Against genocide: A conversation with Ofer Cassif

This is a recording of our webinar from March 22 with Dr. Cassif. Our hosts included Rabbi Lynn Gottlieb, Ela Gandhi, Michael Nagler and Mubarak Awad.

—

Stephanie: So, I just want to welcome everybody. I’m Stephanie Van Hook. I’m the executive director of the Metta Center for Nonviolence. This is Michael Nagler, the president of the Metta Center, and my teammate.

I’m the host of a radio show called Nonviolence Radio. I’m usually not seen on screen. So going from radio to television and webinars, is always a little bit strange for me.

So, the Metta Center exists – Ela’s here. Welcome, Ela. So, the Metta Center exists to help people practice nonviolence more safely and more effectively. We have a host of programs, including our radio show Nonviolence Radio.

You can find all of our programs at MettaCenter.org. And I want to thank our co-sponsors of this event, Waging Nonviolence. They are the best news source for nonviolence in the world. Very pleased to have their support. When we first had the opportunity to interview Dr. Cassif back in mid-October, Waging Nonviolence helped us immediately publish that on their website to help reach more people.

And many of you are here because of Waging Nonviolence, so thank you very much to Eric and Bryan and your team over there.

And I also want to give a shout-out to our friends at Meta Peace Team, who also helped to publicize this event rather widely, and on last-minute notice. So, thank you so much to our friends who are doing unarmed security and protection work and conflict de-escalation work with Meta Peace Team. They often have a presence in Israel, Palestine as well, and in the West Bank.

So, with that, I’d like to pass it over to our friend, Rabbi Lynn Gottlieb, and I will give you a fuller introduction when it’s time for your questions. But I’m just really grateful for you, Rabbi Lynn, and all of your support in helping get this event going. So, over to you, my friend.

Rabbi Lynn: Thank you and greetings to everyone who is here for this important conversation. I was asked to reflect on what it means to have a safe conversation, and that immediately broke my heart, because there is no safety in Gaza. And so, I, I feel in this moment willing to surrender that safety in order – my own emotional safety, in order to be fully present to this conversation.

And I’d like to begin just by mentioning saying the words of Palestinian poet Hind Joudah, who wrote this poem in the midst of the devastation of Gaza.

“What does it mean to be a poet in wartime? It means that you apologize. You apologize excessively to the burned-out trees, to the birds without nests, to the flattened houses, to the long cracks in the road, midsection, to the children, pallid in death and before it, and to the face of every grieving or murdered mother or father.”

This is the spirit in which we’re holding this conversation. And it has become a custom in many circles throughout Turtle Island, which is the Indigenous name of the United States, which is the colonial, one of the colonial powers that are driving this conflict. That we offer – we’ve been asked to offer, by our Indigenous relatives, land acknowledgment. And this is a land acknowledgment that I wrote in community with other folks over the years, including Indigenous activists.

“We, the colonial settlers living as guests upon Huichin territory, in my case, acknowledge the ongoing harms of genocide, colonization, and patriarchy. We walk this pilgrimage, which will be tomorrow, a Gaza interfaith ceasefire pilgrimage that has 1000 people signed up. We walk this pilgrimage to repair these harms and rematriate the land. In the spirit of the Chochenyo word for ‘in one place living together’, we offer this conversation and this pilgrimage as part of our reparations to return land to Indigenous people, including Palestinians, and heal the earth.

“We pledge to turn away from actions that lead to mass expulsion, land theft, environmental devastation, unjust extraction of resources, the destruction of sacred sites, and genocide. We have harmed. We have betrayed our spiritual values. We acknowledge these harms and pledge our devotion to creating a culture of repair. I hope that these words bring us into this circle of communities that wish to create cultures of repair.” Thank you.

Mubarak Awad: Thank you.

Stephanie: Thank you.

Well, I want to turn now to Dr. Cassif. He’s an Israeli politician. He’s represented the Hadash in the Knesset since April 2019. Back in February, they tried to remove him for his views on peace and security, being those of mutual peace and mutual security, for Israelis and Palestinians. And I just thank you so much, Dr. Cassif, for being here today. I want to thank you so much for your courage, –

Dr. Cassif: Thank you.

Stephanie: – and your witness, and in your perseverance and within the Knesset for human rights.

Dr. Cassif: Thank you.

Stephanie: How about you get us started and talk a little bit about your background, how you got involved in the Knesset, where you’re – where you’re coming from, and then a little bit about your impeachment trial.

Dr. Cassif: Well, first of all, thank you. Thank you, Rabbi Gottlieb, for what you said and quoted. Thank you all for having me.

And to be brief, because it’s quite a long story, and I’m afraid we don’t have the time. We cannot afford the whole story. So, my parents say that since they remember me before I remember myself, I was quite allergic to injustices.

So where – is this quotation from my mother, this is not self – you know, self-flattering, or something like that.

Also, it does go with me, since I remember I said I was involved here or there, in different struggles. Worker struggles, women struggles, and the Palestinian struggle, etc., etc. And when I just got first to the university, the first degree at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, so I began to be an activist.

I was, more or less, I was in a youth movement, you know, a socialist youth movement. But that’s too long to specify.

Metta Center Video: “Conversation with Dr. Ofer Cassif”

So, I just go ahead and refer to where and when I found myself in Hadash, which is based on the Communist Party of Israel. And I joined it in the beginning of 1988 when the First Intifada, the Palestinian uprising, had just begun. I think it was two or three weeks old, and I was sent by the military to serve in Gaza. See the irony? And I refused.

So, I was the first person to be imprisoned for refusing to serve in the military during the First Intifada. There were people who refused before me, but not in the Intifada. So, I emphasized that I was the first objector was imprisoned in the First Intifada.

And thereafter I was imprisoned another three times. So altogether I spent four terms in military prison, Israeli, for the same crime as it were, for refusing to oppress the Palestinians, to take part in the oppression and occupation of the Palestinians.

And then I joined the Communist Party and Hadash, and it’s 36 now since I joined the party. And I was afterwards a professor at the university up till 2019. I mean, I finished my PhD in England and post-doc in the States, etc. And then when I came back to Israel I also joined, again, to the Hadash and the Communist Party in which I am a member until now.

And in 2019, I was elected in our internal elections to be number three in our list. And ever since, I’m in the Knesset, although not everybody’s happy about it, as you know. Surprise, surprise.

So, just a few words, if I have the time, about the impeachment. In 2016, the Knesset, at the Israeli parliament, enacted a law which is obviously anti-democratic, to say the least. Which allows that a majority of 90 members of Knesset out of 120 that there are all together to impeach another member of the Knesset.

