American Jews, Israel, and Palestine: a Call for Engagement Guided by Courageous Empathy

8 min readJan 19, 2024

He [Rabbi Tarfon] used to say: It is not your responsibility to finish the work, but neither are you free to desist from it. — Pirkei Avot 2:16

These have been difficult days since October 7. It is painful to see so many suffering amidst the extraordinary violence in Israel and in Palestine, and to feel so powerless to stop it. It is sad and scary to see the sharp rise in our country in anti-Semitism as well as Islamophobia and anti-Arab hate. Difficult, also, in another way: It has been hard to see so many people supportive of each side — consumed by understandable and legitimate anger and grief —struggle or refuse to acknowledge the humanity of, and harms suffered by, civilians and innocents of the other.

Many Jews and Israelis perceive the world as unwilling to acknowledge the depth of their suffering on October 7 and afterward. I recognize why so many in our community feel this way. As a Jew active in my community, I also see the inverse: many people whom I have always known as compassionate and empathetic seemingly unable or unwilling to recognize, or express concern about, the suffering of Palestinian civilians. It has been sad, also, to see many who I know have worked hard for dialogue, justice, and peaceful coexistence seemingly surrender to disillusionment.

In this essay, I make an argument informed by these concerns toward an audience of my fellow American Jews. I argue for us to reflect on our values of Judaism, and let them guide us toward a courageous empathy in our response to this terrible moment. I call on us to embrace a path forward that is at once pragmatic and idealistic, grounded in data that describe the dire situation as it is today, as well as our hopes for what it can one day be. I call for us not to give up, but to engage — with each other, and with our Jewish and civic institutions. It is a path informed by our heads and led by our hearts.

I. Religious Principles

First, some personal priors: I am an American Jew, practicing Reform Judaism. Being Jewish is a core part of my identity, and my lived, daily experience as an active congregant in my local synagogue. Jewish teachings as described in Reform Jewish spaces inform my approach to ethics in my daily life and toward global affairs.

These include:

All people are created in the image of G-d. In Judaism, we call this concept b’tzelem elohim.
The preservation of human life is of the highest ethical importance. This is the Jewish teaching of pikuach nefesh.
Securing the release of hostages is a moral and religious imperative. In Judaism, we call this pidyon shvuyim.
The pursuit of peace (shalom) is a pillar of Jewish liturgy and ethics.
The pursuit of justice (tzedek) and repair of the world (tikkun olam) are equally central to how we practice our faith in our daily lives.

These concepts’ meaning and application to current events are understood differently by different people. I apply them as I understand them but welcome dialogue with others on how they interpret them.

II. Israel and Palestine Before October 7 (and Since)

Here are some things I understand to be true about Israel and Palestine, before and since October 7.

Every Israeli and Palestinian, like every person, has the right to live with dignity, security, and freedom.
There are roughly 7 million Palestinians and 7 million Jews who call Israel and Palestine home. Israeli Jews and Palestinians have strong historical and emotional attachments to the lands of Israel and Palestine. No one should expect or compel any of them to leave.
The more than five decades of Israeli occupation of Palestinian Territories is recognized as illegal by much of the world. The occupation and the denial of a path for Palestinians to national self-determination exacerbate the Israel-Palestine conflict. Israel’s government conducts the occupation in conditions that deny Palestinian civilians the ability to live with dignity, and abets Israeli settler violence against Palestinians and expropriation of Palestinian land. Since October 7, settler violence has surged in the West Bank, leading to injuries, deaths, and fear for Palestinians living there. The occupation is wrong per se due to the harm it causes Palestinians. It also undermines Israelis’ security.
None of these facts justifies violence against civilians. There is no acceptable justification for violence against Israeli civilians by those who oppose the occupation and/or the existence of Israel. Equally, there is no justification for Israel to impose violence on or deny the human rights of Palestinian civilians in the name of Israel’s security.
The only way forward in the Israel-Palestine conflict is for Israelis and Palestinians to have a pathway to realize their respective national aspirations, while respecting those of each other and ensuring that every Israeli and Palestinian lives with dignity, security, and freedom. It is a challenging but achievable goal, and even after October 7 remains the only durable solution.

III. The Events of October 7

These are some things I understand to be true about the events of October 7. These facts are important to acknowledge as a baseline for a path forward.

Hamas committed crimes of shocking brutality on October 7 against Israeli civilians, including women and children. Over 1,200 people in Israel were killed, including 790 civilians, and over 12,000 injured. Almost 250,000 Israelis have been displaced by violence and the threat of violence in southern and northern Israel.
There is strong evidence of systematic violence by Hamas against women on October 7 and its immediate aftermath.
Hamas took 253 people hostage from Israel on October 7, of whom more than 130 remain in captivity. Hamas continues to commit war crimes by holding civilians as hostages.
Hamas has been accused of using civilians as human shields, a practice prohibited by international humanitarian law.
Israel had a right to respond in self-defense to Hamas’s attack in a manner consistent with principles of international humanitarian law — although there are compelling arguments as to why a more restrained initial military response might been the most effective one.

