As leaders of organizations that represent the vast majority of Jews who identify as Zionists, we strongly take issue with the recent Jeff Kolnick Community Voices commentary, “The settler colonialist frame helps clarify what’s at stake in the Mideast for Israelis, Palestinians, and peace.” We believe that applying the “settler colonialist frame” to the conflict erases the indigenous and unbroken Jewish connection to the land, makes resolving the conflict harder to achieve, fuels antisemitism, and is demonstrably unhelpful in understanding “what’s at stake in the Middle East for Israelis, Palestinians, and peace.”
The truth is that the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians is the agonizing struggle between not one, but two indigenous peoples fighting over the same homeland.
After over 2 millennia of forced exile, persecution, and genocide, the (re)establishment of Jewish sovereignty in our ancestral homeland is a remarkable story of national liberation. Jewish claims to the land are far more than biblical accounts. Our religion, language, culture, holidays, rituals, liturgy, history, and even the words Jew and Jewish are all inseparable from historical Judea and our collective longing to return to the Land of Israel.
The land of Israel is where Jews became a people and the oldest monotheistic faith. It is where Jews achieved sovereignty before losing it and regaining it several times until much of the indigenous Jewish population was either killed or forced into exile following the Roman Empire’s brutal suppression of the heroic Jewish revolt in the second century of the Common Era. Though the Romans subsequently renamed the land Palaestina, the Jewish people never left our homeland physically or spiritually. Archaeological evidence of Jewish life can be found in more than 30,000 sites in Israel with antiquities dating back centuries. Even when we were massacred and persecuted by Christian Crusaders, Arab and Ottoman invaders, the British-led Jordanian Arab Legion, or more recently Hamas suicide bombers and rockets, our attachment never wavered.
It is in this same land where Jews miraculously revitalized the Hebrew language, rebuilt the institutions necessary for independence, re-engaged in rituals that are uniquely observed in the land of Israel, redeveloped the land and the economy so that by several magnitudes the Jewish and non-Jewish populations grew, and offered refuge not just to the remnant which survived the Holocaust, but also millions of Jews fleeing persecution from the Muslim Middle East, Ethiopia, and the former Soviet Union. Today, Israel is a rich tapestry of diverse citizens, including over half of Jewish Israelis who identify as Jews of color and 20% of whom are Arab citizens.
As recently as last week, it was in Jerusalem where a diverse coalition of Jews and Muslims subordinated significant policy differences to form a governing coalition, including Orthodox and secular Jews, Jewish ultra-nationalists and doves, and for the first time conservative Palestinian Arab Muslims, an incredible display of the dynamism and resilience of Israel’s remarkable democracy — truly one of a kind in a region dominated by autocracies and monarchies.
We present these facts not to deny Palestinian indigenousness or in opposition to Palestinian statehood, but to forcefully refute the claim that Jewish people have colonialized a foreign land to exploit its resources and people.
It cannot be emphasized enough that we recognize that Palestinians are a people with a legitimate right to self-determination. Arguing that Palestinians are not a people unto themselves or from the same land is delusional, futile, and wrong. We are two peoples who both have a right to a homeland in a geographically small place. Recognizing the legitimacy of one people does not mean we have to disqualify the claims of the other. However, we take issue when Jewish claims are not given the same deference as those of our Palestinian neighbors.
In addition to erasing Jews from the land and history, the “settler colonialist” lens inevitably makes the conflict tougher to resolve. This is the framing of Hamas, a terrorist organization, as well as the Palestinian Authority, which go to implausible lengths to deny the Jewish connection to the land and mistakenly frame any “solution” as a zero-sum proposition. It is this rejectionist approach that prevented Palestinian leadership from accepting compromises that would have provided the Palestinian people with an independent state in 1937, 1947, 2000, and 2008. (Perhaps, the most compelling examination of the competing claims to the land of the Palestine Mandate was the authoritative Peel Commission Report of 1937. After 400 pages of analysis, the Commission reached a simple but profound and fundamental conclusion: “Half a loaf is better than no bread.” In other words: two states for two peoples—a solution offered 84 years ago and accepted by the Yishuv—the pre-state Jewish community of the mandate. Acceptance of the solution would have long ago advanced the national aspirations of Palestinian Arabs and spared much bloodshed in the Holy Land.)