So, this is a clear-cut example of tyranny of the majority. And obviously, it cannot, you know, it cannot be reconciled with basic principles of democracy. In my view, this law and democracy are mutually exclusive by definition.

And it was never used, at least not the whole process, to be – again, I’ll try to be very short – but the process in impeaching a member of the Knesset by other members of the Knesset consists of three main components or elements or stages.

First, it must be collected at least 70 signatures of members of the Knesset to begin a motion. Once the signatures are achieved, then there is a discussion and a vote in the House Committee. If 75% in the House Committee vote for the impeachment, it goes to the plenum, and there there’s a need, as I said before, for 90 out of 120.

So, I joined a petition that was initiated by some Israeli activists in support of South African appeal to the International Court of Justice in The Hague. And then, obviously, what we are – the petition said two basic things. First, that the ongoing in Gaza should be investigated under the suspicion of genocide. And secondly, that the war should be stopped because the ICJ has the authority to order to stop the war.

And obviously that was very important for us in order to save lives, primarily of those who are systematically butchered on a daily basis, which is the Palestinians in Gaza. Mostly innocent civilians. We all know that at least 75% of the victims in Gaza are innocent civilians, mostly children. We know for sure that out of a more or less, 35,000 who have been killed, as we know, and we know that the death toll is going to rise, unfortunately. But up to now, we know more or less about 35,000, at least 15,000 of them are children.

So, since the government of Israel is not interested in stopping the bloodshed, to say the least, we found ourselves obliged, morally speaking, to appeal to the authority, to the internationally recognized authority, or – recognized by the state of Israel, by the way, as well – which is the ICJ.

I was accused by a member of the Knesset in supporting armed struggle against Israel because I signed this petition. So, see, the Orwellian, the irony of this situation because I signed the petition against violence, I was accused in supporting violence. It is as ridiculous as it sounds. And this is why I call it Orwellian, after George Orwell, of course.

So, they said because in order to impeach a member [notification] of the Knesset before, there are only two basis that they that such a motion can be done in the first place. Either supporting racism or supporting armed struggle against Israel. And so, I was accused in supporting the armed struggle against Israel and even supporting Hamas, which is total nonsense, totally nonsense, you know.

So, eventually they got the signatures. There was a motion in the House Committee in which almost unanimously there was a vote against me. But in the plenum, they got 86 votes against me. They needed 90. So, it failed. I must say that the fact that out of 120, 86 including people, members of the Knesset, were regarded as – not as rightist, but as center, you know, as Democrats or liberals, the fact that they voted some of them voted to impeach me with no reason, with no basis, It was a total and clear unlawful vote that should bother us, should bother us very much so.

Because it shows how much the public opinion in the Israeli society in general, and within the parliament in particular, radically moved to the fascist edge. And it’s still moving. So, it’s very dangerous. I’ll finish with that. I could give extra, but I don’t think you’re interested now.

Stephanie: Thank you, so much. We’re going to continue this conversation with you through our panelists. I’d like to invite Mubarak Awad to converse.

Mubarak helped launch the First Intifada, and he was exiled from Jerusalem by the Israeli government in 1988. He founded the Palestinian Center for the Study of Nonviolence. He’s the founder of the National Youth Advocate Program, and he’s founder and current president of Nonviolence International. Thank you, Mubarak, for joining us in this conversation. And we invite your participation. Thank you.

Mubarak Awad: Thank you. And thank you, Dr. Cassif, for a great struggle that you have within yourself and also with your colleagues.

Dr. Cassif: Thanks.

Mubarak Awad: I also have been so much surprised that even you got 70 votes out of 90. That’s too much. That means not only the left, or in Israeli society, are moving way, way to the right. And that is so much dangerous because many times Israelis say we have nobody to speak with, with the Palestinians. And now it’s turn around. Now it looks like we, as Palestinians, we see that there is nobody to speak with in peace within the Israeli Knesset.

And we are seeing that further and further, not only by politicians, by the public opinion, their vote and the about they are interested in finishing Hamas and following Netanyahu and his group to destroy Hamas and to continue. Even all the countries in the world telling Israel don’t, don’t, don’t. And Israel said to the whole world, “Go to hell, we are going to do what we want, and we are not even listening to you or having advice from you.”

And that becomes a very dangerous thing, not only for the Palestinian, but for the whole world. And the thought is that – the dilemma – what a country can do, what the United States can do, what Germany, France, Europe, Britain, and everybody, when a country like Israel decided, “No, we don’t want to listen to you, we don’t want to listen to the UN, we don’t want to listen to the International Law of Justice, and we want to do what we want to do.”

And then still we’re calling our self democracy. And is it? Israel got rid of the idea that Israeli society is a democracy or not? Is it just voting for a somebody who’s a prime minister like Netanyahu again and again? Is that a Democratic concept? And it’s dangerous. I felt so dangerous on that because also in Germany, Hitler was voted by the people and it’s a democratic thing.

So, it makes you think, what is democracy at this time and how we have to really think of democracy and what is the essence of humanity and how many people have to die, and still calling it a democracy or acceptable. And that’s not acceptable in my book at all. And, you know, when a child dies, the one child is too many.

And now we are looking at so many children, so many women, and the destruction is overwhelming. That the people in Israel are not seeing and still feel that destruction should continue. And there’s the tough part. And where the idea that you as a person stood firm and hard, and that is very courageous. You know, I know how Israel could destroy your name, could destroy with you all your family, could make life miserable for you. Because I went through a similar thing that you have.

Even the Israeli will have a casket in the street with my name. This is where my future is. And even I decided, no, I have to go to the Supreme Court and challenge the Israelis in the Supreme Court. And I find difficulty to challenge the Israelis when it’s – the judges there at that time, they didn’t run with favor to any person who is a Palestinian in a court.

I just went into a trap there, knowing that I would be still deported. Whatever the Supreme Court doesn’t have the will to come against the government. And you did that. So that is a very encouragement for me to hear you and to meet you. And God bless you.

Dr. Cassif: Thank you so very much. It’s very, it’s very moving what you said. I really appreciate that.

Stephanie: Would you like to follow up and comment on anything that Mubarak has offered here? Such as what is democracy look like, or –

Dr. Cassif: Are you asking me?

Okay. Yes. First of all, I don’t know if Mubarak heard me. I really appreciate what he said. It’s heart-warming. And I’m honored to hear such, you know, encouraging and good words from him. So, I really appreciate that. Thank you so much, Mubarak.

Mubarak Awad: Thank you.

Dr. Cassif: Look, I think in my view, the basis value in democracy is equality. I mean, it’s very even easy to prove that. You know, if I may, if I have the time.

