Who owns the Palestine-Israel conflict?
Reflections on BDS and the absurdity of "engaging with Jews"
by Phan Nguyen
Recently, two non-Jewish Co-op members wrote and circulated a letter entitled "Anti-Jewish Oppression, The Olympia Food Co-op and Israel." The letter echoed a common sentiment heard around town: Olympia needs to tend to its Jewish population, as they have been triggered and traumatized by the Olympia Food Co-op's boycott of Israeli goods.
According to the letter, "the conversation [within the Olympia community] should switch to one about anti-Jewish oppression, and away from Israel....at this point Israel and the Co-op's Board of Directors are a distraction. The conversation Olympia needs to have right now is about eliminating anti-Jewish oppression in Olympia.
"Invite local Jews to share stories of instances they've experienced anti-Jewish oppression. Let us all learn."
It is certainly valuable to learn from anti-Jewish oppression. However, within the context of the Co-op's boycott, such a step is neither straightforward nor necessarily warranted. Despite its ostensible rationality, the call to "engage with Jews" is contingent on three questions: Which Jews? Why Jews in particular? And for what purpose?
Such questions may seem petty and the answers self-evident. Yet the purpose here is not to minimize the role of Jews in the community but to widen the context, to broaden the concept of Jewish community and to encompass the voices of marginalized people in the broader Olympia community.
The following essay is neither a rejection of Jews nor a rejection of dialogue with Jews. The Co-op's boycott has forced many in the community to confront the Palestine/Israel issue for the first time. For many non-Jews unfamiliar with the issue, the instinctive response has been to defer to Jews.
Yet doing so implies that Jews collectively hold the key to the Palestine/Israel conflict-that they own the issue, either through their identity or through their visceral response to the issue.
Pursuing the three questions noted above, however, reveals that the request to engage with Jews is based on false assumptions that are tokenizing, restrictive, and ultimately marginalizing.
Which Jews?
Calls to engage with Jews assume that there is a monolithic or near-monolithic Jewish voice to defer to-one that feels oppressed by the boycott decision. This ignores all Jews who support the boycott and who have been oppressed specifically because of their support of the boycott. By distinguishing between boycott supporters and members of the Jewish community, these calls stereotype Jews as a whole and marginalize Jews who don't fit the stereotype.
This is not trivial. Consider the experiences of some Jewish boycott supporters within the past month:
- Received a torrent of hateful messages by email and phone-at home and at work
- Were subjected to epithets by other Jews, such as "self-hating Jew" and "kapo"
- Told by a local rabbi that "you are not a part of the Jewish community"
- Were perceived as race traitors
- Were told to be misrepresenting Jews
- Were dismissed by non-Jews as having opinions counter to "true" Jewish opinion on the issue
- Were lectured by non-Jewish "allies" about anti-Semitism
- Received 150 death threats
- Forced to leave home out of fear of the death threats
The situation became dire enough that at one point boycott supporters, Jewish and non-Jewish, seriously discussed providing safe houses for Jewish boycott supporters who may feel unsafe staying at home.
The "Anti-Jewish Oppression" letter, like all other calls to engage with Jews, completely ignores the experiences of these Jews. While other Jews may feel triggered or traumatized, these pro-boycott Jews have been faced with actual threats to their lives. To top it off, these Jews generally do not have the support of other Jews-that is, of Jews who oppose the boycott and who are most vocal about feeling unsafe. In light of a history of being persecuted, where does a Jew turn to when being persecuted by other Jews?
One institution perceived as a central pillar of the Olympia Jewish community is the downtown synagogue, Temple Beth Hatfiloh (TBH). Yet TBH is not necessarily a safe space for pro-boycott Jews, either. Consider the following circumstances:
- TBH has hosted meetings of "It's Our Co-op," a group originally formed to rescind the Co-op's boycott.
