RSS
Israel and the Palestinians Can Find Peace; Here Is How
As the war in Gaza against Hamas rages on, and as we all recoil from the explosion of antisemitism and hate crimes against Jews and Jewish targets around the world, it is vital for us to consider what happens “the day after” the war is over.
So much water has passed under the bridge — and it continues to flow in a raging torrent — that it is almost impossible to think what the world will look like once the war ends. But end it will, and at that point, resolving the Palestinian issue will come into sharp focus, not just in Gaza but in Judea and Samaria as well.
In 2014, researchers uncovered a key reason why seemingly intractable disputes, like long-standing conflict between Israelis and Palestinians, seem impossible to resolve. It turns out that the human brain is wired in a way that skews how we perceive “us” versus “them.”
We are all inclined to believe that our group’s actions are motivated by love and positivity towards our own, while we view the other side’s actions against us as driven by negativity and hate. This simple yet profound cognitive bias fuels ongoing conflicts, making us less willing to negotiate a solution or to see any way out of the endless animosity that dominates the present.
One of the study’s authors, Professor Jeremy Ginges of The London School of Economics, explains it thus: “Hatred is an intractable emotion — it’s not like anger. If I’m angry at you, I’m angry at something that you’ve done. But if I hate you, I hate you as a person. There’s something that’s unchangeable about that.”
In other words, anger can be — and often is — legitimate; hatred is not just illegitimate, it is thoroughly unproductive.
The study was based on interviews with 995 Israelis and 1,266 Palestinians. The interviews uncovered a significant bias in how each group perceives their own and the other’s motives for aggression. Israelis explained their support for military actions against Gaza as being an expression of their love for Israel as opposed to hatred for Palestinians.
Remarkably, Palestinians justified their support for violence against Israel and Jews as being the result of their affection for Palestine rather than any animosity towards Israel. Most notably, both groups believed that the other side was primarily motivated by hate.
The current war has offered up ample examples of this stubborn phenomenon. Take this week’s IDF siege and takeover of Al Shifa Hospital in Gaza City. On the Israeli side, this controversial action was vigorously defended as a necessary measure for national security, totally rooted in Israeli love for their homeland as opposed to hatred for Gazans.
Conversely, the other side has presented Israel’s targeting of Al Shifa as an outright act of aggression, driven purely by hatred of Palestinians. This mirror image misperception is precisely what was highlighted by Dr. Ginges’ research.
But here’s a twist: a parallel study carried out by the research team demonstrated that when people are rewarded for being accurate in their judgments about the other side, the “motive bias” diminishes.
This discovery isn’t just a fascinating peek into our brains — it’s a potential game-changer for resolving all conflicts that seem unsolvable. In terms of the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, if applied correctly, this method could be the key to a workable model of coexistence in the future.
If we can understand and address the “motive attribution” bias which leaves no room for cooperation, we might just find a way to bridge the divide that has long seemed unbridgeable.
What is certain is this: no “peace process” or indeed any other kind of imposed solution will ever create the conditions where either side will trust the other. For decades, all we have heard is that the solution to the conflict is a “two-state solution.”
President Biden — who has been steadfast in his support for Israel during the current war – said on Wednesday that “the endpoint of the Israel-Hamas conflict has to be a Palestinian state that is ‘real,’ existing alongside an Israeli one.” Without giving details, he added that he and his aides “have been negotiating with Arab nations on next steps.”
To say that such talk is premature misses the point entirely. At its core, the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians is based on competing narratives that leave scant room for coexistence, and, particularly on the Palestinian side — stoked by hate peddlers and promoters of violence as the only tool of self-identity and national pride — the portrayal of Jews as evil actors bent on genocide has led to the type of atrocities we saw on October 7th.
Tragically, money provided by the international community that should have been spent on creating leverage to reverse the effects of “motive attribution” among the Palestinian population was instead endlessly used to arm terrorists and fund those who thrive on violent mayhem.
Whatever the ultimate resolution turns out to be, it will need to be based on a solid foundation of reeducation, not only for Palestinians, but also for their useful-idiot supporters abroad — who prefer ripping down posters of kidnapped hostages to considering the pain of families suffering in uncertainty since their family members were abducted by Hamas.
Interestingly, this modern dilemma finds echoes in Parshat Toldot. The narrative of Esau and Jacob, two brothers embroiled in a struggle, offers timeless insights into conflict and perception. Esau never tried to understand his brother; instead, he perceived Jacob’s actions as deceitful and hostile, confirming his “motive attribution” bias and leading to deep-seated animosity.
Enraged, he vowed to kill his brother, forcing Jacob to flee. Years later they met up after Jacob returned to Canaan with his family and flocks — and it dawned on Esau, who originally intended to kill Jacob — that his brother had never hated him, and all he wanted was to live alongside him in peace and tranquility.
