Correction appended.

Alternative peace activist and teacher Rabbi Yehuda HaKohen and Palestinian rights activist Christopher Whitman debated the factors contributing to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict yesterday evening in an event titled “Beyond Common Narratives in the Middle East Conflict.” External Relations Chair of Brandeis Judges for Israel, Andrew Jacobson ’19, moderated the discussion.

HaKohen was born and raised in New York City and moved to Israel in 2001 to enlist in the Israeli Defense Force. As a leader in the Alternative Action movement, he organizes grassroots dialogue sessions for Palestinian and Israeli activists. Whitman, a Massachusetts native, spent six years living in Ramallah, a city under Palestinian authority, while working toward a master’s degree in Islamic and Middle Eastern Studies at Hebrew University. During those years, he also maintained a job at a Norwegian-funded organization involved in creating and supporting educational institutions for Palestinian children in marginalized communities.

Following the self-introductions of panelists, Jacobson posed the first question to Whitman: “You use the term ‘occupation’ to describe the situation for Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza — what do you mean when you use this term, and what are its implications?”

After providing a brief explanation of what he described as an unequal division of military and civil administrative authority in the West Bank, Whitman defined “occupation” as “a system of control that is put in place that they [Palestinians] cannot influence, and yet they are heavily impacted in almost every single aspect of their lives.”

Jacobson directed the second question to HaKohen: “People like you in Israel are often referred to as ‘alternative peace activists.’ What exactly does this mean, and how does alternative peace activism differ from regular peace activism?”

HaKohen stated that there are three major differences between conventional peace activists and alternative peace activists. First, he explained, alternative peace activists circumvent the peace industry, which he stated primarily consists of individuals working for European nongovernmental organizations.

“These people are essentially payed to promote a solution that people already understand has not worked, will not work, and in my opinion, should not work.”

Second, HaKohen said, the peace negotiations have largely been dominated by westernized, moderate diplomats, and alternative peace activists “are alternative because we say that those who are living the aspirations of their people should be those who are making peace … that entails gathering some of the most radical voices within the Israeli and Palestinian territories and bringing them together through dialogue sessions and actual discussions on policies and solutions.”

Third, he concluded, alternative peace activists tend to reject the Western conception of peace — particularly the two-state solution. He added that these types of activists believe the Western world does not truly understand the individual narratives of the two parties in the conflict.

The next question was also addressed to HaKohen: “How would you say Jews living in the territories are experiencing the status quo? Do you see that they identify more as aggressors of as victims in the conflict?”

In his answer, HaKohen identified the “common denominator” sentiment among Israelis living in the territories as, “We were unjustly displaced from our land, somehow managed to return thousands of years later, and now nearly the entire international community is trying to displace us again … the communities in the territories are very sensitive to Jewish history.” Thus HaKohen explained, Jews living in the territories often feel victimized by their Palestinian neighbors and Western media outlets.

Whitman then responded to HaKohen’s statement, asserting that social, economic and political duress experienced by Israelis is overall much less severe than that experienced by Palestinians.

Whitman was then asked about the current reality of the political, military and economic situation of Palestinians in the West Bank.

He spoke about the negative impacts of checkpoints at West Bank territory crossings and the frustrating bureaucracy Palestinians have to navigate in order to even receive a permit to travel in and out of the territories. “This creates an uncertainty in the average Palestinian’s mind where they don’t know if they can get to work on time. They don’t know whether or not they can visit their family, so they stay isolated in their cities, and they don’t leave,” he said.

Whitman then stated that some Palestinian vendors also take advantage of this isolation and drive up commodity prices for local residents who do not have easy access to buy cheaper products in Israeli territories.

To conclude the debate, both panelists were asked how they see the Israeli-Palestinian conflict situation evolving and what they think are the necessary steps to resolve the conflict.

HaKohen answered first, stating that “the greatest obstacle to peace and justice is discussing a two-state solution.”

Instead he proposed a one-state solution where “Palestinians experience a democracy where they have full equality,” and “Israelis experience as the realization of Jewish aspirations for the last couple thousand years.”

He made an analogy to controversy over Hatikva, the Israeli national anthem.

HaKohen explained that although the deeply Jewish and Zionistic anthem is very meaningful to many Jewish Israelis, it also alienates much of the non-Jewish population.

His stated that an ideal solution would be to redraft the national anthem so that ultra-Orthodox Jews understand it as being deeply Jewish, and Palestinians simultaneously feel that it represents them and their values.

The ultimate goal, HaKohen stated, is to build trust between all parties in the conflict.

Whitman expressed a more pessimistic view about the possibility of improvement in the conflict but concurred with HaKohen’s proposition for a one state solution.

The event was held in Pearlman Lounge and sponsored by Brandeis Judges For Israel, Stand With Us, Hasbara, and the Brandeis Israel Public Affairs Committee.

An earlier version of this articles misquoted Rabbi Yehuda HaKohen as referring to Israeli and Palestinian territories as "settlements."