Jennifer Loewenstein is a busy woman. On top of her work as associate director of the Middle Eastern studies program at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, Loewenstein is also a prolific freelance journalist and human rights activist. Over the years, she has spent a great deal of time in the Gaza Strip—including a period with the Al-Mezan Center for Human Rights—and has firmly established herself as a major voice in the Jewish-American peace camp.

With Gaza isolated from the West Bank and a half-hearted peace conference looming, this is a significant (albeit bleak) period in the history of the Israel-Palestine conflict. For advocates of Palestine, it is a discouraging period—especially with the humanitarian crisis in Gaza reaching unprecedented levels, shut behind walls, and totally cut off from the world.

Prior to the economic boycott, Gaza was already second only to some African countries in its dependence on international aid… One can only imagine how desperate things have become since the West, in a hypocritical campaign spearheaded by the United States, halted aid to Gaza. I discussed some of these issues with Professor Loewenstein a few days ago in the following short interview.

Kris Petersen: As someone who has spent a great deal of time focusing on the Israeli-Palestinian situation (certainly among the most politicized subjects), how have you separated your academic responsibilities from your personal political beliefs—or have you?
 
Jennifer Loewenstein: Kris, When I teach these subjects I don’t pretend “objectivity”. Like any historian or social scientist, I weigh the facts I am able to gather and do my best to assess them. When one does this (as most of the genuine scholarship across national boundaries shows), the picture that emerges is one that closely supports my political views.
 
Historical facts, data documentation by NGOs, international legal institutions, UN bodies, treaties and accords, personal experience and other empirical evidence shaped my views; I didn’t go looking for things that would confirm them after the fact. As a result, I don’t need to put my views out front – or state them in advance of teaching. Of course I realize other people come to other conclusions and that mine are not the only “correct” ones. Any teacher who does not make this clear (and repeatedly) is not doing her job very well.
 
What is important is to point out the difference between documentable evidence and opinions that lack this. Anyone is entitled to an opinion but if it cannot be supported by facts (that are not deliberately selective) it’s just an opinion. It cannot be used as research or instructional material. God this sounds so pedagogical.
 
All this said, I think it is wrong to assume that the classroom is a place that should remain “value free”. Just as it would be inappropriate to fail to condemn crimes against humanity under Hitler, Stalin, Kissinger, Johnson, Bush, Cheney, Pol Pot or whoever else, it seems to me perverse to teach the subject – for example – of Palestine – describing the Nakba without reference to human suffering and cost; or, for example, to teach about the destruction of Jenin as a “military assault” without highlighting obvious or legally accepted facts (according to the international consensus on this topic) such as the illegality of Israel’s occupation and the disparity between occupier and occupied. This doesn’t mean a person should neglect the human issues on both sides; merely that they be put into an appropriate context or framework.
 
Slave owners were also human beings, some of whom suffered unjustifiably violent attacks at the hands of their slaves. What do we do with this information? Sum it up by saying “therefore both sides were wrong”? or try to make people understand what led slaves to lash out in ways that were often so brutal? This changes the entire equation without sanctioning acts of murder or violence.
 
In sum, one of my many academic responsibilities is to help my students to think about controversial topics responsibly: put the moral issues of the day with the academic ones from which they are ultimately inseparable. Otherwise what kind of citizens are we turning out of our universities?
 
KP: With the current isolation facing the Gaza Strip, what possible outcomes do you foresee? Perhaps you can comment on the humanitarian crisis and the economic and political status of Gaza.
 
JL: I haven’t got a crystal ball and sometimes I’m glad about this. Gaza is being slowly and (in all likelihood) fatally suffocated to death. Israel 1) doesn’t want the Gaza Strip (or at least its people); 2) is constrained by international public opinion such that it cannot just brazenly carry out genocide or ethnic cleansing; and therefore 3) has to find ways to do what it wants – get rid of the Gazan people – by piecemeal sadism that doesn’t focus the world media’s attention. The gratuitous savagery of the siege on Gaza would have taken place whether or not Hamas had come to power. That it has, however, is a gift to the Israelis seeking pretexts – in combination with a well-oiled propaganda machine – for the continued strangulation and starvation of an entire people. I don’t know when it will stop – or if it will stop. What I fear is an international event of such magnitude that attention will be focused elsewhere allowing Israeli brutality much freer reign than it already has. In that case, God help the people living there.
 
