Israel and Palestine, from the ground up
A peculiar phenomenon plagues many political engagements in this world, and talk about, from, and within Israel and Palestine is certainly no exception. Here I am referring specifically to the dumbfounded gaze many people are guilty of giving, perhaps unwillingly, when they are confronted with an incident in which the wrong people have–rather inconveniently–died.
This “inconvenience” stems from the fact that it is “the Other side” which has suffered rather than “ours.” It is easy, after all, to understand our deaths; most likely, it is their fault, and the death can be situated within a grand narrative, analysis, or understanding. Their deaths, on the other hand, pose a problem: they are either justifiable or, if not, mysteriously they are not newsworthy.
With this rather limited and crude basis, the issue of the recently murdered students in a library at a yeshiva in Jerusalem becomes approachable. The variegated responses to this incident are indeed wondrous, as hysteria seizes Israel upon the disappearance of a safety that Palestinians have never known. Many involved in Israel advocacy campaigns have rushed to use the incident to prove that Palestinians are out purely to kill civilians, for the sake of killing civilians; and yet, there is a universal silence, or a strong push to justify, the death of Palestinian civilians by the same people. The same can be said of the deaths of Palestinians. There are, of course, those who will much protest the latter, but not the former.
Expressions of remorse for “unfortunate Palestinian civilian deaths” and for attacks on Israeli civilians are practically scripted, pre-manufactured and simply waiting for a timestamp so that they can be issued and then quickly moved out of the way, so that some semblance of credibility can be claimed while everybody returns to business as usual. Except for a small number of people in a few circles, it is difficult to find somebody who will not impulsively “condemn” or “regret” a particular incident.
It is tempting to write such inconsistencies off to simple hypocrisy. Some will refer to processes of dehumanization, of constructing “the Other.” Those who are truly suspicious will write off the scripted press releases as lies covering up a truly sinister support for the incident in question. Perhaps these are the case, but not the whole case, nor the most interesting part. Identify formation and other related processes like dehumanization are not causes, but ways.
There is a more particular reason why such deaths can be, no, must be dismissed out of hand, and that is because the wrong people have died. In the actual political encounter between actual participants, the only deaths which can be judged as good or bad politically are those which have meaning enough to change a balance of power. In the sort of encounter of which I have been speaking in this post, the right kinds of deaths are good, and the wrong kind are bad, their meaning occurring on another level. It may even be the case that the way in which a death is judged is reversed between the two encounters. That is, the same death which is detrimental in the actual political encounter is beneficial in the latter kind of encounter. That is the encounter of the political narrative with the world.
With the wealth of information to which we are exposed, it has become a political necessity (for the status quo) for all people to have not only loyalties, trust, belief, or allegiance based on past experience (something which may be legitimate), but additionally the ability to produce those things out of new occurrences. Whereas it may have once been sufficient to be loyal because of history, it is now necessary to make history, and thus loyalty, out of the present. The trust which produces political power, a trust which easily becomes fragile after exposure to other information, has developed a necessity to sustain and re-affirm itself, and the tool by which it can fulfill this need is the political narrative.
In the political realm of violent conflict between collective powers, the death of civilians has no direct meaning. The civilian does not pose a threat to the balance of power between armies or guerrillas. In this sense civilians are as collectible as they are dispensable. Armies can occupy large territories in spite of a large civilian presence, just as they can retain their power despite considerable civilian losses.
Such deaths do have meaning, however, to actual people, whether they are based on a direct connection like the loss of a brother or mother, or on an abstract suffering for the loss of a human being or compatriot. This kind of meaning, of course, does not exist exclusively for what are called civilians. Discussions regarding why some deaths (usually of some breed of non-civilian) are “just,” “justifiable,” “acceptable,” or “legal” for this reason exist mainly for the inflicter rather than the afflicted. Even Justice is a political narrative.
The chief task of the political narrative is to re-orient this meaning in a way that allows it to re-affirm the narrative. The dead soldier becomes a hero or a martyr, the dead civilian, depending on the sensibilities involved, collateral damage. Both deaths, whether they are “ours” or “theirs,” of a friend or an enemy, must be processed in this way. The political narrative cannot discriminate between what it processes.
The dissonance we witness when it comes to the deaths of civilians in Israel and Palestine is a sign of this process of processing all events through a political narrative breaking at the seams. Many such narratives are premised nowadays on universal claims to morality. Thus, both friend and enemy claim not to support the killing of civilians. It is an easy principle to invoke when it comes to our friends, but when it comes to so-called enemies, it requires a million rationalizations or deliberate concealment, whether voluntary or involuntary.
All of this goes not to suggest that this is a dishonest process which occurs in bad faith by intention, but rather that it is a process which simply occurs, though not without its particular internal tensions. It is not imposed, but internalized. Because of the almost instinctual impulse to contextualize within a narrative, it has become impossible to see a death as a death, rather than a necessary step in a great play-book for a cause. This is not a matter of tearing a thing from its context to see it simply as a death, but of preventing it from being put in a false one so that it cannot be seen for what it is: a death.
So it is that eight students were murdered in a library in Jerusalem, and what is expected of me and others engaged with this issue is a mere “condemnation.” That I would be asked for one, and not, say, an Israeli reflects the work of the political narrative in confronting “the other side.” On the other hand, nobody ever needs the Israeli government to “condemn” the deaths of Palestinian civilians. That government can only regret and apologize.
The truth is, in any case, no such condemnation from “the other side” would be satisfying. There is more to be offered than a statement which “plays by the rules” of ‘civilized’ discourse: perhaps that is a recognition that eight people have been killed, and that the deaths will not be defaced by some centralized and hegemonic political narrative.
Between the political goals of such a narrative and one of its lesser, contradicting premises or values having to do with human deaths, something must give way. Thus it becomes impossible to attach actual political or discursive meaning to a statement or action which has the main purpose of trying to stick to the principle by “condemning the deaths of all civilians equally.” The only thing based in such a general condemnation which has the potential at this time to actually gather momentum is a vague call for “peace;” and yet this general condemnation is situated within very specific and actually conflicting political narratives. They thus produce the impression that the two narratives have a thing in common, when in fact they do not.
The political narrative we must abandon is of the sort that the attack on a yeshiva is “a continuation of the 1929 massacres;” a similar one portrays Israeli attacks on populated civilian areas as genocidal measures meant to ethnically cleanse by murder. These are neither merely “lies” nor “exaggerations;” they are distortions by a political narrative. The point here is not to expose the inaccuracies engendered by such narratives, because these are inconsequential, and it is doubtful that any political narrative exists which does not have the same effect. What is at stake is not truth, but potential.
The task before us, I think, is the construction of a political narrative which is not centered in abstractions, but in ourselves; one in which this tension is removed or minimized such that the logic of the narrative is made to run parallel to the logic of the political encounter (or vice versa) rather than counter-parallel; this alternative sort of political narrative, in order to resolve that tension, must be created and constructed and developed (like all such developments in the actual political encounter) through actual work and interaction, not purely discursively. It cannot be built by a high-minded idea which is centered away from people and their particularities; it must be built, as they say, from the ground up. The opportunities are few, but they cannot be abandoned.
51 Responses to “Israel and Palestine, from the ground up”
By Abdul Tufah on Mar 7, 2008
Awesome job, Yaman! Your posts are always fantastic.
It’s also interesting to note that while Israel forces all of it’s citizens to serve in the military, it still somehow enjoys classifying most of it’s population as “civilian.” You take everyone in the country and make them all a part of the occupation (beyond just living in someone else’s homeland illegally) and somehow they’re not “militants” themselves.