IV. International Humanitarian Law and Israel’s Response to October 7

There are principles of international humanitarian law that apply to military action for the purposes of self-defense, and important questions have been raised as to whether Israel’s actions have been consistent with these principles. They include:

In armed conflict and situations of occupation in wartime, the greatest care must be taken to protect civilians. This is a requirement of ethics and international humanitarian law.
Children are entitled to special protections during armed conflicts.
The principle of distinction: “The parties to the conflict must at all times distinguish between civilians and combatants. Attacks may only be directed against combatants. Attacks must not be directed against civilians.”
The principle of proportionality: “Launching an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated, is prohibited.”
The fact that one party violates international humanitarian law and the ethics of war does not automatically give another party the right to do so in return.

Israel estimated that before October 7, there were about 30,000 Hamas combatants in Gaza. More than 24,000 people have been killed in Gaza, of whom more than half are women and children, and more than 60,000 have been injured. 85 percent of Gazans (1.9 million people) have been displaced from their home. All 2.2 million Gazans are now in a situation of high food insecurity and at risk of famine. With respect to physical infrastructure, two-thirds of structures in northern Gaza have been destroyed. Almost 70% of Gaza’s schools have been physically damaged and none of Gaza’s 625,000 students is able to attend school.

While Israel’s government maintains that its response to the Hamas attacks has been consistent with international humanitarian law, the human and physical toll described by these statistics suggest, at a minimum, that a serious discussion may be had as to whether Israel’s response to October 7 has been consistent with the principles of international humanitarian law — and values of Judaism — as described above.

Israel’s military actions have not led to significant liberation of hostages by force, and an estimated 25 hostages have died over the course of the operation. In contrast, more than 100 were freed during a negotiated pause in the fighting.

Here in the U.S., anti-Semitic and Islamophobic + anti-Palestinian incidents have surged, and in various academic, social, and professional spaces, people expressing sympathy or support for Israel or Palestine have felt marginalized and faced negative consequences.

V. The Path Forward

The facts above lead me to conclude the following.

Israel has a moral and international legal imperative to immediately take steps to dramatically reduce civilian casualties and alleviate suffering in Gaza, permit far more expansive entry of food and other relief supplies, and enable the beginning of rebuilding of civilian infrastructure and institutions, especially hospitals, housing, and schools, under a governing authority led by Palestinians. The news on January 16 of a deal between Hamas and Israel to expand aid deliveries into Gaza in exchange for Hamas enabling medicines to reach hostages is a welcome step forward.
Israel should prioritize securing a negotiated ceasefire that provides for the return of all hostages held in Gaza and lays the foundation for a lasting and just peace. A negotiated ceasefire cannot happen without a willing partner in Hamas and other belligerents fighting Israel; the international community should urge them to negotiate toward the same goals and avoid harm to civilians along the way.
The plan for peace must include a pathway to end to the occupation, realize national self-determination for Palestinians, and ensure the freedom, dignity, and security of everyone living in Israel and Palestine.
After the war, there should be avenues to hold parties to account for violations of international humanitarian law.

VI. Our Role as American Jews

American Jews have a special and important role to play at this moment. We have a moral and religious obligation to make our voices heard, consistent with our values of pikuach nefesh, b’tzelem elohim, pidyon shvuyim, and the pursuit of shalom.

We should convey to our American Jewish institutions our support for the actions described above, and urge the Biden Administration to more forcefully communicate to Israel’s government the importance of pursuing them.

We should support efforts by lawmakers and advocacy groups from our community who seek to foster a durable peace in Israel and Palestine; ensure that Israel acts consistent with international humanitarian law in its treatment of Palestinians, in peacetime and in war; and that U.S. support for Israel is subject to the same rules as aid to other countries.

We must ensure Americans of every faith and background feel safe and welcome in our professional, academic, and social spaces.

And we should support those who continue to work courageously to advance mutual understanding, peaceful coexistence, and justice and dignity for everyone sharing Israel and Palestine, even in this darkest of times. They are the hope.

Our commitments to tzedek (justice) tikkun olam (repairing the world), and shalom enjoin us to stand for dignity, security, and freedom for Israelis and Palestinians alike; the safety of our Jewish, Muslim, and Palestinian fellow Americans; and a just and durable peace in Israel and Palestine. We may not finish this work — but as Jews guided by the values of our faith that we cherish, neither are we free to desist from it.