As we reflect on this lesson from Parshat Toldot while considering Dr. Ginges’ research, it is clear that no one should be embarking headlong on the unrealistic “two-state solution” journey. The path forward will only begin when Palestinians and their supporters recognize and then overcome their deep-seated biases against Israel and Jews, much like Esau eventually realized that Jacob was not out to get him.
Only through achieving such understanding, and finding the ability to see beyond entrenched narratives of hate, can there ever be a future where coexistence is not just a distant dream, but a tangible reality.
The author is a rabbi in Beverly Hills, California.
The post Israel and the Palestinians Can Find Peace; Here Is How first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
McGill cancels talk with former Hamas insider turned Israel advocate, citing fears of violence
McGill University has canceled an on-campus event planned by Jewish students—and temporarily halted bookings for all extracurricular activities—following threats of violence along with a death threat, as outlined in a […]
The post McGill cancels talk with former Hamas insider turned Israel advocate, citing fears of violence appeared first on The Canadian Jewish News.
RSS
US Lawmakers Introduce Bipartisan Bill to Strip Funding From Universities That Boycott Israel
US Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ) at a press conference in Bergenfield, New Jersey, US on June 5, 2023. Photo: Kyle Mazza/NurPhoto via Reuters Connect
US Reps. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) and Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ) on Tuesday introduced bipartisan legislation to cut off federal funding from universities that engage in boycotts of Israel.
The legislation, titled “The Protect Economic Freedom Act,” would render universities that participate in the boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel ineligible for federal funding under Title IV of the Higher Education Act, prohibiting them from receiving federal student aid. The bill would also mandate that colleges and universities submit evidence that they are not participating in commercial boycotts against the Jewish state.
“Enough is enough. Appeasing the antisemitic mobs on college campuses threatens the safety of Jewish students and faculty and it undermines the relationship between the US and one of our strongest allies. If an institution is going to capitulate to the BDS movement, there will be consequences — starting with the Protect Economic Freedom Act,” Foxx, chairwoman of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, said in a statement.
Gottheimer added that the legislation is necessary to thwart the surging tide of antisemitism on college campuses. Although the lawmaker noted that students are allowed to engage in free expression regarding the ongoing war in Gaza, he argued that blanket boycotts against Israel endanger the lives of Jewish students and community members.
“The goal of the antisemitic BDS movement is to annihilate the democratic State of Israel, America’s critical ally in the global fight against terror. While students and faculty are free to speak their minds and disagree on policy issues, we cannot allow antisemitism to run rampant and risk the safety and security of Jewish students, staff, faculty, and guests on college campuses,” Gottheimer said in a statement. “The new bipartisan Protect Economic Freedom Act will give the Department of Education a critical new tool to combat the antisemitic BDS movement on college campuses. Now more than ever, we must take the necessary steps to protect our Jewish community.”
The legislation instructs the US Department of Education to keep a record of universities that refuse to confirm their non-participation in anti-Israel boycotts. The list of universities in non-compliance with the legislation would be made publicly available.
In the year following the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas’s massacre acrosssouthern Israel, universities across the country have found themselves embroiled in controversies regarding campus antisemitism. In the immediate aftermath of the terrorist attacks in Israel, hordes of students and faculty orchestrated protests and demonstrations condemning the Jewish state. Student groups at elite universities such as Harvard and Columbia issued statements blaming Israel for the attacks and expressing support for Hamas.
Several high-profile universities have also shown a significant level of tolerance for anti-Jewish sentiment festering on their campuses. Northwestern University, for example, capitulated to demands of anti-Israel activists to remove Sabra Hummus from campus dining halls because of its connections to Israel. At Stanford University, Jewish students have reported being forced to condemn Israel before being allowed to enter campus parties. Students at the University of Pennsylvania and Brown University launched unsuccessful attempts to convince the university to divest endowment funds from companies tied to Israel.
The post US Lawmakers Introduce Bipartisan Bill to Strip Funding From Universities That Boycott Israel first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Harvard Chaplains Omit Antisemitism From Statement on Antisemitic Incident
Demonstrators take part in an “Emergency Rally: Stand With Palestinians Under Siege in Gaza,” amid the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas, at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, US, Oct. 14, 2023. Photo: REUTERS/Brian Snyder
Harvard University’s Office of the Chaplain and Religious and Spiritual Life is being criticized by a rising Jewish civil rights activist for omitting any mention of antisemitism from a statement addressing antisemitic behavior.
