M.J. Rosenberg of the Israel Policy Forum has a fine piece this week about Hebron (all but endorsing my view that the situation in the West Bank is worse than apartheid).
This week 200 settlers in Hebron grabbed another building inside the Arab old city. As Shimon Peres said, the Hebron settlers â who have essentially instituted a reign of terror in the Biblical city â are creating an "unbearable situation." Itâs been unbearable for Palestinians for decades.
I was there not long ago and was horrified at the way the local population has been pushed out of their homes and shops, is continuously assaulted by settlers, and generally subjected to treatment that can be likened to Mississippi's treatment of African-Americans between the civil war and the civil rights movement. Jimmy Carter was wrong to use the term "apartheid" in a general way, but that term understates the ugliness inflicted on Palestinians in that city.
Yitzhak Rabin wanted to remove the settlers from inside old Hebron but was assassinated before he had the chance. The Israeli government is unlikely to take any such action in its current weakened condition..
The difference I have with Rosenberg is the suggestion that Americans should care what the Israeli government's paralyzed position on these settlers is. Should Freedom Riders who were appalled by segregation in the American south have cared what the position of the government of Alabama was? Hell no. We are Americans. We are allowed to form our own ideas about how Middle Eastern societies work, whether it's Islamicists stoning adulterers or religious Jews throwing stones at Arab kids trying to go to school in Hebron.
The facts are simple. The second largest city in the West Bank has been colonized by religious, racist nuts, empowered (for whatever bad reason) by their government. This is morally repugnant, and Americans should denounce it and not worry about Israel's internal politics, just pressure Israel to remove the settlers now...
I'm with that, Phil. Being both English and non-Jewish, I can set about making sure that the English and non-Jews "denounce it and not worry about Israel's internal politics, just pressure Israel to remove the settlers now…", as well.
In other words, forget about avoiding shanda fur die goyim.
Phil, please consider letting your comments feature less overprotected. I have seen some very good blogs become dry because of overprotection.
I don't agree. Anonymity is cowardice.
I came across your blog by accident. The link from the observer doesn't work. They left out the www in the address.
Nevertheless, its exciting to see you engaging Israeli/Palestinian/world issues, narrative, goals, etc.
For me, the goals of any peace/dissent effort should be oriented towards acceptance of the other. (The contrasting word is "war", which is the physical form of denial of the other.)
I don't know how to address the reality that much of the Arab world, including Hamas Palestine, rejects Israel.
Acceptance seems to me to be a pre-requisite to addressing issues of conflict, and that following acceptance of the state of Israel (a form of the nation of Israel, which is a form of the community of Israel), that all substantive issues of conflict, need, regional integration can be addressed.
I've dropped the idea that dissent alone is a valid role. I think the validation of speaking repeatedly is to propose.
Certainly, objecting to specific injustices is critical, where one can do something about them.
I think it would be a good effort to attempt to coin a new name for the relationship between Israel and Palestinians than "apartheid". "Apartheid" was a new name to describe specific suppressive relationships in South Africa.
If the relationship between Israel and Palestinians does not specifically resemble South African "apartheid" (not a definition of which is better or worse), then to use the word "apartheid" is confusing. Its like using the term "nazi" or "fascist" to describe anything that is really really bad, rather than the specific meaning of "nazi" of "fascist" or "colonial" or "neo-colonial" or "neo-neo-neo-colonial".
"Antidisestablishmentarianism".
"anti-anti-neozionismism".
In playing a deal of computer solitare, I've learned the hard way that even if I have the right goal, the right general strategy, and most of the right cards, I still might not get there.
To get there, I need to pay attention to specific sequence and succeed at preceeding steps. Sometimes the cards are lucky and planning sequence is unnecessary, but more than half the time its necessary to pay attention to sequence.
And, as much as I regret sympathizing for an approach that is easily manipulated by opportunists to justify "Hebron-like" neo-Judaism (ignoring the term "if" you keep my commandments, I will give you the land for posterity, the rain in its time…), acceptance of Israel as a valid self-governing entity is a prerequisite for justice.
I look forward to Passover at which I get to say a few dozen times, "Thank you for bringing me/us to this season/moment (unconditionally and without selection)."