- The core group of "It's Our Co-op" is comprised of some of the most prominent members of TBH, including the TBH rabbi, his wife, the former TBH rabbi, the two TBH co-presidents, and other well-situated TBH members.
- "It's Our Co-op" has used the TBH email list to send its announcements and calls to action against the boycott.
- The TBH rabbi has made several public statements opposing the boycott.
- Some prominent members of TBH are associating with StandWithUs, a notorious pro-Israel propaganda organization
The situation makes it difficult for a TBH member to be vocal about their support of the boycott. Some TBH members have previously left the congregation due to disagreements over Palestine/Israel. The continual anti-boycott sentiment around TBH means other pro-boycott Jews will remain silent out of fear.
The "Anti-Jewish Oppression" letter suggested involving "the leadership of the local Temple" in facilitating discussions around anti-Jewish oppression, a move that would ironically leave many pro-boycott Jews feeling more unsafe to speak out.
Additionally, news reports in the Olympian portray the battle over the boycott as the Olympia Food Co-op vs. the "Jewish community," implying that Jews are united in opposition to the boycott.
Now add to that the calls by non-Jewish "allies" for boycott supporters to proactively engage with the Jewish community-thus pretending that pro-boycott Jews don't exist-and one can see how pro-boycott Jews are marginalized and silenced by the media, by other Jews, and by non-Jewish "allies."
Why Jews in particular?
Calls to engage with Jews portray a dichotomous community composed of Jews and non-Jews. In this view, Jews feel unsafe, and thus it is the duty of non-Jews to tend to the sensitivities of Jews-all posed in an anti-oppression framework.
While this conception of "Jews" is too narrow because it rejects all Jews who support the boycott, the concept of "non-Jews" is too broad because it assumes everyone else is a privileged white non-Jew or someone who doesn't have as much of a stake in the Palestine/Israel conflict as Jews.
Most egregiously, it lumps Muslims, Arabs, and Palestinians in the category of non-Jewish and renders them invisible.
Consider the experiences of Muslims and Arabs/Palestinians in our community within the past month:
- The August 12 Co-op community forum fell on Ramadan, thus limiting the number of Muslims who could attend. Muslims were not consulted before the date was established.
- Some Jews who have been active in opposing the boycott have criticized Muslims who support the boycott, claiming that these Muslims are harming Jewish-Muslim relations in the community. Thus it is acceptable for Jews to speak up in Olympia but "divisive" for Muslims in Olympia to do the same.
- The Palestinian experience is constantly disparaged by boycott opponents, reduced it to stereotypes of terrorism and anti-Semitism.
- Letters published in the Olympian perpetuate racist myths that Palestinians do not really exist. One July 28 letter referred to "so-called Palestinians" who are actually "refugees from other Arab lands, mostly Jordan," and who are being used to "ultimately destroy Israel." An Aug. 23 letter claimed that "Palestinians are a fabrication" of "a radical anti-Semite organization, as an attempt to control the Arab masses. Most are Jordanian and Egyptian with some Lebanese," posed as "a ready army of zealots."
- The Palestinian right of return, an important component of Palestinian diaspora identity (since Israel to this day refuses to acknowledge that it was responsible for the expulsion of Palestinians from their homeland), is attacked on purely "Jewish" terms-that is, the Palestinian refugee right of return is bad for the Jews and bad for the Jewish state. Palestinians pose a "demographic threat" to Israel, with no acknowledgment of Palestinian sensitivities about being seen as a racial threat to Jews.
- Anti-boycott activists condescendingly speak on behalf of Palestinians, claiming that Palestinians are "pawns" of Hamas, that they enjoy equal rights in Israel, and that Palestinian society mistreats women and queers. But these boycott opponents never allow Palestinians to speak for themselves. In reality, Palestinian organizations in Israel, Palestinian women's organizations, and Palestinian queer organizations have publicly expressed support for boycott, divestment, and sanctions on Israel.
