A Plea to Williamstown Leadership + Community: Enough With “Both Sides”
Before “Palestine” comes out of my mouth, which caveats would you prefer I begin with?
My melanin, my vocal pitch, my cultural affiliation, my religious affiliation, my job, whatever age I look, my posture, my degrees, the keffiyeh of the person who looks like me and is standing next to me: what do they signal to you, and how many points of authority do they grant me? Where do I get dinged and pigeonholed? How articulate and measured do I need to be to offset your assumptions?
The assumptions people make about each other have power across every facet of society: who is heard, how they are heard, and what happens afterwards. On February 12th, I joined my community at the Williamstown Select Board meeting to support a resolution for a ceasefire in Gaza. Most speakers during the public comment session were in favor, one was in opposition. In the weeks since, our community has been buzzing with conversations amongst and between concerned citizens, elected officials and religious leaders. Some argue that the ceasefire resolution as proposed is not inclusive of the “other side.”
There are a myriad of issues with that argument. I urge all involved - regardless of current position - to understand that the indiscriminate violence occurring against Palestinians is not an “opinion”,"perspective” or “side.” Multiple things can be true, and those things do not compete or dilute one another. On October 7th, Hamas launched a violent attack on Israel that killed 1,163 people, mostly civilians. On October 8th, Israel declared war on Hamas. Since then, approximately 30,000 Palestinians have been killed, including 12,300 children. Criticizing that last reality and acknowledging the power differential between an occupier (Israel) and the occupied (Palestine) does not justify October 7th, but it contextualizes the imperative to act now by calling for a ceasefire.
Rabbi Rachel Barenblat categorizes some of the resolution’s clauses as “biased” in her op-ed calling for a resolution that “represents more of the town”:
“...Many of us found most of the “Whereas…” section of last week’s Ceasefire Resolution — the framing that blames Israel without mentioning Hamas, the allegations that Israel is engaging in collective punishment, and the reference to genocide — to be unacceptably biased.”
The absence of preferred narratives alone is not biased. To determine if these points are biased, it is important to determine if the original language omits or unfairly distorts critically relevant truths.
WHEREAS: the town of Williamstown stands in solidarity with the people of Palestine, who are currently facing in Gaza a campaign of collective punishment by the state of Israel in which the International Court of Justice has recognized the plausibility of genocide.
WHEREAS: the state of Israel is engaging in collective punishment against the Palestinian people in Gaza in response to Hamas attacks on Israel;
Collective punishment is defined as the penalization - often retaliatory - of people who did not commit any offenses. Prime Minister Netanyahu explicitly vowed to enact “mighty vengeance” against Hamas. The state of Israel proceeded to kill 12,300 children. Unless it is proven that these thousands of children were in some way responsible for the horrors of October 7th, this alone meets the definition of collective punishment.
However, this conclusion isn’t even specific to this iteration of violence. The 2009 UN Fact Finding Mission in Gaza found that the detainment of Palestinian civilians constitutes the infliction of a collective penalty and grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions. Civilians have been imprisoned without cause well before the publishing of this report. Before the October 7th attack, there were 1,200 people in “administrative detention”: the arrest and detainment of people without trial. Jerusalem-based human rights organization B’Tselem is one of many organizations to assert that “Israel has long used [administrative detention] en masse as a means of controlling the population.“
Similarly, there is no bias in acknowledging the fact that the International Court of Justice has, indeed, recognized the plausibility of genocide. There is no bias in the fact that Israel is a party to the Genocide Convention and is thereby accountable to both preventing and punishing genocide. South Africa provides approximately 100 specific examples that demonstrate genocidal violence and intent, including data points and quotes from U.N. fact finding missions, the world’s leading human rights and humanitarian organizations, and Israeli leadership, in a section aptly named “The Facts.”
““It’s an entire nation out there that is responsible. It’s not true this rhetoric about civilians not aware not involved. It’s absolutely not true. … and we will fight until we break their backbone.” - Issac Herzog, President of Israel
“On 16 October 2023, in a formal address to the Israeli Knesset, he described situation as “a struggle between the children of light and the children of darkness, between humanity and the law of the jungle.” - Benjamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister of Israel
““The north of the Gaza Strip, more beautiful than ever. Everything is blown up and flattened, simply a pleasure for the eyes …” -Amichai Eliyahu, Israel Minister of Heritage
““[N]ow we all have one common goal — erasing the Gaza Strip from the face of the earth. Those who are unable will be replaced.” - Nissim Vaturi, Deputy Speaker of the Knesset
Lastly, Rabbi Barenblat asserts that the framing blames Israel without mention of Hamas. The resolution explicitly does mention Hamas, its attack on Israel, and later also calls for “the release of all hostages, detainees, and political prisoners by both Hamas and the state of Israel.” What I can glean from this criticism is a desire to hold Hamas more responsible for the ongoing violence. Hamas is of course relevant - and responsible - for the violent actions on October 7th. Hamas is not relevant to the call for ceasefire, because the violence we seek to end immediately and permanently is directly caused by Israel via the endorsement and funding by the United States.
