MCC Palestine Update #69
December 23, 2002
I indicated in my last update that #68 would be the last one of 2002. That was before I received today a Christmas message from the Sabeel Ecumenical Liberation Theology Center in Jerusalem. I wanted to make sure that you had a chance to see it as you prepare to celebrate the birth of our Lord.
Christians in the occupied territories celebrate Jesus' birth this year in bleak circumstances. Bethlehem has been under curfew for over one month, with few breaks. Christians in the city debate about how to celebrate and remember Christ's birth. If the Israeli military governor attends the Midnight Mass, should Christians stay away from the Mass? If metal detectors are placed in Manger Square, what should be done? If curfew is lifted for Christmas Eve and Christmas Day, how can Palestinian Christians help the media of the world understand what they and their Muslim compatriots live through all the other days of the year?
MCC's Palestinian Christian partners repeatedly tell us two things: first, that they are determined to celebrate Jesus' birth one way or another, even if only in their homes; second, that they want to bring some small measure of joy to all children in the Bethlehem area this season, both Christian and Muslim. MCC is contributing to an ecumenical effort coordinated by the Arab Orthodox Benevolent Society in Beit Jala to bring small toy packages to all of the homes in Beit Jala, both Muslim and Christian; a "Baba Noel," or Father Christmas, will go out accompanied by volunteers every evening from Dec. 26 to Jan. 8, delivering the presents, even if he must break curfew to do so.
Your ongoing prayers for the Palestinian churches and for the work of MCC's Palestinian partners are much appreciated. May you and your loved ones have joy and celebration on the occasion of Christ's birth.
--Alain Epp Weaver
Sabeel Ecumenical Liberation Theology Center 2002 Christmas message: “Unto us a child is born”
For a child has been born for us,
A son given to us;
Authority rests upon his shoulders;
And he is named
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
His authority shall grow continually,
And there shall be endless peace…
With justice and with righteousness
from this time onward and forevermore
(Isaiah 9:6-7)
This passage of the prophet Isaiah is a song of liberation and joy. Christians have interpreted it as a reference to the birth of Christ. It is certainly one of the most beautiful poems of the Old Testament.
In its original context in life, this poem had to do with the overthrow of an oppressive occupation. It was probably written in the aftermath of an Assyrian invasion of parts of east Jordan that extended to the coastal region of the Mediterranean Sea. The inhabitants were totally subjugated and oppressed. Isaiah describes them as living in thick darkness, anguish, and gloom.
It is worth noting that our region of the world has always experienced invasions and conquests from the dominant powers of the times. In fact, Palestine has always, geographically, resembled a corridor. It was a thoroughfare for people crossing from north to south and vice versa. It linked Egypt, the major power in the south with the successive empires of the north. Conquerors passed through it and had to subdue and control it.
In this specific beautiful poem, Isaiah envisions an end to the Assyrian occupation of the land. All the instruments of war will be burned by fire and a new divinely gifted king will reign. He will end the violence and establish a kingdom of peace based on truth and justice. For Isaiah as for many people throughout history, the possibility of peace has always been present in the imagination and dreams of human beings. Why cannot people live in peace? Why do they have wars? Why do so many people have to be killed? This poem lifts up the hope for a new day when, after the occupation has ended, the new king will be recognized as the “Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace”. In other words, he would possess all the essential qualities and abilities to bring an end to war and to usher a permanent peace and prosperity.
Such a vision of “endless peace…with justice and righteousness…forevermore” was never realized, neither in Isaiah’s time nor at any other time, in the history of the world since it has to be based on the power of arms, violence, and destruction. Christians believe that the vision of an enduring peace came closest to its actualization in the coming of Jesus Christ. His birth was, indeed, the non-violent entrance of God into the world. Circumstantially, Jesus came into a world similar to that which Isaiah described. Isaiah was referring to an Assyrian occupation. Jesus was born under a Roman occupation when people were also longing for liberation and
peace.
It is important to emphasize that there is nothing called a benevolent occupation. No matter how benign any occupation claims to be, it is unacceptable and undesirable by the occupied. This is the way it was in the time of Isaiah as well as in the time of Jesus, and it is still the same today for the Palestinians; except, maybe, for a few weak souls who have been co-opted by the occupying regime and have become collaborators with it and beneficiaries of it. Most people, however, long for liberation as, indeed, do the Palestinians who long to see the end of the oppressive yoke of Israel. Yet most people think of liberation as being possible only through military might. For the prophet Isaiah, the potential of real peace lies in the reversal and abrogation of war when people “shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more”(Is 2:4).
