Wednesday, January 22nd | 25 Tevet 5780

December 1, 2019 7:01 pm

Noura Erakat’s Reinterpretation of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

avatar by Marc Cohen /


Thousands of Muslim worshippers confront Israeli police on the Temple Mount in protest against Jews assembling to enter the site for Tisha B’Av, a holiday marking the destruction of the two Temples. Aug. 11, 2019. Photo: Screenshot.

JNS.orgNoura Erakat’s speech at Columbia Law School on October 24 was articulate and intelligent, mirroring many students on our campus. The Palestinian American attorney and activist spoke about her new book Justice for Some: Law and the Question of Palestine, in which she examines the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through the lens of international law.

But her talk embodied many discussions on our campus in another way: Erakat’s views are quite extreme. While she pines for Palestinian statehood, she does so by proposing unrealistic ideas that spell the destruction of Israel, which simply will not and should not happen. Many of her ideas will inevitably be regurgitated around campus, but it’s important to analyze them further and not take them at face value.

Erakat started her speech with a statement that set the tone for the rest of the lecture. The whole reason she went to law school, she explained, was so that she could obtain the tools and knowledge to sue Israeli generals. Erakat has devoted her life to researching the conflict, trying to understand its history and legal ramifications, and using that research to delegitimize Israel, using nuances in languages of different declarations and charters to challenge Israel’s legitimacy.

While, at first glance, delegitimizing Israel may seem like a fair tactic to the uneducated observer, upon examining it a bit further, one can see it has antisemitic roots. No other country in the world has its legitimacy challenged on a consistent basis — only the Jewish state. Encoding this into a test, Natan Sharansky, a prominent Jewish refusenik and Israeli politician, established the “three Ds” test. Individuals are guilty of antisemitism if they specifically single out Israel for delegitimization, demonization, or by holding Israel to an unfair double standard — a definition that was adopted by the US State Department in 2010, under Barack Obama.

Related coverage

January 22, 2020 10:01 am

Campus Antisemitism Reaches New Lows in America - The Trump administration issued an Executive Order last month aimed at combating antisemitism on American college campuses. For...

Israel is, of course, by no means above criticism in terms of its politics or individual policies, but singling it out repeatedly for delegitimization is antisemitic. Additionally, trying to undermine Israel’s legitimacy is not going to help the Palestinian people achieve statehood. At the end of the day, Israel exists, and it should exist; it is not going anywhere anytime soon. It is well past due time for the world to recognize that fact and adjust accordingly, working with Israel and other international players to achieve peace.

Erakat also explained that the beginning of the Palestinian struggle — and not the culmination of it — needed to start with the return of Palestinian refugees to their homeland. While many people dream of this reality, this simply isn’t feasible.

When Israel was founded in 1948, it was established as a Jewish and democratic state. To ensure this, there needs to be a Jewish majority in Israel, and while all Israeli citizens — regardless of religion, race, sex, or ethnicity — have equal rights, flooding Israel with Palestinian refugees is synonymous with Israel’s destruction as a Jewish and democratic state. It’s something Israel will never accept, can never be forced to accept, and should not accept. By trying to start the Palestinian struggle with the return of Palestinian refugees to Israel, in essence Erakat’s idea is doomed to fail before it can even begin because it is simply unrealistic and untenable.

What struck a chord with me the most was the quote she read from the end of her book to finish off her speech: “What possibilities become available when Jewish Israelis are made part of the land and the rest of the Middle East, rather than forming a satellite state merely located in the Middle East?”

There are two enormous problems with this question. The first one, most obviously, is that it ignores history in the region. The Jewish people have been present in the region for thousands of years, but in the more modern era, they have faced violence. In 1929, 67 Jews in Hebron were massacred simply for being Jewish, and that wasn’t the only act of violence Jews suffered. Moreover, after the founding of the State of Israel, almost a million Jews were expelled from Arab countries. Ancient Jewish communities in cities such as Damascus, Baghdad, and Cairo were forced to leave their homes, often times with little compensation. Unfortunately, when Jews were “made part of the land and the rest of the Middle East,” it resulted in expulsion, confiscation of land, pogroms, violence, and antisemitism. This enhanced the need for a Jewish state, one that would protect its Jewish residents.

Yet perhaps the bigger problem is a result of the first. By denying Jewish and Israeli history — thereby isolating Israel further — Erakat subjects herself to a double standard. How can she, and many other prominent Palestinian and BDS activists, deny history, and then complain that Israel and the world have ignored the Palestinian cause? Many supporters of the Palestinian cause consistently complain that the world has ignored the Palestinians and their history; however, Erakat is guilty of the exact same charge — one that neither side should take lightly. By finishing her book talk with this quote and subjecting herself to this double standard, Erakat clearly denies history or proves that she is missing some key facts and weakens her own position as someone who should be prominently featured when discussing this conflict.

While discussions of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and BDS are commonplace among students, clubs, and even student councils, it is important that supporters of both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict recognize that if we ever want to have productive dialogue on campus, we must identify hypocrisy and extremist elements, as well as learn the necessary history for debate to begin at a fair and productive level. Instead of Erakat ending her book talk with a question that puts the onus on Israel, why doesn’t she ask: “What possibilities become available when both sides of the conflict are able to be reasonable and come together to achieve peace?”

Marc Cohen was born and raised in New Jersey. Upon graduating high school in 2014, Marc spent a year and a half learning at Yeshiva University in Jerusalem. Following his studies, he enlisted in the Israel Defense Forces’ Kfir Brigade, serving as a combat soldier in the West Bank. After his release from the IDF, Marc enrolled in Columbia University where he is currently a junior studying economics and political science.

The opinions presented by Algemeiner bloggers are solely theirs and do not represent those of The Algemeiner, its publishers or editors. If you would like to share your views with a blog post on The Algemeiner, please be in touch through our Contact page.

Share this Story: Share On Facebook Share On Twitter

Let your voice be heard!

Join the Algemeiner

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.