For five weeks, Mishkanites gathered for a discussion-filled study of "Can We Talk About Israel? A Guide for the Curious, Confused, and Conflicted." This thought-provoking book exploring one of the world's most complex, controversial topics was written by Daniel Sokatch of the New Israel Fund. Daniel was kind enough to join Rabbi Lizzi for the following Q&A session to conclude the book study.
For upcoming Shabbat services and programs, check our event calendar. Learn more about Mishkan Chicago. Follow us on Instagram and like us on Facebook.
Be sure to like and subscribe to our podcast for updates on new episodes, and please leave a review. We want to hear from you!
Produced by Mishkan Chicago. Music composed, produced, and performed by Kalman Strauss.
Transcript
For five weeks, Mishkanites gathered for a discussion-filled study of "Can We Talk About Israel? A Guide for the Curious, Confused, and Conflicted." This thought-provoking book exploring one of the world's most complex, controversial topics was written by Daniel Sokatch of the New Israel Fund. Daniel was kind enough to join Rabbi Lizzi for the following Q&A session to conclude the book study.
For upcoming Shabbat services and programs, check our event calendar. Learn more about Mishkan Chicago. Follow us on Instagram and like us on Facebook.
Be sure to like and subscribe to our podcast for updates on new episodes, and please leave a review. We want to hear from you!
Produced by Mishkan Chicago. Music composed, produced, and performed by Kalman Strauss.
Transcript
[00:16] Producer:
This episode is a little different. Over the last five weeks we've been meeting to discuss the book “Can We Talk About Israel?: A Guide for the Curious, Confused, and Conflicted.” For our final session, we were joined by author Daniel Sokatch to talk about his thought-provoking book. The following is a recording of that conversation.
[00:38] Rabbi Lizzi:
You have read his book. Here's just a little bit of background about the author of this book. Daniel Sokatch is the CEO of the New Israel Fund and has been since 2009. It's the largest organization funding the advancing of democracy, justice, equality, and a strong civil society in Israel. And you'll probably say more about it tonight. Before joining NIF, Daniel served as the executive director of the Jewish Community Federation of San Francisco and the Peninsula and Marin and Sonoma counties and I think we overlapped in LA when you were the executive director of the Progressive Jewish Alliance and I was but a wee rabbinical student and sometimes congregant of Ikar, which shared a hallway.
[01:21] Daniel Sokatch:
Even then even then we knew you'd do great things
[01:25] Rabbi Lizzi:
Oh, stop! Well thanks. So Daniel's been named four times to the Forward’s 50, an annual list of 50 leading Jewish decision makers and opinion shapers. He's written articles in all the leading newspapers and magazines. He holds an MA from the Fletcher school at Tufts university, a JD from Boston College Law School, and a BA from Brandeis. Married, two daughters, lives in San Francisco as you already learned and on a fun personal note as we were discussing before you all came back, he's been in the background of the Jewish Emergent Network which is the network of seven emergent communities of which Mishkan is one, having been either a founder or on the board of Ikar and the Kitchen in San Francisco, which is one of the communities we're gonna be traveling to Israel with this summer. So just just welcome for all of the points of intersection and commonality that we share in the past which points to I think why this book resonated with so many Mishkan people now in the present so you are joining us for the fifth and final session of this book group featuring “Can We Talk About Israel: A Guide For The Curious, Confused, And Conflicted.” I understand this is your second book talk tonight so thank you for being with us. And just to give you a little bit of a background we started this five-week series by actually doing a curriculum designed by resetting the table setting up the dual narratives the dominant Palestinian and dominant Zionist narrative to practice doing a very sort of structured nuanced deep dive into the founding of the state of Israel and kind of the founding contradiction of the state of Israel as understood by Palestinians and Zionists, you know, sort of either the war that resulted in the independence of the state of Israel or the war that resulted in the Nakba and trying collectively to become more familiar with and more comfortable with understanding the Palestinian perspective specifically so that we can speak with less defensiveness and more creativity and resilience around this topic and around some of the words and issues that can make talking about Israel so challenging. So everybody has the link to the interview with you and Rabbi Sharon Brous that I sent out five weeks ago. You have been being interviewed by people all over the country much more knowledgeable and articulate about this subject than I, so I thought I would not interview you — the class will interview you. So before I let them loose and I will call on you one by one some of you know who you are because I actually wrote back to your emails and said I will be you know calling on you go ahead and just read the exact question you sent me to maximize our time together. But before we go into questions Daniel welcome is there anything you'd like to open with or say.
[04:31] Daniel Sokatch:
Thank you Rabbi. Look first of all thank you so much for inviting me I can't tell you how honored and flattered I am that you have spent this much time talking about and reading and talking about this book it it it's incred you know I would have said yes to your rabbi anyway because as I said earlier before you all joined I don't say no to the Emergent Network. I was the founding board member of Ikar and I was the first board chair of the Kitchen so those are much more onerous tasks than just showing up and doing a book talk. But the fact that you've spent this much time really really means the world to me. In fact there's another synagogue not far from you in St. Louis that is doing a similar thing and they asked me to come out in April and so I agreed. I'm honored that people are taking the book so seriously I'm gonna forget the name of the synagogue. It's the big Reform one Andrew will know he's on Rabbi Jim Bennett is the rabbi someone will know
[05:35] Attendee:
Oh, Shaare Emeth. Former St. Louis resident here.
[05:41] Daniel Sokatch:
Great synagogue. So I will be in chicago at some point in the in the Well covered willing in the coming year so I just want to thank you for for for inviting me to be with you it's really an honor for me and it's it's very moving to me that the book is being received and taken as seriously as it is with you all and with so with so many other folks out there.
[06:04] Rabbi Lizzi:
Awesome! Great all right so Matthew Rosenberg would you open us up? It's a little biographical question.
[06:15] Matthew Rosenberg:
Sure, first question wow yeah okay no pressure here. Daniel in your book you tell us a little bit about your background and what gives you a unique and unbiased view of Israel. I wonder if you could touch on where from your background you might point to that builds towards blind spots or where those blind spots might be in your background on these issues of Israel.
