+972 Magazine's Stories of the Week

Directly In Your Inbox

Analysis News
Visit our Hebrew site, "Local Call" , in partnership with Just Vision.

In this struggle for liberation, is 'solidarity' the right word?

From the standpoint of joint Palestinian-Israeli struggle, this Friday’s ‘solidarity Sheikh Jarrah’ gathering in Tel Aviv raises important questions about the direction of the Sheikh Jarrah movement and especially the use of the term ‘solidarity’. The movement is moving to the center of Israeli political protest and away from the joint character of the struggle which has typified it for the past year. In what way is “solidarity” achieved by moving what is labeled as a ‘joint Palestinian-Israeli struggle’ to Tel Aviv, the most ethnically pure Jewish places in the country? Why is the protest not moved to Nablus, Beit Umar, Iraq Burin, Nil’in or even Jaffa? In West Bank villages, Israelis can come and show ‘solidarity’ while in Tel Aviv, travel for Palestinians is something of a problem to say the least. Having a protest in Tel Aviv is not in itself a bad development. The problematic here is the term ‘solidarity’ when the protest is not moved Palestinian villages and only to Israeli cities. In our conflict, solidarity must be expressed in the places of occupation by invitation of those which are occupied.

Flyer for the Sheikh Jarrah Solidarity Protest in Tel Aviv

Flyer for the Sheikh Jarrah Solidarity gathering in Tel Aviv

The Sheikh Jarrah movement has become an Israeli demonstration which is using the term ‘solidarity’ for its own purposes of rallying new Israeli recruits. Again, this is not a bad development per se despite the obvious perversion of having an Israeli protest in the heart of occupied Palestinian land. Because of this perverse location, I think that Israelis are willing to show up in larger numbers complete with their own notions of cultural relativity. The psychological barriers that exist regarding entrance to the West Bank as a civilian are deep in the Israeli mind despite their relatively short period of gestation (even in the 1990’s Israelis were traveling in great numbers to the West Bank to hike and buy food, etc.). Thus, the effect of having a protest in Palestinian territory and even having some Palestinians involved provided a necessary spark to ignite something which could have been truly revolutionary in Israeli-Palestinian joint struggle. However, the desire to attract more Israelis has ultimately destroyed the joint Palestinian-Israeli element of movement. Protesting in Tel Aviv is the most profound manifestations of this sad development because of its isolation from Palestine and Palestinians.

The embrace for a two state solution by some aspects in the Sheikh Jarrah movement also raises a problematic linguistic questions about the use of the term ‘solidarity.’ By definition, the two state solution seeks a split between Israel and Palestine. It is the ultimate realization of the Zionist dream to have a state of only Jews. It is hard to see notions of solidarity in what is a clearly racist platform for a creation of an ethnically pure state. Officially, the Sheikh Jarrah movement has not supported a two state solution but the common chants of “Sheikh Jarrah is Palestine” leave little doubt as to the platform of the movement.

Israelis have the unique position (read privilege) to support the popular non-violent struggle of Palestinians in the West Bank against the occupation, settlements and separation wall. Palestinians have extended an open hand to Israelis to join their struggle which takes place only one hour from Tel Aviv. Many Israelis have answered this call but it has only been a drop in the sea compared with the number of people that harbour ‘left’ opinions in Israel about the occupation and prospects for co-existence through grassroots work. Sheikh Jarrah had the opportunity to energize these people with ‘left’ opinions and lead them in the direction of genuine solidarity with Palestinians struggling against the crippling occupation. Yet, the movement has made the decision to focus energy on exhibiting ‘solidarity’ in places where Palestinians by and large can’t enter. It comes down to one’s definition of solidarity.

Before you go...

A lot of work goes into creating articles like the one you just read. And while we don’t do this for the money, even our model of non-profit, independent journalism has bills to pay.

+972 Magazine is owned by our bloggers and journalists, who are driven by passion and dedication to the causes we cover. But we still need to pay for editing, photography, translation, web design and servers, legal services, and more.

As an independent journalism outlet we aren’t beholden to any outside interests. In order to safeguard that independence voice, we are proud to count you, our readers, as our most important supporters. If each of our readers becomes a supporter of our work, +972 Magazine will remain a strong, independent, and sustainable force helping drive the discourse on Israel/Palestine in the right direction.

Support independent journalism in Israel/Palestine Donate to +972 Magazine today
View article: AAA
Share article
Print article
  • LEAVE A COMMENT

    * Required

    COMMENTS

    1. this is one of the most cynical articles i’ve read for a long time. again, any excuse for JD to bash israeli jews – this time it’s the turn of the leftists who aren’t ‘left’ enough.

      “It is the ultimate realization of the Zionist dream to have a state of only Jews. It is hard to see notions of solidarity in what is a clearly racist platform for a creation of an ethnically pure state.”

      so israelis who want to see a palestinian state over the green line (ethnically pure arab, no jews), next to a state of israel with a jewish majority (and sizable non-jewish minority) are now ‘racist’…

      Reply to Comment
    2. Adam

      Beyond disagreeing with you about Zionism and who ‘belongs’ in Sheik Jarrah, I actually just think that your analysis is incorrect. From what I understand, Solidarity’s protest in Tel Aviv have been treated more as a way of spreading their message then of a genuine expression of their ideal form of political action. Which is why they haven’t only called for rallies and marches, but have also set up public information booths in Tel Aviv and other predominantly Jewish areas. What I don’t understand is how you view this as wrong? Is it only real solidarity work when their are thirty Jews? Does there have to be a ratio? You also didn’t elaborate at all on, or even explain, that the local council in East Jerusalem is involved in dictating the nature of the protest. If you really want to tackle this question, you need to be asking where the power and decision making happens, not only where the people and coming from and who is involved. Also, your point about Tel Aviv is basically void, as Solidarity is now doing organizing in Lod, Yaffo, in unrecognized Bedouin villages, etc.

      Reply to Comment