Israeli Exceptionalism and Palestinian Dehumanization:

An American Jewish Perspective

A Thesis

Presented to

The Faculty of the Department of Sociology

The Colorado College

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree

Bachelor of Arts

By

Jamie Baum

May 2018

Emily Schneider

Honor Code Upheld

ABSTRACT The American Jewish community is experiencing an internal struggle. The majority of American Jews view supporting Israel as essential to their Jewish identity. Many American Jews, however, critique the Israeli occupation in Palestine. Some support Israel while critiquing the occupation specifically while others denounce Israel in its entirety because of the occupation. These critical American Jews, regardless of their stance along this spectrum, refuse to accept injustices occurring in the name of their own identity. Some scholars argue that those who critique the Israeli occupation are rejecting Orientalism and Israeli exceptionalism. These two theoretical concepts devalue the existence and humanity of the Palestinian people. This study will be quantitatively analyzing the unique experience of critiquing the Israeli occupation as an American Jew. Using survey data from a radically left-wing Palestinian solidarity organization, 501 American members will be analyzed on their unique experiences of straying from the dominant American Jewish support for Israel in its entirety. Findings show that Jews and non- Jews experience similar journeys along the spectrum of critique. This is determined based on whether the respondent experienced a turning point and if they were less critical of Israel before joining the organization or not. This study also reviewed some of the reasons respondents reported for their shift in their views on Israel/Palestine, determining some similarities and some differences between Jews and non-Jews. This study, therefore, reviews the far left’s experiences of critiquing the Israeli occupation, ultimately determining that Jewish identity plays little role for this population’s experiences of critiquing Israel/Palestine.

1 “You’re wrong,” my grandmother said to me, “Palestinians are not victims, they’re terrorists.”

This was not the first time I heard this sentiment. Growing up an American Jew, I have always been surrounded by varying opinions on Israel/Palestine. This debate about Israelis and

Palestinians is in no way unique to me and my grandmother. It’s representative of a widespread

American Jewish contemporary intracommunity disagreement on the Israeli occupation of

Palestine.

The dominant American Jewish narrative is generally understood as predominantly supportive of Israel (Butler 2012; Fisher 2014; Waxman 2016; Waxman 2017a; Wisse 2008).

Studies show 31% of American Jews believe that the U.S. was not politically supportive enough of Israel under Obama’s presidency and an additional 54% reported that the amount of U.S. political support was “about right” (Pew Research Center 2013). At least 69% of American Jews report being either somewhat or very attached to Israel (Pew Research Center 2013).

Furthermore, many American Jews view critiquing Israeli politics, advocating for Palestinian rights, or suggesting ending the occupation in any capacity as a threat the very existence of Israel

(Butler 2012: 19; Wisse 2008). Israel, in this dominant narrative, is seen as always under threat

(Butler 2012; Waxman 2016: 24; Wisse 2008). Furthermore, as Israel is often understood as a national manifestation of the Jewish religion, any critique of Israel or the occupation can be interpreted as anti-Semitic (Bar-Tal & Salomon 2006; Butler 2012; Cohen & Eisen 2000;

Schreier & Sucharov 2016; Wisse 2008; Young 2004).

Some American Jews have become more vocal about their critical views of the occupation, rejecting the dominant narrative (Burack 2018; Butler 2012; Waxman 2016).

Waxman (2016) explains, “American Jews once generally presented a united front in public of support of Israel, there is now much more public criticism of Israeli government policies and

2 actions, especially with regard to the Palestinians” (p. 5). This population has been met with harsh criticism by fellow American Jews who believe the dominant narrative. Many see these

American Jews who critique the occupation as “self-hating Jews” (Wisse 2008; Young 2004)

Additionally, many believe that they’re disconnected from their Jewish identity (Burack 2018;

Cohen & Eisen 2000; Cohen & Kelman 2007; Cohen & Kelman 2010). These responses rely on the idea that supporting Israel entirely is essential to Jewish identity. In other words, the majority of American Jews view being Jewish and supporting Israel as synonymous (Butler 2012; Rabkin

2017; Waxman 2016; Waxman 2017b; Wisse 2008). This is supported by 87% of American

Jews reporting that caring about Israel was an essential or important part of being Jewish (Pew

Research Center 2013).

American Jews who critique the occupation, however, reject this conflation (Butler 2012;

Sarsour 2017a; Sarsour 2017b; Waxman 2016). The occupation, as they see it, is an injustice to

Palestinians, oppressing and subjugating an entire dehumanized population (Alam 2009; Butler

2012; Gould-Warofsky 2010; Jacobs 2014). American Jews who critique the occupation refuse to remain silent and passive in the face of injustice, especially injustice in the name of their religion (Butler 2012; Yoffie 2011). They reject Israel’s justifications for the occupation, recognizing the catastrophic implications it has had on Palestinians (Butler 2012; Rabkin 2017;

Sasson 2010; Said 1978; Said 1979; Sardar 1999; Waxman 2016; Waxman 2017b).

These critics are not remaining silent about their beliefs, “speaking up and mobilizing politically” (Waxman 2016:5). Many Jewish organizations with various political stances along the spectrum of views on the occupation have been gaining traction (Waxman 2016). One pro-

Palestinian organization with Jewish roots, Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) has grown from their

2009 $400,000 budget to a $3.2 million budget in 2017 (Kaplan Sommer 2017). This study

3 analyzes 501 American members of a radical left-wing pro-Palestinian, anti-occupation, Jewish- affiliated organization using the organization’s 2015 survey data, comparing Jews and non-Jews in their processes of critiquing Israel. This study will be reviewing to what extent and in what ways the experience of critiquing the occupation is correlated to Jewish identity.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Strategic Essentialism

Jewish1 identity has always been more than religious affiliation (Cohen and Eisen 2000;

Horowitz 2002). American2 Jews, therefore, are a cohesive collective with sociologically distinctive behaviors, beliefs, and histories. Despite the many significant variations within this collective, this study is implementing the practice of strategic essentialism, or deliberate grouping to study American Jews. Wing (2003) outlines the occasional necessity of strategic essentialism, explaining that “the reality for any group is undoubtedly much more complex, but to avoid merely talking about individuals, it is sometimes necessary to be strategically essentialist” (p. 7). As such, there is a “sociological distinctiveness” of American Jewish culture and group identity (Horowitz 2002:14). This distinct culture includes components of

“inmarriage, distinctive language…geographic clustering” and community, sharing “families’ experiences, history, values, communal institutions, rituals, religion, and life styles” (Horowitz

2002:15-17). This distinct culture allows for understandable grouping. Thus, this study will be reviewing the American Jewish relationship with Israel, specifically the Israeli occupation in

Palestine, using a strategically essentialist approach.

1 In this study, “Jewish” excludes Orthodox-Judaism. 2 In this study, “American” in all contexts is strictly in reference to the United States.

4 Zionism3

Zionism is an important component of American Jewish identity as well as an important factor in the discussion of the Israeli occupation in Palestine. Zionism as a concept is generally understood as “the belief that Israel should exist” (Burack 2018). Brenner (2003), Butler (2012), and Pappe (1997) hold similar definitions. Zionism was also a nationalist political movement that succeeded in establishing Israel (Brenner 2003; Butler 2012; Pappe 1997; Pressman 2005;

Rabkin 2017; Robinson 2013b; Smith 1988:25). Contemporary Zionism, a complex frame of thought, is understood by many as widespread support for the nation of Israel, including the occupation (Butler 2012; Pappe 1997; Rabkin 2017). Zionism plays an influential and contested role in contemporary Jewish identity as well as overall understandings of the conflict.

Role of American News and Media

Zionism and varying definitions and perceptions of the concept affect the dominant

American perception of the occupation (Butler 2012; Waxman 2016). In dominant American news, coverage of the conflict focuses on pro-Israeli perspectives and generally ignores

Palestinian narratives (Alper and Earp 2017; Jhally and Ratzkoff 2004). In 2014, an MSNBC newscaster was removed from Gaza after reporting that four Palestinian boys were killed by the

Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) because American viewers argued that sharing the Palestinian perspective with sympathy was anti-Semitic (Goodman 2014). In a follow-up interview on

American representation of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, Jebreal (2014), a Palestinian journalist and MSNBC contributor, notes the broad exclusion of Palestinian narratives and disproportionate attention to Israeli narratives in American news reports during the 2014 Gaza War, stating

3 “Zionism” is a highly complex term. This study cannot fully define Zionism in all of its complexities.

5 we are disgustingly biased when it comes to this issue. Look at how [much] air time [current Israeli Prime Minister] Netanyahu and his folks…have on air on [a] daily basis… I never see one Palestinian being interviewed on these same issues… maybe for thirty seconds and then you have twenty-five minutes for Bibi Netanyahu. (Fisher 2014; Goodman 2014; McMurry 2014).

While not all U.S. news coverage is biased, “the Israeli viewpoint of the conflict tends to be granted greater credence than does the Palestinian viewpoint” (Fisher 2014). This aligns with the biased representation of the conflict in U.S. news evidenced by documentaries Peace,

Propaganda and the Promised Land and Occupation of the American Mind (Jhally and Ratzkoff

2004; Alper and Earp 2017). Jebreal argues that this disproportionate attention is “why the public opinion is pro-Israeli” (Fisher 2014; Goodman 2014; McMurry 2014). Media and news coverage play an essential role in the construction of opinions, beliefs, and perceptions (Adoni and Mane

1984; Alper and Earp 2017). As a result, the dominant American, including the American

Jewish, narrative tends to be pro-Israeli (Waxman 2016).

