Taking Radical Responsibility for Peace

Dissenting from cynicism toward justice and freedom.

Painted on Israeli apartheid wall in Bethlehem by Taqi Spateen: “We must remember that George Floyd didn’t die due to a lack of oxygen. He died because of a lack of justice.”

What does it mean to take radical responsibility for peace?

Last week, three Israeli teenagers showed incredible courage by choosing prison over military service. Their act of defiance is not simply a personal protest; it is a powerful statement of solidarity with Palestinians that lights the path for a peaceful future. 

One of these young refuseniks said, “A just society cannot be built on gun barrels. In my simple act, I want to stand in solidarity with you (the Palestinians). I also acknowledge that I do not represent the majority opinion in my society. But in my action, I hope to raise the voice of those of us waiting for the day we can build a joint future [and] a society based on peace and equality, not occupation and apartheid.”

This act strikes me as the embodiment of taking radical responsibility for peace. These teenagers have chosen to reject the pervasive cynicism that peace can only be achieved through the eradication of Palestinians. Instead, they have acted on a courage rooted in faith in humankind to do better.

Paying Trauma Forward

Israel emerged as a state after the Nazi Holocaust, but in retrospect, we can see that it did not really signify a true end to the horrors of the Holocaust. The trauma and ideologies that fueled the genocide did not disappear; instead, they found new expressions and were transferred to a new region with the establishment of Israel. Trauma is not only confined to individual experiences; it is a powerful social phenomenon that can reverberate through communities and across generations.

After the Holocaust, nations like Germany, Austria, Hungary, and Poland faced the monumental task of addressing the atrocities committed during World War II and confronting the widespread complicity of their populations in these crimes. In Germany, the process of Vergangenheitsbewältigung, or "coming to terms with the past," involved acknowledging the Holocaust, educating future generations, and making reparations to survivors. This effort became a central aspect of German national identity. Austria initially portrayed itself as a victim of Nazi aggression, delaying acknowledgment of its complicity, but later began initiatives to remember and educate. Hungary has taken steps toward acknowledgment, such as establishing a Holocaust Memorial Day, but its efforts have been marred by controversies that downplay Hungarian complicity. Poland, while making strides in addressing its Holocaust history through institutions like the Institute of National Remembrance, has faced challenges, including legislation that many feel suppresses open discussion of Polish involvement. 

While these societies have certainly made efforts to reckon with their past, they have mostly opted for symbolic gestures such as building monuments, restricting pro-Nazi speech, and financially supporting the creation and maintenance of Israel with weapons and money. In some ways, they successfully restored the standing of their societies, but they did not root out the cultural ideas that led to the appeal of the authoritarian, racist ideology of the Nazis. Instead, they externalized their unresolved guilt and responsibility without fully grappling with the racialized vision of the nation-state that had led to genocide in the first place.

The Holocaust succeeded in what these societies believed to be their problem: the existence of diversity within their borders and the lack of "purity" that 6 million Jews and 5 million Roma, disabled individuals, political dissidents, and other non-Aryans represented. With these populations nearly eradicated, there was little impetus to fundamentally challenge the ideologies that led to their persecution. It’s unclear how they could have truly sought to heal and repair the genocide they enacted within their own societies without grappling with the continued existence of the very population they victimized.

The Jewish population in Poland plummeted from around 3.3 million before World War II to about 45,000 after the Holocaust. Similarly, Germany's Jewish community was reduced from 500,000 to about 15,000. These staggering numbers meant that after the war, there were few Jews left with whom these societies would have needed to reconcile. This absence allowed them to avoid a deep cultural reckoning and, in a sense, they passed the burden of trauma and conflict to the Palestinians, who had nothing to do with their heinous crimes against humanity.

The creation of Israel in 1948 only perpetuated this cycle of trauma. Sold as a sanctuary for Jews, Israel was built on the ethnic cleansing of Palestine. Through social networks, organizations, and religious institutions, the post-Holocaust ideology among many Jews became that the land of Palestine was rightfully theirs, and they were "returning" based on the prophecy of God. This narrative obfuscated the violent reality of displacing Palestinians and ignored the critical question of whether God or Jewish values could be truly represented in such necessary brutality.

If we examine this way of thinking carefully, we see that it is an extension of the same xenophobia that caused the Holocaust. The desire for a racially pure state led to the idea that Germans could have their racially pure state, and Jews should have theirs. The fundamental problem—that genocide was necessitated by this very understanding of a nation-state—was never fully examined. 

