The most important panel at J Street

Dr. Anne Marie Slaughter, a professor of political science at University of Princeton, mentioned her experience growing up in Virginia in the 1960s briefly at a speech here. “That was not a democracy,” she said. “But, look at it now, and look at how far this country has come.” Her statement boldly compared Israel’s current situation, or at least the direction in which it is going, to that of America right before the civil rights movement. American came far. Israel must come far.
I appreciate her comment because I have told people that my observations at a Palestinian organization, living in Palestinian neighborhoods in Haifa, and witnessing my Palestinian friends’ experiences, paint a picture of what I imagine aspects of 1960s US to have been like. The structural and political racism against 20% of Israeli citizens is obvious. It manifests in unequal funding for schools, for transportation, for health facilities and for utilities in Arab communities. We see this when we look at the Israeli education system and the blatant absence of the Palestinian narrative. It is demonstrated by the fact fact that when my Palestinian friends come home to Israel, they are treated like security threats. We see this in the paucity of Palestinian MKs in Knesset, and the fact that their capacity is hampered by how easily they can be accused of being traitors for representing their community.
On a personal level, I think of when I ran into an old acquaintance from childhood- my age, from a wealthy, well educated Jewish Israeli family- looking for houses in Haifa. I told her to look into the “German colony” neighborhood for an apartment. She shook her head and told me, “there are Arabs there.” I think about when Israeli friend asked what organization I was working for and I told her about the Mossawa Center, and she asked, at 24 years old, if there was a problem with racism in Israel. I think about two going away parties: one in Haifa where only my Palestinian friends attended, and one in Tel Aviv where most of them felt uncomfortable coming to because of their discomfort in a city inhospitable to their Arabic and dark skin.

Israeli Jews in Tel Aviv, or Haifa or Ranana or Beer Sheva can be part of a system of occupation and ignore it completely. The occupation’s impact on Palestinian lives in the West Bank does not touch them unless they choose to be touched by it, and so this ignorance is one that can be more easily understood.
But I struggle to comprehend how the discriminatory policies towards Palestinian citizens in Israel have been so complacently permitted. This is not the suffering of people across a giant wall. This is the suffering of neighbors, co-workers, doctors, and friends. This is a struggle that can be seen and heard every day.
The reality facing Palestinians citizens in Israel illustrates the hold that the occupation has on the Israeli mentality. We talk about how not ending the occupation will lead to moral sacrifices from the Jewish people. We talk about how we will have a state that does not hold democratic values. But that moral flexibility and loose democracy justified by security is a symptom that is already full blown inside Israel’s own borders.
I agree with Aziz Abu Sarah when he that the panel he was moderating: Palestinian and Arab Israelis- The Peace Process and the Two State Solution- was the most important panel. It is a crucial topic that has never had a space before at J Street. And it was pretty wonderful to be at.
I think this panel helped attendees at J Street to understand the conversation around a one state vs. two state solution more clearly. Ghaida Rinadi Zuabi, the director of Injaz: The Center for Arab Local Governance in Israel, and Dr. Mohammed Abu-Nimer, both took time to outline the different schools of thought within the Palestinian Israeli community. Zuabi described the idea of a “one state solution” as a dream. In this dream, Palestinian Israelis can keep living in their homes, have a connection to their greater community and so can Jews. This is not the “one state” threat that other speakers at J Street referenced. Those that support it are often pragmatic- willing to stand behind a two state solution but also completely aware of the growing settlements and rightfully distrustful of the current Israeli government.
Dr. Abu Nimer described the relationship that Palestinian Israelis have with the state eloquently and humorously joking, profoundly, that “Living as a Palestinian in Israel is like being Jewish in the US if Christmas was 365 days a year.” This is a detached citizenship- they are part of Israel but are not made to feel welcome. They are nationally connected to other Palestinians but do not live with them. They know more about Judaism and speak far better Hebrew than I do, and simultaneously preserve a strong ethnic and national identity in their homes and communities.
Abu Nimer did not gloss over the fact that supporting the two state solution is a significant compromise for Palestinian citizens in Israel. If it were to happen in a way that would guarantee the protection of minority rights and address a history of oppression and discrimination, then it could work. That is the two state solution idea most of old colleagues in Israel stand behind, but they are well aware that it is a long time in coming. Abu Nimer stated,” Saying we accept you and your nationality is not really two state solution.” I agree that a real solution will require both sides to acknowledge all parts of their shared narrative and begin to address structural oppression at its roots – inside of Israel’s borders just as much as outside of them.
There is a lot of fear associated with talk of a “one state solution.” However, my formulation as an activist occurred at a Palestinian Israeli organization, and I know that the development of the idea, particularly from this community, is no threat- it is simply another proposed solution born from experiencing the reality on the ground. We talk a lot about being creative at J Street and as a community that knows what it is like to build relationships with your enemies while preserving your own vibrant culture, Palestinian citizens in Israel and their organizations should be an integral part of this process and dialogue- regardless of what the final outcome will be. I have been and continued to be inspired by their perseverance, innovation and grace.