For all the reasons aptly explained by our friend and colleague, Jeremy Burton, the application of the colonialism narrative to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is especially unhelpful for Americans who seek to understanding the conflict by misapplying a Western “progressive” lens to a conflict that is complex and distinctly not American. For example, “[w]hen the left applies the concept of unity among People of Color in order to stand in solidarity with Palestinians and against Jews, it confuses the Jewish experience in America with the reality of Jewishness in the Middle East. If they have never traveled to the region or been in relationship with Israelis, they will only know Jews as we are in America.” By contrast, “[t]he reality is that the majority of Israel’s Jews are not ‘white’ as that term is understood in the West [and] [t]he majority of Israel’s Jews have always lived in the Middle East and North Africa, among the Arab, Turkish, Persians, Ethiopian and other populations of the region.”
The recent 80% surge in domestic antisemitism coincided not just with the latest round of violence between Israel and Hamas terrorists, but also with an onslaught of overheated rhetoric in our news and social media. Jews have been brutally assaulted in the streets of Los Angeles and New York, while Jewish students, including in Minnesota, have been subjected to cruel taunts, false accusations, and bullying on social media, inside our public schools, and beyond. Mischaracterizing Israel as a colonialist, white supremacist enterprise is not only inaccurate, but dangerous.
As proponents of two states for two peoples we are saddened that peace and security for both Israelis and Palestinians becomes harder to envision with each passing year. As advocates and community leaders who devote ourselves to building relationships with other communities in Minnesota, we know it is counterproductive to refuse to understand other communities as they understand themselves. The least we can do as Americans is not make the conflict harder to resolve, or spark violence and hatred at home, by perpetuating the false narrative that championing Palestinian indigenousness must entail denying Jewish indigenousness to the land that both peoples call home.
[image_caption]Ethan Roberts, Rhona Shwaid and Jacob Millner[/image_caption]
WANT TO ADD YOUR VOICE?
If you’re interested in joining the discussion, add your voice to the Comment section below — or consider writing a letter or a longer-form Community Voices commentary. (For more information about Community Voices, see our Submission Guidelines.)
This is a very elaborate dodge of Mr. Kolnick’s argument. He’s not arguing that Jews aren’t indigenous. It isn’t “erasure” or “cancel culture” or whatever else to say that Israel is illegally occupying the West Bank and enforcing a deadly embargo on Gaza. Both of those things are undeniably true. Funny enough, the words “West Bank” do not appear in your rebuttal of Mr. Kolnick’s article, nor does the word “settlement,” because you aren’t trying to argue with Mr. Kolnick, you’re trying to set up a straw man.
Did you actually read Kolnick’s article? Because you are the one who seems to be setting up a strawman.
Yes, I did. People apply “settler colonialism” as a frame to Israeli policy because they are literally settling the West Bank in violation of international law.
Explain Pat, how is Mr Stark pointing to the authors sidestepping West Bank and settlements setting up a straw man. Correctly he points to the authors dishonesty in their article.
Well for starters, the holy books of EVERY religion are not suitable as historical records, no matter how much anyone would like them to be. Secondly, pretty sure there’s been humans in that neck of the woods far longer than the Jewish faith has existed, so attempting to place ownership on some measure of occupancy time is a fool’s errand. Simply put, the people at whom this piece is aimed simply wish to see Israel cease its belligerence towards the Palestinian people, full stop. No one is looking to wipe Israel from existence, no one desires ugly antisemitism to proliferate. We remember all the horrors that the Jewish people have faced, it’s just that those horrors still do not justify visiting different horrors upon others. No human being retains that right.
Very true: Four generations of Palestinians restrained in an ever shrinking environment best described as a “refugee camp”.
Right or wrong, no one should be surprised that violent terrorists emerge out of 70 years of little hope for a better life for themselves or their children and grandchildren. And no matter how convincing the historic rationalization, nothing gets better till that gets fixed.
Absolutely true.
Um, Hamas has long called for Israel to be wiped from existence. There have been people in downtown Minneapolis chanting for the destruction of Israel.
You assume the authors are addressing Hamas with their piece? So is your assumption that Hamas is regularly perusing Minnpost or that Prof Kolnick is an agent of Hamas?
All true on their activities as a terrorist organization.