- A racist leaflet is distributed at the Eastside Co-op and throughout downtown Olympia claiming that Muslims are savages who are intellectually inferior to Jews and that "the Arabs got the world by the balls."
- A recent cartoon in the Port Townsend Leader suggests that boycotting Israel is a Muslim plot to prevent food co-ops from carrying culturally Jewish foods such as bagels and lox.
- News reports about the boycott reference the Jewish community but rarely if ever mention Arabs, Muslims, or Palestinians. Jews are quoted at length, but no Muslims/Arabs/Palestinians are quoted.
- Non-Muslim, non-Jewish white "allies" call for deference to Jews, declare allyship with Jews, attend to the sensitivities of (certain) Jews, and absolutely ignore Arabs and Muslims in the community.
Muslims and Arabs have been and continue to be the most public and acceptable targets of explicit discrimination and racism today. Yet in Olympia, they remain invisible. No "ally" chooses to defer to them. No one else comes to their defense. While many in the Olympia community and in the media solicit the thoughts of Jews on the boycott, no one asks what Arabs and Muslims think. While the community is asked to be responsive to Jewish feelings, Arabs and Muslims are not recognized as having feelings or sensitivities at all.
The Co-op is faulted for not consulting with the "Jewish community" prior to implementing the boycott, but Arabs and Muslims are not worth consulting with.
And for what purpose?
What is the purpose of engaging with Jews over the boycott? That is, why should Jews be given deference over other demographic groups in the community around the boycott? The answer is self-evident only if one has a limited view of both the Olympia community and the Palestine/Israel conflict.
There are several possible answers, but all the answers are potentially tokenizing, stereotypical, marginalizing to other groups, and superficial:
1. Because Jews are hurt. They are traumatized, victims of centuries of oppression. The boycott is triggering. We must tend to their feelings.
2. Because the boycott has created divisiveness. We must heal the wounds and bring this community back together.
3. Because Jews are reasonable and moral people. If you engage with them, you can win them over to the righteousness of your cause and form a stronger movement.
4. Because they collectively hold power in this community. If you don't curry favor from them, they will destroy you. If you do engage with them, you will have a powerful ally.
5. Because they have strong ties to Israel. Israel is the Jewish state. Some of them have family there. The Palestine/Israel conflict is their conflict, not yours.
Space prohibits me from exploring all the rationales in depth, so the brevity of the responses below can only give a flavor to the complexity of these rationales. The point is that these rationales are not as simple and self-evident as one would expect.
1. As explained previously, anti-boycott Jews are not the only ones who are hurt and who have been triggered. The problem is when addressing hurt begins and ends with Jews, thus perpetuating the marginalization and pain of other parties. This is discussed at greater length later.
2. "Divisiveness" by itself does not indicate the validity of a cause. It merely indicates a change from the status quo, where inherent divisiveness is more easily tolerated. The problem with the "divisiveness" argument in this context of the Co-op is it implies that the division is between Jews and non-Jews. Thus, healing the supposed rift with some Jews somehow ends the divisiveness with no regard for the feelings of Arabs and Muslims in the community, for example. The process of healing the rift and ending the divisiveness is actually evoked to pressure the Co-op to bend to the demands of a particular subset of Jews.
3. Claiming that Jews are a particularly reasonable and moral people is to me an inappropriate stereotype. Others may disagree. There is no reason why the same claim can't be made of other people. Why not Muslims? Arabs? Latinos? All peoples can help form a stronger movement.
4. It should be obvious that collective Jewish power is an anti-Semitic trope.
5. This claim invalidates Palestinians completely. Moreover it limits human rights to a tribal issue and gives deference to Jews. Because Israel supposedly means so much to Jews in Olympia, no one else has authority to criticize Israel. It implies that Palestinians are owned by Jews. It denies the fact that US funding and unconditional support of Israel's crimes means we are all complicit in Israel's crimes. The fact that some Olympia Jews have family in Israel implies that Israeli Jews are real people, while Palestinians remain an abstraction. It also ignores the fact that many Olympians have family and friends in Palestine.