Because, of course, you know, my PhD, and may actually I may say, my profession, is mainly political philosophy. So, I did, you know, dwell quite a lot on this issue. And my PhD is on democracy, by the way, specifically the philosophy of democracy.

So, I think that there are many debates and disagreements between different Democrats as to the very concept of democracy. What is it, exactly? What is the right balance between, for instance, equality and liberty? Because some argue that those two are in tension.

So just a second. Something [unintelligible]

I think it’s very easy to prove that modern democracy is based on the value of equality. How should we prove that? We have to ask ourselves, one of the main principles of democracy, even in its very minimal procedural perception, is the majority rule.

Why majority rule? With all, of course, limitations, because democracy, especially modern one, cannot stick to a majority rule that oppresses the minority or the individual. Of course, there are many limitations and checks and balances, as it’s normally called in the States.

But still, why the principle of majority rule exists? Because quantity should decide who is going to be in power, for instance. Why quantity? Because there’s no difference between the voters as far as quality is concerned. It was different, it – had it been different.

So quality, quality, not quantity but quality would have dictated the decisions. The only reason that quantity dictates a decision is because there is a sometimes implicit assumption that there’s no qualitative distinction or differences between individual human beings. In other words, we are equal. That’s the basis of democracy. Now, I’m saying this very superficially, let’s say, an introduction, because Israel was never a real democracy. It was never a real democracy. Since day one, it couldn’t. It couldn’t because it was never based on equality.

Even if I ignore, which I cannot, but just for the sake of argument, even if I ignore the crimes of the Nakba, the total destruction of the Palestinian people, the deportation, the massacres, etc., after the State of Israel was established, there was also, always, entrenched in to the system, Jewish supremacy. How can you refer to that as a democracy? That cannot be.

In our struggle, you know, my party specifically, since day one, we are the only party who was always been, you know, a partnership of Jews and Palestinians. In the Knesset as well. It’s a value for us, a supreme value. This partnership, this is brother and sisterhood.

So, we have been struggling all those 76 years to turn Israel into a real democracy, which means equality, real equality, profound equality. No supremacy to neither of the people there. Neither Jews nor Palestinians nor others. But since 1967, and the occupation of the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem, the situation has been in a continuous deterioration and escalation [ringing]. Because now it’s not only that there’s no equality as I defined it before. [ringing]

Now, there’s literally millions of people, nowadays, it’s 50% between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean, 50% of the people have no basic rights. Before we talk about the carnage that goes on in Gaza, the ethnic cleansing that goes on in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, etc., etc. Before we even mention that, basically, there are no basic rights to the Palestinian people, who live under the Israeli occupation. Not only to vote or be elected, but freedom of movement, freedom of expression.

Do you know, for instance, that there are Palestinian people who live in the West Bank under military rule for almost 60 years now? They live under military rule, which means they are living – they’ve been living under a military system and not a civic one. They go to military courts, normally, when they face trial. They are not allowed to demonstrate.

You know that according to the law, the military law, that Palestinians are subject to in the West Bank, if a Palestinian goes out to demonstrate peacefully in nonviolent demonstration, according to the law, one may be charged and sentenced to ten years in prison. What kind of democracy is that? And now, nowadays, in the last five months or more, we’ve been facing this terrible ongoing carnage in Gaza and destruction and starvation.

This is something that I must say that I’m in shock, to say the least, that the international community is silent. Totally silent. Sometimes, you know, they throw out to the air some condemnation, but they don’t do anything. And people are continuously killed in Gaza. I saw pictures of babies starving to death. Pictures that remind us of pictures from other places in the past. That’s unbearable. Unbearable.

And I put the blame first and foremost, of course, on the fanatics in Israel. And among the Palestinians, I have no sympathy for the people of Hamas, I must say. The carnage they carried out is unacceptable, too. So, I put the blame first and foremost on the fanatics. On the Israeli government, which consists of full-fledged fascists. But also on the intellectual community, and especially the so-called liberal democracies that don’t do anything. But just hope they will shortly, because otherwise this area is going to erupt even more.

Stephanie: Mubarak, would you like to follow up on that?

Mubarak Awad: That’s very much of an open discussion because if democracy is being silenced in most of the countries, what other system should we have, or how could we bring a system that is a just system? Is it the military? Is it a dictatorship? We don’t have – we were looking so much about the countries that we see here as a country that we could follow or everybody could use the same ideology from that country. We don’t have a country to follow.

Are we looking at something coming out of space or out of somewhere else that we say, “Hey, here is a just system, let’s do it.” And why – I’m not talking about the Israeli-Palestinian issue, why the whole world is so much confused and so much into either money and money and money, getting money rather than putting the effort in social justice. People, children, health. You know [sneeze], to cure the cancer rather than having military elements in every country. I mean, we have difficulties to look at. We have to start thinking of a better future for everybody.

And to have a better future, everybody, I think the border is something that has to be taken away from every country. No borders. I don’t believe in borders. To give the right for anybody to go anyplace because our world is so small, and we are limiting itself to only Chinese, Americans, you know, Palestinians. No. It’s we have to start looking at a different way of life, everybody, that we are equal. And that, I think, it will come. It will need a lot of work, but it will come. Thank you.

Stephanie: Dr. Cassif, would you like to respond?

Dr. Cassif: No, I totally agree. It reminds me of the famous song by John Lennon, you know, “Imagine.” Imagine there are no countries. So I totally endorse that. I don’t think it’s realistic nowadays. But as an idea, I totally embrace it.

Stephanie: Well, I’d like to, I’d like to turn next to Ela Gandhi. She’s joining us all the way from South Africa today. She’s a social worker, political activist in South Africa. She’s a founding member of the Natal Organization of Women, and served two terms in the South African parliament representing the African National Congress, ANC. She’s an honorary chairperson of the Gandhi Development Trust, and Phoenix Settlement Trust, and co-president of Religions for Peace International. And she’s also a very beloved member of the Board of directors of the Metta Center for Nonviolence.

Ela, thank you so much for joining us today. We’d love to have you now bring your perspectives and share a conversation with Dr. Cassif.

Ela Gandhi: Thank you so much. And thank you, Dr. Cassif, and Dr. Awad. Very interesting discussion.

I just want to turn to the South African experience. And to say, you know, the turning point for South Africa was when African countries became free, you know, our neighboring country. And when the British prime minister came to South Africa and, you know, they say it was the Wind of Change, Winds of Change speech, that he made in our parliament.

And that was like the turning point to when people began to think that some changes have to be brought about because that is what Mr. Macmillan, I think, was here. And he said in his speech that this change is inevitable.