Some of us believe that this vision of peace is achievable for Israelis and Palestinians today. What needs to happen is for Israel to lift its oppressive domination and end its illegal occupation of the Palestinian territories and accept the resolution of the conflict on the basis of international law and not on its own laws. On the one hand, the government of Israel is literally crushing the Palestinians until they succumb to its own demands for peace by accepting further land concessions. On the other hand, the Palestinian resistance is using all the means and methods available to it to insist on international legitimacy based on UN resolutions. Obviously, since Israel is by far much stronger militarily we continue to witness the total suppression and destruction of the Palestinian people.
Isaiah’s vision for peace is realistic but conditional. It demands of both the Israelis and Palestinians to “…beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks [neither] nation shall…lift up sword against nation, neither shall…learn war any more”. Such conditions must apply equally to both the Israelis and Palestinians and not to the Palestinians alone. If Israel is asking the Palestinians to disarm for the sake of a permanent peace, is it willing to do the same for the sake of the same objective? This is the revolution that Isaiah was talking about. Many of us would love to see it happen. Unfortunately, the history of nations and individuals has always been a history where people learned the art of war and violence.
Even the psalmist praises God for his military training, “Blessed be the Lord, my rock, who trains my hands for war, and my fingers for battle….”(Psalm 144:1). Twenty years ago, when I was serving the church in Haifa, a church member told me about a conversation he overheard between two Israeli women. One was asking the other why she had not seen her for quite sometime. She replied, “I gave birth to a soldier”. This woman was so proud to have given birth to a son who will grow up to be a soldier. Sadly, we still live in such a mentality of war.
All of us constantly observe the birth of innocent children who grow up to become dictators, war criminals, or presidents and prime ministers who spend huge budgets on the production, purchase, and accumulation of arms, and who teach and practice war. We daily witness the presence of young Israeli soldiers oppressing the Palestinian people. They, like many others, have been trained in the skills of war.
At this Christmas season, as our thoughts turn to the Church of Nativity in Bethlehem where Jesus was born, Bethlehem is practically a closed military area. In spite of the Israeli army assurances that Bethlehem will be opened for Christmas, the facts on the ground reveal the opposite. The Palestinians, except for few hours during the day, are confined to their homes by Israeli military orders. Everything around and inside Bethlehem connotes violence and injustice against Palestinians. The young soldiers are in their tanks and armored cars patrolling, oppressing, and dehumanizing others and in the process being themselves dehumanized. All of this is totally foreign to the spirit of Christmas; and is a basic contradiction with the beauty and innocence of the birth of any child let alone the birth of Jesus Christ “the prince of peace”.
The evangelists writing the biography of Jesus from the vantage point of his death and resurrection could say that his birth, in actual fact, fulfilled the prophecy or dream of Isaiah in a more perfect way (Matthew 1:21; 4:14-16). Jesus’ coming into the world was the nonviolent coming of God. For the first time, a child grows up and walks the way of love and nonviolence; and although he suffers at the hands of violent people, he keeps clearly to the possibility and viability of a life of peace and love.
Indeed, the truest _expression of our humanity is found in children, in the birth of every boy or girl. To stay in touch with our humanity and hold on to it we must look at young children. Before they begin to learn, or more correctly, before we begin to teach them racial discrimination, prejudice, hate, violence, or the ugly art of war, they reflect our truest nature. The difference that Jesus Christ has brought through his birth is precisely the fact that he did not lose the essence of his true humanity. In order to hold on to our humanity, we must not walk the way of this world, the way of empire, the way of violence but to follow the way of Jesus Christ, the way of fidelity to God through the path of nonviolence and peace.
It is also possible whether we are Christians or not, to learn from children. Jesus recognized this when he said, “…unless you change and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven”(Matthew 18:3). Jesus made children a model of the kingdom “…Whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will never enter it” (Mark 10:15). Unless we become like them in simplicity, humility, ability to forgive and trust, we cannot be members of God’s kingdom. This is the nature of God’s kingdom. The children become our model. We must mirror them.