By Wassim on Mar 8, 2008
I like your articles and I think you have a great way of articulating what can be quite difficult to convey. Having said that, this is now a criticism of what I so far understand to be your perspective on this issue. I say what I so far understand, because whilst you present a clear idea of the subject you are referring to and analyse it quite thoroughly, your purpose and in fact perspective, always seem to remain shrouded in obscurity. Whether this is because you are or continue to be in a process of developing it, or you don’t wish to talk about it, I don’t know. But I thought I’d put down a bit of feedback (as if I needed encouragement!) on your article.
Because of the almost instinctual impulse to contextualize within a narrative, it has become impossible to see a death as a death, rather than a necessary step in a great play-book for a cause. This is not a matter of tearing a thing from its context to see it simply as a death, but of preventing it from being put in a false one so that it cannot be seen for what it is: a death.
Not wishing to be pedantic, but something stuck out for me in this paragraph. The problem is that I don’t see what is wrong in contextualizing an event within a narrative. Can you have an event with no narrative? If there is no narrative, then it is not an event, for no such thing can exist without a prior cause. You cannot have an event out of nothing, surely!?! So if the problem is in the type of narrative, this brings me to my second point. What are you saying is the problem with the current narrative[s].
You argue that this distorted narrative somehow makes it “impossible to see a death as a death”. But then you don’t advocate tearing the thing from it’s context to see it simply as a death, you advocate removing it from ( the rather confusing term of) “distorted” narrative in order that we see it for what it really is, namely, a death!?!!!??!?!?!
Now if I understand what you are saying, first you don’t want to tear away the concept of death from it’s (distorted) context, then you do want to tear away the concept of death from it’s (distorted) context. In both scenarios, you want people to see it for what it really is: a death.
I’m sure if you speak to people from both sides, they would agree that those people are pretty dead right now. So you seem to be back where you started and, dare I say it, stating what is completely obvious? So I take it you mean the meaning attributed to these deaths. This brings us to the idea of a new narrative. You seem to think that by divorcing the ‘distorted’ narrative, you can then place the actors in a new play, but this analogy, whilst commonly made, is inaccurate, for in this reality we exist in, just as there can be no event with no cause, so too, are there no people without a cause or narrative who simply exist or can exist in some objective reality. Actually there are, we call these people autistic. So the idea of divorcing an “actor” from the narrative, and putting her in a comedy rather than a tragedy, cannot occur.
Coming back to the idea of creating a new narrative, I completely agree with you that the distorting power of different narratives can alter our perception of events. As they say in Arabic:
مصائب قوم عند قوم فوائده
But I have to say, I still don’t understand what you mean by this new and improved uber-narrative which “we” can produce if we put in enough blood, sweat and tears. There is a problem in what you say. Whilst you recognise that narrative can have an influence on actors and is reinforced by their actions, you seem to think that by generating a new narrative somehow with these same actors, will produce better results. Let us all pretend we are not Israelis anymore, and let us all pretend we are not Palestinians or Arabs. No more Muslims, no more Jews. We will now be Jewslims or Pasraeli’s. Apart from being completely unworkable, it borders on the, for want of a better word, infantile. I’m sure you’ll disagree, but surely you cannot ignore these problems inherent in what you propose?
By Wassim on Mar 8, 2008
My punctuation sucks…sorry.
By Naji on Mar 8, 2008
Good work… Keep it up…!
By yaman on Mar 8, 2008
Wassim, first off, this is not my perspective on this issue, but on politics in general.
There is nothing wrong with contextualizing an event within a narrative. I am not speaking against “narrative” in general. I am referring to the political narratives which dominate the discussion on Israel and Palestine.
I don’t say the narrative is distorted, I say the narrative distorts. Even on your own blog you could not refer to the murders at the rabbinical school except in a sarcastic swipe at Abu Mazen.
I am not talking about the “meaning” of these two deaths–my post is not as well written or as clear as it could be or as I would have hoped, I will admit that. I am talking about the impossibility of situating such deaths within a narrative that has both specific political ends (ie, ending the occupation of Palestine, for example) and pretends to be based in universal principles (ie, “condemning” the killing of all civilians–very specifically condemning, not being against it, not refusing to commit it or support it, but “condemning”). This frustration has driven people like Ray Hanania to devote many pages criticizing Palestinians and Israelis for “hypocrisy” for example because they are “extremists” who don’t condemn “all” deaths “equally.” I am saying that it is not simple “hypocrisy,” and that “condemnation” is a pretty weak criteria. What does it mean to condemn? I write the line on my blog: “I condemn the killing of civilians,” and that should be taken to mean something? It is a politically stifling term and requirement, and that is why it is such a sticking point for so-called moderates.
Now, as for where people exist nowadays. I did not say people should or can exist in some ‘objective reality,’ whatever that is. But I would disagree with you that it is impossible to live “without a narrative”–I really do think this type of political narrative which dominates the lives of people at all times is a rather recent historical development. But that is not central to my point.
I wish you had not characterized what I have been saying in terms of comedy vs. strategy. I never make claims that my vision is “good” or “better” or will avoid a cataclysmic future. I only say that beyond the regular “options” which are presented nowadays due to historical closures of our field of possibilities, there may lie other options which have the potential to bring us something different. Whether it is good or bad is beyond my discussion, I only say that it is viable and potential.
I certainly hope that these problems you raise are not “inherent” in what I wrote, because they are fairly infantile. I am not saying we need to “pretend” that we’re not who we are. This is not a universal human rights project. Really, this post is about something quite simple. People are moved or forced often either to “condemn,” justify, mock, or ignore deaths of civilians, due to constraints of a particular political narrative. I am saying that such responses are totally unnecessary, and perhaps there are other things foreclosed by such a narrative (such as the insurmountable delineation of who the friend and the enemy is, even though some enemies are friendly than others), which there is a possibility to work around.
By tom's cool on Mar 8, 2008
“The political narrative we must abandon…portrays Israeli attacks on populated civilian areas as genocidal measures meant to ethnically cleanse by murder. These are neither merely “lies” nor “exaggerations;” they are distortions by a political narrative. The point here is not to expose the inaccuracies engendered by such narratives, because these are inconsequential”
I applaud you for fessing up to the lies SJP spreads. I encourage you to match your words with your actions by calling on your own organization to stop perpetuating such lies.
And I encourage you to give up the false narrative SJP uses to attack Israel.
By yaman on Mar 8, 2008
Get over yourself, tom’s cool.
By tom's cool on Mar 8, 2008
Yaman,
you’re the one who needs to get over himself. This blog post is one of the most incomprehensible things I’ve ever read. Stop trying to be intellectual with your big words and nonsensical phrases.
By raffi on Mar 9, 2008
tom’s cool: while I disagree with many things that Yaman says (in general, not with this post necessarily), you only make yourself look foolish by saying that this post is “incomprehensible”. He’s the one addressing points and you’re the one attacking, rather than simply countering the points.
By yaman on Mar 9, 2008
tom’s cool, if you don’t understand it, don’t claim to know what I am “fessing up” to.
By Wassim on Mar 9, 2008
Actually I didn’t mean to be insulting with my comedy or tragedy example. It was just meant to be an example rather than have a reflection of my views on what you said. Just thought I’d let you know ;)
By yaman on Mar 9, 2008
Hey Wassim, I did not take it as an insult, I just felt it was imposing a paradigm that I don’t think I put in my post. I might be wrong though, and if I am, then my comment was clarification.
By Tom Pessah on Mar 9, 2008
first of all, my deepest respect to all the decent Israeli activists in the photos demonstrating in Rabin square against the killing of civilians. We should make sure to remember them, just as we remember the brave villagers of Bil’in, and the important work they do, and not get all our attention focused on the mutual violence (I think i recognize the guy with the beard in the top photo…).
One of the biggest obstacles to ending this violence remains, as always, the double standard. The yeshiva killings were discussed by the UN Security Council. Israel and the US tried to pass a resolution to denounce them, but the Libyan member of the SC wanted to include in the statement language condemning the recent Israeli incursions into Gaza, which have killed over 120 Palestinians, many of them civilians. “US ambassador Khalilzad rejected that. He said killing students in a school was different from the unintentional killing of civilians”. http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3516095,00.html
While people continue to believe that Palestinians are by nature barbarians who kill people intentionally, but civilized Israelis cannot but make “mistakes”, nothing will change. We need to repeat over and over again that when so many civilians are killed so often, it ain’t a mistake.
