Am I Anti-Semitic?

I support and believe in the Palestinians—their right to inhabit the land they live on and have lived on for many, many years, and I support their plight. Does this make me Anti-Semitic?

After Israel attacked Gaza in December of 2008, I had a deep need to go over to the Middle East and learn first hand about the situation. I could have read more books on the conflict, but I believe experiential education is the most informative way to the truth. So, in March of 2009, I traveled with a peace delegation to Palestine with Christian Peacemaker Teams. There, I witnessed conditions on the ground in places such as East Jerusalem, Hebron and a small village called At-Tuwani. In Hebron, I witnessed horrible conditions, where over five-hundred of approximately seven-hundred shops have closed due to Israeli military orders, or because the illegal settlers have pushed the Palestinians out. There is chain link fencing with plastic over the existing shops in Hebron to stop the settlers from throwing objects down on to shop owners and on to shoppers—such as cement blocks, glass, urine, feces, as well as other hazardous materials. I went through several check points, finding myself annoyed at the time it took and had to remind myself that Palestinians go through that every day.

I witnessed Palestinian and Israeli children, maybe ten feet away from each other with a concrete barrier being the only thing separating them, hurling insults at each other in Arabic and Hebrew. They may not have understood what the other was saying, but they certainly understood the intent and more, felt the hatred. I met a woman who cannot leave out her front door anymore, because her street, Shuhada Street, is now occupied by Settlers.

In the village of At-Tuwani, I witnessed Palestinian children escorted by Israeli Defense Forces between villages, through an illegal Settlement and Outpost area, because if these children are not escorted, the settlers attack them. At-Tuwani is a village completely dedicated to non-violence. Furthermore, the only school for several miles is in this village, so children come from neighboring villages, such as Tuba, to get an education.

I drove in a taxi from Jerusalem to Nablus and because I am an “international,” I was allowed on the “clean roads,” where Israelis can freely travel where and when they want to. I made it to Nablus in about an hour. If I was a Palestinian, I would not be allowed on the clean roads and instead, it would take me about four hours, if not more, to go the same distance. This is only some of what I witnessed in Palestine.

On the other side, I spent an evening with a self proclaimed Zionist who helped me understand his religious beliefs and why he feels what he feels. He does not recognize Palestine as a country, nor does he recognize the Palestinians as a people. Although I had a difficult time grasping his ideology, I left with a much clearer understanding of why some in Israel feel the land is simply theirs, with no ifs, ands, or buts.

I also spent a day in Sderot with filmmaker, Laura Bialis. Sderot is one of the main reasons Israel attacked Gaza back in 2008. For years, Qassam rockets have been launched from Gaza killing Israelis in Sderot and other surrounding areas. There, I witnessed playgrounds, markets, schools, theaters, temples, and almost every home equipped with a bomb shelter. And, I lived through a Color Red. In a coffee shop having lunch, the siren sounded, the recording in Hebrew, “Color red, Color red,” came over the speaker. With no bomb shelter close by, we ran to the back of the coffee shop by the bathroom with everyone else—and waited. From the time the alarm sounds to the time of impact, you have fifteen seconds. I admit it, I was scared. I stood there thinking, Will it hit here? Nearby? There is this eerie silence and then it is all over. An all clear is given and you go back to eating and chatting as if nothing happened for it is a norm there. For years, people in Sderot have lived with this. They are traumatized, despondent and psychologically damaged.

Backing up—I have had the privilege of studying with Elie Wiesel three times in my educational career, most recently in the Fall semester, 2010. We have chatted out of class about several things, one being my trip to Palestine. Before I left, I told him how important it was for me to understand both sides of the conflict. His most important advice for me was to listen. I did. While there I listened to both sides. I listened to people’s stories and in my listening, I could feel their fear; I could feel their passion; I could feel their deep-rooted faith; I could and can still hear them. All of them.

I left Israel with what I wanted—a better understanding of what is occurring there. I left with people’s lives enmeshed within my own life, with their pain in my heart and with their struggle entrenched in my soul. I left more pro-Palestinian than when I went. However, I also left with a profound understanding of the ideology of a Jewish Settler, as well as a sense of what it means to be Jewish and love Israel, and probably most important, what it means to live in a protracted conflict zone.