And, also to ask myself whether I am the participant Jew, the observing from a distance Jew, the rejecting Jew, or the utterly ignorant Jew.
For me, until I started asking that question earnestly, I was more or less homeless, and I discovered that I preferred to be homeful, and that it was a possibility. I found that in substance, I natively asked the questions implied in tikkun olam, that of a feeling of obligation to attempt to make life whole to the extent that I am able.
And, that acceptance of my Jewishness (body, cultural association, attitude), changed the way I related to politics (some for the better as in having more backbone and less apology, but also some more isolating as in feeling attacked by demonization of Israel and extensions into actual anti-semitism).
Take care.
I feel I should add that if Phil merely plans to be a good little "peace lamb", and is going to avoid the real issues, then I shan't bother to post here, or even read him.
Richard, I strongly agree with your ideas about the use of language. Generally I make a point of staying away from loaded propaganda words. Instead I look for a descriptive substitute. eg, instead of 'antisemetism', use 'ethnic hatred'.
The words I would use instead of 'apartheid' is 'the brutal military occupation of Palestine'.
The Israeli-Palestinian 'conflict' is one I'm working on at present. I consider this to be a propaganda word because it misrepresents the reality and stops most Americans from perceiving the reality. All I've come up with so far is the Israeli-Palestinian 'situation'. Needs more work, obviously.
Phil, congratulations on your new blog! And yes, I agree with your point — it's not really up to Americans to be concerned about the vagaries of Israeli gov'ts. What is definately our business is how whatever Israeli gov't is complying with committments made to the US related to 'peace process' and other forms of US aid. America has been letting Israel get away with both murder and grand larceny.
"I don't agree. Anonymity is cowardice."
Rowan Berkeley
Gee, had I a less exausting week I might lack the endorphins needed to take this without resorting to nordic poetry and hungry axes, as people do elsewhere. :-)
But I was referring to the anti-robot feature, Rowan.
boy o boy, what would the world do without jewish humor.
I think "conflict" is an apt word for the situation.
It is not limited to the way Palestinians are treated in the West Bank.
The issues include the non-acceptance and failure to establish diplomatic relaitonships with the state of Israel as a peer state by the majority of Arab and Islamic majority states in the world, and the resulting state of war that that creates.
"That morning, a fairly big group arrived in Hebron, around 15 Jews from France. They were all religious Jews. They were in a good mood, really having a great time, and I spent my entire shift following this gang of Jews around and trying to keep them from destroying the town. They just wandered around, picked up every stone they saw, and started throwing them in Arabs' windows, and overturning whatever they came across. There's no horror story here: they didn't catch some Arab and kill him or anything like that, but what bothered me is that maybe someone told them that there's a place in the world where a Jew can take all of his rage out on Arab people, and simply do anything."
Yitzhak Laor, "In Hebron," London Review of Books, 22 July 2004.
“>link to cpt.org
"boy o boy, what would the world do without jewish humor."
Rowan Berkeley
Ouch! Rowan, if this was a point regarding the inadequacies of anonymity then it was cleverly made. On the other hand, if you really have not yet perceived that I'm that annoying "Anonymous" from MondoWeiss, then I shall go for my axe! :-)
I should have known better. One that chooses to be anonymous is bound to take some friendly flak, but, please, no fragging just yet!
Richard, there is something about the word 'conflict' which suggests an equality in the relationship. That's why I don't like it.
You go on to say in your comment: "The issues include the non-acceptance and failure to establish diplomatic relaitonships with the state of Israel as a peer state by the majority of Arab and Islamic majority states in the world, and the resulting state of war that that creates." I find that hard to accept as the reason for the continuing struggle between the Israelis & Palestinians. Most if not all of the Arab states have reached de facto peace with the idea of Israel's existence, although certainly they have problems with Israel's continuing aggression in the region. I don't expect you to be able to accept that, obviously, in light of your comment. Just wanted to let you know that this is only your opinion, not accepted truth.
What I am asking you to consider is something totally different. The price for Judaism itself — the religion & the practice of the religion — that is extracted by the ongoing military occupation of Palestine.
Here is an interesting excerpt from 'Not By Strength Shall Man Prevail by Andrew Shamess published on semitism.net:
"The disruptive power of God – the understanding that everything we take for granted can be upended in an instant – pervades Neviâim. A particularly evocative example is the song of Hannah at the beginning of I Samuel.
