Short, Not Sweet

Anguished

Photo by Alessandro Crosato on Unsplash

I watched the protests of the late 1960s, but didn’t take part; I was too politically naïve. From what I saw I developed a simple ideal: To make their point, protesters must sometimes break the rules. They then should accept the consequences, not resisting, hoping that public outrage will advance their cause. In time, their jail sentences became badges of honor.

As I remember it, civil rights protests generally followed that script. But there is little room in the Israel-Palestinian conflict for nonviolent resistance. Hamas, for instance, will resist to the death, but will always go down fighting. Palestinians who try non-violence are greeted by an Israel that ”doesn’t do Gandhi very well,” as a defense minister once put it.

In contrast to the civil rights movement, anti-war demonstrations of the 1960s often became violent. They ended with the deaths of students at Kent State and Jackson State, shot by National Guard and police.

That could happen again. There are other worries this time as well. And I am uneasy.

We were bitterly divided then, as now, but the divisions were over political views. Today’s hostility goes beyond that: Our Jewish neighbors are blamed for what Israel does, Arabs and Muslims for what Hamas does.

Jews suffer because the spores of antisemitism are everywhere. Given any chance, they quickly germinate. Arabs and Muslims suffer because of their long history as Other. First they were called Mohammedans, then camel jockeys, then brutal patriarchs. Finally, terrorists, because a few have been. Wild ideas about Islam still flourish.

I don’t know how to keep blame focused on the agents of war, not on people who happen to share their ethnicity. But it might help to have clearer language.

We need better language

In particular, we need a term for those who support Israel without reservation. ‘Jew’ certainly does not mean that. Not all Jews support Israel so completely; many non-Jews do.

Nor will ‘Israeli’ do. Within Israel there is a steady voice of opposition, not just to Netanyahu, not just to the war, but to the country’s treatment of Palestinians over decades. The voice is small, but it’s serious.

I once used ‘Zionism’ to mean unconditional support for Israel. But the word is ambiguous. For some it means simply support for Israel’s existence. For others, the word conjures up nefarious pro-Israel activities.

Would  ‘Israelist’ do? I wish it would, but the word was coined by a group — young American Jews — to criticize unconditional support. We need a word that describes without condemning. But language lives; perhaps those targeted by the term will embrace it, and so change it.

Continuing with linguistic frustrations: I wish we could let ‘intifada’ and ‘from the river to the sea’ mean what they meant originally, and still do for most people: ‘struggle’ and ‘peace in Palestine.’ By ‘Palestine,’ of course, I mean a geographic area. And I wish I didn’t have to spell that out. But those battles seem to be lost.

We need to focus our anger

I wish people understood that condemning a strategy does not mean condemning a cause. And that condemning one side does not require endorsing the other.

We need mutual respect

Finally I wish there were a way to foster respect for those with whom we disagree. By now most of us have strong convictions about the violence in Gaza and the West Bank. Most of us know, and many of us love, people who disagree with us. Wherever you stand, what’s at stake is huge. But we need to talk rather than shutting one another out, and at least restrain from attacking them. The Christian phrase “Hate the sin, love the sinner,” comes to mind, but it isn’t quite what I mean. I’m guessing there are versions of the sentiment within Islam and Judaism, and of course in secular literature. If you have suggestions, please share them.

Above all else, may the bloodshed cease.