100
Hours In The Holy Land
By Am Johal
25 July, 2006
Countercurrents.org
Regarding the Pain
of Others
Jerusalem/Ramallah - I am
contemplating what is now known as the Haifa Suitcase Dilemma. I left
it in an apartment and left with only a backpack last Sunday when the
rockets started to land.
Do I go back there to get
it, or do I just leave it there and get on the plane without it? What
is the morality associated with such a decision? What is the genuine
level of danger? What is my life worth? Why do I get to leave and others
have no option, but to stay there?
I am in a coffee shop in
a Jerusalem neighbourhood not far from the market. I am sitting with
two friends and I tell them, "This place is depressing. I don't
want to come back here - there's nothing I can do to contribute. Nothing
gets better, it just gets worse."
One of them says, "We
don't need your guilt."
From time to time, one is
obligated to quarrel with oneself in order to maintain a relative sense
of sanity when events take on a life of their own. The American writer
Susan Sontag once wrote a beautiful passage about the experience of
war:
To designate a hell is not,
of course, to tell us anything about how to extract people from that
hell, how to moderate hell's flames. Still, it seems, a good in itself
to acknowledge, to have enlarged, one's sense of how much suffering
caused by human wickedness there is in the world we share with others.
Someone who is perennially surprised that depravity exists, who continues
to feel disillusioned (even incredulous) when confronted with evidence
of what humans are capable of inflicting in the way of gruesome, hand-on
cruelties upon other humans, has not reached moral or
psychological adulthood.
No one after a certain age
has the right to this kind of innocence, of superficiality, to this
degree of ignorance, or amnesia.
The Israel-Hezbollah
War
The violence has killed at
least 375 people in Lebanon and 36 people in Israel. About 600,000 people
- mostly in Lebanon - are thought to have fled their homes. The UN is
predicting a humanitarian disaster.
While a writer for Haaretz
is openly calling on the Israeli government to bomb the Lebanese city
of Tyre where many of the rocket launchers aimed at Haifa are set up,
the Canadian government is planning to use the same city's port to evacuate
their citizens trapped in the country. Will there be coordination on
the issue beforehand? What about the Lebanese civilian population?
Hezbollah has fired up to
2,200 rockets in to Israel thus far. A few days ago, those rockets even
killed two young Arab Israelis in Nazareth. The IDF is stating that
their military operation will last another ten to fourteen days.
Abraham Foxman, the National
Director of the Anti-Defamation League has also called the Israeli response
'proportional' given the stockpile of rockets accumulated by Hezbollah.
Alan Dershowitz has written virtually the same defense, arguing in defense
of the morality of an asymmetric war when Hezbollah is using civilian
areas as de facto human shields due to the location choice of their
weaponry.
Whether they are the head
of a human rights organization or dressed up with a Harvard post, the
moral legitimacy of such an argument is deeply problematic since someone
has to ultimately make the decision to respond with force. Organizations
such as Hezbollah work on a theory of provocation. The Israelis can
choose a variety of means to respond which has further consequences.
To deny the moral equation of either response on the premise that a
state makes a distinction between its own citizens and those of other
states is a marginal argument at best when weighed against the consequences
of the Israeli military machine since 1967.
The military strategists
ultimately made the decision to damage the military, communications
and transportation infrastructure of Lebanon despite knowing full well
that civilians would be killed, just as Hezbollah made the decision
to fire rockets knowing that civilians would also be killed. As a result,
they should both be investigated thoroughly about their role in war
crimes. There is no legitimacy in the sanctioning of such an aggressive
response by either side. This is not about Israelis against the Lebanese
or against the Palestinians. This is about those who want a just peace
and those who stand on the other side of that regardless of their ethnicity
or religion or whom they purport to represent. Arguments based on selective
evidence designed to bolster the Israeli case for the sake of public
relations will not stand the test of time or will those of Hezbollah.
