Paul Salopek of National Geographic is an ambitious guy. In 2013 he began ‘Out of Eden‘, a journey to trace—on foot—the travels of humankind from our origins in Ethiopia to our last stop in South America. As much as Salopek’s trek is an odyssey through time, it is also a journey through space. Recently, Salopek traversed one of the most contentious areas in the world, one that regularly triggers front-page news.
But Salopek’s approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was a refreshing departure from political punditry. His Twitter updates lead visitors to the website of the Parents Circle Families Forum, a “joint Palestinian Israeli organization” aimed at joining and reconciling Palestinian and Israeli families who have lost loved ones to the conflict.
In the best of ways, PCFF complicates the American politico’s approach to Israel-Palestine. In an interview with The Guardian, Ali Abu Awwad, current member of the PCFF and a Palestinian ex-revolutionary, stated, “For some Muslims, the situation in Palestine is theoretical . . . there is more militancy among British Muslims than there is in Palestine, and it’s the same with American Jews who seem less likely to compromise than Israelis. Why? Because they are not the ones who have to stand at roadblocks every day, it isn’t their children, their sons and brothers who are dying, so it is easy for them to say they do not want to compromise.”
Awwad’s speculation sheds light on the malaise of discourse surrounding Israel-Palestine in America today. On college campuses, Hillel International’s refusal to change its policy limiting discourse on Israel-Palestine has led to the prohibition of guests who criticize Israel to varying degrees. Hillel International uncompromisingly shields Israel’s reputation. Doing so deliberately limits Hillel students’ exposure to Palestinian narratives and is counterproductive to upholding the values of free speech on college campuses.
In the political realm Awwad’s speculation holds true, as well. As yet another round of peace talks between Israel and Palestine failed, Secretary of State John Kerry stated in an April 25, 2014 closed-door meeting, “A two-state solution will be clearly underscored as the only real alternative. Because a unitary state winds up either being an apartheid state with second-class citizens—or it ends up being a state that destroys the capacity of Israel to be a Jewish state.”
Kerry—whose statement urged Palestinian and Israeli leaders to agree on a two-state solution for the interest of both entities—received heavy doses of flak from Republican and Democratic politicians. Members of Congress, among them Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Rep. Nita Lowey (D-NY), spoke out, interpreting the statement as a one-sided accusation, an aggressive attack on Israel as an apartheid state.
The reaction exemplifies the stubbornness that often accompanies distance. Those living outside Israel-Palestine, perhaps because of that very distance, feel an overwhelming need to protect Israel’s reputation. But such unequivocal support runs the risk of being out-of-touch; even prominent Israeli politicians, among them former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and former Prime Minister Ehud Barak, have acknowledged the threat of a future apartheid state if a two-state solution is not promulgated.
The concern for potential apartheid is a legitimate one, whether or not Kerry’s words prove to be prophecy. A number of Israeli leaders share the same anxieties. Acknowledging the potential for an apartheid state is not the same as accusing Israel of currently being an apartheid state. But the American politician, in his pro-Israel gusto, has overlooked this. Those like Cruz and Lowey are not much different from Hillel International; they ally with Israel even when Israel doesn’t ally with Israel.
Such obstinacy has a cost, but perhaps American politicians, as Awwad suggests, are too far away to appreciate that. Stated Lowey in response to Kerry’s leaked statements, “Inflammatory rhetoric comparing Israel’s democracy to repugnant apartheid policy is irresponsible, inaccurate, and counterproductive.” Not only did Lowey and many of her colleagues misunderstand warnings against future apartheid to be an accusation of current apartheid, but they accept that as a democracy, Israel is immune from certain levels of scrutiny and accountability. The conflict’s status quo includes, most notably, territories occupied in violation of the Geneva Accords, convoluted housing laws for Palestinians, poor water conditions in Palestinian territories, limited freedom of movement for Palestinians, and Israeli and Palestinian families like those of PCFF who have lost relatives. With these conditions in mind, the threat of an apartheid state should not be chalked up to “inflammatory rhetoric.”
The perceived need Hillel International and so many American politicians feel to defend Israel has already created two states: the Israel-Palestine of American imagination, and the Israel-Palestine of Awwad’s reality. The prevalence of the former in American discourse halts any attempt to attribute humanity to the very people who suffer most from the conflict, Israeli or Palestinian. And so, the politicos continue to lyricize from their mikes, as “it is easy for them to say they do not want to compromise.” But consequences are real. We’ve been Out of Eden for a long time.