Dominant American Jewish Narrative

The implications of media and news constructing our beliefs can be seen in the dominant ways American Jews see the conflict at large. Many believe that blind support for Israel is equivalent to support for all of contemporary Jewish existence (Burack 2018; Butler 2012;

Waxman 2016; Wisse 2008). The majority of American Jews raised in the 20th and 21st century have been taught that supporting Israel is a fundamental component of their Jewish identity. This leads them to believe that Jewish identity and supporting Israel are synonymous with one another

(Butler 2012; Rabkin 2017; Wisse 2008). Yet, the role of Zionism to American Jewish identity is contested within the community (Butler 2012; Rabkin 2017; Waxman 2016). Some believe that contemporary Zionism has no root in Jewish tradition and that it strays from Jewish ethics

(Rabkin 2017). These theorists suggest that the two – Zionism and Judaism – must be distinct

6 from one another (Butler 2012; Rabkin 2017; Sarsour 2017a). Others dispute this distinction, citing components of the Old Testament that refer to significant Jewish landmarks within

Israel/Palestine and certain passages that portray the Jewish desire to return to Zion (Brenner

2003). Regardless, 43% of American Jews reported that caring about Israel is an essential part of what being Jewish means to them (Pew Research Center 2013). These respondents, in line with the dominant narrative, view Judaism and support for Israel as synonymous in their contemporary experiences and understandings of Jewish identity (Burack 2018; Pew Research

Center 2013; Waxman 2016). This conflation or separation, of Judaism and support for Israel, and the varying beliefs within the community, is foundational to understanding why some Jews critique the Israeli occupation and others view any criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic (Butler

2012).

As a result of this narrative, some believe working towards peace with the Palestinians, whether that be cutting back on IDF presence in the West Bank, supporting the Right of Return – the political movement to allow Palestinian refugees to return to their homeland within Israeli territory – or any step towards a one-state or two-state solution, would threaten Israeli safety

(Bar-Tal and Salomon 2006; Pappe 1997; Schreier and Sucharov 2016). Often, the leap is made that any threat to Israeli safety is an inevitable elimination of Israel as a nation (Bar-Tal and

Salomon 2006; Butler 2012; Schreier and Sucharov 2016). Butler (2012) outlines that in the dominant narrative, “any efforts to criticize the Israeli state for its policies of expulsion, occupation, and land confiscation amount to ‘delegitimization’ that threatens to reverse the course of history and expose the Jewish people to genocidal violence” (p. 26). As a result, many see criticizing the occupation in Palestine as equivalent to suggesting Israel should not exist or

7 that Israeli existence is not important (Butler 2012; Krupkin 2017).

Critiquing the Israeli Occupation is Not anti-Semitic

Some also see criticism of Israel or the occupation as synonymous with devaluation or dislike of Jews and Jewish existence all together. This perception is rooted in the conflation between Judaism and Zionism (Butler 2012; Pappe 1997; Sarsour 2017a). Butler (2012) explains, “if [a Jew’s] opposition to the current policies of the State of Israel, or to Zionism more generally, leads to the conclusion that one can no longer affiliate as a Jew, such a decision effectively ratifies the notion that to be a Jew is to be a Zionist,” (p. 20). As a result, those who critique the occupation are often framed as anti-Semitic (Burack 2018; Butler 2012; Sarsour

2017a). American Jews who critique the Israeli occupation in Palestine have been referred to as

“self-hating Jews” by both Jews and non-Jews under this narrative (Butler 2012; Pappe 1997).

Some scholars believe that these “self-hating Jews” are unattached to their Judaism, furthering the narrative that any criticism of Israel is unsupportive of Jewish existence or anti-Semitic

(Butler 2012; Cohen and Eisen 2000; Wisse 2008; Young 2004). Many “make the overgeneralization: because we are pro-Palestine… or because we are critics of the state of

Israel, that means we are anti-Semitic” (Sarsour 2017a). Criticizing either the occupation or

Israel is not the same anti-Semitism (Butler 2012; Sarsour 2017a, Waxman 2016). The reality of contemporary anti-Semitism and white nationalism in North America, Europe, and the Middle

East cannot be dispelled (Burack 2018; Ferguson 2017; Goldwag 2017; Morales 2017; Myre

2018; Vice News 2017; Vilkomerson 2017). The ‘alt-right’ is on the rise (Barghouti 2017;

Burack 2018; Goldwag 2017; Myre 2018; Vice News 2017; Vilkomerson 2017). Anti-Semitism is “a key tenet” of their movement (Vilkomerson 2017). In August 2017, neo-Nazis and white nationalist rallied in Charlottesville, chanted ‘Jews will not replace us’ and waved swastikas

8 (Burack 2018; Vice News 2017). Yet many, including Israeli President Rivlin (2017), argue that conflating critiquing the Israeli occupation and anti-Semitism is harmful to Jews, Israelis, and

Palestinians (Barghouti 2017; Ferguson 2017; Rivlin 2017; Said 1979). This conflation is harmful because, without this separation, critiquing Israel becomes nearly impossible. Without the ability to critique the occupation, the current state of violence and hatred only exacerbates

(Butler 2012). Furthermore, understanding the difference between critiquing Israel and being anti-Semitic is essential for understanding the ability to be Jewish and critique the occupation

(Alam 2009; Butler 2012).

Attachment

There is a rising number of American Jews who do not blindly support Israel, who oppose the occupation, and refuse to stay silent about the ongoing violence occurring in Palestine

(Butler 2012; Rabkin 2017; Sasson 2010; Waxman 2016; Waxman 2017b). This shift is not abrupt; many studies over the past few decades show a historical trend toward a changing, more critical American Jewish view of Israel (Sasson et al. 2010). Studies show that liberal American

Jews in the 1980s and 1990s were becoming “increasingly disaffected from Israel due to their opposition to Israel’s policies regarding religion and state and the Palestinians” (Sasson et al.

2010). Additionally, a 2007 study found “that less than half of those surveyed who were under the age of 35 felt that Israel’s destruction would be a personal tragedy,” (Waxman 2017b). Data shows that this trend, towards a more nuanced and critical American Jewish understanding of and relationship with Israel, is continuing (Sasson 2010; Sasson et. al 2010; Waxman 2016;

Waxman 2017b). “Many American Jews…are becoming increasingly uncomfortable with

Israel’s policies … with the Palestinians and [are] skeptical of its governments’ proclaimed desire for peace” (Waxman 2016:4). JVP’s growth supports this (Kaplan Sommer 2017).

9 Some argue that the reason more American Jews are becoming critical of the Israeli occupation is an American Jewish detachment from Judaism and Israel, physically, spiritually, and symbolically, especially among younger generations. Theorists attribute this distancing to a myriad of causes, including intermarriage with non-Jews and generational detaching from the

Holocaust (Cohen 1996; Cohen and Kelman 2007; Cohen and Kelman 2010; DeGraff 2016; The

Jewish Community Federation of San Francisco, the Peninsula, Marin, and Sonoma Counties

2018; Wisse 2008). Others, however, believe that this changed relationship with Israel is not a lack of connection (Butler 2012; Sasson 2010; Sasson, Kadushin, and Saxe 2010). Waxman

(2017b) points out that 60% of 18-29-year-old American Jews reported feeling attached to Israel

(Pew Research Center 2013). Sasson (2010) argues that this change is a “direct engagement” due to spending time in Israel, which is becoming more common. Waxman (2016) supports this sentiment, arguing that this change is actually a “strict constructionist” critical engagement for similar reasons, arguing that previous generations only saw Israel as a symbol whereas more

American Jews, especially younger generations, are actually traveling to Israel (Waxman 2017b).

Evidently, with the rising numbers of American Jews who critique the occupation, the American

Jewish community’s relationship to Israel must now be reviewed through a more nuanced lens

(Butler 2012; Sasson 2010; Sasson et al. 2010: Waxman 2016; Waxman 2017b).

Israeli Exceptionalism

A foundational concept for the American Jewish opposition to the occupation is a rejection of the Israeli exceptionalist narrative. Israeli exceptionalism is the sociopolitical

‘uniqueness’ of Israel (Alam 2009; Gould-Wartofsky 2010; Jacobs 2014). Jews are “the Chosen people” (Bargouti 2017). Jews (read: Israel) are viewed as not only religiously ‘Chosen’ but special and superior in their ability to survive recurring historical persecutions (Alam 2009;

10 Gould-Wartofsky 2010; Jacobs 2014). Jews, and therefore Israel, view themselves as “divinely favored, uniquely talented, racially superior, and undefeatable” (Alam 2009: 4). This narrative constructs and supports the perception that Jews are more deserving of the land that was

Palestine than the Palestinians themselves (Alam 2009; Barghouti 2017; Butler 2012). This

“Chosen” status in addition to the uniqueness of the historical reality of the Holocaust gives

Israel a distinctiveness, an exceptional positionality known as Israeli exceptionalism (Alam

2009; Barghouti 2017; Gould-Wartofsky 2010; Jacobs 2014). Israeli exceptionalism plays a significant role in contemporary dominant perceptions of Israel (Alam 2009; Barghouti 2017).

Jews (read: Israel) are seen as victims, “forever and exclusively persecuted and, by definition, never persecuting” (Butler 2012: 46).

These perceptions of Israel can, in part, be attributed to Jewish cultural memory and collective historical trauma as a result of centuries of anti-Semitic oppression, culminating in the

Holocaust (Cohen and Eisen 2000; Kaufman 2007; Saxe and Chazan 2008; Teller 1949;

Waxman 2016; Wisse 2008). The Holocaust, a collective trauma, was highly influential in the social construction of contemporary Jewish collective identity (Stein 2007; Williams 2007).

