[MUSIC]

Brian Lehrer: It's The Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC. Good morning, everyone. Well, you've been hearing about the killing in Gaza of seven humanitarian aid workers delivering food from the World Central Kitchen relief organization founded by Chef José Andrés. As it happened, Chef Andrés was just on this show two weeks ago on March 19th.

José Andrés: The important number is that World Central Kitchen has done 37 million meals. We have more than 66 kitchens. We do around 250,000 hot meals for a total of around 350,000 meals a day.

Brian Lehrer: 350,000 meals a day now gone for the foreseeable future. Chef José Andrés on this show last month, and he said it is very complicated to bring food into Gaza. Listen.

José Andrés: It's a very complicated process to bring food into Gaza where the food and the humanitarian aid keeps changing tracks and then has to be checked by Israel and then again changes tracks again.

Brian Lehrer: Chef Andrés said the easiest place to get food into had been the south in the Rafah area. It was harder as they moved up to the middle and north of the Gaza Strip.

José Andrés: They can be blockades in the middle by people that are hungry. Even when you are succeeding because you are feeding people, the issue is that you are not succeeding in reaching the hospitals or the communities very, very north, all the way to Jabalia, that they are having a hard time finding food.

Brian Lehrer: Chef Andrés on the show last month, and they have now suspended their deliveries while they reassess the safety situation. Those numbers that he gave us in the first clip from last month indicate the impact the suspension will have on the amount of food Gazans can find. 350,000 meals a day is what he said they were delivering. The dead in this incident are reported to include three British citizens, one Polish national, one Australian, one Canadian American, and one Palestinian. Chef Andrés has a New York Times op-ed today that begins by naming the names of his seven dead colleagues.

We will respect that and repeat those. Saifeddin Issam Ayad Abutaha, John Chapman, Jacob Flickinger, Zomi Frankcom, James Henderson, James Kirby and Damian Sobol. Chef Andrés writes that they risked everything for the most fundamentally human activity to share our food with others. So how did this happen? The Israeli newspaper Haaretz quotes sources from the IDF, the Israeli Defense Forces who say a drone bombed the World Central Kitchen aid convoy three times targeting an armed Hamas member who wasn't there. That from Haaretz.

It continues that IDF sources also told Haaretz that the aid workers were killed because officers on the ground do what they want. This also comes as President Biden has been increasingly critical of Israel's war efforts and public comments. Though, as you know, he continues to supply military aid with no consequences for what he condemns, and it comes as Haaretz reports that protesters in the thousands, including family members of hostages were demonstrating last night in front of the Knesset, the Israeli parliament, demanding immediate elections.

They report, police clashed with hostages' families as hundreds protested outside Prime Minister Netanyahu's home. We'll talk now to Haaretz journalist Allison Kaplan Sommer. She's also the host of the Haaretz weekly Podcast and co-host of their podcast called The Promised. She has an article now called If Only Israel Thought of All Its Gaza Victims as a PR Disaster. Allison, thank you for giving us some time at this ongoing intense time in your country. Welcome to WNYC.

Allison Kaplan Sommer: Thank you so much for having me on.

Brian Lehrer: You report that the death of these aid workers is not being treated with what you call the usual Israeli reaction. What would that usual reaction be, and what's the difference that you're seeing?

Allison Kaplan Sommer: Well, typically, there's a very cautious attitude towards assigning blame, towards taking responsibility immediately and saying that Israel has to watch and wait and it's not taking responsibility. There's often insinuations that the victims of these humanitarian disasters had some sort of role in their fate. That, for example, when there was a run on humanitarian aid, that there was some sort of Hamas involvement in the distribution of aid. There are definitely a lot of hesitations before the military will take responsibility.

They rarely express deep condolences, a sense of deep regret for what's happened. I think because of the sense that this is indeed a public relations disaster, that World Central Kitchen really had unprecedented level of cooperation with the IDF. That this was such a mistake on such large proportions and involved citizens of countries on whose support that Israel relies, that a very different tone was struck this time than we've seen in the past. Unfortunately, with multiple IDF, I don't want to say mishaps, but mistakes and tragic miscalculations that have caused thousands and thousands of lives.