Is my answer then to not engage with Jews? No. My point is that we cannot easily divide the community into "Jews" and "non-Jews." And it is neither simple nor inherently beneficial for the latter to dialogue with, listen to, or defer to the former out of a misguided concept of Jewish ownership. We must address the dynamics of our community as a whole and not marginalize the suffering of Palestinians or the voices of local Muslims and Arabs by making their rights contingent on the whims of a subset of Olympia's Jewish community.
I must emphasize that I am not opposed to engaging with Jews except when such an action is vague and reductive-tokenizing, stereotyping, and marginalizing to Jews and to others. There are additional problems that must be addressed, as follows.
Attacks on boycott advocates
Calls for boycott proponents to "engage with Jews" assume that proponents have the privilege of choosing to engage and deciding with whom to engage. The reality is different. In the past month, boycott proponents have had to defend themselves from an onslaught of vicious attacks. In addition to the attacks directed specifically against Jewish boycott proponents, advocates of the boycott have endured the following:
- Deluged by hateful and racist email.
- Targeted in a campaign by the racist organization StandWithUs, which accused us of being anti-Semites.
- Twice falsely accused in the Olympian of being paid outside agitators. One letter written by a prominent community member (and later retracted) accused us of being sent in by a mysterious international organization for "creating tensions and anger among community members and then moving on to their next effort leaving a broken community behind."
- Blamed for causing division, as if we were the ones who have made angry calls to the Co-op, accosted Co-op staff, or protested the Co-op outside its doors.
- Accused of "cheating" or not following process in order to push an agenda contrary to the Co-op's mission, when we were actually careful and deliberate about respecting the process.
- Subjected to attempts to shut down our public educational events by scaring the host venues.
- Subjected to various attempts to discredit us, for instance through the forwarding of our emails out of context.
- Faced with attempts to discourage a visit by Rabbi Lynn Gottlieb by defaming us in personal emails to her.
- Prevented from speaking about boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) at a US Social Forum (USSF) report back, despite the fact that BDS and Palestine solidarity were significant components of this year's USSF, with several resolutions passed in support from several Popular Movement Assemblies.
- Accused of being an international conspiracy
Boycott proponents have been targets of a blacklist in which other members of the community and other institutions are warned against associating with us. This has made it difficult for people to publicly express support for the boycott.
For the past month, people who have been campaigning in support of the boycott have had to defend themselves from continued malicious attacks. The fact that we are expected to listen to other people talk about how they feel hurt after we have been silenced and targeted by hateful attacks (by some of the same people who express hurt) demonstrates how incredible these calls to "engage with Jews" are.
Boycott proponents have also been accused of being privileged white activists taking on a fashionable cause. The irony of this accusation is that boycott proponents have repeatedly demonstrated more diversity than the boycott opponents. In fact, the core group of Olympia BDS organizers consists of Jews, Muslims, and other religious identities, with ethnicities ranging from South Asian, Southeast Asian, Arab, along with a handful of token white people. Yet our own diversity takes a back seat to the notion of an oppressed Jewish collective that we must answer to.
Allyship with Jews
When I first engaged in Palestine activism many years ago, I was conscious about being sensitive to Jewish feelings. I would listen carefully and never question the feelings of Jews who felt uncomfortable. I had numerous long talks with friends, acquaintances, and even strangers, and I expressed a sincere wish to acknowledge their feelings and understand their fears. I also hoped that by being sensitive and empathizing with hurt Jews, by trying to understand the difficult space they were coming from, these hurt Jews would then be more amenable to empathizing with Palestinian suffering.
Without excusing my own limitations in dialogue, I must say that all my sincere listening and acknowledging rarely if ever enabled a hurt Jew to recognize the suffering of Palestinians or to be amenable to activism on behalf of Palestinians. Listening through racist accusations against Muslims and Arabs, I only managed to affirm to hurt Jews that their feelings of insecurity trump the physical suffering of Palestinians.