Studies show that remembering the Holocaust is an essential component of contemporary Jewish identity regardless of any familial or personal connection to a survivor (Kaufman 2007; Waxman

2016: 21). Remembering the Holocaust was reported as an essential part of what it means to be

Jewish for 73% of Jewish survey respondents (Pew Research Center 2013). As a result, a crucial component of Jewish identity is a sense of victimhood, rooted in the real and perceived anti-

Semitism both past and present (Pappe 1997; Waxman 2016; Williams 2007). This perception of victimhood justifies the narrative that Israel is in need of protection (Bar-Tal and Salomon 2006;

Cohen and Eisen 2000; Pappe 1997).

11 Common justifications for the Israeli occupation in Palestine are rooted in the pervasive feeling of victimhood among the Jewish collective. Security and protection, a response to victimhood, are regular rationalizations for the Israeli occupation (Bar-Tal and Salomon 2006;

Butler 2012; Pappe 1997). For example, current Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu stated in his

2015 speech to the U.N. that “throughout our history, the Jewish people have learned the heavy price of silence… The days when the Jewish people remained passive in the face of violence are over… Not being passive also means defending ourselves against those dangers.” By tapping in to Jewish (read: Israeli) historical victim status, Netanyahu is justifying oppressive behaviors against the Palestinians, framing it as a need for extra security measures due to a history of victimization. In reality, these “security considerations are exploited for the sake of discriminatory policies” (Pappe 1997:37). Framing Israel as constantly in need of protection and acting only in defense rationalizes oppressive behaviors such as home raids and checkpoints

(Bar-Tal and Salomon 2006; Butler 2012; Pappe 1997).

Additionally, “Israel uses its exceptionalist claims to smear its Palestinian victims, to whitewash its segregated society as the only democracy in the Middle East, to justify its settler colonialism as a well-deserved denouement to the long history of Jewish ‘exile’” (Alam 2009:5).

Israeli exceptionalism frames Israel in such a way that excuses and justifies oppressive acts that occur under the occupation of the Palestinians (Alam 2009; Barghouti 2017; Gould-Wartofsky

2010; Jacobs 2014). The effects of this narrative are evidenced in almost all parts of Israel’s past and present.

The mass exile and displacement of Palestinians during the Zionist movement to establish

Israel was and continues to be rationalized through Israeli exceptionalism. “By presenting Jews as superhumans, ‘the Chosen people,’ it has added a second degree of separation,” (Barghouti

12 2017). Israel, seen as ‘never persecuting’ and ‘Chosen,’ are framed as deserving of this land.

Thus, establishing Israel, even at the expense of Palestinians, was a successful holy mission

(Alam 2009; Barghouti 2017; Butler 2012; Jacobs 2014). Additionally, Israel is regularly referred to as ‘the only democracy in the Middle East’ despite violating democratic rights – including refusing political power or freedom to move about borders – of millions of occupied

Palestinians. Israeli exceptionalism justifies this by referring to the necessity of a Jewish state, recognizing that giving Palestinians democratic rights would likely eliminate the Israeli Jewish majority (Schreier and Sucharov 2016). Israeli exceptionalism also silences oppositional narratives under the accusation of bigotry and anti-Semitism (Barghouti 2017; Butler 2012).

Under this narrative, the Palestinian fight against the occupation is depicted as “fueled by a visceral ‘hatred’ toward Jews, not a genuinely human pursuit of freedom, justice, and equality”

(Barghouti 2017: 141). Israeli exceptionalism, evidently, justifies and perpetuates the oppressive, violent realities of the occupation, allowing for active subjugation of the Palestinians (Alam

2009; Butler 2012; Gould-Wartofsky 2010; Jacbos 2014; Massad 2006; Penslar 2008; Said 1979;

Sheizaf 2012).

These oppressive acts are a means of maintaining Israeli power over the Palestinians, which Israeli exceptionalism justifies (Butler 2012; Pappe 1997). Gaining and keeping power is dependent on not seeking peace as any step towards peace would give up Israeli power. In fact, many Israeli political decisions suggest that Israel does not want peace with Palestinians

(Ballestreros 2017; Sheizaf 2012; Sholto 2014; Thrall 2017). For example, settlements are regularly built and expanded upon in the West Bank, inhibiting any future peace by splitting apart and taking away Palestinian land while simultaneously increasing IDF presence

(Beauchamp 2017; Tahhan 2017). Many refer to the 1967 war between Israel and Palestine as an

13 instance when Israel, framing themselves as the victim, was incredibly dominant (Alam 2009).

Additionally, Netanyahu’s support for U.S. President Trump’s choice to recognize Jerusalem as the Israeli capital was in line with Israeli dominance (Husseini 2017). Netanyahu’s subsequent rejection that East Jerusalem is the capital of Palestine has brought attention to the reality that the current political administration is not making any intentional steps towards peace with the

Palestinians (Al Jazeera 2017; Bishara 2017; Husseini 2017). Even though Israel regularly justifies their political acts with their victim status and their perceived need for protection, some, including Former Secretary of State John Kerry, believe that the reason Israel has not successfully created peace with the Palestinians is because they don’t actually want it

(Ballestreros 2017; Thrall 2017; Sholto 2014).

State Violence

Israeli exceptionalism rationalizes Israeli political and military state violence enacted against occupied Palestinians, historically and contemporarily (Butler 2012; Kovel 2007).

Historical state violence against Palestinians includes ethnic cleansing, mass exile, and displacement (Khalili 2012; Kovel 2007; Pressman 2005; Makdisi 2008). Contemporary means of military state violence includes the presence of the IDF within the West Bank and along militarized borders and checkpoints. There are also regular IDF home raids and arrests, home demolitions, and constant building of Israeli settlements within the West Bank (Khalili 2012;

Massad 2006; Reuters 2013; Tahhan 2017; Waxman 2016). Additionally, Palestinians are politically powerless and denied certain various basic human resources within the parts of the

West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza (The Association for Civil Rights in Israel 2015; Khalili

2012; Massad 2006; Thomas 2009; Waxman 2016). This historical displacement, political exclusion, and annexation of Palestinians prioritizes the Jewish right for a nation at the expense

14 of a Palestinian homeland (Al Jazeera 2017; Barghouti 2017; Butler 2012; Hume 2018; Said

1979; White 2018). This hierarchy, Israelis over and at the expense of Palestinians, persists today. It acts as a regular rationalization for the occupation (Barghouti 2017; Butler 2012). While

Palestinian oppression and subjugation under the Israeli occupation is clear when reviewed in this light, it is not as clear to others (Pappe 1997; Waxman 2016). How is it possible that the severity of this oppression is evident to some but not to others?

Orientalism and Palestinian Dehumanization

Orientalist dehumanization is one explanation for the occupation’s extreme subjugation of the Palestinians. Generally, Said’s concept of Orientalism situates the Occident as dominating, possessing, and silencing the Orient (Ikemoto 2003:252; Said 1978, Sardar 1999). Orientalism over-simplifies and vilifies the ‘Orient,’ creating an ‘us and them’ mentality (Said 1978; Sardar

1999). This framework constructs and supports stereotypes of the ‘other’ as violent, dangerous, uncivilized, and backwards, facilitating a narrative of needing to protect against ‘them’ (Said

1978). In this context, Israel acts as the Occident and Palestine the Orient (Samman 2013). The

Zionist Nationalist movement’s slogan was “a land without a people for a people without a land”

(Barghouti 2017; Butler 2012; Massad 2006; Samman 2013). In order for this statement to be true, the Zionists had to remove people that actually were living on this land (Butler 2012;

Massad 2006; Samman 2013). Palestinians were barely mentioned in Israeli scholarship on the

1948 War and when they were mentioned, they were framed as an obstacle to overcome

(Barghouti 2017; Pappe 1997; Samman 2013). The implications of such narratives are still present in Israeli perceptions of Palestinians. Orientalism constructs Palestinian inferiority, explaining Israel’s inability to view the Palestinian people in all their human complexity (Penslar

2008; Said 1978; Sardar 1999).

15 Dominant ways of portraying the occupation creates a “facelessness that has become the norm within the dominant media” (Butler 2012: 50). This Palestinian facelessness constructs the entire population as strangers who, according to Simmel, a social theorist of social distance and difference, are not really seen as individuals but are essentialized (1908). This essentialism, made easier by an ‘us versus them’ state of mind, leads to dehumanization and stereotyping (Butler

2012; Said 1978; Sardar 1999). Israelis have used othering and Orientalist narratives to dehumanize Palestinians since the beginning of the Zionist movement (Alam 2009; Barghouti

2017). Ben-Gurion, a leading Zionist activist who was the primary national founder and the first

Prime Minister of Israel, reportedly told a group of potential Zionist recruits in New York in

1915 that “the Yishuv needed more pioneers to fight ‘wild nature and wilder redskins’”

(Robinson 2013b: 13). This dehumanization of Palestinians has continued for decades and is now essential for justifying the occupation (Alam 2009; Said 1979). Sarsour (2017b) explains that contemporary supporters of the occupation don’t see Palestinians as deserving of dignity

(Krupkin 2017). Violence is easier to commit against a dehumanized people, a population seen as entirely strangers and terrorists. This is the case with the Israeli occupation in Palestine, beginning with the Zionist foundation of Israel, continuing over decades, and still occurring today (Ahronheim 2018; Ashly 2017; Husseini 2017; Krupkin 2017; Robinson 2013a; Robinson

2013b; Said 1979; Shavit 2013; Sheizaf 2012). Those who buy into this Orientalism and subsequent dehumanization of Palestinians rationalize and excuse the oppression occurring under the occupation. Those who critique the occupation, on the other hand, reject this Palestinian dehumanization.

