I am beginning to think one of the reasons the Israeli occupation has endured for so long is that we insist on speaking of it as an occupation. Let’s stop doing that.
When you speak of an occupation, you are walking into the hands of the hasbara people. An occupation, they will remind you – at least, the more subtle of them will – is actually legal. Countries may occupy parts of other countries during warfare. Occupations are supposed to be short: The basic concept of the laws of war is that war end, often quickly. Once the war ends, the territories occupied have to be restored to their owners. Much as many Israelis lament it, after World War II the bastards changed the rules and it’s no longer legal to obtain territories by force.
The assumption that occupation is supposed to be short, however, is unenforceable. As long as we stick to the paradigm of occupation, Israel will claim (legally, correctly) that it stands in the shoes of the sovereign; that it has valid security concerns; and, using the loophole of “security concerns”, will basically do whatever it pleases with the territories.
To give two obvious examples: Israel has seized large tracts of land for “military purposes.” Under occupation law, it is perfectly entitled to. Some of these land was indeed used for military purposes (building camps, etc.); others have been turned over to settlers. Often slyly, without any official announcement: the army simply left the base unguarded, and lo and behold – settlers walked in into the abandoned base and turned into a settlement. The settlement is perfectly illegal, of course, but the army will tell the court (assuming this ever gets into court) it has other, more pressing matters to attend to. The judges will sigh, mutter that isn’t their job to outguess the military commander, and that would be the end of it.
Another trick is to say settlements are actually military bases and that they are needed to control the area. This schtick is considered in bad odor legally since the late 1970s, but recently the settlers have been speaking about it again.
You can’t win against the occupation: The army will be able to cover just about anything under the wide umbrella of “security needs.” The history of legal fights against the occupation is long and distinguished; some of my best friends have engaged in it; but it’s mostly distinguished in its glorious defeats.
Take ‘Amona, for instance. For three years I’ve watched the best legal minds of Yesh Din (for which I freelanced) deftly avoid and deflect any legal mumbo-jumbo the government could throw at them, including some truly deplorable shit, and forced the courts to order the removal of the illegal settlements. The struggle over ‘Amona deserves a book of its own. The battle was won, but the war was lost. Haaretz reported yesterday that the army has issued an order declaring ‘Amona to be a closed area to all – but allows the settlers to enter it, while preventing the Palestinian owners from accessing their land.
The case is in court. Assume a ruling in 2025. Which will be postponed until 2029. No reason to hurry. It’s only the livelihood of Palestinians.
And this is the crux of the matter. As long as we speak of territories, of land, we are bound within the rules of occupation, where the occupier and his “security needs” will always win.
Stop doing that. Start speaking of the Israeli Military Dictatorship.
Avoid all discussions of sovereignty. They’re useless. Speak of night raids intended only to terrify people, dozens of which are carried out by the IDF each night; speak of impunity, in which soldiers can kill, wound, main, and bully without paying any price; speak of detention without orders; of invading houses without warrants; of housing soldiers in private houses for military purposes; of arbitrary confiscation, which is often indistinguishable from looting; speak of daily indignities, humiliations, checkpoints you can pass depending on the mood of the soldier on duty; speak of administrative detention, which is indefinite imprisonment without trial; speak of the horror lurking beneath all this, the knowledge that if you protest too much, you or your loved ones may be taken to a legally-sanctioned dungeon and be tortured.
Speak, in short, not of territories but of people. People who had to live at the whim of enemy soldiers and secret policemen for decades. Speak of the fact that Nazi Germany (a “security concern” if ever there was one) was occupied for only seven years before it was entrusted back to its citizens; so was Imperial Japan; and yet the Palestinians live under the Israeli Military Dictatorship for nearly 52 years.
Speak of the Israeli Military Dictatorship, and you will see the fairy tale of the “only democracy” go up in smoke. Speak of the IMD, and see hasbarists scramble for answers they cannot find.
Unchain yourself of the concept of the Occupation, hard as it may be, and this freedom from an old concept may yet lead to the freedom of Palestinians.
The Palestinians entered into the Oslo accords with the start of negotiations on a final settlement of remaining issues, to be concluded before 4 May 1999. Although there was no mention of a ban on settlement building in the accords [When one enters into an agreement it is normally left unsaid that your “partner” will not engage in grave war crimes ‘transferring Israeli citizens into occupied territory’ as described in the Geneva conventions] but from day one of that agreement the Israelis engaged in those war crimes, without the Palestinians threatening to end the accords. In some ways the Palestinians have been naive about Israeli intentions, here is what former PM Shamir said way back when….
“Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir was quoted in a published interview today as saying he wanted to drag out peace talks with the Palestinians for a decade while vastly increasing the number of Jewish settlers in Israeli-occupied territories.
Mr. Shamir reportedly said, “I would have conducted negotiations on autonomy for 10 years and in the meantime we would have reached half a million people” in the West Bank.” https://www.nytimes.com/1992/06/27/world/shamir-is-said-to-admit-plan-to-stall-talks-for-10-years.html
The situation today is much worse but Abbas still sticks to the letter of the Oslo accords especially on security, when the Israelis have driven a coach and horses through it.
We should stop talking about the Occupation but I propose we go even further: stop talking about history, ‘ancestral homelands’, what happened in 1929 or 72 A.D. – it’s all besides the point at this juncture.
The proper justification for a Palestinian state is the human rights situation, full stop.
Of course – having finally figured out that Israeli control of the West Bank is indeed legal, let’s spin that into something that sounds nastier. Pop in some false analogies to Japan and Germany (actual countries in the first place) and you have your new outrage of the day.
Leaving occupation behind also drops Israeli framing
Hasbara is based on Israeli framing
Zionists never apologise and never accept facts or truth. They’re paid to keep you going in circles….
Plus Israel deserves sanctions in the name of tikkun olam.
There is quite a difference between the Germans / the Japanese of the Second World War and the Arabs in conflict with the Jews. Germany and Japan surrendered, whereas the Arabs haven’t surrendered (and never will). So, in the case of the Germans and the Japanese, there was no conflict after surrender. The Allies dictated the terms, wrote the constitution – and the ordeal was quite short. The Arabs have been defeated without a doubt, but there is no surrender. More importantly, there is an expectation that a negotiated end of conflict will ultimately be reached. It’s a very slow process, indeed, and there is no end in sight. Anti-Israel sources are focused only on Israel, and no one seems to notice the old Arabic saying: “al-‘ajala min al-shaytan” (speed is from the devil). In short, the Palestinians are not in a rush to end the conflict (they seem to think that the continuing conflict is working to their benefit), so they might complain about the “longest occupation in history”, but they won’t negotiate finality.
Now that Yossi Gurvitz has compared the occupation of Germany and Japan with the West Bank, he has actually brought up an interesting thought: If you’re in a hurry to solve the plight of the defeated Palestinians, maybe you should suggest to them to follow the example of the Germans and the Japanese. Maybe “unconditional surrender” is the best policy for bringing about an end of the conflict. However, if you just can’t imagine such a scenario, then maybe you can stop belly-aching about the 52 years. Nothing is going to move an inch without an agreement that ends the conflict to the satisfaction of both sides.