What get’s left out is that they provide significant social services to the people of Gaza that they can’t get anywhere else. And NO, I am not saying Hamas is a charitable organization doing God’s work. I’m saying to understand why Hamas can survive and stay in power it is important to know all of the elements involved:
“To ignore the significant network of services offered by Hamas would be a mistake. Haim Malka, deputy director and senior fellow of the Middle East Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, found that that Hamas’ extensive social and welfare programs have an annual budget between $50-70 million.”
Peace in Gaza requires the people there to have both hope for a better life and a better life. And it needs to be facilitated by an organization that is not primarily organized around terrorism.
As was discussed in Kamala Harris’ visit to Guatemala, problems only get solved if we go at the root cause of the problem. But that is way too slow and undramatic. Ted Cruz sneaking around the Rio Grande in small boat, wearing army fatigues, talking in hushed tones is fast and dramatic: Also totally worthless. Just like 15 days of rocket attacks every few years between Gaza and Israel. Nothing is accomplished as evidenced by it happening over and over.
Gaza is a humanitarian disaster, attack the problem with overwhelming support, dwarfing what Hamas provides and we’ll see the people there reacting positively to a new start from 70 years of despair.
It’s ridiculous to claim that Israel faces destruction by Hamas or people shouting in MPLS. Just because someone somewhere is “calling” for something can’t justify military conflict. Israel is in no danger of destruction, it’s more powerful and more secure now than ever. Historically those who have called for Israel destruction have relented and recognized Israel’s right to exist, there’s no reason to assume that the remaining adversaries can’t do the same if legitimate negotiations are allowed.
The old narrative of a little country on the verge of annihilation, surrounded by enemies dedicated to their destruction, is collapsing because that narrative is so completely divorced from the facts on the ground.
Matt Haas, the oceans are going to part, the clouds are going to break; I agree with you.
Quite a bit of archeological evidence of Jews in this region for thousands of years. And to say “No one” wants to wipe Israel off the map one has to ignore the Hamas charter and Iran just for starters. Ever hear the phrase”From the river to the sea?” And unfortunately “aid” to gaza is used to produce antisemetic teaching materials and buy support terrorists. There is also the fact no Arab country wants to allow Palestinians to relocate to their land because that would allow Israel to live in peace.
So they’ve been there for a few thousand of the 200k years of modern human existence, neat. All ownership is temporary, in all things. How we treat each other is what matters, and at present Israel’s treatment of it’s Palestinian population is less than stellar. I don’t care about Iran, Hamas, or your poor opinion of Arabic people’s. The one entity that has the power to remedy the situation, unilaterally if it so chooses, is Israel. Thus far, it has elected not to do so.
Israel is the by far the most powerful military presence in the region, and it hasn’t faced any credible existential threat since 1973 at the latest. You can find someone somewhere who claims to be dedicated to wiping almost anything off the face of the earth. Responsible people evaluate the credibility of those threats before they start killing people. The only real existential threat Israel could possibly face would be a nuclear threat from Iran. Hamas can issue any statements they want, but the idea that they would ever wipe Israel off the map would be comical were it not for the casualties and fatalities.
Yes- all Israel has to do is maintain the Iron Done and constantly disrupt arms shipments and stage covert operations within Iran. Other than that it’s all smiles from its neighbors.
Sorry, cory, but all you are doing is showing you don’t really understand what Paul is saying here, and that you have no real conception of the actual military balance of power in the region, either now or historically.
This is what comes of being a dedicated viewer of the Fox News soap opera. The facts or reality of a situation are intentionally hidden from you by your “news” sources, and then you reject them as mere “opinion” when they ARE presented to you.
“As leaders of organizations that represent the vast majority of Jews who identify as Zionists”…….The link they provided in their above statement does not cite any support of Zionism. In fact, the term Zionism is never even mentioned. They made that up to bolster a rather weak and increasingly unpopular argument. What is cited in their link is this interesting nugget: “One-in-three Jews believe God gave the land that is now Israel to the Jewish people”. A statement that completely contradicts their claim of widespread support of Zionism among Jews.
While the authors may state that Palestinians have the right to self determination, the Israeli law states that only Israelis have that right.