While acknowledging that every person is different, a common attribute among Jews with an affinity toward Israel is this: For many Jews who are uncomfortable with Palestine activism, there is no way for them to see the Palestine issue without first stepping out of their comfort zone.
Acknowledging Israel's crimes will induce discomfort. It can be painful, triggering, and traumatic. As Rabbi Lynn Gottlieb mentioned when she visited Olympia, Israel for many Jews is "family." It's natural to react strongly when your family is criticized. It is difficult to accept that your family has been engaged in reprehensible acts. Even when you know that your family is doing wrong, it's difficult to accept criticism of your family from outsiders and easier to treat it as an internal affair. The problem is that it is not an internal affair. The fact that it oppresses another people, and the fact that it is encouraged and supported by our own government, makes it everyone's affair and everyone's responsibility.
The problem with non-Jewish "allies" is this: When they see certain Jews feeling hurt over criticism of Israel, they equate the hurt with oppression against a target group. They call on the supposed agents of oppression, the critics of Israel, to cease. The perceived role of the ally is to end the hurt and the triggering and to reintroduce comfort for the target group.
In reality, this "allyship" enables oppression. It prevents hurt Jews from having to confront a difficult reality that their "family" is oppressing another people. It forces Palestinian human rights to be considered only on "Jewish" terms, implying that Jews somehow own the Palestinians. And it marginalizes the voices of Arabs and Muslims.
Thus it reduces a political reality with human consequences-in which Israel is continuing its process of expulsion of indigenous non-Jews with the support of the US-into an issue of Jewish feelings in Olympia, Washington. In this framework, fighting for human rights for Palestinians cannot proceed until Olympia's Jews permit it.
As long as "allies" enable hurt Jews to stay in their perceived safety bubble and regulate Palestine activism, they perpetuate the oppression that is manifested through human rights abuses in Palestine.
Those concerned with anti-oppression work and allyship must appreciate the following tenet: Sometimes the party most visible and most vocal about being oppressed is not necessarily the party most oppressed. Quite often the most oppressed party is the one you don't hear or see.
The limitations of dialogue
The "Anti-Jewish Oppression" letter called on the community to "[i]nvite local Jews to share stories of instances they've experienced anti-Jewish oppression. Let us all learn." Unfortunately, my experience in dialogues with hurt Jews is that the conversation rarely focuses on experiences of oppression. Instead, the dialogues become lectures to activists on why they should not criticize Israel.
Here are common accusations made against Palestine activism in such dialogues:
Accusing activists:
-Activists must be scrutinized for their true intentions (after all, no one could really care about Palestinian human rights).
-Activists are accused of being one-sided (as if activism can be neutral).
-Activists should only be allowed to criticize Israel within parameters laid out by Israel supporters.
-Activists are naïve and have been brainwashed and duped by conniving Arabs.
-Activists are only allowed to accept a two-state solution (as if a two-state solution is around the corner).
-Activists are forced to accept the vague declaration of "Israel's right to exist."
-Activists are lectured on what to do if they really cared about human rights (even though the lecturer does not engage in what they suggest).
-Activists are told that they should work on some other cause (even though the lecturer does not work on that cause).
-Non-Jews do not have a stake in the issue.
Accusing Arabs/Muslims:
-Palestinians are to blame for their own suffering.
-Arabs/Muslims mistreat women and queers (which, if true, makes it okay for Israel to mistreat all Arabs and Muslims-female, queer, or otherwise?)
-Here's what Arabs/Muslims think and what they really want.
-Palestinians are victims of the their own leaders or pawns of the greater Arab world
-Hamas, Hamas, Hamas.
Excusing Israel:
-The suffering of Palestinians is overrated.
-Palestinians enjoy great freedoms in Israel (thus condescending to Palestinians by speaking on their behalf).
