I appreciate Nicholas Kristof, columnist for The New York Times, because he writes and well and thoughtfully about far-flung areas of the world, including the “ordinary” people who are striving to make a difference. But although his intentions are good, he has a bit of a blind spot when it comes to Palestinians and their struggle for independence. I hear this same almost unconscious bias from many liberals during my countless speaking engagements, so it’s worth addressing it head-on.
Take Kristofs Oct. 5 column, with the promising headline “Is Israel Its Own Worst Enemy?” His first two paragraphs read, “For decades, Palestinian leaders sometimes seemed to be their own people’s worst enemies. Palestinian radicals antagonized the West, and, when militant leaders turned to hijackings and rockets, they undermined the Palestinian cause around the world. They empowered Israeli settlers and hard-liners, while eviscerating Israeli doves. These days, the world has been turned upside down. Now it is Israel that is endangered most by its leaders and maximalist stance.”
Let’s deconstruct that opening….What Kristof seems to be saying is that in the past, it was Palestinian leaders who were the “obstacles to peace,” and it’s only now that Israeli leaders are standing in the way. Uhhhh…..what about the years and years of illegal settlement expansion and home demolitions? In the next few paragraphs, Kristof does indeed criticize Prime Minister Netanyahu’s “hard line” on settlements in the next few paragraphs, but appears to believe it’s a recent trend, limited to this particular PM. Yet, Israeli leaders have been talking about peace and acting to make it impossible ever since Israel was created in 1949. The growth in settlements actually accelerated after the signing of the 1993 Oslo Accord.
And then there is Kristof’s focus on “Palestinian radicals antagonizing the West,” and “militant leaders turning to hijackings and rockets.” What he doesn’t say (and doesn’t know?) is that the statistics paint a different picture of who is antagonizing who. The organization of former Israeli soldiers called Breaking the Silence reports that since the outbreak of the Second Intifada in September 2000, more than 1,000 Israelis and 6,000 Palestinians have been killed. Palestinians are clearly at much more risk of being harmed by an Israeli than vice versa. And lest you think that most of these Palestinians are terrorists who “deserve” to be killed, just read the transcripts of the testimony from the former soldiers. A 2010 Breaking the Silence report stated: “A significant portion of the (Israeli army’s) offensive actions are not intended to prevent a specific act of terrorism, but rather to punish, deter or tighten control over the Palestinian population. ‘Prevention of terror’ is the stamp of approval granted to any offensive Israeli Defense Force action in the (Occupied) Territories, obscuring the distinction between the use of force against terrorists and the use of force against civilians. In this way, the IDF is able to justify actions that intimidate and oppress the Palestinian population overall.”
In addition to the arbitrary arrests, assassinations, home demolitions, etc. committed by Israeli soldiers, there are the violent acts against Palestinians by Israeli residents of the illegal settlements. Washington, DC’s Palestine Center documented more than 1,000 acts of settler violence in 2009. And in 2010, B’tselem, an Israeli human rights organization, recorded almost one incident a day and in some cases more against Palestinians and their olive trees during the harvest season. Robert Serry, UN special coordinator for the Middle East “peace process,” labeled these as acts of “terror.” The Israeli government has done little to try to control them.
Kristof takes time out briefly to anticipate his critics, saying that, “Every negotiator knows the framework of a peace agreement: 1967 borders with land swaps, Jerusalem as the capital of both Israeli and Palestinian states, only a token right of return…”
Oh, really? Just which negotiators is he talking about? Certainly not any Palestinians who have the support of their people. A 2010 poll by the Palestinian Centre for Public Opinion found that 82% opposed giving up the right of return in some shape or form.
And in a “bone” tossed to Netanyahu, Kristof writes: “Granted, Mr. Netanyahu is far from the only obstacle to peace. The Palestinians are divided, with Hamas controlling Gaza. And Hamas not only represses its own people but also managed to devastate the peace movement in Israel.”
So….it’s Hamas that makes it hard for peace activists to thrive in Israel? Kristof clearly didn’t talk to any actual Israeli peace activists. Ask them about their biggest barriers, and they point to their own government. For example, they cite the “boycott ban” recently passed by Israel’s 120-seat Knesset. The legislation makes it a civil offense to call for the boycott of “the state of Israel, one of its institutions or an area under its control,” with the last clause seen as a direct reference to Israel’s West Bank settlements. Those accused of calling for such a boycott can be sued by any individual or institution claiming damage as a result, and organizations found to have called for a boycott risk losing their tax-exempt status.
“The Boycott Law will lead to unprecedented harm to freedom of expression in Israel and will bring justified criticism against Israel from abroad,” Hagai El-Ad, executive editor of the Association for Civil Rights in Israel, was quoted in Israeli newspapers as saying. Eilat Maoz of the Coalition of Women for Peace accused the Knesset of “political persecution,” warning that the law would “create an atmosphere of fear” and “incite the entire Israeli public against peace and human rights activists and organizations.” Commentator Ben Caspit denounced the new law as fascism. “When private citizens can be convicted for voicing their opinions… this is fascism,” he said.
Kristof concludes by offering this sage advice: “The Palestinians’ best hope would be a major grassroots movement of nonviolent peaceful resistance aimed at illegal West Bank settlements, led by women and inspired by the work of Mahatma Gandhi and the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. A growing number of Palestinians are taking up variants of that model, although they sometimes ruin it by defining nonviolence to include stone-throwing and by giving the leading role to hotheaded young men.”
