Home » FAQ
→ 26 April 2024
→ By
→ Leave a Comment

Talking to Family, Friends and Loved ones about the Middle East Conflict


The other day, a mother shared with me how her daughter was shocked to think that her parents sided with Israel amidst “the genocidal massacre of Palestinian children.” They have since agreed that this topic is off-limits. This mother talked about how much anxiety it caused her, know that there was this rift be-tween them. How can we talk to our family, friends and loved ones? Here’s a guide to ensure that your conversations will be constructive.

  1. Find out how much they know first. Listen. We’ve noticed that most pro-Palestinian advocates, actually don’t know the facts behind the conflict. For example, when they chant “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free!”, often they say the river is the Nile, or the Euphrates. The Sea is the Red Sea or even the Indian Ocean. From experience about two-thirds of people we encounter don’t know and they’ve just jumped on the bandwagon based on propaganda. Listen more talk less.
  2. Don’t get frustrated, angry, or upset.
    If you catch yourself getting grumpy, then you’re starting to try to win them to your way of seeing things. Don’t. They will probably feel threatened or pressured and the discussion will end with neither of you any wiser.
  3. Formulate your answer from what you find out.
    In the above example, if you have the opportunity, show them a simple map and point out the sea and the river, and ask what’s in between. Then you can ask if they intended that Israel should be done away with. 2/3rds say no. Let me rethink this.
  4. Look for common ground.
    When I was confronted by an angry young man, he was quite disarmed when I compli-mented him for his passion for justice. The conversation stopped being combative immediately.
  5. Don’t lecture.
    Keep your answers short. In this day and age, where everything comes in short articles, attention spans can be really short. Think about how to phrase what you want to say effectively and efficiently.
  6. Invite them to read widely and do their own investigations.
    None of this happened under a rock. Finding articles, and books should be easy. But reading widely means reading material that look at both sides of the controversy. Otherwise they are just in an echo chamber.
  7. Don’t try to convince them of your view. Don’t debate. Don’t try to win.
    Let the facts speak for themselves. There are plenty of them. Don’t raise your voice. Don’t make their conclusions for them. Let them make up their own minds.
  8. Be prepared: Read widely yourself
    So much of the pro-Palestinian movement relies on re-writing history and jumping to conclusions without the facts. Do the opposite. Read wisely. Reflect.
  9. Don’t wait until you know everything.
    You don’t have to know everything. Each conversation is an opportunity to learn from the other person. Listen to how they support their argument. If you don’t know about it, you can go and research it and circle back.
  10. Every time you have a conversation with someone, it is an opportunity to learn and refine your messaging.
    That’s right. Don’t wait until you know everything and/or your messaging is perfect. Learning by doing is an essential way to improve.
    —
    NZFOI. This article was first published in the March 2024 issue of our newsletter.
Filed Under: FAQ, Resources Tagged With: , , , , ,
→ 26 April 2024
→ By
→ Leave a Comment

What is Antisemitism — R Lord Jonathan Sacks

Within living memory of the Holocaust, after which the world said it would never happen again, antisemitism has returned.

But what is antisemitism and why should its return be cause for grave concern, not only for Jews but for all of us?

Historically, antisemitism has been hard to define, because it expresses itself in such contradictory ways. Before the Holocaust, Jews were hated because they were poor and because they were rich; because they were communists and because they were capitalists; because they kept to themselves and because they infiltrated everywhere; because they clung to ancient religious beliefs and because they were rootless cosmopolitans who believed nothing.

So what is antisemitism? Let’s be clear – not liking people because they’re different isn’t antisemitism. It’s xenophobia. Criticising Israel isn’t antisemitism: it’s part of the democratic process, and Israel is a democracy.

Antisemitism is something much more dangerous – it means persecuting Jews and denying them the right to exist collectively as Jews with the same rights as everyone else.

It’s a prejudice that like a virus, has survived over time by mutating.

So in the Middle Ages, Jews were persecuted because of their religion. In the 19th and 20th centuries, they were reviled because of their race. Today, Jews are attacked because of the existence of their nation-state, Israel. Denying Israel’s right to exist is the new antisemitism.

And just as antisemitism has mutated, so has its legitimisation. Each time, as the persecution descended into barbarity, the persecutors reached for the highest form of justification available.

In the Middle Ages, it was religion. In post-Enlightenment Europe it was science: the so called scientific study of race. Today it is human rights.

Whenever you hear human rights invoked to deny Israel’s right to exist, you are hearing the new antisemitism.

So, why has it returned? There are many reasons but one root cause is the cognitive failure called scapegoating.

When bad things happen to a group, its members can ask one of two questions: “What did we do wrong?” or “Who did this to us?” The entire fate of the group will depend on which it chooses.