-Criticizing Israel's actions promotes anti-Semitism (yet Israeli actions themselves don't promote anti-Semitism?).
-"Israel is a democracy," "Israel is technologically advanced," and other non sequiturs.
-You're singling out Israel.
-You are not allowed to work for Palestinian human rights until you tackle all the other problems in the world first.
-Palestinian terrorism justifies Israeli actions.
-Both sides are wrong, therefore you should support Israel.
-Inaccurate history lessons and gross factual errors designed to excuse Israel.
-It's a complicated issue.
The point is that most dialogues about Palestine/Israel rarely focus on oppression, with Jews explaining their hurt and where the hurt comes from. What we learn from these dialogues is that the hurt some Jews feel are closely intertwined with political disagreement. The intersection between Jewish hurt feelings on the Palestine/Israel conflict and political disagreement, Islamophobic/anti-Arab stereotypes, nationalist advocacy, and misinformation cannot be underestimated.
Anti-Semitism is real and must be confronted. But we must acknowledge that when it comes to Israel, many accusations of anti-Semitism are based on stances that minimize Palestinian suffering at best and impede a solution to the conflict or encourage Palestinian suffering at worst. It puts the onus on people who dare work for human rights to prove that they are not anti-Semitic. This is not about pride or principle. This is about trying to get human rights work done and not be derailed into a discussion about whether one has permission from the local synagogue to criticize Israel.
Progressive Except for Palestine
Another argument is that there are Jews who are politically progressive, even radical, and their political leanings mean they should be listened to.
First, it is important to acknowledge that being progressive on other issues does not make one progressive on Palestine/Israel. This phenomenon is so common that it has a special label: PEP, or "Progressive Except for Palestine."
Additionally, some people claim to be progressive on Palestine and boast the following credentials:
1. They express opposition to the occupation
2. They say they don't support the actions of the Israeli government
3. They admit that what Israel is doing to the Palestinians is wrong.
4. They support a Palestinian state
5. They support J Street
The distinction is made that because these Jews are not right-wing, they should be given special credence. Again, it is inappropriate to claim that Jews, progressive or not, have greater authority over the Palestine/Israel conflict than progressive non-Jews.
Moreover, many people who flaunt their "progressive" credentials will still resort to the same accusations against Palestinian activism when pressed.
In the end, labels convey very little. It is irrelevant whether people consider themselves progressive, liberal, radical, leftist, or anarchist. What is relevant is what people are willing to do to work for peace and justice. If the extent of one's activism on Palestine/Israel is disrupting other people's activism work-whether it's by disrupting a boycott or disrupting a possible sister city relationship with Rafah-or if their only activism is engaging in local dialogue, then those actions speak louder than one's political affiliations or one's personal beliefs.
Mere political affiliation should not accord anyone special authority on Palestine activism.
Who owns the Olympia community?
Unfortunately, provincialism coupled with an exclusive awareness of Jewish hurt feelings has made it appear to some people that the Olympia Food Co-op's decision to honor the Israel boycott has only produced negative results-anti-Semitism and division-with no benefits whatsoever. Hence the boycott appears to be a misguided, strictly principled, symbolic gesture of little value and no ramifications on Middle East peace.
The facts belie these assumptions. The boycott tactic has Israel taking notice enough that the Israeli Consulate has attempted to unify local opposition to the boycott. Several Israeli news articles have appeared about the Co-op. Most recently, the Co-op was featured in an hour-long news report on the growing BDS movement on Israel's Channel 10. The reality is that Israel takes BDS more seriously than it takes J Street seriously.
The boycott has also helped to empower Palestinian civil society, which was the originator of the 2005 BDS call. A letter of endorsement was received that was signed by all major Palestinian agricultural and farmer unions, as well as by the Palestinian Popular Resistance Committees that organize Palestinian nonviolent resistance today. Nonviolent activists in Palestine have been routinely beaten and at times killed. Leaders of the nonviolent resistance have been imprisoned. For these Palestinians, whose struggle is literally a matter of life and death, the boycott is a signal that the world is paying attention to their plight and is responding to their pleas. It is also an affirmation that their chosen tactics of nonviolence are garnering international support and solidarity.