American Jewish Critique of the Occupation

16 The American Jewish community is currently experiencing an internal struggle, figuring out what it means to be Jewish in regard to the oppressive reality of Israeli politics (Butler 2012;

Waxman 2016). Jewish identity means something different to everyone; it can be a social, religious, cultural, or political ideology, way of life, or a state of mind. To many American Jews, their Jewish identity is about standing up against injustice and opposing oppression (Butler 2012;

Jewish Voice for Peace 2012; Pew Research Center 2013; Waxman 2016). As Waxman (2016) outlines, data shows that 56% of American Jews stated that “working for justice and equality is essential to what being Jewish means to them” (Pew Research Center 2013). Furthermore, Rabbi

Eric Yoffie (2011), President Emeritus of the Union for Reform Judaism, states,

Social justice, in short, is required by our religious texts and is inseparable from our religious mission. There is no such thing as a morality that is selectively indignant – that looks within but fails to look without. And Judaism without ethics, both personal and societal, is a contradiction in terms.

American Jews are critiquing the occupation in rising numbers (Butler 2012; Kaplan Sommer

2017; Waxman 2016). JVP, for example, has grown since 2009 from a budget of $400,000 to

$3.2 million (Kaplan Sommer 2017). American Jews who critique the occupation might have realized the fallacies in hegemonic portrayals of conflict and are rejecting Israeli exceptionalism and subsequent Palestinian dehumanization (Butler 2012; Pappe 1997; Waxman 2016; Waxman

2017b). They are mobilizing and politically active, engaging critically with Israel, supporting the data that 69% of American Jews report being either somewhat or very attached to Israel (Pew

Research Center 2013; Sasson 2010; Sasson et al. 2010; Waxman 2016; Waxman 2017b). They have an awareness of the silencing Israeli exceptionalist narrative and the resulting Orientalist dehumanization and violence against Palestinians and refuse to stand idly by as injustice occurs in the name of their religion (Butler 2012; Pappe 1997; Waxman 2016; Waxman 2017b).

17 Awareness of the occupation, and the Israeli exceptionalist narrative that justifies the dehumanization and violence, as an injustice to Palestinians clashes with many American Jews’ idea of what it means to be Jewish (Butler 2012; Waxman 2016). The occupation is a mandated violent, militant, oppressive reality (Association for Civil Rights in Israel 2015). Many American

Jews struggle that Israel, a nation representing their entire religion, can engage in oppressive practices when their understanding of Jewish identity is rooted in social justice and fighting oppressions (Waxman 2016; Yoffie 2011). Some American Jews even feel that, as Israel is meant to represent them, “such a critique is obligatory” (Butler 2102: 117). The persistent oppressive reality of the occupation in the name of Judaism is difficult for these American Jews to accept. In understanding the importance of social justice work as a component of their Jewish identity, these American Jews look past the rationalizing and silencing narratives, applying their

Jewish commitment to justice activism via advocating for Palestinians.

Jewish Peace Organizations

New advocacy groups have been emerging for these American Jews who critique the

Israeli occupation in Palestine, providing spaces for this social and political American Jewish voice (Waxman 2016). Some organizations refer to Judaism as inspiration for their social justice work against the occupation. For example, JVP, one of the most radical Palestinian solidarity

American Jewish advocacy groups, states in their official mission that “members are inspired by

Jewish tradition to work together for peace, social justice, equality, human rights, respect for international law, and a U.S. foreign policy based on these ideals.” This suggests that Jewish positionality can inspire critique of the occupation.

Much of the literature on the American Jewish critique of the Israeli occupation of

Palestine focuses on what these American Jews believe. Scholars such as Butler (2012) and

18 Waxman (2016) break down and analyze the thoughts and internal dialogues of these American

Jews. This study will be analyzing data of members of a similar Jewish driven pro-Palestinian organization, focusing on what caused the American Jewish members’ anti-occupation beliefs.

As the literature does not focus as much on the cause of their beliefs or the difference between

Jewish and non-Jewish experiences of critiquing the occupation, this study will be filling in those gaps. By quantitatively analyzing Jewish versus non-Jewish reasons for their critical beliefs, this study attempts to gain insight into the American Jewish journey of shifting from the dominant pro-Israeli American Jewish narrative to the less common but on the rise narrative of critiquing the occupation, digging deeper into their stance. This study will be reviewing to what extent and in what ways the experience of critiquing the occupation is correlated to Jewish identity.

METHODS AND DATA

This study is a quantitative sociological analysis using survey data collected in 2015 from a US-based left-wing Palestinian solidarity activist organization. The organization has a high number of American Jewish members and their mission statement refers to the Jewish tradition as their inspiration for working towards peace, social justice, and human rights. All survey respondents are members of the organization (n=680). Due to the fact that all respondents are members of the organization, respondents are assumed to have a very left-wing, anti-occupation, pro-Palestinian view of Israel/Palestine, as is in line with the organization. For the entirety of this study, therefore, membership is understood as synonymous with radical left-wing views on

Israel/Palestine. This survey data, therefore provides valuable insight about the specific population in review – American Jews with radical left-wing views on the Israeli occupation in

Palestine. Furthermore, this study is focusing specifically on the experience of critiquing the

Israeli occupation in Palestine as an American Jew. Therefore, this study uses only American

19 respondents (n=549) who reported whether or not they were Jewish (n=544) and reported either having the same or more critical views of Israel in comparison to before they joined the organization (n=501). The reason for excluding those whose views on Israel have become less critical since joining this organization is because this study is focusing specifically on those with radical left-wing views on the conflict. Therefore, for the sake of this study, those who are less critical of Israel now than they were before joining the organization would skew the data. Thus, the only respondents looked at are Americans who reported whether or not they were Jewish and are not less critical of Israel since joining the organization (n=501). The results of this survey were organized in Excel and transferred to STATA, a quantitative data analysis software.

Demographics

Table 1. Demographics – Total Variable (N) % (n) Jewish (501) 49.90 (250) Not Jewish (501) 50.10 (251) sQueer (426) 17.67 (76) Not Queer (426) 82.63 (350) Person of Color (475) 3.79 (18) White (475) 96.21 (457)

Table 2: Queer Identity by Jewish Identity Variable, % (n) Jewish Non-Jewish Total Queer 73.68 (56) 26.32 (20) 17.67 (76) Not Queer 44.86 (157) 55.14 (193) 82.63 (350) Total 100 (426)

Table 3: Racial Identity by Jewish Identity Variable, % (n) Jewish Non-Jewish Total Person of Color 16.67 (3) 83.33 (15) 3.79 (18) White 49.89 (228) 50.11 (229) 96.21 (457) Total 100 (475)

Table 1, Table 2, and Table 3 represent the demographics of the respondents in this study.

The survey recorded three demographics: gender and sexual identity, racial identity, and Jewish identity.

20 Respondents had the option to report ‘it’s complicated’ for their Jewish identity as well as

‘yes’ and ‘no.’ For this study, respondents who selected ‘it’s complicated’ were grouped in with the Jewish respondents based on the assumption that one would not select that their Jewish identity was complicated if they had no personal affiliation with Judaism whatsoever. Thus, those analyzed as Jewish (n=250) includes those who reported a complicated Jewish identity

(n=56). This dataset, looking only at American who responded that they either have the same or more critical views of Israel since joining the organization, includes 50.10% non-Jewish respondents (n=251) and 49.90% Jewish respondents (n=250). As this study’s primary focus is on Jewish respondents specifically in comparison to non-Jewish respondents, this data allows for a valuable comparative group. This substantial comparison, in other words, helps to better understand the uniqueness of the American Jewish experience of critiquing the occupation.

Additionally, to report gender and sexual orientation identity, respondents were asked

“please select if you identify as any of the following” – queer, lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, genderqueer, intersex, straight, cisgender, other, and prefer not to answer. For the purposes of this study, all respondents who selected queer, lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, genderqueer, intersex, and other were collapsed together to make an all-encompassing ‘queer’ variable.

Respondents were also asked if they identified as a person of color. All who selected yes were also collapsed into an all-encompassing ‘person of color’ variable. These decisions, collapsing, do not suggest that all of these identities are similar in any way or can be minimized to one category. These categories were collapsed for the purposes of efficient analysis, despite the reality that collapsing these categories does not accurately reflect the realities of identity. The inability to accurately review the impact of each identity due to the need to collapse is a limitation of quantitative sociology. Additionally, this study does not look at the role or influence

21 of gender identity, sexual orientation, or race in views or beliefs, as the study is reviewing the influence of Jewish identity on beliefs. Furthermore, including queer and non-white respondents within Jewish and non-Jewish respondents is arguably representative of the membership population at large. For both variables, those who did not respond were included in the study but were not included in this demographic table. Future research should look into the beliefs of queer

Jews, Jews of color, and queer Jews of color on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

Variables

The main independent variable used in this study was the dichotomized Jewish identity variable. Dependent variables include three questions that reviewed members’ attitudes toward

Israel/Palestine. First, respondents were asked how their views on Israel have changed since becoming involved with this specific organization. Additionally, the survey asked if respondents had ever experienced a turning point in their views on Israel/Palestine. If so, they were asked what caused their shift in views/opinions about the conflict. This was a select all question with ten possible options.

These responses address the study’s question of what makes the experience of being an

American Jew who critiques the Israeli occupation in Palestine unique. Asking members – and distinguishing between Jews and non-Jews – if they were more or less critical before joining the organization gives insight into the journey of the level of critique. Additionally, by asking what caused their shift in beliefs, this study will be able to review which experiences Jewish and non-

Jewish members had that changed their views from a less critical view to that of the radical pro-

Palestinian position held by this organization.

To review responses to the question about critical views of Israel compared to before the respondent was a member of this organization, the variable was dichotomized. Those who

22 selected that they were more critical of Israel before they were in the organization (n=35) were removed as this study is reviewing the conditions that make these populations more critical of the occupation. If these respondents were included they would skew the data. Additionally, four respondents did not answer this question, leaving 501 total responses. The variable analyzed had two possible responses – ‘same view as before joining the organization’ and ‘less critical of

Israel before joining the organization.’

