A Call for Peace between Israelis and Palestinians and Those Who Support Them in the United States. 

Media coverage of student protests, what it tells us about our culture’s biases, and strategies for overcoming those biases to pursue peace among Americans on all sides of the Middle East conflict in our schools, college campuses, corporations, and communities.

By Maha Elgenaidi, Founder and Executive Director (Bio) and Zachary Markwith, Deputy Director (Bio)

May 2, 2024

We are constantly being asked to address the Palestinian-Israeli conflict by institutional leaders but have been focused on delivering seminars about countering Islamophobia and antisemitism in the US. We now want to address how individuals and institutions can have meaningful discussions about the crisis in the Middle East while respecting the rights and dignity of those with differing views.

Part I: Media coverage of student protests is grossly inadequate

Part II: The current crisis in Gaza and Israel presents an opportunity for pursuing peace among Americans who are divided on the conflict

Part III: Issues to consider if you’re planning a discussion on Palestine and Israel at school, college, or work

Media coverage of student protests is grossly inadequate – Part I

We’ve had many years of experience as community organizers working through education and intercultural engagement for peace and against bigotry, bringing us together with many leaders of diverse religious and ethnic communities as well as schools, colleges and universities, and corporations. That experience as well as requests by institutional leaders for guidance on how to talk about the Palestinian-Israeli conflict has led us to want to write this piece for a while after the last two Maha wrote on the impact of the current crisis in Gaza and Israel.

A prominent professor on a national news network recently declared that perhaps one motivation for the pro-Palestinian student protesters was that ‘they weren’t getting enough sex.’ The anchor didn’t even raise an eyebrow at that comment, nor did the anchor do so when the professor called for the firing of all his fellow professors who are joining the student protests. No, this wasn’t on Fox News; it was on a mainstream network (considered liberal) by one of its supposedly “balanced” anchors whose coverage of and commentary on the student protests, which have been conducted peacefully overall, are reduced to charges of radicalization, arrests by police, school and commencement shutdowns, isolated antisemitic and violent incidents (that have happened on a small number of campuses among the 150 university protests), and the latest analysis by pundits claiming that the protests were a result of ‘young people’s alienation and loss of community.’

Very little to no coverage is given to the relationship between student protests and other protests that have been taking place in the US and around the world since October 7th; worse yet, commentators often offer innuendo suggesting that student protesters are supporters of Hamas, despite solid evidence to the contrary. Very little to nothing is being covered about the student protesters themselves, who are diverse in both religion and ethnicity, nor about their demands in the broader context of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, nor about the responses to those demands by some college administrators who have entered into meaningful dialogue with protesters rather than simply calling the police.

For example, why aren’t reporters interviewing student protesters to learn more about them and what is motivating them to risk academic suspension and future career prospects to participate in these protests? One online magazine published a piece by a Yale student protester explaining his motivation to join a protest and go on a hunger strike. He refers to other hunger strikers among the student protesters. Why are we not hearing more of this? Why aren’t reporters interviewing college professors who support the protesters or college administrators who are seriously considering student demands?

A broader conversation in the media should also be addressing the history of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and how the current protests compare to similar protests in our nation’s history, including those for civil rights and Black Lives Matter and against the Vietnam War and South African apartheid: what does the current wave of protest over Gaza have in common with these history-making movements, how does it differ from them, and how does it compare in effectiveness? What lines were and are being drawn balancing freedom of speech and legitimate security concerns?^[1]

Serious discussion of this protest movement should also include coverage of its opponents. While the majority of pro-Israel protesters have also been peaceful, we now have Christian nationalists participating in pro-Israel protests. How well are their worldviews and sometimes racist viewpoints being covered in the media?

In general, media coverage of serious issues on network news tends to be empty of substance or meaning. The media constantly announces “breaking news” that turns out never to be real news but more of the same “news” that we have heard before. You have to read a broad range of news sources to get the gist of what’s going on in our country and the world, including the student protests over Gaza which have now become a worldwide phenomenon. And if you want to understand the role of the US in the world and its impact on people outside our borders, you have to read whole books or get a degree in political science. You do not get the full story by watching network news.