The forced displacement of Palestinian Arabs cannot be justified by a situation that existed 100, 2000, or 4000 years ago. If there has to be a partition, what’s fair? The 1948 UN resolution line? The 1949 line of demarcation? The “border” wall (border as unilaterally defined by the Israelis)? Next week’s news as to additional settlement areas?
All of that having been said, the Palestinians have not helped themselves over the decades by rejecting earlier opportunities at compromise, nor by forfeiting Gaza to Hamas.
It looks like the area is heading toward a one-state solution, with a close to even split between the Israeli and Palestinian populations. Bringing an Arab party into a governing coalition may be a preview of things to come.
” the Palestinians have not helped themselves over the decades by rejecting earlier opportunities at compromise, nor by forfeiting Gaza to Hamas.”
It might be helpful to point out the fact that this observation isn’t actually historically accurate. The fact is that the Israel and the US have never offered any serious compromises that Palestinians could be expected to accept. It’s important to note that some issues are almost non-negotiable; for instance an offer to enslave one child instead of both children is not going to be an acceptable compromise to your average parent. Once you start killing children all bets are off. Sovereignty is an issue that people will fight and kill and die for, and those conflicts can go on for decades or even centuries. Native Americans are STILL struggling for their sovereignty here in the US, although that conflict is no longer violent.
The idea that Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity has been a clever phrase, but it assumes opportunities that never really existed. Arafat left Camp David thinking he was bringing a sovereign nation back to his people and the Israeli and US negotiators thought that was funny. The circular catch 22 that has always trapped the Palestinians is the expectation that they negotiate like a sovereign nation before they have a chance to build a sovereign nation. Meanwhile the Israeli leadership has always sought to impose it’s own model of a Palestinian state that no sovereign people would ever accept. The “State” Israel would “give” Palestinians wouldn’t have no stable borders, control of it’s own air space, or free travel from one part of their country to the other, and those are just a few examples. Almost any country in the world would go to war with any other country that tried to impose those conditions. Meanwhile a divided country with multiple factions beyond any central control is expected to end ALL violence on a particular date or face devastating reprisals indefinitely. This is a recipe for perpetual conflict, it’s not a serious offer for peaceful compromise.
Having said all that, let me be clear on a personal note: I do not in any way endorse or condone Palestinian attacks on Israelis. I would like to see this conflict end, and Israeli’s and Palestinians living in peace and safety.
Just a note about Hamas, no one “forfeited” Gaza to Hamas. Hamas rose to power in Gaza and actually won an election there because the Fatah (i.e. the “recognized”) government failed in Gaza. The US and Israel tried to intervene in various ways and de-legitimize Hamas’s election, but that effort just revealed yet another bizarre condition of Palestinian “Statehood”; that Israel control or otherwise endorse their elections and candidates.
I’m not endorsing Hamas but if you’re thinking that they are just some terrorists without popular support who took over Gaza you’re misreading the scenario. Here again, if one of your “conditions” for negotiation is the complete elimination of Hamas… you’re just continuing the conflict and your not being serious about peace.
There is no such thing as “indigenous people” except in Africa (and try untangling that!) , at least if you believe in science. We all came from the same place and then moved out of Africa and since then the history of the world is one people displacing another, often by force.
“indigenous people” is a construct in hopes of giving people title to land in all likeyhood they either do not own or presently belongs to someone else.
An example here in Minnesota is the Ojibwe moving in from out east and displacing by force the Sioux (who weren’t even the first here and likely displaced someone else). Then white Northern Europeans displaced them both. Blacks came in from the south, and Latinos came from Central America. Then the Hmong came, then the Somalie, ….
I am descended from “white Northern Europeans.” I have not been displaced by Blacks, Latinos, Hmong, or “the Somalie.”
I’m descended from humans. My human ancestors moved here to join some other humans, and since I’ve been here, yet some other humans have come this way. None of us has any greater moral claim than any of the rest of us to live our lives in this place.
If the folks that come want to be a part of a society where we all act decently toward each other and work together to make a place where we all can enjoy family, friends and the world around us, all very good. If they want to dispossess, oppress or kill me because I’m not quite the same sort of human that they are, not so good. It doesn’t seem that complicated to me.
Which is why the idea of “displacement” is [fill in the blank].
For me, the central question for us in this country is what can Americans do to help promote Muslim-Jewish Israeli-Palestinian collaboration that creates opportunity, justice and peace?