By Tom Pessah on Mar 9, 2008
and Abdul Tufah, would you classify all citizens of this country other than Native Americans as militants on similar grounds (”living in someone else’s homeland illegally”)?
By Yael on Mar 10, 2008
Yaman,
Acknowledging that your enemy (nice or not) is human and therefore, when dead, a dead human being, is an *active* position to take. And if we are to produce anything but more death, it is no less than political - and something each of us can (and should) do. In ‘Actively’ I don’t mean the quite worthless ‘condemnation’ you rightly dismiss - but actions such as an SJP ‘die in’ protesting the targeting of all civilians, including the ‘enemy’s. This is an active political position b/c it will 1) make SJP and its politics something Israelis can identify and associate with. No “justice’ can be made in Palestine without them 2) make the J in the SJP into a moral demand rather than a rhetoric-instrumental one. No political movement/project can succeed without being moral (this is why Zionism succeeded, btw, and I can explain what I mean).
On the way, you exposed Abdul Tufah’s view of Israelis as non-people whom it is allowed to kill. There are Israelis who feel the same about him. Isn’t it an active role for us to say out load to them “you are wrong”? Even if you ’share the same political-narrative’ with him? Even if he will call you a traitor?
I must say that the political goal called “let’s kill all the Jews to free Palestine” is extremely different from the political goal called “let’s find a way to have justice in Palestine for both Arabs and Jews”. To an effect that the second goal can be shared between what you define as ‘enemies’.
At the same token, as Abdul Tufah is willing to kill me and my baby, there is really no way I can share anything with him other than war, can I? Magnify this to nations and you will understand how so-personal is the political and why for me *actively* saying that a civilian is a civilian is something far beyond ‘condemnation’.
By tom's cool on Mar 10, 2008
TOM,
Are you out of your mind!?!
“He said killing students in a school was different from the unintentional killing of civilians”.
“While people continue to believe that Palestinians are by nature barbarians who kill people intentionally, but civilized Israelis cannot but make “mistakes”, nothing will change.”
That had nothing to do with Palestinians in general. It is a well known obvious fact that the terrorists kill civilians intentionally!!! Are you negating what the US ambassador said? PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW HE IS WRONG? Can you not admit that the Yeshiva students were intentionally killed while civilians in Gaza were unintentionally killed!?
Are you people out of your minds??
By tom's cool on Mar 10, 2008
Let me give an example of how Yaman’s work here is largely incomprehensible and poorly written:
“The task before us, I think, is the construction of a political narrative which is not centered in abstractions, but in ourselves; one in which this tension is removed or minimized such that the logic of the narrative is made to run parallel to the logic of the political encounter (or vice versa) rather than counter-parallel; this alternative sort of political narrative, in order to resolve that tension, must be created and constructed and developed (like all such developments in the actual political encounter) through actual work and interaction, not purely discursively.”
That sentence is 9 lines long and contradicts itself. Yaman could have summed it up a lot better if he said the following:
“People want me to condemn what I know was a heinous and morally wrong act: the deliberate killing of innocent civilians. But those who condemn it like Israel. I hate Israel. I don’t want to associate with people who like Israel or help people who like Israel, so I will not condemn it.”
Everything else he said was just mumbo jumbo…just fog over the truth.
By Tom Pessah on Mar 10, 2008
Tom’s cool - do you have any proof that the civilians in Gaza were killed unintenionally?
By Tom Pessah on Mar 10, 2008
According to B’Tselem figures, from 27 February to the afternoon of 3 March, 106 Palestinians were killed in the Gaza Strip. Contrary to the Chief of Staff’s contention that ninety percent were armed, at least fifty-four of the dead (twenty-five of them minors) did not take part in the hostilities. In addition, at least forty-six minors were wounded.
For example:
The killing of six-month-old Muhammad al-Bur’i, at the family’s home in the Rimal section of Gaza on 27 February, and the wounding of others, in the shelling of the nearby Interior Ministry building. The building is a civilian office building, and not a legitimate military target.
http://www.btselem.org/english/Press_Releases/20080303.asp
In April 2006, the media reported that the IDF reduced � from 300 meters to 100 meters � the “safety range” between populated areas in the Gaza Strip and the area at which the army launches artillery fire. Given that a volley of shells disperses over an area of up to 100 meters from the target, and shell fire is not precise in any case, by reducing the range, the IDF knowingly endangers the lives of Palestinians living in these areas.
The IDF’s artillery fire in these circumstances is not a defensive action taken to combat opposing fire and Qassam rockets at the time they occur. Rather, it is aimed at what the IDF refers to as “Qassam launching areas,” broad spaces of land from which the IDF believes Qassam rockets had previously been fired. The firing is carried out at Israel ’s initiative, as punishment or deterrence, and not in self-defense.
http://www.btselem.org/english/Gaza_Strip/Hostilities.asp
This is how it works: people shoot Qassams at Sderot and Ashkelon (something I obviously denounce, as do all members of SJP, we are against any attacks on civilians). The army can’t catch them in time, to they shoot much later in the general direction of where the rockets came from. They know the launchers aren’t there any more, nd they know there are civilians in the vicinity, but they shoot anyway, ad this is how people get killed:civilians are paying the price for the shooting of rockets.
if you think sacrificing some Palestinian civilians is legitimate, what exactly is the difference between that and killing Israeli civlians in retaliation for this violence?
By yaman on Mar 10, 2008
tom’s cool, sorry, you did not understand. I am amused that you think that I am a calculating person at the same time you think that in my proof-read blog post which I can pull down at any time, I have some how let “the truth” about me slip through. Obviously I agree that the attack on the yeshiva was unjustified, heinous, criminal, immoral, etcetera. Let me give you an example of what that paragraph is pointing out: eight Israelis are murdered in a yeshiva. Obviously this is not “good” for Israel–but it is great for some of Israel’s political narratives, mainly the ones which view the Palestinians as barbarians who only want to kill Israelis; hence the absurd statement that this was a “continuation of 1929 massacres.” The logics are opposed to each other, and the same act is both ‘good’ for something at the same time it is ‘bad’ for something else (and this is exterior to the question of the act’s morality).
Of course, if you took some time to read this more carefully, to read my previous blog postings, or to acquaint yourself with me in real life (or perhaps use your real name), you would know that what I am asking for is essentially this: a narrative in which it is not necessary to conceal or rationalize civilian deaths, because in this narrative it is not about Israel or Palestine “winning” (because there is no victory to be had here), but in dismantling a system of oppression so that people can live freely. Does that make sense to you now, or are you going to continue twisting what I say and believe to get your point across?
By yaman on Mar 10, 2008
Yael,
To clarify, first, I am not using the words friend and enemy in relation to myself, but in relation to the construction of the narratives above. I did not say I adopted one narrative and not the other, I said I rejected both. You are absolutely right that this should be actively condemned, but I should say that this post is not strictly a political intervention. On another point, there are Israelis who identify and associate with SJP. As for this event, as I mentioned above, every event which SJP has that is not in response to a specific incident, always mentions Israeli and Palestinian civilian deaths. This die-in was planned 1 day before. I think your suggestions for SJP are great, but you actually have to take the step and go to an SJP meeting and get to know the people in it before you can make blanket statements about what they do or do not believe.
Finally, I will clarify the following: in the narratives above, everybody disagrees with the killing of civilians. The move to re-classify people as non-civilians (as collateral damage, as essentially militants, as unfortunate necessary losses, etc) is an implicit acceptance of the principle that civilians should not be attacked.