Until everyday Americans connect with a broader range of news sources, they remain ensnared in a fog of misinformation regarding the nationwide student protests. This injustice weighs heavily on student protesters who bear the legacy of ineffective leadership—government leaders of the United States, Europe, Arab nations, Palestinians and Israelis, who either neglected or refused to resolve the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, which has only gotten worse while claiming tens of thousands of innocent lives and affecting everyone associated with the two groups. It’s one of the driving forces behind our commitment to the work we do in educating against racism and bigotry.

Moreover, the actions taken by some college administrators—forcibly removing students with police intervention or closing down whole campuses in response to a localized protest, thus disrupting the education of all students—are shockingly cruel and not constructive. These young people are standing up against perceived injustices, risking their own futures. They deserve respect and dignity. By prioritizing politicians and donors over students, these administrators undermine their own institutions.

If students are perceived to be in error, confused, or lacking perspective, should not universities be among the best-equipped institutions—rather than the least—to engage students in learning? Rather than arrest students for protesting or close entire campuses, we should be seeing universities educating students about differing points of view, just and unjust exercises of power, the processes of dialogue and how to engage those with disparate views. If they cannot do so…in what are these institutions educating our youth?

It is essential to recognize that student voices matter—Muslim, Jewish, Arab, Palestinian, Israeli and student protesters of various backgrounds—and their concerns should be at the forefront of any educational institution’s decision-making process. When leaders prioritize understanding and dialogue over force, they demonstrate true leadership and commitment to their community.

The current crisis in Gaza and Israel presents an opportunity for pursuing peace among Americans who are divided on the conflict – Part II

The media’s uneven coverage of the current student protests highlights a broader issue: US foreign policy towards the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, which encourages a similarly biased portrayal in the media. 

Politicians, pundits, and even certain scholars have historically framed Palestinian identity as either non-existent, subsumed beneath Arab identity which is also obscured in our culture, or conflated with Hamas and its predecessors as “terrorists.”

Ironically, and sadly, it is only with the recent bombardments of Gaza and the images on our TV screens of Palestinians dead or dying of injuries or famine that Palestinians who were formerly viewed solely through a political lens are now at last being humanized.

And with the growing recognition of Palestinians as human beings—an indigenous people with a rightful connection to the land they currently inhabit—there is now a genuine opportunity for peace between Israelis and Palestinians.

While the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has historically centered around political disputes over land and sovereignty, it remains the responsibility of Palestinian and Israeli leaders in Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza to work towards peace. We hope that the people in the region will actively engage in ending the violence and pursuing peace.

Here in the United States, outside of political advocacy on both sides of the conflict, which many groups in the US are pursuing, what else can we do to help promote peace between Israelis and Palestinians since much of their support comes from the United States?  How can we bridge the polarizing conversation about the conflict taking place among Americans in the workplace or in schools and college campuses and in communities?

While there are plenty of individuals and groups working on a ceasefire and humanitarian aid to prevent famine in Gaza, very little is being done or reported about the extreme polarization in schools and other institutions among people who have vastly different opinions about the conflict. This polarization has caused great pain among people both at work and in schools and in some cases has led to people losing their jobs or leaving them for a better working environment. Maha wrote about the experience of workers and students in this situation a month ago and made a few recommendations.

If you are the head of a school, college, or corporation, we emphasize again the importance of institutional neutrality in how you treat workers and students on both sides of this conflict.

For example, in the case of the student protests, which have been largely peaceful, are you listening to the student protesters as much as you are to those opposing them?  When charges of antisemitism are raised, are you investigating who said what and what they meant by what they said? Naturally, any violence and antisemitic and Islamophobic remarks and sentiments must be condemned, but do you know clearly what antisemitism and Islamophobia are, and what makes critiques of Israel antisemitic or not, or critiques of Palestinians racist or not? There are a multitude of opinions on this issue that you may have to sort through to come up with an appropriate response in a given circumstance.