This ideology was anathema to Palestinians, who had not constituted a state based on religious values and did not understand Jews as a separate racial group. Jews, Christians, and Muslims were Arabs living in the region without a strict sense of national identity, as in the European model. The rise of Palestinian national identity occurred largely in response to British actions and the encroachment of Zionism.

The idea of Jews as a separate race was a Nazi invention, based on pseudoscience that has since been thoroughly discredited. Understanding Jews as a separate race is a legacy of Nazi ideology, and it is crucial to recognize that this way of thinking is not rooted in reality. Jews, like all people, are not best understood as a race but as a diverse group with shared religious, cultural, and historical ties.

This is one of the key reasons why the Palestinian resistance resonates with so many around the world. Palestinian resistance is not just a fight against occupation; it is a stand against the very ideology of white supremacy and white settler colonialism. The Palestinian resistance to the idea that the Zionists should be able to take their land to create a separatist state is resistance to the hatred this vision for humanity represents. This is one reason that the Palestinian struggle has further entrenched a narrative of existential threat for Israelis and deepened their racism toward Palestinians, making reconciliation seem impossible.

How Zionism Changed the Very Meaning of Nation

The land historically known as Palestine has a rich and complex history, dating back thousands of years. It has been inhabited by various peoples and ruled by numerous empires, including the Canaanites, Israelites, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Byzantines, and Ottomans. Importantly, for centuries before the rise of Zionism, Jews, Christians, and Muslims coexisted relatively peacefully in this region, engaging in vibrant cultural and religious exchanges.

The modern conflict began in the late 19th and early 20th centuries with the rise of Zionism, a nationalist movement advocating for the return of Jews to their ancestral homeland. But the roots of Zionism trace back to the 16th and 17th centuries among Protestant groups in England, notably the Puritans. These early proponents of “Christian Zionism” believed in the biblical prophecy of the Jewish return to the Holy Land, viewing it as a necessary precursor to the Second Coming of Christ. This theological perspective was part of a broader movement known as Christian restorationism, which advocated for the restoration of Jews to their ancestral homeland as part of God's divine plan.

As Jewish nationalism began to take shape in the late 19th century, Christian Zionism played a supportive role. Theodor Herzl's political Zionism, which aimed to establish a Jewish national state in Palestine, found allies among Christian Zionists who saw this as a fulfillment of biblical prophecy. The Balfour Declaration of 1917, which expressed British support for a Jewish national home in Palestine, was influenced by these Christian Zionist ideals.

Interestingly, Palestine was not the only proposed location for a Zionist state. Initially, Zionist leaders considered several locations for a Jewish homeland, including Uganda and Argentina. Historic Palestine was ultimately chosen due to its biblical significance and the idea of "a land without a people for a people without a land," a phrase that removed the existing Palestinian population from the narrative.

The Balfour Declaration had a profound impact on the Zionist movement by significantly increasing international support and legitimacy for the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine. The declaration was a public statement expressing support for Zionist aspirations, which galvanized Jewish communities worldwide and bolstered the Zionist cause. It marked a pivotal moment in the movement's history by providing political recognition from a major world power, which was crucial for advancing the Zionist agenda.

Between the issuance of the Balfour Declaration and the rise of Hitler in the early 1930s, Jewish immigration to Palestine from Europe increased significantly. This period saw two major waves of immigration, known as the Third and Fourth Aliyahs. The Third Aliyah (1919-1923) brought around 40,000 Jews, mainly from Eastern Europe, who were often ideologically motivated pioneers contributing to agricultural development and the establishment of national institutions. The Fourth Aliyah (1924-1929) saw approximately 82,000 Jewish immigrants, many of whom were middle-class families fleeing rising antisemitism and restrictive immigration policies in other countries. These immigrants often settled in urban areas, establishing businesses and contributing to economic growth. During this period the Jewish population increased from around 10% to around 27%. The Balfour Declaration provided a political framework that encouraged Jewish immigration, setting the stage for Palestine to become a primary destination for Jews seeking refuge from European antisemitism.

The UN's partition plan of 1947 proposed the creation of separate Jewish and Arab states, dividing the territory with 56% going to the formation of the Zionist state, in spite of Palestinians being by far in the majority. This plan was accepted by Jewish leaders but rejected by Arab leaders, leading to the 1948 Arab-Israeli War and the establishment of Israel. The establishment of Israel in 1948 marked a significant milestone for both Jewish and Christian Zionists, as it was seen as a realization of long-held religious and political aspirations. The war resulted in the displacement of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians, an event known as the Nakba (catastrophe).

