I'm a Jewish Israeli, AMA

[israelilefty]

Jewish Israeli here. I grew up in a different country but have lived and worked most of my adult life here, living a fairly normal everyday life in northern Israel. When I'm not working, I enjoy cooking and hiking, I'm religiously observant (but also feminist), I'm on the left of the political spectrum, and have everyday contact with people from quite a range of different perspectives - Israeli society is incredibly diverse.

I guess I see us portrayed in a kind of monolithic way in the English-language media, so I'm taking a deep breath and posting here...

Feel free to AMA, just remember you're asking a real person, not a government or military spokesman :) I'll try to answer from my personal standpoint. as long as it's asked in good faith.

I honestly don’t understand what the problem is here? It is fine for us all to totally disagree on any subject. Nobody is obliged to agree or change their opinion. However if you never talk to anyone who has different views or experiences than you perhaps people expressing ideas or asking questions in ways you aren’t familiar with might come across as aggressive or belligerent. It really isn’t though it’s just variety.

What would be the point in AMA if you only received questions from people who already live in the area or know all about how things about your expertise/experience?

I think the “Brexit” equivalent is a good one. Those who could talk about why they were of one persuasion or another were far more interesting and thought provoking than those who shouted “racist” or “lefty”.

@TomeTome you stopped asking questions, though, and instead started sharing your own views on things a fair few posts back. I'm pretty sure the OP wasn't naive enough to think she'd only get questions from people who think exactly like her - you're not asking questions anymore though so please move on. As you well know, there are plenty of other posts where your comments will be a lot more suitable.

I didn’t start a AMA about living in the UK during Brexit.

And anyway I don’t think you can compare Brexit to the killing of thousands of innocent children. The stakes are simply not comparable.

OP doesn’t have to answer if they prefer not to. But I’m only interested here in their response (or the response of anyone who actually lives in Israel), not other random posters getting angry and trying to deflect.

I think the vast majority of my posts have questions in them, but there are a couple that are in response to OPs responses (which seems fairly normal) and some which respond to others comments (like this one).

It’s now fairly easy to judge if your posts are appreciated on a thread because of the weird little thank you clappy hands. So while I appreciate some posters may find my posts awful I can be fairly sure that there are others who have read them and not felt that way.

@israelilefty I really appreciate you taking the time to answer questions about what it’s like from your perspective there. I hope you can use your knowledge to help understanding grow and that things get easier for everyone.

@israelilefty

What are your thoughts on the Jewish For Peace as an organisation?

I know I have some thoughts but would be interested in yours.

Wow. This thread seems to have exploded today. I'll try to address as many questions as I can this evening. Apologies if I don't get to everything - busy life...

Things are a bit different from the time you recall (the second intifada). There are no security guards at restaurants like there were during the peak of the suicide bombings, and not at synagogues. There is usually a guard outside each school but that's not new since Oct 7. There was some extra security in many places immediately following Oct 7 and for a few weeks (in fact on Oct 7 itself when we had no idea what was going on the police came by our synagogue and told us that someone should guard the gate). This was because it really wasn't clear whether the conflict would spill over more widely inside Israel with imitations of the Hamas attack. Thankfully this didn't happen and now things are pretty much back to usual.

I gave you three options: a two-state solution, a one-state solution (with reasons why I think it's difficult to achieve in the short to medium term even if it sounds good "on paper"), and continuing the conflict. I haven't heard any other practical suggestions for ending the conflict that have gained traction among any significant portions of Palestinians or Israelis. Any solution will need some kind of intervention from outside the region (or within the region - countries like Egypt and Qatar play important roles in negotiation) as well as (most importantly) support from both Palestinians and Israelis whose futures are being decided.

I agree that a road corridor from Gaza to the West Bank is not ideal, but as you say, it's better than nothing, and it's a position to start from - and it's indeed the position Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas presented to the UN, together with opening an airport and seaport in Gaza and resolving the issue of the Rafah crossing to Egypt (remember that Egypt is also currently blockading Gaza). These would be a minimum to make a two-state solution viable - nobody thinks the current blockade would continue once the two-state solution is implemented.

I've heard plenty of people talking about a possible future federation between Palestine and Israel, and some people even talk about basically a borderless two-state solution. But that stage is far in the future and will take years of trust-building. My practical view is that the first stage needs to separate the two independent states enabling each to live in dignity, then the next stage is building trust and cooperation. If we wait for trust to be built enough to live with no borders before seeking peace talks, we are simply delaying the solution and we have seen the consequences of that.

"I’m pretty sure I’m not the only poster who is getting increasingly irritated by your broken record questions."

You're not alone.

Nobody is talking about the whole of Gaza becoming Israeli. Smotrich and Ben Gvir are talking about reestablishing Israeli settlements in Gaza because this appeals to their far-right voter base (mainly settlers) and there will probably be elections this year, not because they seriously think anyone is going to do this.

