Interactive Policy Space Discussion on Escalating West Bank Annexation

For the audio-only recording, click here.

Transcript:

Maytal Kowalski
Hi. This is our first time doing it in this format, which I'm excited about. Usually, Jon and I just chat with one another and then share it with everyone. But this is going to be a little bit more interactive, and we want to hear from the folks joining us, so you can also, as we're talking, just pop questions in your in the chat box, and we can read those out as well if you'd prefer to do that rather than asking the question. But I think what we're going to do for today is so I, I spoke about, for those who read our the Friday email that that I send out and post a substack I wrote this week about kind of how we how we are in a moment of rupture, and how a moment of rupture requires something, something new and more than just harsh words. And then Jon replied to my email, as he oftentimes does, and sometimes he agrees with my emails and sometimes he disagrees with my emails. And I like hearing from him on both things. And this time, I think I would say we had our, maybe our spiciest exchange. I say that with love, of course, and what I said was, well, let's like, let's save the good stuff for for the rest of the people. Let's not do all the good stuff here on email. So we're so how we're going to do the conversation? Because this issue of West Bank annexation is kind of reaching new heights, and we're seeing new levels of just brazen annexation attempts of the West Bank and as as I talked about in the piece, and as our statement mentioned, we're not we're no longer talking just about Area C, which is the area that is fully under Israeli military and civil control. We're also talking about changes to areas A and B, and so that is really a real difference, a real shift in Israeli policy. It's a real emboldened policy towards annexation. And so we're going to talk, I think, a little bit more about that and debate between the two of us. I think what we think needs to be done, because I think we're we have some differing opinions, but as we do so, we also really want to hear from you all. You may agree with one of us more than the other. You may agree with neither. You may agree with both, or you may have some questions for us. So please do feel free, as we're chatting, like, put something in the chat. Or you can use the raise hand function if you want to contribute, and we can take you off a mute and you can add to what we're talking about. But this really is just a way for us to talk through these issues. Or you may, you may have some questions. You may want something clarified, and happy to do that as well. And then we'll see how the time goes. We may also want to touch on Iran, and we want to touch on the board of peace. I know, I think, Jon, you just did an interview for CTV, on the board of peace, CBC, CBC, board of peace. We'll send that out in the email as well. So, you know, we can kind of go in any direction. I think we're going to give ourselves. Just about an hour for this conversation, which we hope involves a lot of participation from you all as well, and going to keep it really casual and see how it goes. So let's start off by, let's just start off by talking about what's happening in the occupied West Bank right now, and why what is happening right now is considered such an escalation and so so dangerous. So Jon, do you want to talk about that a bit?

Jon Allen
Sure. Well, you mentioned that there has been legislation passed in Israel, which, for really the first time, gives Israel the power to begin to acquire land in areas a and b, which is a major change, because up until now, I think Israel has tried to live somewhere between. We're not really occupying the land and we're not really taking control of it. Yes, there are settlers, but of course, you know, we're going to make a deal in the end, and we're going to swap where the settlers are, and we're going to give the Palestinians land. But the new reality is that this government, and especially Ben gvir and Smotrich, the two messianic nationalistic ministers in the government who really control the West Bank in many ways, because smoke betselal Smotrich, in addition to being finance minister, has special responsibilities in the Ministry of Defense and Ben gvir Itamar, Ben gvir controls public security. So you've got defense, you've got public. Security, and you've got, in a sense, control over the West Bank built into two of the most right wing ministers that the Government of Israel has ever seen. Now, in addition to these legal changes, you have both ministers, but especially Smotrich, saying that the reason these changes have been brought in is because we want to ensure that a Palestinian state will never exist. So we have the Government of Israel senior ministers essentially saying that I don't really care what you Western governments say. I don't really care that you may or may not have recognized a Palestinian state. I don't care whether you think that two states for two peoples is the only way to move forward in a land where there are 7.5 million Jews and 7.5 million Arabs, we have basically determined that we are not going to have a Palestinian state. We're not talking about what's going to happen to all those Palestinians, whether we're just going to take control and have them as second or third class citizens, or we're going to expel them, but we are going to prevent self determination of the Palestinians. Now there's, of course, no talk about Gaza at this point, Gaza has gone relatively quiet, but I should mention that while the Rafa crossing is open and more humanitarian assistance is coming in very, very few injured Palestinians are getting out of Rafa at this time, 50 people a day is the last that I had heard. There are 1000s and 1000s of injured children in Gaza, not just children, but children and others who need to get out, who would be able to receive treatment in Jordan, in other Arab countries, in Europe, in Egypt, etc. But there is restrictions on the number that can come out, and there are certainly restrictions on the numbers that can come in. So we've got two situations of real concern. And of course, we're not talking about whether or not there'll be an independent commission of inquiry in Israel for October 7 and the war that followed, and challenges to the independence of the judiciary. Those are other issues, the exemption of Haredim. We're not going to be talking about that. And of course, the latest issue that we're not going to be talking about is the fact that they're trying to pass a law contrary to a law that completely contrary to a law that Bibi had promised years ago. They're trying to pass a law that would prevent any prayer at the wall, at the the Western Wall, by women or non you know, I guess non Orthodox Jews. So mostly women, I guess. So that's that's that we've kind of set the scene for why we're both very concerned about the West Bank, and then we had this conversation following Maytals very interesting comment on Tom Friedman's piece in The New York Times, which many people read and thought was great, and I think we all thought it was great, but what Maytal felt was great, Tom, you're talking, but we've got to begin acting. Talking is not enough. Criticizing is not enough. We advocacy groups like J space and J Street and governments have to start acting, and that's where we had our little difference. So let me turn it back to you. You can, you can explain our difference, or you can tell talk about your side, and I'll talk my side, sure.