He is not alone in coming to this conclusion, or in believing that the weekly protests celebrated in the movie “Budrus” are a recent phenomenon. My advice to Kristof and those who think the same is to read Mazin Qumsiyeh’s new book, “Popular Resistance in Palestine.” He chronicles in almost excruciating detail repeated acts of organized non-violent resistance practiced by Palestinians as far back as the Ottoman years – ranging from sit-ins to refusal to pay taxes. Unfortunately, many of the “Gandhis” who helped lead these actions have ended up dead or in prison, first at the hands of the British and then of the Israelis. In fact, I would argue that Palestinians no longer need to be told to follow the lead of Gandhi or King. Rather, they have their own non-violent role models – three of them in just one West Bank town, Bil’in, which has peacefully protested the annexation of 60% of its land since 2005 and attracted much international support.
Bassem Abu Rahme, 29, was shot and killed by Israeli soldiers in April 2009, just minutes after he shouted to them to stop shooting because a woman in the Bil’in march had been wounded.
In August of that same year, more than 200 masked and camouflaged Israeli soldiers swarmed into Bil’in at 3 a.m and raided five homes – including that ofMohammad Khatib, another leader of the Popular Committee Against the Wall and Settlements. After briefly allowing him to say goodbye to his wife and their four children, he was blindfolded and taken to the Ofer military prison in Israel. After two weeks of detention, a military judge ruled that evidence against him was falsified, after it was proven that Khatib was abroad at the time the army alleged he was photographed throwing stones during a demonstration. At 1:45 a.m. in January 2010, Khatib was woken by Israeli soldiers storming his home and arrested once again – one night after he gave an interview to the prominent Israeli news website Ynet. This time, he wasn’t acquitted until January of this year.
Abdullah Abu Rahma, a 39-year-old high school teacher and father of three, is the third Bil’in protest leader to be targeted by the Israeli military. He was first harassed in September of 2009, in a raid so egregious that one of the participating soldiers was later indicted for assault; it is highly unusual for an Israeli court to rule against one of its own. Then, at exactly 2 a.m. in December 2009, seven Israeli military jeeps arrived at his home and arrested him in the presence of his wife and children. This time, he was imprisoned for 16 months, being released in March of this year. Abu Rahmah, who during his trial was declared a human rights defender by the EU and a prisoner of conscience by Amnesty International, vowed to continue struggling against the Israeli occupation, despite the six-months suspended sentence he still faces. He said, “On my release, I have no intention to go back home and sit there idly. In fact, by imprisoning me they have silenced me long enough. Our cause is just, it is one striving for freedom and equality, and I intend to continue fighting for it just as I have before.”
To me, these three individuals sound like Gandhis – and not “hotheaded young men.” As for Kristof’s comment about running the protests with stone-throwing, note from Khatib’s story that sometimes these charges are fabricated. But yes, stone-throwing – largely by the “shabab,” frustrated youth aged 10-20 – does occur, although not with the approval of the protest “elders.” It is very difficult to control the behavior of everyone in a mass protest. Neither could Gandhi ,or King. In a paper titled “The Road to Nonviolent Coexistence in Palestine/Israel” and written by Michael N. Nagler, PhD.; Tal Palter-Palman; and Matthew A. Taylor of UC Berkeley’s Peace and Conflict Studies program, the authors explain: “… stone throwing is more an act of defiance than an intention to injure (the literal meaning ofhimsa, violence), saying that stones (in most cases) cannot hurt well-equipped helmeted soldiers. The shabab resort to stone throwing to protest the presence of the army on their lands. For Palestinian youngsters suffering from a deep feeling of humiliation and hopelessness, this simple yet concrete act of resistance is often a way to survive psychologically, by reclaiming a feeling of empowerment in an otherwise forlorn and depressive environment.”
In any case, the frustrated acts of youth still struggling to contain their anger do not negate the courageous leadership of their elders. So how about saying that Palestinians need more Abu Rahmas and Khatibs, instead of Kings and Gandhis? I have spent time in the West Bank and have lived in the Gaza Strip for six months at a time. And all it takes is a little curiosity to find many “budding” leaders, ripe for the making. The purpose of the Palestinian Gandhi Project, which I co-founded with a kindred-spirit traveler/activist, Keren Batiyov, is to give those emerging inspirations a megaphone, a platform for sharing their voices with their fellow Palestinians in the diaspora, as well as with Kristof and the rest of the Western world. It’s time to recognize these new heroes and look to the future rather than the past.
His blind spot should actually make you suspicious of all his coverage, the Half The Sky book was almost a comedy in avoiding mentioning the US role in any of the negative situations in the world. However he has the money, access and intelligence for ‘meaning well’ to really not be an excuse, he chooses the world view he projects and he has his reasons for doing that. He is an affluent, US ‘progressive’ will all the orientalism, imperialism and class entitlement that entails.
don’t forget Ahmad Qatamesh and Bassem Tamimi.
I think you are confused Pam.
Kristof’s criticisms incorporated, not neglected, the substantive comments that you made.
Its counter-productive to take pot shots for nuance.
Maybe Kristoff is falling for his own propaganda.
Krisroff’s summary of what a two state settlement will look like is about a decade out of date. Liberals have it all figured out in their heads what the Palestinian people will accept. There was a chance that Arafat could have delivered the outlines that Krisfoff summarizes but those were offers that the Israelis refused. Today the current Palestinian leadership does not have the stature to make those concessions. Events over the past few years, especially over the past few months, have put RoR back on the table in a major way. Any compromises on the 1967 borders that Arafat may have considered are also off the table.
Once Israel is forced back into negotiations they will have to consider the following: RoR cannot be ignored, all of East Jerusalem will be the capitol of the Palestinian state and the settlements in the WB will have to be given over to Palestinian dominion. Israel had its chance in 2000. Today they have no choice but to accept much less.
Of course they cannot and that is why the one state solution is all that remains.