[06:40] Daniel Sokatch:
Yeah well thank you for that question Matthew and just the one slight corrective that I'll make in in the way you phrase the question goes to the answer of the question. I never claimed that that I was unbiased. In fact I try to be very clear that I come from a very particular perspective that of a a progressive American Jew a proud liberal Zionist who's been deeply connected to this issue since I was 16 years old but what I just said is a description of what's — how do you say that word — shadows and light? I see it written I don't know how to say it. Chiaroscuro? That's it. That's the Chiaroscuro for me and it illustrates the lacunae that I have when it comes to this issue. I take comfort from the fact that I'm in excellent company because there's nobody who doesn't have a blind spot when it comes to this issue I think what I have been able to do through immersing myself in in the work that I've done for the last 12 years or or even 20 in the fact that I that I did my master's degree in in a good institution focusing on this conflict that's done away with with some of my biases and blind spots but but not all of them and I don't think it's possible for anyone to to not have them and I think what is possible is for us to go into this conversation with with that combination of great curiosity and which you know is in the subtitle of the book but something that's not in the subtitle which is deep compassion for all of the perspectives and parties to this conflict, even the ones with which we we don't agree. I'll speak personally even the ones with which I don't agree and I try to be really open to understanding to doing my best to understand on a deep level right what it is that makes an ultra-orthodox Jew in in masharim tick what it makes what what it takes to to what makes a settler right an ideological settler out in kiryat arba tick what makes an islamist militant tick I think that that that going into the conversation understanding that I don't know everything is the only way to deal with the the numerous blind spots and biases that I like everybody else bring to the table but since you asked specifically it and I probably could have gotten away with that answer which is an honest answer but I will say that you know I named one of my blind spots which is sort of and if you read well you did read the book it was intentional that that I didn't spend a lot of time dealing with the Haredi issue, the ultra orthodox issue, right at the end and the intentionality around it was really because I felt that for American Jews — and to be clear I didn't write the book just for us, I wrote it for Americans who were and other English speakers who are and it's now being translated into Japanese and Portuguese so Brazilian Portuguese and Japanese speakers who are curious, confused, and conflicted — but obviously from my perspective, I wrote what I knew which is from the liberal American Jewish perspective and you all are are a significant part of of the people I wrote for an American Jewish or connected to Jewish audience and there you know I felt that the issue that receives or has received in my lifetime the most amount of inter-Jewish conversation has been this issue of religious pluralism and religious freedom it tends to be the thing that if they care most American Jews who consider themselves Reform, Conservative, Emergent, Reconstruction, you know, Renewal, that's kind of what our institutions at least focus on. And so I purposefully didn't ignore it, I talk about it a bit, but I didn't go there which meant that I didn't go…This is like a video, it's a much bigger confession than you asked for because it's not only a blind spot but it's something that I have mixed feelings about not including. I don't have mixed feelings about not focusing on what I just said, I do think I could have done a chapter on the Haredi to help people understand who they are and to help myself and other people understand who they are, the fact that they're not monolithic, you know, and as I watched Shtisel, I i thought “Yeah, this is this was my blind spot, and I could have done more to introduce people to it.” But then again, you got to make choices and the book is already 300 and some odd pages.
[11:09] Rabbi Lizzi:
That's great. Thank you. Well, so as long you are in Vidui mode, in confessing mode, Terry Freeman, would you would you ask the question that you brought?
[11:26] Terry Freeman:
Evening. My question is what part or parts of your book have received the most controversial feedback and why.
[11:37] Daniel Sokatch
Do you know what? That is such a great question and in part because no one's ever asked me and when I answer it, the answer I never even thought about it in the way you framed it but the answer is not what I would have thought right had someone ask me that question. And what I would have thought would be that the chapters about BDS about Apartheid about anti-semitism which I included in the book obviously because they are dominating so much of the discourse and I felt as easy as it would be and comfortable to ignore them that's not my job right my job is to unpack them and sort of hope hopefully give us tools to navigate them those are that is not what has received the most criticism what's and it's not been a lot of criticism thankfully but the most criticism that that the book has received my my here are my three favorite critiques one is specifically in reference to the history section I was called by a podcaster irritatingly balanced or irritatingly even-handed I think he said and I've heard that a little bit from partisans of both sides right you know on the on the I thought I would hear it from from people who feel that they are supportive of or who come from the Palestinian community and I have heard it from from them you know not that there's a critique of what I put forward but that it's such a smaller part of the history than the Jewish part although again I don't know how I how to avoid that in this kind of book since I am who I am and I think it's the Jewish part of the conversation which tends to be the narrative that most Americans know not all but most that that is in need of rethinking and critique but I also got it from from folks from the other side from the Jewish side who who felt that I spent far too much time bending over backwards as one of them put it to be even-handed by the way like I'm very proud of that criticism because I did strive for it but that has been one and the other one has been my publisher's favorite one which was I got a really nice review in the New York Times but the one kind of ding that the reviewer gave me was that he said you know Sokatch is essentially too hopeful he relies too much on hope and you know like fair I suppose I run the New Israel Fund, I run an organization dedicated to supporting you know hundreds of thousands of Israelis who every day work to realize the founding vision of the country and you gotta have a lot of hope or at least a lot of optimism to do that. But the best criticism of all which those are the two that really answer your questions is a critique of the last chapter, The Case for Hope, which I thought you know was a little bit of a low blow, and of the history section. But my favorite or the best one was the criticism that I heard on several occasions was that I don't give a solution there's no answer, I read this book I thought at the end he would tell us how to resolve this whole conflict, but again you know I admit that is not what I provide.
[14:39] Rabbi Lizzi:
Thank you, thank you. And all of those all of those pieces of critique and feedback are things that I feel like I heard a little bit of from from folks in this room too so I'm gonna read something from Debbie cooper who's not here and I'm just I'm gonna read what you wrote I appreciated so much that the book shed light on new sources of information for me in particular the Palestinian narrative around 1948 and why settlements are such a deterrent to the peace process I knew the argument but not the rationale I have a much stronger sense of understanding and nuance I also felt that the book downplayed the obstacles on the Palestinian side terror attacks fear about security the Palestinian charter which refuses to acknowledge Israel's right to exist does it really say that and what happened when Israel traded land for peace in Gaza I believe Daniel's position and stance is balanced and nuanced so i'd be curious as to why there seemed to be an omission of what I've always understood to be significant impediments to peace. There were a couple other people who had similar questions, so I allowed Debbie to voice that question that some of you also had.