13 thoughts on “The most important panel at J Street

  1. although not one Palestinian citizen of Israel has ever committed a terrorist attack against the state

  2. Shiri, When Arab MK’s praise terrorism against Israeli civilians and encourage kidnapping of Israeli soldiers, that is traitorous.

  3. Regarding there not being room for the Palestinian narrative in Israeli history classes. Many (myself included) view that narrative as being heavily based on distortion, historical revisionism, overlooking and/or rationilizing Palestinian brutality, and ultimately denying Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish State.

  4. Hi Jonathan,
    I took into consideration your first comment and removed my statement. Its absence though does not weaken my argument regarding the scrutiny and racial profiling that Palestinian Citizens in Israel suffer.

  5. Avraham, narrative is often not about facts but feelings. Regardless, the Zionist/Jewish/Israeli myth is no less full of distortion, historical revisionism, overlooking and/or rationalizing Israeli brutality, and ultimately denying Palestinians’ right to a state. An educational system that doesn’t expose these narratives to each other is furthering distortion, historical revisionism, overlooking and/or rationalizing each side’s violence towards the other, and ultimately denying each others’ validity. It can be done well or it can be done poorly. But at least it needs to be done, which it presently does not.
    The result is ignorance and caricature.

  6. @shiri
    I would say its absence does weaken your argument.
    However, I do applaud you for having the integrity to admit your mistake.

  7. Kung Fu Jew, I think any innaccuracies that may be part of the Zionist narrative pale in comparison to those of the Palestinian narrative. Here are a few I can think of:
    There is no Jewish Historical connection with the land of Israel and a temple never stood in the location of the Al Aqsa Mosque.
    The Arab Armies would never have attacked in 48 ifthe Jews weren’t forcibly removing Palestinians from their homes.
    Israel was the aggressor and instigator in 67.
    Not to mention the constant lies coming out of the Palestinian leadership about Israel poisoning Palestinian waters or intentionally delaying its ambulances when responding to Palestinian traffic accidents.
    I actually don’t know of any distortions in the Zionist narrative. Perhaps you can name a few so I can admit they are distortions and should be taught in schools or explain why I think they are true.

  8. There is no Jewish Historical connection with the land of Israel and a temple never stood in the location of the Al Aqsa Mosque.
    It really is unbelievable that no Palestinian official/semi-official will ever admit to any historical Jewish connection to the Land of Israel, or that a Temple ever stood on the Temple Mount. (except for Sari Nusseibeh)

  9. Avraham, I’ll have to dedicate another post to that topic if you’d like me to revisit that terrain. But there is no shortage of mythical self-justification on the Zionist side compared to the Palestinian side. Such as: “A land without a people for a people without a land.” “The Palestinians aren’t a real people.” “The refugees voluntarily left.” “The Six Day War was necessary.” “Settlements aren’t illegal.” And so on.
    Also, plenty of the Zionist myths are that the Palestinian myths aren’t true, which is usually not the case. For example, I have been to wells poisoned by settlers in the West Bank.
    Conflicting narratives in ethnic conflicts don’t evolve independently — they co-evolve based on two people’s attempts to make themselves appear the victims.

  10. KFJ, I’m not sure what the first one means, but I think the rest of those claims have strong are true. Despite the fact that the majority of the refugees in 48 did leave on their own accord, the complexities of those events should be taught atleast at a high school level. I do not know if it is or is not.
    The one that stands out the most is the 6 day war. The Arab armies ammassed their forces on Israels borders, repeatedly expressed their intent to push the Jews into the sea, closed the straits of Tiran, and kicked out the UN mediators. Not sure what you would expect from Israel at that point.
    Re: the poisoned wells. I must admit to being skeptical. But assuming the wells were in fact poisoned by Jews. A criminal act on the part of some “price tag” nut jobs (really not supported by any right wing authority) is a far cry from the Palestinian claims of a systematic Israeli government policy of Poisoning Palestinians. (I’ll take this oppurtunity to again express my hope that anyone guilty of criminal/vigilante attacks against Palestinian people or property is arrested, tried, and jailed.)
    Shavua tov.

  11. OK, I’ll do one more. The legality of the settlements. In a nutshell, Before Israel conquered the landin a war of self defense (see previous comment), it was illegally occupied in 1949 by Jordan (their sovereignty was recognized only by Pakistan and Britain). Before Jordan it was part of the British mandate which was set up with the express purpose of creating creating a Jewish state. Before Britian, it was the Ottoman Empire who chose the wrong side in WW1. As far as the UN partition in 1948, that was expressly predicated on both sides approval. The Arabs did not approve so they lost their claim based on that resolution.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

The reCAPTCHA verification period has expired. Please reload the page.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.