To not allow these facts to be stated clearly and without caveats is dismissive of truths and biased itself. This resolution is not a blueprint for a long-term solution, an endorsement of anyone’s actions, or a perfect representation of everyone’s feelings and fears. The murder of nearly 1,200 Israelis on October 7th by Hamas is reprehensible and extremely different from the situation in Gaza in scale, pattern, power and timing - thereby requiring different language and response. October 7th is a tragedy we cannot change; tomorrow’s violence in Gaza is preventable. That is what the ceasefire resolution is demanding.
Acknowledging systematic violence faced by Palestinians does not negate the value of lives lost on October 7th or the systematic violence faced by Jews for millenia. The historic and ongoing subjugation of Palestinians coexists, provides necessary and factual context, and complicates our understanding of a situation that we are tempted to simplify into a binary of “good” and “bad” actors. This is where our assumptions about each other can have massive impacts on how we understand and respond to situations. These binaries have a disproportionately negative effect on oppressed peoples. Oppression via systemic racism, occupation, economic exploitation, and so many other conditions means there are fewer opportunities for people - sometimes leading to actions that are more complicated than “bad.”. Oppressed groups require explicit centering in society because their representation is limited by design to begin with. To dismiss the conditions of Palestinian oppression - including collective violence and the plausibility of genocide - is to reinforce their oppression.
The language of “both sides”- as used by board members, local religious leaders and Williamstown community members - is the reinforcement of oppression. It is the “All Lives Matter” of this moment. It is the distracting and harmful false equivalency of this issue. Black people in this country are killed by police at a scale and frequency that cannot be denied or ignored. Does this mean there aren’t “good” police officers, or innocent police officers who lose their lives? Of course not. But to compare “black lives” to “blue lives” implies that there is an “either/or” relationship when the former by design is not granted equal power.
Understanding and fighting oppression requires an acknowledgement of who the oppressor is and what they are doing with their relative power. The Massachusetts Municipal DEI Coalition - a reference in the Williamstown DIRE Committee’s strategic documents - speaks to this requirement:
[The aftermath of George Floyd’s murder led to a] period of self-examination also caused many local governments to reckon with their own roles in constructing and maintaining oppressive and exclusive systems, and their responsibilities to correct injustice in the face of such histories... For municipalities, the real work begins now. In this moment, when so many people understand the importance of DEI, we must push toward structural and sustainable change in our municipal governments. We must create spaces of belonging for those that have been left out of governmental policies and institutions, or actively and intentionally harmed by them. We must reimagine DEI as a core function of government, not an afterthought or the job of just one individual. We must come to think of DEI as everyone's responsibility.
Massachusetts Municipal DEI Coalition, 2022; one of the strategic documents leveraged by the Williamstown DIRE Committee
Do we only reckon with our roles, push toward structural change and create spaces of belonging for those who have been left out after thousands of innocents are marginalized, beaten, imprisoned and killed?
After George Floyd’s murder, the world temporarily acknowledged centuries of police brutality that is globally reinforced by racist state powers. Diversity, equity and inclusion committees, teams, and jobs popped up across the country - including right here in Williamstown. The DIRE Committee started their last meeting on February 5th with a Black History Month acknowledgement. The Select Board meeting on February 12th began the same way. The latter statement spoke specifically of the harm being propagated by “communities and states [that] are legislating the [prevention] of teaching of black history, of the full and painful history of black history.”
Carter G. Woodson, the founder of Black History Week (which later evolved to Black History Month) wrote in 1933 that we need to allocate time to the history and traditions of black people for they otherwise “[stand] in danger of being exterminated.” During roughly the same time as when Woodson wrote those words, the northern portion of Williamstown was known as White Oaks and colloquially referred to as “‘N Word’ Hill.” The KKK would meet in a church there. I can reasonably guess that an acknowledgement of black history like the one we heard on February 12th would not have happened then.