Brian Lehrer: To your headline, If Only Israel Thought of All Its Gaza Victims as a PR Disaster, how would you fill in that scenario? What if Israel thought all of its Gaza victims, meaning the innocent civilians who they're killing in the course of the war were PR disasters for them? What do you think might be different?

Allison Kaplan Sommer: Well, maybe we would see lower numbers of Palestinians killed. There is great support for the need. There was great support for the need after October 7th for Israel to take military action so that this would not happen again in order to make its borders safe for its southern communities. The country was in deep trauma over what had happened. In a very similar way, I think, to the United States reaction to 911, there was just an emotional sense that we had to go in there and hit as hard as we could in order to protect the country.

I think that in that atmosphere, in that sense, that there has been a hardening of Israeli hearts in view of the horrible atrocities that occurred on October 7th to the humanitarian crisis happening in Gaza as a result of what's going on in terms of the Israeli offensive there. There's agreement that there's a need to disarm Hamas militarily, but I don't think there's been quite enough sensitivity as to the human cost and not enough public sensitivity shown by the military leaders and the Israeli political leaders as to what's happening there and the cost.

Brian Lehrer: Listeners, first priority on the phones for this segment can go to any Israeli Americans listening right now, or any Israelis in Israel listening right now, or people with personal ties to the country. What do you want the government there to do differently than what they're doing, if anything? 212-433-WNYC, 212-433-9692. We know Palestinians and so many other people want things to be different, many American Jews too, just members of the diaspora without personal ties to Israel or afoot in Israel in some way. What about you, listeners, if you are Israeli or have personal connections to Israel?

You'll get first priority on the phones in this segment with our guest from the Israeli news organization Haaretz. 212-433-WNYC, 212-433-9692. Allison, again, to your headline. In a way, would it be fair to say that the deaths of so many victims have been massive PR disasters? Israel has been officially accused of what many people see as genocide. Acts of antisemitism are spiking in the US and around the world. Even Joe Biden, even Chuck Schumer are saying Israel is over the top killing indiscriminately, lost its way, all those quotes. None of that has changed the approach to the war. Do you think this incident is a different kind of PR disaster, or that everything I just mentioned has not also been a PR disaster?

Allison Kaplan Sommer: I would agree that it has not changed the approach to the war. For example, the very fact that this large scale humanitarian aid was going in was a concession to the United States and to international pressure. At first because of the frustration over the holding of the hostages and the anger over October 7th, there was very little humanitarian allowed into Gaza.

I believe that we would be seeing probably even more dire humanitarian circumstances in Gaza if it weren't for the voice of Joe Biden, the pressure being put by the United States. I think, it's been six months now, so the attitude of the White House, of Joe Biden, of the administration, of the international community today is very different than it was at the beginning of the war. You've seen the Israeli offensive adjust in accordance with some of those pressures.

Brian Lehrer: I read a stat on Vox that 196 aid workers have been killed in this war. If that's true, and tell me if you have reporting at Haaretz, that backs that up or not, why do you think none of those other 189 aid worker deaths created this kind of PR disaster?

Allison Kaplan Sommer: I don't know if that precise number is true. Given the overall numbers of civilians killed, I wouldn't be surprised. When we talk about those humanitarian workers, I think we're talking about a lot of the UNRWA workers. I think that Israel has not been coordinating as closely with those organizations as they have with the World Central Kitchen, which really had the close endorsement of the Israeli military and was working closer with them. On the other side of the argument there is the Hamas strategy, especially in the beginning of the war.

Even now of prosecuting its war from underground tunnels and putting itself inside hospitals, inside places where civilians come for humanitarian aid. There's a direct conflict between the Israeli military's determination to root out the Hamas military infrastructure and in via to mitigate civilian casualties. It's a direct conflict. If you find that the places where the infrastructure is located is in the midst of places where civilians are gathering in order to get humanitarian aid.

