Michele Fossi in conversation with Alon Lee Green, Rula Daood and Sally Abed.

In an era characterised by deep divisions and toxic polarisation over the Israeli-Palestinian discourse, we shine a spotlight on Standing Together, a grassroots movement that brings together Jews and Palestinians from diverse backgrounds across Israel, all sharing a common goal of advancing peace, equality, social justice, and climate justice.

Established in late 2015, Standing Together is committed to breaking the cycle of violence and division in the region, transcending the rhetoric of fear and discrimination perpetuated by the Israeli government. Of particular note, the movement emphasises the imperative of ending the decades-long occupation of Palestinian territory, not only in solidarity with the Palestinians but also in the belief that this step is fundamental to ensuring genuine security for Israelis.

DUST had the privilege of sitting down with the co-founders, Alon Lee Green, an Israeli Jew, and Rula Daood and Sally Abed, both Israeli Palestinians, to delve into the movement’s mission and explore how the events of October 7th have injected a renewed sense of urgency into their cause.

M.F.: Standing Together was founded in late 2015. Can you take us back to that moment in Israel and explain what led to the establishment of this Jewish-Palestinian grassroots peace movement?

Alon Lee: After the 2014 war and the 2015 ‘stabbing Intifada’, marked by violence and fear across the region, we observed a prevailing narrative of ongoing violence and bloodshed, as encapsulated by Benyamin Netanyahu’s statement: “We will never leave our sword.” This prompted us to search for an alternative voice advocating a different reality.

However, such a voice was absent in our society, so we took action by bringing together Jewish and Palestinian citizens of Israel around crucial issues. These issues encompass ending the occupation, ensuring freedom and equality, and promoting safety and peace. We emphasised the notion that genuine security is inherently linked to achieving peace. The act of controlling millions of people only perpetuates violence. Additionally, we are dedicated to the cause of social justice, not only in promoting equality between Jews and Palestinians but also within the diverse segments of Jewish society itself.

M.F.: How did you personally experience the tragic events of October 7th? 

Rula Daood: The events of October 7th were incredibly harsh for many of us. There were parents, relatives, and friends who were killed. Some of them were activists we worked closely with. They were left-wing activists, people we shared our lives with, and some were even kidnapped by Hamas. This created a traumatic experience for most of us, and my emotional turmoil was further compounded when, just two days later, I began seeing videos of airstrikes and bombings in Gaza. The images of innocent people, including babies and children, being killed were heart-wrenching. As an Israeli Arab, witnessing the suffering and loss on both sides was emotionally complex. I felt immense grief for all the innocent victims.

AG: The sirens and missiles on October 7th made it clear that maintaining the status quo is no longer feasible. We cannot repeat the same actions and expect different results. Over the last decade and a half, we’ve witnessed 16 wars or military actions between Israel and Gaza, yielding little change.

RD: By recognising this opportunity, we must encourage our leaders, communities, and even the international community to discuss an alternative path. This path should ensure safety and independence for both Palestinians and Jews in the region, as these two elements are intertwined.

AG: We find ourselves at a potentially historic crossroads where the consequences could be devastating, leading to unprecedented levels of mutual destruction, bloodshed, and the forced expulsion of millions of people in a very short period. This dire situation is exacerbated by an alarming surge in hatred and incitement, levels of which are unfamiliar even to us. We must recognise that there is a crucial need for a diplomatic agreement and a shift in Israeli policy to avoid catastrophe. 

M.F.: Inflammatory language involving extermination, ethnic cleansing, and the total destruction of Gaza has now permeated the mainstream discourse in Israel amidst the ongoing conflict. This alarming trend is coupled with a distressing normalisation of dehumanising Palestinians in political rhetoric. Like when Israel president Herzog said that there are no innocent civilians in Gaza.

AG: While we acknowledge the opportunity for change, it is essential to understand that the extreme right-wing also sees this opportunity, but their agenda leans toward perpetuating endless war. Their strategy is to maintain an unending cycle of violence where there is no room for recognising others as human beings, let alone as innocent individuals. Since October 7th, they have been working relentlessly to push our society deeper into this perilous abyss. This is evident in the mainstream media, where ministers have made outrageous claims, such as suggesting there are no innocent children in Gaza and that today’s children will become tomorrow’s terrorists. The fact that such statements go unchallenged in the Israeli media is concerning. Moreover, there are forces within our society attempting to paint the entire Palestinian population in Israel, constituting 20% of our citizens, as siding with Hamas and branding them as internal enemies or traitors. These forces have even succeeded in arming militias with 24,000 firearms, not just pistols but heavy weaponry, leading to increased control over our cities and streets. 

