“There is no need for grandiose acts of heroism. If each person steps just a little beyond their comfort zone to promote justice, equality, and liberation, each needs to make only a small move – and together we can achieve significant change.”

“Persecution definitely paralyzes, but our silence is not static; it moves us, and here we have a role – even when it is not possible to speak or write, it is important to maintain a clear and sharp moral stance. Here lies our liberation even in these times.”

A Conversation on Liberation

As part of the 3rd Alumni Conference of the School for Peace, June 2024

As in every year, to support dialogue and provide expert perspectives from the field, we held a central event at our annual alumni conference featuring two speakers: Dr. Areen Hawari, a feminist activist and director of Mada al-Carmel – the Arab Center for Applied Social Research, and Israel Frey, an independent journalist. The panel was moderated by two staff members of the School for Peace: Moran Barir and Noor Abu Ras. We chose to hold the panel in a dynamic conversation format, rather than separate lectures, to reflect the process our team has gone through in recent months around the choice of the topic of liberation and the overall discourse following the war. We also wanted to reinforce the conference’s goal to open a conversation on liberation – not to manage a series of speeches on the topic or convey knowledge in a one-sided manner from expert to audience, but to truly create a space that explores the topic of liberation, our different perspectives on it, and allows for dwelling in the questions, a space that enables going through process.

In the first part of the panel, it was evident that before diving into the topic of liberation – a new topic in our bi-national discourse spaces – there was a need to address the older and more familiar concepts. Both Israel and Areen addressed liberation in contrast to other concepts: for example, Israel referred to the concept of “peace” as a worn-out term devoid of real content, and Areen referred to concepts like “coexistence” and “partnership” as terms that whitewash crimes and contribute to the preservation of asymmetrical power relations. Additionally, Areen highlighted the dissonance of holding a conference – an inherently celebratory event – during a time of genocide. She shared her hesitation about attending, connecting it to the silencing experienced by Palestinian citizens of Israel since the war, and the importance of speaking out in times of persecution and silencing of anti-war voices. After these clarifications and negotiations on other terms besides liberation, it seemed possible to delve deeper into the topic of liberation, ask questions about it, and ponder our role and responsibility in relation to it.

Areen spoke about the unique role of Palestinians from ’48 concerning liberation. A group that on one hand holds relative privileges as citizens of Israel and on the other hand undergoes persecution by the government of the state in which they are citizens. She talked about the importance of directing moral questions, sharpening them, and insisting on them as a moral and political compass, and as the minimal duty she has as a Palestinian citizen of Israel. Persecution definitely paralyzes, but our silence is not static; it moves us, and here we have a role – even when it is not possible to speak or write, it is important to maintain a clear and sharp moral stance. Here lies our liberation even in these times.

Additionally, Areen raised the absence of Palestinian leadership that could create some unity in the struggle and wondered, “What is the Palestinian voice right now?” This question reflects the political situation of the Palestinian community in Israel, which has been suffering for many years from social and political problems such as crime and house demolitions, and how the Israeli government repeatedly eliminates any organizational capacity. One of the thoughts that arose from this discussion is that the need for organization is a basic need to achieve national liberation. Political and social organizing is essential not only for national liberation but also for creating a strong and cohesive civil society that can face its internal and external challenges.

Israel talked about the role of the media in reporting reality with integrity and responsibility. Currently, the Israeli media is a mouthpiece for the establishment, following the populist discourse instead of leading a critical discussion. He sees the role of the Israeli media differently and embodies it himself – to reflect the reality so that Jewish Israelis can hear about the consequences of the actions they are responsible for on the Palestinians. He emphasized the ability of social media to create a different discourse, a space he uses as a journalist, and even though social media can have negative influences, he uses it to spread his materials. Israel believes that just as we see negative changes in reality in a short time – there will also be positive changes in a short time, and for that, we need to spread our vision uncompromisingly, not compromise on our language and messages, not “Jewish and democratic,” not “fighter in Gaza by day and protester in Kaplan at night,” but demand absolute equality, justice, and liberation for all. Israel concluded by saying that the act of change is within reach – there is no need for grandiose acts of heroism, if each person steps just a little beyond their comfort zone to promote justice, equality, and liberation, each needs to make only a small move – and together we can achieve significant change.

In between, questions were asked by the audience that sparked thoughts in all of us and continued to gain depth in the dialogue groups after the panel, such as: what are the costs we pay when we work to change reality under such conditions, and what is the difference between the costs paid by Jews and Palestinians; the dilemma of social media as an important source of knowledge and influence on one hand, but with the potential to spread lies and propaganda on the other; the question of languages – Arabic and Hebrew – concerning liberation: how does our own use of languages embody oppression or liberation?; the dilemma of working with the Israeli public – how to balance between reaching out to the broader audience with our messages and changing the language to meet them where they are, versus the importance of maintaining political clarity and clear stances; and perhaps the most complex question of all – whether Hamas’ action on October 7th is a step towards liberation and how to reconcile it with a vision of non-violence?

__