Despite the cease-fire between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, violence in the Mideast continues. But on June 22, on the other side of the world in the Midwest, Jews, Israelis, Palestinians and others met face to face at the Peace Action Center in Milwaukee for what was supposed to be a peaceful “dialogue.”
The program was sponsored by Peace Action Wisconsin, a pacifist group, and was entitled “The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: Where are the Signs for a Just Peace?” Ruth Dersel Trujillo, a Jewish American, and Janan Najeeb, a Palestinian American, kicked off the discussions with Julie Byrnes Enslow, a peace activist, moderating.
Unfortunately, there was no real dialogue between the panelists, though there was some with audience members.
While I don’t doubt the good intentions of the organizers of the program, for any dialogue to have any practical meaning — for it to be a real dialogue — the panelists representing either side should, more or less, represent the majority consensus of the communities they represent.
Najeeb presented her case and reiterated Palestinian demands, specifically the right of millions of Palestinian refugees to return to 1948 Israel. This has been and remains a fundamental Palestinian demand; as such, Najeeb successfully conveyed the concerns of her people.
Dersel however did not represent her people. She did not see, or perhaps did not object to, how the right of return would create an existential dilemma for Israelis. Rather, she hinted that the very idea of a Jewish state was racist. In doing so, she placed the onus of the entire Arab-Israeli conflict on Israel while ignoring much of Israel’s historical experiences and leaving the Palestinians and Arab world blameless.
Thus, the program raised issues regarding the efficacy of Arab-Jewish dialogues, or at least dialogues in which both parties appear to agree.
Dersel’s views were extreme, and many leading Israeli doves would disagree with her. Because she seemed to side completely with the Palestinians — and never brought up issues of concern for Israelis, like Palestinian violence — as far as the panel was concerned, there was no dialogue. The audience heard essentially a monologue of Palestinian views and grievances.
Luckily, there were Jews in the audience who represented Israeli viewpoints and opinions. One Jewish man in particular summed up my own sentiments, and what I suspect were the sentiments of many Jews and Israelis. He told Najeeb that he supported a Palestinian state and recognized Palestinian pain, but also maintained he would “fight” to make sure Palestinian refugees would not be able to return and flood Israel.
I believe dialogues are good things. It can never hurt to listen to the other side’s point of view, and sitting down together allows one to see the other side’s humanity.
At the same time, as I left the program I could not get some of Najeeb’s statements out of my mind. Ostensibly a peaceful person, she nonetheless supported uncompromising positions that have played a large part in making Palestinians suffer over the last half century.
She wanted 100 percent justice, which for her meant the right of return. Yet modern history has shown us that maximal Palestinian demands have always resulted in minimal Israeli concessions and increased Palestinian suffering.
Half a century later, Najeeb and many other Palestinians have failed intellectually to move beyond 1947-48. That is both sad and depressing, and the reason why a final peace settlement remains unattainable for now.
Loading ...