I agree that it is alarming that Netanyahu is talking about voluntary resettlement of Gazans in third countries. I absolutely agree with the Israeli op-eds in recent days that point out (a) that any kind of forced resettlement is illegal, (b) that the suggestion that Gazans want to voluntarily migrate is a ridiculous fantasy totally removed from reality, and (c) that under the present government Israelis have become too used to hearing ridiculous extremist language from the government.

Having said all of the above, the report you posted is a vague report of "talks about..." leaked to some Israeli tabloid-like site. We are far from the stage of official government policy. Netanyahu is a master of political spin. It will be a while before we can understand what is actually a policy intention and what is a game of rhetoric raising the stakes for Hamas during the current ceasefire talks.

Thank you OP.
These are important questions I think.
Causing a lot of upset and further trauma to ordinary Gazans I’m sure and atm definitely not a path to settling things down.

Sorry, no idea, I'm really not a cosmetics person.

Sure, I'll just head out and ask them (meanwhile my cat, who is the only other creature awake in this room, refuses to divulge its opinion...)

But seriously. Every single poll since Oct 7 shows support for Netanyahu and his government plummeting. That should be a general clue that a majority of Israelis think he is handing the situation badly.

Ok, busy, sad every day about what's going on, tired... (the latter not at all connected to staying up late each night to answer AMAs ;)....)

I agree that it is alarming that Netanyahu is talking about voluntary resettlement of Gazans in third countries. I absolutely agree with the Israeli op-eds in recent days that point out (a) that any kind of forced resettlement is illegal, (b) that the suggestion that Gazans want to voluntarily migrate is a ridiculous fantasy totally removed from reality, and (c) that under the present government Israelis have become too used to hearing ridiculous extremist language from the government
Having said all of the above, the report you posted is a vague report of "talks about..." leaked to some Israeli tabloid-like site. We are far from the stage of official government policy. Netanyahu is a master of political spin. It will be a while before we can understand what is actually a policy intention and what is a game of rhetoric raising the stakes for Hamas during the current ceasefire talks
Thank you for talking so openly about the problems with recent rhetoric.

What do you think it will take for Israeli citizens to be able work out what is a genuine intent and what's hot air to appeal to the right wing /election game playing given that the current situation is already very heated and has escalated?

I can imagine it must be very difficult for citizens who want peace to hear rhetoric that is not only likely to inflame the situation, but potentially lead to more people on both sides of the conflict being ripe for radicalisation and hatred.

Edit to add - this isn't me suggesting the OP is a spokesperson for all Israeli citizens. It's a general question about overall mood.

Do you mean Jewish Voice for Peace? I don't know it well as it's a Diaspora Jewish organization rather than one with a presence in Israel. But from a quick read of their website, the following thoughts...

Everyone, Jewish or not, has a right to their own political opinion and to express it. As far as I can see, JVP identifies itself as an anti-Zionist, Palestinian solidarity organization. As such I feel similarly about their platform as I do about other leftist Palestinian solidarity organizations: I think it's a shame to frame the conflict as a zero-sum game, and I think that any movement purporting to work for peace in the region that cannot establish a point of contact anywhere on the Israeli left (or vice versa on the Palestinian left) is probably working to extend the Israeli-Palestinian conflict rather than make concrete moves towards a peaceful solution, because a peaceful solution needs to be connected to people on the ground and not just the imagination of people overseas. I can understand why some leftist Diaspora Jews might be sick of uncritical rhetoric about Israel, but IMHO JVP don't offer a concrete solution. Their "vision" of a peaceful democratic future with equality and dignity is beautiful, but as I've said before, the problem is not the vision but the implementation. Without a concrete plan of how to get there from the current messy situation, taking into account recent history and the current complexity of the Middle East and the real populations that live here their manifesto seems more of a sticking plaster to make the Western conscience feel better.

I emphasise again that this is just based on a quick read of their website...

What is genuine intent and what is hot air? That's the kind of thing we can see when the government actually attempts to make and implement policy.

In terms of inflammatory rhetoric - yes. But also remember, the way rhetoric and arguments work here is probably different from what you are used to. In this conflict all sides are banding about inflammatory rhetoric, and that's an aspect of the conflict itself. It's not uncommon for any of the sides to say something completely inflammatory publicly, but actually hold a more moderate position when it comes to what happens in practice/negotiations.

In terms of inflammatory rhetoric - yes.But also remember, the way rhetoric and arguments work here is probably different from what you are used to. In this conflict all sides are banding about inflammatory rhetoric, and that's an aspect of the conflict itself. It's not uncommon for any of the sides to say something completely inflammatory publicly, but actually hold a more moderate position when it comes to what happens in practice/negotiations
That really shocks me that someone might air a huge amount of inflamtory comments and pour fuel on the fire in public when they privately hold more moderate views and want peace.

Is that because the extreme positions within society have a lot of sway when it comes to elections, or leaders/politicians wanting to create a macho image of themselves or some other reason?

You're probably right about it being very different to what we're used to because I'd have thought that if you could be the leader who resolved the conflict or started the road to peace, you'd have better public image, be well regarded internationally and probably have a lasting legacy in history.