It’s encouraging to me to see a new Israeli government emerging that includes people across the political, religious and ethnic spectrum, including Jews and Muslims. I hope others will join in encouraging this potential progress…and that the US will support collaborative efforts.
As an American Jew who has visited the Middle East and supported both Palestinian and Israel efforts to find justice and peace, I am hoping that we will see a return to the spirit that led Israel and Egypt to make peach.
I agree Israel has made mistakes. It left Gaza (good) but set up a blockade (bad). Expanded settlements on the West Bank are, imho, a very bad strategy. I am hoping that Israel and Hamas will make concessions that lead to cooperation – as Egypt and Israel sometimes cooperate.
What can and should we do to encourage collaboration? Personally I’m meeting with Muslims and Jews in Minnesota to listen, learn and hopefully promote progress. What are others doing? I’m interested.
From your other post.
“As an American Jew who has visited the Middle East and supported both Palestinian and Israel efforts to find justice and peace, I think Kolnick’s history lacks a great deal.
For example, he asserts, “British and U.N. support for a Jewish state in Palestine did not seriously consider the interests or desires of Palestinian Muslims or Christians…” What about the explicit 1948 UN partition of land calling for two independent states?”
Who Mr Nathan represented Palestinians during 1948 UN partition? Please do state.
The authors are engaging in double speak and dishonesty, plain and simple. Organizations such as the JCRC want us to believe that Israeli politicians are working towards towards a Palestinian state. Absolutely not. These organizations have spent the last two decades and more, providing cover for Israeli politics that engage in destroying any chance of a Palestinian state by expanding settlements and now proposing annexation.
True, it’s a region dominated by autocracies and monarchies. However i need remind the authors, those autocracies and monarchies were encouraged, propped up by AIPAC dominated American foreign policy in that region. Please, spare us the democratic spiel. The incoming Prime Minister Naftali Bennett has openly pooh pooed Palestinian statehood. However, we hear not a word of criticisms from organizations such as AIPAC and JCRC. That exposes your double speak.
Israel got its country for its refugees. The authors don’t state that. And pretend as if its some internationally undivided land that is being fought over. How much more dishonest can it get.
A Palestinian state would be an even bigger farce than the Palestinian Authority. Why would Israel want to allow a permanent Hamas/Iranian puppet government?
The assumption that Israel is entitled to decide the fate of the Palestinian people unilaterally is the fundamental feature of this example of settler colonialism. The assumption that Israeli “solutions” can be imposed rather than negotiated is the primary cause of the ongoing conflict. Israel can decide it doesn’t “want” a sovereign Palestinian state on it’s borders, but it can’t then pretend it’s not engaged in suppression and violence to impose it’s will, rather than defending itself against aggression.
Basing the claim to occupy a particular territory on a claimed commonality with some people that occupied that territory at some point in the past, whether that commonality is religion, ethnicity, gender orientation or the number of noses on your face, is incoherent. The right to occupy a piece of land is an entirely pragmatic question in the here and now, concerning how we all live together on a limited earth, and based on laws that ought to reflect civilized concerns of fairness and respect for expectations.
It was perfectly reasonable after the Holocaust for those who identify as a part of “the Jewish people” to have sought a place where they could establish an independent and safe community. But that is different from the merging of that reasonable goal with Zionism, and a claim of right to occupy the territory of one’s choice and dispossess those who had built lives within it.
Did Jews resort to terrorism as part of their effort to create a Jewish state? Did Israeli forces use violence to drive Muslims out of the new nation to years of living in refugee camps? Wasn’t at least one former Israeli prime minister a terrorist leader? Has Israel taken land owned by Muslims to provide housing for Jewish settlers? Wasn’t it an ultra-conservative rather than a Muslim who assassinated an Israeli prime minister? When leaving the Gaza Strip, did Israel unleash destruction to avoid leaving physical assets for Palestinians to use? Does not Israel severely restrict transportation and vital trade such as medical supplies to the Gaza? When conflict has broken out, which side experiences a 20-1 death toll, including bombing of places of worship, schools and hospitals? Does this bombing also involve attacks on residential areas timed when children are at home sleeping in their beds?