[15:50] Daniel Sokatch:
Well first since as you were reading Debbie appeared on the chat so I'm glad Debbie's here. So I'm glad Debbie's with us. So there's a few parts to that question but but I'll begin by saying I did try to describe those things and so I will I will gently push back and say that I did try to give a visceral sense of of why Israelis felt especially in the early 2000s during the second Intifada they lost they lost hope in peace because of the horrifically bloody terror attacks of the second Intifada and hopefully the book does show how even though the the historical record is not exactly the one that many of us in the Jewish world grew up with, right? There are differences, there are omissions, there are, as Matthew might say, blind spots in the way we educate ourselves about Israel. Like you know Israel's first 20 years of existence 19 years of existence were precarious and it faced a constant existential level threat. The fact is Israel has not faced an existential level threat certainly not since the Camp David Accord removing Egypt fromthe the chessboard. So I do try to give a sense of why Israelis have so much worry and also the way that Arab and Palestinian rejectionism also contributed to to the the situation that we're in today that's point number one and if readers feel like I didn't do that enough I hear you and point number two something that I said previously I felt my job in this in writing this book having really clarified who I was and what my perspective was to offer up a new an attempt to critique, lovingly critique, the narrative that we have all grown up with which as I said is not just our dominant narrative in the Jewish community but the dominant narrative in the American discourse around Israel which I believe is in need of evolution and reassessment and critique. Put another way, I'm a liberal American Jew who cares desperately about Israel and I know Israel really well and I know the Palestinian territories and Palestinians well but less well but here you know I often say look we can have a conversation about what the Palestinians ought to do and what the Arab world ought to do or what they have done right I think there's a lot of confusion around that but at the end of the day I'm more concerned with with Israel and the Jewish people in terms of the moral house and ensuring that we've done everything that we can do to make the conditions ripe to resolve the conflict. So would it be better if the entire Arab world recognized Israel's right to exist? Of course it would be and by the way, twice now the Arab League has put forward a peace offer to Israel with no serious response yet inviting Israel to make to to make peace with the Palestinians and go back to something like the 1967 borders, have some kind of resolution that affirms Palestinians right to return without having a demographic influx into Israel in exchange for full acceptance full diplomatic relations with all of the Arab league states and Israel hasn't responded to that so both sides have missed opportunities to miss an opportunity or not missed opportunities, to paraphrase Abba Eban. But what's also the case is that in the last couple of decades the Arab world has also changed and starting with Egypt and then Jordan and now of course with the four countries that were part of the Abraham Initiative there are now half a dozen countries with formal peace ties with Israel and many more most of the other ones have informal I mean you don't really think the Abraham Accords would happen without Saudi approval right the Saudis are the major player you know Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey, and Iran those are the big four Egypt too but they're already off the chessboard so so and in terms of the Palestinians look what I'm about to say may not sit well with everybody but I think we need to acknowledge the massive power differentiation or distinction between the two sides. One side holds most of the cards when it comes to Israelis and Palestinians and that's the Israelis. As for the charter, the Palestinian Liberation Organization and the PA did change their charter they also formally recognized Israel's right to exist not in 1993 with the signing of the Oslo Accords but in 1988 when when under pressure from the mostly young mostly non-violent totally grassroots-Palestinian leadership of the first Intifada Arafat exiled in Tunisia sees his relevance shrinking and shrinking understands that what the Palestinian kids on the ground are calling for are two states there he understands it because that's what they say we want a two-state we want a Palestinian state next to Israel because these are real Palestinians who know Israel isn't going anywhere and in order to not fade away into Tunisian exile irrelevance Arafat and the PLO jump on it and they say well we're also for two states because the kids in the West Bank are looking to them for leadership so already in 1988 the PLO recognizes Israel's right to exist that's reaffirmed in 1993. The charter is changed. I know that many people hear that that's not the case. I'm not sure what to say about that except that if you look at the history if you read the book you know it's all there and to quote the late senator Daniel Moynihan, everyone is entitled to their own opinions but not their own facts. So you're entitled to your opinion but the fact is those developments did occur over the last 20 something years when it comes to Gaza. That's a real tough one I want to just also say and again this may not sit well with people, when Israel withdrew from the Sinai and gave the territory back to Egypt that was trading land for peace, no question about it, right, when Israel set out on what was clearly meant to be ultimately a pathway through Oslo towards a two-state solution. Why do we know this? Because that's what emerged as At Taba in 2000 and under Olmert, the negotiations were about an independent Palestinian state next to Israel. Arafat by the way showed himself unwilling to close the deal. It's a little more complicated, as I try to point out in the book, than the common talking points but there's an opportunity what that the Palestinian leadership blundered right but when it comes to Gaza, Ariel Sharon who who also arrived at at the same realization that that Robin and Perez and Olmert and Barack really every prime minister except for the previous guy, Mr. Netanyahum we don't know about the current prime minister, he has said he is more in Bibi's camp, but who knows. But everyone except for Netanyahu really since Rabin and I include Ben-Gurion for reasons that I explained in the book has come to the conclusion that that Israel can either either you know there are three points on Israel's identity: 1) it's a Jewish state — whatever that means — 2) it is a democracy and 3) now it's in control of all this territory. As I wrote, in september of 1967, Ben Gurion emerges from self-imposed exile to tell a bunch of ecstatic you know ebullient Israelis who do not listen to him and do not want to hear it that you’ve got to give it back, you can't keep this and remain a Jewish democracy and that calculus hasn't changed. The game board has changed. We may be much further away from realizing that for reasons that we can discuss later but the calculus hasn't changed and Sharon realized that but let's understand that what he did in Gaza and I'm not even critiquing it, there are plenty of Israelis left and right who will critique it, I'm just again stating the facts, he withdrew unilaterally. So by definition he didn't exchange the territory for peace, he didn't work with the PA or for that matter Hamas which was not the power at that point, it was the PA that was the power. He withdrew unilaterally. The Hamas charter is a different thing entirely. The question that I was asked was about the Palestinian charter which I assume to mean the PA or PLO which is the official representative body of the Palestinian people according to the Palestinian people and the international community. The Hamas charter and Hamas is something that we can talk about. So when it comes to Hamas or when it comes to Gaza, Israel withdrew unilaterally and didn't hand over in the territory to the PA which was part of what created the circumstances when after Hamas did better in a general PA election than the PA had thought, the PA and Hamas had a mini civil war which Hamas won and kicked the PLO and the PA out of Gaza, creating what is kind of the three state situation that we have right now as opposed to a two state. So you know Israelis ask a very good question, which is “How can we ever be comfortable withdrawing from territory after what happened in Gaza?” But other Israelis will answer that “Well, tens of thousands of Israeli kids don't patrol the alleys of Gaza city and the refugee camps of Gaza anymore, not since 2005.” So this is very difficult but the PLO and the PA and the West Bank are also very difficult, very different from Gaza and Hamas and from Hamas in Gaza.