On the other hand, unanticipated international crises can also give rise to conditions that could bring positive changes. This seems less likely right now, given the devastation in Iraq, the instability in Lebanon and Syria and the focus on Iran. Still it is not impossible that something none of us foresees could bring about change for the better. Khalid Mish’al has said recently that he believes the balance is slowly shifting in favor of the Palestinians. He may be deluded or simply desperate to feel some kind of optimism. But he may also be correct. Israel can no longer offer the Palestinians anything that is unjust without it being completely transparent to the overwhelming majority of the Palestinians across the globe. This may indeed be a tipping of the scales.
 
Realize, however, that under the present circumstances – and in line with Zionist/Israeli history since 1947-48- Israel has no intention of allowing a viable, territorially contiguous Palestinian state. Had this ever been a real goal, it could have been brought about 60 years ago.

KP: Would you please provide your take on the upcoming Israeli-Palestinian peace conference hosted by the United States?
 
JL: It’s a pitiful and belated attempt by the United States to “get serious” about this issue as Iran rises in regional strength – and at precisely the time when Iraq is draining the US of its financial, human, military and political resources. Iran knows this and is supremely self-confident just now because it understands that the costs to the US of a strike on Iranian nuclear facilities would be so high as to change the course of Middle East history on the spot. The same would be true of an Israeli (proxy) strike on Iran – it would boomerang back onto Israel and, by association, onto the US. We just have to hope that the Madmen in the Bush administration aren’t planning to go out of power in some inglorious inferno.

KP: As we now know, the United States has been pressuring Palestinian President Abbas to include Mohammed Dahlan in the regime. What is your opinion on this?
 
Dahlan has made it clear that he is willing to be a strongman for the US and to do its bidding. His coming to power would almost guarantee that any attempts by Fatah and Hamas to begin working toward conciliation would be ruined. This is one of Israel’s and the US’ goals – and probably also of other regional players, including Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia – all of whom fear the rise of Hamas or of the “Islamic” element in Palestinian politics. Such an element only strengthens the Iran-Syrian-Hizbullah-Hamas fault line and would empower Islamist groups within these countries to begin seriously to contend for power.
 
There are some complex issues at hand here, however: first, Hamas is doing a terrible job in Gaza and is losing popular support. It could thereby indirectly aid Fatah in its attempt to rid Gaza of the Hamas leadership. This would make negotiating with Fatah the only viable solution for Israel and the US (just what they’d like but without the problem of Hamas in the background) and right now Fatah’s leaders look ready to sell Palestine to the Israeli buyers for nothing and without much remorse. They’d remain the nominal leaders of “Palestine” with all the external trappings of power, and we’d simply have to hope for yet another popular uprising. It’s just such a horrible thing to contemplate when you understand the physical, emotional, economic and social exhaustion of this people.
 
On the other hand, Abbas probably understands that if he gives Israel what it wants at the upcoming summit (or whatever it’s been called recently) that he, too, will lose all popular support. The Palestine National Movement has been transformed over the past seven years or more. In the past six months it has been severely weakened because of the open split between Hamas and Fatah. In the next six months to two years it will either die altogether – to the quiet applause of the Israelis – or it will be reborn in another form or forms and we won’t know what the long-term outcome will be for some time.

KP: Any additional comments?
 
JL: I don’t know what it will take for people on this side of the Mediterranean/Atlantic to understand that Israel is systematically destroying an entire people and its quest for national self-determination. It’s happening before our eyes each day – and in the most unspeakable ways – but barely gets any notice at all. Until there is a political shift here in the US my own mood will remain one of profound cynicism. That said, there are some signs of a “sea change” at the popular level here, however, and this keeps me going.

Tags: JenniferLoewenstein, Israel, Palestine, Middle East Studies, University of Wisconsin, Mohammed Dahlan, Mahmoud Abbas, Al-Mezan, United States, Peace Process, Gaza Strip, Kris Petersen, harmonicminor, harmonic minor, Israeli-Palestinian Conflict