The AP has picked up the story on the ongoing Israeli campaign against nonviolent protest against the occupation. Ben Hubbard connects the dots between the arrests of Abdullah Abu Rahmeh, Jamal Juma’, Mohammed Othman and the recent tougher response to the protests in Bil’in, Naalin and Sheikh Jarrah. The article opens, "Israel is arresting a growing number of prominent opponents to its policies toward the Palestinians, say critics who are accusing the government of trying to crush legitimate dissent."
Is it just me or does this whole article just reek of panic from the Israeli government? It seems that Israel has been caught flatfooted as activists have changed tactics. Hubbard writes:
The arrests come at a time of shifting tactics in the protests against Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and annexation of east Jerusalem, territories the Palestinians want for their future state. Israel captured both from Jordan in the 1967 Mideast war.
The violence of the second Palestinian uprising, with mass marches and violent attacks, has given way to carefully calibrated protests and legal action in which Israeli and Palestinian activists now often work together.
And of course Israel has responded in the only way they ever do – force.
The article also includes an interesting tidbit on Mohammad Othman’s case and the type of interrogation he faced during his detention:
Othman, who was arrested upon his return from an advocacy trip to Norway, said he was interrogated almost daily. "The questions focused on the boycott movement, ‘How do you work on this and who are your contacts?’" said Othman, 33.
Interrogators searched his computer, his cell phone and e-mail accounts, he said. He had to pay a $2,700 bond.
Sure seems someone has noticed the BDS movement, don’t you think?
It looks like the demonstrations are getting some rubber on the road, towards forcing negotiations for a two-state solution at the green line.
“And of course Israel has responded in the only way they ever do – force.”
Richard — in great part due to the threat of BDS, and Israel’s disproportionate use of both force and the suspension of due process in incarcerating non-violent protesters.
I would hope that as a “humanist Zionist” you would finally concede that BDS — even the threat of it — could possibly be a game-changer in the I/P stalemate. Personally, I worry that if Israel continues on this self-destructive path, it may be ostracized from the community of nations when it finally completes its ethnic cleansing of Palestine.
Haven’t found a job yet? You seem primed and ready to jump on and put the first word in (and the next, and the next, and the next…) as soon as the RSS feed comes out.
It’s going to suck for your children over summer vacation if your still gainfully unemployed by then, huh.
Now that’s a gratuitous personal attack. Witty deserves harsh criticism for what he says here, and I’m as willing to do that as any, but you’re stepping over the line.
“for what he says here”–
I mean at this blog, often several times a day. This particular post of his is innocuous.
It’s important that the mainstream media cover the suppression of of nonviolent Palestinian protest against the occupation. However, this piece ignores vital context regarding the history of nonviolent protest in Palestine.
As Adam quoted in this post, the AP reports, “The violence of the second Palestinian uprising, with mass marches and violent attacks, has given way to carefully calibrated protests and legal action in which Israeli and Palestinian activists now often work together.”
Characterizing the 2nd Intifada as violent ignores that it started out as a nonviolent movement, as Neve Gordon recently pointed out in a an article for Counterpunch (link to counterpunch.org)
Gordon says: “It is often forgotten that even the second intifada, which turned out to be extremely violent, began as a popular nonviolent uprising. Haaretz journalist Akiva Eldar revealed several years later that the top Israeli security echelons had decided to “fan the flames” during the uprising’s first weeks. He cites Amos Malka, the military general in charge of intelligence at the time, saying that during the second intifada’s first month, when it was still mostly characterised by nonviolent popular protests, the military fired 1.3m bullets in the West Bank and Gaza. The idea was to intensify the levels of violence, thinking that this would lead to a swift and decisive military victory and the successful suppression of the rebellion. And indeed the uprising and its suppression turned out to be extremely violent.”
I’d like to see political cartoonists at work on this.
As the atrocities of Operation Cast Lead gradually came to light in the blogosphere, the environment has changed to the point where political cartoonists won’t be demonized in the same way as Pat Oliphant was:
link to thejc.com
It’s a definite case of the Overton Window opening.