"Hannah is the mother of the prophet Samuel, the man who will place Saul and later David on the throne of Israel. Hannah is barren – an object of derision by other women. She prays to God for a child, conceives, and offers this prayer:
The bows of the mighty are broken
And the faltering are girded with strength.
The Lord deals death and gives life,
Casts down and raises up.
The Lord makes poor and makes rich;
He casts down, He also lifts high.
He raises the poor from the dust,
Lifts up the needy from the dunghill,
Setting them with nobles,
Granting them seats of honor.
For not by strength shall man prevail.
âNot by strength shall man prevail.â
"To accept this ethos at a personal level is compelling and challenging – especially, I think, for those of us living in the developed world. We believe in the stability of our institutions, our infrastructure, our culture, our possessions. Taking these things for granted, even as we go about our daily lives, is, itself, a form of arrogance.
Judaism calls us to a constant awareness of the limits of our own power:
"When you have eaten your fill, and have built fine houses to live in, and your herds and flocks have multiplied, and your silver and gold have increased, and everything you own has prospered, beware lest your heart grow haughty and you forget the Lord your Godâ¦and you say to yourselves, âMy own power and the might of my own hand have won this wealth for me.â (Deuteronomy 8:12)
"The book of Joshua (24:13) carries an apt reminder for the prosperous:
"I have given you a land for which you did not labor and towns which you did not build, and you have settled in them; you are enjoying vineyards and olive groves which you did not plant."
"Consider Americans living on territory once populated by native tribes; Israelis inhabiting villages, and farming fields, that belonged to Arabs a generation or two ago; both possessing an excess of the worldâs wealth and consuming a disproportionate share of its resources. We have powerful armies and nuclear bombs. We trust these things to guarantee our security.
"The dispossessed of the world may understand the spirit of Jewish scripture better than we do ourselves. They understand, at least, the transience of places and objects and the fragility of life in the terrible vicissitudes of history. For them faith in God is faith in their own survival, in the restoration – sometime, even if at the end of time – of what was lost.
"For conquerers, faith is eroded, I think, by a constant, nagging anxiety: that we cannot go on living without our possessions; that our essential well-being is insured by the exploitation of others; and that we must maintain our superiority in order to survive. When challenged by the Other, that anxiety explodes into a cavernous fear, a hatred that deprives the Other of any legitimate motives or humanity.
"It did not take long for the Israelites to stray, on numerous occasions, with the removal of fear and want. Similarly, the corruption of Israelâs present leadership and the influence of money in American politics are manifestations of personal greed – the reflection of our cultural preoccupation with not having enough.
"In the modern world, it seems to me, when we suspend our moral standards in the interest of protecting our land, our buildings, even our lives – when we oppress, torture and dehumanize our enemies – when we divert an ever-increasing portion of our resources to maintaining instruments of force – we grasp for power and truly âforget the Lord our God.â
"One lesson of our history is that we can lose our land and our holdings and survive as a people by maintaining our beliefs. This, I think, is exactly the lesson of Tanakh. Law and worship, teaching and learning have been the mainstays of the Jewish people through millennia. Wealth and power, land, borders and palaces have never supported our survival; rather, by eroding our faith, they have contributed to our demise.
"Judaism reminds us that everything we have is transient – that the difference between satiety and hunger, between the mighty and the broken, is slight in Godâs eyes. It calls us to act with humility and compassion in an insecure world."
…I was more or less homeless, and I discovered that I preferred to be homeful…
http://eatliver.com/i.php?n=1305
Indeed.
Eddie,
The problem with discussing the appropriate descriptor is that there are multiple layers to the situation.
The cold state of war that exists between Israel and those states and governments that don't have diplomatic relations with Israel, is a fact.
Prior to the Hamas Palestine government's election, the PA stated as policy that it acknowledged Israel's right to exist, and had diplomatic relations (however strained and unbalanced).
When Hamas announced that it would not regard agreements made by predecessor administrations of the PA as valid upon Palestine, that shifted the prospect of peace via negotiation, to impossibility. That the unity government has not gone so far as to regard prior PA administrations' agreements as binding, continues to chill the prospect of peace by negotiation.