I never intended in this post to re-define the Palestinian resistance to Israeli occupation as a battle between the right and wrong of killing civilians.
By yaman on Mar 10, 2008
Sorry folks, unfortunately I am extraordinarily busy right now so I cannot respond to every post in detail, however it is obvious that I was not clear in getting my point across. This is a brief summary:
Everybody says killing civilians is bad. While some people do not believe it, the likelihood is that overwhelmingly people do, even when they try to classify civilians as something else (this is an implicit recognition that civilians should not be killed). The reason the re-classification happens is not because of a moral failing, but because the political narrative, ideology, goal, framework that they believe in simply cannot comprehend, process, recognize, appreciate, or memorialize the deaths of civilians, except those on their “own side”–that is not because of a moral outrage, but rather because it is a good kind of death which re-confirms the political narrative, as opposed to one which opposes, challenges, or undermines it.
The point is this: a new political tendency is needed which can internalize all of these, not solely because of some moral principle, but because it is the only kind of tendency which can fully understand and internalize the ramifications of all violent action (not just violence against civilians). However, because it is rooted in such practical considerations (how the death of a relative or neighbor can impact a community), it should be based in that community. This kind of narrative which does not discriminate between Israelis and Palestinians can only be constructed through actual work and cooperation between people on the ground–NOT between government figureheads, NOT in an online argument, NOT in an email exchange or at a bar, but ACTUAL WORK AND COOPERATION on a POLITICAL level, like work in a group like SJP.
With a narrative formed like this, I believe the tension between what I called above, perhaps incorrectly, the narrative, and the actual political encounter will disappear.
That is all I meant to say.
By Tom Pessah on Mar 10, 2008
Today’s NY TImes reported -
Israel Approves Home Building in West Bank. The government of Israel said Sunday that it had approved the construction of hundreds of homes in a West Bank settlement north of Jerusalem.
The construction project in question, in the Givat Zeev settlement, was approved in 1999, but the developers stopped building for commercial reasons with the outbreak of the intifada in 2000. The developers recently asked to resume the project because of “the relative quiet and the rise in demand for apartments in Jerusalem and its environs,” the Israeli Ministry of Construction and Housing said Sunday in a statement.
Read this statement carefully: over the last year there has been a relative lull in the violence, and the number of Israeli killed in 2007 was the lowest since the 1980s.The government’s response is that if there is less violence, it is time not to end the occupation, but to go ahead and enlarge settlements. What is the message that this sends?
By tom's cooler on Mar 10, 2008
what, are you crazy? i can’t give you my real name! if i did that then my facile bullshit and overall willful ignorance would be traceable to me. by staying incognito i’m free to keep doing what i’m here to do in the first place, i.e., soak up as much of a thread’s potential as possible to try to kill it’s effectiveness. i don’t read your posts with the intention of understanding them, i just read until i find a phrase i think i can attack, then i attack. that’s what’s up.
if you’re busy dealing with my nonsense, you won’t have as much time to write against the ideological hegemony on which i depend.
(oh shit, did i write that out loud?)
By Yael on Mar 10, 2008
Yaman ,
If you define civilians who served in the army for 2 years 15 years ago (like me) or who may serve in the army for 2 years 15 years from now (like my child) as ’soldiers’ - and thereby justify our killing - what good does it do me if you are ‘essentially against killing civilians’??
If there are no civilians in Israel according to this definition - what good does it do us to talk about civilians in the first place? Let’s just define Israelis as “those one can kill” according to our narrative and Palestinians as “those not to be killed” and that’s it.. No need for moral issues to grapple with.
The reason I didn’t yet join SJP although I am interested in its goal (i.e. justine in Palestine) - is that I’m not sure this justice is also for me.
If you think that SJP ’s justice is also for Israelis, i’ll gladly join.
By tom's cool thinks yael is cool on Mar 10, 2008
SJP is a Palestinian nationalist group. They aren’t about justice, and they don’t care about Israelis. The “justice” just stands for “justice before peace!”
There would be no need to wave Palestinian flags all over the place and wear Kafiyas and do other ridiculous nationalist things if it were just a group about justice.
By seth on Mar 10, 2008
Israel’s compulsory military service is problematic in a number of ways, as would be such service in any context. It is thought to contribute to Israel’s higher-than-average rates of domestic abuse (those rates are through the roof for American troops returning from Iraq and Afghanisan, as well), and a number of difficult existential questions bear asking around the fact that the entire life is organized around participation in the direct subjugation of other humans, not to mention subjected the agenda of indoctrination shared by all militaries.
Nonetheless it doesn’t work to use those facts as a pretext for eliminating the category of civilian altogether. Israel’s absolutely civilian population may indeed be tiny but it certainly exists. Other than the 20% of its population that it forces categorically into civilian status under the label ‘Arab,’ there are Israeli women who have acted against convention and acted on the special right afforded to them to refuse service as pacifists, there are a growing number (I am told) of Israelis who fake mental illness to get out of service, and there are refuseniks of various stripes, ranging from those who refuse to serve in the Occupied Territories, to the rare but brave individuals who refuse service altogether. Those in this last category often pay for their ethical resolve by being coercively labeled “mentally ill” by the Israeli government, sometimes despite flawless performances on the psychometric test all Israelis take for the IDF before graduating high school.
There is also a large segment of the Israeli population (like Yael’s child) who have yet to become soldiers, who have yet to be subjected to military indoctrination, and need not ever become complicit in the oppression of their Palestinian brothers and sisters.
Finally there are former IDF soldiers who have come to terms with the reality of their role in Palestinian oppression, and have become activists who speak out against the abuses carried out by the Israeli government not just in their names, but with their very bodies. This is a unique and important position of power and opportunity to work against the types of narrative about which Yaman’s been talking with us here. It’s a position that American troops have also taken after having been tools for their government’s inhumanity and aggression.
Yael, I don’t think Yaman is being as simplistic as you’re reading him here, and everyone I know in SJP values the loss of innocent Israeli life as much as it does the loss of innocent Palestinian life. I think before it’s anything else, SJP is a humanistic organization. If our loyalties seem slanted, the slant is always traceable and inversely proportional to the imbalances in power, suffering, and death experienced on the two “sides” of the narrative we’re critiquing.
By yaman on Mar 10, 2008
Yael, please do not ascribe other people’s views to me. I am not defending the idea that no Israeli is a ‘civilian,’ nor am I saying that the effect of pointing out the implicit recognition of such a principle has the kind of practical effect you are concerned with, but I don’t think the point is irrelevant. I did not say that to soothe you, I was defending my post. I agree with seth above that your comments unfortunately all assume what I am saying is in bad faith. The only way you can find out about SJP is to come to meetings and meet people.
By Tom Pessah on Mar 10, 2008
Yael, SJP is definitely for Israelis too, but the only way one can be active, from my experience, is to consciously work against the feelings of victimness that contantly come up for us as a result of our upbringing, the good old “kol haolam negdeinu” (the whole world is against us). The way in which you read into Yaman’s words a claim that he never would make reminds me of countless experiences I’ve had over the last two years, when I thought I heard things which were much more hateful than anyone around me really feels. I am actually amazed at the degree of goodwill that exists, especially among Palestinians, despite all what has happened and continues to happen. If you are willing to take the plunge, to notice when these feelings come up, and to check again and again if they have any basis in reality, you will discover a whole group of wonderful, warm and accepting allies eager to work with you for justice for EVERYONE in Israel/Palestine.
By tom's cool thinks yael is cool on Mar 11, 2008
Why would an Israeli join a Palestinian nationalist group? Unless they are self-hating?
By yaman on Mar 11, 2008
“tom’s cool” will do anything on this blog except try to engage in an intelligent discussion. i guess we now have a resident douchebag. anybody interested can come see why israelis will join sjp by coming to our meetings/events. on the other hand, anybody can see why no palestinians will join tikvah… by reading their comments on this blog.