When I returned home and tried to tell people what I learned, I heard, “Careful, you don’t want to be called Anti-Semitic.” My reaction to that was and still is, So if I side with the Palestinians, I am Anti-Semitic? I cannot criticize what I witnessed? I can’t speak out against radical Jews who are taking land that is not theirs and hurting people in the process? I can’t criticize a system that oppresses and even worse, comes from a people that were and have been oppressed themselves? If I can’t do that, if I can’t speak for truth, justice and what I witnessed, then, call me what you want.

Jumping back to now. In Professor Wiesel’s class this last Semester, I asked a tough question. In fact, it made everyone in the room look at me and I could tell they were thinking, I can’t believe you asked that! What did I ask? “How can I, as Christian, speak out and support the Palestinian people, understanding both sides of the conflict, and not be considered an Anti-Semite?” Oh, yes I did! Professor Wiesel’s answer? “Karen, you speak your truth and no one can tell you what to believe and what to say. You should be able to speak out for anyone you want to, including the Palestinians, and not be called anti-Semitic.” So there you have it. Unfortunately it is not that easy—I know that.

From my experience in Israel and the West Bank as well as with Professor Wiesel, more than anything, I learned that it is OK to contradict yourself. I do not agree with Israel’s policies toward the Palestinians. In fact, I also do not always agree with Professor Wiesel politically, but that does not mean I do not respect him or his profound wisdom. Israelis, Palestinians and Professor Wiesel taught me to see beyond the situation, beyond the mere existence of humans and see what really makes us tick. To be a true peacemaker, this is what I must continue to do.

The simple truth is that Palestinian’s are an oppressed people and suffer terrible, countless injustices. On the other hand, I understand the Israeli’s love for their homeland—for their history and their culture. I witnessed first hand the fear of what it means to be Jewish in Israel. I witnessed first hand the oppression and what it means to be Palestinian in Palestine. I love both Palestine and Israel! I love the people who live there. I see and could feel the impetus for peace from so many, on both sides, that I encountered while there. I am a woman who immersed myself for a very short time in a culture, a conflict and a place that is entrenched in a history that literally shaped who we are today. I sought to understand both sides and I do.

I support and believe in the Palestinians—their right to inhabit the land they live on and have lived on for many, many years and I support their plight. Does this make me Anti-Semitic? No, it doesn’t. It is my truth and my understanding of the situation. What’s yours?

0 members like this

Comment

You need to be a member of PeaceNext to add comments!

Join PeaceNext

Comment by Grigori Rho Gharveyn on March 4, 2011 at 7:44pm: Congratulations sister Karen,

We agree this does not make you anti-semitic. You simply state your objective beliefs regarding the matter of occupation after painstaking attempts at thoroughness to understand all sides of the issue fairly.

We regret that Israel was placed in the middle-east, we would have prefered to give them Texas or perhaps asked Canada to make room for them. Placing Israel in the middle-east seems to have been a deliberate act of sabotage to any potential peace processes there.

We understand the desire of many people of Hebraic faiths to occupy Jerusalem; we accept that like many people, they have a legitimate claim to be present there. But perhaps it is time to end their exclusive claims and create a more open society where members of every faith may equally share the benefits of belonging in Jerusalem. closer to their roots.

Thank you for this enlightened statement of your views sister.

Namaste

Comment by Karen Leslie Hernandez on February 17, 2011 at 8:45am: Thanks everyone for your comments! I so appreciate reading what everyone has to say. It is such a complex issue and one that I struggle with quite often.

Peace and blessings to you all...

Karen

Comment by Ian Fraser on February 16, 2011 at 9:16pm: Hi Karen, Peter & other respondents,

Perhaps tragically, perhaps only in pessimism, I find Peter's reference to pragmatism to be important - not to follow his line of argument that "the pragmatics" seem implausible, but to arrive at a reasonable expectation of what the near future holds for this divided land.

Until most people in divided lands and disputed territories can share common ground in what constitutes righteousness, can agree on the degrees of right to land between the competing claims of "first in the land", "being here now" and "granted this land by God", and develop a genuine commitment to ahimsa as a practical reality rather than just an ideal, then clearly the peoples who have the strongest military forces and the support of the major world powers, will have the land. This is the pragmatic reality of how the world has been from pre-history and remains so today. And, while not based on ethical argument, but rather on the practical ability to maintain ownership, might continues to be right.

