OPINIONS

Zionism, civil rights and Stanford activism: The case for productive education

Op Ed

By: Op Ed

On Nov. 11, the women of Delta Sigma Theta sponsored “Whose Rights?”, an event advertised as “an educational debate” about the connections between the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the American Civil Rights Movement. The four panelists – Kristian Davis Bailey, former president of Stanford Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP); Dr. Clayborne Carson, director of the MLK Research and Education Institute; Shiri Krebs, former legal advisor to the Israeli Supreme Court; and Chloé Valdary, a conservative Black Zionist activist – were portrayed as offering a balanced overview of the connections between the two issues.

We appreciate the space Delta Sigma Theta and the panelists created for discussing this complex and charged question. We are concerned, however, that the conversation erased moderate voices that acknowledge both Israeli and Palestinian histories and rights to self-determination, and did an intellectual disservice to those in the audience by framing a multifaceted issue as a binary of right and wrong. The debate failed to meet the standard of critical dialogue and meaningful education that befits an institution like Stanford.

Substantive conversations and educational events about these issues are essential. With emotions high in response to tragedies in Gaza, Ferguson, and Iguala/Ayotzinapa, among others, Stanford has entered a year of debate and action to support movements for justice and equality. As Stanford students, our voices are amplified and our actions examined closely. With this role comes the responsibility to educate ourselves from a variety of perspectives and to challenge our own biases. The panel did not live up to that responsibility: Krebs spoke primarily about the legality of occupation, and Dr. Carson offered a historical civil rights perspective, leaving Bailey and Valdary to address the political dimensions and giving no space to moderates who would challenge their diametrically opposing interpretations of the conflict.

The panel did a particular disservice to the audience by including Valdary as representative of Zionism. She cast herself as an Israel-loving, settlement-promoting, expansionist extreme Zionist who disregards Palestinian suffering at the hands of Israelis. Valdary argued that Israelis lack civil rights because they cannot settle in certain areas of the West Bank, and was silent on Palestinians’ experiences of checkpoints, police raids, separate roads, and military brutality under occupation.

Her presence was neither educational nor productive. Instead of showcasing the legitimate range of opinions on Israeli-Palestinian and civil rights issues, and challenging students to think seriously and deeply about the overlap and tensions between them, the event painted Zionism as a monolithic, racist movement dedicated to Jewish supremacy over disenfranchised Palestinians. This was exacerbated by other panelists and the moderator Sherif Ibrahim, a member of SJP, who openly disrespected Valdary’s ideas, eliciting chuckles and snaps from the audience.

The Zionism depicted in this event is not the Zionism any of us at J Street U, an organization that advocates a peaceful, negotiated two-state solution to the issue of Israel and Palestine – condone or espouse. Valdary’s and Bailey’s arguments for and against Zionism, respectively, erase complexities and portray groups as heroes and villains, eclipsing space for meaningful exchange. They attempt to excuse us from taking responsibility to learn more and confront the paradoxes and challenges that make this conflict so intractable. From attending the Whose Rights? panel, no audience member would have known that many students reject the false dichotomies presented and work to end the conflict, the occupation and Palestinian inequality, while also embracing Zionist values such as Israel’s continued existence.

We believe that rigorous education and productive action must go hand in hand when we approach the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Educating ourselves without acting on our knowledge reduces pressing problems to unproductive intellectual exercises. Jumping to action without fully understanding the complexities of the issues, meanwhile, risks wasting energy on misguided initiatives or even exacerbating the problem. We challenge the Stanford community to close the gaps in understanding left by this panel. In the coming months, J Street U will create spaces for learning, discussion and action. We urge those who attended the debate, or who are interested in improving their understanding of the conflict as divestment and other actions present themselves, to engage, regardless of background or opinions. We hope that we, the Stanford community, can establish practices of mutual respect, critical thought and productive education as we approach pursuing justice in Israel, Palestine and around the world.

Julia Daniel ’17

Julia Daniel is the co-chair of J Street U Stanford and can be contacted at jdaniel7 ‘at’ stanford.edu.

Tagged with: divestment Gaza Israel J Street U Stanford Palestine Students for Justice in Palestine zionism

Worried Moderate

Interesting piece. It does seem that moderate voices are often left out of the conversation (on campus and nationwide), and it is too easy to pretend that the only choice is between right wing groups that ignore the occupation and far left groups that aim to remove Israel as a state. There are many people in the middle, who work against the occupation while still supporting a Jewish and democratic state.
JStreet is Meek and Irrelevant

This op-ed further showcases JStreet’s naivete and irrelevance when it comes to promoting peace and “productive education” on the Israel-Palestine issue, both on campus and on a national scale. The author doesn’t offer any concrete ideas for moving forward and promoting more nuanced discussion. JStreet dubs itself “The Political Home for Pro-Israel, Pro-peace Americans” (see jstreet.org). However, the closed-mindedness of this article makes it difficult for me to believe JStreet’s claim that it is “pro Palestinian,” and even harder to believe it is “pro Israel.” Finally, does JStreet’s central claim that it is “pro peace” have any truth? Or is it just interested in contradicting everyone, too busy basking in its own timidity, wishy-washiness, and political correctness to advance any productive discussion?
Liberal Zionist