The diffusion of propaganda is one of the most powerful tools of social division. We know now that the 1920s rebirth of the KKK during that period was linked to the popularity of the film “The Birth of a Nation.” This film is widely known as the most racist movie of all time, depicting black people as unintelligent aggressors, and the KKK as heroes. It was protested by black communities and leaders throughout the country who successfully blocked its release in a number of cities including Chicago, Pittsburgh and Minneapolis. Here in the Berkshires, it was shown in multiple theaters and celebrated by KKK members riding down the streets to promote the film.
The film was screened or not screened based on decisions made by the people, organizations and leaders in these communities. Of course, the morality of a choice is easy to assess a) almost one hundred years later and b) when made by others. At every moral juncture in history, though, there are people who see, name and fight oppression. They help others do it. It is through decision making at critical moments - and getting others to follow suit - that we can change systems. That is the purpose of passing a ceasefire resolution in Williamstown: it models what systemic change actually looks like in practice for the community and for other governments at local, state and national levels. It is precisely when so many are failing to act that those who can, must.
With the level of access to information we have - including unprecedented access to firsthand accounts, government records, academic research and human rights fact finding missions - we cannot feign disconnectedness. If we are to indeed “reckon with [our] own roles in constructing and maintaining oppressive and exclusive systems” in municipalities across Massachusetts, that means we must be honest about our role as funders and bystanders of this violence.
The paradigm of “pro-Israel” and “pro-Palestine” inhibits that honesty about our role. The Select Board, local rabbis and the broader global audience are often using these terms explicitly or implicitly. The massive problem with this terminology is that it creates a binary between two very different places, peoples, powers and needs. It implies that they are things that could or should be in competition or comparison. Multiple realities are reduced to two realities, and nuanced perspectives that do not subscribe to the notion of “sides” get lumped into one anyway.
The history of the region has placed innocent Palestinians and Israelis in a cyclic trap of violence. We are actively witnessing the 21st century manifestation of colonial greed, anti-Semitism, and anti-Arab racism. Anti-Semitism in Western and Eastern Europe proliferated the quest for a Jewish state. Anti-Arab racism and British colonial goals brought early Zionists - via Britain - to Palestine. Zionism and European colonialism collided and led to the hellish geographic and political structures in place today, now upheld by the Israeli state through violence and funding from the United States. To understand this history as a story of a “Palestinian side” and an “Israeli side” is simplistic, in that it isolates a story of many actors to two that don’t even make sense to compare - one is physically within another, controlled, and unrecognized as a state by the other “side”. It is incorrect, in that it falsely imposes choices made by European actors onto modern Palestinians. It also implies that Palestine is a cohesive “side”: it is a physically and representatively divided land. It is unhelpful, in that freedom for one need not come at the expense of another; the current discourse implies it does. The reality is a web of colonialism, dispossession and forced migration imposed upon Palestinians; anti-Semitism that was leveraged and manipulated by colonial Britain and made unfathomably violent by the Third Reich; and the creation of a state that codifies Palestinian subjugation and furthers modern imperial goals of the United States.
A number of people in this community (and more broadly) are asking that Palestinians, Israelis, and the Jewish diaspora are all granted space in the discussion about ceasefire. But it is only Palestinians right now who are facing US and Israel-sponsored civilian killings and forced migration with the backdrop of 75 years of occupation and restriction - a crucial piece of context to understanding why Palestinians must have their own space in the conversation. Palestine’s current social and political states do not exist in a vacuum. Their current structures and governance are byproducts of Israel’s exertions of power. The separation of Gaza and the West Bank, and the parties that have come to represent each, are in large part products of their environment. How well would the U.S. government function if there was a full blockade of our land, air and sea? Would our political parties be accurately representative of people’s needs, or effectively able to deliver services to meet those needs? What’s the impact of that over decades? That’s just a fraction of the constraints facing Palestinian representation and governance. “Hamas” is an acronym of its Arabic group name which literally means “Islamic Resistance Movement.” They were one of many Palestinian factions who were resisting Israel’s occupation, and were not intended to govern at all. Occupation is the constant context in which this group came to be, carry out violent and deadly acts of resistance, and eventually govern Gaza. Physical and geographic control are some of the most powerful tools in Israel’s arsenal. It is no hidden secret: Israel’s finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich, says publicly - on Twitter - just this week after announcing 3300 new settlements in the West Bank:
“Our enemies know that any harm to us will lead to more construction and more development and more of our hold all over the country.”