Gaza, and the Goldstone report, have made a big difference in the acceptability of dissent in the rest of the world, just while Israel suppresses it.
Seems like Obama’s gate-keeper doesn’t really get it, which raises the question, is
Rahm’s take the same as Obama’s? If they mirror each other, there’s no grounds
for seeing peace as a possibility: link to jeromeslater.com
“My critics here like to boast about Israel’s democratic values. But what truly democratic society criminalizes dissent to such an extent?? Why should an Israeli peace activist need to have a good criminal defense attorney on retainer in order to exercise his or her rights? Freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom to hold unpopular views. These are the hallmarks of a true democracy. Israel, you aren’t there yet.”
Jerome Slater, today on his blog.
yesterday as i was driving to my mom’s flipping stations on the radio a report came on about this. i was sort of shocked. i think it was kbay, not exactly a bastion of radical news.
The cognitive dissonance from the same media that reveres figures like Mandela and MLK, yet ignores the Palestinian protesters must be overwhelming.
I suppose that Mandela and MLK, though not white, had an a very strong air of Christianity, fluency in the English language and general Westernness about them. When we ask why the Palestinians can’t produce a Mandela we are asking them to make it easier for us to identify with them, itself an act of unfairness, since human rights are for people rather than for people like us. Again, Mandela was allowed many years to build up a reputation before he was imprisoned and Israel has no intention of allowing anyone to do that. MLK had friends as well as enemies in high places.
I don’t think the comparison of Mandela and King is fair. Mandela belonged to an organization that practiced violence. Although one can say that the adversary in South Africa deserved to be attacked violently or that the campaign of nonviolence that King practiced would not have succeeded in South Africa, nonetheless the comparison is unfair.
The Western media revere Mandela because they do not recall his violent past and only recall his post prison dignity.
Mandela had little reputation among the Western populations before his release in 1990.
Analogues, by default, always have implied difference.
Fact remains, the media holds these men in high regard. Moreover, these two men highlight both non-violent and violent methods. Palestinian protesters follow both of these. If Gandhi is used, people will highlight any act of violence as a counterpoint. Thus, if you are to highlight violence as your focus on the analog dissimilarity, make sure to note the carefully chosen other example, picked to deal with this very topic.
I would agree that Mandela’s popularity grew, right as the movement of sanctions against South Africa grew.
Another running theme is ethnic connections and the Israeli Palestinian conflict. This is another key dissimilarity here that should be covered. There weren’t a large amount of South Africans in the concomitant US media. conversely, Phil regularly brings up the ethnic, marital, and personal ties leading Journalists have with Israel.
“The Western media revere Mandela because they do not recall his violent past and only recall his post prison dignity.
Mandela had little reputation among the Western populations before his release in 1990.”
Uh, no. Mandela was a prisoner who refused to renounce violence as a matter of principle. That was an issue with Amnesty International–he couldn’t be considered a prisoner of conscience by their definition because of it, but I don’t think any sane person thought poorly of him for this. If anything, even if one preferred a totally nonviolent approach, you had to admire him for standing on principle–he wasn’t going to acknowledge that the apartheid government could use violence and freedom advocates could not. Conservative racist Westerners hated him, no doubt. I think they thought of the ANC solely as a terrorist group (and of course the ANC and Inkatha had some ruthless and murderous street battles which killed thousands). I don’t know what Israelis thought of him, but Israel was close to apartheid SA, so maybe some hated him as well.
Picked up now by WaPo
link to washingtonpost.com
The caption below the photo says it all.
Basically, US media will rarely publish a story in which Palestinians are critical of Israel’s policies. But, if they can claim that Israelis are leading the dissent against their own government then pooof, as if by a wave of a wand they’re on the Washington Post.
Have you noticed how US media report Palestinian deaths or injuries?
