Each and every Jew who protested as a Jew against the Gaza war had a personal Jewish imperative for doing so. Some simply expressed dismay; most demanded action to end the carnage. To say that we failed is neither an expression of despair nor a statement that dissent wasn’t worthwhile. Realism suggests that it was inevitable.
Let’s be clear: diaspora and Israeli Jewish support for the war was extensive — and extremely dispiriting. It raises the question: critical Jewish voices may have increased, but can we ever trigger decisive change in mainstream Jewish opinion? An unsentimental look at developments may give reason for hope.
First, there’s been activity in many countries and support for Jewish peace groups has increased. European Jews for a Just Peace, a 10-country federation of such organizations, reports numerous initiatives in Europe. Independent Jewish Voices (IJV), Jews for Justice for Palestinians and other groups in the UK demonstrated, lobbied, placed newspaper ads and joined demonstrations. IJV groups in Canada and Australia issued statements. Jewish and Israeli protesters in Toronto, Montreal and Boston occupied Israeli consulates. US peace groups have been increasingly active. Together with activity by Israeli groups, this amounts to an undercurrent of protest that is rattling establishment Jewish leadership.
CEASEFIRE CALL
Second, some groups of Jews have taken significant stands. On Jan. 11, the Observer newspaper made front-page news of a letter from rabbis, academics and prominent community figures at the center of UK Jewish life, calling for a ceasefire. In Germany, a letter from 35 supporters of the group Jewish Voice for a Just Peace, demanding an end to “the murder in Gaza,” was published on Jan. 17 in the Suddeutsche Zeitung — a major newspaper in a country where expressing public criticism of Israel is difficult for anyone, let alone a group of Jews.
But most significant was the strong anti-war stand taken by J Street, the new American liberal, “pro-peace, pro-Israel” lobby, which is effectively challenging the influential, rightwing, Israel lobby AIPAC. Heavily criticized by Rabbi Eric Yoffie, a prominent US peace-camp leader, for being “profoundly out of touch with Jewish sentiment”, J Street stuck to its guns and attracted increased support. It then warmly welcomed US President Barack Obama’s appointment of George Mitchell as Middle East envoy, positioning itself to have clout in Washington. The positive consequences for further legitimizing Jewish dissent in the US and beyond could be crucial.
Third, there are signs of underlying disquiet in the middle ground of normally solid pro-Israel Jewish opinion. On Jan. 2, Anshel Pfeffer wrote in Ha’aretz newspaper: “Extremely disturbed and hurt by the level of civilian deaths and destruction ... [these Jews] say, there must, there has to be another way of doing this. And they live with those doubts, often unexpressed, even among families and close friends, because the worst thing they find is that others around them don’t seem to discern between the different nuances, and can’t find in themselves compassion for the dead and wounded on the other side.”
CLOSE TO THE LINE
Pfeffer is not alone in sensing this mood, which suggests Israel is perilously close to the line beyond which even some of its strongest supporters cannot go.
Two encouraging conclusions can be drawn. First, although it seems most Jews shrink from the truth and embrace the Orwellian “war is peace” propaganda, doubts are growing. For Jewish dissenters who seek an appropriate language to persuade mainstream Jewish opinion that Israel is going in the wrong direction, the effort may produce results.
Second, dissenting peace groups can be stubbornly independent and make a virtue out of minor differences. But effective coordination during the Gaza war proved empowering. It’s surely worthwhile attempting to create a critical mass, united around key objectives, and expressed in language that can connect with mainstream Jewish opinion.
Israel is heavily dependent on what Jews think. Its leaders turn to their support whenever they face an internal crisis or need cover for some new military adventure. But it’s now not too far-fetched to think Jewish opinion could turn decisively against Israel’s current path. This would shake the government and help change Middle East realities. So, out of the rubble of Gaza and the political failure it represents, Jewish dissent may emerge a more potent force.
A final cautionary note: Jewish opposition to the Gaza war was not qualitatively different from anyone else’s. And it’s not more important than the horrendous experience of the people of Gaza. But were that opposition to be translated into a rolling tide of Jewish opinion, it may have a moderating influence on Israel. This would benefit Palestinians, who deserve an immediate end to siege and occupation, and Jews, who deserve an immediate end to the anti-semitism which Israel’s war has provoked. And ultimately lead to an Israel living in peace with its neighbors.
Antony Lerman is the former director of the Institute for Jewish Policy Research.
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
In the 2022 book Danger Zone: The Coming Conflict with China, academics Hal Brands and Michael Beckley warned, against conventional wisdom, that it was not a rising China that the US and its allies had to fear, but a declining China. This is because “peaking powers” — nations at the peak of their relative power and staring over the precipice of decline — are particularly dangerous, as they might believe they only have a narrow window of opportunity to grab what they can before decline sets in, they said. The tailwinds that propelled China’s spectacular economic rise over the past