The version of events put forward by Foxman and Dershowitz is about
as strong as the argument made by certain Israeli surrogates that the
Separation Fence is not just a concrete barrier, but a metal fence that
you can see through - that somehow, things are not as bad as people
make them out to be. Arguing about the aesthetics of an object designed
to infringe on the human right to freedom of movement in the seemingly
unending name of security, does not render it any more legitimate, humane
or just.
The BBC, incidentally, has
reported that Louise Arbour, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights,
stands by the view that international law stresses the need to protect
civilians. Under international law, there is an obligation on all parties
to respect the "principle of proportionality."
The UN has also reported that over 100 Palestinians have been killed
since the latest offensive began in Gaza in late June. In what should
be seen as an open threat to Israeli Defense Minister Amir Peretz, others
in Israeli decision making roles and Hezbollah leader Hassan Nusrullah
and the organization's power structure, Arbour told the BBC, "I
do believe that on the basis of evidence that is available in the public
domain there are very serious concerns that the level of civilian casualties,
the indiscriminate shelling of cities and so on, on their face raise
sufficient questions that I think one must issue a sobering signal to
those who are behind these initiatives to examine very closely their
personal exposure." In other words, the investigation of war crimes
are on the table in this dispute in a very serious test of the relevance
and legitimacy of contemporary international law and institutions.
Will the International Court
of Justice be an objective body designed to deliberate on basic, universal
rights or will it be a court of Western victors which imposes only a
certain kind of justice upon the defeated?
Arbour also told the New
York Times that the size of the death toll "could engage the personal
criminal responsibility of those involved, particularly those in a position
of command and control." Additionally, she added, "International
humanitarian law is clear on the supreme obligations to protect civilians
during hostilities.'' In a statement released by her office, she wrote,
"Indiscriminate shelling of cities constitutes a foreseeable and
unacceptable targeting of civilians. Similarly, the bombardment of sites
with alleged innocent civilians is unjustifiable. Hizbullah fighters
too are bound by the rules of international humanitarian law, and they
must not target civilian areas."
How the West was
Won
The baby boom generation
in the West, even amongst progressive circles, was shaped by a narrative
of Israel which largely neglected Palestinian aspirations for statehood.
This view was a carryover from the Second World War and came from the
genuine desire to see a Jewish state succeed given the collective trauma
of the Holocaust. This generation, which still defines progressive political
thought, still shapes how the conflict is viewed amongst people who
would be predisposed to raising critical questions.
As a result, in Europe, the
United States and Canada, there is still a climate of fear amongst mainstream
progressive movements and political parties to criticize Israeli government
policy which violates human rights or international norms. The fear
of being branded anti-Semitic or even sympathetic to the Palestinian
cause in the mainstream political culture of these nation-states usually
results in a kind of 'swiftboating.' As a sign of the underdevelopment
of the public sphere in these countries, the mainstream media in these
countries give legitimacy to this view by rarely sharing a balanced
viewpoint on matters pertaining to Israel.
This generation of progressive
people have also placed red lines around this issue to a younger generation
of activists and critics to the point of even marginalizing them within
movements, thereby dispossessing them of the right to raise vital and
important questions. Since 1967, basic truths and assumptions regarding
this conflict have been sacrificed at the expense of supporting the
Israeli state without a critical view. Even the idea of raising human
rights as an issue is too political for some. With the passage of time,
the ethical nature of this position raises serious questions about the
manner in which events have transpired and the complicity of those who
refused to take the structural expansion of the occupation seriously.
This function of time has only served to normalize the situation and
support this positioning of the issue.
The Palestinian movement
has also been incredibly ineffective in communicating a moderate message
to Western countries which has resonated. They have been effectively
delegitimized as a political movement by the sheer effectiveness of
Israeli public relations. This cannot be blamed on Israel - this is
a deficiency of the Palestinian leadership entirely of its own making.
The Palestinian Authority itself has also not effectively implemented
their own human rights agenda - even resorting to show trials and utilizing
capital punishment against collaborators. The various political and
sectarian movements have also regularly resorted to thug tactics in
implementing their agenda.