The second variable, asking what caused the respondents’ shift in beliefs, is in ‘select all that apply’ format. Only those who reported experiencing a turning point in their beliefs were presented with this follow up question. Of the 501 total respondents analyzed, 332 responded that they had experienced a turning point. Of these, 276 responded to the following question –

“What caused the shift in your views/opinions about Israel/Palestine?”

Response options included:

• Exposure to different media/news outlets • Seeing/participating in a [organization] or other group’s protest online or in-person • Attending a local [organization] or other group’s educational event • Experiencing a particular cultural work – book, film, play, dance, article, etc. • A specific historical event (war, intifada, etc.) • An academic experience – class, lecture, etc. • Meeting/speaking with Palestinians • An interfaith/dialogue/educational program • Traveling to or living in Israel/Palestine • Other

Many respondents selected more than one option. Responses were analyzed in three ways.

First, numerical percentages were pulled for each response and produced a comparative graph between Jewish and non-Jewish respondents. Due to the ‘select all that apply’ nature of the question, responses do not add up to 100%. Additionally, multivariate logistic regression tests were conducted to compare each response based on Jewish identity. Finally, comparative of means t-tests were run for each response comparing Jewish and non-Jewish respondents.

23 FINDINGS

Becoming Critical

Table 3: Results of T-Test Comparing Jewish and Not Jewish Changes in Views on Israel/Palestine Variable Means of Not Means of Difference t-statistic Cohen’s d p-value Jewish Jewish Respondents Respondents Less Critical of 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.0773 0.0069 0.9384 Israel Before Turning Point 0.67 0.70 -0.03 -0.5871 -0.0674 -0.5574

Table 4: Respondents’ Level of Critique of Israel Before Joining the Organization % (n) Total (n=501) Same Level of Critique 75.05 (376) Less Critical Before 24.95 (125) Jewish (n=250) Same Level of Critique 75.20 (188) Less Critical Before 24.80 (62) Not Jewish (n=251) Same Level of Critique 74.90 (188) Less Critical Before 25.10 (63)

Figure 1.

Table 3 displays results of comparison of means tests analyzing both variables reviewed in this section. These tests did not produce any statistically significant data. All of the data expressed in this table support results in Table 4, Figure 1, Table 5, and Figure 2.

24 Table 4 displays Cross Tabulation results reviewing how Jewish and non-Jewish respondents reported their views on Israel before joining the organization. Figure 1 reflects the results in graph form. Results show that Jews and non-Jews experience almost identical changes in views, with 24.8% of Jews and 25.1% of non-Jews reporting being less critical of Israel before joining. This suggests that Jewish identity is not correlated with being less critical of Israel or not before joining the organization.

Experiencing a Turning Point in Views

Table 5: Turning Point % (n) Total (n=487) Turning Point 68.17 (332) No Turning Point 31.83 (155) Jewish (n=242) Turning Point 69.42 (168) No Turning Point 30.58 (74) Not Jewish (n=245) Turning Point 66.94 (164) No Turning Point 33.06 (81)

Figure 2.

25 Table 4 displays Cross Tabulation results reviewing whether Jewish and non-Jewish respondents reported experiencing a turning point in their views on Israel/Palestine. Figure 2 reflects the results in graph form. Results show that Jews and non-Jews reported similar levels of experiencing a turning point, with 69.42% of Jews and 66.94% of non-Jews reporting a turning point in their views. There is, however, a slight difference between the two, with Jews reporting higher levels of experiencing a turning point than non-Jews. This test did not produce any statistically significant data. This suggests that Jewish identity is not correlated with experiencing a turning point in views on Israel/Palestine.

Reasons for Shift in Beliefs

Table 6: Results of T-Test Comparing Jewish and Not Jewish Reasons for Shift in Views on Israel Variable Means of Not Means of Difference t-statistic Cohen’s d p-value Jewish Jewish Respondents Respondents Historical event 0.43 0.53 -0.10 -1.695 -0.200 0.091 Media/News 0.40 0.44 -0.04 -0.657 -0.077 0.511 Travel/Live 0.34 0.40 -0.06 -1.128 -0.134 0.260 Palestinians 0.38 0.34 0.04 0.714 0.085 0.476 Cultural Work 0.19 0.22 -0.03 -0.614 -0.073 0.539 Academia 0.09 0.16 -0.07 -1.805 -0.214 0.072 Protest 0.17 0.12 0.05 1.133 -0.134 0.258 Educational Event 0.13 0.11 0.02 0.555 0.066 0.579 Interfaith Program 0.19 0.10 0.09 2.082* 0.248 0.038* Other 0.15 0.10 0.05 1.269 0.150 0.206 p<.1, *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001 (two-tailed test of significance)

26 Figure 3.

Table 6 and Figure 3 are comparisons of Jewish versus non-Jewish respondents on the cause of their shift in beliefs about Israel. Results of Table 6’s comparative of means tests shows that there is a statistically significant difference in reporting that an interfaith dialogue or program caused their shift in beliefs between Jews (10.00%) and non-Jews (18.62%), with non-

Jews being 8.62% more likely to report this. All other results show no statistically significant difference between Jews and non-Jews. Both Jews and non-Jews reported the same top four responses as the reason for their shift towards more critical beliefs – specific historical event, access to different news or media outlets, traveling or living in Israel or Palestine, and meeting or speaking with Palestinians. Both populations selected historical event and media as the first and second reasons, respectively. Jews, however, reported traveling or living in Israel or Palestine more often than non-Jews and non-Jews reported meeting Palestinians more often than Jews.

DISCUSSION

This study assessed the experiences of members of this radical Palestinian solidarity

Jewish organization to look at this specific sect of the American Jewish population: those with

27 radically left-wing views of the occupation. While this data is not in any way a representative sample of the entire American Jewish population critiquing the occupation, it provides insight into a specific population: members of this organization. This data looks at American Jews who are so critical of the occupation that they have joined an organization that is actively very radically opposed to the occupation.

Previous scholars argue that the experience of being Jewish and critiquing the occupation is that of standing up against the dominant American Jewish narrative and breaking the norm

(Butler 2012; Waxman 2016). Furthermore, most studies look at what these American Jews who critique the occupation argue or believe (Butler 2012; Cohen and Eisen 2010; Cohen and Kelman

2007; Cohen and Kelman 2010; Kaufman 2007; Pew Research Center 2013; Sasson 2010;

Sasson et al 2010; Waxman 2016). This data does not just look at what these members believe but instead looks at why they believe what they believe. By reviewing differences between

Jewish and non-Jewish members’ experiences in their journey of coming to critique the occupation, this study can fill in a gap in the current literature by focusing on how this population came to their current beliefs as well as looking at the differences and similarities between Jews and non-Jews in this process.

A key finding of this study is that Jews and non-Jews reported similar changes in their level of critiquing Israel, comparing their views from before joining the organization to now.

Additionally, tests show a statistically significant difference between Jews and non-Jews in selecting interfaith dialogues as their reason for their change in beliefs. Finally, the top four explanations for respondents’ shift toward their views on Israel aligning with the organization were the same four for both Jewish and non-Jewish respondents. While the top four responses were the same, Jews and non-Jews reported different levels of each response.

28 A notable finding includes the comparison between Jews and non-Jews in their experiences of how their views have changed from before joining the organization. As reflected in Table 3, Jews and non-Jews reported almost identical (24.80% and 25.10%, respectively) levels of being less critical of Israel before joining the organization. The question specifically asks members views before joining the organization (again, those who reported being less critical of Israel now were removed from the study.) This finding shows that Jews and non-Jews reported almost identical levels of being less critical of Israel or not before joining the organization. While this finding was not statistically significant, it is surprising. It suggests that

Jewish identity is not correlated with the extent to which members critique Israel. The literature on this topic, including Waxman (2016) and Butler’s (2012) analyses, relies on the assumption that the Jewish experience of critiquing the occupation is unique (Butler 2012; Cohen & Eisen

2000; Cohen & Kelman 2007; Cohen & Kelman 2010; The Jewish Community Federation of

San Francisco, the Peninsula, Marin, and Sonoma Counties 2018; Waxman 2016; Waxman

2017a; Waxman 2017b; Wisse 2008; Young 2004). This finding, however, dispels this assumption, suggesting that the extent to which one critiques the occupation is not correlated to

Jewish identity.

Another key finding the a result in Table 5, which compared the difference between Jews and non-Jews in their experiences of their shift in beliefs. The option ‘interfaith program or dialogue’ produced a statistically significant difference between Jews and non-Jews. Non-Jews are 8.62% more likely than Jews to report that their shift in views occurred from an interfaith program or dialogue, as is supported by Figure 3. This can possibly be explained by Jews not organizing dialogues or interfaith programs about the occupation as much as non-Jews. Another possible explanation is that that these dialogues are happening among Jewish communities but

29 that they aren’t affecting Jews the way they are affecting non-Jews. As the explanation for this finding is outside of the scope of this study, this finding is a component of the American Jewish critique of the occupation that further research should look in to.

Additionally, both Jews and non-Jews reported the same the top four responses as the reason for their shift towards more critical beliefs – specific historical event, access to different news or media outlets, traveling to or living in Israel or Palestine, and meeting or speaking with

Palestinians. These top four responses, as shown in Figure 3, are notable. Despite the lack of statistical significance, they could be interpreted as possible correlations between experiences and beliefs.