Maytal Kowalski
So yes, and I think, and let me just add to and say that it's not just about, okay, enough talk, we need action. It's that actually, you know that my theory, I guess, is that every time that there's, you know, this kind of like hand wringing through op eds or articles by, you know, the usual suspects of Tom Friedman's and whoever else, but then nothing happens. It almost feels like it does the reverse, where it emboldens the Netanyahu government, because they're like, "they're going to say all these harsh words, but no one's actually going to stop us". And I think that was something that Smotrich even said quite a few months ago at some I can't remember. you know, at one of the settlement council meetings where he said, like, "you know, we keep doing this because they keep letting us get away with it." Like, they know that that's what's happening, right? So, so I actually think that we're at a point where it's actually dangerous to just be like, if you're going to keep saying, like, I'm going to criticize, but then I'm not going to do anything. I think that it actually does the opposite, where it really emboldens some of these folks who are that is what they're like. They don't care. They do want to poke the US in the eye, or they do want to poke their critics in the eye, right? Like they're not even trying to live up to some sort of, like they've dropped the facade of like, no, but this is liberal and democratic and etc, etc. They're saying, No, it's not. And we don't want it to be. We want it to be theocratic, and we want to be the Messianics in charge. And they're like, you know, come at me. Challenge me, and and, and then we've got, you know, a lot of pundits and critics who challenge them with words only, but I think where you and I so that's, you know, I think that that's one thing that frustrates me, that even though I agree with the article, and I had someone who who wrote me back and replied and was like, but I thought the article was good, because it says all these things that you agree with them. That you agree with. I'm like, Yeah, that's that's the point. It's saying all the things that we agree with. But then it's not saying, like, okay, so what now? What do we do? So where you I guess, I guess. So. Then the question is, and this is where you and I differed, is, now we're also saying, okay, words aren't enough. There needs to be action. And then you're saying the action that you're calling for is not enough. There needs to be more action.

Jon Allen
I'm saying that the action that Maytal and J space is calling for is not enough. So why don't you set out what what J space is advocating? Yeah, which, of course, I agree with I'm just saying, not enough, right?

Maytal Kowalski
So, you know, so So to talk about some of the policies, and we're actually going to send out a petition for folks to email their MP about some of these issues as well. We'll send it out tomorrow along with this recording. But, you know, so we, we want to see so we've seen sanctions. We talked about this already. We've seen sanctions on not only individual violent settlers, but on settler organizations and on ministers that aid and abet settler activity. Right? We would like to also see a ban on trade with illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank, and we also want to see sanctions on companies, individual like private contractors that build, that are contracted to build, you know, like housing and infrastructure in in these Israeli settlements. And, you know, our focus, and this is, I guess, a little bit of a little bit of a peek behind the curtain. But I think it's important to talk about that. Like our focus at J space, we do still Bill ourselves as a pro peace, pro Israel, pro democracy organization. Our issue is not with Israel proper within the green line. In fact, we value that relationship. You know, you know, I think a lot of folks know I am a dual Canadian Israeli citizen. Israel is very important to me. Israel is important to a lot of our supporters. This is kind of one of the things that I think puts us in this mushy middle between our kind of more right wing establishment organizations and the anti Zionist organizations that we still, you know, advocate for a two state solution. We still care about the state of Israel. We still consider ourselves pro Israel and Zionists. But you know, we do take these more critical stances, so it's very important for us as an organization to really differentiate between the occupied territories and what we see is as illegal. And what Canada, by the way, Canada's foreign policy, also sees as illegal, is settlements, Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank and Israel proper, Israel within the green line. So we keep our asks for sanctions and for kind of punitive measures to be focused on activity in the occupied territories, not Israel within the green line, not only because that's our stances and organized organization, but also because my fear is that when we start pushing for sanctions on Israel proper, first of all, it becomes way too easy to kind of paint us as an anti Israel or anti Zionist Organization, which I think loses us a lot of credibility within our Jewish community, where We know that even if the even if the majority of Jews, or a large plurality of Jews, don't necessarily consider themselves Zionist, we know that only about 1% if not less than that, actively consider themselves anti Zionist. And we know that, like 85% say that they still believe that Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish state. So I think it puts us way offside from where our community is. And I think that sanctions on Israel as a whole would also create a rally around the flag effect in Israel, where sanctions would hurt regular Israeli citizens, it would actually paradoxically make them feel closer to the government in power. And I don't think that it would actually do any I think. There would be more harm than good in sanctions that extend beyond the occupied territories. And so that's kind of, you know, that's, that's where, that's how I feel, that's, that's a position that J space takes. That's kind of the strategic position that we're, that we're in, and that's why we call for the things that we do. But Jon, why don't you share kind of what? Tell me what you think about that.