The lethargic response to the present crisis by G8 countries is also
a vivid example of a policy which has been consistent since 1967. The
US is getting a lesson from Israel on how to proceed on matters related
to Iran - relentlessly pummeling infrastructure for weeks on end is
an incredibly effective military strategy to render one's opponent obsolete
for a fixed period of time while taking few casualties. Though there
is the potential of reflexivity associated from the trauma that results
from such a bombardment, it can be addressed at some future date according
to this view.
The Art of War
By keeping the opponent on
edge and on the run, by cutting off their supply lines, by establishing
an environment of chaos, they retain the upper hand and set the agenda.
In this scenario, Israel's superior military can effectively destroy
infrastructure and set back a political movement by years. Civilian
casualties are then addressed by having an effective public relations
strategy and by building support in Europe, the United States and Canada.
International law is viewed as a guideline and a great theory, but not
something that is given legitimacy or credibility. Israel has no intentions
of ever viewing the Palestinians as equals.
The Israelis seem to be following
the Powell Doctrine of using overwhelming force after the decision to
attack was made. The questions that this doctrine asks before committing
to act, have nothing to do with what this approach means to civilian
casualties unfortunately:
. Is a vital national security
interest threatened?
. Is there a clear attainable
objective?
. Have the risks and costs
been fully and frankly analyzed?
. Have all other non-violent
policy means been fully exhausted?
. Is there a plausible exit
strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
. Have the consequences of
the action been fully considered?
. Is the action supported
by the domestic population?
. Is there genuine broad
international support?
Negev Desert
We are heading south from
Jerusalem on a settler highway. There are pieces of the Separation Fence
being hauled by flat bed trucks to their destination the other way.
There are parts of the concrete fence that look almost ten meters tall
in some places. But the highway is smooth and there's no Palestinians
to be seen. Apartheid is too strong a word for some people, but hey,
if the shoe fits.
Nuri El Ukbi, born in 1942 and a veteran of the orange industry, is
sitting under a burlap tent with his car beside him in the Negev Desert.
It is his personal protest - he has been partaking in his very own lifelong
version of the Milagro Beanfield War. Two weeks ago, IDF forces knocked
down a larger construction where he was staying about twenty meters
away.
As a Bedouin leader of his
tribe, he has spent the better part of his life trying to gain legal
legitimacy to the land that his family used to pay taxes on in the 1930's
during the British Mandate. He even has the documents to prove it. There
was even a tribal court of the State of Israel on the land for a period
of time. El Ukbi says that taxes on the land were high - almost 139
liras at a time when a camel was worth 5 to 6 liras.
In 1951, the IDF evacuated
the Bedouin from the area, for six months, due to army exercises. The
tribe was sent to a temporary settlement some 25 kilometers away near
Arad, and has never been officially recognized. They have tried ever
since to have the lands returned to them. Nuri El-Ukbi has been fighting
this battle his whole life. He says, "That six months has almost
become 60 years."
In 1966, a new order came
down heavily in the Negev. The authorities in those days would come
with guns and shoot in the air to scare the Bedouin away. Institutional
pressure was also brought to bear on the Bedouin.
El-Ukbi has since spent time
in jail, had restrictions placed on him returning to the land he claims
as his own and is viewed as a nuisance by state authorities. He estimates
that 70,000 Bedouin do not have the ability to exercise their right
to vote due to the fact that their villages are not recognized by the
state and are therefore not registered. Additionally, state services
such as schools, sewers, water and electricity rarely exist on tribal
Bedouin lands.
El-Ukbi says that the state
is using planning processes to push the Bedouin in to seven planned
communities where there is high unemployment and where they will be
used to provide cheap labour that is not keeping with their traditional
customs. He says this is leading to a rising criminal class amongst
the younger, desperate Bedouin males which has traditionally not been
a significant factor in the community.