Brian Lehrer: You mentioned Hamas and they are, of course, the other part of the equation. I see that your Haaretz colleague, Amira Hass, who reports from the West Bank and has lived previously in Gaza, has a story this week called People are constantly cursing Sinwar. Sinwar is the leader of Hamas. People are constantly cursing Sinwar, Gazans are opposing Hamas are sure they're the majority. Can you offer any insight on whether people in Gaza, even as they obviously hate what Israel is doing to them directly, also want to be done with Hamas, or blame them for putting them in this position with October 7th and by embedding among civilians as they do?

Allison Kaplan Sommer: Well, unfortunately, when you've got a violent military terrorist dictatorship, you can't really conduct great public opinion polls. Amira, who communicates a great deal with people in Gaza, says that there is that sense. There have been videos circulated around social media of people chanting against Sinwar, against Hamas, but those are my colleagues.

Amira is one of them, but we have many people at Haaretz who are in communication with Gazans, although they're not there necessarily on the ground right now, but through telephone and through the limited amount of internet they can get there. There may be some sentiment against Hamas, but there's a lot more, I think, resentment against Israel, which is actually perpetrating the violence that they're suffering from.

Brian Lehrer: Do Israelis at all resent the fact that Israel seems to be playing right into Hamas' hands, even as it seeks to destroy Hamas? Tell me if you accept this narrative. By many accounts that I've seen, Hamas went big on October 7th, seeking to draw just this kind of massive Israeli response that would be a PR disaster for Israel, launch a wider war, and stop Saudi Arabia from normalizing relations, which was on the table. Would you say it's a consensus position that that's what Hamas was after, or that Hamas is winning in those respects as Israel takes the bait, hook, line, and sinker?

Allison Kaplan Sommer: I think there's a sense that Hamas won on October 7th by defying all of the assumptions, all of-- they call it-- the concept that Israel could pacify Hamas, which really wanted to be a state taking care of its people. That if we gave it enough power, enough control, funneled enough cash through Qatar, that we could guarantee a limited amount of violence across the border, and obviously a great deal of faith in the high-tech solutions that were happening across the Gaza border.

All of those conceptions collapsed on the heads of Israelis on October 7th. They were devastated to feel that. Yes, I think the two things are true. One is that Israelis do believe that they played into the hands of Hamas. At the same time, I don't think that they saw an alternative, that they believe that they lived in a rough and difficult neighborhood in the middle of the Middle East. If someone does to you what Hamas did on October 7th and you sit back, and especially with the taking the hostages.

You can't sit back and not give a very a strong response. Because not only will that enable and embolden Hamas and increase their sense of victory, but it will enable and embolden other enemies and they will say, "Wow, if Hamas got away with that kind of attack, let's see what we can do." There's a strong sense of necessary deterrence on the northern border and on the other border. I think that, yes, Israelis may agree that Israel played into Hamas' hands, but I don't think they quite see what the alternative to doing so would have been.

Brian Lehrer: Let's take a phone call. Melissa in Manhattan, you're on WNYC. Hello, Melissa.

Melissa: Good morning. I baptized to Israel. I have relatives there. I own property there. The October 7th initiative was a very clear break of a ceasefire, and I think the world is forgetting this. If the hostages were returned, this could be over.

Brian Lehrer: Therefore, what Melissa? A lot of people would ask, therefore what, in terms of the nature of the Israeli response?

Melissa: I think that your guest is correct. I think that the Israelis don't see an option because they've given concessions, they have built buildings, they have built water treatment plants. Only to have those things dug up, destroyed, and turned into bombs and thrown back at the Israelis. The world doesn't really pay attention to all of the things that Israel has done, and done, and done, and done. Only to have this massacre occur, which was specific orders to disrupt. It wasn't just a bunch of kids. This was a targeted attack with clear initiative. Where are those young women? Have they been raped?