Did God Really Promise Palestine to the Jews?

The claim that Israel was divinely given to the Jews is rooted in biblical narratives, particularly in texts such as Genesis, where God promises the land to Abraham and his descendants. However, it’s important to understand that the authorship of these texts is uncertain, and they were most likely written over centuries by multiple authors with varying interests and perspectives. Scholars widely agree that the Bible is not an historical document in the modern sense but rather a collection of religious texts with theological, moral, and cultural significance.

Although the Bible contains various passages that are interpreted as God promising the land of Palestine to the Jewish people, interpretations of these promises vary, with some viewing them as unconditional and others as contingent on moral and spiritual conditions, such as adherence to God's commandments.

Conflicting religious ideas arise from different interpretations of these biblical promises. Some interpretations emphasize an exclusive claim to the land for the Jewish people, while others highlight a more inclusive vision. For example, passages like Ezekiel 47:21-23 suggest that the land should be shared with non-Israelites living among the Israelites. Additionally, the Bible contains narratives that indicate the fulfillment of land promises within the biblical text itself, suggesting that these promises were already realized in ancient times. These varying interpretations contribute to the complex religious and political discourse surrounding the land of Palestine and its significance to both Jewish and broader theological narratives.

The concept of a divine promise giving the land of Israel to the Jewish people gained significant traction in Christian theology, particularly with the rise of Christian Zionism. While Christian Zionism has been a powerful force in supporting the state of Israel, it is also fraught with contradictions and even elements of antisemitism. For many Christian Zionists, the support for Israel is not rooted in a genuine concern for Jewish well-being but rather in a theological belief that the return of Jews to Israel is a necessary step for the fulfillment of biblical prophecy—specifically, the Second Coming of Christ. This belief often includes the idea that, in the end times, Jews must either convert to Christianity or face damnation, a concept that is inherently antisemitic.

Pro-Zionists in Western nations often are so because they do not want Jews to remain in the U.S., Europe, or the UK; instead, they promote the idea of Jews returning to Israel, fulfilling their interpretation of biblical prophecy. This makes Christian Zionists, despite their strong political and financial support for Israel, strange allies for the Jewish people, as their ultimate goals are rooted in religious eschatology rather than a commitment to Jewish self-determination and security.

The Transfiguration by Raphael circa 1520. Considered a preview of the second coming depicts Jesus with European features.

In the United States, the rise of the Christian right has significantly influenced political support for Israel. This group, disproportionately represented in Congress, has been bolstered by powerful lobbying organizations like AIPAC. Their interpretation of biblical prophecies and support for Israel align with their religious beliefs, driving U.S. foreign policy in the region. However, much of this support is based on a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible, rather than a secular commitment to human rights and international law.

The idea that God promised Palestine to the Jews is far from universally accepted, even among Jews and Christians. Only a small percentage of the global population, approximately 7-10%^*, believes that Israel was given to the Jews by God. This belief is primarily held by certain Jewish and Christian fundamentalist groups. Most of the world's population does not view the biblical claim as a legitimate basis for modern political statehood.

The historical and theological roots of this belief are complex, and its implications for modern politics are profound and often problematic. But by tracing the history of this belief and recognizing the strange bedfellows it has created, we can better understand the motivations behind the policies and alliances that continue to shape the region. Ultimately, the promise of land made thousands of years ago is being used to justify actions in the present that may not align with the ethical teachings of those very same religious traditions.

Guernica by Picasso 1937 depicts the horrors of war.

Two Dangerous Ideologies Arising in Conversation

While Nazism and Zionism emerged for different reasons, they shared certain ideological underpinnings rooted in ideas of racial supremacy and nationalism. Nazi ideology was characterized by a totalitarian worldview that emphasized extreme nationalism, racial purity, and the glorification of militarism and expansionism. Central to this ideology was the belief in the racial superiority of the Aryan race, which was considered the pinnacle of human evolution. This belief justified the systematic persecution and extermination of Jews, Slavs, Romani people, and other groups deemed racially inferior. The Nazis viewed these groups as existential threats to the purity and dominance of the Aryan race. 