For the sake of children, we must change. The greatest tragedy of our every day life in Israel/Palestine today happens whenever a child is killed, whether Palestinian or Israeli. Every time we kill a child, we murder the truest _expression of our humanity. And the more we get used to killing child crimes because gradually and inevitably we lose our own children, the more savage and brutal we become against each other. This is the worst of humanity. Every time the crime is repeated, it points to the malady of our world.
Jesus has pointed out the way of nonviolence. Dare we follow it? At this Christmas, in the midst of the violence of the occupation and the violence of the resistance to it and the cycle of violence that continues to escalate, we are reminded again of the nonviolent coming of God in Jesus Christ. Dare we follow the way?
“For a child has been born for us, a son given to us…and he is named Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace…and there shall be endless peace…with justice and with righteousness from this time onward and forevermore….”(Is. 9:6-7)
Addendum to MCC Palestine Update #69
December 24, 2002
Please pray for the family of Sami Awad, the director of the Holy Land Trust, and the other families in his apartment building in Bethlehem. The following letter from Sami details how his building has been occupied by Israeli soldiers and the families in the building are being kept locked in their apartments. The Holy Land Trust is an MCC partner which is developing a training manual in Arabic for training in nonviolent direct action.
--Alain Epp Weaver
To our friends,
With hearts full of sadness I write this letter a couple of days before Christmas to inform you that Israeli army troops have occupied the apartment building we live in and have locked us as well as twelve other families in our apartments. They have told us that they are here for an indefinite period of time and we will not be able to leave our apartments until they leave.
This afternoon (Dec 23rd, 2002 5:00 PM), as volunteers (Bob and Margaret) and myself were going around Bethlehem passing out gifts donated to needy families through Holy Land Trust, we got a call from a neighbor who said that the Israeli army had stormed our building and had forced all residents out of their homes and into one apartment. We immediately tried to return in order to see what was happening and to at least be present if the army decided to enter our apartment. (If the residents are not there, they usually blow-up the door or a hole in a wall then destroy all the furniture). I thanked God that my wife Rana and our baby were in the market doing last minute Christmas shopping. When we got close, we were welcomed by Israeli soldiers pointing their machine guns at us demanding and yelling at us to go back. An hour later I tried again and was informed that we could go to our apartment. Welcomed again by machine guns, Rana, the baby and myself, were kept outside in the cold while the soldiers went through our belongings and checked our identification cards.
Once we were escorted to our apartment we were told to leave the door key on the outside key hole. When I asked why, one soldier turned his head and walked away in what I think was a sign of shame; the other said "to lock you in."
Yes... lock us in our home! When I refused to be a prisoner in my own home, the soldier began to yell and make threats. Having no choice and fearing for my family's safety, we were locked in and the key was kept in the outside key hole so that we can not use any spare key. Christmas is two days away and we are prisoners in our home. this is our gift this holiday season. They have refused to tell us why they came here, what they want and how long "indefinite" means.
The Israeli government had falsely promised the world that it was going to pull out of Bethlehem on Christmas so that the residents of the city can celebrate. We are prove and witness to you that the occupation of Bethlehem continues, that injustice continues to innocent families. We are trapped as prisoners in our home guarded by Israeli soldiers standing in front of our apartment door as if we were criminals.
This year was going to be our baby girl's first Christmas... Even with the siege of Bethlehem and the continued curfews and suffering, we still decorated the tree, bought the gifts, took our the Christmas CDs and thought that at the least we will be able to celebrate Christmas with our families. It seems that even this simple wish will not come true this season and we will be celebrating Christmas as prisoners locked in our home...
Please pray for our safety. We do not even know what the next hour will bring us. We hear the soldiers walking up and down the staircase and we also heard them destroy furniture in the apartment below us. Are we next? We do not know!
I can only conclude this letter by saying that from the bottom of our hearts and from this Holy place, we wish you a Merry Christmas.
In Peace,
Sami Awad
Tuesday, December 24
Friday, December 13
MCC Palestine Update #68
MCC Palestine Update #68
December 13, 2002
Below you will find two pieces. The first is an Advent letter from international Christian workers in Palestine/Israel, signed by Sonia and Alain Epp Weaver, among others. Feel free to use as a bulletin or church newsletter insert or post on your church's bulletin board. The second piece is a succinct and sobering analysis by Ha'aretz journalist Amira Hass of how Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is positioning himself as a man of "peace" ready to make "difficult compromises" by accepting a Palestinian "state." This is the final update of 2002 from MCC Palestine. Updates will resume in mid-January. May you and your loved ones have a blessed Christmas season.