Amazing article. It is very important for people to remember, especially anyone who left the room after this debate thinking Chloe’s view= Zionism, that there are a plethora of views within the Zionist movement on the conflict. I look forward to Jstreet U’s events in the future!
Guest

Lol J Street does actually have very well defined goals for moving forward centered around a two-state solution (see jstreet.org). Whereas a lot of the campus work is centered around education, it takes a lot of action in American and Israeli politics. It doesn’t contradict everyone — it contradicts those that see every single happening in the conflict as either Palestinian terrorism or Zionist colonialism. Maybe it comes off as “wishy-washy” to not say such extreme statements as AIPAC or SJP, but that’s because J Street chooses a narrative based on each individual event instead of imposing a pre-determined narrative on every fact.
Guest

Great article
Clayborne Carson

A few facts about the panel discussion. (1) Delta Sigma Theta rather than any of the panelists chose the moderator, participants, and format. I had nothing to do with their choice of Chloé Valdary, who seems to be the target of much of the Op Ed’s criticisms. (2) Although the Op Ed seems to portray J Street as the only moderate voice on this issue, I believe that, with the possible exception of Chloé, all the panelists would support “a peaceful, negotiated two-state solution to the issue of Israel and Palestine” and are working “to end the conflict, the occupation and Palestinian inequality, while also embracing … Israel’s continued existence.” (3) I agreed to participate because I understood that a predominantly black sorority wanted to inform their members about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Because I am one of only a few black Americans who has made extended visits to the region (in my case, four visits over the past 20 years) and spoken extensively with both Israelis and Palestinians involved with this issue, I thought I could provide useful information for this audience. (4) Like the author of the Op Ed, I am always eager to participate in any discussion that promotes “mutual respect, critical thought and productive education as we approach pursuing justice in Israel, Palestine and around the world.”
Kristian Davis Bailey

Julia, I spent none of my prepared remarks and next-to-none of my response time discussing Zionism, which your op-ed misrepresents in ways that faultily delegitimize my entire participation in the event, as well as the event itself (“Valdary’s and Bailey’s arguments for and against Zionism, respectively, erase complexities and portray groups as heroes and villains, eclipsing space for meaningful exchange.”) Chloe began her remarks by saying Zionism is the “metaphysical imperative of my existence.” Dr. Carson said at the beginning of his remarks that focusing on Zionism was a distraction from the ongoing issues of occupation and human rights. I agreed with this and stayed within the parameters of the defined questions of the panel. The three panelists who were in the room kept our focus on human rights and law and the civil rights movement/American freedom movements–something I devoted a great deal of time to discussing. The three panelists in the room could have had a very engaging and constructive conversation on our own, had we not spent so much time responding to Chloe’s claims. A conversation that would have had room for your views, and one that (based on prior public interactions between J Street and SJP) would have met your criteria for mutual respect, critical and complex engagement.

Accordingly, I challenge the notion that my views were “extreme” and that they were an equal and opposite counterbalance to Chloe’s. There’s nothing extreme about supporting unequivocal and universal human rights for all residents of the region. This actually seems quite “moderate” within a frame of liberal values. You also allude to divestment and I maintain that the act of taking money out of companies that block universal human rights is not a radical or extreme act, but one of the most basic and responsible answers to extreme violations of human rights and international law. The “moderate” position (which in this column is self-defined as your/J Street’s position) is not a magical solution or one that is “right” by virtue of constructing dichotomies on either side of it. This column has the effect of serving same role that Chloe did during the panel–to derail conversations about human rights in Palestine *and in the US* by agonizing over the meaning of Zionism. It was “extreme” when Chloe did it and it feels the same now.

It’s patronizing to tell people that they don’t know enough about something to make an informed opinion but that you do—and to suggest that my and the other two panelists’ views were not legitimate (“Instead of showcasing the legitimate range of opinions on Israeli-Palestinian and civil rights issues…”). It does not take some magic amount of knowledge for it to be clear that Israel systematically violates human rights that we idealize as sacrosanct and universal in other contexts, nor to figure out that the self-determination of a people cannot supersede the human rights of another.

Your piece also ignores one of the most important parts I raised during the event: connections to past and present American movements against racism and systemic oppression. I’ve been to Ferguson twice–once as a member of the Palestine Contingent to #Ferguson October, and once the weekend before the event leading a group of 10 students from Palestine to meet with organizers in the city. Both times it has been resoundingly clear that people have the information they need to determine solidarity–that is the knowledge of systemic oppression and our imperative to actively respond to it even as we work through internal education.

An excerpt on this for further reading:

“Jonathan Pulphus is an African American studies major at Saint Louis University and member of Tribe X, a group that seeks to counteract global injustices and systemic racism through issues organizing, education, empowerment, and building strong alliances. Pulphus said he felt solidarity as a black American meeting the students from Palestine.

“Members in Tribe X know what it means to be a target of oppression yet soldiers for unity, so too did my Palestinian friends.”

