Due to the print schedule for the Vanguard, we were unable to print this response in our regular edition. Therefore we are providing this space online for the response.-Editor
For staff writer at the Vanguard Andrew Giest, journalistic integrity has never been a strong suit when dealing with the Israel-Palestine conflict. A quick browse through his articles on the Vanguard‘s website gives a glimpse of the biased and historically inaccurate pieces he has written about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Nevertheless, this week’s opinion piece reaches new heights of malicious falsehood.
On May 28th SUPER (Students United for Palestinian Equal Rights) hosted an event called Palestinian Via Dolorosa in which a series of photos displayed the suffering of the Palestinian people beginning with a series of photographs on the expulsion from their country in 1948 by Israeli forces and ending with images of the most recent attacks on Gaza.
Andrew asserts in his article that this event was “disturbing” and “smacked of anti-Semitism.” And what is the reason given to support these inaccurate accusations of Mr. Giest’s?
Well, Andrew begins by explaining that the use of the name “Via Dolorosa” alludes to “Jesus’ traditional cross-bearing path towards crucifixion” and continues to state that “The Palestinian Via Dolorosa is about [Palestinian] suffering endured since the Israeli independence of 1948.”
So far so good, Andrew is spot-on with this observation.
It is beyond this point that Andrew’s argument begins to take an interesting turn. Andrew writes that this use of religious symbolism to remember the suffering of the Palestinian people is obviously anti-Semitic because, according to Andrew, the only thing that could possibly connect Palestinian suffering with the suffering of Jesus is that “Both have been seen as perpetrated at the hands of Jews.” Geist chooses to ignore the plethora of obvious connections and instead claims that the event’s real intention must have been to paint Jews as “Christ Killers.” He continues on to say, “Otherwise, why pick the Via Dolorosa as the symbol?”
There are two very significant problems with Andrew’s theory on why the event was named “Via Dolorosa.” First, and most obvious, is that many Palestinians who have suffered from Israeli oppression happen to be Christian, and Christians world wide use the Via Dolorosa, or the crucifixion of Christ, as a symbol of their suffering. The second connection that Andrew missed is the fact that the Via Dolorosa happened in Jerusalem, the city which is still at the heart of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and home to some 250,000 Palestinians. For these Palestinian Christians these stories are much more concrete and alive, many can simply look out the land they live on and imagine stories from the Bible which reflect their own religious journey and current suffering, having little to do with assigning blame for the death of Jesus.
I wish that the claim of ignorance could absolve Mr. Giest for publishing such hurtful and unfounded accusations of anti-Semitism. Unfortunately, it is very unlikely that he did not know that many Palestinians were Christian or that Jerusalem was in fact central to the Palestinian identity, rather it seems that Andrew omitted these facts to serve his libelous argument. The reality is that Mr. Giest and other apologists for Israeli oppression misuse the anti-Semitic charge to suppress and discredit discussion critical of Israeli abuses in the past, as well as the present.
After the attacks on Gaza in December and the most recent elections in Israel, the oppression of the Palestinian people has become hard to ignore. Some member’s of Portland’s Jewish Community, who have traditionally shown uncritical support for Israeli policies, will have to decide if they are going to continue to support Israel in the face of war crimes investigations by the United Nations, as well as condemnation by Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and the Red Cross.
They will have to decide on whether to continue to deny Israel’s primary role in this conflict by simply labeling the ever-growing number of those who are critical of the States policies as nothing but anti-Semites or continue to brand Palestinians as terrorists with whom peace cannot be had. Of course, labeling ones perceived adversaries as irrational whether terrorist or anti-Semitic bigot is much easier than dealing with one’s own short comings and conveniently allows Israel’s supporters to avoid the undeniable moral tragedy in which they now play a part.
Perhaps Mr. Giest can sleep better at night if he stubbornly believes that the tragedies that befell the Palestinian people were of their own doing and not the result of coordinated Israeli efforts to replace the indigenous Palestinian population with Jewish Immigrants, as any serious historian would now attest. Perhaps he can close his eyes and pretend the Nakba (the catastrophe of 1948) did not occur and that it is also some sick anti-Semitic attempt by Palestinians to denigrate the Holocaust.
Fortunately, many Americans, including an ever growing number in the Jewish community, are beginning to reject this counterproductive denial and suppression of the facts. They are beginning to demand an honest discussion around this issue which is not clouded by unreasonable fear of being libeled. These will be the types of critical discussions which will lead to justice, equality, and lasting security for both Palestinians and Israelis.