The South African peace and reconciliation process is a model for conflict resolution. It involved an admission of historical wrongs and apologies to create an atmosphere for healing. The history of Israel has involved a lot of ugliness on both sides, with the role of world powers such as the US not having been all that positive. It is speaking truth to talk about Hamas terrorism. It is also one-sided not to admit and apologize for the sins of the past as well as policies that are seem designed to foster eternal conflict.
Jews have continually been present in the region but as many people have moved to and lived around the world. That is undeniable, but how does that single point advance the peace and reconciliation process? There have been many centuries and many places where people from different religious and ethnic backgrounds have lived together in relative peace. It can be achieve here as well, but never until both sides admit fault and offer forgiveness.
“The truth is that the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians is the agonizing struggle between not one, but two indigenous peoples fighting over the same homeland.”
Just like the US, you all got to learn to live together and goveren together and the key to that is getting religion out of your politics! Word is you folks share DNA!
I guess the idea here is that Judaism is not simply a religion but also an ethno-nationality based on physical geography. Much like the “Germans” are (then and now) the people between the Rhine and the Oder rivers. Obviously this would require showing substantial and continuous presence by followers of Judaism within the proposed geography. Leaving aside the Roman mass expulsion of Jews from Judea in the second century, what’s the limiting principle at work here for the “Land of Israel” in 2021? The borders of, say, King Herod’s realm?
With this type of reasoning, one can see why the 1967 borders would be intolerable to many Israelis.
The “Settler Colonial” model is perfectly applicable here. The fact is that the State of Israel has developed a policy that precisely duplicates the reservation system of Dependent Sovereignty that settler colonists forced Native Americans into here in the US. For decades the Israeli government has sought to create a reservation system for the Palestinians rather than a genuine two state solution that recognizes Palestinian sovereignty. This is pure settler colonialism, based on a model of settler colonialism. Competing claims of indigeneity don’t resolve the colonial nature of Israeli policy.
I appreciate the fact that authors here claim to support a two state solution but it’s important to note that the government of Israel has NEVER recognized that option in sincere way. The ongoing project of converting Palestinian territories into Tribal reservations like those found in the US cannot be denied, and cannot be helpfully described with a different narrative.
Following the authors’ logic, whites in South Africa weren’t colonizers, they were merely returning to their ancestral roots, and thus their racist apartheid was clearly justified, just as Israel’s.
I think this article is one of the most honest and most comprehensible writings onThe Jewish Homeland.. I want to thank you, the authors, for presenting a factual piece, filled with historic edidence ,emotional longing and the reality that our culture, religion,ethnicity are all tied up in the land of Israel.. It is part of our DNA.
I guess another observation here that conflicts with the author’s claims is that it has been clear for decades that Israeli leadership has decided that the price they pay as a result of this conflict is an acceptable price to pay in exchange for their settlement expansions. This stopped being about national security for Israeli leadership decades ago. All conflicts involving fatalities and casualties are moral catastrophes, but governments frequently decide that a given moral catastrophe is “justified” for any number of reasons.
Obviously Palestinians participate in the conflict but given the fact that Israeli’s aren’t the one’s who have been losing territory and access to self determination and basic supplies for decades, one must take care that false equivalencies don’t take root in the discourse. As horrible as the calculation may be in a moral catastrophe, one cannot help but note that the casualty rate for decades has been close to 10 Palestinians for every one Israeli. That doesn’t mean it would be “better” in any way if more Israeli’s were killed and injured, but it makes the claim that all Israel is doing is “defending” itself a difficult claim to sustain. The world has was watching the Intifada’s when Israeli armor tried to teach Palestinians a lesson about bringing rocks to a tank fight.
This isn’t just a conflict wherein people can’t find a way to get along, there is an ACTIVE program of Israeli colonization under way here. Claims of indigeneity don’t justify aggression. Consider a scenario wherein one of the local Native American Tribes decides to annex part of Eden Prairie, or otherwise expand the boundaries of their Reservation… they certainly have a legitimate first persons claim, but how do you think that ends up working out? I remind you, there have been times when our government has attacked the tribes in their own reservations simply because they attempted to run their own reservations and practiced their own traditions.
Getting back to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it’s difficult if not impossible to see how the violence ever stops unless the Israeli government changes course and decides that the price of the conflict is no longer acceptable.