Jon Allen
Sure. So I start from the same place that Maytal does, support for Israel as a state, support for it, living in peace and security. And of course, you didn't say it, but we also support self determination for the Palestinian people. That's that's a given. I guess I also go back to a time when I was the ambassador and there were about 250,000 settlers, maybe even more, but that's the number that I remember. There are now 750,000 settlers. Now, many of them are still in the major settlement blocks, which are supposed to be a part of the swap, where we would Israel would keep the major settlement blocks, and there would be a swap for the Palestinians. But we've now got, let's say, 250,000 settlers who are really probably illegal, even under Israeli law, or a good percentage of them are, and that's making the idea of two states ever more difficult the the recent legislation and the recent talk of the ministers, as I said, makes it clear that there is no interest in this government in two states. I was very pleased when the Canadian government, the new Canadian government, the Kearney government, began very short after, shortly after taking power, with a joint statement with the French and the Brits, the Australians and a few others, in which they criticized the settlement expansion and expressed concern, of course, about what was happening in Gaza, called for a ceasefire, etc. Then there was a second declaration with a slightly different group, in which they made absolutely clear their unhappiness with the settler violence, the expansion, and again, called for a ceasefire. Then you will recall a number of Western governments recognized a Palestinian state, and they did so because they were increasingly concerned that if the settlement expansion continued, like the announcement of e1 which will essentially, if it comes to fruition, divide the West Bank in half. This was even before the new legislation. If that settlement expansion continues, the idea of two states could disappear and those Western governments wanted to make it clear to the Palestinians, but I think actually more importantly to the Israelis, that they considered those two states essential to stability, to fairness, to equity, to self determination and peace and security for both peoples. Well, since then, we have seen continued expansion. E1 was something that governments had opposed for 10 years and had successfully opposed it, but it is going ahead. The new legislation is going ahead. And from my perspective, and as Maytal said, Smotrich and Ben gvir not only recognize that governments have taken some action, but have not taken serious action. In fact, Western governments have not taken serious action since I was ambassador from 2006 to 2010 they have been mouthing two states. They continue to argue for it. We all understand why. We all understand that that we, as when I say Maytal and I and progressive Jews in Canada and elsewhere, we understand that that Israel will only be able to live in peace and security if there are two states rather than occupying 5.2 million people for another 60 years and in. Inevitably having a number another October 7. So my position is it's time to do something meaningful, and trying to stop people in the West Bank by putting sanctions on them has clearly not worked. Ben gvir and Smotrich couldn't give a damn whether they come to Canada or not. And those settlers, those violent settlers who are killing Palestinians, who are burning their homes, who are burning their cars, who are forcing them off their land, also could not care about sanctions in the West Bank. And I tend to agree with Maytal that there's a problem with putting and now when I say sanctions on Israel, I'm not talking about Canada alone. Putting sanctions on Israel. Our trade with Israel is not sufficient to move them or to have Israelis consider the implications of sanctions, but the EU is their largest trading partner, larger than the United States, and apart from Slovakia and Hungary, there are a number of countries in the EU, let's say Slovakia, Hungary and Germany, a number of countries in the EU that would like to consider suspending their trade agreement. I don't think anybody wants to end it, but they want to suspend it. And I think that is the kind of action that we've now come to. We are facing violent action in the West Bank. We're facing ministers, including the prime minister, who do not want to see a state. And we are seeing actions that could, if they continue, really harm the possibility of two states going forward. So I think that the the West, it's time for the West. Now I agree that this is going to hurt liberal academics. This is going to hurt dancers and musicians. They're already being sanctioned, as you know, around the world, and that's extremely unfortunate. And frankly, it was unfortunate in South Africa, because there were a lot of people in South Africa who opposed apartheid, a lot of Jews in South Africa who opposed apartheid, but I think they actually welcomed the sanctions, because they saw it as the only way to perhaps move the government now if, if the EU were to suspend their trade agreement, and we were to suspend our trade agreement, would that and Australia, New Zealand, etc, would that move the government? I can't guarantee it. I don't know, but it might send a signal to Israelis. They could go one of two ways they could rally around the flag and say the world hates us, see. Or they could say the West is finally getting serious about this and our pariah state, notwithstanding the visit of Narendra Modi or relations with countries that want to buy Israel's arms. Our pariah state is beginning to concern us. Concern us greatly, because not only are there sanctions in the West Bank, but we are going to feel trade sanctions within Israel, and that's going to have an impact. And maybe we should reconsider voting for Bibi Netanyahu has brought this on. Maybe we should reconsider voting for a coalition that has brought this on, waking in people in Israel up that what's happening in the West Bank and in Gaza is not removed from them. It's part of their reality, whether they wish it or not. So I mean, I'll end there, but I can't, I can't believe that Western leaders who within this year, went as far as to recognize a Palestinian state because they were concerned, have since then essentially done nothing, even though Israel is taking moves now that are more far reaching than they've ever taken before, and I feel I will feel bad about the liberals in Israel and the protesters who who oppose this government with all of their feeling. And I understand that Israelis, like good friends of mine and my sister and my nephews and my nieces in Israel, wouldn't be happy about this, but I think the West has to say. Stand up and do something, and there aren't that many tools, and and trade is one of the tools that will actually work.