By Yael on Mar 11, 2008
Yaman, Seth and Tom,
I know Yaman is not calling for the killing of Israeli civilians - however, he was defending Abdul’s “no Israeli is a civilian” by portraying it as a humanistic understanding that civilians are not to be killed. I view this as an inherent paradox, and I would be glad if you all to recognize it.
About military service: asking why israelis serve in the army is like asking why americans pay taxes while they know fully well this money pays for the war in iraq [=that you reject]. will you not pay taxes this year? why not?? maybe b/c there is a social contract in your society in which being a citizen requires certain relationship between state and individual. now, some israelis decided not to join the army and some decided not to continue serving, b/c of their political believes. - but this should be understood as a way to affect policy, communal goals, morals etc, not as a complete rejection of the contract (which in this case involves military service) per se. respectively, you could refuse to pay your taxes as a form of protest against the war in iraq - but does this mean you are against tax paying per se? [i assume not, otherwise you will have a total-capitalist society]. blaming israeli society for having an army service is not understanding its reality. this may be part of seth’s project, but if what you want is to *understand* it is not helpful.
regarding SJP, I went to several meetings last year. I stopped going after the meeting in which a Palestinian from Bil’in talked about non-violent resistance. when talking about the violent option (that he rejects), he mentioned the killings of Israeli soldiers - and people in the crowed clapped! NO ONE STOPPED THEM. not one of the organizers said “look, this is a meeting about NON violence, rejoicing the killing of anyone is not what we do here”. I was deeply disappointed by the group and didn’t come back. I was also disappointed, as you know, that the ‘die in’ viewed only Palestinians as civilians.
tom, i dont think “the world is all against me”, but I nonetheless cannot take part in a group that - implicitly but nonetheless significantly - allows my killing. i am willing to talk to anyone on this group who is willing to talk to me, but i cannot be a part of it as it is now. I know that not all the people on SJP have the same views on anything, however i think (personally. this is my opinion) that certain clearly articulated moral principles should be declared and made into uncompromisable guidelines. if these will include justice for Jews in Palestine and the understanding that Israelis are both humans and [most of their lives] civilians, I will very gladly join. it is your decision whether to include this or not [a decision that is of course not about me or my joining..].
By yaman on Mar 11, 2008
Yael, I was not humanizing Abdul Tufah’s suggestion. That is absurd–just because I tried to look at its object or analyze it, it becomes humanizing? This is ridiculous. Furthermore, even if I was, there is nothing wrong with humanizing a point of view with the intention of understanding the way it works. The same applies to humanizing the point of view of Israeli soldiers who open fire on Palestinian demonstrations because it is potentially useful to understand how they think–not to justify it or even to accept it, but to understand it.
Second, your claim that SJP “implicitly supports your killing” is absolutely unsubstantiated. The fact that Abdul Tufah, not even a member of SJP or a resident of CA echoed this logic, is totally irrelevant, and is a strange argument for you to to guilt by association because Abdul Tufah posted on my blog. That you think SJP is not committed to this principle because it held a die-in about the Israeli raid of Gaza is ridiculous. I don’t see you applying the same expectations to other organizations–not that you actively support them, but you certainly are not going to great lengths to explain why you would not join them, and you certainly are not ascribing to them the same demonic qualities you are ascribing to me and SJP (you “support my killing”).
That is absurd!
By Tom Pessah on Mar 12, 2008
>>Yeal: however i think (personally. this is my opinion) that certain clearly articulated moral principles should be declared and made into uncompromisable guidelines. if these will include justice for Jews in Palestine and the understanding that Israelis are both humans and [most of their lives] civilians,
These are our guidelines, which you can find on our website: “Our dedication to the human rights of the Palestinian people is rooted in a fundamental respect for the human rights of all people. These include the right of all civilians, including Palestinians and Israelis, not to be the targets of violence”
It also says that “the future we would like to see in Palestine and Israel, we very much see already in ourselves: a diverse group of all backgrounds, Arab, Jewish, Palestinian, Israeli, and many others, coming together not based on our religious or ethnic identities, but rather in our agreement that we are working for a just cause”.
Yaman is our webmaster and if I’m not mistaken he was the person who wrote this.
http://calsjp.org/about/
If you want I can send you photos from plenty of previous events that we had, with little Palestinian flags signifying Palestinian casualties and Israeli flags signifying Israeli ones. This specific die-in was a protest against the killing of 116 people in Gaza over the weekend, so that was the main focus. No one, as far as I know, suppports the shelling of Sdrot and Ashkelon, but perhaps if this hadn’t been prepared so quickly we should have mentioned that.
I completely understand the need to hear this over and over again, because there is a lot of hatred around, and it should be clear that SJP is a welcoming place to everyone who agrees with our principles.
On the other hand, I think it can be a bit oppressive to expect Arabs to dissociate themselves from every extremist statement that some random person makes, as if they constantly have something to prove just by virtue of being Arabs. People don’t expect me to say every time that I still don’t support IDF attacks on Palestinian civilians just because I’m Israeli. People know my views and it’s taken as a given, and if you knew our actual members better (as opposed to random people on this blog, or one random white guy who was sitting in the audience in the event you came to), you would take that as a given too.
Being properly committed to working together on this issue requires a lot of patience, a lot of self-scrutiny, a lot of sensitivity to nuances and differences between different people, and there is often a pull to just get offended by something someone said and give up. But I think it’s our responsibility as Israelis not to give up so quickly.
By Yael on Mar 12, 2008
first of all - i may be wrong. so thanks for keeping trying to correct me.
i really appreciate yaman’s blog on the dead of the ‘other side’ of one’s political project, however i think that its vagueness (that others commented on) is characteristic of what i criticize in sjp. this vagueness enables random people like abdul and others to understand you and affiliate with you on the bases of things you reject. they may not be part of you, but you must see that when they participate in your activities or blogs - without you rejecting them or making it clear what you mean - they are part of you and your pool of ideas. (yaman, you rejected tom’s cool’s ideas, but not abdul’s, as far as i saw at least). my personal position is for saying things as clear as possible - but then again i’m a very bad politician.
what i am suggesting, without an attempt to accuse or insult any of you, is that these ideas serve you politically. they generate momentum to your activity and so you just leave it as is.
between us three, how much ‘work’ or ‘preparation’ one needs to do in order to say on the speaker at the die in rally that ‘this is a protest against this weekend’s killings in Gaza, as well as it is a protest of the killings of israeli civilians in sederot’. it is not much work - unless when you say ‘work’ you mean convincing all the people in the periphery of sjp (who make your rallies larger and more impressive), that israelis are indeed civilians. this ‘work’, i know, can be very very long. but not doing it is a problem, and doing it is partly through the activism itself.
another issue i have with sjp and its ‘welcome’ of israelis is its name. its not ‘in israel and palestine’ or ‘in palestine and israel’ or ‘in israel-palestine’ (which may imply different claims for one or two state solutions), but just palestine. and so justice for palestinians. you say that there is also justice for israelis on your principles, which is great. but as such, it is *also* for israelis, i.e., as an exception to the norm, as a gesture. Now, the entire idea of zionism as i see it is for justice, rights, life, dignity (etc) for jews to never be an exception again - to be obvious. and i’m a zionist b/c despite that fact that i recognize the nacba and the feed for justice as a norm for palestinians too, i am not willing to give this hard-gained value up.
since i believe in justice as a norm for palestinians - i dont see how this justice will be valuable morally if it is manichean - that is, if it deny justice as a norm for jews.
so just to be clear, i dont think that either of you thinks that jews should not have justice, but i’m not sure about the norm thing (so i may differ from you here), and i’m not sure that sjp really represents justice as norm for jews as something that has to be sustained as valuable in itself (i.e. despite the harsh affects of zionism on palestinians). how exactly can they both be accomplished? i have no idea. but i’m trying to think about a possible solution in these terms.