Your job as the head of an institution is to center the needs of workers and/or students and to bring people together by building cultural bridges between people of all backgrounds, to foster understanding, promote dialogue, and create a more harmonious workplace and/or student environment. The suggestions we offer in our trainings on Islamophobia or Islamophobia and antisemitism together touch on recommendations under the following subjects:

• Education and dialogue
• Collaborative activities
• Shared spaces and facilities
• Leadership and collaboration
• Staff and/or faculty and parent involvement
• Community engagement

We also address the importance of individual responsibility in recognizing our own biases, taking action to dispel them, and considering alternatives to them. This entails taking the initiative to replace negative assumptions with positive ones, to learn more about diverse groups, to promote allyship that is neither condescending nor patronizing, to report hate when we encounter it, and to advocate for policies that address discrimination and promote inclusivity. 

In almost all of our trainings we are asked how we approach discussing the Palestinian-Israeli conflict productively, in a way that promotes mutual understanding and respect. As with any other political issue, we first ask if they have a current policy on having political discussions in their institution. If they do, then we urge them to apply the same principles to a discussion on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict that they would follow in discussing any other political issue. If they do not have a relevant policy, then they should urge their institution to first create a policy to provide guidance on the parameters of a political discussion and facilitation training for people to lead such discussion. Having political discussions in any professional environment requires sensitivity, respect, and a focus on maintaining a positive atmosphere. 

Issues to consider if you’re planning a discussion on Palestine and Israel at school, college, or work – Part III

In our DEI-related trainings for professionals in schools, colleges, and workplaces on Islamophobia or on both Islamophobia and antisemitism, participants usually ask us for recommendations on how to have a conversation about the Palestinian-Israel conflict in light of the polarized perspectives since the October 7^th attack by Hamas, Israel’s retaliation in Gaza, and the current student protests.

Our answer has always been to refer them to other groups who do the work of having that difficult conversation. If we were to attempt to do this work ourselves, then we would offer the following suggestions:

Start with good news: You are not alone if you envision peace between Palestinians and Israelis. Most Americans, particularly those from the groups impacted most directly, also want peace:

This majority of Americans want peace and considers a two-state solution to be the best option. When asked in March 2024 by Pew researchers “what is the best possible outcome of the conflict between Israel and Palestine,” 40% of US adults, 41% of Muslims and 46% of Jews said that two states are the best option, while 13% of US adults, 11% of Muslims and 13% of Jews said a state jointly governed by Israelis and Palestinians is the best outcome.

Those who hold either of these positions envision peace between Israelis and Palestinians. So that’s 53% of US adults, 52% of Muslims and 59% of Jews who envision and want peace between the two peoples.

Substantial minorities of all US adults and in both Muslim and Jewish communities want one state under Palestinian control on the one hand (2% of US adults, 20% of Muslims) or Israeli control on the other hand (15% of US adults, and 22% of Jews). 30% of US adults, 25% of Muslims, and 17% of Jews were unsure of their position. That is an opportunity for peacebuilding, while it’s clear that the majority of Americans envision peace.

How do we help Palestinians and Israelis achieve peace while living in the United States? Muslim, Arab, Palestinian, Jewish, Israeli, and all Americans who support them must work together towards promoting peace between the two groups, not more division, destruction, and death such as what we’re now witnessing in Gaza and Israel.

Muslims and Jews have had a long history of working together, both over the centuries and more recently. Even though the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is a political conflict, not a religious conflict, Muslims and Jews tend to be the ones most impacted by the conflict. So having Muslim and Jewish Americans working together on shared interests and concerns, based on their Abrahamic origins, shared heritage, and similar beliefs and practices, is a huge step toward peacemaking.  Here are just a few examples of the shared work and programs that you may not know about.  Much more has been taking place nationally and regionally than most people are aware:

• Muslim-Jewish panels on countering shared bigotry (ING, since 2007)
• Dialogues, trips, and conferences (Sisterhood of Salaam-Shalom, since 2010)
• Jewish and Muslim families joining forces to advocate keeping local governments from banning the practice of male circumcision (2011)
• The Halaqa-Seder program on learning the shared Exodus story in the Torah and the Quran (ING, since 2015)
• The Muslim-Jewish Advisory Council working on joint legislation and promoting religious freedom (since 2016)
• Jewish American groups supporting Muslim immigrants after the Muslim Ban (2016)
• Muslims raising funds for Jewish American institutions after major hate crimes:
  • Over $100K raised to repair a vandalized historic Jewish cemetery (2017)
  • Over $200K raised for the Tree of Life synagogue, scene of a mass shooting (2018)
• Major Jewish organizations condemning Islamophobia (2023):
  • Statement signed by over 150 major Jewish groups after the murder of Wadea Al-Fayoumi
  • Statements condemning bigoted questioning of Muslim judicial nominee Adeel Mangi

Considerations for having a conversation about the Palestinian-Israeli conflict in the workplace or at school or on a college campus.

As each corporation, school and college campus is facing a different set of circumstances, it is important to do a climate assessment, hold listening sessions, and/or distribute an anonymous survey to better understand the challenges and concerns of employees and students, especially those most impacted by the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Is your institution ready for more in-depth conversations about the conflict? And if those conversations are already occurring—which is likely the case—how can participants respect the rights, dignity, and voices of those who may hold views that differ from their own? Below are some other preliminary considerations and best practices that we recommend:

1) Reflect first on your motivation and determine what you hope to accomplish by having a conversation on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict in the workplace, at school, or on a college campus.^[2]

1. The most favorable situation is genuine interest in simply learning about what’s going on between Palestinians and Israelis behind and beyond headline news, to understand the conflict’s origins and early history, major turning points, and where things stand today. Someone’s genuine interest can be encouraged by offering opportunities to increase knowledge and empathy by inviting guest speakers and hosting panel discussions.
2. Also favorable is a desire to settle a running argument or dispute between two opposing groups who are friendly and have not exhibited hostility towards each other and who are genuinely interested in learning more about the other side that goes beyond headline news.
3. If the motivation and objective are to build bridges between two groups that have a history of hostility over the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, then it may be inadvisable to try to start by organizing a conversation on the subject that is likely only to cause further hostility; any attempt to further such conversation must begin with work with the individuals who are most prone to take polarizing positions on the issue.

2) Before embarking on any political discussion, consider creating a set of policies or principles for political discussions and making sure that all participants are made aware of and trained on them. Instead of simply presenting these as a list, devote time to have attendees suggest more guidelines, or discuss the importance of the principles from most to least, to foster discussion and buy-in. Typical policies will include principles of respectful dialogue and guidelines on respectful behavior, the importance of staying informed, avoiding personal attacks, setting boundaries, meeting in neutral spaces, avoiding proselytizing or demonizing those with whom one disagrees, staying professional, seeking common ground, and knowing when to disengage. There are organizations and consultants who do this type of training.

3) Before embarking on a discussion on this conflict, do a deep-dive training on Islamophobia and antisemitism that provides definitions of these two forms of bigotry, a description of their tropes, their roots in history, and their contemporary enablers. This training is needed to dispel the prevalent stereotypes that Americans have consciously and subconsciously absorbed about Muslims and Jews and groups associated with them such as Arabs, Palestinians, and Israelis. Such training should be chosen carefully, as not all training on these topics is equal. 

4) For group A that wants to learn more, which is the best-case scenario, consider the following:

When approaching the study of the conflict for the purpose of learning more, be aware that there exists between Palestinians and Israelis and those who support them a set of completely different narratives about almost every aspect of the conflict, from its origins and early history to what’s taking place today. The many sides have very different worldviews. So, you will want to begin your study by doing research on these different narratives. To get to the truth, we would suggest looking for the common threads in the narratives. If you have access to first-person testimony from Palestinians and Israelis who have lived through that history, that is an excellent source of narratives.

Here is a two-step process to consider: 1. Start by collecting your source materials 2. Split up the source material between group members to read and prepare a synopsis of the materials to bring back to the discussion group. Continue through the material until you exhaust all your sources.