Maytal Kowalski
Thank you for that. And I'd love to hear, I think we want to hear from, from folks joining us as well, if, if you know, we can, can kind of open up the conversation. But I do just want to say, you know, I think, like, where I hear what you're saying, and when you say, like, okay, so it could go one of two ways, but I think like, it's gonna, it's gonna go the way of I do feel like it's gonna backfire on Western governments. Because I feel like, right now, I mean, you just sent me that advertisement. What was that from the advertisement, that all those, like past security, Israeli security officials, had signed on and they used the word, I mean, it was in Hebrew, but they used the word, they were, they were condemning what's happening in the West Bank, and they used the word pogroms. And I saw, like Dan Meridor, who spoke at our conference, I saw that he was signed on it. That's a big deal. He's a, you know, longtime Likudnik, or, you know, was...

Jon Allen
and this was this in an Israeli newspaper in Hebrew signed by a lot of former security people, including Dan Meridor minister and other ministers, which we can send to you, which essentially Yes. It criticizes this in the strongest of terms.

Maytal Kowalski
It calls it Yeah. The pogroms in the occupied West Bank are a war crime. Is how it translates into English. So they use "pogrom" and "war crime".

Jon Allen
And you'll remember that Dan Meridor was reluctant to use the word war crime, yes. About Gaza, yes, when he was at the J space conference, and he's now describing what's going on there. And so yes, I know, I agree with you. There is a risk. There's definitely a risk. It could go the other way. But I think, and I also, I should say I also understand Maytals real concern that she has a flock. She has a group of people who support J space, and some of them would be offended by this, and I understand why, as the head of J space, she's concerned about that, and should be concerned about that. But I am also concerned about what the reality is going forward, and where Israel is going to be at if this government gets away with what it intends to get away with, and God forbid, should be reelected. I see, we

Maytal Kowalski
have, I see, yeah, we have some questions. So let's, I'm not going to say the rest of what I was going to say. I want to hear from other from other from other folks, and then maybe I'll add in, if we have time, but I see Dr weisfeld, you have your hand. You had your hand up first, so you can take yourself off mute. And then we'll go to Donald Schwartz afterwards,

Audience Member1
Thank you. I'm sort of a new person here in the J space arena and I am originally from a differing political movement, which is the Jewish bund because my my mother from the Warsaw ghetto was a Bundist and taught me that. So what we have in common, I believe, is that we both seek to achieve a Jewish national liberation movement which is basically revolutionary in terms of the Western concept and imposition of the nation state and in effect, Christian nation states. So I was a bit surprised to hear Maytal refer to Israel as a Jewish nation state, which I think is just sort of a sort of, not necessarily an ideological position, but I think that it is a wording which is problematic, because, as we all know, 20% of the Israeli citizen population is Palestinian, Arab, not Jewish. So you are, in effect, setting up a contradiction in that state as such by referring it to, it as a Jewish nation state, which is only a law that was passed by the Knesset at one point, which is not necessarily in conformity, you know, with the Declaration of Independence even, which is a different kind of a document. And so I wanted to point that out, and not necessarily as a criticism, but as a as a note as to the. A default position that is taking in reference to Israel. I'm sort of interested in in dialoguing with the J space now, which, up until now, I haven't been because I assumed that there would be, you know, less sympathy for the plight of the Palestinians than, evidently, there is presently. And also, I've been reading this book, Einstein on on Zionism, and I find that his you know, position is similar to that of a J space up until the point of the Biltmore conference, in which the state was proclaimed as the principal aim of the Zionist movement. And that was where the problems began, and that's why I refer to the comment about that Israel's a Jewish nation state as being problematic in and of itself. I think that what is meant is that Israel is a democratic state with a majority Jewish population. Yes, I recognize that, but there is nonetheless a substantial minority population, and we have to consider the Palestinian refugee population, which is rather substantial and can number on various estimations from five to 8 million people, which also contradicts the definition of Israel as a Jewish nation state, because it gates, you know, the any possibility of Palestinians who were residents there previously, before the Nakba, to be able to return to their to their lives and properties. So I just wanted to point that out.