By yaman on Mar 12, 2008
When I had the megaphone last Monday, I did explicitly condemn the rockets into Sderot as well as the death of Israeli civilians. They were mentioned repeatedly. To be honest, I overlooked the latter half of Abdul Tufah’s comment above and did not recognize it until you mentioned it. What you might like to know–and I am not surprised that you do not because I have never worked with you in the past for SJP events–is that I and a number of others actively work to stamp out any sign of racism, closed-mindedness, or ill-intention in people who we may cross paths with. The truth is, the core of SJP is extremely principled and anti-racist and does not subscribe or invoke this kind of rhetoric or attitude. It is only in larger events when peripheral supporters who rarely play a hand in organizing that these kinds of issues arise, and we do our best to handle them.
The truth is, there are multiple causes on which SJP works. The public cause is primarily focused on the occupation and what we perceive to be an apartheid system. Other causes have to do with creating a coherent approach and understanding of what is going on, and this is typically in the form of deliberations between members. Tom can attest to this fact. Like any other political organization, we have both internal and external arguments/objectives/points.
By seth on Mar 12, 2008
just to be clear, I do not “blame” Israeli society for its militarism any more or less than I blame american society for the its militarism. As an outsider looking in, though, it seems like a somewhat different problem in Israel that almost everyone is forced to participate with and contribute to that militarism, and all the things that result from it.
on the other hand, i have to acknowledge the ways in which the “privilege” of not having to “serve” in the US military invites its own set of negative and perhaps harder-to-pin-down problems for this society. For instance, the fact that a huge number of american’s can get away with not thinking critically about militarism in this country and thier complicity in that militarism (by supporting it through paying taxes, as yael suggests) because they simply don’t have to participate, it’s not close enough to require consideration. if this country had cumpulsory service for all, and I was obliged to paricipate in the atrocities in Iraq and Afghanistan, the only thing I know for sure is that I’d be pissed as hell. Beyond that, I’m not sure what I would do.
militarism and the mentalities that produce it bring a host of problems wherever they appear. but i would not blame all the members of a society for the actions of thier government. that would make pretty much the whole species guilty.
By allison on Mar 12, 2008
Like some others have mentioned, I would strongly recommend you to come to the next sjp meeting and/or event.
As for your reservations on the norms of justice for Israelis, consider that justice for Israelis is already the norm, and therefore due to its implied presence, I think that is partly why sjp is “justice in Palestine” rather than “Justice for Israelis and Palestinians.” I like the analogy of calling a group “justice for whites and balcks,” during the civil rights movement. This title is redundant because there already is a system of justice in place for whites as there is a system of justice in place for jews.
On the other hand, no,, I do not think that there is currently “justice” for Israelis, or a just society to live in. If we can understand justice as the absence of artificial, socially constructed barriers that limit ones choices, than no, Israelis do not have justice. Compulsory conscription is not justice, serving IDF while being underpaid compared to ones who enter Yeshiva is not justice, being trained that Palestinians are an “other” or and “enemy” is not justice. Being taught history in a way that glorifies Zionism and excludes Palestinian suffering is not justice (last I checked teaching Nakbah had been approved by Yuli Tamir for Arab schools, but not for Israeli schools and last I checked Hezl Day was a national holiday with a special cirricculum on the contributions of Zionism, with special festive events at Mount Herzl).
At the end of the day, reflect on how you understand Palestinians and why asking for Justice in Palestine invokes those reservations that somehow justice for Palestinians is at odds with Justice for Israelis. Is Neve Shalom/Wat-al Salem a village where Palestinian justice is given at the expense of justice for Jews? This was an injustice that stems from the occupation, just as all hatred, racism and death between Israelis and Palestinians is a consequence of the unjust occupation.
Think of what your life would be like if you were born on the other side of where the wall now is. Think of what kind of justice you would ask for if you were Palestinian and I wonder, is it not the same life that you want as Israeli. Ending the occupation, ending the massive suffering of Palestinians is the first step to gaining justice. Before moving to reject sjp because of your reservations on your perceptions of us thus far, please come and speak to us in person.
I don’t know, and maybe you and other SJPers will disagree with me, but it seems a bit much to explicitly call for additional recognition of the rights of Israelis and their right to justice when Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank suffer from occupation in a very real way. If I were a Palestinian in the West Bank, maybe I would be at Berziet where I could be arrested, like 98 students and faculty are now, serving “administrative detention,” that is imprisonment without charge or due process. Maybe my families buisness would be closing because there is no longer a viable economy, maybe it would take be three hours to get to school everyday because of checkpoints. Maybe there would be a settlment on my families land, or maybe I would be dead, because IDF “made a mistake” and I was part of the “collateral damage.” But this is not my reality, I am not under occupation and when I go to Israel, I have rights and dignity and it would be absurd for me to fear my family’s house in haifa being demolished for a wall to be built in the middle of the city dividing Jews from Jews.
Its easy to “shoot and cry,” but it is much more difficult to re-evaluate your life, education and understanding in the world and say that the occupation is wrong and I will not serve in IDF. And I do like your comparison to not paying taxes for the war in Iraq, both show the difficulty of acts to create a more just society that can cause considerable sanctions by ones gov’t. However, the only sanctions for deferment are social and not legal, but this is besides the point.
If I were you, I can not say if I would hold different views and concerns, or that I would not serve in idf. I most likely and regrettably, would have at age 18. But I am me and though it took me some time, I can firmly say that I am an anti-zionist and commit myself to working in solidarity with palestinians on their plight for justice. Part of the process includes understanding the nature of your role in occupation and this is painful. But in the perspective of the suffering that is going on in Gaza, this pain disappears.
I ultimately feel that there is no justice for Israelis unless there is justice for Palestinians and that ending the occupation is step one. If this rings truth to you, than you will come to sjp. If you find otherwise, still come, because there is something in you that wants to actively stop the occupation, otherwise you would not have come to sjp meetings previously and you would not be contributing to the space on this blog.
By allison on Mar 12, 2008
wow, I wrote a lot, next time, shorter post. I promise!
By Tom Pessah on Mar 13, 2008
Yael, before you ask us more about SJP, I have a question for *you*. You seem to be covering a lot of issues, from the right of Israelis to exist in Israel/Palestine to violent Palestinian resistance to the occupation (the example of people applauding shooting a soldier at a checkpoint) to the justice of zionism. Would I be wrong to say that the way you’ve approached these issues here seems to be almost exclusively that of Jewish Israelis as victims, those who get attacked, those whose rights are threatened., etc? I felt you wrote very little about responsibilty for the condition of Palestinians, or about the privileges we enjoy on their behalf.
By Tom Pessah on Mar 13, 2008
or in other words, where does your own responsiblity lie? what do you think it commmits you to do?
By Yael on Mar 13, 2008
Allison, Tom,
Alison, I respect your opinion, but i find it very inconsistent. which occupation are you referring to exactly and which palestine? there is a *tremendous* difference between ‘palestine 67′ (i.e. the ‘occupation’) and ‘palestine 48′ (i.e. zionism). saying ‘i;m anti-zionist’ - as i understand it at least - does not leave a right for israel to exist as an entity in itself. it directly means that jews in this geography will be a minority for whom (again) justice will not be the norm but an exception. now, if you are an american jew (if i understand right), you always lived as a minority with an exception, and you don’t know how its like to *never* have to apologize or explain who you are. I don’t know you personally but i have met so many american jews here whose behavior indicates that they have a deep problem with being jewish (by trying to ‘go white’ in many various ways, i can give examples).
now, Tom, you will probably find the above statement as a testimony that i ‘approach things from a perspective of victimness’. but I say the opposite: being an israeli is insisting on *not* being a victim, on *not* apologizing for who you are (and for being successful, rich, or in anyway equal). I do not attempt to accuse you for anything, but both of you seem to me to be apologizing for jews having obvious-rights or the ability to determine their own destinies, by themselves. SURE, this ability to manage this destiny is faulty on a number of levels (the occupation, managing immigration, the poor, the insider-other israeli-palestinian, women, sick people, religion) — you name an issue and it is problematic (Alisson named several). but does this mean that this self-sovereignty should be dismantled?? do you ask for the dismantling of american sovereignty on any of those grounds? or french? or saudi for that matter? why not??
i am saying that you have special standard for jews, that you don’t apply for other peoples and that you dont recognize, possibly for being jews. you seem to think that you will be better jews if you suggest that jews should always be subordinate.