Now, at this stage, is there any pressure? That’s my first question. Is there any pressure on the Israeli government to bring about change? Or are there just very powerful, and there’s no pressure for them to bring about change?

Dr. Cassif: Shall I?

Stephanie: Please.

Dr. Cassif: Okay. Thank you. First of all, thank you. And then nice meeting you, too. The current government, the current government of Israel, unfortunately, I don’t have any hope from the elements that there are in this government.

First of all, the vast majority, unfortunately, I can say that with pain, you know, I do not say that in order to mock them. I say that in real pain. We are talking a very about a very brutal government, and individuals within the government. Some of them are fanatics, bigots, who have no sense of human respect. Who have no sense, you know, sensitivity to human life.

It’s not my interpretation, they actually said that. You know, just to give you two examples – one a minister in the government, the finance ministry, perhaps, you know, his name, it’s Bezalel Smotrich. He actually said about the Israeli hostages who are dying there in Gaza, in addition to the Palestinians who are killed on a daily basis that we have mentioned before.

He said that they are not the most important thing. And he’s not the only one, because there’s this strong element within the Israeli government that believes that the role of the government is actually to bring upon us in kind of Armageddon. To bring upon us a huge war and bloodshed that, according to their, I would say lunatic beliefs, insane beliefs, will bring the Messiah and the third Jewish temple. They truly believe.

They say that Israel should not only kill the people, the Palestinians in – or deport the Palestinians in Gaza, but they argue – they had a huge conference a few months ago, two or three months ago in Jerusalem, in which they actually argued that the Israeli should reestablish the Jewish settlements in Gaza on the wreckage of Gaza.

And they don’t really care about the security of anyone. Obviously not of the Palestinians, but not even of the Israelis. So, unfortunately – and Netanyahu is very – first of all, he is a psychopath. I said that very clearly. I said it a few times in the different international and local media. In my view, Netanyahu is a psychopath.

He doesn’t care about the lives and well-being of anyone but himself. And because of that, he doesn’t care that thousands and thousands of Palestinians have been killed. He doesn’t care that the hostages, the Israeli hostages, are dying, and some of them, I guess, are already dead. He doesn’t care even about the lives of the Israeli soldiers. So, unfortunately, there’s no hope in his government.

And by the way, Benjamin Gantz and others who joined the government, their party was considered to be in the center, not a rightist one. It is arguably, of course, but they claim so. They said when they joined the government that they do so in order to relax the fanatics. But it seems that the other way round happened. Instead of stopping the bigots, the bigots are stopping them.

So, we see an escalation. I just watched the news, you know, a couple of hours ago, and Netanyahu said that Israel is planning to invade Rafah with or without the American support. That’s crazy. Now, in that sense, I must say that I’m quite pessimistic. But in the short run. I am optimistic in the long run. And I am optimistic in the long run for two reasons.

First of all, my comrades and I, we continue to raise our voice. We’ll never shut up. We’ll never give up. We’ll continue to raise our voice, and it penetrates. I know that this voice, although we are a minority, even I might say a persecuted minority, sometimes brutally and violently persecuted. But the voice is strong and loud, and it penetrates into the public at large. This is one reason why I’m optimistic. 

And by the way, that gives me the wind or the power to continue with all the difficulties. Because I’m – first of all, I’m totally sure and believe that this is the right way. But secondly, I believe that we are making a change slowly, gradually, apparently too slowly, but still, we are making a change.

And the second reason that I am optimistic is that you can already see the shift in the public opinion. You can see that the more and more people go out to the streets to demonstrate against the government, calling to impeach the whole government, and to raise their voice against the assault on Gaza, against the war. And it comes also more and more from families of the hostages. So, I believe that. But one thing is missing, and this is a pressure from the world.

We need to join forces and to – so to speak, to make a kind of a division of labor. Our labor is primarily to make the efforts to change the public opinion in Israel. And by that, changing the structure of the Knesset, the government, etc., and to move forward towards peace. And I’m not talking just about, you know, ending this terrible carnage in Gaza, terrible war. I’m talking about ending the occupation, reaching a Palestinian state. So, establishing a Palestinian independent state, so the Palestinian people is at last free.

And of course, to move forward to good neighborhood, to be good neighbors. That’s the only thing that can solve those problems we are dealing with now.

So this is our role to do that here in our society. But we do need your help. We do need the help of the international community. As long as, for instance, the United States vetoes decisions to stop the war in the Security Council, just to take one example, and I know that today the veto was casted by China and Russia.

So, of course, the United States is not the only one. But that’s what I’m saying, the international community. We need your assistance to put an end to this terrible bloodshed and to reach a just peace. Because that’s the only way that the peoples of this land which will thrive. And we can do that, but only if we do that together. We cannot succeed by ourselves. Thank you.

Stephanie: Thank you very much. Ela, would you like to respond to that?

Ela Gandhi: Yes, I would. I just would like to say that I agree with you fully, that the international community needs to do much more. Now, again, taking the example of South Africa, you know, we had anti-apartheid committees in almost every country of the world. And we didn’t only depend on governments.

So, it wasn’t – there were some governments that were, you know, sympathetic with our cause. But not all governments. But we still went around and organized the people. People in other countries. And those people put pressure on their governments as well as on our government by boycotting the sports, cultural boycott, boycott of – economic boycott. You know, any goods that come from the country were boycotted, obviously. And that was done by the people themselves.

They forged a broad unity. And, you know, and because of that unity in their country, they were able to pull off these kinds of boycotts. So, it was the anti-apartheid movement that was a great help for South Africa.

Dr. Cassif: Sure. I know.

Ela Gandhi: I know that our country is going to have a conference. I think it’s 9th of May, or it’s in the first week of May or so. That we intend to have a conference where we are inviting the international community, all our anti-apartheid organizations. We are inviting them to now link in solidarity with the Palestinian people.

But I think at the same time, it is important to have a unity within the Palestinians as well. They need to forge a strong unity, have a person like we had Nelson Mandela inside the country, and we had Oliver Tambo who was outside the country.

These were two people who were recognized by everyone. There was no division, you know, everyone agreed with them. And so, that broad unity has to be forged within the country and also in exile outside the country. So, two things, the anti-apartheid movement and the leadership. You know, a united – one person that people can say this is our leader.

It’s a very important aspect because unless you have that, you are going to have internal fighting. And once we are divided, it’s easy for the others to come in. And so, you know, we shouldn’t be divided. We should be very much united. So, I just want to throw those two things out for discussion.

Dr. Cassif: First of all, yes, I agree with you. Classically, any colonial or oppressive regime uses the infamous divide-and-rule policy, in order to undermine and to fail, just struggle of oppressed peoples.