Maytal Kowalski
So, yeah. So let me Yeah. So, so let's pause there for a second. Let me just respond to that, just to clarify a few things. First of all, I'm really happy that you're new and interested in having, you know, being in dialog with us, and that your background is as it is. I think one of the things that I love the most about our folks at J space is that we do have folks who are anti Zionist Bundists believe in a one state, you know, one state outcome, but who say, like, you know, they're they agree with all of our policies, or some of our policies, our interest in some of our policies, and they stick around as a result. And we have that also kind of to the to the political right of us as well. So, you know, these are, these are the most interesting conversations to me. I don't want to get I think that actually, you know, if you want to email me afterwards and we can have a longer conversation about it, I'm super interested to talk about that. We're not going to. I won't get into it too much, but I just do want to mention a couple things. The difference between Israel's Declaration of Independence and how it talks about itself as a Jewish state versus the nation state law that you reference is that the when we talk about Declaration of Independence, we're talking about a declaration that is a Jewish state with equal rights for all of its citizens. And I do believe that that can be accomplished, because what I'm talking about in a Jewish state, I'm not using the kind of like Western Christian ideals of Jewish in that it is only a religion. When I say a Jewish state, what I mean when I say a Jewish state is I mean Jews as a nation, Jews as a people, Jews as a culture, and that absolutely can coexist and live with all of the issues that you're that you're referencing, up until and including what will come of right of return for Palestinian refugees, but definitely for rights of minorities, be it Palestinian citizens of Israel, asylum seekers, refugees, etc. Because what we're talking about, what I'm talking about, when I say Jewish state, and how I think about us as Jews, is not only as a religion, and not even first and foremost as a religion, but as a nation and as a culture. And that is where our claim to sovereignty comes from. Is that Jews are the Jews are a nation. Now, what I think is missing when we talk about that is, I would say, and I hear it a little bit in your question. I hear it often when I have these conversations with folks, especially those kind of more to the to to the left of us is that we do need to have a bigger conversation about, when we say Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state, what we mean by that, because I think that it is inherent to a lot of, Let's say liberal Zionists, that we are not talking about a Jewish theocratic state that is ruled by halaha. We are talking about everyone assumes that we're all using the same language as a nation of Jews. But then we do have to differentiate between what happens when laws are passed and. Um, in that country that favor Jews as a religion, as opposed to a state that is for Jews as a nation, which therefore, then does not have to exclude others in the same way that I can, not in the same way, but in a similar way that someone who is not French of origin can still live in France and have equal rights. So, you know, just, just to clarify my position, I when I say that we are for a Jewish state, I am not talking about a Jewish state as it is defined in the nation state law. I am talking about a Jewish state as it is not as well defined, but probably needs to be in the Declaration of Independence.

Jon Allen
Yeah, and I would just add that, you know, we at J space consider that the 20% or the 22% of Arab Israelis deserve to have equal rights within Israel. Obviously, you know, the problem will eventually come if and when, and it won't be during any of our lifetimes when the 22% becomes 51% but you know, as with the Christian evangelicals who support Israel until the rupture, let's just make sure that All Arab Israelis have equal rights, have equal financing for their schools, have equal permitting rights for their homes, and are fully integrated, as the doctors and pharmacists and nurses are all all of them should be, and as we discussed in one of Our most recent conversations, the crime that is currently infecting the triangle where majority of Arab Israelis live has to be dealt with, should be being dealt with and so that they can live peacefully, etc. But thank you also, it's great to have you as part of the conversation, and

Maytal Kowalski
we do have some more questions. So if you do have more we are we're pretty accessible people. So if you have more thoughts on that, definitely we can have a conversation after this meeting. But I want to go to Donald, and then I want to go to Joey. So Donald, if you want to unmute yourself