So to go to Tom’s question on my own responsibility: i think that my responsibility, as well as all israelis’, is for generating a society that is self-sovereign and sustaining justice as norm for jews - AND for everybody else (not only palestinians, btw, for immigrant workers, refugees, gays, whatever). i was working in isreal for immigrant workers and gays.
my emphases is on the AND, that is - not INSTEAD OF. I find the anti-zionist position to be absurd as it suggests INSTEAD OF. abolishing rights as norm for jews for the instating of rights as norm for palestinians. if zionism is indeed ‘abolished’, this makes rights for palestinans into a project far less project. — think about it this way: the problem with zionism is its effect on palestinians, which erodes its moral base (i agree with you completely on this) - but will palestinian-nationalism that will erode zionism (as rights as norm for sovereign jews) not suffer from the same moral problem?? will such a solution not have the exact same problem you find in zionism??
if your answer is that jews should give up their rights as norm for palestinans to have rights as norm - *rather than for both groups to have it* - i will say that you have a serious problem with your own identity and your definition of what a ‘good jew’ should be.
So i am committed to making israeli state and society into a non-occupying, equal distributing, moral, just, good to live in, prosperous society. i am also committed to sustaining it as a social and physical space where jews are self sovereign and proud people. should this society and its space change dramatically in order to meet these goals/requirements i am committed to? definitely, and i am working (by writing and activist-writing mainly) towards that, to the best of my understanding. should it be eliminated to obtain that?? definitely not.
By yaman on Mar 13, 2008
Yael… you say allison as being an anti-zionist supports palestinian nationalism which supports palestinian rights “instead of” israeli rights, and you criticize her for this (rightly). But I find this incredibly strange, because anti-zionist in this sense is still zionism, but for another class of people. So if anything I feel you have given a criticism of Zionism, and that your aspiration for a just Zionism inevitably pushes Arabs in Israel into the status as a minority of Israel (as in minority the institution like Arendt writes), which is the exact position from which European Jews and countless ethnic minorities aspired to escape from by… reproducing the same logic in the form of Zionism/ethnic nationalism? I don’t see how you’ve cured the problem, you are just calling for something to reduce its symptoms.
I personally would not classify myself as anti-Zionist because Zionism means too many different things to different people (who call themselves Zionists, I mean–for people who do not, it is usually essentialized and/or defined not by theory but Israel’s actions). But if by Zionism you mean specifically Israeli state ideology, then yes, I am opposed.
I think you will find that nobody in SJP core believes in Arab or Muslim Zionism as you suggested.
By yael on Mar 13, 2008
yaman, and all
first of all - this is a very interesting discussion for me, with all of you.
sadly, i personally don’t have a ’solution’ for Israeli-palestinians that they will be happy in. the israel-palestinian community and their citizenship and sense of national identity - and especially their view of both in relation to space - is the subject of my dissertation study, so i hope to have smarter things to say in 4-5-6 years..
israeli-palestinians significantly talk about themselves as the ‘jews’ of israel, that is as the insider-other. i am going to study how this notion of identity is exercized using space (jews traditionally enacted their identity revolving text). it is also very interesting how israeli-palestinians pose themselves as the faithful palestinians who remained on the land (vs the refugees, who accuse them with treason for their israeli citizenship). it is so complex its hard to know where to begin.
in my humble, far from supprted yet, and totally gut-feeling opinion [which may be totally wrong], israeli-palestinians are taking significant actions to make their isreali citizenship not only a legal/provisional thing but also of political participation/association. if this process gets realized (which both israeli pubic and the i-p community effect), i-p community may be going through a similar process to that undergone by mizrahy ‘arab-jews’ since 67. if this process will not work there will probably be civil war.. and i think all israelis know that. however, the ’solution’ for i-ps is tightly linked to that of sovereign-palestine (the occupation, forming a stable state, defining it geographic ly…..) and cannot be ’solved’ only in the context of isreal, but also in the context of palestine.
– regarding ‘zionism’, i’m afraid that for you it is a synonim to ‘racism’..
here is where your political project comes in… zionism is a national movement for freedom and sovergnty for jews, that has gone astray and has problems - but that is not a synonime for racism. this is b/c unlike racism it is not directed at ‘the other’ but at the self. it is not a ‘not them’ ideology (like racism of all sorts) but an ‘us too’ ideology. this is a *huge* difference.
By Tom Pessah on Mar 14, 2008
Yael, thanks for your detailed answers, this is interesting.
What I want to add to what Yaman is saying is the issue of the right of return. Ibtesam, who is the person who got me into SJP, was born in Jerusalem, but she can’t live there because of various bureaucratic tricks played on her mother, to reduce the number of Palestinans and preserve the Jewish majority. My good friend Maysoon, who lives in Tarshiha, in the Galilee, has cousins who currently live in Germany, and she would like them to be able to live with her if they wanted to. I feel I cannot look either of them in the eye and say - your family members cannot live in their own homeland because they are not jewish. The more I think about it the more twisted it sounds. My ancestors were thrown out of Spain for not being catholic, and jews were thrown out of half the countries in Europe for similar reasons. I feel there is never any good reason to prevent a person who was born in Jerusalem from living there. She feels more at home there than in the US, so why not let her go back? If you feel zionism isn’t racism, and that it isn’t directed at the other, then our right for self-determination as defined by zionism shouldn’t require us to stop human beings like us from living in their own country.
I do believe we have a right for self-determination, but I think that right can be exercised in a far more considerate and reasonable way than it has been so far. And I don’t think this is a double standard - I don’t think any country in the world has the right to tell its jews/muslims/blacks or whoever that they are not allowed to live in their own homeland because of who they are.
By allison on Mar 14, 2008
quick clarification, by anti-zionist, i did mean the understanding of the term as yaman suggested, that is Israel as a Jewish state, for Jews.
Yael:
at the end of your last post I think you really touch on why my opposition to zionism exists. Zionism, as only an “us too” ideology, works in theory, but in reality there was an people living on this land that was “without a people”.
So Palestine as the new homeland. where is the rascism that you rightly noted that i am associating with zionism? Zionism inherently cannot be an “us too” ideology when it is predicated upon either the denial of the existence of palestinians or the forcible expulsion of palestinians (there are a number of moshe dyan, ben gurion or mier quotes that could point to this, or the entire likud party). And when history is excluded, and when its compounded with the occupation since 67, the annexation of land in the west bank (and gaza until the disengagement), zionism or a Jewish state is so much more than “us too.” It is by its very nature, “not them,” not an Israel for Palestinians. But let give the settlers subsidies for moving in! For me, this is inextricably racist.
Also, you know that it is certainly not an overstretch to say that in general terms israelis, americans, and essentially the entire “western” world is racist towards arabs. there are awful stereotypes of palestinians as “terrorist who teach their children hate” that can be found on this blog. so yes i think labeling zionism as something that is removed from racism is highly problematic.
also, on your last comment to me, regarding identity, I am delighted you brought it up as identity in conflict is my area of studies (we can even share our school work on this blog). I would like to say that I certainly do not feel as though i am “going white,” but when american jews look to a model of “secualarism,” no longer do they look to their neighbors, they look to modern israelis as the model is jewish modernity.