So, in South Africa, it was, you know, Botha and later on [unintelligible] afterwards Botha and others when they tried, of course, to raise Chief Buthelezi, in order to undermine the ANC. And of course, in the end of the ‘80s, to some extent and in some areas, as you know better than me, of course the violent clashes between in [unintelligible] and the ANC, was on the rise.

This was in the service of the oppressive apartheid regime. Luckily, Nelson Mandela was accepted enough, internationally speaking, and of course nationally speaking, to exceed those cleavages. And we know that eventually he succeeded. And I, of course, salute Mandela and the ANC. And I personally many times, by the way, in the plenum with the Knesset in our parliament, I quoted Joe Slovo from his – he’s almost a character to imitate, you know. Joe Slovo, for me, is a hero. And I mentioned him quite a lot in the Knesset.  Or Chris Hani, for instance.

So, anyway, it is a terrible situation here that, again the divide-and-rule, between Hamas and the Fatah within the Palestinian people, is created and encouraged by the Israeli government and especially by Netanyahu. I mean, if I go back to the really terrible carnage that Hamas did on October 7, in which, by the way, I personally lost some friends were killed by Hamas. People who were my partners in the struggle, some of them. And were killed by Hamas on October 7.

So, when I go back to that, we put the responsibility, to a great extent of Netanyahu. Because Netanyahu and his governments, in plural, not only this government, governments in the last, more or less, 15 years, continuously, but carried out this divide-and-rule policy, consciously, strengthened Hamas and weakened the Palestinian Authority. And by the way, Netanyahu said that explicitly that he was interested in that.

In 2019, Netanyahu said that anyone who opposes a Palestinian state, like he does, must weaken the Palestinian Authority and strengthen Hamas. Even Smotrich said in 2015, and I quote, really, word-by-word, that the Palestinian Authority was a burden and the Hamas was an asset. Now, why did they say that?

First because they wanted this divide-and-rule, once they can say to the public in Israel and internationally as well, look, we want to speak with the Palestinian leadership, but there is no Palestinian leadership. There is the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank. There is a Hamas fanatical organization in Gaza. Who are we going to speak with?

They manipulated the situation and created the situation in order to avoid any way of negotiations towards a liberation. Now, it’s not only words, Netanyahu literally, and it’s not a secret everybody knows about it in Israel and everywhere, that throughout the years, Netanyahu actually transferred millions of dollars from Qatar to Hamas.

This money was used by Hamas to dig those underground tunnels to attack Israel like they did on October 7. So as far as divide-and-rule is concerned, as far as the divisions within the Palestinian people, and the tragic, disastrous cleavage within the Palestinian people is concerned, we still – the Palestinians, I mean, still haven’t overcome this cleavage. And they put the blame on Israel, on the Israeli governments.

This is – and I agree with you, this should be – we should – this should be overcome. In order to overcome it, there is, in my view, perhaps others may disagree with me, I’m just speaking of my view. I think there is a Palestinian Nelson Mandela. And I’m talking about Marwan Barghouti. Marwan Barghouti is a Palestinian Nelson Mandela.

He’s been, I think now, 21 years already in Israeli prison. Last week, he was beaten hardly in prison by Israeli police. He’s the one who can lead the Palestinian people into a unity, a peaceful unity. Peaceful unity and lead the Palestinians to liberation. And it’s not a coincidence that the government of Israel wants him to stay in prison. I’ll finish one sentence, because I know that I spoke too much. Sorry, I apologize.

That’s something like, I think it was about 15 or 20 years ago. I don’t remember exactly, I’m sorry. There was a letter that Marwan Barghouti was one of its organizers, of prisoners, political Palestinian political prisoners in Israeli prisons from different factions, movements, and parties. From Islamic Jihad, Fatah, democratic formed, etc., etc. And they supported this letter in which they said that they accept the idea of a two-state solution. And they were going to refrain from the violent struggle, had there was an agreement with Israel to establish a Palestinian independent state in the territories that Israel occupied in 1967.

Marwan Barghouti was one, probably the leader of this project. The one who led the objection to this project was Yahya Sinwar, now the leader of Hamas. When the government of Israel in general, Netanyahu in particular, had to decide which Palestinian prisoners were going to be released to swap with this soldier, Gilad Shalit, if you remember, that was five years in the hands of Hamas, Netanyahu preferred to release Sinwar and not Marwan Barghouti.

He preferred to release the one who opposed the peace project and to keep in prison, the one who led the peace initiative. And I think that answers what you said.

Stephanie: Thank you. Ela, I will bring you and Mubarak back in a second. But I’d like to switch over now to our friend, Rabbi Lynn Gottlieb, to have some time to ask questions before she needs to leave.

She’s one of the first women to become a rabbi in Jewish history, and is a pioneer Jewish feminist, human rights activist, writer, visual artist, ceremonialist, community educator, and master storyteller. She currently serves as a board chair of Interfaith Movement for Human Integrity and is the author of several excellent books. She identifies as a Shomeret Shalom, a practitioner of Jewish Revolutionary Nonviolence. I will put her website in the chat. Thank you, Rabbi Lynn.

Rabbi Lynn: Thank you for the introduction, and thank you everyone for this conversation – this important conversation.

I’m going to switch gears a little bit and go back to putting us in a colonial context, which you’ve acknowledged. And that Israel has never been a democracy. I also want to acknowledge before I start this conversation that the whole Zionist myth of Jews being absent from the region for 2000 years and then returning home is exactly that. It’s a myth.

And I don’t want to erase Jewish people who are, who have a deep connection, especially what Israel calls Mizrahi Jews, or what Jewish people themselves here are calling SWANA Jews from Southwest Asia, as they want to avoid the whole concept of the Middle East, which is a colonial idea.

I want to ask you this. Clearly, we are in a different situation, different than South Africa, because there – the genocide. This is the word we need to use, genocide, which is intentional. Which has been evolving as long as I can remember.

I started coming to Israel – was in Gadna in 1966. You know, I’ve been leading delegations there. I studied in Haifa. I went to college. And even then, in that very brief moment of so many Jewish Israelis liking to go to the old city in Jerusalem, you know, and that sense of openness and exploration, that was shut down by 1973, really.

And since that time, being a traveler on the ground, often spending time with my dear friend Sami Awad, who is a third generation practitioner of a revolutionary Palestinian nonviolence, it is very clear that these stages toward genocide was part of every single Israeli government. And that a part of that, the 1973 – the so-called Oslo Accords, was actually the blueprint of apartheid.

And Palestinian laws of the land, political rights, judicial rights, the erasure of culture, all of these things leads me to believe that a two-state solution is only furthering a sense of isolation and apartheid. Especially given the genocide of Gaza, and the desire to ship everybody to Egypt, and to create an even small – that is the reality, and to create even smaller – so a smaller containing unit and then the West Bank.

