This summer I read Yossi Klein Halevi’s book, Letters to My Palestinian Neighbor. Each chapter is a letter directly addressed to his Palestinian neighbors, who live in the West Bank adjacent to his hometown in Jerusalem. His work is meant to show how the conflict appears through the eyes of an Israeli. He wrangles with the complex strands of faith, pride and politics that underpin the rift between Israelis and Palestinians.
My writing is inspired by Halevi and has a similar motive. But, instead of writing from near the West Bank I am writing from the west corridor of Memorial Library, where my view of the lawn is obstructed by a six-panel display that conveys a salient anti-Israel message. I hope to use Halevi’s book as a predicate for explaining how the conflict appears through the eyes of a pro-Israel student with a predilection for peace and coexistence. In so doing, I write honestly, respectfully and directly to you, my neighbor and fellow Badger, about the hurt caused by your exhibit in Library Mall. I have found critical writing, not fighting nor aimlessly complaining, as my resort and appropriate response.
Before I proceed, my neighbor and fellow Badger, I want to clarify that I speak on behalf of myself and myself only. My name is Hilary Miller. I am a Senior studying political science, history and Jewish studies. I am involved with Jewish organizations on campus along with non-Jewish groups. I support Israel and I struggle with understanding Israel. I have been to Israel seven times and I have interned for an Israeli consulate. I am critical of its policies as I am critical of other nation’s policies. I see Israel as both an innovator as well as imperfect.
Exposing myself is not meant to invalidate you, my neighbor and fellow badger, but instead is a show of transparency. This is my orientation within the discursive realm in which we are engaging. It is unique to my life experience, and therefore, is not reflective of either the Jewish or pro-Israel communities on campus. To write on their behalf is too great a responsibility. But, perhaps students within these communities also felt discouraged by your six-panel display and will relate to my opinion in one way or another.
And so: my neighbor and fellow Badger, I respect your student activism and appreciate your fervent passion for a cause. This we share. But, I take issue with the content of your display. I see it more provocative than productive, more problematic than proactive.
I am particularly vexed by the “Founders of Israel” board that casts seminal Israeli figures such as David Ben-Gurion, Golda Meir and Menachem Begin as “founders of genocide.” This indelicate and loose application of the term “genocide” to the Palestinian situation is a negation of historical fact. Respectfully, I ask you, my neighbor and fellow badger: with conviction do you believe that Ben-Gurion, Meir and Begin sought a genocide against the Palestinian people? As the “founders of genocide,” did they succeed in the cause you have imputed to them? In my personal research for a variety of classes at UW, I have studied the causal mechanisms of the Holocaust and the political implications of man’s darkest hour in history. I have thoroughly researched and written about the derivation of the term “genocide” and its progenitor: Raphael Lemkin.
Lemkin was an international jurist and law professor at Duke University. Like so many of his Jewish kin, Lemkin fled Nazi-occupied Europe. Fifty members of his family died in the Shoah and earlier manifestations of anti-Jewish violence. In 1944, Lemkin published Axis Rule in Occupied Europe to shed light on the scope of mass categorical violence being committed by the Nazi regime. He used the written word to inform a larger audience about the travails of group-selective violence. Axis Rule includes the first appearance and stated definition of the term “genocide.” A reformed version was later passed in the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide in December 1948. As it is enshrined in the Genocide Convention, genocide is the “intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.” Genocide is understood by scholars as a unique form of violence with the specific aim of achieving the organized, systematic, and categorical destruction of whole groups of people.
Now that I have provided a definition and historical underpinning of the word “genocide,” I ask again, my neighbor and fellow Badger: with conviction do you believe that Ben-Gurion, Meir and Begin successfully sought a genocide against the Palestinian people? According to the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics, the number of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip has risen from 2,895,683 in 1997 to 4,780,978 in 2017. As the “founders of genocide,” did these Israeli leaders succeed in the cause you have imputed to them? Is there evidence to corroborate that the State of Israel is intentionally seeking the total elimination of the Palestinian people? Do you realize the veracity of the word? Do you realize the clout of your claim?
I ask not with the intention of patronizing you. I ask because I care. I care about maintaining the integrity of the definition of “genocide” as Lemkin would have. I care because your demonization of Ben-Gurion, Meir and Begin is not a legitimate criticism of Israel like you claim it to be. When you demonize Israel, as your display does by conflating their perceived transgressions with those of Adolf Hitler, you not only espouse anti-Semitism but also obfuscate historical truth. To consider Israel at any point in its past or present genocidal is nothing more than a hyperbolic, ill-founded moral outcry that fails to inform the general public about the current state of affairs. The misuse of “genocide” may cohere with your cause but has serious implications. I hope, to any extent, that I have explained why.
Not only is the “founders of genocide” panel empirically wrong but it is also extremely isolating and unproductive. Knowing the veracity of the word and having connections to the Holocaust and to Israel, when I saw the display, my inborn reaction was to discredit your cause entirely. I can imagine students who have a similar experience to mine would feel the same. This is the cause of our rift: our inability to meet in the middle because of our impulse to defame and to discredit the other.
And while after encountering your display I feel discouraged and upset, I am still hopeful that we will start a dialogue. I have been hopeful since my freshman year. I am warmed by the conviction that perhaps, you and me, both proud students of the University of Wisconsin, together, can champion a new precedent for future conversations on Israel that students everywhere can model. I think that the first place to start is by acknowledging that this seemingly intractable divide between us is tinged with nuance and complexity. To be sure, my calling the Israeli-Palestinian conflict nuanced is not to protect me under a veil of neutrality or to avail myself of criticism. This is a difficult conflict to understand, simply put. It involves different narratives and is charged with emotion. Our reality is that both sides are flawed and both sides have flaws. Neither side can claim that the other is right or wrong. Our respective narratives have significance to us and our communities. Admitting this is our first step.
Perhaps the second is becoming more in touch with the history and contemporary facts relating to the conflict. This would be Lemkin’s preference. As I sit in Memorial Library, I am imagining the plethora of books we can dive into. Many of them are on the seventh floor in the south stacks. I am there often. Halevi’s book is also available for check out from the main collection on the first floor of College Library. As you may tell, I crave knowledge and have a particular passion for studying Israel in all of its nuance and complexity. My hope is that you and I can tackle the topic together, that we will endeavor to become as erudite on this topic as college students can be. I ask that you be my partner and be my fellow polemic. We can fulfill UW’s credo of “sifting and winnowing” no matter the “limitations which trammel inquiry elsewhere.” I am sure this means to a solution is far more tactical and mutually beneficial than that of your six-panel display.
And even though as I write that your exhibit continues to obstruct my view, I will be in the west corridor, waiting not to talk to you but to talk with you, my neighbor and fellow Badger.
Hilary is a senior studying history, political science and Jewish studies. What are your thoughts on the demonstration at Library Mall last week? More broadly, how do you feel about the Israel-Palestine conflict? Send your thoughts and opinions to us at opinion@dailycardinal.com.
