SIPP Announces Mini-Grants for 2026

By Nate Feldman

Sustainable Israeli Palestinian Projects (SIPP) for the past eleven years has offered grants to organizations in the Middle East that promote "cultural, environmental, infrastructure, and technology projects" that bring Israelis and Palestinians together (see Sustainable Israeli-Palestinian Projects Announces 2026 Mini-Grant Awardees by Peter Ornstein).  This year, the group is making grants to six projects.  Those include such groups as "Women Speaking Hebrew," which helps Palestinian women in East Jerusalem reduce language barriers, and "Connecting Through Arts," which brings together Israeli and Palestinian children to learn English and connect through creative projects, and "The Teachers Lounge," which brings together Jewish and Arab educators in Haifa to "promote multicultural tolerance and shared society." 

You can learn more about these projects and SIPP as a whole at the following link: https://www.sipprojects.org/content/2026Projects.html.  

Review of film "The Advocate" (2019)

By Nate Feldman

I have always shuddered when people say they hate an entire people based on their identity.  People are unique and should be judged accordingly.

Regardless of what one's position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it is hard to deny the unique character of Lea Tsamel, an Israeli defense attorney who has spent her entire legal career defending Palestinians of all walks of life, including those facing trial for acts of violence.  The 2019 documentary "The Advocate" tells her story.

Lea Tsamel has long been an attorney for Palestinians, including ones who committed violent acts against Israelis.  The film shows how she evolved into a champion of Palestinian rights, feeling that the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza following the Six Days War in 1967 was unjust and created a discriminatory system against the Arabs living there.  

In the film, she served as a lawyer for a boy and a woman who were accused of attempting to murder Israelis.  Tsamel argues that acts of violence are rooted in the occupation of the Palestinians land, and it is something to be understood by the public.

There are many interesting parts of this film.  First of all, it shows another side of Israel, and it also shows a different side of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in that it is not all Israelis against all Palestinians.  There are Israelis who support Palestinians.  Whether one agrees with Tsamel's point of view or not, at the very least, the film shows a unique perspective of what is happening there.  

I actually don't agree with Tsamel's views.  I am for peace and co-existence with Palestinians, but I also don't share some of her opinions about the causes of violence there.  At the same time, I am aware that this film generated controversy in Israel, with many leading figures trying to have it not shown at different events.  I definitely oppose that.  And I strongly believe that Tsamel should do her work without threats or intimidation.  If anything, she shows through her career and activism that Israelis and Palestinians can cooperate with one another, and that is something that should always be encouraged.  

More Thoughts on Lincoln and the Abolitionists

By Nate Feldman

I am still reading the book, "Lincoln and the Abolitionists: John Quincy Adams, Slavery, and the Civil War," which attempts to contrast the differing attitudes that the two U.S. Presidents had about ending slavery and African Americans' place in America.

There are some good things about the book.  It is well-written and is in general an easy read.  There is also a lot of interesting information in the book.  The second chapter, titled "The First American Martyr," details the career of Elijah Lovejoy, an anti-slavery journalist whose paper was attacked and forced to relocate on multiple occasions, and who eventually was lynched by a mob for his outspoken abolitionist point of view.  Though he may be well-known among historians, I don't recall learning about Lovejoy during American history lessons growing up.  

With that in mind, the book seems a bit redundant in emphasizing that John Quincy Adams had a more positive view towards African Americans and was a true anti-slavery advocate, while Lincoln was someone who viewed slavery as evil, but had no interest in ending it for most of his life, and someone who associated with slave owners and racists and believed that the United States was really a white person's country.  The author seems to really paint Adams in the most positive light possible while overemphasizing Lincoln's lack of commitment to racial justice in this country.

Here are some thoughts I have about this.  First of all, I have to finish reading the book. Then, I give a more detailed analysis and response.  One thing, however, that comes to my mind is if Adams and his family were so much into racial equality and ending slavery, then why didn't John Quincy Adams or his father end it when they were Presidents?  To say that Lincoln was influenced by the negative attitudes of Midwestern bigotry seems disingenuous when you could argue that Adams' inability to end slavery was affected by the times he lived in as well.  In other words, they both perhaps were influenced by the circumstances around them. 

In the end, Lincoln's administration ended slavery.  Adams' administration didn't.  Fair or unfair that is a fact.  That is why Lincoln is remembered more than Adams on this issue.  Lincoln signed the 13th Amendment of the constitution ending slavery.  There was no such amendment during Adams' one-term in office.  This isn't a knock on Adams.  And it's not to take away from Lincoln's inconsistent views.  But, that is why people remember Lincoln.  And it seems that the author is really eager to show Lincoln wasn't as good as everyone thought.  And it seems he overdoes it a bit.  More to come later.