[26:00] Rabbi Lizzi:
This is actually…I want to come back to this because I feel like this is one of the questions that many people ask, like okay…Hamas is obviously a player even if they're a terrorist organization government that doesn't recognize the state of Israel, they rule Gaza so they're gonna be players in whatever kind of final agreement gets arrived at. So I wanna hold onto that, the question of Gaza and where Hamas fits into this. Debbie just wrote in the chat: “That was a fabulous answer, thank you, I've been wanting to ask that question in different ways for several years for the sake of understanding. Thank you for the opportunity to do it here.” Let's see. Yeah, Silverberg Orion. Let's shift the conversation a little bit. Earlier we were talking about anti-semitism. Would you ask your question?
[27:03] Silverberg:
Sure. So in your “The Other A Word” chapter: “The question of whether it's anti-semitic to criticize Israel but not other countries for similar bad behavior is certainly worth debating.” That's your quotation. “In my opinion,” your opinion, “as I suggest in the opening lines of this chapter, it depends.” It depends on what?
[27:30] Daniel Sokatch:
Well I think it depends on a number of circumstances. One, for example, is do we think that a Palestinian who's criticizing Israel you know and even saying “I don't want there to be in Israel, I just want there to be one democratic state where everyone is equal.” Someone whose family or who they themselves or whose ancestors were essentially disenfranchised or or dispersed from their their home, I don't think that it's anti-semitic for that person to feel that way, and if they say that about Palestine but not about Tibet or about about you know the Uyghurs or for that matter about Native Americans, I don't think there's anything anti-semitic about that kind of singling out of Israel any more than there is something that's problematic about the fact that many of us focus on one thing that we care about in particular. You know, I think you know one of the funny things — okay it's not funny — but one of the things that always vexes me is when people say “well the founders of the BDS movement” — which I don't agree with by the way — “are anti-semitic because they want Israel to be a democratic state,” and I say “what are you talking about, they're Palestinians who were kicked out of their homes, what do you think they should wan?” So that is the main example of what I mean by what I mean by it depends. On the other side of of of the story, you have people who who are well aware of but would never suggest that Sudan or Syria or for that matter Germany have forfeited their right to exist as as independent states because of the atrocities that they carried out and I think that when those people insist that Israel alone has has forfeited its right and thus the Jewish people's right to self-determination, like, that makes me scratch my head and makes me want to really ask them about what their motives and their their intentions are in singling out Israel that way. If someone says, “Look, I don't believe in nation states in general, I think that we should all live without borders,” that's perfectly fine. If someone is a Palestinian or someone who sympathizes with Palestinians and says, “Look, I got nothing against Jews having self-determination, but there's been a historic wrong here that should be righted and this is one way to right it,” those are things that I don't think are anti-semitic and I think…A great Israeli peace activist and author wrote that when his father was a young man in Poland he would see graffiti that said Jews out of poland and now he sees graffiti that says Jews back to Poland. Sometimes we are put in in an impossible situation as a people and when I see someone putting us in that kind of position like I said I think I question your motives.
[30:23] Rabbi Lizzi:
Thank you and just a reminder for people — you point to Rabbi Jill Jacobs, the executive director of T’ruah, who brings four different sort of signposts to whether criticism of Israel is actually kind of beneath the surface anti-semitic: 1) does it sort of paint Jews as these insidious influencers behind the scenes of world events, 2) does it deny Jewish history like the Holocaust or that like oh we don't have any connection to the land, 3) does it assume that the government of Israel speaks for all Jews everywhere, vice versa, or that all Jews everywhere are somehow representatives of the state of Israel, which many people have told me they've experienced in their workplaces, just like water cooler talk, you know, like “Can you explain to me why Israel just did it?” It's like “Oh my god no I can't, I don't know, like, I just woke up this mornin”... That was a great answer. Okay I'm turning you over to Irene who has a very specific question about a very specific example in the book. So right on green, Irene bring it, and please read exactly what you sent to me.
[31:52] Irene:
Okay. With respect to the story of Tamimi not being able to drive to the beach due to the Israeli checkpoints … I'm just wondering why you left out the following information. The town that he lives in Nabi Salih has been holding weekly marches against Israel since 2010 and while Bassim Tamimi's intent of these marches is peaceful violence usually erupts on both sides and one of the residents from there, Alma Ahmed al-Tamimi, is known for assisting and carrying out the Sbarro Restaurant suicide bombing in jerusalem in 2001, and she comes from this town population 600. I don't know if Tamimi is related to her but they have the same last name and it's a small town so I'm just wondering, and I'm wondering when this interview happened.
[32:57] Daniel Sokatch:
So the interview happened about a year before COVID but I'm going to offer —
[33:03] Irene:
Okay so let me just add one other question. In 2018, Israel closed Nabi so maybe, perhaps it was was it closed when you interviewed him, because I would suspect that today Bassim can take his family to the Dead Sea.