Both Jews and non-Jews selected ‘specific historical event’ and ‘different news or media’ as the first and second reasons, respectively. They are grouped together for the purposes of this analysis based on the assumption that respondents hear about specific historical events through news or media. Specifically, 54.04% of Jewish respondents compared to 43.29% of non-Jewish respondents reported that a specific historical event changed their beliefs. This is an almost 11% difference, which is the largest reported difference between Jews and non-Jews despite the lack of statistical significance. Additionally, 43.92% of Jews versus 41.72% of non-Jews reported that access to different media or news outlets changed their beliefs. A specific historical event or access to different news or media sources suggests that these respondents heard about the conflict, whether it be a specific incident or general coverage, from a new perspective. This finding suggests that learning different narratives can influence a population’s beliefs. Beliefs are social constructions and, therefore, can be influenced and changed by different experiences

(Berger & Luckmann 1966). Other possible responses – meeting Palestinians, academia, etc. – focus on the impact of accessing narratives that differ from the dominant or from previously

30 heard narratives in changing respondents’ beliefs as well. These two, specific event and different news, however, are the most common experiences to cause a shift in beliefs. One possible explanation for this is that this is the most common way people gain their information about the conflict – news (Mitchell et al. 2016). Therefore, a specific event that doesn’t align with previous perceptions or access to media that portrays the conflict from a new perspective can, as represented in the data, impact and change beliefs. While access to new narratives does not always change beliefs, this question is looking only at those whose beliefs were, in fact, changed.

Based on previous literature, the assumption would be that those who are not Jewish would be more likely to have their views on Israel shifted towards a more critical perspective (Butler 2012;

Cohen & Eisen 2000; Cohen & Kelman 2007; Cohen & Kelman 2010; Waxman 2016; Waxman

2017b). This finding, when considered in conjunction with the previously discussed finding that

Jewish and non-Jewish members critique the occupation at similar levels once they are members, however, does not address why certain individuals might have their views affected more than others by access to different narratives. As Jewish identity does not influence whether one is affected by these different narratives, based on this data, this is a factor that future research should look in to. Regardless, a shift in beliefs resulting from a specific historical event or access to different media and news can be interpreted as a realization, and subsequent rejection, of the pro-Israeli narratives in our dominant culture.

Further results show that more Jewish (38.78%) than non-Jewish (33.94%) respondents reported that traveling to or living in Israel or Palestine caused their shift. This suggests that traveling to or living in Israel or Palestine might spark American Jewish criticism of the Israel at higher rates than non-Jews. A possible explanation for this could be that more Jews than non-

Jews are traveling to the area, which is a likely explanation due to their religious connection with

31 the nation as well as opportunities such the popular free ten-day trip to Israel for young Jews,

Birthright, beginning in 1999 (Saxe & Chazan 2008; Waxman 2016; Waxman 2017b). Since this data has quantitatively comparable Jewish and non-Jewish respondents, however, these findings cannot conclusively suggest that higher rates of travel as an explanation for this finding. This data does, however, show that American Jews are traveling to or living in Israel or Palestine in ways that affect their beliefs. We cannot separate out respondents who traveled to or lived in

Israel from those who traveled to or lived Palestine or those who experienced both, however, which is a limitation of this data. Further research should look into different experiences of travel and the impact that these various experiences might have on various demographics. Traveling to or living in either Israel or Palestine, regardless, can be viewed as a critical engagement with

Israel. Certain scholars suggest that Jews who critique the occupation are simply disconnected from Israel (Cohen & Eisen 2000; Cohen & Kelman 2007; Cohen & Kelman 2010; The Jewish

Community Federation of San Francisco, the Peninsula, Marin, and Sonoma Counties 2018).

This specific finding, however, can be interpreted in support of Waxman’s (2016) argument that

American Jews are, in fact, not disconnected but are engaging with Israel, just in a critical manner (Sasson 2010; Sasson et al. 2010). This finding suggests that, for this specific population, an experience of traveling to or living in Israel or Palestine was influential in changing views on the conflict towards a more critical stance.

Additionally, non-Jewish respondents reported meeting Palestinians as the reason for their shift more often (38.27%) than Jewish respondents (34.69%). This difference is of notice because Jews reported higher levels for the other top responses yet were less likely than non-

Jews to report having their views changed from meeting or speaking with Palestinians.

Regardless, interpersonal contact with Palestinians was still the fourth most selected reason for

32 both Jews and non-Jews. There are many possible ways to explain this finding. Jews could be less likely to meet or speak with Palestinians or non-Jews could be more influenced by these experiences. This finding, the discrepancy between Jewish and non-Jewish experiences of meeting or speaking with Palestinians, is something that future research should look in to.

Traveling to or living in Israel or Palestine and meeting or speaking with Palestinians can be interpreted as humanizing Palestinians through experience. Allport’s sociological and psychological theory known as contact theory argues that the best way to improve intergroup relations is through interpersonal contact (1954). Interpersonal contact, he argues, has the ability to minimize prejudice (Allport 1954). As Said’s Orientalism and subsequent dehumanization justifies and perpetuates violence against Palestinians, contact theory can support this study’s finding that meeting or speaking with Palestinian and traveling to or living in Israel or Palestine are two of the top four reasons that respondent’s views became more critical of Israel (Allport

1954; Said 1978). Overall, the findings predominantly suggest that, while the causes of a member’s shift in beliefs might be correlated to their Jewish identity, their views before joining the organization are not correlated to Jewish identity.

A notable limitation of the study is that age was not a demographic reported. Many scholars studying this topic focus on how generation affects American Jewish critique of Israel.

This dataset, however, could not address age or generational differences. Future research should look into gathering quantitative and qualitative data from a representative sample of American

Jews who critique the occupation, should include age as a demographic, and should focus more on the process defying the hegemonic American Jewish narrative to critique the occupation to determine the extent to which this process really exists. Additionally, the experience of critiquing the occupation as an American Jew is much more nuanced than this study allows for. Some

33 American Jews are in support of Israel but critique the occupation, placing themselves more in the center of the political spectrum, whereas others, like the members of this specific organization, prioritize Palestinian solidarity. Thus, further research should take a more nuanced approach by looking into where respondents lie along this spectrum.

CONCLUSION

The Israeli/Palestinian conflict is ongoing and persistent (Massad 2006). With President

Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu both in office, the potential for peace between Israelis and

Palestinians looks grim. Conditions in occupied territories are not getting any better as Israeli settlements are on the rise in the West Bank and Palestinian imprisonments and violent riots occur regularly (Ahronheim 2018; Al Jazeera 2017; Ashly 2017; Beauchamp 2017; Shaeffer

Omer-Man 2018; White 2018). There are 132 official settlements in the West Bank, fracturing

Palestinian communities and annexing Palestinian land, as well as about 100 additional unauthorized settlements (White 2018). The Israeli government only plans to continue building these settlements (Al Jazeera 2017). Furthermore, President Trump officially recognized the highly contested city of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital in December 2017, sparking riots across

Palestinian territories (Bishara 2017; Husseini 2017; Landler 2017; Walker 2017). At least a dozen Palestinians have been killed in these riots since this decision (Ahronheim 2018; Shaeffer

Omer-Man 2018). Additionally, there is a rarely discussed, anti-boycott Israel bill co-sponsored by over half of U.S. Senators currently on the table and whether or not this bill violates First

Amendment rights is unclear (ACLU 2017; Kontorovich 2017). These instances are just specific examples of the wide-scale American political support for perpetuating the Israeli occupation in

Palestine. This political dates back decades, including when President Kennedy suggested moving steps towards resolving the conflict to the “icebox” in the 1960s (Little 1993; Pressman

34 2005). This support is only continuing, as is further evidenced by President Trump stating, that

“Israel has no better ally than the United States,” in a 2017 joint press conference (Baroud 2017).

This support exists even when Israel is taking steps towards perpetuating and strengthening the occupation as opposed to taking striving for peace with the Palestinians (Fisher 2014; Goodman

2014; Husseini 2017; Jhally & Ratzkoff 2004). Trump recently stated that he is “not necessarily sure that Israel is looking to make peace” (Hume 2018).

These realities of conditions in Israel/Palestine and our contemporary political situation might seem bleak, headed down a path of further cementing the oppressive realities of the occupation (Al Jazeera 2017; Hume 2018). The findings of this study, however, might provide hope to those striving towards ending the occupation. Members reported that a specific historical event was the most common instance that changed their beliefs. Therefore, organizing protests, teaching courses, and organizing interfaith dialogues might not be the most successful method for activists hoping to spark a change in beliefs. These findings could, however, suggest that there is the potential for these current events – the anti-boycott Israel bill, Trump’s Jerusalem recognition, riots that end in death, etc. – to change more minds, to bring a greater awareness of the nuances to the dominant American Jewish perception of the occupation. The results of this study provide hope for the future of the American Jewish population and for those hoping to end the occupation. As the occupation persists and American Jews begin to fight back, a new future is on the horizon.

35 APPENDIX.

Descriptive Statistics Table

N Mean Min Max Turning Point 487 0.682 0 1 Reason for Critical Shift Historical Event 276 0.474 0 1 Media 276 0.417 0 1 Palestinians 276 0.355 0 1 Travel/Live 276 0.359 0 1 Cultural Work 276 0.217 0 1 Protest 276 0.145 0 1 Academia 276 0.120 0 1 Organization Education 276 0.120 0 1 Interfaith Program 276 0.149 0 1 Other 276 0.130 0 1 More Critical of Israel Now 501 0.249 0 1 Jewish 501 0.499 0 1 Queer 426 0.178 0 1 Person of Color 475 0.038 0 1

36 REFERENCES

ACLU. 2017. “How the Israel Anti-Boycott Act Threatens First Amendment Rights.” American Civil Liberties Union, July 26. Retrieved Dec 1, 2017 (https://www.aclu.org/blog/free- speech/how-israel-anti-boycott-act-threatens-first-amendment-rights).

