My recent draft of a village resolution calling for a ceasefire between Gaza and Israel [Viewpoints, April 24] elicited some noteworthy responses:
Jim Madigan was the only reader who submitted an alternative resolution, which has one distinct advantage over mine: Brevity. Here is his version:
A response to the critical humanitarian crisis in Gaza
The Board of Trustees of the Village of Oak Park recognizes there is a major humanitarian crisis unfolding in Gaza with the displacement of more than a million people and the deaths of tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians — the vast majority women and children — as well as medical workers, international aid workers, and journalists.
We call for the provision of immediate and unconditional lifesaving humanitarian aid in Gaza.
We recognize the only way to accomplish the delivery of such humanitarian aid is with an immediate permanent ceasefire.
We call for the release of all hostages.
We urge the Biden administration and the United States Congress to call for the provision of immediate and unconditional lifesaving humanitarian aid in Gaza, an immediate and permanent ceasefire, and the release of all hostages.
Other respondents to my column said passing any ceasefire resolution would divide the Oak Park community. But it would only be divisive if it were done without consensus and the village board probably won’t do that unless they get a nod from the pro-Israel community, which has already declared it a non-starter.
So what kind of statement might we reach consensus on?
The pro-Israel side will never agree to any statement that doesn’t include eliminating Hamas, wrote Judith Alexander, who called my resolution well-meaning but naïve. But, she added, “I believe almost all of us care deeply about the welfare of civilians in Gaza and the West Bank. We join all of goodwill in hoping a sustainable way to peace is found and found soon.” She favors a petition instead of an official resolution, and that wording could include Judith’s call for eliminating Hamas, in addition to her expression of concern for civilians caught in the conflict.
Whatever form it takes, there is something to be said for the Oak Park community making a public declaration on an issue of moral import. There are precedents for starting such groundswells — voice by voice, butterfly wing to hurricane. The Civil Rights Movement, after all, probably sounded naïve … at first.
What was it Margaret Mead reportedly said? “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.”
Too divisive? Our community is already divided. Is it better to remain silent and pretend fault lines don’t exist? Will talking about them make things worse … or better?
One commenter said he couldn’t support a resolution, but if there were a community call for dialogue among residents across areas of difference — including on antisemitism and Islamophobia — he would sign up.
Consider it proposed and included in any joint moral declaration we might issue.
The need for a widespread nonviolent resistance movement in Israel, Gaza and the West Bank should also be included in our joint declaration. On May 1, the New York Times ran a profile of Issa Amro, a remarkable, nonviolent, Palestinian dissident in the West Bank who, if he survives the violence directed his way, might become the next Gandhi/King/Mandela. I suspect many Israelis would be willing to join such a movement alongside their Palestinian brethren.
Staying on the current path of win-lose, after all, is getting nowhere and leads inevitably to lose-lose. Gaza is losing the war militarily. Israel is losing it morally and spiritually. Both sides, as well as their supporters in this community, are hurting deeply, but with all the anger, too many fail to see the hurt on the other side. It’s the pain of both camps that we need to talk about.
We also need to discuss our shared biblical mythology — the original rift between Isaac and Ishmael, the two sons of Abraham, from whom Jews and Muslims, respectively, are descended.
We should talk as well about worshipping the false god of security, which leads to hunkering down in bunkers, fortresses being one of our most dangerous illusions.
We need to talk about the meaning of the Day of Atonement, the holiest day in the Jewish calendar, in terms of this conflict and how the only way to atone on both sides is to turn it into the Day of At-Onement.
Minus a two-state solution, the only way to win-win this war is for Israelis and Palestinians to become one people, created — and treated — equal. The descendants of Isaac and Ishmael must become the brothers they were meant to be. They need to be at each other’s side instead of at each other’s throat. No longer can each side afford to say, “We must win. If you lose, that’s not our problem” while the other side says, “If we lose, then you must lose too.”
Biblically speaking, we are also descended from Cain, who killed his brother Abel, leaving us dis-Abeled. After committing humanity’s first murder, Cain famously asked, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” But we aren’t really each other’s keeper. We are each other’s ally. Pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli.
Because we’re all related. We are family, like it or not, and always will be.
But can we talk to one another?