As I suggested, a tragic or at least a pessimistic perspective.

And the place for ethics in land disputes? To constrain the degree of cruelty inflicted on those displaced from their homes, cut off from their families and communities, separated from their farms, gardens and other means of livelihood. To motivate genuine search for balance, for reparation, for maintaining sustainable livelihood and life of those displaced. To temper the enthusiasm for conquest by those who have won the land and can hold the land.

Pessimistic, even tragic, but terribly (in the true sense) realistic. And allowing some optimism, I bid

Peace to all,

Ian

Comment by Peter FW Johannesen Osisi on February 13, 2011 at 6:14pm: …(continuing)

The two state solution seems to be comparatively appeasing and less confrontational within the liberal politics of the “middle ground,” yet the pragmatics also seem very implausible. This seems to be, in actuality, only a short-term solution. Is the suggestion to have two, disconnected Palestines, separated by Israel? How is that expected to work, practically?

Ian, I agree with your admonishment of the imposition of force by the Israeli government upon the Palestinians. And although it is difficult to currently perceive the details and progression, I share the belief that it is possible to reach a mutual agreement for a one-state solution. In a very basic, fundamental, “children-in-the-playground-learning-to-play-fair” manner, there is the consideration that Muslims have Mecca, Medina, and the area now referred to as Saudi Arabia; what do Jews have? In many, this involves the very pragmatic reconciliation of territory and mutual economic prosperity; yet, it many further ways, this involves reconciling the fundamental, esoteric competition of righteousness that I previously reference.

Honestly, with all this communicated, I believe the victorious side will be the one who is able to learn how to more effectively implement, systemically, the ahimsic principles of Ghandi, B’ezrat Hashem, En’sh’Allah. God Willing. Samadhi. Om.

Love and Peace,

Peter

Comment by Peter FW Johannesen Osisi on February 13, 2011 at 6:13pm: Love and Peace, Karen, Ian, Family, and Friends.

Shalom. Namaste. Salaam.

Much like you, I am very interested in finding a solution that is equitable and perpetually sustainable. However, it seems as though dividing the aggregate of the land in dispute into portions is perceived by many factions on either side as being tantamount to taking a chainsaw and cutting a house into two parts and telling the respective families to live in a fraction of the house (or like cutting a car into two and calling it two motorcycles). The point is, it seems as though it is a whole package deal, and that the unrest is intended to continue until a “whole package” solution is found. And perhaps the unrest may continue until the further-reaching contention is resolved: the competition of righteousness.

In the meantime, I am interested in determining upon what principle(s) you base your decision. Is the principle: “It just seems fair.”? That may be honest and genuinely felt, however, it is also necessary to be more specific in explaining this decision. Why does it seem fair? On what principle(s) is this based?

Is the principle: “Whoever is here first, gets the land.”? If so, does it count that Jews are here before Muslims; or what about Abraham and the Canaanites?

Is the principle: “Whoever is here now, gets the land.”? If so, then does this mean that the contemporary nation of Israel is the legitimate custodian of the land?

What is the principle(s)? How do you determine who is the rightful custodian of a designated area of land? And are these principles Universally applicable to the rest of the Earth as well?

(continued)…

Comment by Karen Leslie Hernandez on February 7, 2011 at 9:46am: Greetings!

Thanks to everyone for your comments and insights.

A few things. I do not support a one state solution. I think a two state solution is the only thing that will work. I believe that the Jewish people deserve their own piece of land, but I do not believe that they can just take what they deem to be "theirs." No one was there in the holy land "first," and in fact if you look at it this way-Abraham and Sarah were there in Hebron, and technically they are the desendents of all the children in the Abrahamic faiths, so really, all three peoples - Jews, Christians and Muslims - belong to the land, if you will. I know that seems simplistic, but, that is how I see it.

I agree that we should not play the "Who is suffering more, or has suffered more," game. No one has "suffered" more than the other. Palestinians are suffering horribly now, whereas Jews have suffered throughout history. No one deserves the land more than the other.

Thanks again, everyone.

Take care and peace,

Karen

Comment by Ian Fraser on February 6, 2011 at 5:34pm: Hi Peter,

Thank you for your follow-up to subsequent comments, mine included. I share your understanding and belief that the land of Israel is the obvious location for the Jewish homeland, for the biblical reason you cite. And with respect for Islam and the Muslim peoples, I recognise there is a Catch-22 problem in their living the faith of the Prophets followed by the three Abrahamic traditions, including Moses and particularly our common father in faith, Abraham. The Catch-22 element for Muslims is the implication that the Palestinians must acknowledge the Jewish returnees' right to the land.