M.F.: Equally concerning, during this period, the Israeli government enacted new legislation that could result in imprisonment for simply expressing sympathy towards civilian victims in Gaza.

RD: During the first week of conflict, criticising the Israeli government’s actions could result in arrest. This created an environment where expressing grief or dissent was discouraged, and it was clear that my government wanted a unified, patriotic narrative that did not question their actions. Fear of saying the wrong thing or being perceived as taking sides paralysed many, making it challenging to engage in constructive dialogue.

M.F.: How did you respond to these repressive measures?

RD: In response, we organised a rally to provide a space for people to come together and grieve. The turnout was unexpectedly high, with hundreds of attendees in Tel Aviv, Jaffa, and Haifa. Our primary goal was to create a platform for people to share their grief and feelings, as we were still traumatised and not yet ready to discuss solutions. The importance of this event was to allow people to grieve collectively. People listened, and many in the crowd cried, fostering a sense of shared mourning.

M.F.: Your Jewish-Palestinian rallies bring to mind the reconciliation rituals that took place in Rwanda following the 1994 genocide, which played a vital role in pacifying the country. These rituals encompassed a range of practices and processes designed to unite survivors, perpetrators, and communities that had been fractured by violence. One pivotal element of these rituals was that of acknowledging the mutual suffering experienced by all parties involved, underscoring its significance as a fundamental step towards achieving enduring peace.

RD: Over the following weeks, we held rallies, offering a space for people to express their emotions and share their stories. We provided a safe environment where individuals from diverse backgrounds could collectively process their grief. These events connected us with the shared pain that transcended political divides. Amid a polarised climate where taking sides had become common, we aimed to maintain our neutral stance, emphasising our shared humanity. It was essential to remind ourselves and others that our lives were intertwined, and this complexity required acknowledging the pain on both sides. By fostering a space for mutual grieving, we hoped to promote understanding and empathy, recognising that it was easy to succumb to polarisation.

M.F.: I understand that your movement’s mission to emphasise empathy and collaborative efforts for peace between Palestinian and Jewish Israelis, may be seen by some as a noble yet challenging endeavour, given the prolonged conflict and deep divisions within Israeli society. Would you describe yourselves as idealists?

AG: We don’t categorise ourselves as idealists; we do have ideals, but our approach is primarily materialistic. By this, we mean that we are firmly grounded in the practical realities of people’s lives. Our promotion of peace is not driven solely by moral aspirations because “it’s a just cause”; instead, we view it as a pragmatic step towards improving the living conditions of Israelis.

M.F.: Sally Abed: I think everyone else is actually idealistic and that we are the only ones who are being pragmatic. We are calling for the only thing that hasn’t been tried yet: peace. Those who reject the potential for success in a peace scenario often do so because they are confined to a binary narrative. They hold tightly to their idealised view of righteousness and privilege, fantasising about their solutions without considering alternative perspectives. In contrast, I think our approach is the most pragmatic. I would describe us as materialists, as we prioritise understanding the fundamental experiences of people’s lives. This includes the daily realities of feeling unsafe in one’s city or home, living with the constant threat of violence like bombs, stabbings, or missile attacks. Our focus is on existence itself, and we approach this from a practical standpoint grounded in the realities of our lives. We avoid discussions in the language of morality or abstract ideas; our emphasis is on our lived experiences.

M.F.: You’ve touched upon the issue of binary narratives, a significant obstacle to peace in the region. Notably, there are two distinct narratives: one from the Palestinian perspective and the other from the Jewish-Israeli viewpoint, which rarely align and fundamentally diverge on many key topics. For instance, their perspectives on issues such as the right to return, the status of Jerusalem, and the legitimacy of settlements are often in stark contrast. I envision that one of the central hurdles for Standing Together is forging a fresh narrative capable of bridging the divide between these polarised viewpoints, aimed at uncovering shared values or examining alternative viewpoints.

S: Our personal truths mould the narratives we construct. These narratives, in return, affect our outlook, understanding, and discussions regarding different facets of our existence. When our narrative becomes our dominant lens, trying to bridge connections with individuals with contrasting perspectives can be daunting. We tend to engage most effectively with those who already share our narrative since they view the world through a comparable prism.

Some individuals may attempt moral persuasion, and occasionally, people may reconsider their positions when they witness events like the Hamas atrocities in the South or Israel’s actions in Gaza, which highlight the suffering caused by these conflicts. However, these isolated instances rarely lead to widespread or profound perspective changes. Our goal is not to ask people to abandon their narratives to create a new, common one. Instead, we propose something different: a straightforward idea. It’s so simple that explaining it can be frustrating at times.