If it asks, “What did we do wrong?” it has begun the process of healing the harm. If instead it asks, “Who did this to us?” it has defined itself as a victim. It will then seek a scapegoat to blame for all its problems.

Classically this has been the Jews, because for a thousand years they were the most conspicuous non-Christian minority in Europe and today because Israel is the most conspicuous non-Muslim country in the Middle East.

The argument is always the same. We are innocent; therefore they are guilty. Therefore if we are to be free, they – the Jews or the state of Israel – must be destroyed. That is how the great evils begin.

Why then should we all care about this? After all, if we’re not Jewish, what has it got to do with us?

The answer is that antisemitism is about the inability of a group to make space for difference.

And because we are all different, the hate that begins with Jews never ends with Jews.

It wasn’t Jews alone who suffered under Hitler. It wasn’t Jews alone who suffered under Stalin. It isn’t Jews alone who suffer under the radical Islamists and others who deny Israel’s right to exist.

Antisemitism is the world’s most reliable early warning sign of a major threat to freedom, humanity and the dignity of difference.

It matters to all of us. Which is why we must fight it together.

[NZFOI: And today in 2024, with the trending ideas around Settler Colonialism, Critical Race Theory and Neo-Marxism, the destruction of Israel is falsely justified with ideas that Jews are White Settler Colonialists who are Oppressing the Palestinians. The Palestinians lean into this thinking, portraying themselves as underdogs. They are adept at re-spinning the narrative into supporting their victimhood, while conveniently ignoring the amount of foreign aid, they have received, diverting most of it toward righting a winner takes all, fight to the death war, and graft.

It is often argued that anti-Israel and anti-Zionism is not Anti-Semitism and semantically this should be true. However, NZFOI has observed that whenever the level of conflict flairs up between Israel and the Palestinians, acts of Anti-Semitism also become much more prevalent throughout the rest of the world.]

Filed Under: FAQ, Opinion, Resources Tagged With: , ,
→ 19 September 2014
→ By
→ Leave a Comment

Making sense of the Israeli-Gaza conflict

Gaza-RocketHere is a presentation given at the recent AGM that gives the history of Gaza and looks at the debatable issues that arise from the conflict, including:

  1. How did the Arab-Israeli conflict come about in the first place?
  2. Why is Israel putting Gaza under siege?
  3. Why is Israel attacking Gaza?
  4. Why doesn’t Israel just ignore Hamas since their rockets are so ineffective anyway?
  5. Since Hamas’ rockets are so puny, why does Israel attack on such a heavy handed scale?
  6. Why did Israel escalate things and cause so many civilian casualties by ordering a ground offensive?
  7. Why is Israel targeting civilians?
  8. Why does the UN and many of Israel’s “allies” criticize the way Israel conducts war?
  9. Why is the civilian death toll so high in comparison to combatant casualties?
  10. Why doesn’t Israel leave them alone and let them get on with their lives?

Download the presentation and bibliography.

Filed Under: FAQ, Opinion
→ 2 May 2014
→ By
→ Leave a Comment

Recognising Reality: The debate over Israel as a “Jewish State”

JewishStateIsraeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s position that a permanent status agreement resulting in a two state solution must include explicit Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish state is rejected by Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas, and is a key point of contention in the peace process.

For Netanyahu, and for most Israeli Jews, mutual recognition of Jewish and Palestinian national rights is integral to the logic of a lasting agreement based on two states for two peoples.

Most Israeli Jews wish to preserve Israel’s current character as a democratic state with a Jewish majority; a state that allows Jews to express the universal legal right to national self-determination, but which also protects fully the rights of non-Jewish minorities.
At the Davos Summit in January, US Secretary of State John Kerry said: “We all know what the endgame looks like: … mutual recognition of the nation-state of the Palestinian people and the nation-state of the Jewish people.”

 

Why is this an issue now?

Since accepting the principle of creating a sovereign Palestinian state in 2009, Binyamin Netanyahu has stressed that a permanent status agreement must include Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish state. In a recent statement he clarified that he wanted the Palestinians to “recognise the national rights of the Jewish people in the State of Israel.” While stating that this must be part of the final agreement, at no point has Netanyahu made this a precondition for talks with the Palestinians.

PA President Mahmoud Abbas has taken a firm stance against this demand, creating a significant obstacle in John Kerry’s search for an agreed framework for continuing talks.

 

What do Israelis mean by a Jewish state?

For Netanyahu, and for most Israeli Jews, mutual recognition of Jewish and Palestinian national rights in the territory west of the Jordan River is integral to the logic of a lasting peace based on two states for two peoples.

