Solidarity with Worldwide Jewry
By: Marc Jason Cohen
Recently, The Morningside Post published an article entitled “Solidarity with Palestinians in Jerusalem'' in response to the recent unrest that has unfolded in the State of Israel. This was a statement that was co-signed by several student groups at SIPA as a symbol of solidarity and support for the sentiments that were expressed in that piece. As an aspiring policymaker who is invested in identifying solutions to de-escalate the long-running conflict between Palestinians and Israelis, I was extremely taken aback and saddened by the hostile tone of the article. Language used to describe the State of Israel included an “apartheid state” that is deliberately engaging in a state-sponsored “accelerating campaign of ethnic cleansing.”
These incendiary and misleading statements are composed of dangerous language that incite hatred, divisiveness, and violence, which is the direct antithesis of two-sided dialogue and peace needed to improve the livelihood of both innocent Palestinian and Israeli citizens who have been caught in this political crossfire. This is not to downplay the emotionally charged nature of the situation. Instead, it is a call to recognize that statements should not be frivolous and every story has two sides. This is also a reminder that conflict resolution depends on listening to both sides, and for that reason, I want to share the “other” side of claims presented in that article.
Perhaps the most audacious accusation leveled in the piece is that the State of Israel engages in “state-sponsored ethnic cleansing.” Upon closer reading, the authors provide little evidence to support the dangerous claim. One piece of evidence in the article is that of a Palestinian teenager, Saeed Odeh, a 16-year-old teenager, who was killed at the hands of the Israel Defense Forces. Yet, the authors neglect to mention he was amongst a group that threw Molotov cocktails at soldiers. While that fact alone does not justify his killing, it adds more context to the situation: Odeh was not simply killed for being Palestinian. The authors of the article also leave out that a few days before Odeh was killed, Palestinians opened fire at a bus stop full of Jewish-Israeli teenagers, killing one and injuring several others, who were targeted specifically because of their identity. Two tragedies occurred within days of each other, but the article only mentions one of them.
The other piece of evidence the authors utilize to buttress their claims is the recent events regarding Sheikh Jarrah. For a short and oversimplified background, Jewish settlers are trying to evict Palestinian families from homes that Jewish settlers claim were purchased decades ago by Jews. The authors levy a heavy claim that this effort by Jewish settlers is “just the latest step towards Israel’s calculated goal of the total erasure of Palestinians from the land.” But this dispute, at its core, does not involve the Israeli parliament whatsoever. It is a legal battle between right-wing settlers and Palestinians, a dispute that the Supreme Court in Israel was set to settle. After the eruptions of violence, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Benny Gantz urged the Supreme Court to delay a verdict, which has so far been the only Israeli government intervention in the dispute, an action which delayed any possible evictions and was an attempt at de-escalation. Similar to America, Israel’s judiciary is independent from politics and therefore does not decide court cases according to Israeli ambitions or policy, but rather according to the law. Moreover, it is viewed as one of the country’s most trusted institutions by Israeli Arabs because of its adherence to upholding the law even when the verdict will go against the Israeli government’s interests. Ethnic cleansing is defined as the “mass expulsion or killing of members of one ethnic or religious group in an area by those of another.” Clearly, while tensions and hostilities in Sheikh Jarrah are heart-wrenching, the dispute does not come close to constituting “state-sponsored ethnic cleansing.”
As a former Israel Defense Forces combat soldier who served in the West Bank, I can attest to the Israel Defense Force’s morality. While certain media outlets may try to portray the situation according to their respective outlook, the reality is that there is no broad Israeli policy designed to injure, maim, or kill Palestinians or expel them from their homes. Several times I felt my life in danger, both in the form of physical injury and risk of being kidnapped but did not discharge my rifle because protocols do not allow it, nor did I ever want to. Moreover, the Israel Defense Force’s official policy is to treat Palestinians with dignity and respect at all times. Obviously, that does not happen every time; as with any principal-agent interaction, coordination and enforcement is difficult. Even so, the overall policy of the Israel Defense Forces is far from ethnic cleansing.