M.F.: And what is that idea?

That it’s time for us to stop inflicting profound harm on each other. Enough is enough. We’re suggesting that we cannot afford the luxury of unwavering self-righteousness at this moment. I want to emphasise here that I will never relinquish my own narrative; it’s an integral part of our journey as Palestinians, one that will involve years of dialogue, healing, and acknowledgement. However, we cannot privilege it as the sole guiding force at this particular juncture.

M.F.: The renowned Israeli historian and author, Yuval Noah Harari, posted a message a few days ago that resonates with what you are saying: “If you have to choose between peace and justice, choose peace”, he wrote.

SA: You will never achieve justice if you don’t have peace. You first have to create peace and then work towards historic justice, reconciliation and healing. But we will never be able to achieve justice without having peace first, just like we will never have equality before we have freedom for the Palestinians. Peace is a necessary step towards a much longer journey of achieving a truly sustainable, prosperous future. But it’s just one step.

M.F.: What approach does the movement recommend to alleviate the situation in Gaza? 

AG: For many years, we’ve been advocating for an end to the siege. In general, we need to stop this endless war, this endless cycle of violence that does not bring us security. Our message remains clear: the pathway to genuine security, if that’s truly our objective, necessitates ending the occupation, lifting the siege on Gaza, and achieving Israeli-Palestinian peace. 

M.F.: Many Israelis believe that dismantling part of the settlements and returning the West Bank would pose a security risk for Israel. Is this a genuine concern or a tactic certain political groups use to dissuade people from considering this option for peace?

SA: Recognising that the answer to this question isn’t straightforward is important. We can’t predict the future or ask millions of Palestinians to make promises as one single organism. But one thing we do know: that maintaining military control over millions of people hasn’t proven to be a sustainable solution for ensuring the safety of Israelis.

AG: Not only does it fail to provide stable security for Jews, but it also contributes to creating conditions that can lead to more violence against them.

S: We’ve noticed that escalating measures, such as tightening the siege, frequently result in an upsurge in violence. The notion that increased control will produce improved outcomes doesn’t appear to be effective. This raises the question: “Could enabling people to live freely with dignity, without military oversight, and affording them the right to self-determination offer a more effective means of preventing violence?” While we cannot be entirely sure of this, it’s certainly worth exploring.

M.F.: How important is it for a political movement in Israel to address the issue of security?

AG: Particularly since October 7th, the fear that has existed is genuine and must not be ignored. Whether it’s the fear of encountering a suspicious Palestinian on a bus in Tel Aviv or a Palestinian individual fearing to speak Arabic on the phone and possibly getting lynched — these fears are authentic and valid for different people. Only by recognising these fears, regardless of their nature, can we, as a movement, approach our society with genuine intentions and persuasive arguments. The left has often overlooked the topic of ‘security’ in the past, which has been a strategic mistake, ceding the discussion to the right wing. It is essential to recognise that our society lives in fear, and we must actively address it.

M.F.: I recently had a conversation with a Jewish Israeli, who, despite identifying as a Tel Aviv leftist, surprised me with his immediate fear-based response to the idea of ending the occupation: “So they will build their own army, and they will kill us all”, he told me. This reaction highlighted how deeply entrenched fear is within Israeli society and how it acts as a significant barrier to the reconciliation your movement promotes. 

AG: A significant number of individuals in Israel hold the belief that ending the occupation in the West Bank could result in a situation similar to Gaza on our borders, a Gaza 2. Setting aside my personal values for a moment and taking an objective look at the situation, I must concede that the 2005 disengagement towards Gaza was an ineffective plan. It didn’t yield the desired results. It becomes apparent that a straightforward withdrawal is not a viable solution, and it is imperative to prevent such outcomes from recurring in the future.

The peril of unilateral withdrawal lies in the potential for extremist groups to assume control, which can serve as a strategic opportunity for the right wing to further strengthen the occupation. I believe Prime Minister Sharon was cognisant of this dynamic, as evidenced by our previous withdrawal from Lebanon. 

M.F.: Let’s remind our readers here that Israel withdrew from Lebanon in May 2000, concluding an 18-year-long occupation of a buffer zone in southern Lebanon, which had initially been established as a security measure. This withdrawal was unilateral and not the result of a negotiated agreement with Lebanon.

In that instance, Hezbollah took over in the absence of a diplomatic agreement, illustrating how refusing such an agreement can inadvertently empower an organisation we had until recently been in conflict with.

M.F.: … and, consequently, end up empowering political forces in Israel that exploit their citizens’ fears. So, what is your proposed course of action?

