Sometimes when things go as bad as I expect I think, though don’t always say, “I told you so.” But in Minneapolis last week, a problem I had tried to prevent surfaced despite my efforts, so any satisfaction at my predictive ability was tempered by disappointment. In my brief posting immediately after the panel discussion at Form + Content Gallery, which is still showing the exhibit Dialogue on the Wall, I noted both negative and positive aspects. Right now I want to explore the negative side.
Since being asked to allow my Israel/Palestine photos to be used for the exhibit, which is designed to stimulate thinking about the Separation Wall, I had tried without success to prevent the evening discussion from becoming a Jewish-only panel. At some point maybe I’ll describe that two-month period in more detail, but suffice it to say that my immediate discomfort with being part of what gradually became a Jewish panel in a non-Jewish setting was not shared by the others. Their primary focus was broadening discussion in the Jewish community within which they were embedded, a goal I share despite believing that this public forum was not the appropriate place for it.
At a lunch meeting the day of the panel designed to prepare for the discussion, I reiterated my concerns and my interest in making sure Palestinians in the audience and their supporters would have ample time to participate. The rabbi who had been asked to moderate the event, a professor and left-Zionist with something of a reputation for rubbing people the wrong way, committed himself to making everyone feel comfortable and to moderating even-handedly. He was most concerned, though, about making sure the panel member from the Jewish Community Relations Council would not feel personally attacked by critics of Israeli policy.
The evening started well, and the three panelists and moderator kept close to our 30-minute introductory comments. That left an hour for what was described as open-ended audience discussion. There were useful comments and questions, but two problems quickly became apparent:
1. The third panel member, also a left-Zionist rabbi and a specialist in dialogue groups, announced a list of guidelines designed to prevent things from deteriorating into shouting. The goal was reasonable, but the method, which included points such as being open to learning rather debating previous positions, proved problematic for the setting.
2. The moderator began to cut off audience members whose comments stuck him as demonstrating “positions” rather than openness to mutual exploration. He only cut off, and sometimes insulted more directly, Palestinians and their supporters, including a Palestinian American lawyer who referred to international law. He did not cut off an Israeli who attended as part of his position working with the local Jewish community. He also did not cut off the panel members, who clearly came with a range of positions.
As a result of these developments, not only did those critical of Israel who spoke up rightly feel aggrieved, so did at least several members of the audience, including Jewish peace and Palestine solidarity activists, who felt intimidated by the rabbi’s abuse of power. By the time the rabbi/moderator stood behind the JCRC representative and wrapped his arms around his shoulders to shield him from verbal attack, any pretense of neutrality had long disappeared.
Beginning right after the panel and continuing for my remaining two days in Minneapolis, my time was filled talking with the Palestinian solidarity activists and panel organizers, trying to sort out what had happened and what might happen next. Maybe Thursday’s negatives can be transformed into something positive. Whether things move in that direction depends on those who remain in Minneapolis, but by the time I left it did seem there would be less formal communication among some of the various players.
But not everyone, perhaps. Later Thursday evening, the moderator/rabbi emailed the panel members and organizers. The subject line was “an amazing evening,” but his satisfaction with the event was tempered by his acknowledgment that he “crossed a line,” though he still blamed “those whose sense of certainty on any topic is offered with a tone of distain.”
After mulling this over for a day, I responded with a long email to him and the others who were involved, suggesting that any apology should go to the people he cut off and intimidated, and that it was his own actions that were most disdainful. I said he might consider how closely he mirrored Israel’s historical insistence on setting every proposed peace-talk agenda and determining in advance just what it is Israeli-approved Palestinian participants are allowed to talk about. I had a lot more to say, some of it veering on the insulting myself, but my concern was not so much making nice with the rabbi as supporting those who had been led to believe they would be treated with respect. I was also trying, I suppose, to make up for having gotten myself into this situation in the first place. That I had predicted, warned against, and tried to prevent the final outcome, and still failed, remains personally distressing. It helps that the activists involved say they’re glad I participated despite it all, but I remain unsure about what I should have done instead.
I also remain as skeptical as ever that mainstream “dialogue” groups can really help forge a better Israeli-Palestinian future. As typically used, and as enforced during last week’s panel, dialogue assumes that responsibility and suffering are divided evenly and that the goal is to move forward without assessing whether one side’s perspective is more accurate, more defensible, more just than the other’s. This stance serves Israel’s interests, just as it serves the interests of the stronger party in many other contexts. Thursday’s Dialogue on the Wall made that abundantly clear.
Something else made clear is that the mainstream Jewish community’s exclusive focus on Israel’s needs and wants may not be as permanent as it often appears. The bulk of Thursday’s audience was from that community, although not from its most right-wing segment, and many showed verbally and through body language that they wanted more information and were willing to listen. The JCRC and other mainstream Jewish organizations do not have a completely monolithic community behind them. At the panel, it was easy to see that this mainstream but open-minded audience was dismayed by the effort to silence critics in the audience, and by the shallow rehearsed responses of the Israeli in the audience and the JCRC panelist.
Still, internal Jewish debate is somewhat beside the point to Palestinians, who understandably often tire of Jews discussing among themselves whether justice for Palestinians is a good idea.
you stink
was bob the rabbi?
No, Rabbi Joseph Edelheit. He’s a man of peace.
This gig was obviously more of dialogue within the Jewish community where there too is a diversity of views. My experience is that in the past when the Jewish community has tried to dialogue, the pro-Palestinian contingency shows up with their own agenda. No sir, I don’t think you went to this with an “open mind” – with what you could learn about the views in the Jewish community – your purpose was to have your pro-Palestinian views heard. And there have been ample venues for that.
As you apparently are not from this neck of the woods, what you should know is that some of us in the community years ago, ten at least, reached out to local groups and churches who were supporting the Palestinians and asked for a balanced dialogue — perhaps like what you envisioned for this particular dialogue. The Palestinian supporters repeatedly refused — I was told that 1) I was biased (being a Jew — Palestinians/Muslims are not biased, nor apparently are Christians), 2) they already knew what we had to say (they’re mostly Christians, afterall) and 3) our voices were already being heard in the media (ya know, it’s controlled by the Jews — btw, we have just as many complaints as Palestinians do about media bias — the media is the government’s voice).
There were antecedents for why this dialogue was not as balanced as you hoped, but knew it would not be. Those who are empathetic to the Palestinians but also support Israel’s right to exist were not allowed to sit at your table. Now the tables have turned.
You were at least invited and asked to share your photography and pictures can speak loudly. This was a big step for the Jewish community, but instead, you portray the community as being on some sort of “power” trip by controlling the dialogue. It’s sad that you choose to go down that path and be so harshly judgmental.
Obviously, there’s still much work to be done to build bridges between communities. And there is some excellent work going on especially between Palestinian and Israeli and American educators. Maybe in the future you will reach out and together with the mainstream Jewish community sponsor another dialogue where a broader range of voices can be heard. Until then, it’s just one hand clapping.
[...] recent months I’ve addressed this problem in several contexts, from the Dialogue on the Wall panel discussion in Minneapolis to Moises Salinas’s book on the psychology of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict [...]
[...] in Minneapolis last August. I’ve described here before my experience participating in the panel discussion related to the exhibit, which included some of my photos of Israel and [...]