My roots are polish and russian, but i know nothing of my polish or russian heritage other than life was bad there. You should know by living in the us, that jews are taught to see themselves through israelis. we are not taught to connect with our past in europe (and if your not askanazim forget about jewish culture acknowledging your culture), but we are taught of all of the great contributions of famous israelis and israeli cities (but not of the palestinian villages that previously existed), and things like the macavees. its very post-modern; disjointed and disaffected, that american jews are taught to look to israel for their culture by old women with european accents.
Lastly, Israel, is not all of judaism and if i can make any point that will stick with you, let it be this one. Israel and Zionism (in any definition of the term), does not own the rights to Judaism. If I am against a Jewish nationalistic state, that does not make me ashamed of my identity, nor does it make me less “jewish.” There is a religion, there is a state, there are religious actors who represent states and there are two girls writing on this blog page, none of these speak for all of the others. I support palestinian, this does not make me ashamed of being a jew.
By yaman on Mar 14, 2008
Yael, to be more precise, I am more willing to equate the political Zionism that emerged into Israel with ethnoreligious nationalism than racism. I think the effects are racist, especially when there is a large Minority, or when a large population has to be cleared out of the way–and kept out–in order to make the nationalist project a reality in the first place. It happened in other places, like with Turkey/Greece, and I think it is important to not just use racist as an expletive, but to really look at the issue of structural racism as is developed by nationalist ideology of this sort.
By Yael on Mar 16, 2008
Alison,
wow, I have so much to say to you.
You say ‘there are many ways to be jewish’ - which i accept completely (and so do most israelis who view you as jewish whether you are orthodox, reform, non-religious, assimilated - even when you call to disassemble us). You, on the other hand, don;t seem to accept my way of being jewish. Its not ‘right’, you say. It should be gone — *you* think other people come first. You want me to respect your ‘many ways to be jewish’ - but show so little (to no) respect and tolerance to my way. This, as you can imagine, is infuriating me.
You are clearly allowed to support the palestinians, as you are to support any other cause: animal, plant or human. What i am bothered by is not your pro-palestinian stand - but that you seem to think that as a jew you have *clout* to your opinion. You seem to say ‘i’m jewish and i dont want it - lets throw it away’. Well, Allison - make up your mind: either you participate in israel and then you have clout to an opinion (there are Israelis like Tom making your point and they have clout in my opinion although I think they are wrong), or you dont want anything to do with Israel (=associate with poland) - and don’t assume clout that you do not deserve! You want nothing to do with israel? So please leave us alone.
And for the ‘not in my name’ argument that i heard several times (in case you will make it). I find it unacceptable. Relax, nothing is done ‘in your name’ - neither the bad things nor the good things. They are done in our name (=israelis) and it is our trouble dealing with them. Saying ‘not in my name’ is not acceptable since it is an excuse to impose your opinion on what is ‘right’ on other people. The same way, a religious man can say no Jew is allowed be secular ‘in his name’, an Orthodox can say no one can be Jewish any other way ‘in his name’ etc. Do you understand that this is oppressive? Where is your ‘many ways to be Jewish’ in your claim that Jews should not be Zionist?
You say you want to associate yourself to Poland and Russia. Fine, really, why should i care? Associate to wherever you like. You are not very original, here, btw, many American Jews love to think of themselves as EUROPEANS, not Levantines like the Israelis. This imaginary geography is interesting, as Jews were *never* Europeans. They lives in Europe, yes, as they simply had to be *somewhere*, but no one ever saw as them as Europeans. They were ‘easteyuden’ (hope i spell it right). No wander your family will only tell you it was bad there, b/c Jews were never allowed to belong. I personally think (and have ethnographic data for this i can recount for you) that many American Jews deny their relationship to Israelis also b/c they view them as orientals. And they are somewhat racist to Mizrahys, as you yourself mentioned. So associating with Poland as an explicit denial of Israel is far from innocent in my opinion.
Associating with Poland is absurd for another reason. I don’t know your family history so I’ll use mine. My fathers’ family comes from Bulgaria. But they all know they were deported from Spain 500 years ago. I traced them back to Toledo before the deportation, but how they got to Bulgaria from Toledo? And where were from they before Toledo? There’s a 1500 year gap here I know nothing about. My mothers’ family is from Romania, but her family name is ‘krakover’ - that is from Kravow Poland. But where before that? When Jews didn’t have family names? Her mother’s name was Tiberias - does this mean we originated in Tiberias??? So where am I ‘from’? Going back only one generation is an absurd thing for a Jew to do. If your children emigrate to China one day, should they only look back to you in America? To your grandparents in Poland? To where/when? So please, learn your own family roots and respect them, but don’t stop where is convenient for you (i.e. ‘Europe’).
BTW, the Palestinians who are seen as the indigenous who practically grew from the ground, also have very complicated lineages. These are found in histories written even by *very* pro-palestinian historians like Mark LeVine, in his anti-zionist book on Tel Aviv-Jaffa (a good book, btw).
About your education: I don’t think the impoverished Israeli ministry of education educated you in America, so if you have claims for your community - address them at them. Why is Israel the target? for existing? please.
And regarding your disassociation with Israel: this must surprise you, since you seem to assume all Israelis want is for American Jews to be involved with their lives - but we don’t. Many Israelis find American Jews’ involvement in Israel’s affairs *very* harmful for Israel. We know full well that when A-Js say ‘don’t give up Jerusalem, it belongs to the Jewish people’, this is a cynical and mean demand for us to die for them to feel powerful. We know full well that when A-Js donate money to Israel they care little for the Israelis, they are only sustaining their own ‘insurance policy’, in case something goes very wrong in their racism-proof fake world. And they seem to look at Israelis as people working for them in their insurance policy! In a recent poll in Israel a vast majority declared that doners are merely supporting their own interests - so we are not fooled. As for A-Js like you who say ‘I don’t want this insurance policy’ - please remember: I don’t work for you, my life is not your insurance policy, and you have no clout to tell me how to live!
Now, I am sorry for taking out my frustrations of A-Js on you (you did kind of ask for it, though ;-) ), and I don’t mean to upset you. But you must see that you really have no room for a voice for Israelis in your very deterministic view of the world.
Best, and if you would like to talk about this more over coffee send me an email.
By yaman on Mar 16, 2008
Dear Yael and Allison, I think this conversation should continue in person. You actually briefly met once a couple weeks ago during Arabic hour when Allison walked by, maybe you do not remember but if you see each other again you would recall. I’m down to join if I’m invited :)
By Tom Pessah on Mar 17, 2008
but you still didn’t answer *me*! and this is important…
Let’s agree that as a matter of principle, jews can define themselves however they want, and if they want to be apeople then they are a people and they deserve national rights just like any other people. Let’s also agree that given their history, jews have good reason to want a safe haven where they can be protected from persecution, and also to preserve their culture. There is definitely nothing wrong with speaking Hebrew or with having holidays like Passover recognized publicly.
BUT - so far, the creation of a jewish majority in a country which originally had a Palestinian majority has meant not just the preservation of jewish identity, but the destruction of Palestinian society. This isn’t just a historical thing we can all denounce, but something that gets reproduced every day: at the moment, because it i a jewish state, my Jewish British cousins could come and live in Tel Aviv if they wanted to, but plenty of Palestians who were born in the area which is Tel Aviv today continue to live in refugee camps and cannot live there. The way they state interprets the preservation of jewish identity is through separating Palestinians from their homeland.
Now, whose side are you on? is your self identity entangled with these state practices, or are you willing to dissociate yourself from them and speak up against them? if you are supporting what the state does, it’s not some nice humanistic project of self-determination, but a form of discrimination, isn’t it?
By Tom Pessah on Mar 17, 2008
just to clarify - when I say “whose side are you on” I don’t mean pro-israel or pro-palestine (labels that I disagree with). I mean, is your identity that of a civilian, with your own ides of how things should be, or does your identity merge into the current state practices?