There has been much misinformation about Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) circulating in Montclair lately, including claims that we endorse Hamas’ atrocities. We’d like to set the record straight.

There are two truths about recent events in Israel-Palestine: 

  1. Hamas’s October 7 attack that killed so many Israeli civilians was horrendous, unjustified, and illegal.
  2. Israel’s response that has killed so many civilians and continues to put so many innocent lives at risk has been horrendous, unjustified, and illegal.

We at JVP of Northern NJ unequivocally believe both these things. International human rights groups also believe both these things. On the other hand, Hamas thinks only number 2 is true. And many of those who have been attacking us seem to think only number 1 is true. 

Right from the beginning we stated, “we believe killing civilians is wrong whether they are Palestinian or Israeli.” This and other JVP-NNJ statements can be found on our website , which we encourage people to visit.

Several weeks ago, we arranged a program to take place at the public library featuring the reflections on Palestine of a Quaker speaker committed to nonviolence. Shortly before it was to take place, a petition circulated calling on the library to “cancel the terror supporting event.” And then the Montclair Local reported that the “Montclair Civil Rights Commission Calls for Library to Cancel” the program. This was dismaying. A Civil Rights Commission with a diverse membership trying to shut down a public program? We have since been told, however, by some members of the commission, that the chairperson’s statement was not approved by the full body. Fortunately, the library held firm and we were able to hold the event, though disruptive behavior by critics forced an awkward ending.

Many of our critics object to the fact that we provided context for the events of October 7. Context does not mean justification. Countless observers have been warning for years that Gaza is an “open-air prison” (e.g., Human Rights Watch), and that treating its people like caged animals, allowing their living situation to get increasingly desperate, continually dispossessing Palestinians on the West Bank, and shutting down nonviolent forms of protest could not last forever; there would be an explosion. This doesn’t justify the criminal acts that occurred in the explosion; rather, it explains the root causes. Consider an analogy. Social justice advocates have long warned that violent crime will be inevitable as long as there is poverty, inequality, discrimination, and lax gun laws. But this doesn’t mean that these advocates are thereby justifying violent crimes. JVP statements that identify decades of oppression and dispossession as the root causes of October 7 do not justify Hamas’s actions, nor are they intended to do so; they seek to explain where oppression leads and why the only long-term solution to violence in Israel-Palestine is justice for all. 

We know that there are people of good will who disagree with us. We welcome dialogue with them.

Stephen R. Shalom

Montclair

The writer is a member of Jewish Voice for Peace of Northern NJ

Before you comment on Montclair Local
Comments are moderated. Montclair Local reserves the right to delete or close comments on any story at any time. Please read our → Commenting Policy before commenting.

9 replies on “Context Is Not Justification (Letter to the Editor)”

  1. Imagine that. The head of the CRC not getting consensus before putting it in their name and yet the rest of the commission hasn’t spoke up publicly about it. That makes them complicit.

  2. PMF,

    No, it doesn’t make them complicit. That sentence was inserted to create division. That was the letter writer’s choice. But, both you and the letter writer also chose not to acknowledge how our boards & commissions operate. I find fault with this omission.

    I don”t know what process the CRC leadership followed in engaging their voting membership prior to releasing the statement. I would hope all members had an opportunity to weigh in prior to its release, but it is not a requirement or expected. And having a consensus is unrealistic because of the writer’s own point about a diverse body. I would hope there was a dissenting minority…that the CRC Chair considered these voices before the fact.

    My pushback is about process, not the positions. The MPL Board of Trustees decided to proceed, after full member inclusion, with the event and cited its basis for the decision. If any Trustees dissented, I would not call them complicit for not making public statements after the fact clarifying their dissent.

  3. Frank, what I don’t understand is why members of the commission are telling people like me and obviously this writer that they didn’t agree, yet won’t speak publicly about it. I was told it was because of the backlash they are getting. So in the very least, this has the optics that the entire commission agreed. Some of us know differently.

    Let’s use a different scenario. Say the BOE decided to ban some books. The President decided she will be doing the public speaking. So behind closed doors in executive session there was debate and three didn’t agree. In this scenario, if we didn’t hear the three oppose, you wouldn’t say that they aren’t complicit even if the books got banned.

    I also agree the process is the problem. Therefore my comment stands. Trust me, if I didn’t agree with what someone was releasing in my name, I would not be silent.

    Isn’t the saying “silence is complicity”!

  4. PMF,
    😄 Bad example on your part. The BoE recently voted to have only the Board President be the sole spokesperson for the body. The intention, as you point out, is exactly for the organizational optics…and the greater impact it offers. Call it the multiplier effect. They certainly derive the benefit of the body’s public voice when it suits them. The act of complicity was implicit in joining the body in the first place. They had no problem representing our diverse community. Did they not think our community might not be of one mind on civil rights?

  5. I assume these members had no problem with the CRC’s public statement that added this last sentence: “Additionally, there is absolutely no tolerance of any kind for threats or harassment towards commissioners of the Civil Rights Commission.*”

  6. Frank, I am sad to be left thinking you don’t agree with the saying of silence is complicity. It’s one of my favorite sayings. So many people get away with doing terrible things because most are afraid to speak up. The act of speaking up could improve so many aspects of life, don’t you think?

    I thought it was a great example since the BOE has been complicit by agreeing to only letting the President speaking publicly. They look foolish and those of us who are watching see the complicity.

  7. PMF,

    Sorry, I would put “silence is complicity” alongside “if you’re not part of the problem, you are part of the solution”. I think they were thought up by extroverts. Don’t get me started on the damage done to societies by extroverts. 🙂

    I thought the BoE decision was a particularly egregious choice for an newbie elected body. But, this BoE, as a body and their leadership, does does not reflect the best, much less decency of Montclair that I think I know. They are, as a body, weak. OK, I have hopes for a two of them. But, I travel in an increasingly smaller circle. This elected BoE thing is off to a rocky start. Maybe on the rocks.

    But, I find a dysfunctional Council meeting followed by a BoE meeting, and an amuse-buche between (like the CRC), so very entertaining. Like a car accident, it is hard to turn away. You asked me about “silence is complicity”. Would more silence from the bodies still be considered complicit?

  8. Ha! I have hope for two as well. I bet they are the same two. It’s obvious to anyone watching.

    I appreciate you Frank even though we have our disagreements. You just get Montclair.

Comments are closed.