[33:19] Daniel Sokatch:
No, Bassim can't take his family — he meant the Mediterranean, but no he can't because most of the time people are denied entry into Israel especially if, as you said, like Tamimi he's an activist, a non-violent activist his whole life. Look, you're absolutely right, there are regular protests demonstrations in Nabi Salih against Israel's occupation of Nabi Salih. Nabi Salih is in an area that, as you said correctly, straddles areas B and C. That is to say area C which is 60 plus of the entire territory of the West Bank is controlled solely by Israel and area B splits its control but the Israeli army rules Nabi Salih, they decide who can come in and who can come out, not the Palestinian Authority, not the residents, they decide when people can get to the main road and when they can't and they don't let residents like Tamimi go take their kids to the beach near Tel Aviv. So there's nothing in in the description that you read that I would disagree with the one thing I would gently push back on is — I don't you know collective punishment, that is to say an entire geographic area, can't be punished for the acts of criminals who come from it. I mean we know that. We would never suggest that the terrorists who come from American towns or cities and do horrible things, blowing up you know a Federal building or undertaking a school shooting, that in those cases the whole town should be to blame or even the extended families of the people from from whence the terrorists came. But I will tell you that that a couple of years before I was in Nabi Salih sitting with Tamimi, his daughter became something of an icon out there in the in the anti-occupation circles when she slapped an Israeli soldier in the face, which I think we can all agree is a rude gesture, but not a lethal one, right after the platoon of Israeli soldiers that were breaking up the weekly demonstration shot her cousin in the eye with a rubber bullet. I saw him when I was with Tamimi a couple years ago and he is permanently disfigured. She was a 16 year old girl, hysterical at what she saw. The villagers were always unarmed. The Israelis are not. Again, I understand it's uncomfortable but these are protests against the Israeli occupation in their village that happen on a regular basis as Tamimi said to me — I don't remember if this is in the book — “We resisted the Ottomans, we resisted the British, we resisted the Jordanians, and now we resist the Israelis. We want our own freedom and our own independence.” So you know the fact that Tamimi and Nabi Salih are activists against the occupation I guess I don't I don't find any compelling evidence there that in any way undermines the legitimacy or humanity of their their claims.
[36:20] Irene:
Even if the bomber of Sbarro came from this town population 600 — but hold on — then if they just let everybody go, what guarantee is there that there wouldn't be more violence? How do you handle that?
[36:34] Daniel Sokatch:
So first of all, the fact that the bomber came from that town…Obviously the the bombing is a horrific act of terrorism. But again, do you suggest that we punish every town that some violent criminal comes from in our country? I mean it's a rhetorical question because your answer has to be no. So when when you say no, we don't believe in that kind of collective punishment here's what I want to make clear: Tamimi wants to take his kids to the beach. But that's not the main issue. Where those Palestinians can't go is anywhere in the West Bank unless Israelis let them through the checkpoints. If you look at the maps of the West Bank, areas A, B, and C, look like Swiss cheese, totally controlled by Israel. All of the movement is controlled by Israel The only reason for that, and I'm now not talking about who gets into Israel proper…Let's say for the sake of argument that Israel says no West Bank Palestinians can come into Israel proper. They don't say that, because they let day laborers in and they let people in from time to time, but let's say that, they have the right to do that, Israel is Israel, the West Bank is not Israel. The problem is that over the last 54 years Israel has moved almost three-quarters of a million of its Jewish civilians into new towns and communities and villages that it is built in the West Bank and that is the only reason why those checkpoints, the internal checkpoints between West Bank communities and cities exist, they don't exist to make sure that Palestinians don't go to Sbarro and do something terrible or to prevent them from going to the beach — they exist to prevent them from getting anywhere near the settlers and the settlements that Israel has built in that territory. So again, it may be that you think — I don't mean you, Irene, I mean one — it may be that we think the settlements are wonderful, they're terrific. they're what God intended, they’re great polic, or we may think that they're terrible, that they're a cancer that's eating Israel's democracy and obviating the possibility of a two-state solution…But let's just be very clear internal checkpoints are there to protect those settlers and those settlements which are built on land that Israel occupied, which is something that a country is allowed to do after a war, and then moved ten percent of its civilian population into over the last half century, which is something that a country is not allowed to do, that's a violation of the fourth Geneva convention to which Israel is a signatory and Levi Eshko, the prime minister during the Six Day War, his own legal advisor said after the Six Day War, “hey, one thing we can't do — we can't move civilians into that territory.” Well of course, they didn't listen to the legal adviser, and that's why we're in this mess, that's why the Israeli army is inside Nabi Salih, not to make sure that Nabi Salih residents don't go into Israel, to make sure Nabi Salih residents don't go anywhere in the West Bank where there are settlers. Again, I apologize if that makes people uncomfortable, but that's the reality
[39:31] Rabbi Lizzi:
Oof. Well, actually you know what, Greg just put in the chat: “Because Judea and Samaria are Israel.” So could you actually respond to that response?
[39:50] Daniel Sokatch:
Yeah that's that's a kind of simple one. Judea and Samaria, as the biblical territories of the West Bank, are referred to by some Jews and many Israelis, are absolutely the heartland of the Jewish people. They are the place from whence our story begins. But they are absolutely not Israel, and I'm not sure if Greg means that literally or figuratively, but the fact is they're not Israel. Israel has not annexed them, even when Benjamin Netanyahu in three successive elections promised his base that if re-elected if able to form a government he would annex the territories, even after Donald Trump said you can do it now on my watch, they didn't annex the territories. Now, the reason they didn't annex the territories is, you know, kind of a “why buy the cow when you get the milk for free.” Annexing the territories would make legal and politically evident to everyone something that is already the case, which is that Israel is settling the territories. People like me believe that is not only wrong but crazy for Israel because it is obviating Ben-Gurion's triangle. It's making it impossible for Israel ever to withdraw itself from these territories, so what's the plan? Are they going to give 2.9 million Palestinians the vote? They are not. And so what do you call a situation like that when you annex a territory and you don't give millions of people the vote and you elevate one population over another population based on an immutable characteristic of birth? Well I deal with that nightmare potential in the chapter called “The A Word.” The easy answer to Greg's question is that they're not Israel. I'll tell you a funny little story. I was interviewed by a newspaper called Makor Rishon a few years ago. It's a right-wing religious newspaper editorially, very much where Greg's comment is, but they're good, it's sort of like it's a real newspape,r and they're serious about doing their work, it's not like Israel Hayom or a tabloid. They wanted to interview me, and the the interviewer was a young reporter, smart guy, very sweet guy, who when he introduced himself to me told me where he was from. He was from a settlement that is in the Gush Etzion block of Jewish settlements over the Green Line built in Judea near Bethlehem on the site of previous Jewish settlements that that were lost in the War of Independence when the land was occupied by Jordan. He asked me at one point, there had just been an election in Israel, 2015 I think, and he said you know how do you feel about the election and I said, “Look, we don't we don't take a position on partisan issues, but we care about issues and values and there of course we have some real concerns.” He said “Well give me an example of one.” I said, “Well I'll give you an example: in the election that you just had you voted right but the people who live in the same territory that you live in who weren't Jewish were not allowed to vote. You don't live in Israel and you were allowed to vote and people who also live in that territory were not.” And he said to me “What are you talking about, I do live in Israel, I live in Gush Etzion.” And I said, “Even your government has not annexed that territory, even the Israeli government doesn't dare claim that Gush Etzion is in Israel. It's not in Israel, it's in the Occupied Territories or as the Israelis like to say, the “disputed territories.” But but even the right-wing government of Israel has not annexed those territories and he said, “You know what I never thought about it like that.” So Israel has gone a long way to erase the Green Line, the division between the West Bank and Israel proper, in the minds of Israelis and of course in the minds of many American Jewish supporters of Israel. But that that doesn't change the reality. People can have their own opinion but you can't have your own facts. And as the reporter suddenly realized with the light bulb going off, that is not Israel. So Judea and Samaria are a lot of things but they are not part of the state of Israel and not even the Israelis claim that they are.