Audience Member2
first Maytal And Jon, thank you for providing us with the double context that provides us with a framework within which we can have this discussion, both the Israeli occupied territory context and then the context of Your discussion within J space over what should be our changes. So a preliminary I have a very simple question, and I think it's primarily directed towards you, Jon, but Maytal, you may also have some response. You identified two targets for action, the Canadian government and the Israeli government or movement, whatever. There's a third one, though, that I think would significantly increase credibility and opportunity, that is a blockage in any type of action that might be advocated, and that is the established Jewish community. I think that J space, along with the other progressive organizations that are involved in this, would have much more credibility if we could do something about the position of CIJA. I don't read their stuff very much. I don't know whether they have changed their positions very much in response to what has been happening recently, but it would seem to me that sija is a key to understanding both the Canadian government position, and the extent to which progressive organizations might be able to move ahead with real action. So my question basically is, what do you know about CIJA's positions? Have they changed at all? And am I just talking in a naive or utopian way about changing their position?

Maytal Kowalski
I think we're both going to have something to say about this, but you start.

Jon Allen
Yeah, well, no, I mean, I wouldn't call your position naive. It's not, and it's a valid question. But my, my take is, no, CIJA has not changed its position one iota. CIJA did not criticize the threats to the independence of the judiciary when even reform rabbis came out on the street. And of course, we know what was happening in Israel. CIJA never spoke a word about what was happening in Gaza, and CIJA has not. Not said a word about what's happening in the West Bank. They unless they want to support Israel, they say no criticism of it, and they tend to focus their efforts on anti semitism. So I think, I think, and I'll let Maytal speak for herself, but I think what J space is trying to do is more advocate for the in front of the Canadian government to try and adopt policies that we think are important vis a vis the criticisms. I was just saying to Maytal before I had given a speech in Mexico, and one of the people said, "Well, why don't you ever talk about the good things about Israel, about about the protests, and about the fact that civil society stepped up and and helped the Israeli families that were attacked and helped the Israeli families that were evacuated the 60,000" and I said, you know, you're absolutely right, but, but we here at J space, we're an advocacy organization. We're not sort of Hasbara. We're not here to talk about the wonderful things about Israel, and there are many, but we're here to try and change the things that are not so good. And I don't think that many synagogues now, and I don't think CIJA or Federation are, frankly, interested in getting out of their of their cone and exposing themselves to criticism by criticizing what are, I mean, frankly, activities in Israel that are contrary to Jewish values, they're contrary to international law, they're contrary to our Government policy. So I don't think we're going to convince sija or anybody else, but maybe we'll be able to bring the Government of Canada along to where J space wants to go.

Maytal Kowalski
So and, yeah, that's actually a perfect point to jump off from, because, look, I don't want to, I, and I've evolved on this over time, but I don't really like to spend a whole lot of time worrying about criticizing, bashing other organizations. Part of being fiercely pro democracy is that all of these organizations have every right to exist. And in fact, part of what makes Canada and the Jewish community in Canada, not only beautiful and diverse, but strong and secure, is that there are, there is the freedom for so many of these organizations to exist. And my feeling is, let's all go out there and do the best job that we can, and may the best man or woman or person win. And I have to say, like, maybe this is just my ego talking, but like we are actually our voices are the ones that are winning right now. Like, if you and I don't want to say too much about what I hear when I'm on the hill or whatnot, but we do government advocacy as well, and I'm having conversations with MPs as well. Now look, had the Conservatives won the projected super majority of the House that it would, that we thought they were going to win up until, you know, Carney and the Liberals turned it around, I think we'd be singing a much different tune. But right now, while you know, Jon believes that the Canadian government should be doing much more, and I believe that the Canadian government should be doing more, maybe not as much as Jon wants, but but still should be doing more. In fact, the positions of the Canadian government are far more aligned with J space Canada than they are with CIJA and like, you know, read some, if you read some of the statements coming out from global affairs, from Carney, from, you know, the government, overall, joint statements, etc, the amount of times that people have sent them to me and been like, "did J space write this?" Because it's the same kind of language that we're using in terms of two states and the rights for Jews and Palestinians, and criticizing Hamas, but also criticizing the Netanyahu government. And I would say that when I'm in conversations with MPs, you know what they are asking for? And I think that this is a really good thing to kind of talk about what we can all do, is that what they say to me all the time is like the things that you are coming to me with, when I come to them with a policy paper, when I come to them with a policy request, they are saying to me, "yes, these are the things that we want to do. Where are the rest of your people asking for this?" And my my one thing that I would love to see from our progressive community is that we spend a lot less time being mad at CIJA or being mad at our Rabbi or being mad at the Federation, and instead. To actually mobilize ourselves, and that's why we, you know, offer petitions, and we want people to speak up. But really, you calling your MP and saying, like, I am a Jew in your riding, and we don't all believe what CIJA says or what B'nai Brith says. It does so much. It actually, really, they are they are desperate. They are hungry to hear voices, because they know that CIJA isn't the only voice, but they don't always hear who the other voices are. So like, please, you know, focus your efforts if you are frustrated at some of our more right wing organizations. Focus your efforts more on presenting a, you know, presenting an alternative to your Member of Parliament, to the Foreign Affairs Minister, etc. And I would also note too, like CJIA does have an outsized and not just CIJA, but like some of the more establishment organizations, they do when there's articles about anti semitism and things that are happening domestically, they do have much more of a voice in those pieces, because domestic anti semitism just isn't an issue at present that J space Canada deals with. We just don't have the capacity, or the this, the governmental connections on that side to be able to deal with those things. So, so when we get called for comments about anti semitism, we just decline the the media coverage, because it's not our area of expertise. But, but pay attention. When you are reading things about things happening in Israel-Palestine, you will see more and more often that voices like J space are featured. Um, you know, we share media links all the time. There's been many times where I'll be interviewed by CBC. We know Jon is on TV all the time, kind of bringing up these same talking points in Canadian media. So they actually are really receptive to our voices and want to hear our voices. And if you want our voices to be heard more in media, like same kind of thing. Write to CBC say, like I saw Jon Allen being interviewed, he was awesome. Interview him more. There is so much that that everyone else's voices can do. And I think if we shift our focus away from who we're mad at or who we think isn't doing a good job, and instead advocate to hear from the people who we think are doing a good job, I think that's going to help a lot more than trying to turn CIJA or at someone else just into something that they're not and are never going to be.