Israel’s own Supreme Court refers to its rule over the West Bank and Gaza as “belligerent occupation” in the 2004 Beit Sourik case. After the 2005 expulsion of settlers and withdrawal of troops in Gaza, Israel continued its full control through an ongoing air, sea and land blockade. I ask you to consider the fairness in comparing the choices of actors living under those conditions to the actors creating those conditions. These are facts that elucidate the massive gap in motivations, power and capabilities between Hamas and the Israeli state. What happens when those gaps are massive? They result in disproportionate violence not just once, but constantly. The graph below shows the disparity in total death toll - not since October 7th, but since 1988.
Doesn’t insisting on the equal representation of “both sides” actually distort the reality? I ask you about the fairness and purpose of this binary. The historic and ongoing oppression of Palestinians coexists with a rise in anti-Semitism, a concern for Jewish safety, and a question of how a free Palestine would affect Israel, Israelis and the Jewish diaspora. Is withholding a ceasefire in Gaza truly the best avenue to address these conditions and questions? Might community building, education, listening and conversation be better forums? Who told you that we can’t have both?
I received a message from a Williamstown resident in response to a pro-ceasefire post on social media. The post and subsequent exchange are below.
My response to that final message is essentially a regurgitation of other points I’ve made in this piece outlining the limitations, falsehoods, and assumptions created by a “both sides” narrative. What are some of the assumptions about the conflict and me embedded in her response?
1. That I “don’t care” about what she says.
2. That if I didn’t explicitly mention hostages, I am… pro-hostage.
3. That Hamas started the war, and that I support that.
4. Because I advocate for a ceasefire in Gaza, I am opposed to a ceasefire for Israel.
5. That indiscriminate killing is “self defense.”
6. That I think it would be “fine for Hamas to continue attacking Israel.”
7. That the October 7th attack is the origin point of this conflict.
8. That because I am advocating for innocent Palestinians, I do not believe “Israeli lives matter too.”
9. That solidarity with Palestine and calling for ceasefire “reads as” anti-Semitism.
10. That solidarity with Palestine and calling for ceasefire is exclusionary of Jews (and that I am not being forthcoming of that).
This might seem tedious to parse out, but I think it’s important from a DEI/DIRE perspective that we unpack the implications of how we talk about this conflict. How do these assumptions pile up? How do they feed one another? I can tell you unequivocally that I disagree vehemently with every point above - and for some, I don’t even subscribe to the premise they’re based on (calling for a ceasefire for Israel is nonsensical given the disparities in power and violence that is actually occurring right now). What does it mean for my words and actions to be misunderstood - not because of what I said, but because of what she wished I said instead?
This exchange with a Williamstown resident is a nearly identical dynamic to the current status of the resolution. The resolution is already explicit in calling for a return of all hostages, acknowledges the fact that Hamas attacked Israel, and condemns all forms of bigotry (explicitly including anti-Semitism). It does not condemn Hamas because Israel is carrying out the violence we seek to end. This is not an opinion, it is explicitly and proudly proclaimed by Israeli leadership. Americans are not funding Hamas to kill. We are funding Israel to kill, to the tune of $130,000,000 from Massachusetts alone.
To this Williamstown resident, and to you, I ask: does calling on Israel to end its campaign of violence inherently mean a lack of safety and inclusion for Jews here? Are those things necessarily at odds, or is that a fear? What power do we have to prevent the outcomes we fear? Is that fear more important than the urgency of this situation? Would you say exactly what you are saying to a Palestinian person who is fleeing violence, constantly mourning, endlessly starving? How geographically far or “other” does someone have to be for the value of their life to be less important than your fear? I truly ask these questions, and won’t presume to know your answer.
Where does race play a role in the above assumptions? I can’t be exactly sure. Part of life in this country as a person of color is asking that question often and rarely knowing the answer. Williamstown is 84.5% white, and racial demographics of course play some role in the prevalent attitudes and power structures of this town. It is not a coincidence that so many people of color (POCs), historically and currently, are advocating for Palestinian life; it is often because of shared histories of subjugation, colonial trauma, and ongoing systemic violence upheld by states.
A Gallup poll from November 2023 resulted in 61% of white people approving of Israel’s ongoing military action in Gaza, while only 30% of people of color approved. What do you make of that statistic? If we apply a “pro-Israel” and “pro-Palestine” dichotomy atop those facts - as so many would instinctually do when looking at them - what other things does that imply? If your logic brought you to being “pro-Israel,” where and why do you diverge with people of color? If you feel that is the “right” or “good” side, why did so many POCs not arrive with you? Do you see danger in that divergence? Imagine the ways in which POCs face “disagreement” - disdain, dismissal - regularly in ways you might not perceive. Consider how our navigation of the world grants us the conviction and clarity to see, label, and analyze “oppressors.” I ask you to consider why the diverse and intersectional pro-ceasefire voices - backed by documentation of violence and consensus from almost the entire UN General Assembly, the International Court of Justice, Amnesty International, the World Health Organization, to name a few of thousands - are insufficient to you?