Are they pregnant? This is an insane situation that no one has been able to come up with a solution to in all these years. The only thing that happened is public opinion is chanting from the river to the sea, which most people don't even know which river and which sea. The initiative of those people is to destroy Israel, not to have peace with Israel. I think that is the most important point. Israel would love to have peace if they knew they could trust their neighbors and they can't. That was proven on October 7th, unequivocally.

Brian Lehrer: Melissa, thank you very much for your call. Carol in the Bronx, who also says she has family in Israel. Carol, you're on WNYC. Thank you for calling in.

Carol: Can you hear me?

Brian Lehrer: I can hear you.

Carol: I have a sister and her family, her children, and her grandchildren in Israel. This attack puts the cap on it. It was not a mistake. The journalists, the hospitals, the food-- and this were on purpose. They want to destroy the Gazan people. If this doesn't wake up Israelis, I don't know what will.

Brian Lehrer: Carol, thank you very much. I will tell you, Allison-- and my guest is Haaretz journalist Allison Kaplan Sommer, joining us from Israel-- that we have a number of callers and a number of people texting who are alleging the same thing, that this was not a mistake, this was a purposeful attack on the aid workers because they were aid workers. Are you hearing many people allege that, and is there evidence one way or the other?

Allison Kaplan Sommer: I'm not hearing people allege that. Even Haaretz's reporting is that there was an armed man who was with this convoy that was accompanying the humanitarian aid, and a division inside the army decided that this was a suspected Hamas terrorist. That targeting this one-armed man apparently was worth the risk of killing these seven aid workers. I honestly don't see where any Israeli interest lies in attacking humanitarian aid workers, Brian. This is the reason, aside from the fact that it's immoral and horrific, and I wouldn't want to think that anyone in any army would want to directly target humanitarian aid workers.

It's against Israel's own interest. Because if the World's Central Kitchen employees are killed as they were, and the reaction is what the reaction has been, which is for World Central Kitchen to withdraw and stop feeding people in Gaza. If the humanitarian organizations, which again the IDF has been closely cooperating with aren't distributing the aid, then who distributes the aid? Israel certainly doesn't want Hamas distributing the aid, that's what began to happen a few months ago. I think was the impetus for helping these humanitarian international organizations come in like the World's Central Kitchen.

If Hamas doesn't distribute the aid and the humanitarian organizations don't distribute the aid, who's left holding the bag? It's Israel. Israel is going to essentially de facto, have to be responsible for feeding and taking care of millions of Palestinians in Gaza, which is not something that I believe the Israeli population and the Israeli leadership wants to be responsible for. I don't see orders having gone down from on high, "Yes, please target these humanitarian aid workers."

Brian Lehrer: If not from on high, let me ask one more question along these lines because maybe you've seen that Chef Andrés has a New York Times op-ed today. Oe of the lines is, "It was a direct attack on clearly marked vehicles whose movements were known by the Israeli Defense Forces." I don't know if he is saying they were trying to kill the aid workers because they were aid workers.

I don't think he's quite saying that, but he did write, "It was a direct attack on clearly marked vehicles whose movements were known by the Israeli Defense Forces." I guess my question based on the other Haaretz article that I read is, do you think it's possible some officer on the ground went after the aid convoy on purpose for who they were, not with orders from on high?

Allison Kaplan Sommer: I am doubtful. I believe that whoever did it made, as I said, a really unreasonable calculation that if there might have been one Hamas terrorist in that aid vehicle, that it was worth the lives of the other people in the vehicle to target it. Again, personally, I don't believe that anyone in the IDF looked at that and said, "I'm going to target this humanitarian aid organization because I don't want the Gazans fed, or I don't believe the humanitarian aid should be operating Gaza."

I believe that it was a really terrible mistaken calculation of risk versus damage, risk of perhaps letting one Hamas-armed man live versus the terrible devastation in human life first and foremost. Also damage to the Israeli cause altogether and Israel's image internationally that was caused by this attack.

