure that stops far short of mass impoverishment will be enough to motivate the changes we hope to see. 4. Some violence could continue in the futures that we envision, even if our strategies succeed. The creation of a confederation, a bi-national state, or another just solution could provoke violent opposition from some Jewish Israelis who feel that their safety, religious beliefs, or other important
33
values are threatened. A minority of Jews could try to derail the process or destabilize the new system by attacking Palestinians or violently resisting the government. A solution that allows Jews to continue living throughout the West Bank, however, may provoke less opposition than would occur if the Israeli government evicts a large number of settlers as part of a two-state partition. In addition, a minority of Palestinians might pursue retribution or seek domination through violence. We assume that most Palestinians would feel that the new system provides them with the safety, freedom, opportunity, and respect that they need. Despite the difficulties involved in making the new system work, we believe most Palestinians would be motivated to oppose and prevent violence. 5. The BDS movement could contribute to an increase of anti-Jewish feelings and rhetoric. Anti-Semitic individuals and groups portray Jews as a powerful and nefarious influence in the world, and as people who are intrinsically and uniquely malevolent. Though anti-Semitism is no longer as powerful as it once was in North America and Europe, anti-Jewish feelings, images, and ideas have not disappeared. Some BDS initiatives could strengthen or trigger anti-Jewish ideas and feelings, and antiSemites will try to hijack these efforts to advance their goals. We must work with allies to fight antiSemitism, challenging these images and ideas when they arise in our movements or anywhere else. 6. If we do not advocate for a two-state partition, and the solutions that we favor turn out not to be achievable, we might contribute to perpetuating the suffering of some Palestinians. We believe that proposals that require Palestinians to give up their Right of Return are unjust, and we assume that it will not be possible to arrive at a durable peace without honoring that right. Further, as Israel's settlements expand, the land and resources that are available for a separate Palestinian state continue to shrink. A contiguous Palestinian state, even within the West Bank, may now be impossible. However, if a two-state partition could improve the lives of some Palestinians, and the solutions that we favor are not achievable, it is possible that our choices could prolong suffering. We ally ourselves with Palestinian groups that call for upholding the human rights of both Jews and Palestinians, and we believe that their actions reflect the needs and interests of the majority of Palestinians. We recognize, however, that some Palestinians endorse two-state compromises that our closest allies reject. Our approach is motivated both by our values and by our assessment of what is feasible. But if our judgments are incorrect, we recognize that this choice could cause harm. 7. Some of us believe that our approach means giving up the guaranteed haven that Israel now provides for Diaspora Jews. For somethough not allof us, this represents a significant risk. Many of us hope that in the future, Diaspora Jews will still be able to immigrate to Israel/Palestine. If the conflict is resolved in a just way, we envision that the new government will make it easy for Jews to immigrate, as well as guarantee the right of Palestinian refugees to return. Some imagine that the new government's constitution might guarantee that Jews who are endangered could immigrate. However, it is possible that a future government will significantly restrict Jewish immigration. We are unsure how likely this outcome is, but we feel we must accept the risks that come with this possibility. In contrast, some believe that a guaranteed right of Jews to immigrate would not truly enhance Jewish safety. We also worry that such an arrangement would continue to privilege Jews at the expense of Palestinians. Therefore, the possibility of losing this guarantee does not represent a real risk for us.
34
Choices within the Choice 1. What role should we play in determining the form of a future peace agreement or promoting a specific vision for the future? Most of us believe that it is not appropriate or helpful for people in the US to promote a particular plan for the future of Israel/Palestine. We seek to help Palestinians and Israeli Jews create a future that is based on values of justice, equality, compassion, diversity, and freedom. There are several different political arrangements that could embody those values: a unitary democratic state, a bi-national state that includes institutions that enable Jews and Palestinians to exercise collective power, a confederation of two states, and perhaps other arrangements that have not yet been imagined. Only the people who live in Israel/Palestine, together with Palestinian refugees, can determine which arrangement is best for them. We support organizations, activists, and intellectuals who are developing new ideas for the future and fostering public conversation about them, without ourselves endorsing a particular approach. In contrast, some of us feel that we should take a strong stance in favor of a particular vision. We believe that some proposed solutions are more practical and just than others, and we feel that it is important for activists in Israel/Palestine to come together as soon as possible in support of a specific plan. We speak publicly about what we think would work best and seek to influence the debate. 