Locally, emotional opposition to the boycott has drowned out voices of marginalized peoples who have felt empowered by the boycott. Expressions of anger, fear, and sadness can outweigh the softer expressions of pride and hope coming from marginalized people.
We have all heard how the boycott is hurtful, divisive, offensive, misguided, pointless, and anti-Semitic. But there are other expressions over the boycott that must be heeded. The following expression comes from a Palestinian-American Co-op member:
"Today was the first time in years that I have cried happy tears. As I read of news of your organization's boycott on Israeli goods, I could feel decades of pain and anger flow out of me, replaced by gratitude. I spent my childhood as an Arab Christian in a Gazan refugee camp known as Bureij. My grandmother once lived in the city of Jaffa, before she and her entire neighborhood were chased away by militants in 1948. The place where her home once stood is now a parking lot, and the city has been renamed Tel Aviv...
"The most painful part of my history is not my grandmother's demolished house or my younger sister dying due to lack of available medicine or my memories of the hell that Bureij was. Something far more hurtful than all of that is that in my new homeland of America, no one cares. For decades the response has been the same: you deserved it. You should have shut up and taken it. This is all your fault anyway. Arabs are violent, by their very nature. The attitude was so common that during college I used to tell people that I was from Bahrain in order to avoid the stares and shouts.
"I tell you all of this because today was the first day in recent memory that I have felt that not all Americans hate my family and people like them. After all the 'We Stand by Israel' parades, after the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, after the deaths of so many for such pointless reasons, I am beginning to feel hope. Hope for the future of Palestine without violence, hope for an end to the wars and the justifications and the massacres, hope for an America where people do not turn a cold shoulder to the killing of innocents because they speak Arabic..."
There are many expressions like this in the community. But expressions of pride and hope from the marginalized are not necessarily the loudest.
The Co-op's boycott is more than a symbol. It is a hurdle that has been overcome. And now the greater Olympia community must overcome its own hurdles.
How do we foster community? Is it by ignoring controversial issues? Is it by avoiding difficult questions? Is it by longing for a less divisive time, when oppression lay beneath the surface, rather than aboveground where it must be confronted? Or is it by taking responsibility for our actions, pursuing our values, empowering the marginalized, and lending voice to the voiceless?
This is an appeal to broaden our community, for all of us to take ownership of the Palestine/Israel issue. Whether we accept it, we are already complicit. It's already ours.
We must transcend the patronizing notion that when it comes to Palestine/Israel, Jews have "sensitivities," while everyone else has "biases." I may not be Jewish, but the tears I have cried for Palestine are no less real. The people of Palestine are real people and cannot be dismissed as "Hamas" or "pawns of Hamas" or "terrorists." Their pain may not be the pain of centuries of persecution or the pain of Auschwitz or Treblinka. In that-and against the depths of one's transgenerational trauma-I'm sure they cannot compete. But must they?
I look forward to a time when Palestinian life is not predicated on questions about "Israel's right to exist" or "where's the Palestinian Gandhi" or a 1987 Hamas charter that hardly any Palestinian has read-that is, when Palestinian life is not predicated on another people's insecurities.
I look forward to a time when I can support Palestinians without having my motivations questioned, my ethnicity disqualified, and my name and associations sullied.
I look forward to a time when Arabs and Muslims in Olympia, as well as Palestinians in the Middle East, are not viewed as abstractions but are recognized as real and as alive and as deserving of dignity as Olympia's dynamic Jewish community.
And I look forward to a time when we can all look back and say with pride that the Olympia Food Co-op was one of the first, and we helped make it happen.
Phan Nguyen is a long-time resident of Olympia and an organizer for Olympia BDS.
0 Have Your Say!:
Post a Comment