Brian Lehrer: By that telling, would it be that they knew that these were clearly marked World Central Kitchen vehicles, who I've read, and I think this is in Haaretz too. That World Central Kitchen was coordinating the convoy's movements with the Israeli government so that perhaps these were clearly marked vehicles whose movements were known by the Israeli Defense Forces, as Chef Andrés writes. Whoever ordered the attack was willing to kill these aid workers in order to get the one Hamas fighter they thought was there.

Allison Kaplan Sommer: That's what it sounds like and it also sounds like violations of stated rules of engagement and ways that members of the Israeli Defense Forces are supposed to behave. If you recall the incident months ago when three hostages came out with their shirts off with their hands up trying to be rescued by the Israel Defense Forces. Instead they were fired on and killed.

In that case, you wouldn't say that anyone was deliberately targeting Israeli hostages, and yet they were killed and they died. I think this is a situation in which there's terrible internal coordination. By the way, the percentage of Israeli soldiers killed by friendly fire has been unusually high. I think that nerves are frayed and short in Gaza and that there's not enough discipline in the ranks. I think that these incidents are examples of such.

Brian Lehrer: Would you say that the aid worker's incident was actually typical in a certain way of how so many civilians are being killed? That the military doesn't try to kill innocent civilians but they are very willing to kill innocent civilians like bombing this whole convoy targeting one Hamas fighter. Then its willingness to bomb a whole apartment building for one fighter or a hospital, things like that are part of the same pattern. Would you describe it anything like that?

Allison Kaplan Sommer: Yes, a too-wide definition of collateral damage. On the other hand, there is also reporting and people are observing, that in many cases there's tremendous care taken to try to attempt to minimize civilian casualties on the other side of the argument. I don't think you can make some sweeping value judgment that every single brigade of the Israeli Defense Forces is too trigger-happy or too cautious. I think that these are human beings, and we're seeing in a wide war. Young men on the front lines, as we've seen in many wars in many countries, who are making mistakes.

Brian Lehrer: Rabbi Eli in Lakewood. You're on WNYC. Hello, Rabbi. Thank you for calling in.

Rabbi Eli: Thank you for having me. Senator Rand Paul, a few years ago, had a hearing on the Senate floor about the Obama-Biden administration droning thousands of civilians, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Syria. It seems that thousands of civilians were killed, and the Obama-Biden administration knew about it. They knew they were constantly killing civilians, and they kept pulling the trigger. That was their way of going after the terrorists.

There were many situations where they made mistakes, and they didn't even get the terrorists and all they killed was civilians. They never apologized. They never came clean. This is a full-fledged war. It's a self-defense war. Every country in the world does exactly what Israel did. Every single country in the entire earth, including every single country that is doing this criticism does the exact same thing, and much, much, much worse. The Jews are venting-- I'm sorry, go ahead.

Brian Lehrer: Eli, I was just going to say, the United States, I think, Biden, in particular, takes the position that the US did things wrong, in some respects, in Afghanistan and in Iraq, and trying to hold Israel to that standard.

Rabbi Eli: He himself was involved in that. He ran for president on his record as the vice president who was involved in these foreign issues in taking down terrorism and protecting America. He ran for president on these issues. He's not apologizing, until today he's not apologizing. He's still refusing to come clean, and he's still standing by the various civilians that he killed. Every single country in the entire world at war does the exact same thing and 10 times worse, without exception. In every single war without exception, there is no such a thing as war without such incidents taking place. There is absolutely no such a thing. It's not even possible.

Brian Lehrer: Thank you for your call. We appreciate it. I don't have the stats from every single war or the knowledge to back up, and say every single country would fight a war with those same standards. You're certainly hearing from these couple of callers, two out of the three callers who we've had so far. A continuing staunch defense of the way that this war is being fought. What's the conversation like in Israel?