When the Israeli military or Israeli civilians kill Palestinians, US media (on the rare occasion they do report it) state that, “Palestinians say 2 men were killed today by Israeli…..”.
But, when Palestinians kill Israeli soldiers or civilians, the word “say” is nowhere to be found. The information becomes fact, “Two Israeli soldiers were killed today by Palestinian…..”.
Similarly, when Israel shells a house or shoots a few people, US media will claim that those killed were militants. No questions asked. Hence, by default, anyone Israeli soldiers shoot is immediately a “militant”.
Or a “terrorist.” The term “alleged” is rarely used in the Israeli press to refer to Palestinians killed or arrested.
Israel forbids foreign nationals from working for NGOs in the Palestinian territories.
link to haaretz.com
This is meant to pressure the PA back to the surrender table.
I always knew they would do this. When I lived there, I didn’t even try to get a work visa — my NGO wasn’t high-profile enough, so I had to live on tourist visas, which was a nightmare. I always had to lie and hope, knowing my fate was entirely in the hands of teenagers from Russia every three months (or two weeks if they decided to give me a two-week visa.)
Now the high-profile people are gonna be living as tenuously as I did, and I predict many will just move out. It’s another way to starve the Palestinians of international contact and aid. And destroy a lot of people who’ve built lives in the West Bank that they love. Infuriating doesn’t begin to describe it. It’s none of their goddamn business where I live — especially considering the fact that they’d welcome me with open arms if I wanted to live in an illegal settlement as some wacked-out Christian Zionist.
Those visas don’t mean much anyway. So, you didn’t really lie. I mean, if some kid with an M-16 at a roadblock can deport a Palestinian student to Gaza because she doesn’t have a permit and her Israeli issued ID lists Gaza as her place of residence, despite her being a student in the West Bank, then those “visas” and “permits” are worth nothing. Not only does a Palestinian need a permit to study in her own homeland, but she is deported to the refugee camp (Gaza) to which her family was most likely deported some 60 years prior. But, you’re already familiar with the way the system works.
There comes a time when abusive and corrupt regimes lose all credibility and legitimacy, and Israel is a member of that club. In fact, I don’t recall a time when Israel actually did have legitimacy.
Thanks, potsherd. This is a really important development, although I doubt it has anything to do with the “surrender table”. As far as Netanyahu is concerned, the longer Abbas “refuses to negotiate”, the better. Amira Hass points to some of the possible reasons for the decision: preventing internationals from aiding Palestinians in Jerusalem, Area C and Gaza. The reason for the isolation of Gaza is obvious, as are the reasons for wanting to curtail Palestinian independence of Israel – and operations related to the PA – in Jerusalem and Area C.
The move would also appear to be part of the war that Israel has declared on Palestinian civil society – the only aspect of the Palestinian struggle it truly fears, particularly in an international context. The Dersh would deny it on the grounds that such behaviour would be irrational and self-defeating. It would of course be completely in keeping with the behaviour of oppressors (colonial and otherwise) when faced with non-violent justice-based direct action – as explained by Gandhi and MLK.
It was reported in The Land first and here it appears in the Guardian now: “Protest Tourism”. link to guardian.co.uk . I can’t be sure – and I ain’t – but it would be expected that when a movement can no longer be ignored, it’s time to start discrediting it. The timing’s right, there’s a catchy name that smells of PR, and there’s a negative framing that preempts the framing of nonviolent resistance. In other cases it would be considered irrelevant if the facts mentioned were true or not. Imagine this odd attention to presence of tourists on the issue of Iran protests? Now imagine after 5 years of ignoring Bi’lin that the first article on it in whatever paper(not the Guardian, they’ve mentioned Bi’lin before) immediately includes this perception. It would be Bad Taste – at least the movie made me laugh.
Hero of the day is Seth Freedman, in his role of concerned and compassionate observer with intimate background knowledge of the situation.
Pingback: Israeli campaign against Palestinian protest makes the ‘Times’ as Bil’in leader is arrested again