I received the following comment to a blog I posted two weeks ago:
“As a long time supporter of the RFC and an admirer of you personally, I am writing to ask you to publicly come out in opposition to the horrific situation in occupied Palestine. I suspect you understand the situation there well, bet you follow it and in your heart understand the nature of settler colonialist Israel and it's apartheid and ethnic cleansing practices.
I also bet that it is fear of losing your Zionist base, if any, by daring to criticize Israel, that holds you back. …. However, I am pretty sure your parents were not Zionists and would certainly speak out against the injustices being perpetrated on the Palestinian people in our name. Speaking as someone almost seventy, and as someone who cherishes the secular left tradition of Jews, I feel very brutalized by the racist aggressive nationalism of Israel. This is not what my Bubbe taught me.”
The comment is correct, I have avoided this issue. And it is true that I am concerned that whatever position I take on the Israeli-Palestinian struggle could hurt the Rosenberg Fund for Children financially, and these days we can’t afford to lose even a few contributors. Also, since the RFC primarily funds children whose parents have been targeted for a wide array of activism in this country I usually address domestic issues. Furthermore, I usually comment inclusively and positively rather than negatively. Moreover, I don’t feel I’m much of an expert on the Middle East. But these are excuses, and I speak for myself in this blog, rather than representing the RFC.
Although I’m not an authority on this issue, I do have opinions. I oppose the multi-decade military occupation of land captured by Israel in the 1967 war. I oppose the collective punishment Israel has visited upon the people of the Gaza Strip because they voted for Hamas. I oppose the wall that Israel has built, and find it ironic that the world’s only Jewish State is attempting to create the world’s largest ghetto. I also condemn the firing of missiles into Israel and all terrorist bombings. I disagree most profoundly with all manner of religious fundamentalism, be it Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu or any other kind.
But experience has taught me to look for who holds the power in any situation when affixing responsibility. In Palestine, Israel and its chief supplier, the United States, are dominant, and so they are the principle oppressors. This is why for several years I’ve been a member of the Advisory Board of Jewish Voice for Peace, an organization that supports the Boycott, Divestment, Sanction movement.
I doubt any country will eradicate the desperate violence of a subjugated people by using overwhelming military force and/or high-tech state sponsored repression. It is indeed a daunting task to overcome the antagonism of over 50 years and break the cycle of retribution. I don’t claim to have the answers, but I believe a good starting point for Israelis and Palestinians is to adopt an approach similar to the “constructive revenge” concept I articulated in my memoir’s conclusion about the U.S.A.’s response to 9/11.
“It took me almost 40 years to figure out how to overcome my fear, harness my anger and transform the destruction that was visited upon my family into something constructive for the benefit of others. America today is confronted with a similar challenge. I don’t doubt for an instant that if we put our minds to it we could use this moment to create something powerfully positive on a global scale. We could channel our fear and anger and use our immense power to protect ourselves by spreading economic and social justice throughout the world and by fostering international and cross-cultural understanding. This is a positive way to respond to the destructive social forces that spawned the September 11th attacks. This is the way to find our constructive revenge.”
I don’t mean that Israelis and Palestinians should figure out clever ways to obtain positives results that also contain an element of vengeance, but rather that the best recourse for both sides is to achieve a settlement under which all parties can enjoy peaceful and productive lives. Beyond that they should look to the model provided by South Africa’s Peace and Reconciliation Commission in order to improve the chances of building an enduring peace.
I’m sure many will maintain that what I suggest is impossible. Perhaps, but considering the alternative, it is also imperative.