Bret Stephens, Wall Street Journal
columnist and news commentator, was interviewed at Vassar on Sept. 20 by Steven
Cook, ’90, on the topic of “Why I Support Israel and Why You Should, Too.” The event was funded by the Office of the
President as part of the administration’s “Dialogue and Engagement Across
Differences” initiative. Cook, who is a
senior fellow for Middle East and Africa studies at the Council on Foreign
Relations and author of two books on the Middle East, posed a series of
questions to Stephens regarding his support for Israel and his views on
anti-Israel activism in the US. The
audience comprised about 70 students as well as several alumni and a few
professors, college administrators and some community members. The audience was seated around tables, and
interim College president Jonathan Chennette, who introduced the event, said
the seating was intended to provide the audience with the opportunity to
discuss the topic with each other and formulate questions to Stephens after the
interview. What follows is a summary; a
video of the entire interview can be seen at https://youtu.be/t6f5PQqVV9U.
Cook began by asking why Stephens chose
the title he did. Stephens said because
his mother had survived by hiding in Nazi-occupied Europe, he supported Israel
as a homeland for the Jewish people.
Another reason for support, he said, was the “values question.” Israel is a liberal county, in the sense of
its being a place of individual freedom and tolerance. He acknowledged that some Western liberals
are unhappy with Israel’s recent governing parties, but noted that this was no
different from developments in other democracies, citing France as an
example. He said that despite France’s
taking such actions as banning the “burkini,” no one questioned France’s
legitimacy. Cook then asked Stephens why
Israel is singled out for criticism, unlike France. Stephens said the Arab world has capitalized
on Israel’s politics “in a way that’s fundamentally dishonest.” He added that among Western countries there
was the sense that Israel, in the words of Eric Hoffer, is expected to behave
like a “Christian” nation, that it is held to a higher standard of
behavior. He did not refer to
anti-Semitism as a possible basis for singling out Israel and in fact, made no
mention of anti-Semitism in any context during the interview.
Cook next turned to the issue of
settlements on the West Bank and whether, in light of those settlements, the
Palestinians could reasonably ask if they have an Israeli “partner for peace.” Stephens said the settlements are a “serious
problem,” especially in light of the current Israeli government’s policy of ex
post facto legalization of outpost settlements that had not received initial
approval. But he went on to stress that
the activists are using the settlements as an excuse to attack the very
existence of the Jewish state. He said,
“Unfortunately, and I say this, I think this is tragic but I think this is true
and I think to some extent it’s validated by some of the rhetoric that you get
from groups like SJP, is [sic] that we’re not really having a conversation
about 1967, we’re having a conversation about 1948.” He explained that lasting peace would not
come about by Israel’s dismantling the settlements but by Palestinians’ recognizing
the existence of Israel. He noted that
after Israel removed settlers from Gaza, Hamas was elected the majority party
and began its rocket attacks on Israeli territory. This, in his conclusion, indicated that the
settlements were not the central obstacle to peace.
The last question before the discussion
session concerned options for the next US president and whether the two-state
solution was still possible. Stephens
expressed his firm conviction that there eventually would be a Palestinian state
but acknowledged that it would not come about in the foreseeable future. He said that people on both sides should
undertake small gestures to promote goodwill, citing Israel’s admittance of
Syrian refugees for treatment in its hospitals.
Q&A Session. Stephens and Cook announced at the outset
that they would give priority to questions from students. The first question concerned the appointment
of Avigdor Lieberman as Israel’s defense minister and civilian-military
relations in Israel. Stephens said
Lieberman “has no business being Minister of Defense — any more than Trump has
of being president, but that’s what happens in a democracy.” He explained that Lieberman’s appointment
came about because Premier Netanyahu needed his support to obtain a majority in
the Knesset.
The next questioner brought up the topic
of who would succeed Mahmoud Abbas.
Stephens noted that Abbas is currently in the 12th year of a four-year
term as president of the Palestinian Authority, the Palestinians’ legally-recognized
governing body. He discussed potential
successors but did not predict who might be the next leader. He commented that, in the context of
Palestinian self-government, “one rarely hears about Palestinian obligations,”
meaning that the Palestinians themselves need to organize credible political
institutions.
The next student prefaced her question
with a criticism of Stephens’ opening remarks, which had included a reference
to the possibility of disruption at the event.
She then asked Stephens what he would recommend for people who wanted to
be activists on the Israel-Palestinian issue.
Stephens apologized for his earlier remark, which he termed an
“unfounded assumption” and which earned him applause, but he added that there
was a history of pro-Israel speakers and events being disrupted by heckling and
other gestures. Turning to the student’s
question about activism, he said activism is important but that it should be an
“informed,” balanced” activism. He said
he was not aware of any other activist group undermining the legitimacy of
another state or of their protesting against violence or repression in Syria,
Turkey, or China. He asked that students
approach activism in “a broader, more reflective sense” and that they avoid
groups that delegitimize Israel. He
cited J Street and Americans for Peace Now as organizations that oppose the
settlements but don’t seek to delegitimize Israel’s right to live in peace and
security. Stephens added that students
should also be active in pushing for change by Palestinians, for example, by
working for the election of Palestinian governments that don’t celebrate the
murder of Jews.
Another student asked why Israel gets so
much more attention in the news.
Stephens responded that he didn’t know and called upon activists to ask
that very question themselves. He added
that activists should put pressure on the Palestinian Authority and on the rest
of the Arab world as well as putting pressure on Israel. He closed with a call for “vigorous,”
“probing” and “fair” activism, for students to be critical but also
“self-critical.”
A few FTI members attended the event. They report that there were no efforts to
disrupt it. A few days before the event,
Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) at Vassar had posted about it on their
Facebook page. They described Stephens
as “having a track record of racisms, specifically Islamophobia”, and indicated
that SJP and Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP), another anti-Israel student
organization, would “be partnering” with Vassar Professor Joshua Schreier to
hold a “Talk Back” event on September 22 in which they would discuss the
Stephens event. Schreier was formerly
head of Jewish Studies, is an avowed anti-Zionist and a BDS supporter, and
teaches the only courses on the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Just before the Stephens interview, a student
member of JVP handed out fliers advertising the “Talk-Back.” An FTI member asked if alumni were welcome
and was advised by SJP that the “Talk-Back” would not be open to alumni.