Additionally, the article accuses Israel of being an apartheid state and implicitly supports the Boycott, Divest, and Sanctions movement, which many Jews feel has anti-Semitic undertones. Charging Israel with being an apartheid state mitigates the suffering of its victims in South Africa: Israeli Arabs, some of whom are Palestinian, are full members of Israeli society. Some Israeli Arabs have reached the top echelons of Israeli society, such as Salim Joubran, a former justice on Israel’s Supreme Court, or Lucy Aharish, one of the most famous news anchors in Israel. This isn’t to say Israel is perfect; it is far from it. But calling Israel an apartheid state mitigates the suffering of its real victims who encountered abhorrent treatment in South Africa.
Furthermore, the article mentions events taken out of context, like Israeli police operations on the Temple Mount, which were provoked by large rioting and enormous caches of slabs of rocks that were utilized to injure police officers. Clearly, there are two sides to every story. For example, clashes in Gaza between Israel and Hamas over the past week have resulted in casualties both amongst Palestinians and Israelis. Critics of Israel may highlight the fact that, at the time of this writing, Israel has recorded 13 fatalities compared to over 200 Palestinian deaths, with that number expected to rise. To compare these two figures is unfair and misleading for two reasons. While dozens of children and innocent civilians died, an indisputable tragedy, Israel has claimed that a majority of the fatalities were militants. Secondly, Israel has invested millions of dollars into protecting its citizens by building the Iron Dome missile defense system that is capable of shooting down Hamas’ indiscriminate rocket fire, saving countless lives. Hamas, on the other hand, has invested millions into a terror infrastructure, such as thousands of rockets and attack tunnels embedded in civilian areas. Hamas has implanted its military infrastructure in civilian areas, and while Israel has strived to pinpoint accurate airstrikes to minimize civilian casualties, Hamas is partly to blame for locating its military facilities next to hospitals, mosques, and schools. It was Hamas that started this round of fighting by firing rockets at Jerusalem, Israel’s capital. What is Israel supposed to do when Hamas fires rockets indiscriminately at Israel’s civilian population but is embedded in a civilian population? No other country in the world would tolerate rocket fire at its capital and not respond with force to reinforce deterrence.
Although this piece so far is clearly pro-Israel, I write this not to convince anyone that my view is the correct one. Simplifying the conflict, or even the most recent round of clashes, into one paragraph, or into infographics that have been circulated on social media, does more harm than good. It removes nuance, context, and decades of important historical background. I write this article today to not only show that the situation is much more complicated than what it appears to be in the article that was published, but to point out two worrisome trends, one on our campus and one for our futures.
It frightens me to see several student groups sign onto such a radical statement. I no longer feel that I can attend events by those student groups for not only fear of inaccuracies, but a hostile environment towards pro-Israel, and to some extent, Jewish, students on campus. It should not be that when violence erupts in the region from both sides, Zionist students are afraid to speak their minds and contribute to campus discourse for fear of reprisal by fellow peers. Several students mentioned to me that they wanted to share their opinion on social media but refrained from doing so out of fear of being lashed out by fellow SIPA colleagues. If we attend a policy institution, one that specifically prides itself on a diversity of backgrounds and commitment to dialogue, and cannot have a calm conversation about current events with people who oppose our views, what does that say about us as a collective group? How can we be effective decision-makers in the future if we are unable to listen to another person’s point of view and potentially avoid a groupthink mindset that we may be stuck in?
This brings me to my next point. Many of us will go onto illustrious careers in public service and positions of influence that will affect policy and public opinion. The Land of Israel has been home to the Jewish people since the times of the Bible. Israel is the sole Jewish state, founded after the Holocaust in which 6 million Jews were systematically exterminated, after millennia of the Jewish people not having a state. Israel has been a staunch ally of the United States and the West for decades. Although it certainly has its undisputable and inexcusable flaws, like every other country on the planet, the State of Israel has a right to defend itself and it will continue to exercise that right to defend not only its citizens, but worldwide Jewry. As future policymakers, we need to be able to see that side of Israel too. Calling for anti-Semitic boycotts and levying unfounded claims, as mentioned in the article, will not achieve anything except further divisiveness. Peace comes about through dialogue and mutual understanding, not incendiary charges and actions that push the two sides further apart. Peace can happen when bold, visionary leaders who respect the other side come together to push the extremists out of the spotlight and to work towards a mutual understanding and a better future.