This racial ideology was deeply intertwined with the concept of Lebensraum ("living space"), which called for the territorial expansion of Germany into Eastern Europe to provide land and resources for the Aryan population. This expansionist policy was a key driver of Nazi aggression and military campaigns, ultimately leading to the outbreak of World War II.

The conditions under which Nazism emerged were shaped by the social and economic turmoil in Germany following World War I. The Treaty of Versailles imposed harsh reparations on Germany, leading to economic hardship and widespread resentment. The Great Depression further exacerbated these issues, creating a climate of social unrest and political instability. In this context, the Nazi Party, led by Adolf Hitler, capitalized on public discontent by promoting a narrative of national rejuvenation and unity under a strong, authoritarian leader. The Nazis emphasized the need for obedience to authority, which was reinforced through propaganda and the manipulation of media.

The influence of the Nazi mentality on contemporary Zionism manifests in key ways. Zionism is explicitly focused on a kind of “racial” purism in the form of a Jewish state, leading to Jewish supremacy and a need for segregation from non-Jews. This separatist ideology mirrors the Nazi emphasis on racial purity and societal control, creating a framework where exclusion and discrimination are institutionalized and naturalized. Further the Zionist worldview also leads to expansionism in the form of the illegal settlements under the idea of divine right, and the need for space to accommodate the population expansion necessary to replace the 6 million Jews murdered by the Nazis.

Further, the legacy of the Nazi worldview has profoundly impacted Jewish psychology and Israeli policies. The trauma of genocide has fostered a mindset of perpetual existential threat among Jews, driving militarized policies and a state of constant readiness for conflict. This defensive posture, born from the fear of annihilation, justifies aggressive measures as necessary for survival. The intertwining of religious narratives with state policies perpetuates a sense of divine mandate, which discourages critical examination of state actions and fuels a cycle of violence and repression.

Reconciliation is Actually the Only Path to Peace

The original problem Zionism sought to solve was that the early Zionists came to believe that wherever Jews go, antisemitism arises. In other words antisemitism is inevitable, and part of being Jewish is to be marginalized. Therefore, they believed that the best and perhaps only solution to antisemitism is separatism. But separatism has only perpetuated division and conflict: Jews are not truly safe in Israel because the concept of a Jewish only nation-state necessitates endless violence to maintain it.

The failure of the Oslo Accords in the 1990s should serve as a lesson on the viability of two secure states living side by side. The Oslo Accords, which were signed in 1993, were a major attempt to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by establishing a framework for peace and creating the Palestinian Authority to govern parts of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. While the accords initially created hope and led to mutual recognition between Israel and the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), the process quickly broke down due to continued Israeli settlement expansion, which violated the spirit of the agreements and international law, and the inability to address core issues such as the status of Jerusalem, the right of return for Palestinian refugees, and final borders.

The two-state solution, once considered a viable path to peace between Israelis and Palestinians, faces numerous obstacles that render it increasingly implausible. One barrier is actually the historical precedent of partition. Partition often results in violence and instability, such as the Partition of India, which showed us that dividing territories with mixed populations can lead to ethnic cleansing and prolonged conflict. The Israeli-Palestinian situation is particularly complex due to the intertwined nature of the populations and deep-rooted historical grievances.

Political and demographic realities further complicate the two-state solution. The expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem has created a complex patchwork of territories that complicates the drawing of clear and viable borders for a Palestinian state. With over 700,000 Israelis living in these illegal settlements, any attempt to remove them or redraw boundaries would likely face strong opposition from settlers and their political supporters. 

Additionally, the power imbalance between Israel and the Palestinians, with Israel holding significant military and economic advantages, undermines the prospects for fair negotiations and a sustainable two-state arrangement. Proposals like Donald Trump's peace plan exacerbate the situation by offering Palestinians a fragmented and limited state, which is clearly "dead on arrival" due to its failure to adequately address Palestinian needs and aspirations.

Trump’s two state proposal leaves the illegal settlements intact.

And, while the Democratic Party also supports a two-state solution in principle, it lacks a detailed plan that delineates specific borders, leaving a significant gap in actionable policy. The United Nations, despite its general support for a two-state solution, has been ineffective in imposing basic humanitarian laws, such as preventing the expansion of the illegal Israeli settlements and ensuring the Palestinian right of return. The inability of the UN to overrule vetoes in the Security Council, particularly by the United States, has contributed to the ongoing inability to address the years of ethnic cleansing, undemocratic and illegal apartheid conditions, or even the recent escalation into full scale genocide.