2. How much energy should we invest in each of the strategies that we think are important? a) Supporting activists in Israel/Palestine who are engaged in non-violent protest, movementbuilding, and planning for a just and peaceful future b) Participating in boycotts and divestment campaigns c) Educating other members of the American Jewish community and the broader public d) Lobbying the U.S. government We believe that all of these efforts are valuable, but we each choose different priorities. Many of us wrestle with the question of how much energy we should devote to short-term campaigns that focus on specific injustices, and how much to long-term projects that aim to transform the conflict as a whole. Some of us are skeptical that we will able to influence the U.S. Congress or President in the short term. The advocacy groups, donors, and voter blocs that impel the U.S. government to support injustice in Israel/Palestine are enormously powerful. While Jewish-led Israel advocacy organizations have a significant influence, many of us believe that the Christian Right, the military-industrial complex, the oil industry, and other actors play just as powerful a role. Widespread anti-Muslim and anti-Arab racism, a desire to protect Jewish people after the US failed to do so during the Holocaust, and other cultural forces are also important factors. In this context, we believe that our ability to shift U.S. policy in the near future is very small. We believe that other activities are more strategically useful now, and we hope that they will help to build a strong movement that can influence U.S. policy in the long term. 4. Which boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) campaigns should we join? While proponents of our approach support the BDS strategy in general, we have different views about which specific tactics are most effective or appropriate. There are a variety of campaigns, each led by different groups, with different targets. Many of us participate in a full range of BDS efforts. However, some of us have practical or ethical concerns about particular kinds of campaigns. Two tactics are
35
especially controversial: academic and cultural boycotts. Many of us feel that those methods play an important role in generating the pressure that is needed for Israelis to move toward justice. However, others worry that they appear to parallel anti-Jewish boycotts of the past too closely; they may fuel anti-Semitism as well as provoking a backlash that outweighs the positive changes they foster. Some of us participate only in campaigns that focus on companies and institutions that directly support or benefit from the Israeli Occupation of the West Bank, because we believe that those campaigns have the greatest chance of gaining wide support and fostering positive changes in Israeli policy. 5. How should we respond to Palestinian actions that we believe are unethical? Many of us condemn all violence that targets civilians, and we apply to Palestinians the same ethical standards that we apply to everyone. In addition, many believe that violence against Israeli civilians harms the Palestinian struggle for liberation. On the other hand, some believe that we should not criticize resistance tactics used by people under military occupation, because we are in a more privileged position in which it is easier to choose non-violence. Others feel that it is appropriate to criticize most attacks that harm civilians, but that some can be plausibly justified as self-defense. Though we disagree about how and when to criticize Palestinian attacks that harm civilians, our primary commitment is to work through non-violent means to end the conditions that give rise to them. In addition, some of us believe we should speak out against human rights abuses within Palestinian societyagainst women, LGBTQ Palestinians, political dissidents, and othersand we support Palestinian organizations that challenge them. We are aware that people who defend Israel's oppression of Palestinians often point out injustices in Palestinian society as a way to deflect criticism of Israel. It is important to articulate that Palestinians do not need to be perfect in order to deserve justice. It is also important to challenge negative stereotypes of Palestinians and of Arabs and Muslims in general. 6. How should we relate to Zionism? Some of us consider ourselves anti-Zionists and others non-Zionists. Another group of us are dissident Zionists who embrace visions and ideas that go back to the earliest days of Zionism but have been marginalized in the contemporary movement. For some of us, all these terms seem irrelevant. We all share a concern about the well-being of Jews in Israel/Palestine and around the world, and we believe that Jews will become stronger and safer through sharing power with Palestinians. However, we have different views about Zionism's history, different ways of valuing Jewish community, and different kinds of connections with the land and the Jewish communities in Israel/Palestine. Some of us feel a strong connection with the land and the Jewish-Israeli cultures that have developed there. Others do not have such connections, but we recognize that Israel/Palestine is now home to millions of Jews, and we believe that a just resolution to the conflict cannot involve displacing them. Many of us believe that the goal of creating a Jewish state in Israel/Palestine was fundamentally unethical. Others believe it was an understandable but misguided response to anti-Jewish oppression. Those who hold these views may see ourselves as seeking to challenge Zionism and to undo the harm it has caused. Alternatively, some refrain altogether from either endorsing or critiquing Zionism. On the other hand, some of us embrace values articulated since the 1890's by cultural Zionists, bi-national Zionists, and others who sought to build a strong Jewish community in the Land of Israel in partnership with Palestinians, rather than at their expense. We may seek to transform, rather than undo, Zionism.
36