Adoni, Hannah and Sherrill Mane. 1984. “Media and the Social Construction of Reality.” Communication Research, 11(3): 323-340.

Ahronheim, Anna. 2018. “Armed Palestinian Teenager Shot Dead by IDF Troops in West Bank During Protest.” J-Post, Jan 3. Retrieved Feb 19, 2018 (http://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli- Conflict/Armed-Palestinian-teenager-shot-dead-by-IDF-troops-in-West-Bank-during-protest- 532747).

Al Jazeera. 2017. “Palestine slams Israeli plan for new settlement units.” Dec 25. Retrieved Feb 19, 2018 (https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/12/palestinians-slam-israeli-plan-settlement- units-171225083108126.html).

Alam, M. Shahid. 2009. Israeli Exceptionalism: The Destabilizing Logic of Zionism. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Allport, George W. 1954. The Nature of Prejudice. Oxford: Addison-Wesley.

Alper, Loretta and Jeremy Earp. 2017. “Occupation of the American Mind.” Al Jazeera, Mar 9. Retrieved Feb 19, 2018 (https://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/specialseries/2017/03/occupation-american-mind- 170304122330451.html).

Ashly, Jaclynn. 2017. “Palestinian Ahed Tamimi arrested by Israeli forces.” Al Jazeera, Dec 19. Retrieved Feb 19, 2018 (https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/12/palestinian-ahed-tamimi- arrested-israeli-forces-171219174834758.html).

Association for Civil Rights in Israel. 2015. “East Jerusalem 2015: Facts and Figures” May 12.

Ballestreros, Carlos. 2017. “Israel Doesn’t Want Peace with the Palestinians, John Kerry Says.” Newsweek, Nov 19 (http://www.newsweek.com/israel-palestine-conflict-john-kerry- netanyahu-peace-716257).

Bar-Tal, Daniel and Salomon. 2006. “Israeli-Jewish Narratives of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: Evolution, Contents, Functions, and Consequences.” Pp. 20-46 in Israeli and Palestinian Narratives of Conflict: History’s Double Helix, edited by R. I. Rotberg. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Barghouti, Omar. 2017. “Two Degrees of Separation: Israel, Its Palestinian Victims, and the Fraudulent Use of Antisemitism.” Pp. 139-151 in On Anti-Semitism. Chicago: Haymarket Books.

37

Baroud, Ramzy. 2017. “The uneven alliance: How America became pro-Israel.” Al Jazeera, Mar 9. Received Mar 8 2018 (https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2017/03/uneven-alliance- america-pro-israel-170308064459862.html).

Bashir, Bashir and Amos Goldberg. 2014. “Deliberating the Holocaust and the Nakba: disruptive empathy and binationalism in Israel/Palestine.” Journal of Genocide Research, 16(1):77-99.

Beauchamp, Zack. 2017. “Everything you need to know about Israel-Palestine.” Vox, Dec 6. Retrieved Dec 1, 2017 (https://www.vox.com/cards/israel-palestine/).

Berger, Peter L. and Thomas Luckmann. 1966. The Social Construction of Reality. New York: Random House.

Bishara, Marwan. 2017. “Trump on Jerusalem: a quintessential Netanyahu.” Al Jazeera, Dec 7. Retrieved Dec 1. 2017 (https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/trump-jerusalem- quintessential-netanyahu-171207112152149.html).

Boyarin, Daniel and Jonathan Boyarin. 1993. “Diaspora: Generation and the Ground of Jewish Identity.” Critical Inquiry 19(4):693-725.

Brenner, Michael. 2003. Zionism: A Brief History. Princeton, Markus Wiener Publishers.

Burack, Emily. 2018. “Everything You Need to Know About Anti-Semitism in the Women’s March Movement.” Alma, Mar 5. Received Mar 8 (https://www.heyalma.com/everything-need- know-anti-semitism-womens-march- movement/?utm_content=buffer3dd8e&utm_medium=social&utm_source=almafacebook&u tm_campaign=buffer).

Butler, Judith. 2012. Parting Ways: Jewishness and the Critique of Zionism. New York: Columbia University Press.

Byrnes, Sholto. 2014. “No matter how you look at it, Israel doesn’t want peace.” The National, Jul 29. Retrieved Dec 1 2017 (https://www.thenational.ae/opinion/no-matter-how-you-look-at-it- israel-doesn-t-want-peace-1.631525).

Cohen, Steven M. and Arnold M. Eisen. 2000. “Echoes of Tribalism” The Jew Within: Self, Family, and Community in America. Pp. 100-134.

Cohen, Steven M. and Ari Y. Kelman. 2007. “Beyond Distancing – Young Adult American Jews and Their Alienation from Israel.” Jewish DataBank.

Cohen, Steven M. and Ari Y. Kelman. 2010. “Thinking about Distancing from Israel. Contemporary Jewry 30(2-3):287-296.

38 DeGraff, Jeff. 2016. “This is the end of marriage, capitalism, and God. Finally!” Salon, Feb 6. Retrieved May 1 2017 (https://www.salon.com/2016/02/06/this_is_the_end_of_marriage_capitalism_and_god_final ly/).

Ettinger, Yair. 2017. “President Rivlin at Holocaust Day Ceremony: Not Every Criticism of Israel Equals anti-Semitism.” Haaretz, Apr 23. Retrieved May 1 2017 (https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/rivlin-not-every-criticism-of-israel-is-anti-semitism- 1.5464166).

Ferguson, Leo. 2017. “On Antisemitism” Jewish Voice For Peace Antisemitism Panel at The New School. Nov 28. Retrieved Dec 1.

Fisher, Max. 2014. “Is the American media biased in favor of Israel?” Vox, Jul 23. Retrieved Feb 1 2018 (https://www.vox.com/2014/7/23/5929971/is-the-american-media-biased-in-favor-of- israel).

Goldwag, Arthur. 2017. “Trump, the Alt-right, Antisemitism, and Zionism.” On Anti-Semitism. Pp. 83-90. Chicago: Haymarket Books.

Goodman, Amy. 2014. “MSNBC’s Sole Palestinian Voice Rula Jebreal Takes on Pro-Israeli Gov’t Bias at Network & in US Media.” Democracy Now! Jul 23. Retrieved Feb 1 2018 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JS9nah3cpU8).

Gould-Warofsky, Michael. 2010. “Through the Looking Glass: The Myth of Israeli Exceptionalism” Huffington Post, Jun 3. Retrieved Dec 1 2017 (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael- gouldwartofsky/through-the-looking-glass_b_596704.html).

Hertzl, Theodore. 1896. “Der Judenstaat (The Jewish State)”

Horowitz, Bethamie. 2002. “Reframing the Study of Contemporary American Jewish Identity” Contemporary Jewry 23:14-34

Hume, Tim. 2018. “Even Trump Thinks Israeli Settlements Are A Bad Idea.” Vox, Feb 12. Retrieved Feb 18 (https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/7x78de/trump-israel-settlements-interview).

Husseini, Ibrahim. 2017. “Palestinians in Jerusalem: Trump’s move is no surprise.” Al Jazeera, Dec 6. Retrieved Feb 18 2018 (https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/12/palestinians-jerusalem- surprise-trump-plan-171206145053727.html).

Ikemoto, Lisa C. 2003. “Male Fraud” Pp. 250-258 in Critical Race Feminism: A Reader, 2nd edition, edited by Adrien Katherine Wing. New York: New York University Press.

Jacobs, Ron. 2014. “US and Israeli Exceptionalism.” CounterPunch, Jul 15. Retrieved Feb 1 2018 (https://www.counterpunch.org/2014/07/15/us-and-israeli-exceptionalism/).

39 Jewish Voice for Peace. 2012. “Mission.” N.d. Retrieved Nov. 27, 2017 (https://jewishvoiceforpeace.org/mission/).

Jhally, Sut and Bathsheba Ratzkoff. 2004. “Peace, Propaganda & The Promised Land.” Media Education Foundation.

Joffee, Alexander and Asaf Romirosky. 2014. “The Politics Of The Palestinian Right Of Return.” Forbes, Feb 24. Retrieved Dec 18 2017 (https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2014/02/24/the-politics-of-the-palestinian-right-of- return/#7a19a6a9608b).

Kaplan Sommer, Allison. 2017. “The Jewish Voice at the Heart of the Boycott Israel Movement.” Haaretz, Mar 29. Retrieved Mar 8 2018 (https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/the-jewish- voice-at-the-heart-of-the-boycott-israel-movement-1.5453944).

Kaufman, Debra Renee. 2007. “Post-Memory and Post-Holocaust Identity.” Sociology Confronts the Holocaust. Pp. 39-54. Durham: Duke University Press.

Khalili, Laleh. 2012. Time in the Shadows: Confinement in Counterinsurgencies. Pp. 57-64 & 184- 212. Stanford, Stanford University Press.

Kontorovich, Eugene. 2017. “Israeli anti-boycott bill does not violate free speech.” The Washington Post, Jul 27. Retrieved Mar 1 2018 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh- conspiracy/wp/2017/07/27/israel-anti-boycott-bill-does-not-violate-free- speech/?utm_term=.9c10ea4a3648).

Kovel, Joel. 2007. Overcoming Zionism: Creating a Single Democratic State in Israel/Palestine. UK: Pluto Press.

Krupkin, Taly. 2017. “Linda Sarsour at Racial Justice March: ‘It Is Not My Job to Educate Jewish People That Palestinians Deserve Dignity’” Haaretz, Oct 02. Retrieved Dec 18 2017 (https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/.premium-sarsour-not-my-job-to-teach-jews-that- palestinians-deserve-dignity-1.5454882).