Diplomatic withdrawal agreements are the way to go. Think of one of the toughest enemies we’ve faced in our history: Egypt. The mere mention of Egypt would send shivers down the spines of our parents’ generation. On many occasions, Egypt’s President, Nasser, made ominous threats to destroy Israel to the ground, reducing it to ashes. Yet, we ultimately forged a diplomatic agreement with Egypt. For the past 40 years, we have not only been free from war with them but have also enjoyed a lasting sense of security. I’m referring to a formidable adversary capable of inflicting significant harm. This example illustrates the possibility of shifting to a different paradigm.

M.F.: You imply that reaching a peace agreement with an independent state possessing defined borders would represent a more viable and security-enhancing option compared to maintaining control over an entire territory with non-citizen civilians that necessitates a constant military presence.

AG: Engaging in the debate of whether a Palestinian state might pose a safer alternative than controlling the West Bank and Gaza is more than valid. Israel would keep the legitimate right to defend itself from this new state entity, much as it does against Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, and Syria, with which it has had conflicts. We can also seek international support and endorsement for our security measures. For instance, implementing a demilitarised zone in Gaza for a decade or two may offer a more favourable situation than the current status quo.

SA: Alon Lee’s response touches upon intricate topics that all may not immediately grasp. Our responsibility in the upcoming months and years is to convey these insights and facts to a wider audience.

M.F.: Speaking of audience, who has signed up for your current membership? Does it predominantly consist of Israeli Jews and Arabs, or does it also include individuals residing in the West Bank and Gaza?

SA: Our mission primarily focuses on Israeli society, where we aim to build political influence. On occasion, we also collaborate with cross-border organisations involving both Israelis and Palestinians from the occupied territories. However, our primary emphasis remains within Israel.

M.F.: Has the support for the organisation grown since October 7th? 

AG: In the past two months, our movement has experienced a significant surge in participation, particularly among young Palestinian citizens of Israel, who currently constitute our most significant and fastest-growing demographic. Regarding engagement, we are now the largest organisation in Israel, considering both right-wing and left-wing organisations, with an engagement spanning various age groups and over 250,000 email subscribers.

M.F.: That’s impressive and reassuring in such dark times. I am sure you also have many enemies in Israel. Have you received threats? 

AG: We shouldn’t sugarcoat it; it’s tough. We are amongst the few remaining leftists in Israel. After the last elections, there are very few left-wing parliament members, and their stance isn’t clear. If you stop an average person and ask: “What does the left stand for at the moment?”,they’ll likely say: “I don’t know.” It’s not clear what the alternative is. We’re in a situation where there are different nuances of the same idea, from the right-wing Likud to the Labour Party. We represent something different, and we’re outspoken about it. And yes, we’ve become targets; yes, we are subjected to attacks and derogatory name-calling. Our offices have required the presence of a security company, and there have been times when we have had to relocate for safety reasons. Some of us have had to even seek different accommodations temporarily due to a sudden influx of threats over just a few days. It’s an unpleasant reality, but we’ve got a response to those who label us as traitors: we firmly assert that we are the true patriots, advocating for a path that leads to sanity, safety, and security for our people. In contrast, the alternative is a perilous journey, filled with bloodshed and hatred, a danger not only to Palestinians but to our own Jewish community as well.

M.F.: The current discussion around Israel and Palestine is very polarised and unhealthy. How does your movement aim to address this issue?

AG: We advocate that any dialogue concerning Israel, Palestine, Gaza, and the ongoing conflict should commence with a fundamental fact: millions of Palestinians and Jewish people will continue residing on this land. There is no scenario in which either group is leaving; both consider this land their homeland. It’s important to dispel fantasies of decolonisation and unrealistic notions of people being relocated. 

M.F.: We witness a similar polarisation at an international level, especially on social media. People are often pressured to choose sides with hashtags like #StandWithIsrael or #StandWithGaza. It appears increasingly difficult for individuals to maintain a nuanced perspective that recognises both sides as victims of this ongoing conflict.

RD: Over the past two months, our work has taken us from the challenging war zones in Israel and Palestine to what seems like entirely different ‘war zones’ in Europe and the United States. We hope that by sharing our experiences and perspectives, we can encourage others to embrace a more nuanced view that acknowledges the suffering and challenges faced by all parties involved. It is not about taking sides but rather about fostering understanding and empathy in a world where polarisation often dominates the discourse. We firmly believe that if we can hold the pain of both peoples in our hearts here in Israel, despite the complexities of the situation, then it should also be possible for others to do the same around the world.

Published in DUST MAGAZINE, issue 24, January 2024