Beyond these practical challenges, any conception of a two-state solution fails to address the underlying issue of Zionist ideology, which necessitates a Jewish-only apartheid state. This ideology is a leftover of colonialism that is utterly incompatible with modern human rights standards. Globally, there has been a multinational movement against racially exclusive or discriminatory systems of social organization, and so a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict must also address these ideological concerns from the framework of human rights. The persistence of Zionist ideology fundamentally undermines efforts to achieve true equality and justice, and so any resolution must go beyond mere territorial division to address deeper issues of identity, rights, and coexistence.

Reconciliation requires moving beyond any ideology of separation and embracing a vision of shared existence. For these reasons, perhaps counterintuitively, a single, democratic state where both peoples can live as equals offers the most viable path to healing and liberation for both Palestinians and Israelis. This would involve recognizing each other's pain, embracing mutual respect, and committing to a future built on equality and justice - surely not easy, but not impossible.

Until All of Us Are Free…

The cultural trauma of the Holocaust still binds the Jewish people, influencing their beliefs, policies, and actions. Similarly, the ongoing trauma of dispossession, occupation, ethnic cleansing, and genocide haunts the Palestinians. The idea of a two-state solution, while seemingly practical, only perpetuates a militarized state and the ongoing conflict. The aspiration of liberation “from the river to the sea” should be for all people caught in this dynamic of never-ending violence. Healing for one cannot occur without healing for the other. And as long as these traumas remain unaddressed, both peoples will remain trapped in a cycle of suffering. The only real answer is to stop the cycle of trauma and move toward a one-state solution that honors the humanity and rights of both Israelis and Palestinians.

Taking radical responsibility for peace means envisioning a shared future and committing to the long, arduous path of reconciliation. While there are obviously practical problems with a one-state solution, these challenges are not insurmountable. Addressing issues like political representation, security, and economic equality will require innovative solutions and genuine commitment from both sides.

Historical examples provide some hope that reconciliation, though challenging, is possible. In South Africa, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission played a pivotal role in transitioning the country from apartheid to a democratic society, with a focus on restorative justice and national unity. This process of addressing past wrongs and fostering inclusivity offers a powerful model for other deeply divided societies. Similarly, Rwanda’s post-genocide reconciliation efforts, including the establishment of Gacaca courts and a strong emphasis on national unity, show that even in the aftermath of severe conflict, nations can move toward healing. Ireland's peace process, particularly through the Good Friday Agreement, provides another example of how inclusive dialogue and power-sharing can end long standing sectarian violence and lay the groundwork for a more peaceful future.

In the United States, our ongoing struggle as African Americans for civil rights and equality also highlights both the challenges of overcoming systemic racism and historical injustices, and the potential for creating a shared future through persistent efforts. Although the journey has been long and remains unfinished, it provides a meaningful parallel.

Of course our struggle is not only against specific forms of oppression, whether they be occupation, apartheid, or systemic racism, but against the underlying ideology of division and supremacy that fuels all of these injustices. To achieve true and lasting peace, we must dismantle the ideologies that divide us and perpetuate cycles of oppression. This kind of transformation requires a demand for urgency, but a commitment to continue no matter how long it takes. This was the critical lesson that the world failed to fully grasp after the Holocaust.

The reason genocide is a “crime against humanity” is that it reverberates through all humanity, and all humanity absorbs its consequences. It is all of our responsibility to heal the Holocaust, and it is all of our responsibility to somehow make the Palestinians whole again.

Yes, it is true that peace may not come swiftly. But with a long horizon of 50 or 100 or even more years, it is possible to envision a future where both peoples can thrive. In fact, we must reject cynicism and demand this future into being.

---

* The estimate that approximately 7-10% of the global population believes that Israel was divinely given to the Jews by God is derived from various surveys and studies that have examined religious beliefs and geopolitical views across different regions. This figure primarily includes certain segments of Jewish and Christian fundamentalist communities, particularly within the United States, where Christian Zionism has a significant following. Surveys conducted by organizations such as the Pew Research Center and Gallup have found that a notable proportion of evangelical Christians, especially in the United States, hold this belief, often based on a literal interpretation of biblical prophecies. However, when considering the global population, including those who do not subscribe to Abrahamic religions or who interpret religious texts differently, the percentage of people who believe in a divine mandate for Israel's existence as a Jewish state decreases significantly. The estimate of 7-10% reflects this broader, more inclusive calculation, taking into account the varying religious and cultural contexts worldwide.