5) For group B that has been discussing the conflict without hostility, which is also a good case scenario, I would follow the process for Group A, with the following caveat:

– Since this group is already involved in the discussion, I would provide a workshop on navigating difficult conversations that addresses communications skills among other issues.

– Be careful that you exclude people in this group who are propagandizing their point of view with the intent of converting people. Avoiding propaganda is key to having a successful difficult conversation, especially when it concerns contested history and different worldviews. All participants must accept the goal of finding common ground. Very helpful is a shared commitment from each person who attends the event to learn something new by listening, and to ask people to prioritize this commitment explicitly ahead of speaking to be heard. All types and degrees of learning in this context can be helpful, whether they learn a new fact, a new question, a new technique, or find something likeable about a speaker or subject to which they had previously been closed off. Consider telling people in advance that they will be asked to share what they learned at the end, which can be done as a group activity or anonymously.

5) People in group C that have polarizing views and attitudes are not likely to be interested in having a conversation with someone who will disagree with them and are more likely to suppress differences of opinion. They probably have deep-seated stereotypes about the party opposed to their own, exhibit deep distrust of those who disagree with them, and may have experienced personal trauma from direct association with the conflict through their own experiences or those of family members. Any information you provide that contradicts their beliefs about the conflict, regardless of how neutral it is, will only reinforce their point of view, not change it. Such people exist in both Muslim and Arab and Jewish and Israeli communities.

The most extreme elements of this group advocate or commit violence. They seek power over or destruction of the other by either working towards the elimination of the state of Israel or by rejecting a Palestinian state. In the very worst case, if they are zealous people they can actually be quite dangerous, considering those who disagree with them as traitors to be suppressed by intimidation and even assassination. Yigal Amir, who assassinated Yitzhak Rabin in 1995, is an example of such a person. Hamas also has a history of executing Palestinians whom they consider traitors to their cause. Even if people with such attitudes do not commit physical violence, they may exhibit hate speech or violent reputational sabotage. They may practice a kind of social violence by writing off those who disagree with them as persona non grata with whom communication of any sort is tantamount to treason. Ostracism and doxing of this sort is taking place today within both pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian communities.

Here are some signs that people are in group C, with whom any effort at meaningful dialogue is unlikely to be fruitful:

• They don’t believe that a Palestinian life is equal to that of an Israeli life or that an Israeli life is equal to a Palestinian life.
• They don’t believe in an independent Palestinian state.
• They don’t believe in an independent Jewish state.^[3]
• They don’t believe that Palestinians are indigenous to the land.
• They don’t believe Jews are indigenous to the land.

The good news is that, at least among people you are likely to meet in the US, those in group C are relatively few. Therefore, you don’t want to prioritize this minority group at the expense of the needs and harmony of the majority who want to learn more about the conflict and would benefit from a free flow exchange of ideas and perspectives. Suppression of viewpoints and lack of communication are the principal sources of relationship breakdowns.

---

[1] In contrast to even recent protest movements, social media is—now more than ever—effectively fragmenting information and polarizing people. People’s social networks are driving which facts they see, accept, and reject…not just among protesters and their audiences online, but also among journalists and politicians. And yet, so far there has been only sporadic focus on university environments that have succeeded in encouraging more productive dialogue. For example, Dartmouth has endeavored to teach dialogue skills; Professor Weis at Princeton taught his class about Palestinian and Israeli history at the site of the protests and offered classes in the immediate aftermath of October 7^th. But we hear little of such efforts, and what we do hear is polarizing and negative.

[2] Many marginalized groups, including Jews and Palestinians and others, find “allies” who rage and create polarization profoundly unhelpful, as compared to steadfastly refusing to acquiesce to injustice, naming truth, and calmly holding up a mirror to power. In the words of a colleague, “I really despair when supposed ‘allies’ get themselves all fired up against someone who does a thing that they might have done themselves five minutes ago!”

[3] Some Palestinians and Israelis, as well as their supporters, believe in a one-state solution where both Jews and Arabs would be included and have equal rights. This seems to challenge the existence of an independent Jewish state and an independent Palestinian state, but most proponents of this view are also willing to have meaningful dialogue with others.