So, there’s two questions I have, in this condition. One, I want to say there is an international solidarity movement. It is – we here in the Bay Area – a thousand people have registered for a ceasefire – a Gaza interfaith ceasefire pilgrimage tomorrow. Which we’re mapping the 22 miles on Ohlone land here in Huichin territory, from Gaza City to Rafah. That’s astounding, really.

And this, I’ve never seen anything like this here. People are disrupting the US government officials, and Biden is likely to lose the election over this. Because we see sectors of our society rising up in ways they never had. This is a moment for Palestine. Palestine has become the moral compass of the world.

One of our frustrations as movement builders, and, you know, I’ve been a member of JVP, Jewish Voice for Peace, for a long time too, is not really having a sense – beyond standing together, which is something that the American Jewish community likes. You know, the sense of we’re talking to each other, sort of on the Alinsky method, and finding almost transactional methods of being together, and maybe that’s what it’s going to take, you know, low wages, housing, those kinds of things.

But it never includes people from the West Bank or Gaza. These movements within Israel, as far as I remember, never really understand that, that Palestinians are – live ‘from the river to the sea, all people should be free’. And however that gets translated as a political solution, I feel like there is something about understanding the unity of the Palestinian people from the river to the sea, and that as long as that is not acknowledged. And as long as Israel doesn’t come to terms with its colonial history, not that – not that Jewish people don’t have history there, and emotions, and not that it’s – it is the homeland, you know, it feels like the homeland, and all that. But there’s a difference in the structures of governance, which have always been colonial, and Israel is no different.

So, it feels like we need to know where the pockets of solidarity are inside the Israeli state. And is the resistors’ movement growing like – is [unintelligible] a partner? Who are the partners that we need to lift up on that side? And on the other, it just feels cruel to ask, yes, Marwan Barghouti. And it also feels a little cruel to ask or to think about, where is the Palestinian Gandhi? Because as long as I’ve been alive – you know if it were – if the Palestinian Gandhi were Nelson Mandela, he would have been assassinated. You know, because this is Israeli policy, is to assassinate leadership.

And in this moment of genocide, where are the pockets of Jewish, Israeli, and Palestinian solidarity within 1948 and possibly between the other territories that we can that we can support and build this movement, this moral compass, this new reality that is upon us?

Dr. Cassif: First of all, you know, this debate about the one-state, two-state solution is an ongoing one. And there’s no chance we’ll cover all of it. I would just like to say regarding your comments, or question, I and my comrades in Hadash, we don’t have any ideological problem or principle problem with their one-state. We do argue that under the circumstance, realistically, the two-state solution is the only, reasonable now, under the circumstances.

Until the middle of the forties of the 20th century, the main – and other main, our belief in the party, the Communist party then, it was before Hadash was established, Hadash was established based on the Communist Party. But it is a kind of a wider coalition in the middle of the ‘70s, ‘76 – ‘77. But until then, since the party was established in 1919, until the middle of the ‘40s, we supported the one-state for Jews and Palestinians in Palestine. In the struggle against the British imperialism, it was in order to get the colonial – the imperialists out, and to establish a one-state where everybody between, as you said, the river and the sea.

But we changed our perception in the middle of the ‘40s, given that things have changed. You know, we have to adjust ourselves, to some extent, to reality. Otherwise, we won’t have any chance to change, and to achieve justice that we are only interested in.

So, we believe that at the moment, the only solution is a two-state solution and there – but of course, it also means that Israel itself must be democratized. That is to say that alongside is an independent Palestinian state in the old territories Israel occupied in June ‘67, the state of Israel proper must be democratized in the sense that I mentioned in the beginning. That it must be based on deep equality. There cannot be any kind of supremacy to anyone.

So, but if in the future, upon consent of everybody who’s involved, there is a will to transfer – transform the situation from two-states, to one-state or a kind of federation or confederation, so be it. But they at least they as a middle stage, there must be a Palestinian independent state.

So, this is, in brief, regarding what you say about the two-state versus one-state, etc. Now within the state of Israel, about two months ago, we formed the coalition, which is called the Peace Partnership. It consists of 44 different political and civil movements within Israel. Palestinians, Jews, and others. And we are all together in this partnership. Again, it is formally called Peace Partnership, 44 organizations.

We already organized a few demonstrations, Jewish-Palestinian demonstrations against the war, against the massacre, calling to release the hostages as well. We must be very clear about that to do, of course, against the occupation and the ongoing racism and oppression of the Palestinian people, etc. So, there are 44 different organizations with different emphasizes, and different publics, and we act together.

The program is – and this something that I didn’t mention thus far, and I imagine that you are familiar with that, that alongside the ongoing assault, a deadly assault on Gaza, there is an ongoing persecution against any political opposition within Israel. I mean, on top of what we said before about Israel not being, and never being a democracy. Since October 7, the government of Israel has cynically been using the situation in order to pursue the very same coup d’état that was under the sugarcoated term ‘judicial reform’ that you remember.

The government continues with this coup using the smokescreen of the war. And that means, for instance, that students, especially Palestinian citizens – I’m talking now about the Palestinians within Israel, citizens, peace activists, anti-occupation and anti-war activists mainly, but not solely Palestinians within Israel have been suspended from their universities studies, have been fired from their workplaces, have been arrested, have been beaten in demonstrations, solely because they tweeted, or posted, or said something that the government doesn’t like.

I’m not talking about supporting Hamas. I’m talking about objecting the war. I’m talking about expressing basic human sympathy for the children of Gaza. People have been persecuted and interrogated because of that. Until a few weeks ago, it was totally forbidden to demonstrate in Arab cities in this way under the auspices of the Supreme Court. Totally forbidden. We asked many times, Peace Partnership, those 44 organizations, and sometimes only Hadash.

We asked many times the police, because here we need a license, you know, permission to demonstrate. We cannot go to the streets and demonstrate without the permission if it exceeds 50 people and if it includes marching in the streets with signs etc. And it was not given, it was totally forbidden to demonstrate against the war. It’s a bit changing now, but still, I just read it recently today that yet again every Saturday evening there are demonstrations. And today there was two in Jerusalem and the police brutally, violently, beat the demonstrators, and tore apart the placards and signs.

So, I mentioned all that first to pinpoint the dire situation that goes on within Israel, alongside the of course, the massacre in Gaza. And secondly, in order to explain following whatever is said, is that there are many organizations, Palestinians and Jews together, that we act together against the war against the oppression, against racism, etc. So that’s another reason to be hopeful, by the way, following what I said before.