The sharp words followed the office’s response to a hateful demonstration on campus in which pro-Hamas students stood outside Harvard Hillel and called for it to banned from campus. Such a demand is not new, as it began earlier this semester at the direction of the National Students for Justice in Palestine (NSJP) organization, which coordinates the lion’s share of anti-Zionist activity on college campuses.
As seen in footage of the demonstration, the students chanted “Zionists aren’t welcome here!” and held signs which accused the organization — the largest campus organization for Jewish students in the world — of embracing “war criminals” and genocide.
Addressing the behavior, Harvard Chaplains issued a statement, which is now being pointed to as a symbol of higher education’s indifference to the unique hatred of antisemitism, as well as its permutation as anti-Zionism.
“We have noticed a trend of expression in which entire groups of students are told they ‘are not welcome here’ because of their religious, cultural, ethnic, or political commitments and identities, or are targeted through acts of vandalism,” the office said, seemingly circumventing the matter at hand. “We find this trend disturbing and anathema to the dialogue and connection across lines of difference that must be a central value and practice of a pluralistic institution of higher learning.”
It continued, “Student groups who are singled out in this way experience such language and acts of vandalism as a painful attack that undermines the acceptance and flourishing of religious diversity here at Harvard. Let us all endeavor to care for one another in these divisive times.”
Recent Harvard graduate Shabbos Kestenbaum, who addressed the Republican National Convention in August to discuss the ways which progressive bias in higher education fosters anti-Zionism and anti-Western ideologies, described the statement as a moral failure in a post on X/Twitter on Tuesday.
“Disappointing,” he said. “After Harvard Jews were told by masked students ‘Zionists aren’t welcome here’ outside of the Hillel, the Chaplain Office finally released a statement that did not include the words Jew, Zionism, Israel, or antisemitism. A total abdication of religious responsibility.”
Kestenbaum noted in a later statement that Harvard’s chief diversity and inclusion officer, Sherri Ann Charleston, has so far declined to speak on the issue at all. He charged that when Charleston “isn’t plagiarizing, she and DEI normalize antisemitism,” referring to evidence, first reported by the Washington Free Beacon, that Charleston is a serial plagiarist who climbed the hierarchy of the higher education establishment by pilfering other people’s scholarship.
Harvard University president Alan Garber — installed after former president Claudine Gay resigned following revelations that she is also a serial plagiarist — has, experts have said, been inconsistent in managing the campus’ unrest.
During summer, The Harvard Crimson reported that Harvard downgraded “disciplinary sanctions” it levied against several pro-Hamas protesters it suspended for illegally occupying Harvard Yard for nearly five weeks, a reversal of policy which defied the university’s previous statements regarding the matter. Unrepentant, the students, members of the group Harvard Out of Occupied Palestine (HOOP), celebrated the revocation of the punishments on social media and promised to disrupt the campus again.
Earlier this semester, however, Garber appeared to denounce a pro-Hamas student group which marked the anniversary of Hamas’s Oct. 7 attacks on Israel by praising the brutal invasion as an act of revolutionary justice that should be repeated until the Jewish state is destroyed, despite having earlier announced a new “institutional neutrality” policy which ostensibly prohibits the university from weighing in on contentious political issues. While Garber ultimately has said more than Gay when the same group praised the Oct. 7 massacre last academic year, his administration’s handling of campus antisemitism has been ambiguous, according to observers — and described even by students who benefited from its being so as “caving in.”
The university’s perceived failure to address antisemitism has had legal consequences.
Earlier this month, a lawsuit accusing it of ignoring antisemitism was cleared to proceed to discovery, a phase of the case which may unearth damaging revelations about how college officials discussed and crafted policy responses to anti-Jewish hatred before and after Hamas’s massacre across southern Israel last Oct. 7.
The case, filed by the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, centers on several incidents involving Harvard Kennedy School professor Marshall Ganz during the 2022-2023 academic year.
Ganz allegedly refused to accept a group project submitted by Israeli students for his course, titled “Organizing: People, Power, Change,” because they described Israel as a “liberal Jewish democracy.” He castigated the students over their premise, the Brandeis Center says, accusing them of “white supremacy” and denying them the chance to defend themselves. Later, Ganz allegedly forced the Israeli students to attend “a class exercise on Palestinian solidarity” and the taking of a class photograph in which their classmates and teaching fellows “wore ‘keffiyehs’ as a symbol of Palestinian support.”
During an investigation of the incidents, which Harvard delegated to a third party firm, Ganz admitted that he believed “that the students’ description of Israel as a Jewish democracy … was similar to ‘talking about a white supremacist state.’” The firm went on to determine that Ganz “denigrated” the Israeli students and fostered “a hostile learning environment,” conclusions which Harvard accepted but never acted on.
Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.
The post Harvard Chaplains Omit Antisemitism From Statement on Antisemitic Incident first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login