It’s disappointing but unsurprising that the inalienable rights of Palestinians are being denied focus and protection on every level of American life. Complicity is the norm and Williamstown is no exception. It was mentioned both at the Select Board meeting and in discussions that followed that there is a feeling that Israel is being singled out in being denounced for its actions. This notion disrespects the swaths of activism, academic research, and lives that have been tirelessly dedicated to dismantling oppressive systems. I remind you again of “The Birth of Nation'' and the people who found strength and integrity to block its screening. All the while, mainstream America - including this town - passively tolerated and actively celebrated it. It registers for most Americans today as “wrong” not because time has passed, but because people worked hard to make it so. Their work laid the groundwork for relentless activists who pushed for divestment from and sanctions against apartheid South Africa for decades. The groundwork for decades of work by the NAACP and individual activists to end Jim Crow laws, to achieve the Brown v. Board of Education ruling, and to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Some steps forward, some steps backward: the U.S. exported more waves of oppression in Vietnam, Bangladesh, Cambodia, Iran, and via coups throughout Latin America. Many Americans have not even heard of Bangladesh, to say nothing of America’s role in the genocide of three million of its people. Nixon noted that the Bangladeshi war did not “stir” people up very much “because they’re just a bunch of brown goddamn Muslims.” While Pakistan (then West Pakistan) was the overt oppressor in that circumstance, the conditions of Bangladeshi (then East Pakistani) oppression were created by Great Britain’s bizarre partition plan for South Asia. It’s a familiar imperial tale with many adaptations.
Through every waking moment of the aforementioned history - independence movements, revolutions, and turning points of the 20th century - Palestinians were facing and fighting the threat of imperialism. British Prime Minister Balfour (the author of the declaration allowing a “national home for the Jewish people in Palestine”) wrote in 1919: “the four great powers are committed to Zionism and Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-long tradition, in present needs, in future hopes, of far profounder import than the desire and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land. In my opinion that is right.” He also conceded that “the weak point of our position of course is that in the case of Palestine we deliberately and rightly decline to accept the principle of self-determination.” Naming this history does not deny or downplay Jewish trauma. It coexists with the other traumatic reality that Palestinian rights were the price paid for another’s gain, and that denial is systematically upheld to this day.
When you read the resolution again, I urge you to have some of these arguments in your hearts and minds. Please see the effort I have put in here - tiring, risky, dystopian - for you to think about how Palestine relates to global structures and patterns of oppression. Speculate why I put the time into this that I did, and what I think you might not be seeing. I plead with you to be curious about where race and colonial histories play a role in understanding and discussing Palestine. I implore you to realize that a ceasefire in Gaza and a community that cares for all are not mutually exclusive, but symbiotic.
Effective leaders take up-front, visible roles both on a personal level, and with the board as a whole. Leaders make decisions based on facts, data and logic, even when these decisions are unpopular. They lead by example, not by words, power or manipulation. They look for the root cause of problems… Local government has changed dramatically since colonial times, but citizens still look to Select Board members for leadership and integrity, particularly in difficult times, and take comfort when their elected officials are able to work together respectfully for the betterment of the town. - Massachusetts Select Board Handbook, Section 1
Times have indeed changed. The Williamstown community is grieving so many innocent lives lost - Israeli and Palestinian - while simultaneously financing the continued indiscriminate killing of Palestinians. Neutrality, idling, and waxing poetic for more nuance and inclusion do not manifest materially in the short term as anything other than more violence. It might manifest in the long term as something - and if that long term is more important to you than the immediacy of lives lost and the possible lasting generational trauma for a people that you deem other to you, then that is a choice you are making.
My job here in the Berkshires is to create and feed a community space that I built specifically to foster nuance, education and cross-cultural exchanges in my surrounding communities. I was excited to share the culture of my ancestral Bangladesh, yearning to teach about our forgotten genocide when possible, and host conversations around how “othered” identities survive in the American mainstream. Like you, calling for a ceasefire and solidarity with Palestine is not outlined in my specific job description. However, an honest assessment of our reality and my power to affect change makes it impossible to stay inactive in this moment. As the Select Board Handbook recommends, I look for the root cause of problems and am eager to lead by example. How can I claim to be part of building a better future if I’m silent about the oppressions that have faced me, my communities, and the ancestors of the land we share?
I am working towards a future where oppression is not obscured or tolerated; where listening and love are constant. I hope you will join me.