I particularly like your final sentence and call to transcend reliance upon force. For me that includes the civic force used against Palestinian communities, families, individuals to make way for ever more Jewish returnees to an effectively expanding Israel.

I note your preference for a one state solution. As an Australian acutely aware of our displacement of indigenous Australians from their land, I argue that a one-state solution has to guarantee absolutely full rights in all aspects of life to the Israeli Arab as to the Israeli Jew. Without such a guarantee, a one-state solution will not work. And some policies and practices of the present Israeli government against Arab communities in the occupied West Bank do not engender confidence that such a guarantee could ever be given. Hence my support for a two-state solution.

In peace,

Ian

Comment by Peter FW Johannesen Osisi on February 6, 2011 at 11:10am: (and here is a response to subsequent posts):

Love and Peace, Family and Friends,

Shalom . Namaste. Salaam.

Without devolving into a "who suffers the most" contest, I may also provide the story of the respective indigenous people throughout the Western Hemisphere, and even throughout Earth.

Ian, I appreciate your thoughtful response. Within the estimation that I share, force continues to be the fundamental means of asserting "legitimacy" of property claims (through national militaries, militias, local police, etc.). Within the past 100 years, it may be more of a "maintenance" issue rather than an "acquisition" issue, however, this still seems to be the bottom line. The considerations that I previously communicate are provided as a means for us, as a comprehensive humanity, to transcend this reliance upon force (and the threat of force), to recognise each other's respective connexion with the Earth, and the Universe, and right to prosper along the side of all of us.

Love and Peace,

Peter

Comment by Peter FW Johannesen Osisi on February 6, 2011 at 11:01am: (and here is the third part):

Fundamentally, I share the opinion that the land of Israel be maintained for Jewish people; I share the opinion of a “one state solution.” However, I also identify with the lives and conditions of our Palestinian families and friends. I recognise the harsh and oppressive experience of our Palestinian families and friends. I understand the suffering of our Palestinian families and friends. It is a difficult set of circumstances. I disagree with how much of Israel is treating our Palestinian families and friends. I share the opinion that our Palestinian families and friends should be appropriately compensated for the land and be provided with sufficient material support to respectively live socioeconomically mobile and prosperous lives, now and through proceeding generations. And I share the opinion that this involves difficult and substantial reconciliation between Israel, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and all our respective Muslim and Jewish families and friends.

May we continue to progress to the actualisation where we recognise and enhance the Presence of God within each other and prosper together.

Love and Peace,

Peter

Comment by Peter FW Johannesen Osisi on February 6, 2011 at 11:00am: (there are seems to be a truncation of the previous post I make, so here is the rest of it):

I can provide the response that people such as myself share. We legitimate the custodianship of a specific area of land and space through answering the proceeding considerations: who is here first; who is here now; who maintains the greatest urgency for the land and space; who maintains the highest propensity for productivity with the land and space; who provides the greatest care for the land and space; who is Divinely ordained.

So, with these considerations being made, I pose the proceeding questions to you: do Jewish people deserve a territory of land anywhere on Earth? If the answer is other than “Yes,” then why? If the answer is “Yes,” then where?

There are also some questions that you may pose to your Palestinian friends and/or your additional Muslim friends (I previously pose these questions to some friends who are Muslim scholars, although I have yet to receive a direct response): Do Muslims recognise Jews as the historic possessors of the land of Israel (that the land is originally held by Jews before the last expulsion over a millennia ago)? Or, according to Muslims, does too much time elapse since Jews are the previous possessors of the land? Do Muslims recognise the covenant between God and Abraham for the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob to be the inheritors of the land of Canaan? Or is there some form of dispute pertaining the line of inheritance? If Muslims abstain from believing in the covenant between God and Jacob (Israel), does that mean that Muslims believe that the historic Canaanites are the historically legitimate possessors of the land of Canaan? If that is the case, to what extent do Muslims believe that Moses is a Prophet since he leads the Israelites to Israel?

Fundamentally, I share the opinion that the land of Israel be maintained for Jewish people; I shar