El-Ukbi says his home has
been demolished several times and that his land has been sprayed with
Roundup. There is high incidence of cancer, asthma and other related
illnesses amongst the Bedouin. In other villages, there are issue with
chemical plants and iodine leakage.
He plants new crops every
February but state authorities arrive to uproot them and demolish his
tent. El-Ukbi says there is a war going on every day against the Palestinian
people. When a new Jewish settlement opens up in the Negev such as Giv'ot
Bar with all the state services such as sewage, water and electricity
he says it is clear that the state sees him as a second class citizen.
When then Israeli Construction
Minister Effi Eitam authorized tents to be set up at 5am to prevent
a protest from Bedouin when the settlement was being proposed, El-Ukbi
confronted him at a press conference in January 2004 by heckling, "Gang
leader, you came here like thieves in the night. Why are you taking
away something that belongs to us?"
"I have more justice
in my cause than this country has. This is my own private protest so
they will not take away my tribe," he says this afternoon. "I'm
not worried if they kill me or arrest me. This is about justice."
Later, he says, "Tell
your embassies, this is a just cause. I have the right to like everyone
else. I will always sow wheat.if we don't rise up, their crimes will
only continue. Right now, I can't even welcome you like a proper Bedouin
with tea. We used to live not in luxury, but in excess."
At another Bedouin village
in the Negev, we are greeted by Ali Abu Schata. He points out a blown-up
picture of an Israeli plane flying at about ten feet spraying his crops
with Roundup. His three young kids are running in the foreground along
the road trying to express some sense of dissent. It is a powerful portrait
of the situation here. He says there are now demolition orders even
on the sheep pens.
"The state is creating
fanatics through their policies. We also cannot just broadcast neediness,
but present a better alternative. We are suffering not just physically,
but emotionally," he says. "We are not people who will get
weakened, but they are making decisions that are political in order
to break the Bedouin population."
He says he is raising his
children to treat every human being equally, but does not want to trick
them in to loving the state. He foresees a conflict arising between
the state and the Bedouin. "I will fight with all my life, the
state, without pity. I will fight for my children's rights," he
says.
Later, we visit the Laqya
women's collective where Bedouin women have set up their own micro-enterprise
involving embroidery which they sell over the web. One of the founders
explained how internal Bedouin tensions and lack of support from certain
men in the community had led to a fire on the site of their project.
They are a unique project which raises women's issues in the community
by its very success. They are here to remind us not to uncritically
mythologize the Bedouin culture which is patriarchal and polygamous.
Even with their fight against state authorities, the Bedouin have significant
internal tensions within their own community. This woman's message is
that tradition and progress don't have to be mutually exclusive.
Anata Village
We are a peace movement cliché
this morning. We are in fireman's bucket brigade formation, sleeves
rolled up and passing cinder blocks through the window. Later, the volunteers
are singing songs like We Shall Overcome and Joshua Fought the Battle
of Jericho.
There are bombs dropping
in Lebanon and rockets in to northern Israel and we are helping out
at an illegal home rebuilding project with Palestinians, Israelis and
internationals with the Israeli Committee Against Home Demolitions.
The village looks the same as it did two years ago when I was here last.
This is an incremental approach to change the dynamics on the ground,
but weighed against the instruments of state power, it is one act of
constructive dissent and restorative justice. A family with 17 children
will be given keys to the rebuilt house on July 29th.
It is not enough to sing
songs and be here though. We are hopeless because we are irrelevant
in the arenas of power that matter here. What we're doing here means
nothing in terms of altering the basic structure and paradigm of the
conflict.
I am left with basic and
elementary questions: What does social change look like? What should
non-violent dissent look like? Who should be involved and how is it
possible to build a new narrative and reframe the fundamental structure
of the conflict when the vast majority of Israelis support the government's
position? Can civil society take over the state democratically and reorganize
the functions of power in a more egalitarian framework?