For Pulphus, meeting Palestinians was an eye-opening experience about the Israeli occupation of Palestine and its connections to issues facing black people in the U.S.

“Shatha told us how, to this day, Israel receives billions of dollars from the U.S. to illegally occupy Palestinian land,” he said. “Meanwhile, the majority black spaces in the U.S. such as St. Louis City and Ferguson face poverty and disinvestment, neglect.”

Larry Fellows III, a member of the Don’t Shoot Coalition, said that systematic oppression is what connects both communities.

“We’re being told by force that we aren’t supposed to question or challenge what we know isn’t legal treatment. The companies that are spending billions of dollars to suppress Palestinians are doing the same thing in the states, the tear gas and bullets used in Palestine is used in Ferguson. It’s all relative,” Fellows said.”

Read more at EBONY http://www.ebony.com/news-views/building-unity-wrecking-walls-palestinians-come-to-ferguson-032#ixzz3KsybUBR1
Julia Daniel

Hi Kristian, and thanks for your thoughts. I agree with you 100% in your view that “the three panelists in the room could have had a very engaging and constructive conversation on our own, had we not spent so much time responding to Chloe’s claims” – that’s exactly why I wrote this piece. I think your participation in the event would have been much more powerful and constructive if you had not had to spend as much time addressing so many of her points. Nowhere did I intend to suggest that your or the other panelists’ views were illegitimate; the quote “Instead of showcasing the legitimate range of opinions…” means that the range of opinions (which is a legitimate range) was not fully on display.

Nor did I assert that your views are “extreme” – a word I reserved for Valdary alone. I absolutely agree that “there’s nothing extreme about supporting unequivocal and universal human rights for all residents of the region”. On the contrary, I believe and hope that the vast majority of people who want a peaceful end to the conflict hold those values close. Furthermore, centrist positions – including J Street’s, but J Street is not the only moderate view – are indeed not a magic bullet, but they do deserve seats at the table. It is not “patronizing” for me to raise my hand and ask that my voice be heard, and I reject your assertion that it is.

I don’t intend to “derail” any conversations. The whole point of this piece is precisely to show one conversation that was derailed, explain why it happened, and make requests of the Stanford community that will hopefully reduce the chance of it happening again.

The Ebony piece is powerful, and that’s precisely my point. If we take steps to ensure our conversations are productive and include a range of voices, we’ll create some amazing spaces to substantively discuss those important issues and better inform our actions. I hope this column might help encourage that to happen.
Julia Daniel

Hello Dr. Carson, and thank you for your response and your participation in the original discussion. I’ll address your points in order, since I believe they’re all extremely important and valid. First, if I mistakenly implied anywhere that any of the panelists had a say in who else was brought to the table, that was not my intention. Also, while this column is critical of the panel as an event, I am not looking to assign blame, but rather to simply turn a past experience into a learning moment on conversations moving forward. Second, I hope and believe that you are correct in assessing the opinions of the other panelists. My main concern in this piece is that politically, there is a lot of space on the spectrum between Chloé and Kristian, and those of us who find ourselves there felt that the conversation ignored that space. Third, I think that your perspective was and is essential on this topic, and I absolutely support your presence on the panel – I just wish it had been an environment where your ideas weren’t partially eclipsed by the attention on Chloé’s clear disconnect from the rest of the panelists. And fourth – I am glad to hear that and I hope that we students will have more opportunities to participate in such discussions with you in the coming months.
Clayborne Carson

Thanks, Julia, for the thoughtful reply. If we have not already talked about organizing “more opportunities to participate in such discussions,” I would certainly welcome the opportunity.
You’re too nice

While Kristian’s “views” are moderate, his call to action is extremely radical and dangerous.

Divestment, Kristian’s primary call to action, is extremely radical and is indeed in direct opposition to Valdary’s equally radical views. Valdary wants to settle the West Bank at the expense of Palestinians, while Kristian wants to penalize the Jewish state for protecting its citizens from suicide bombers. Taking away Israel’s right to self-defense (sanctioning motorola for providing military radios for example), is extremely radical. Kristian’s divestment is tied to BDS, which calls for Academics to boycott partnering with Israeli scientists, and banning Israeli participation in Academic conferences. These are radical and counterproductive calls to action, even if they are called for under the auspices of a more holistic and moderate “view.”

So saying that Kristian has moderate “views” is really masking the fact that he is calling for something that would be very destructive. As was Valdary (her ‘views’ could be a described as a concern for Jewish human rights, if we use the same kind of rhetoric as Kristian), but her call to action was also destructive.

So Julia, don’t backtrack on your article, you very accurately described the event. Two very destructive calls to action at polar opposite ends of the spectrum dominated the debate.

The middle 90% of people who care were left out. And that’s really where productive action is going to take place.
skeptic

Kristian sounds exactly like an extremist, trying to only talk about the “good” parts of his views and hiding all the questionable or controversial stuff. Kristian, stop being such a bad person. Learn to discuss and stop promoting hate and black-vs-white good-vs-bad ideology.
skeptic

We need to make an anti-radicalism and anti-extremism group. This has become a shit show.