Still, there are promising elements to the formation of a unity government, as previously Israel had the out (rationally or opportunistically depends on one's own reasoning) of claiming that the international commitments of a nation at civil war are undependable commitments (which bore out).
If the Palestinian unity government sought to negotiate with Israel earnestly, recognizing its right to exist as a prerequisite, then the statement "there is noone to negotiate with" with be innaccurate.
Currently, before any direct negotiation for permanent status will occur, there are still many things that Israel CAN do, that is the "right thing" to relieve Palestinian plight, even relatively.
Specifically, the features that are similar to South African apartheid can be relaxed or removed, for example of pass requirements for internal movement, and certainly enforcement of law applying equally to the settlers (as in the Hebron persecutions).
Most dissenters consider those relaxations as important but also not really that significant. They still don't get to Palestinian self-governance, or health. They certainly don't deal with contentious issues such as the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their ancestors' homes, or addressing the degree of title rights of Israeli settlers.
Anything that one can do to humanize how one thinks of others will help. That includes humanizing how one thinks of settlers, even as one is justly critical of policies and actions.
There are NO simplistic answers. The layers of confusion and mutual harms and illegality are thick. Any unequivocal statement about rights, justice, will be incomplete and innaplicable.
Acceptance allows for that complexity. "I accept that there are things that I don't know, and can't possibly figure out."
Here is my original piece about Hebron:
http://www.israelpolicyforum.org/disp
lay.cfm?rid=1579
Hebron Horrors
Hebron is a city considered holy by both Jews and Muslims because of the presence there of the Cave of Machpela, traditionally thought to be the burial place of Abraham, the patriarch of both Judaism and Islam. Predominantly Arab, Jews also lived in the city, adjacent to the tomb, until 1929 when a pogrom launched by Arab fanatics resulted in the murder of 69 Jews and the end of the Jewish presence in the city.
In 1967, following the Six Day War — with Israel now in control of the West Bank, including Hebron — ultra-religious Jewish nationalists pressured the Israeli government to permit Jewish settlers to reclaim, and move into, properties that had belonged to the Jewish community prior to 1929.
The government refused. It arranged for Jewish worship inside the tomb but not for civilian settlement inside the city, which it considered to be both impractical and provocative. Only a tiny group of extremists (many from outside Israel) had any interest in living inside Hebron and â in the midst of a city of 160,000 Palestinians â they would need to be defended by hundreds, if not thousands, of soldiers.
The settlers moved in anyway, establishing illegal outposts in the heart of Hebron, which have been tolerated by successive Israeli governments for 36 years. Following the Oslo agreements, the Israeli army withdrew from all Palestinian cities except Hebron, where troops remained to defend the settlers. In 1997, the Israeli army withdrew from 80% of Hebron, remaining only in an area labeled H-2 which includes the Cave of Machpela, the Casbah (Arab market) and the Jewish settlements.
Some 400 settlers live in H-2 in the midst of 30,000 Palestinians.
Last month, I visited H-2 despite being told by an Israeli friend that it is âthe worst place in the West Bank.â How so? âThe settlers there are religious fanatics and dedicate their lives to terrorizing the Palestinians with the goal of driving them all out. The Palestinians canât fight back because the army wonât let them. On top of all that, the settlers hate the soldiers almost as much as they hate the Palestinians because the soldiers try to curb their activities. These soldiers are in a situation where they have to defend fanatics who routinely refer to them as Nazis.â
But, he added, âso long as the settlers are there, the soldiers must remain as well. Snipers, shooting from the hills, have killed Jews [including a two year old, Shalhevet Pass] and, so the soldiers need to be there, no matter how much they hate it.â
I walked into the heart of H-2 following a short inquisition by an IDF soldier. My first stop was the Ibrahami Mosque, which encompasses the Tomb of the Patriarchs. As I walked down the steps toward the mosque, a young Palestinian made the point of informing me that I was following the same route Jewish zealot Baruch Goldstein took when, in February 1994, he burst into the mosque and shot dead 29 Muslims at prayer.
