A crucial mission of Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) is to focus attention on the harms wrought by Israeli policies in the occupied territories. As a firm Zionist, I am in complete agreement with SJP that Israel should not be in the West Bank, and should leave as soon as a negotiated settlement comes to fruition. The occupation, which began as a result of confused Israeli policy in the 1960s and 1970s, and has metastasized since, is bad for Israel for a series of reasons. First, the fact that millions of disenfranchised Arabs live under Israeli rule represents a vast demographic threat to Israel’s Jewish character. Occupying the territory of a hostile people has also corroded the moral fabric of the Israeli polity and its army. The occasional instances of brutality on the part of Israeli soldiers in the West Bank are, I fear, part and parcel of all occupations. Occupation has spawned a fringe of radical settlers who behave, both toward the Israeli Defense Forces and the Palestinian locals, in a way reminiscent of so many fascist hooligans. This wing of the settler movement has also brought a culture of political violence and terror back into Israel proper, as the 13th anniversary of Yitzhak Rabin’s assassination brings into sharp relief. Because the Israeli presence there so poisons the Israeli state and the Israeli soul, the West Bank (or its equivalent in territory) should be given up in full as soon as possible.
SJP does both Israel and the Palestinians a service by discussing what goes on in the West Bank, and its incompatibility with the tenets of Israeli democracy. However, when the group makes presentations, like its Saturday, Nov. 15 hosting of a Boston Coalition for Palestinian Rights exhibition comparing Israel’s actions in the territories to South African apartheid, I urge it to be scrupulous in maintaining accuracy and a high level of balance in the information in presents. When displaying photographs, the group must present factual context for the images they show. To use a famous example, don’t show a picture of a Palestinian man getting beaten by Israeli police, only to have that picture turn out to actually represent an Israeli policeman protecting a Jewish student from a group of Palestinians who had been attacking him with rocks. When recounting the deaths of Palestinian civilians at the hands of Israeli troops fighting in West Bank towns, don’t forget to mention that, in the heat of battle, it’s very difficult to distinguish between Palestinian militiamen and passersby. When discussing the appalling conditions at West Bank checkpoints, remember to note that Palestinian terror bears a considerable amount of the blame for the harshness of the Israeli travel restrictions.
Ultimately, providing nuance and balance will not merely improve SJP’s credibility, it will advance the argument that the Israeli presence in the West Bank harms most everyone it touches. It produces great suffering among Palestinian civilians, creates situations that lead good people on the Israeli side to commit abusive actions by mistake, and forces Israeli policymakers to choose daily between the security of their constituents and the human rights of their subjects in the territories. An arrangement that removed this presence in exchange for assurances of Israel’s permanence and security would benefit all parties involved.
Beyond opposing Israel’s presence in the West Bank, SJP should be careful of what, exactly, it argues for and advocates. I would urge it not to claim, as more radical Palestinian advocacy groups do, that Palestine is solely the homeland of the Palestinian Arabs, with no connections to Jewish history that justify the presence of a Jewish polity in the territory. That is a good way to lose legitimacy and cause the campus dialogue on Israel-Palestine to descend into rancor and invective.
If SJP’s end goal is, as it ought to be, to work toward the establishment of a lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians, it should also articulate positions consistent with that long-term aim. For example, SJP should certainly talk about the plight of the refugees from 1948. It is wrong to ignore those who were harmed during that war. At the same time, in supporting a just solution to the refugee problem, SJP should refrain from advocating for the return of all or most of the Palestinian refugees to homes within the Green Line. Everybody knows that proposal is a nonstarter, as it would destroy Israel’s Jewish character. Similarly, SJP should unequivocally come out in favor of a two-state solution. A single, bi-national state will never be accepted by the Israelis; it, like the return of all refugees, would mean the end of Israel. Israel cannot be expected to concede itself out of existence at the negotiating table. For this reason, any student group that advocates a one-state solution is putting forward an illusory and unacceptable proposal that is counterproductive to peace. SJP should not go down that road.
SJP has the potential to be a very positive presence on the Amherst campus. It is dedicated to making sure the Palestinian perspective on the conflict is heard, to working towards ending Israel’s occupation of the West Bank, and to ensuring that Israel follows international norms in how it treats Arabs in the occupied territories and within Israel proper. Both of these goals suit the long-term interests of Palestinians and Israelis alike. To have the best possible impact, SJP should attach its support to reasonable long-term solutions to the conflict, and avoid falling in line with unrealistic demands and uncompromising ideological rigidity. If SJP proves reasonable in its political stances and accountable in its presentation of the facts, it will prove very helpful in facilitating a campus dialogue in which sympathizers of Israelis and Palestinians can discuss the conflict in a way that is civil, academically rigorous and results-oriented.