So, those are the ones who also need the international support. And I’m talking, first and foremost, moral support. There are many, many organizations, and I’m very proud to be part of this partnership. I hope I answered.

Rabbi Lynn: Yes. I think that’s the place where you left, that we need to connect more because there is such a huge – at least here in the United States, this is a moment where you see 1,000 black pastors going on a pilgrimage with Jewish Voice for Peace. You see, also people being fired from their jobs, and the same kinds of limitations and repression of free speech. It’s happening here, principally on campuses, where the weaponization of antisemitism is sort of taking over and trying to repress the moral outrage of what’s happening.

So, I guess the next question is, at least since we are the major suppliers of weapons, and we are the major GoFund Me campaign for Israel, we have to continue to think about how to build the movement of resistance between our societies and strengthen – because what you’re doing will strengthen us because there’s such isolation and doxing.

AAnd, you know, this has been going on for forever. But this is a moment, this is a moment where we really need to think about the tactics, be intentional about our tactics. And I pray for the right of return. You know, I know BDS, which I came out for in 2004, Boycott, Divestment, and Sanction, has been critical in waging educational campaigns in particular and building awareness. That’s here. But it includes the idea of the right of return. That is, that people do have the right to be compensated or return to everything that was stolen from them.

Dr. Cassif: This is part of – this has always been a part of our platform of Hadash. No debate about that.

Rabbi Lynn: Yeah.

Dr. Cassif: Yes, it’s part of our – formally part of our, you know, manifesto, if you like. And by the way, I had a very interesting – I think, I hope, an interview in the program of Christiane Amanpour, two days ago at CNN. And I said that – she asked me about, again, about the support of the United States, which I’m obviously very critical of. And I said, don’t send us means of war. Do send us means of peace.

Rabbi Lynn: Thank you for that. The reason I’m mentioning right of return is because it cover – it runs through – whether it’s one-state or two-state, as you suggested it, it still runs through both options in the sense that –Yeah, that people – there has to be some porousness about reparations for people. Thank you so much for your view.

Dr. Cassif: Thank you.

Stephanie: Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Well, Rabbi Lynn, thank you for joining us. Thank you for your time today.

Dr. Cassif: Thank you.

Rabbi Lynn: Thank you so much. It was great to see everybody.

Stephanie: Michael is professor emeritus of Classics of comparative literature at UC Berkeley, where he founded the Peace and Conflict Studies Program. He’s also the founder of the Metta Center for Nonviolence, and he is the author of The Search For A Nonviolent Future, The Third Harmony: Nonviolence in the New Story of Human Nature, a documentary at the same time. And he’s my news anchor, Nonviolence Radio. Michael, do you have burning questions for Dr. Cassif.

Michael: I do. Ofer, if I may, I will never have time to ask you all the questions on my mind. But I wanted to make an observation here that might be of some use, and that is that typically nonviolent struggles that get stuck in one mode, principally in the protest mode, they become very vulnerable. And the struggles that succeed are the ones that are flexible, and they have different modes of approach, and different strategies.

And so, I’m wondering if at this point we’re seeing some thinking about, for example, what Gandhi used to call constructive program. Where we build what we need without waiting for the opposition to give it to us. And as a matter of fact, Mubarak had some brilliant examples of that going back in the ‘80s where, as he said, “Every mother became every children’s parent.”

And there was cottage industry, village industry. I’m not sure, in fact, what form it would take, but I’m asking you, Ofer, if there’s some thinking that you’ve been hearing or hearing about of people thinking long term, what do we want this land to look like, and how do we build it alongside the necessity of demonstration and obstructive actions?

Dr. Cassif: Well, first, I must say that the October 7 upset the carts, you know, the apple carts. So, it’s very difficult to speak now about things that were almost obvious on 6th of October. It’s very depressing. But that’s the fact – that’s a matter of fact. We are trying when I say we, in a very wide, you know, definition, because we are talking about hundreds and thousands of people.

I think that one of the most important objects of nonviolence – not only of nonviolence resistance to the occupation and to ethnic cleansing, etc., but also, we also – be building bridges for the future. Is the ongoing, for instance, activities of Israelis and Palestinians in the occupied West Bank. For instance, olive harvest. Olives have been one of the most important, not only economically speaking, but also on the symbolic level. Those are very crucial for the Palestinian people in the West Bank, especially. The settlers, with the assistance of the occupation forces, have been assaulting, and, you know, their interrupting and bothering, etc., the Palestinians, especially during the olive harvests, for years.

So, many years ago, there was a project that began, and it grew stronger and deeper and wider, of Israelis who go especially, not only, but especially during the harvest season to the West Bank and together with the Palestinians, harvest the olives on the streets.

By the way, we’ve been assaulted by settlers many times as well. Israeli activists were beaten [unintelligible], the name of a 70-year-old woman. Her lungs were torn, ribs were broken by settlers, beat her with bats during harvest. No one, by the way, was arrested, interrogated, let alone charged. And this is only one example. But still, those people, including people who are 70 and 80 years old, continuously go to the West Bank.

Of course, we all made good friends as well. It’s not only a kind of, you know, just an instrumental connection or relation. It turned into an emotion and a close friendship in many places. I think those things are so important, and I think this is the future. This is the future because as I said, it’s not only a nonviolent struggle against the evil, and malicious atrocities done by the occupation and its proxies, but it’s also a way to build bridges for the future.

I think that’s what we ought to do. It’s very, very difficult now. Emotionally, I must say. Everybody is hurt, I mean, many Israelis, including peace activists, are still in shock and traumatized by the massacre of October 7. And on the other end, of course, Palestinians in the West Bank are traumatized by the ongoing carnage in Gaza. So it’s more difficult. That’s the reason they said before that 7 of October did upset the apple carts.

But people don’t give up. Even people who find it difficult, physically speaking, they don’t give up. And it’s so encouraging.

Michael: Yeah. There is a concept in the study of nonviolence called the paradox of repression, which made when a state has to increase its violence in order to maintain its superiority, it is basically writing its own death warrant.

I’m getting the feeling that we might be approaching a paradox of repression here because what has – what the IDF soldiers feel they have to do in Gaza, not to mention other peripheral areas and struggles are going on, are becoming unacceptable. And I mean this on two levels. First, it’s becoming less acceptable in the international community, and threatening the label that’s been placed on Israel for close to 75 years of victim –

Dr. Cassif: That’s true.

Michael: When that label starts to dissolve, then they become an ordinary – just another country that has to be judged by the standards of everybody else.

But also, we have this concept that has become well recognized recently called moral injury, which identifies the fact that when people have to carry out these horrendous acts, they themselves are so traumatized –

Dr. Cassif: True.