The peace movement in this
country should be ashamed of themselves. The extent of their irrelevance
and their inability to penetrate in to the mainstream of the Israeli
public sphere is deep and profound. All the NGO's and foundations that
fund them should hang their heads in shame.
All that work and funding
to achieve what? To normalize and institutionalize an occupation? All
the brilliant people who were involved in intellectual, social and political
movements were brought in to lead the NGO's and although the quality
of documentation and work has led to fundamental changes, the present
situation renders them obsolete at a time like this. There needs to
be more and better funding. The power relationship that governs the
present disequilibrium in policy remains largely unaltered - Israel
retains a democratic façade on blunt and abusive policies. NGO's
have also taken the talented, educated people in to their sphere and,
in the process, undermined more radical social movements that would
have formed organically.
Earlier that night we are
ripped off by an Arab cab driver while going to eat at Jan's Tea Room
under the Jerusalem Theater, but the night is salvaged since the Jerusalem
Hotel still has great Arabic music on Friday evenings.
Ramallah
We have had a great Saturday
afternoon in Ramallah. The streets are filled with shoppers and everyone
is friendly. I even bought a few pairs of pants since my clothes are
still in Haifa. Life is going on.
Even the guards at the Muqata
let us in at the back to look at the grounds. When I visited here two
years ago, Arafat was still alive and this area was full of blown up
BMW's and Mercedes to show evidence of Israeli attempts to assassinate
him. There were barrels of cement with metal poles sticking out of them
to stop helicopters from flying low enough to shoot at him. It is evident
that Mahmoud Abbas mus be a neat freak. The grounds have been impeccably
cleaned, the cars have been removed and the barrels of cement are gone.
On the way back to Jerusalem,
we meet some Christian peace activists on the bus from the Ecumenical
Accompaniment Programme in Palestine and Israel. They are coming back
from Tulkarem and they say it's taken them 3 ½ hours to get to
Jerusalem because of the checkpoints. It is only a 45 km distance. Palestinian
males between 15 and 35 were either not allowed to go through or were
made to wait longer than other people.
As we reached the checkpoint
before Jerusalem in the bus, a young military recruit who was barely
over 19 asked for our passports and ID. He singled out an Arab Israeli
man in his sixties and asked him to hold out his ID. A young Palestinian
man beside me and a young woman beside my friend engaged in their own
form of dissent by telling us that the soldier was trying to publicly
disrespect the elderly man in front of everyone else so everyone would
feel ashamed. It takes a deep, psychological understanding of Arab society
to know the cultural significance of disrespecting the patriarch of
a family. The Israeli security forces seem to be well trained in the
nuances of imposing a system of inferiority on to others. Even at the
airport, the sheer normalization of the questions one has to answer
in order to meet the security demands of the state: Who are you staying
with? Where do they live? What do you do? What are you going to do while
you are here? What is your religion? Why did you come here? Do you have
Palestinian friends?
That night, we wander through
the Orthodox Jewish neighbourhood of Mea Shearim. Kids are playing soccer
in the streets. Everyone is walking and talking. It is still Shabbat
and we are guests in the neighbourhood.
An international can spend
the same day in Ramallah and Mea Shearim - they have more rights than
the Israelis or the Palestinians.
As we wander back to St. George's Pilgrim Guest House on Nablus Road,
there is a raucous Jewish wedding on at the Novotel Hotel. There are
two rented buses and the night air is filled with the beating of drums
and Hebrew chanting by the hundreds of guests. We are drinking beer
on the 2nd floor and enjoying the sights and sounds of the Jerusalem
night coming from across the street. There are church bells and Muslim
calls to prayer in this neighbourhood at different times of
the day.
Tonight, I am heading to
a protest outside the King David Hotel where Condolleeza Rice will be.
Sometimes I fall in love
with the confused and contradictory impurity of this city.
Establishing a just peace
is not rocket science. It could be done within 36 months. It is a matter
of whether the leaders and the international power brokers truthfully
want that or whether there is a bigger regional game being played.