Organizations to Consider 1. Jewish Voice for Peace (US) www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org: A grassroots organization with more than 100,000 supporters across the US, JVP advocates for an end to the Israeli Occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem and the blockade of Gaza, a just resolution to the Palestinian refugee problem, and peace among all of the peoples of the Middle East. JVP calls for shifting U.S. foreign policy to honor human rights, democracy, and international law. It urges the U.S. government to suspend military aid and arms sales to Israel and to repressive regimes throughout the region. JVP also promotes boycotts and divestment campaigns targeting companies that profit from the Occupation. JVP supports Israeli and Palestinian activists who engage in nonviolent resistance and works to free activists who are jailed by the Israeli government. Their local chapters and online organizing efforts mobilize people for initiatives ranging from letter-writing to teach-ins to street protests. JVP works closely with Christian allies who seek justice and peace in Israel/Palestine. 2. American Jews for a Just Peace (US) www.ajjp.org: Their chapters and individual members work with Christian, Muslim, and secular allies to promote a U.S. foreign policy consistent with international law and human rights. Members organize local boycott, divestment, and sanctions campaigns to educate their communities and challenge Israel's unjust policies. They also design and publicize creative Jewish rituals that combine traditional practices and liturgy with new readings and activities. Their taschlich ritual, for use on the Jewish New Year, and Tu B'Shevat haggadah encourage reflection on contemporary injustices and obligations and inspire people to take action. 3. Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions (Israel/Palestine) www.icahd.org: Mobilizes Israeli citizens, Palestinians, and visitors from abroad to block bulldozers sent to demolish Palestinian homes in the West Bank and East Jerusalemand rebuild those that are destroyedas a strategy for resistance and grassroots peace-making. They also support Palestinian and Bedouin citizens of Israel in resisting the demolition of unrecognized villages within 1948 Israel. ICAHD leads tours of the Occupied Territories and sends speakers to the US and elsewhere. ICAHD provides materials and presentations that analyze the political, social, and economic dimensions of the conflict and explore potential solutions for the conflictincluding possibilities for a one-state solution or a regional multi-state confederation. 4. Zochrot (Israel/Palestine) www.zochrot.org/en: Led by Palestinian and Jewish citizens of Israel, Zochrot promotes awareness of the Nakbathe expulsion of Palestinians that took place from 1947 to 1949. Because learning the Nakba [is] a condition for peace and reconciliation, they seek to overcome the concealment of this history. They bring attention to the remnants of destroyed Palestinian villages by placing signs and giving tours. They are developing an oral history archive, with stories from both Jews and Palestinians, along with other materials. They organize lectures, study groups, and teacher-training seminars, as well as public commemorations of important dates in history. Finally, they hold conferences that bring Jews and Palestinians together to plan in practical terms how the Palestinian Right of Return could be implemented in a just and peaceful way. Zochrot is a feminine version of the Hebrew word for remembering. 5. New Profile (Israel/Palestine) www.newprofile.org/english: A feminist organization dedicated to challenging the powerful role of militarism in Israeli society. Their lectures, study days, and workshops explore the normalization of war and military values in Israeli culture. They organize youth groups that foster open discussion of issues such as draft resistance, gender, the Nakba, civil
37
and economic inequality, the Occupation, and creative protest. New Profile's counseling network serves young people who resist conscription, offering information, moral support, and legal aid. 6. Maia Project (US and Israel/Palestine) www.mecaforpeace.org/projects/maia-project: Works to bring clean drinking water to children in Gaza. Sponsored by the Middle East Children's Alliance, the project partners with local community groups in Gaza to install water purification and desalination equipment in public schools. People in Gaza experience a chronic and serious shortage of clean water. This shortage is exacerbated by Israeli military attacks that damage Gaza's infrastructure, by Israeli policies that restrict importation of materials needed for repair, and by deep poverty that is induced by the ongoing siege. Maia Project volunteers raise funds to help create small-scale facilities that partially address this need. Volunteers also educate the public about the causes of the water crisis and about the need to end the siege. Maia means water in Arabic. 7. Gisha (Israel/Palestine) www.gisha.org: An Israeli NGO that works to protect the freedom of movement of Palestinians who live in the Occupied Territories, especially Gaza. Israeli policies restrict the ability of Palestinian residents to enter and exit Gaza and the West Bank, and also to import and export goods. These restrictions impede Palestinians' access to work, education, medical care, and family members. Gisha provides legal assistance and representation to individuals who wish to challenge these restrictions, carries out research, and produces educational resources. They also work to create awareness in the media about violations of Palestinians' right to movement and lobby the Israeli government to change its policies. Gisha means access or approach in Hebrew. 8. Birthright Unplugged (Israel/Palestine and US) www.birthrightunplugged.org: Provides educational travel experiences that prepare people to make positive change. Unplugged trips bring people from the US and elsewhere to Palestinian communities in the West Bank. Participants learn about the lives of Palestinians under the Occupation and about the history of the region. They are encouraged to work for human rights and justice after they return home. Re-Plugged" trips brings Palestinian teens from West Bank refugee camps to visit pre-1967 Israel. (Israeli regulations allow Palestinians under 15 to enter, but not most others.) Participants visit their families' former villages, explore Jerusalem, visit the sea, and connect with family members who are citizens of Israel. The participants create photos and essays that are exhibited in Palestine and North America. 