Allison Kaplan Sommer: I don't think that there's a lot of controversy over the way that the war is being fought. I think that, again, you have to understand the public sentiment of how much loss and devastation happened on October 7th. How much pain there still is over the hostages being held. I think Americans who are old enough to remember these things, if you basically can take the sentiments of Americans after 9/11 and fuse them with the sentiments of Americans during the Iranian hostage crisis.

You have to be a much older American to remember that of the yellow ribbons, and the constant reminders of the hostages. This is a very emotional issue in Israel. I think the calls overseas for a ceasefire or just stop it, or Biden and other American leaders would like to just go away. Their sentiments aren't here in Israel. Increasingly and beginning of the war has not been tremendous faith in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to have the national interest at heart in the way that he's waging the war.

I think there's a lot of doubt in Netanyahu, personally, and I think the slogans that the politicians have been saying that we need to achieve total victory against Hamas. I think that there's increasing doubt that total victory is possible and what will it look like. There's deep uneasiness with the fact that none of the leaders in the current government, in Netanyahu's coalition really have any idea of how this will end, any interest in it ending. I think the concept of having any swift war with a clear victory has now passed. Now, there's concern that this is going to drag on for--

Obviously, it's already dragged on for months, but perhaps years. I think that there is definite support for the war continuing and being waged until there's some two-pronged resolution. One is getting our hostages out, and the second is creating a situation in which the people in the border communities of Gaza who were evacuated from their homes can return and live in safety. That there's great support for military intervention continuing until those goals are achieved. I think that there's increasing worry that there is no clear vision for the end game and what will happen the day after these hostilities stop.

Brian Lehrer: Another caller, I think with a different point of view than the last caller. Yael in Brooklyn, you're on WNYC. Hello, Yael.

Yael: Hi, Brian, everyone, and thank you for the work that you're all doing. I just wanted to say that righteousness will not bring people back to life, and-- I'm Israeli, I live in Brooklyn for a long time, so I'm Israeli American-- does not give the government of Israel permission to behave the way it's behaving. I think in Israel right now, there's this very big carpet of defensiveness because of the trauma that we have been going through.

It's very hard for people in Israel to peek their head above this carpet and see what's being done in their name. I think, as Israelis in the diaspora, have the ability and the responsibility to actually see what's being done in our name and say, "Stop this madness and help the people in Israel see what's being done for their name." I think we should do all that we can to stop this madness. I think this government is not a representative government of most people in Israel.

I know that now there are more and more voices of people that are saying, "Stop this," and that are showing people what's going on in Gaza. Just think of people that are families of people that are hostages in Gaza, that they're still living in that day. That feeling, I think, is felt all over Israel, and it's hard for people to get out of their defensiveness and their trauma to see what's being done in their name. It's so cynical that our government is doing this.

Using this and people are getting killed every day. People are dying. Children are dying from hunger and thirst. It's really insane. I really hope that more and more people can raise their voices, and say, "Stop." I really hope that-- also, the United States, yesterday we had elections and some people put up a blank ballot just to say, "Please, please help Israel defend itself from its own government. Please help us."

Brian Lehrer: Yael, what do you say to the previous caller? We're getting a lot of reactions to Rabbi Eli from Lakewood's call saying, "All countries do this in war. The United States did this in Iraq and Afghanistan." Certainly, that would need to be fact-checked. A listener suggests that we do a follow-up segment to fact-check precisely how true that is as an analogy. Another listener writes, identifying himself as Rabbi Matt in Brooklyn, says, "Rabbi Eli in Lakewood is making a poor argument to put it lightly. As he himself points out, the US is heavily criticized when they've done that. It is totally reasonable that Israel be criticized when they do it."

That's just one text out of many. I just want to acknowledge that there's a lot of response to that caller. Yael, do you have a response?

Yael: Yes. As I said, righteousness will not give us permission to-- we need to be our best selves. It's these glasses that we are all looking through this world. Why is war? Why is that the only way to create change? Peace is the way to create change.

Brian Lehrer: You're Israeli, a lot of other Israelis would say, "Peace didn't work." When there is peace, then Hamas uses the opportunity to attack Israel.