--Alain Epp Weaver
1. Advent Letter from Palestine/Israel
Dear Friends, Another season of Advent has begun. For Christians the world over, this means beginning a new year of reflection and action about who and what we are called to be. It is a season of choices, preparation and beginnings.
Scriptures that call us to make choices about where we stand mark the opening days of this season. They point toward Jesus’ call for a ‘new world order’ and highlight our human struggle in choosing between the powers of this world and the power of God. Serving the global church in the Holy Land, we share a joint witness of concern for the choices being made today; choices which too often create change by violence rather than by justice, compassion, or truth.
As we recall the birth of Jesus and reflect on the Biblical town of Bethlehem, we cannot help but think of the Bethlehem of today-- of Jenin, Rafah, Nablus, Hebron-- or of cities in other places which reel from the effects of injustice, hatred and conflict. Living in the midst of a war-torn land, we urgently lift up the call to wage a just peace rather than war.
Advent is a time to renew hope in a God that loved the world so much that a child was sent to proclaim a new heaven and a new earth. Christians find our way by faith in the incarnation. It is what allows us to believe that we have a choice in how to respond to daily violence. It is what allows us to believe that the larger choices of war and its destruction are not out of our hands.
Our choices shape the very reality for which we prepare. We join the leaders of our denominations in their strong opposition to our government’s unwavering desire to go to war in Iraq. Beyond any political considerations, a pre-emptive war simply finds no justification in traditional Christian teaching.
Our deep concern is also with our brothers and sisters here in the Holy Land. A war against Iraq would likely bring continued house arrest for the entire Palestinian population. It would further the severe economic distress Palestinians are already experiencing and would deepen the economic strain within Israel. The transfer of the Palestinian people is also a real fear, whether from villages to cities within the territories to actual expulsion from the country.
Any such attempts will inevitably lead to an increase in Palestinian resistance and would very likely result in heavy casualties to both Palestinians and Israelis. We find all such actions incompatible with our understandings of the Gospel and urge that we prepare for a different future, for a world built on peace and justice.
It is time to truly wrestle with Jesus’ calls to love one another, to love our enemy in both interpersonal and international relationships. It is time to fulfill Jesus’ call to be peacemakers. It is time to counter our ‘Just War Theories’ with ‘Just Peace Theories.’ There may be no more important task for the third millennium of Christian witness.
Having lived through more than two years of destruction and death, we are not naïve about the costs and struggles of such a change. We believe that peacemaking is a more viable choice than war.
Faithful choices and thoughtful preparations create ways for new beginnings. Advent is a time to rejoice that today is not too late to start anew. In the chaos of our world, we hear the angels proclaim, “Do not be afraid; I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people.” (Luke 2:10)
We rejoice, for the world can be a different place, knowing that God will work miracles within us. Come, Lord Jesus.