Jon Allen
Let's go to Joey. Thank you both for that.

Audience Member3
Thanks. I want to pick up on some of the things that Jon has said, but push them quite a bit further. First of all, and you didn't talk specifically about the forthcoming election, but I don't see how we can have any hope in the forthcoming election, the best that we're going to end up with is an inability of either right or left or center left and whatever to form a coalition, because with the exception, possible exception, of the Democrats, and they're equivocating none of the current opposition parties are prepared to countenance the idea of the Arab parties being in the coalition. Without that, we're going to have, you know, a 5050 split. And the rest of the Arab parties are 5555 Netanyahu will have a series of elections, as we did a few years back through, all of which Netanyahu will continue as prime minister, unless, God willing, he's in jail by then. And the current, what we currently see happening on the west bank will continue to happen over that period, essentially, of non governance. I start to wonder whether a time is approaching where the progressive position is going to have to start to shift to say the government and public opinion in Israel, at the moment, has made a two state solution impossible. And if there's going to be a single state, it's not going to be tolerated as an apartheid state. It's going to be equal political and civil rights across the board. And if Israeli citizens who are not of the hard right but who uniformly answer in polls that they're opposed to a stupid solution, start to have to think about what the alternatives might be. Possibly that creates some movement, and if it doesn't create movement, frankly, I think it is the only progressive position that if there's going to be one state, from the river to the sea, everybody has to have equal civil and political and human rights.

Jon Allen
Well, let me start Joey by saying I'm not quite as pessimistic as you are about the election, although. I know a lot of Israelis are scared stiff that Bibi is going to pull it out again. I think Democrat team has made it pretty clear that they are prepared to govern with Arab parties. Secondly, the Arab parties have chosen a joint list, which is hugely important, they at their best 115 seats. That's a lot of seats. We don't know how much Democrat team could win, but you know, it seems to be somewhere between nine and 14 or who knows what happens when we get to election day. I also think that Yair Lapid, Eisenkot, maybe not Lieberman, but others will have second thoughts about whether or not they're prepared to have the Arab parties in their coalition once they realize that if they don't, it's Bibi and Ben Gvir all over again, and the last anti Bibi coalition, of course, did have an Arab In the coalition, and unfortunately, they didn't have a significant enough majority to stay in power, but with significant seats from the Arabs and with a strengthened left labor merits party which did so badly in the last election, I continue to hope that they may win. As far as your position was concerned, it's, it's, it's kind of scary to even think about it. It's, it's, it's something that may well happen down the line. But I'm afraid that Israel is not going to give up its hold over Israel within the green line and its hold over the West Bank and parts of Gaza, depending on what has happened there, very easily, so eventually, maybe you'll end up with one state. But I can't see Israel with the largest army in the Middle East and nuclear weapons, you know, doing it in our lifetimes or or for a while it's yes, they'll become a pariah, perhaps. And who knows what Western governments will do if, if they take over and and really govern as apartheid state and admit that that's what they are, I don't know what what Western governments would do. But I don't, I don't think Israel is going to give up, and that's going to be an extremely difficult situation for Israelis, for diaspora Jews, who are going to have to take decisions about how they feel. And most importantly, and I keep emphasizing this, our children, our children are becoming disillusioned with the Israel that they are seeing in the papers. And while we continue to have real conflicts about whether we should criticize and how we should criticize and how far we should go, our kids aren't having those conversations. They're just tuning out. And that's very unfortunate.