Landler, Mark. 2017. “Trump Recognizes Jerusalem as Israel’s Capital and Orders U.S. Embassy to Move.” The New York Times, Dec 6. Retrieved Dec 1 2017 (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/06/world/middleeast/trump-jerusalem-israel- capital.html).

Little, Douglas. 1993. “The Making of a Special Relationship: The United States and Israel, 1957- 68.” International Journal of Middle East Studies, 25(4): 563-585.

Makdisi, Saree. 2008. “Inside Out Palestine Inside Out: An Everyday Occupation. Pp. 209-262. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.

40 Massad, Joseph A. 2006. The Persistence of the Palestinian Question: Essays on Zionism and the Palestinians. New York: Routledge.

McMurry, Evan. 2014. “MSNBC Guest Scolds Network for Lack of Palestinian Views: ‘Disgustingly Biased.’” Mediaite, Jul 21. Retrieved Feb 1 2018 (https://www.mediaite.com/tv/msnbc-guest-scolds-network-for-lack-of-palestinian-views- disgustingly-biased/).

Mitchell, Amy, Jeffrey Gottfried, Michael Barthel and Elisa Shearer. 2016. “The Modern News Consumer.” Pew Research Center, Journalism & Media Jul 7. Retrieved Mar 1 2018 (http://www.journalism.org/2016/07/07/pathways-to-news/).

Morales, Aurora Levins. 2017. “Who Am I to Speak?” On Anti-Semitism. Pp. 103-110. Chicago: Haymarket Books.

Myre, Greg. 2018. “Deadly Connection: Neo-Nazi Group Linked to 3 Accused Killers.” National Public Radio, Mar 6. Retrieved Mar 8 (https://www.npr.org/2018/03/06/590292705/5- killings-3-states-and-1-common-neo-nazi-link).

Pappe, Ilan. 1997. “Post-Zionist Critique on Israel and the Palestinians: Part I: The Academic Debate.” Journal of Palestine Studies, 26(2):29-41.

Penslar, Derek J. 2008. “Zionism, Colonialism and Postcolonialism.” Journal of Israeli History, 20(2-3): 84-98.

Pew Research Center. 2013. “A Portrait of Jewish Americans” Pew Research Center, Oct 1. Retrieved Nov 29 2017 (http://www.pewforum.org/2013/10/01/jewish-american-beliefs- attitudes-culture-survey/).

Pressman, Jeremy. 2005. “A Brief History of the Arab-Israeli Conflict” May 25. University of Connecticut.

Rabkin, Yakov M. 2017. “Conflating Zionism and Judaism leaves Jewish students exposed.” 972mag, Dec 8. Retrieved Dec 18, 2017 (https://972mag.com/conflating-zionism-and- judaism-leaves-jewish-students-exposed/131244/).

Reuters. 2013. “UN: Palestinian Children Tortured, Used as Human Shields by Israel.” Haaretz, Jun 20. Retrieved Dec 1 2017 (https://www.haaretz.com/.premium-israel-tortured-palestinian- children-1.5283333).

Robinson, Shira. 2013a. “Both Citizens and Strangers.” Citizen Strangers: Palestinians and the Birth of Israel’s Liberal Settler State. Pp. 153-193. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Robinson, Shira. 2013b. “From Settlers to Sovereigns.” Citizen Strangers: Palestinians and the Brith of Israel’s Liberal Settler State. Pp. 11-28.

41 Said, Edward. 1978. Orientalism. New York: Pantheon.

Said, Edward. 1979. “Zionism from the Standpoint of Its Victims.” Social Text 1:7-58.

Samman, Khaldoun. 2013. “Zionism, the Occidentalization of the Jew, and the Silencing of Palestinian History.” Wolrds & Knowledges Otherwise.

Sardar, Zaiuddin. 1999. Orientalism. Philadelphia: Open University Press.

Sarsour, Linda. 2017a. “Linda Sarsour, a contributor to JVP book: ‘On Antisemitism: Solidarity and the Struggle for Justice” Jewish Voice for Peace, Nov 7. Retrieved Dec 1 2017 (https://www.facebook.com/JewishVoiceforPeace/videos/10156770836744992/).

Sarsour, Linda. 2017b. “Our Liberation is Intertwined: An Interview with Linda Sarsour.” On Antisemitism: Solidarity and the Struggle for Justice. Pp. 91-94. Chicago: Haymarket Books.

Sasson, Theodore. 2010. “Mass Mobilization to Direct Engagement: American Jews’ Changing Relationship to Israel.” Israel Studies 15(2):173-195.

Sasson, Theodore, Charles Kadushin, and Leonard Saxe. 2010. “Trends in American Attachment to Israel: An Assessment of the ‘Distancing’ Hypothesis.” Contemporary Jewry 30(2):297-319.

Saxe, Leonard and Barry Chazan. 2008. Ten Days of Birthright Israel: A Journey in Young Adult Identity. MA: Brandeis University Press.

Schaeffer Omer-Man, Michael. 2018. “Palestinian man dies following beating by IDF soldiers.” 972mag, Feb 22. Retrieved Mar 1 (https://972mag.com/idf-soldiers-beat-a-palestinian-man- to-death-in-jericho-will-they-face-investigation/133346/).

Schreier, Joshua and Mira Sucharov. 2016. “If Israel Lets in Palestinian Refugees, Will It Lose Its Jewish Character?” Forward, Oct 17. Retrieved Dec 2017 (https://forward.com/opinion/352075/if-israel-lets-in-palestinian-refugees-will-it-lose-its- jewish-character/?attribution=author-article-listing-2-headline).

Shavit, Ari. 2013. “Lydda, 1948.” My Promised Land: The Triumph and Tragedy of Israel. Pp. 99- 134. New York: Random House Publishing Group.

Sheizaf, Noam. 2012. “‘No Solution,’ says the oppressor to the oppressed.” 972mag, Dec 9. Retrieved Dec 1 2017 (https://972mag.com/no-solution-says-the-oppressor-to-the- oppressed/61730/).

Simmel, Georg. 1908. “The Stranger.” Pp. 402-408 in The Sociology of Georg Simmel, 1950, translated by Kurt Wolff. New York: Free Press.

42 Smith, Charles D. 1988. “European Crises and their Repercussions: Ottoman Society, Palestine, and the Origins of Zionism.” Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict. Pp. 18-39. UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

Stein, Arlene. 2007. “Trauma Stories, Identity Work, Recognition.” Sociology Confronts the Holocaust. Pp. 84-91. Durham: Duke University Press.

Tahhan, Zena. 2017. “Israel’s arrest of Palestinians ‘highest in years.’” Al Jazeera, Aug 9. Retrieved Dec 1 2017 (https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2017/08/israel-arrests-palestinians- highest-years-170809090949701.html).

Teller, J.L. 1949. “Goyim.” The Antioch Review 74(3):522-527.

The Jewish Community Federation of San Francisco, the Peninsula, Marin, and Sonoma Counties. 2018. “Community Study Highlights” A Portrait of Bay Area Jewish Life and Communities, Feb 13. Retrieved Mar 8 2018.

Thomas, Baylis. 2009. “One-state, Two-sides, or Continued Apartheid?” The Dark Side of Zionism: Israel’s Quest for Security Through Dominance. Pp. 167-183. UK: Lexington Books.

Thrall, Nathan. 2017. “Israel-Palestine: The real reason there’s still no peace.” The Guardian, May 16. Retrieved Dec 1 2017 (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/16/the-real-reason- the-israel-palestine-peace-process-always-fails).

Vice News. 2017. “Charlottesville: Race and Terror.” Aug 21. Retrieved Dec 1 2017 (https://video.vice.com/en_us/video/charlottesville-race-and-terror-vice-news-tonight-on- hbo/59921b1d2f8d32d808bddfbc).

Vilkomerson, Rebecca. 2017. “Introduction.” On Antisemitism: Solidarity and the Struggle for Justice. Pp. 1-4. Chicago: Haymarket Books

Walker, Seb. 2017. “Palestinians are uniting against Trump’s Jerusalem decision.” Vice News, Dec 17. Retrieved Dec 18 2017 (https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/7xw45d/palestinians-are- uniting-against-trumps-jerusalem-decision).

Waxman, Dov. 2016. Trouble in the Tribe. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Waxman, Dov. 2017a. “American Jews and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: Part of the Problem or Part of the Solution?” Political Science Quarterly 132(2):313-340.

Waxman, Dov. 2017b. “Young American Jews and Israel: Beyond Birthright and BDS” Israel Studies 22(3):177-199.

White, Ben. 2018. “Israel’s ‘creeping annexation’ of West Bank continues.” Al Jazeera, Mar 6. Received Mar 8 (https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/03/israel-creeping-settlements- continue-expanding-180303201420050.html).

43

Williams, Richard. 2007. “Responses to the Holocaust: Discussing Jewish Identity Through the Perspective of Social Construction.” Sociology Confronts the Holocaust. Pp. 92-109. Durham: Duke University Press.

Wing, Adrien Katherine. 2003. “Introduction” Pp. 1-19 in Critical Race Feminism: A Reader, 2nd edition, edited by Adrien Katherine Wing. New York: New York University Press.

Wisse, Ruth R. 2008. “Forgetting Zion.” Commentary Magazine, Oct 1. Retrieved May 1 2017 (https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/forgetting-zion/).

Yoffie, Rabbi Eric. 2011. “Op-Ed: Judaism is always tikkun olam – and more.” Jewish Telegraphic Agency, Aug 1. Retrieved Mar 1 2018 (https://www.jta.org/2011/08/01/news- opinion/opinion/op-ed-judaism-is-always-tikkun-olam-and-more).

Young, Gay. 2004. “Review: Supporting Israel: A Traitorous Stance.” Contemporary Sociology 33(4):410-413.

44