Douglas Dicks, Presbyterian Church (USA) Liaison Rev. Dr. Mary Jensen, Asst. for Communications to Bishop Dr. Munib Younan, Lutheran Bishop in Jerusalem Janet Lahr Lewis, General Board of Global Ministries of the United Methodist Church Catherine Nichols, Global Ministries, UCC/Disciples of Christ Rev. Sandra Olewine, United Methodist Liaison – Jerusalem, GBGM-UMC Missionary Lilian Peters, Quaker International Affairs Representative, Jerusalem Pr. Michael P. Thomas, Lutheran Church of the Redeemer, English-speaking Congregation, Jerusalem Alain Epp Weaver and Sonia Weaver, Mennonite Central Committee
2. How Sharon Became a Leftist
Amira Hass
Ha'aretz, December 11, 2002
Between 1994 and 2000, Yasser Arafat would describe every piece of land the IDF evacuated as "liberated." His senior minister sand guides followed suit. Thus, Gaza was described as liberated and so were Jenin, Salfit, and everywhere else that was defined as Area A - under Palestinian administrative and security control. _ _
The process of sanctifying Area A included describing Hebron as "liberated" starting in 1997, even though 30,000 people living in the heart of the ancient city continued to suffer under direct Israeli control, meant to protect the welfare of some 500 Jews living there. _ _
The fact that no Palestinian living in those "liberated" cities of the West Bank could move more than three kilometers outside the city without encountering an Israeli military position, and that from nearly every Palestinian community, residents could see Israeli settlements expanding and encroaching, did not confuse the pubic relations artists of the PA. It did, however, cheapen the stature of the PA's leaders in the eyes oftheir public. _ _
True, Arafat was president of the (virtual) Palestinian state - it said so on the official letterheads of the PA and that is how he was addressed, but the residents of that "state" were dependent on the official stamps of the Israeli Civil Administration for their freedom of movement and their population registry, dependent on information-hungry Shin Bet officers and IDF soldiers at checkpoints to conduct the routine of their lives - no less than they were dependent on the Palestinian officials and the plethora of Palestinian security forces. _ _
The Palestinian government not "only" hid revenues from the PA's treasury, meaning the Palestinian public, and handed out funding to nurture cronies and neglect the majority. It also corrupted the language to make its terminology fit the reality that was promised and never fulfilled: ending the foreign occupation ofPalestinian land and Palestinian society. _ _
Many cooperated with the deception - representatives of the donor countries, UN envoys and Israeli peace camp activists. Symbols of sovereignty (stamps, an airport, uniforms and other perks) made people forget the main issue - that without sovereignty and authority over the land, meaning control over its development and its potential for the future, there was no meaning to the Palestinian civil-administrative responsibility for the people of the West Bank and Gaza. It was very convenient for Israeli public relations overseas, which could argue - and convince the world - that the occupation was over because Arafat controlled 99 percent of the Palestinian population. _ _
Now, and not for the first time, Ariel Sharon is juggling with the term Palestinian state, referring to the Bush framework. Maybe he really thinks it's possible to describe as a "state" a collection of administrative enclaves, which might be connected with a road that makes it possible to talk about territorial contiguity, without control over the borders and the water resources and without evacuating settlements that will continue to separate the enclaves, and as they expand, impose themselves on all the landscape and space of the West Bank and Gaza. _ _
Maybe Sharon really does think the Palestinians don't need any more than that, or that under the pressure of the Israeli military attacks they will accept it as their fate. Maybe he is interested in creating the impression of a debate inside his movement. Maybe he really is so sophisticated that he knows that such a truncated "state" is an impossible project, but that he's really addressing America and he is convinced that George Bush doesn't dwell on details. _ _
People pay attention to the fact that Sharon is speaking of a Palestinian state, not to the fact that this is the castration of a term meant to reflect the principles of the right to self- determination, equality between nations, sovereignty and independent decision- making. And that's the absurdity of our political life - empty talk has turned Sharon into "a leftist" in the Likud. In other words, we've reached the stage where someone who doesn't explicitly preach expulsion or transfer of the Palestinians out of the country or perpetuation of the militaryregime over them, is a "leftist." _ _
As in the Oslo years, with all the talk about a "state," the substance will be forgotten and the shell will be sanctified, when the state is the means, the shell. The essence of the original demand for "two states" was independence for the Palestinian people. But it was also the ability and desire of the State of Israel to be freed from its inherent urge to control the Palestinians and their future and to continue taking over as much of their available lands as possible. That is the inherent urge that sabotaged our ability to live in the region in peace. _ _
The fear is that the "leftist" Sharon's energetic statements and the seemingly sharp debate that he is conducting with his party colleagues over a "Palestinian state" will be enough to give the Labor Party an excuse to rejoin a national unity government and thus lend a hand to perpetuating the bloodshed-ridden conflict with the Palestinians. The fear is that the empty talk will be portrayed as "a political horizon" that requires the Palestinians, in exchange, to give up their hostile activity. And then it will be possible to claim that the Palestinians, once again, missed an opportunity.
December 13, 2002
Below you will find two pieces. The first is an Advent letter from international Christian workers in Palestine/Israel, signed by Sonia and Alain Epp Weaver, among others. Feel free to use as a bulletin or church newsletter insert or post on your church's bulletin board. The second piece is a succinct and sobering analysis by Ha'aretz journalist Amira Hass of how Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is positioning himself as a man of "peace" ready to make "difficult compromises" by accepting a Palestinian "state." This is the final update of 2002 from MCC Palestine. Updates will resume in mid-January. May you and your loved ones have a blessed Christmas season.