Yael: Was that really peace? The reality is that there was millions of people living in a place that they could not live their own life. They could not make their own choices, and they're living under territorial regime. People are saying like, "Just think that there is exactly what Israelis think. They're exactly what Palestinians think." Some Palestinians are all for peace and some Palestinians are kill them all.

Brian Lehrer: Yael, thank you very much for your call. Allison, she talks about people in Israel who do object to this. The other story that's in the news or it's in elsewhere, is that the anti-Netanyahu protest movement squelched by October 7th seems to be ramping up again. That there were thousands out in front of the Knesset, the Israeli parliament yesterday. There were also hundreds in front of Netanyahu's residents, some of them hostage families who even wound up in a clash with police. Is something changing in this respect, even just in the last few days?

Allison Kaplan Sommer: As you said, before October 7th, there was a movement against Netanyahu that would had hundreds of thousands of people in the streets. Years before we also had smaller movements against Netanyahu. We have, again, tens of thousands. I'm not negating them and these have been very furious demonstrations. They're two-pronged. One is the hostage families thinking that the government is not prioritizing their loved ones, that they're prioritizing the military campaign against Hamas.

That they're not doing enough diplomatically in order to negotiate a hostage release. Then there's the wider political movement of we have to get rid of Netanyahu. These were very two separate protest branches that have been ramping up over the past months. What we've seen over the past few days is more of them coming together. At the beginning, all of the hostage families wanted to remain relatively politically neutral and keep the focus only on the goal of getting the hostages out.

Now, I think that they are fed up enough, unhappy enough with their treatment by the government feeling that their loved ones being held hostage are not being prioritized. These two different movements are fusing the hostage family's cause and the anti-Netanyahu political cause. I think that we're going to be seeing these demonstrations grow. Yes.

Brian Lehrer: Closing question. What would most Israelis say to the ultimate historical critique that is more centrally a part of the conversation at American colleges and elsewhere now more than in the past? That Israel, as a Jewish state is and always was fundamentally unjust, that it was settler colonialism. Because even though Israel was the Jew's ancient homeland, and 2000 years of persecution culminating in the Holocaust was very real.

Still Jewish people came from other countries in the 20th century by the hundreds of thousands explicitly to create a state where they were officially in charge, even though the Palestinian Arabs already lived there and are now disenfranchised. Do Israelis hear that being discussed more in American intellectual circles than it was in the past, or maybe discussed openly more than it was in the past and have any substantive response?

Allison Kaplan Sommer: Obviously, Israelis are very worldly and sophisticated. They're on the internet. They're on cable news. They're not unaware of those dialogues taking place on the campuses and elite campuses. They obviously would disagree with some of those narratives. They would point out some of the factual errors and assumptions in it. First of all, the majority of Israelis are not originally European. They come from [inaudible 00:39:58] were expelled from Arab countries when the state of Israel was created. The name-calling, settler, colonialism, and colonialist. Well, what's the solution to colonialism?

That the people should go back to where they came from, to their original countries. Where exactly should Jewish Israelis go back to? I think that is the common Israeli response to it. "Fine, you want to call me a colonizer, where exactly do you suggest that I leave and return to?" Obviously, it's most emotional and most vocal among the children and grandchildren of Holocaust survivors. There's a dwindling number of elderly Holocaust survivors themselves in response to that. I think that there's a sense that a lot of this rhetoric is based on limited information, if not misinformation, and obviously, disagreeing with that narrative.

Brian Lehrer: Thanks to our Israel-connected callers for calling in on this segment. Thanks to Haaretz journalist Allison Kaplan Sommer. She is also the host of the Haaretz weekly Podcast and co-host of their podcast called The Promised. Thank you very much.

Allison Kaplan Sommer: Thank you.

 

Copyright © 2024 New York Public Radio. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use at www.wnyc.org for further information.

New York Public Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline, often by contractors. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of New York Public Radio’s programming is the audio record.