[44:11] Rabbi Lizzi:
So it seems important to make distinctions between what people what people can all agree were part of the biblical greater Israel and what is part of the modern state of Israel and to actually be quite clear when you're talking about Israel, which Israel you're talking about — the modern state of Israel, the biblical land of Israel, how much of the biblical land of Israel, because phrases like Judea and Samaria are references to biblical land. All right, Jojo, you're up. Jojo, you can say something about where you just came from?
[44:53] Jojo
Oh cool. Well, Dan and I here are in Albuquerque but we used to be members of the Kitchen and I think we've met you at some point in time Daniel…I'm very excited to ask my question and read it exactly as it was written, which is: “What is your perspective on the Jewish philanthropic industry’s focus on taking people to visit Israel? Does it improve or exacerbate the divide between American and Israeli Jews or bridge it? And what are other effects that you see from this focus?
[45:31] Daniel Sokatch
Well that's also a first for me that someone's asked me that question. It's nice to see you both. So like so many of my annoying answers…It depends… My first trip to Israel was on a UJA mission when I was 16 years old. I did not get like a particularly balanced perspective at that point but then again in 1984, American Jews and Israelis, we weren't even thinking of…I mean you know think about that like the the time that's elapsed between 1967 and 1984 and the time that's elapsed between 1984 and now is so massively different that people weren't really thinking about it in those days. Some of you know I led a big city Federation, the third largest Federation here in San Francisco for a very interesting 14 months, and we did Israel trips and honestly, I was the CEO but but I didn't plan these trips, but we always made sure that there was some attempt to provide a myriad of views. I have no idea what those trips are like now but at least that year if you go to Israel with the New Israel Fund, if you go to Israel with J Street, if you go to Israel with Americans For Peace Now, if you go to Israel with some of the URJ trips — the Union of Reform Judaism — I think you I think if you go to Israel with the Emergent trips, you go uh with people who are intent on really trying to…By the way I'm sorry I don't look at the chat, but it was my colleague Andrew who wrote this, so a gentle corrective to my beloved Andrew in those days the UJA was not just the Federation in New York, it was the United Jewish Appeal, it was the largest Jewish philanthropy in the world outside of Israel, and it is a shadow of itself now — which if you ever have me back to talk about the Federation, I'll I can give you my opinion — but now, UJA Federation means New York. That's because ,as the great former director there John Ruskay, a brilliant professional, once told me, he said, “If they weren't going to use the brand UJA, if they were dumb enough to throw that away, I was going to take it.” So a great branding story there. So anyway, one of my favorite organizations out there is a little one called Encounter. some of you may know it. Encounter takes Jewish leaders around the country to the West Bank. It doesn't proselytize, it doesn't propagandize, just sort of introduces people to real live Palestinians, real live settlers. They have an opportunity to really meet people so when it comes to trips to Israel or trips to the West Bank, I think that there's a myriad of options and some of them tend to reinforce the narrative that I believe is in need of evolution and critique and some of them I think really respond to the understanding that we need to be more complex and more nuanced in general. Though for me, the scary truth is that the numbers of American Jews who travel with American Jewish institutions to Israel is much much smaller than the number of Evangelical Dispensationalist Christians who travel to Israel from around the world with with what what are known as Christian Zionist organizations which have a very different theological imperative than even religious Jews when it comes to Israel who have a very different, as a result of that, political orientation, which does not have a lot of interest in nuance in a way that I think most American Jewish organizations at least try to to provide.
[49:19] Rabbi Lizzi:
That's interesting. That is not where I thought you were going to go with that, but actually, Linda Daly would you ask your question? Because I feel like that actually follows up on on a segue I didn't know was coming.
[49:37] Linda Daly:
Sure....Traditionally the Jewish support for Israel has been people who were affected by the Holocaust or children of the Holocaust. That generation is dying out and now the main support in this country seems to be like right-wing Christian organizations. How does that future look like?