Goldstein is a hero to the Hebron settlers. His burial place (in a tourist park named after Meir Kahane) was turned into a shrine where settlers annually celebrate Goldsteinâs murder spree with parties and games. (In 2004, police arrested some of them for holding an illegal celebration of both the Goldstein murders and the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin). For Palestinians, of course, the Goldstein massacre is a symbol of the ultimate threat.
I left the mosque and walked through the mostly deserted Casbah toward the settlersâ neighborhood. There wasnât much to see, just settlers strutting around with rifles and a few Arabs trying to sell their wares in what was once a thriving market and is now mostly abandoned. And there is the graffiti in English and Hebrew promising death to all Palestinians.
But the most striking thing is the steel mesh screens (see photo) that the Arabs have installed just above the heads of pedestrians to protect them from the garbage and excrement routinely dumped by the settlers from their second floor windows. The screens catch all sorts of disgusting stuff and lethal objects like cinder blocks, although liquid debris does make its way to the ground or on the heads of anyone below.
Hebron
Itâs an appalling sight. Imagine looking up and seeing and smelling the foulest debris just above your head, stopped only by mesh. But then everything about H-2 is appalling, including the fact that Israeli soldiers are forced to serve there.
Last summer a group of 70 soldiers who had served in Hebron created a photographic and video exhibit at a Tel Aviv college about their experiences there called, âBreaking Silence.â The exhibit, which was a huge success, described from the soldiersâ point of view, the dehumanizing experience that serving there had on them. Many spoke of the fear they had â not only of the Arabs or of the Jews â but of being terribly transformed as human beings by the experience.
One soldier spoke of being frightened by the ârushâ he felt from giving Arabs orders. "I was ashamed of myself the day I realized that I simply enjoy the feeling of powerâ¦Forget for a moment that I think that all these Jews are nuts and that I believe we should leave the territories. But how dare [a Palestinian] say ânoâ to me? I am the Law! I am the Law here!
âOnce I was at a checkpoint, a so-called strangulation checkpoint, blocking the entrance to a village. On one side a line of cars wanting to get out, and on the other side a line of cars wanting to get in. I stood there, gesturing âyou to do this,â âyou do that.â You start playing with them, like a computer game. âYou come here, you go there.â You barely move, you make them obey the tip of your finger. It's a mighty feeling.â
A second soldier wrote: âThe thing thatâ¦affected me emotionallyâ¦was when we had just arrived in Hebron. I was on guard duty, when suddenly, from one of the small streets, a settler girl shows up and shouts at me very urgently: âSoldier, soldier, come quickly, there's an Arab here who's attacking a girl.â I got very alarmed and advanced with my weapon cocked. The scene that unfolded was of an Arab with his two children. Heâs trying to protect them from another settler girl who's throwing stones at them. I blow my fuse and start screaming at herâ¦.Sheâs screaming back that they are Arabs and should be killedâ¦and the father, poor guy, says, with helpless eyes, âWe're used to it, we've been here a long time now, it's alright.â "
A third soldier spoke of the day a group from abroad came to visit Hebron for the Jewish holidays. "One morning, a fairly big group arrived, around 15 Jews from France. They were all religious Jews. They were in a good mood, really having a great time, and I spent my entire shift following this gang of Jews around and trying to keep them from destroying the town. They just wandered around, picked up every stone they saw, and started throwing them at Arabs' windows, and overturning whatever they came across.
âThere's no horror story here: they didn't catch some Arab and kill him or anything like that, but what bothered me is that maybe someone told them that this is one place in the world where a Jew can take all of his rage out on Arab people, and simply do anything. Come to this Palestinian town, and do whatever they want, and the soldiers will always be there to back them up. Because that was my job, to protect them and make sure that nothing happened to them."
Note that this soldier said that he had no âhorror storyâ to tell, just an ordinary day for soldiers, not to mention Palestinians, in Hebron. And that is, of course, the greatest horror.
That is why Hebron is significant. In one neighborhood, in one city, on any given day, anyone can experience the occupation at its worst — terrible for the Palestinians and terrible for the Israelis too.
If anyone tells you that the status quo is tolerable, just tell them about Hebron.
MJ,
Thanks for your visit and your presentation of your experience.
What would you propose?
Eeuww. Bring back Pearlman.
"What would you propose?"
Witty
"Eeuww. Bring back Pearlman."
Eddie
I thought exactly the same, Eddie.