Michael: – to no longer, they can no longer maintain it. So, God forbid things could get any worse, but I’m wondering if you feel that we might be reaching that paradox where they cannot continue anymore in this violent trajectory and will be forced by the inner logic of this situation to bring about some kind of accommodation.

Dr. Cassif: I think it’s very interesting, because I said something not exactly the same, but something alike, just a couple of days ago, a few days ago, in a discussion. I don’t remember with whom, I’m sorry. I’ve had many, I must say. And I just actually quoted the philosopher John Stuart Mill. John Stuart Mill, the British – the Scottish philosopher. He coined the term benevolent despotism.

Now, what is benevolent despotism, is when a despot or an authoritarian holds the all power that can be used to oppress the subjects, but it doesn’t use those powers. So, in that sense, is a benevolent or good dictator. Because he is a dictator, he holds the power in his hands, but he doesn’t use them.

But at one stage or another, says Mill, that the benevolent dictator will have to decide whether he prefers to be a benevolent or dictator. Because once criticism arises, let alone resistance, if the dictator allows the resistance to go on because he wants to be benevolent, then you won’t be a dictator anymore. On the other hand, if it doesn’t want to lose his power as a dictator, it cannot continue with this benevolence.

So, in other words, I think that are – if you follow what I’m trying to say, it has something to do with the paradox you mentioned. This is another kind of paradox. And I think that for many years the Israeli governments, since 1967, at least, truly believed that they can be, you know, an enlightened occupier. There’s nothing like that. And now, I think that now more than ever, we face this kind of eruption of the internal contradictory between those two moments.

And in that sense, I think that this paradox is here. It’s here to stay. And it’s going to change things. One thing, if I may add, the reason that the Israeli media, apart from very, very few, doesn’t inform the Israeli public about anything that goes on in Gaza is precisely because they are afraid of this trauma that you mentioned.

So, most of the people in Israel don’t know what’s going on in Gaza. Partly because they are not exposed to it. The media doesn’t show anything. By the way, it’s not forced, enforced to do so by the government. They do that voluntarily, which is even worse.

And the vast majority of the people in Israel don’t want to know what’s going on in Gaza. And because they don’t want to see a villain in the mirror. That’s the issue. And that’s why they hate me, because I force them to look at the mirror. And I can do that.

Stephanie: Thank you. Thank you so much. You’ve been so generous with your time today. And I want to –

Dr. Cassif: That’s okay.

Stephanie: And I want to –

Dr. Cassif: My pleasure, my honor.

Stephanie: I just want to invite everyone to say goodbye. Mubarak Awad, Ela Gandhi, Michael, and you Dr. Cassif, I’ll end with you. So, Mubarak and Ela, please add your last comments.

Mubarak Awad: Well, thank you, so much. We appreciate that. And it’s very, very much of looking for the future, which we cannot just look at it. We have to change it ourselves. We have to be the agent of change there. And in regard to a democracy, I always want, feel that if a country is a democratic, when there is a thousand or 10,000 people demonstrate, the government, like in the United States, for example, the House or the Senate, have to have a meeting with those who are demonstrating to say what you are demonstrating. We are a democracy, let’s hear you. And that becomes a democratic.

The other thing that to understand the difficulty between – even in the United States, the hate, and the difficulty between Arabs, Jews, Muslims, Christians. So, what we decided that we took Philadelphia, as an example. And we have a Christian, we have a Jew, and we have a Muslim to go to a church.

And there is around 2000 churches in the Philadelphia area, and they have to go to every church and to say, “We want you to – we try to ask you to just pray as a church, okay. For the people of Gaza, for the children of Gaza.” And they are now 120 churches. They are welcoming them. They are saying, that’s great. And we are involving the churches.

And so there is something going – is a little bit, but at least the church start taking the responsibility of saying to the government, to Biden, have ceasefire, stop the killings, stop sending money, you know all that. And we didn’t ask them, we asked them just to pray, and then they figure out themselves what they do and that’s becomes very well. But thank you also, I appreciate that.

And then I want to say a message to the people from South Africa. I am and we as Palestinian, we thank you so much, lately. About South Africa to bring the issue of the Palestinian in the International Court of Justice. That lifts our spirit so much when it’s very down. Thank you.

Dr. Cassif: Thank you, Mubarak. Thank you so much.

Stephanie: Ela, any last comments from you?

Ela Gandhi: Thank you so much. You know, it gives us a bit of insight into what is really going on. There’s so much of misinformation that is coming on. And, you know, your talk has opened up that division for us. So, thank you, both of you, Dr. Awad and Dr. Cassif.

Also, we hope that to our conference is going to pave the way for, you know, for international groups to get together and do something about the issue. So, there will be discussions in various ways of applying pressure on the Israeli government to come to a settlement.

I think the one thing that concerns me is this question of one state or two states, and I think that maybe we need to have a discussion on what is the best solution. Because for me, a two-state solution can be possible, if both the states are equal. It can never be possible when one state is powerful and the other one is weak and dependent, as it is at the moment. Both states must be equal, and must be just as, you know, on the same thing as each other. And then only can the two-state solution succeed. That’s my opinion.

Also, one state, like we have here in South Africa, where we’ve got – we started off with a government of national unity. But at the moment we are also having a lot of struggles in South Africa. And, you know, I mean, we don’t have two different states, and it’s not possible to do that in South Africa. But we do have problems and that’s internal.

You know, it’s not necessarily racial problems. It’s problems about ideology, I think, more than anything else. Because, you know, the people for them, freedom meant that they would have access to various resources. Their lives would change for the better and so on. Which hasn’t happened. So, those are some of the issues that one can learn from.

So, going forward, maybe we should have more discussions like this. You know, perhaps focusing on what is the best solution, focusing on, after if there is a settlement, what happens afterwards? What are the aspirations of the people and so on. And how can that be satisfied? Thank you so much for giving me this opportunity. Thank you.

Michael: Ofer, [unintelligible]. And I do have a feeling that violence has overreached itself. It has weakened itself, and that therefore, we need to be very clear and strong about the alternative, about nonviolence at this point.

Dr. Cassif: Absolutely.

Michael: [unintelligible] opening. So.

Dr. Cassif: Okay, thank you so much. Bye.

Stephanie: Bye.

Dr. Cassif: Bye-bye.

Stephanie: And I’ll just invite anybody who is here and has links and resources. You can go ahead and email those to me, info@MettaCenter.org. And in our follow-up email, we will include those resources. So, thank you very much, everybody. Ela, [unintelligible] – everybody who’s here, thank you so much. Thank you.

Ela Gandhi: Thank you.

Michael: Wow.