Maytal Kowalski
So I'm just going to add and yes, Joey, thanks for, like, Thanks for really taking it down for us, for that last, last question, because, because we are coming to time, and I think we want to say a couple of things on on closing, but this has been such an enjoyable conversation, and I feel like we could keep talking for for hours. And in fact, you and I will be talking again this evening, so we will keep talking for hours. But, but, you know, the the one thing so so to build on what Jon is saying, I do think, first of all that, like, if we think that it's hard to advocate for a two state solution, and we think that it's hard for the progressive position to be a two state solution. It will be a million times harder to advocate for a one state with equal rights, given, as Jon said, like just that enormous inequality that exists between between Israel and the Palestinians. So we do have to kind of see the situation as it is, I think. And I've always said this, and this is like, I have no problem, you know, saying this, that one, one by national state with equal rights, is like, it's a it's a beautiful vision that sounds that sounds amazing, that sounds utopian, the reality of what would happen if there. Was one state right now is that we would be a state with extreme racial, ethnic, national inequity, and, and, and if we think that outside pressure is that it's really hard for outside pressure to push for a two state solution, outside pressure to push for equality in that one state would be a million times harder to push for. So we do really have to think not just about what the fantasy is of the thing that we want, but like what the actual situation is on the ground and what has been created over the past 57 or almost 80 years, depending on when you want to kind of start looking at this and just be really, really honest about what that is. The other thing that I think is that actually I think what our progress, I think what the real progressive position is, is to actually listen a little bit more to Israelis, because you are right that when you ask Israelis if they support a two state solution, the numbers are are depressingly low. But when you ask Israelis if they support a regional normalization agreement that includes a state of Palestine, the numbers are consistently in about the 60% so you can look at, I know that accord pulls this question regularly. Ron Gerlitz, the CEO of aChord, spoke at our conference this past year. You can hear him talk about it on our YouTube channel, and I know Mitvim, who does foreign policy, Israeli Institute for foreign policy. They're a think tank, and one of their speakers spoke two years ago as well. They also asked this question very frequently, and found the same thing. And so I think the question isn't one state or two states. The question is, when we talk about two states, what is the bias, and what are people, what's the baggage that people are bringing to it, and is it really about two states, or is it about that word and that language? And what we find is that it is the latter, because, again, when you ask about regional normalization agreement that includes recognition of a Palestinian state, Israelis are like, Oh, yes, that is actually, that is actually the thing, the thing that we want. And you know, there's the things that we have to push for within our Canadian Jewish community, and the way that we will talk about things within our Canadian Jewish community, but part of being part of being a progressive, and part of striving for equality and tolerance of all is being able to understand and hold empathy for for for other positions as well, and one of them is the Israeli position, which, like has fear around language of two states, but does not seemingly have that same fear around language of regional normalization. So you know, it could just be as simple as talking about the issue differently, and we see that that's what Yair Golan is trying to do. There's a lot of critique, and I have some as well of Golan in the diaspora. Of him, you know, not being bold enough on these issues, but he recognizes very well that he's speaking to an Israeli audience, and when he talks about he doesn't like people get upset because he doesn't say two state solution, but he says clear delineated borders with a state of Palestine and a state of Israel. So like, okay, he's not using the term, but he knows who he's speaking to, and he's trying to find the language to best bring them around. And I think that we should really support that, because end of the day, it is still going to be about Israelis and Palestinians making this work. It's not going to be about Canadians or Americans or anyone else making it work. Else making it work for them, which I would say is actually a pretty is kind of the antithesis of a progressive position. So I share your concerns about the election, but I also share Jon's opinion as to as to where that may go. And you know, I differ with you a little bit in terms of not necessarily what's going to happen, but how we approach it if and when it if and when it does happen. But I really appreciate, I really appreciate the question, and really appreciate this discussion. We are at the end. We're at four o'clock already. But Jon, did you have any final thoughts, or do you want to, do you want to bring up, like, a whole new can of worms? You want to start talking about Iran? No, okay, next week. Alright. So thank you everyone. So much for joining us. I hope we got to all the questions if we didn't info at J space canada.ca, is the best way to send us an email. And please do continue to engage with us on these topics and continue to listen to our to our policy chats, and if you have suggestions, or if there's like, other speakers besides the two of us, or if you'd like to hear us in conversation with another speaker, we'd love to hear it. It was really nice. It was nice to do this with the with a group of group of people. Great. Yeah.

Transcribed by https://otter.ai

*This transcript has been automatically generated and lightly edited. Some grammar, spelling, and syntax errors may appear.