9. Ta'ayush (Israel/Palestine) www.taayush.org: Ta'ayush (an Arabic word that means living together or partnership) is a grassroots movement made up of Palestinians and Jewish Israelis. They work to challenge the Occupation, promote equality for all Israeli citizens, and build an Arab/Jewish partnership through concrete actions. Activities include participating in protests against the construction of the Separation Wall, which cuts off Palestinians from their fields and from Jerusalem; accompanying Palestinian shepherds and assisting Palestinian farmers to plant and harvest their crops when they face harassment and attacks from settlers; and assisting with the development of Palestinian and Bedouin unrecognized villages communities in pre-1967 Israel that are denied government services and threatened with demolition. 10. BDSmovement.net (International): Coordinated by the Palestinian Boycott/Divestment/Sanctions National Committee, this website provides a comprehensive introduction to the BDS movement, detailed background information, analysis, news updates, and materials for use in campaigns. Campaigns include consumer boycotts, boycotts of academic and cultural institutions, divestment initiatives targeting companies that profit from the Occupation of the West Bank, and more.
38
Choosing a Name for the Guidebook: Proposed Alternative Titles Several people who offered input for the guidebook urged us to alter the title by substituting another term in place of Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. These advisers have a wide range of perspectives and backgrounds, and they recommended a variety of replacement phrases. After discussing their suggestions, we decided to retain our original wording but also to publish a list of these alternatives. They include: the Arab-Israeli Conflict the Arab and Muslim War Against Israel the Occupation the Israeli-Palestinian Relationship Palestine the Matzav (Hebrew for situation) Israel/Palestine Israeli-Palestinian Issues Why Israeli-Palestinian Conflict? We aimed to select a title that would invite as many people as possible to read the guide and enter into conversation. Each potential title frames the topic in a different way, calls attention to different issues, and reflects different assumptions and concerns. For that reason, we found that it was impossible to choose a title that everyone would fully endorse. For the purposes of this project, we sought to create a title that most people could live with, even if it is not what they prefer. The phrase Israeli-Palestinian Conflict seemed to be the best choice. While some advisers prefer a different phrase, we have found that the replacements they suggested are alienating or off-putting to people who do not share their perspectives. On the other hand, most people whom we have consulted are willing to accept Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the title. We hope that publishing the guidebook under this title will help to make it an effective tool for fostering dialogue and deliberation among Jews with widely divergent perspectives. Questions to Consider Reflecting on the chosen title and list of alternatives can be a helpful individual or group activity. After reading the list, consider some of the following questions: What is it like for you to read these phrases? What thoughts and feelings do they bring up? What assumptions, concerns, or values do you think underlie these ways of naming the issue? What, if anything, is left out or overlooked when the issue is named in particular ways? What names do you use, and why?
39
Additional Materials We Plan to Publish In the coming months, we plan to publish additional materials that explore in greater depth the ideas presented here. These supplements will provide more details about each of the four approach. They include: 1. Visions for the future descriptions of plans advocated by proponents of each approach 2. What we value -- the concerns, needs, and principles that motivate each approach Safety Power Freedom Community Justice Others Land 3. Trade-offs and risks that proponents wrestle with 4. Analysis of the current situation description of the goals, interests, needs, and power of actors involved in the conflict, and the relationships among them Israeli leaders, organizations, and people Palestinian leaders, organizations, and people Governments, organizations, and people in other parts of the Middle East U.S. government, plus American organizations and people Others 5. History Timeline of key points in the evolution of the conflict Historical context of the conflict 6. Recommended actions lists of organizations, campaigns, and resources that focus on: Political advocacy Education Travel and volunteering on the ground Donation/material aid Media and culture Economic actions Dialogue and relationship-building 7. Recommended books, articles, and videos In addition, we plan to create some materials that integrate ideas from all four approaches: 1. A summary chart that shows how each approach addresses 10 to 15 specific issues, such as borders, settlements, refugees, and U.S. policy. 2. A glossary that describes terminology used in the four chapters.
40

JDG Deliberation Guide - December 2012

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

JDG Deliberation Guide - December 2012

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

GUIDEBOOK FOR DELIBERATION ABOUT THE ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN CONFLICT

WRITTEN By MITCH CHANIN & REBECCA ENNEN

Jewish Dialogue Group, Philadelphia, PA 2012

Jewish Dialogue Group, Philadelphia, PA 2012

About the First Edition: What Is Included and Why?

Jewish Dialogue Group, Philadelphia, PA 2012

Jewish Dialogue Group, Philadelphia, PA 2012

Jewish Dialogue Group, Philadelphia, PA 2012

Jewish Dialogue Group, Philadelphia, PA 2012

Jewish Dialogue Group, Philadelphia, PA 2012

Jewish Dialogue Group, Philadelphia, PA 2012

Jewish Dialogue Group, Philadelphia, PA 2012

Você também pode gostar