Most Israeli Jews want to preserve Israel’s character as it is today, as both democratic and Jewish. Israel today is ‘Jewish’ in the sense that it has a Jewish majority, allows that majority to express the universal legal right to national self-determination, and is open to Jews who wish to immigrate. This is no different to most other states which express the right of the ethnic majority to self-determination, whilst still protecting the rights of minorities.

Reference to a ‘Jewish state’ does not mean a state based on religious precepts, or a state which discriminates against non-Jews.

All Israelis today – both the 75% Jewish majority and non-Jewish minorities – enjoy equal rights before the law and freedom of religion. Non-Jewish minorities enjoy collective rights in education, language and religion. Discrimination based on religious or ethnic identity is illegal.

To maintain Israel’s Jewish majority, and its character as the nation state of the Jewish people, Israel wants Palestinian refugee claims to be resolved through the creation of a Palestinian state.

 

Why are the Palestinians resistant to this idea?

Rejection of Jewish national rights – indeed rejection of the idea that the Jews constitute a distinct national group – is deeply rooted in the Palestinian-Arab narrative. It is linked to the belief that all of Palestine is rightfully an Arab territory and that Arab refugees from the 1948 war and their descendants should have the ‘right of return’ to territory now within Israel’s borders.

However, Palestinians have not always been so opposed to recognition of the Jewish state. The Palestinian declaration of independence in 1988 referenced the UN 1947 Partition Plan, which explicitly refers to the creation of a Jewish and an Arab state side by side.

When former US President Bill Clinton addressed the refugee issue in his parameters for a peace agreement in 2000, he noted Israel could not accept a right to immigrate that would “threaten the Jewish character of the state,” adding that, “A new State of Palestine is about to be created as the homeland of the Palestinian people, just as Israel was established as the homeland of the Jewish people.” The PLO’s detailed response raised no challenge to this basic principle.

In a June 2004 interview with Haaretz, the late PA President Yasser Arafat was asked explicitly whether he understood that “Israel has to keep being a Jewish state.” He responded, “Definitely, definitely, I told them we had accepted [this] openly and officially in 1988.”

However, since Netanyahu has raised the profile of the issue, the PA leadership has become very resistant. They claim not only that it prejudices Palestinian refugee claims but that Israel’s demand threatens minority rights in Israel, or involves asking Palestinians to renounce their identity or history. Israel rejects these latter two objections.

 

What have world leaders said?

Secretary of State John Kerry: “We all know what the endgame looks like: … mutual recognition of the nation-state of the Palestinian people and the nation-state of the Jewish people.”

US President Barack Obama: “Palestinians must recognise that Israel will be a Jewish state.”

German Chancellor Angela Merkel: “We in the federal government support a two-state solution – a Palestinian state and a Jewish state of Israel.”

French President François Hollande: “France’s position is known. It is that of a negotiated solution for the State of Israel and the State of Palestine – both with Jerusalem for a capital – can coexist in peace and security. Two States for two peoples.”

British Prime Minister David Cameron: “Britain has played a proud and vital role in helping to secure Israel as a homeland for the Jewish people… imagine, as John Kerry put it: ‘mutual recognition of the nation state of the Palestinian people and the nation state of the Jewish people.'”

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper: “We share with Israel a sincere hope that the Palestinian people and their leaders will choose a viable, democratic, Palestinian state, committed to living peacefully alongside the Jewish state of Israel … Our view on Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state is absolute and non-negotiable.”

 

What is the historical background?

• The founder of modern political Zionism Theodore Herzl helped launch the movement with a pamphlet published in 1896 entitled Der Judenstaat (“The State of the Jews”). Following many centuries of antisemitic persecution in Europe, he and most other Zionist leaders envisaged a secular, democratic, Jewish majority state in which non-Jews would live as full and equal citizens.

• The British government committed to support “the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people” in the 1917 Balfour Declaration. This goal received international legal sanction under the League of Nations Mandate granted to Britain in 1922, which gave recognition to, “the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country.”

• In 1947 the United Nations General Assembly approved with a two thirds majority a plan to partition Palestine into a Jewish and an Arab state. The proposal was accepted by the Jews but rejected by the Arabs, who then launched the 1947-48 Arab-Israeli War.

• Israel declared its independence on the basis of the UN resolution on May 1948. Israel’s first Prime Minister David Ben Gurion declared the establishment of: “A Jewish State in Eretz-Israel [the Land of Israel], to be known as the State of Israel,” which would ensure “complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants.” The State of Israel was admitted to the United Nations in May 1949.

Source:  BICOM (British-Israel Communications and Research Centre)

Filed Under: FAQ, Opinion Tagged With: , , , ,