[50:12] Daniel Sokatch:
Well that's the 100 million dollar question that you just asked Linda. Now you're bringing my Federation and my NIF hats and the book together. The answer to that question is — I don't know. The American Jews are still very attached to Israel but is the Pew study and the Gallup studies show, that is decreasing with younger American Jews. Interestingly, just given my last comment, it's also decreasing with young Evangelical Christians. When they're asked in these studies about why they are, one of the things that the Jewish institutions like to say is that that's because of intermarriage and assimilation. I don't buy it. I'm not saying that that those things don't fray certain bonds of Jewish communal connection but I don't I don't buy that that's what's happening when it comes to Israel…I had a very friendly virtual debate at Harvard Hillel with a with an author of a book that's a not dissimilar to mine in its intention but comes from a different place and she said that she thought her job was trying to correct Israel's PR problem, and I queried whether she felt that Israel just had a PR problem or maybe it had a policy problem and that the PR problems are in some respects not at all the result of the policy problem and I think that when it comes to young American Jews who are liberal, 75 percent or more American Jews vote for Democrats and that's that number is only increasing as the generations shift and rise, so you have young American Jews who are liberal, like all American Jews overwhelmingly, so overwhelmingly identify with the Democratic party, and you have an Israel that feels or at least felt until recently, I think, there's an interesting thing happening now in Israel that had been moving certainly under the tenure of Benjamin Netanyahu more and more to the right, aligning itself firmly with President Trump, firmly with the Republican party, firmly against Barack Obama, and that that pushed many American Jews away from Israel. I believe that people watch what's happening and that vector of drift and disaffiliation that always existed as Israel sort of went this way and American Jews went that way is accelerated and I think frankly — and again this is my opinion — nothing accelerated that more than the bromance between Bibi and Trump which for those of you who are interested in these things has been taking quite a new turn the last 48 hours as reports of what Trump said to Barack Ravid one of the deans of Israeli journalism in his new book that was just released two days ago, Mr. Trump had some choice words for Mr. Netanyahu which I i would think many of you would find interesting so so I guess hey wait wait for the for people who who didn't keep up will you just you know update us yeah Trump was interviewed by Barack Ravid and he was classically Trumpian, he said Bibi Netanyahu was the first person to recognize Joe Biden. In fact Bibi Netanyahu waited 10 days to recognize Joe Biden, he was by far not the first, and then Trump said “f him, f Netanyahu.” He didn't say “f” he used the whole four-letter word. He then claimed that without him, Israel would have been destroyed by now. Then he said, perhaps most damning of all, “he's a b.s. artist, he says he wants peace, I know him, he does not want peace.” By the way, it's one of the few things that Trump has ever said that I actually agree with. I think he wants peace — he would like the Palestinians to shut up and go away — but not in terms of of the kinds of diplomatic processes that have happened so far and Trump called him out on it in his horrible bullying lying way, which I just think exposes the vulnerability of relationships built by neo-authoritarians on political expediency. But when it comes to my answer to the question, I think that there is another way. This is gonna sound incredibly organizationally self-serving but then again I was a supporter of New Israel Fund since 1992 so I come to it honestly: I think when American Jews meet the kinds of activists that NIF supports, when they meet the extraordinary Israelis who are working every day to build a better, fairer country for all of its residents, they're inspired. One of the things I'm very very proud of is that it is not a left/right issue in Israel. There's a right-wing Israel American Jewish establishment industry that sets out to demonize and denigrate New Israel Fund and J Street and Encounter and any rabbi who dare say anything critical about Israel. Do you know who our supporters are in Israel? Former prime minister Barack, former president Reuven "Ruvi" Rivlin, the current president Isaac "Bougie" Herzog…There are lots of Israelis, not just sort of the left-wing flank, which also support NIF, but pillars of Israeli society who recognize that even if you don't agree with human rights organizations, even if you don't agree with civil rights organizations, if you want to be a democracy, you have to have them, and I think introducing young American Jews to those people who share their values and who are working in the same way that so many progressive Americans are working to repair our country, that's the best answer I can give for how you connect people to Israel in a way that will mean something to them and that's why it's one of the reasons I include in my last chapter. These three extraordinary people, they'd make anyone fall in love with that place, but they'd make them fall in love with the real place, not the fiction that we all learn from Leon Uris. Anyway, you take my point.
[56:31] Rabbi Lizzi:
Okay, I am going to smoosh together about four questions that are sort of circling around the same thing. So for Kat, for Kathy, and Laurie, and Michael and Eve, forgive me. I had four separate questions but I'm just gonna weave them together. When thinking about resolving issues you know like the issue the conflict such as the Israeli presence in the West Bank? So we understand there are 500,000 or so residents that live in the West Bank and there'sdemand for economically viable living alternatives that the West Bank surely offers. What is the possible solution? And now I'll go back to Kathy and Laurie. They were sort of coming from different places, but can we talk about a two-state solution if that's both not what the on-the-ground reality looks like it lends itself to at this point? And also if it's not what most Israelis or Palestinians want? Are we just having this conversation about two states now in a bubble of mostly liberal people who actually aren't in tune with what Israelis and Palestinians actually want? Which then gets to Michael and Eve's question. What do you think of the one-state framework? Legal protections for all peoples, etcetera.
[58:19] Daniel Sokatch:
Thank you for that combination question. In that same Harvard Hillel debate, we were each asked, “What's a position on Israel that you don't agree with but you respect.” And my answer was what you just said — the people who say “why can't there be one democratic state where people's collective rights to live with some modicum of Jewish self-determination and Palestinian self-determination and their individual rights to live in a free open fair egalitarian equal society with their civil and human rights guaranteed?” Who wouldn't want that? I mean, most of us who are Americans, that's where we would naturally gravitate. There's a joke here to make — we'd like that for our own country. But you know the problem is the bubble, the liberal bubble that you described, Rabbi, is really around that idea. I'm not interested in denigrating it, like, I think when some people say there shouldn't be a state of Israel there should just be one country they're completely ignorant of the reality of Jewish history and the need for safety and self-determination which exists as is evidenced by some of the people on our Zoom call with us today who were alive and sentient beings when Hitler tried to murder every Jew in the world. So that's why there needs to be…history doesn't end, and Jews have learned over 2,000 years that you've got to be really careful and 100 years of relative peace for Jews who live in, not even relative peace, of relative safety, who live in Israel or America, doesn't mean that the plight of the Jews in the world is is ended, but even if, let's say, you're a Palestinian who was dispossessed, uprooted from their land during what for Jews was the War of Independence and the salvation of the establishment of Israel but for Palestinians was the Nakba of their exile, it's certainly not anti-semitic to want that. If you're a Palestinian or even if you're just a well-meaning supporter, but I think that that's the thing that's mostly in the liberal bubble right now. My friend Peter Beinart wrote you know a piece in the New York Times saying “that's what I'm for now” and friends in Israel who are real died in the wool leftists who have paid their dues who served as government ministers and peace activists, they kinda chuckled, saying “Well, that's sweet for Peter to say on the Upper West Side, but the fact is, here, nobody really wants that. Yes, increasingly people might and there are all kinds of interesting things cooking at the grassroots level confederation ideas and other ideas and we shouldn't poo poo any of them and we should watch them all as they develop but right now of all the impossible seeming ideas, the least impossible one in in my opinion is still the two-state solution, for which there is not a lack of political creativity, just a lack of political will. It's much closer to three-quarters of a million than half a million settlers and Jewish civilians living in the West Bank and East Jerusalem over the Green Line, but the vast majority of them, close to between 80 and 90, live in settlements that in every serious phase of the peace process — which has pretty much been dead since Olmert left office and went to jail, but but who knows — every single one imagined that the vast majority of the settlers including, by the way, Gush Etzion, where my friend the reporter came from, everyone accepted on both sides — the Palestinian the Israeli side, as well as the international community — that part of resolution would be appending those settlements and big ones like Malayam to Israel proper in exchange for territory carved out of the Arabah or Northern Negev that would go to the new state of Palestine. For sure, the emergence of Hamas in Gaza super complicates that, but the outline of some kind of peace, at least some kind of settlement, between Israel and the West Bank PA territory is not the result of a lack of political creativity or options, it's a lack of political will which has existed on both sides at various points in time. So it does seem really hard right now and maybe it will become impossible and if it becomes impossible, back to my friend Tamimi: more and more Palestinians will just say “Okay, fine, I give up, I want the vote.” I don't know what Israel does then. I think that faced with that prospect most Israelis would say “let's disentangle.”