@LolaSmiles That really shocks me that someone might air a huge amount of inflamtory comments and pour fuel on the fire in public when they privately hold more moderate views and want peace

The way rhetoric and arguments work in the Middle East is just very different to the way they work in the West. I remember I was once at some kind of group event in the Old City in Jerusalem, and I ended up having a massive argument with some Palestinian guy about the political interpretation of whatever. A Swiss guy in the group genuinely thought we were about to end up in blows. But actually following the argument, the Palestinian guy turned to me and said, 'ok, want to go for coffee?' It's just a different dynamic and I find it in a way more honest than Western-style arguing that stays polite but bottles resentment inside.

In terms of politics, politicians want to portray a strong, no-compromise persona.

Just to note, 'wanting peace' is a bit of a general statement. Everyone basically wants peace - it's just that they differ in how they define "peace", how they think we should get there, and the compromises they are willing to make in the short term to pursue that goal.

@israelilefty
Thank you for responding and yes I did mean Jewish Voice For Peace.
As always, your response is measured and considered and so well written, and I concur with your sentiment.

I ask because, from what I can gauge, JVP has a MASSIVE reach, online & on social media.
I blindly followed them years ago. As a half Israeli & secular Jew, with dreams of peace, I assumed naively that our values aligned. But as I've become more politically aware, (especially since 7/10 & this war) I have become more 'uncomfortable' with a lot of their 'propaganda', actions & rhetoric.
I delved into their website and came away feeling more uncomfortable.
And then more recently, I've come across some opinions/facts (?) about them that have of confirmed my discomfort, if that makes sense?
Here's an example:

www.instagram.com/p/CsjPRTYrnQS/?igsh=MXc0YnVtMnZ3YjdrOA==

Again, I don't know enough about the organization to really comment, but yes, I share your discomfort. To me some of their positions lack intellectual honesty (and nuance and complexity etc). A few examples:

• They talk about racism by the predominantly European-Jewish Israeli establishment against Mizrahi Jewish immigrants in the 1950s, without acknowledging the huge political processes that have occurred during the last 70 years. By now Mizrahi Jews are firmly within the Israeli establishment including numerous government ministers, and the Mizrahi Jewish population in Israel overwhelmingly identifies with the Israeli political right. One of the biggest factors in this change was the Shas political movement, which is a religious right wing party. Mizrahi Jews in Israel would overwhelmingly not identify with the ideology of JVP which claims to want to liberate them. I find this attitude patronising (and essentially builds on a colonial model of the superiority of European thought).
• In the slides you shared, there is a glib statement that they "release any attachment to the [Jerusalem] Temple", in deciding that Tisha b'Av, the traditional Jewish day of mourning for the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE, can now be a day of grief for the Palestinian Nakba. In doing so they not only dismiss a major observance in the Jewish calendar, but also casually disregard the theological centrality of the destruction of the Temple to rabbinic Judaism (the roots of all modern religious Judaism). For 2000 years Jews have prayed facing in the direction of the Temple. Collective memories of Temple observances form the basis for huge swaths of major rabbinic texts (Mishna, Talmud etc). Religious Jews traditionally understand that baseless hatred among Jews caused the destruction of the Temple and irreparably damaged the relationship between G-d and the Jewish people. Tisha b'Av is a day for mourning the worst failures of the Jewish people - but this is expressed through stories of the destruction of the (two) Jerusalem temples and the wider city of Jerusalem, including reading the book of Lamentations which laments the destruction of the first temple in 586 BCE which led to the Babylonian exile, and references to Rabbinic understandings of the destruction of the second temple in 70 CE (eg the story of Kamza and Bar Kamza). Most religious Jews today have an ambivalent relationship with the idea of the Temple, sacrifices etc - but this doesn't change its centrality to Jewish theology and history. It also feels to me that this is a convenient way for JVP simply to brush aside the historical evidence of Jewish presence in the land of Israel, and their forced exile by foreign forces, first Babylonian then Roman--because that doesn't fit with their view that only Palestinians have an "indigenous" connection to the land.
• I also find the references to the Jewish antizionism disingenuous, again taking events and voices out of their historical context, which is far more complex than made out here.

In short, once again, this looks to me like a rejectionist Palestinian solidarity movement based on a contemporary Western postcolonial worldview, which picks and chooses from Jewish history and thought to support its position, in a way that avoids complexity and sometimes feels disingenuous.

Once again, I support the right of anyone to hold whatever opinion they want, but I personally don't find the JVP discourse convincing or helpful as a path to greater peace between Israelis and Palestinians. By the way, I would also launch a similar criticism at Jewish diaspora discourse on the other end of the spectrum which ignores the reality of the situation and the existence and narratives of Palestinians. There is plenty of space for political disagreement, but we need to work within complexity rather than supporting simplistic narratives and political positions that make Diaspora Jews feel good.

@israelilefty

Thank you for that further insight and response re JVP. I'm glad I asked you this question as I knew you'd have a more educated & insightful delve into it!

@LolaSmiles
Yes. Very hard to understand why any genuinely decent leader would deliberately set out to do that.

I might accept that the rhetoric in the ME is different and people go for coffee afterwards - if it wasn’t for all the massive suffering happening right now.