[1:02:54] Rabbi Lizzi:
Okay. I got I got the memo that you need to go. I wondered if we could have one more question that for you will be a softball, because I feel like this is the question that you were born to answer. So Alyssa, can you bring us home with the whole thing that you wrote?
[1:03:15] Alyssa:
I feel like mine was actually pretty similar to what was asked, but struggling with what a path forward for a just society in Israel looks like, particularly given the…facts on the ground in form of settlements. Beyond what you just talked about in terms of the two-state solution, what would you like to see the progressive Diaspora community advocating for?
[1:03:40] Rabbi Lizzi:
And then I'm going to add to that, what can people here do? A lot of people want to know what they can do.
[1:03:50] Daniel Sokatch:
We've talked a lot today — in fact, interestingly, more than I have in any of these other book talks — about the West Bank and the two-state solution. And I'm glad because I do think that that’s at the heart of of the problem and the challenge and the conflict. But there's a lot of other stuff out there too — challenges that Israel faces. I'm an optimist, and I actually believe Israel with love and support from the rest of us can figure some of this stuff out, but my honest candid answer to the question of “what should we be supporting” before I get to “what should we do” is this one: I think we as Americans who care about Israel have to recognize deep in in our hearts at the bone level if we want what you described, Alyssa, a just society for 21 percent of the population of the state of Israel, I'm not talking about the West Bank, I'm not talking about Gaza, 21 percent of the population of the state of Israel are Arab citizens of Israel. That's contrasted 13 percent of the American population which is Black, it's a significantly larger proportion of the country. On paper, there's equality. What we know is that up until halfway through the year 1966, Israeli Arabs were largely governed by a military governor. The sections of Israel where — again, I understand this might sound outrageous to people, all I can tell you is it's not my opinion, it's just the facts — the Israeli authorities were worried that this could be a fifth column, this could be an untrustworthy group. Of course in the history of the state of Israel, that's never actually been the case, but they were worried. So they put the territory where most Israeli Arabs lived in the triangle in the Galilee in the Negev under military governance until 1966. By the way, that meant that there was a curfew, you couldn't travel where and when you wanted, you had to show your checkpoint and IDs within Israel Israeli citizens! That ended in 1966 and then in 1967 came the war and Israel's conquest of the territories and the occupation, so some Israeli historians talk about Israel being a full, free, open democracy for one year or like eight months. The thing that we American Jews need to understand is that there is no future for a democratic Israel that in any way resembles, not our American values, but the founding values enshrined in in the 13th and 14th paragraph of Israel's declaration of independence, that is not a shared Jewish Arab future. Now, this is a place where I feel really optimistic and hopeful. That's because in this coalition government that was formed in May against all odds, it is a government of the of the right, center-left, and Arab parties with one of the opposition parties, also an Arab party that is mostly in line with the left, and centrist parties in the coalition. And the conservative Islamist party that is now part of the ruling coalition was first offered an invitation by Netanyahu to join his coalition. That means the Rubicon has been crossed in Israel. That means that from the right to the left, Israeli politicians and the Israeli public understand that there can be no future for Israel, there will be no Israeli democracy that is not a shared democracy, that is not one that fully embraces the necessity of equality for Arabs and Jews together. So that gives me a lot of hope but it's also something that I think is incumbent upon us to recognize that if we don't support an Israel that is truly shared that offers total and real equality to its non-Jewish citizens, its Arab citizens, then we are not contributing to what must happen if Israel is ever to actually resolve the conflict with the Palestinians living in the West Bank. And what we can do is educate ourselves. If you want to know what's happening in Israel, there is there is nothing better than reading the Israeli press. Haaretz a great English language website. There's a paywall I would encourage you all to pay. YNet, which is connected to Yediot Aharonot, Israel's larger tabloid newspapers, is also available. You can check out the Times of Israel. Educate yourselves. I would say, keep current. Read, learn, talk about it like you're doing, and go when we can, when we can go again, and then support those organizations — I obviously would say New Israel Fund is a great example — that are working to empower those Israelis who are trying to do all of the things that we just discussed in their own country.
[1:08:50] Rabbi Lizzi:
Wow, thank you Daniel. Thank all of you for sticking around. Hang on one second. Here.
Thank you. I just want to say thank you again. I know you've gotta go, s,o I guess I will say to you, thank you for giving us so much to think about and talk about. I know for some people they came into this book group wanting to sort of hone and burnish their own unformed ideas, sort of gut feelings that they sort of were hoping to develop more articulation around and the book helped. And other people came in with very well-formed opinions that even reading the book helped challenge or make even smarter by being in dialogue with you. I feel like all of us are a little bit smarter by being in dialogue with somebody who brings so much love and experience to the conversation. So thank you.
[1:09:50] Daniel Sokatch:
Thank you all, like I said, I'm really honored that you did this and super happy that you invited me to be with you. I'm kind of blown away.