--Alain Epp Weaver
1. Advent Letter from Palestine/Israel
Dear Friends, Another season of Advent has begun. For Christians the world over, this means beginning a new year of reflection and action about who and what we are called to be. It is a season of choices, preparation and beginnings.
Scriptures that call us to make choices about where we stand mark the opening days of this season. They point toward Jesus’ call for a ‘new world order’ and highlight our human struggle in choosing between the powers of this world and the power of God. Serving the global church in the Holy Land, we share a joint witness of concern for the choices being made today; choices which too often create change by violence rather than by justice, compassion, or truth.
As we recall the birth of Jesus and reflect on the Biblical town of Bethlehem, we cannot help but think of the Bethlehem of today-- of Jenin, Rafah, Nablus, Hebron-- or of cities in other places which reel from the effects of injustice, hatred and conflict. Living in the midst of a war-torn land, we urgently lift up the call to wage a just peace rather than war.
Advent is a time to renew hope in a God that loved the world so much that a child was sent to proclaim a new heaven and a new earth. Christians find our way by faith in the incarnation. It is what allows us to believe that we have a choice in how to respond to daily violence. It is what allows us to believe that the larger choices of war and its destruction are not out of our hands.
Our choices shape the very reality for which we prepare. We join the leaders of our denominations in their strong opposition to our government’s unwavering desire to go to war in Iraq. Beyond any political considerations, a pre-emptive war simply finds no justification in traditional Christian teaching.
Our deep concern is also with our brothers and sisters here in the Holy Land. A war against Iraq would likely bring continued house arrest for the entire Palestinian population. It would further the severe economic distress Palestinians are already experiencing and would deepen the economic strain within Israel. The transfer of the Palestinian people is also a real fear, whether from villages to cities within the territories to actual expulsion from the country.
Any such attempts will inevitably lead to an increase in Palestinian resistance and would very likely result in heavy casualties to both Palestinians and Israelis. We find all such actions incompatible with our understandings of the Gospel and urge that we prepare for a different future, for a world built on peace and justice.
It is time to truly wrestle with Jesus’ calls to love one another, to love our enemy in both interpersonal and international relationships. It is time to fulfill Jesus’ call to be peacemakers. It is time to counter our ‘Just War Theories’ with ‘Just Peace Theories.’ There may be no more important task for the third millennium of Christian witness.
Having lived through more than two years of destruction and death, we are not naïve about the costs and struggles of such a change. We believe that peacemaking is a more viable choice than war.
Faithful choices and thoughtful preparations create ways for new beginnings. Advent is a time to rejoice that today is not too late to start anew. In the chaos of our world, we hear the angels proclaim, “Do not be afraid; I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people.” (Luke 2:10)
We rejoice, for the world can be a different place, knowing that God will work miracles within us. Come, Lord Jesus.
Douglas Dicks, Presbyterian Church (USA) Liaison Rev. Dr. Mary Jensen, Asst. for Communications to Bishop Dr. Munib Younan, Lutheran Bishop in Jerusalem Janet Lahr Lewis, General Board of Global Ministries of the United Methodist Church Catherine Nichols, Global Ministries, UCC/Disciples of Christ Rev. Sandra Olewine, United Methodist Liaison – Jerusalem, GBGM-UMC Missionary Lilian Peters, Quaker International Affairs Representative, Jerusalem Pr. Michael P. Thomas, Lutheran Church of the Redeemer, English-speaking Congregation, Jerusalem Alain Epp Weaver and Sonia Weaver, Mennonite Central Committee
2. How Sharon Became a Leftist
Amira Hass
Ha'aretz, December 11, 2002
Between 1994 and 2000, Yasser Arafat would describe every piece of land the IDF evacuated as "liberated." His senior minister sand guides followed suit. Thus, Gaza was described as liberated and so were Jenin, Salfit, and everywhere else that was defined as Area A - under Palestinian administrative and security control. _ _
The process of sanctifying Area A included describing Hebron as "liberated" starting in 1997, even though 30,000 people living in the heart of the ancient city continued to suffer under direct Israeli control, meant to protect the welfare of some 500 Jews living there. _ _
The fact that no Palestinian living in those "liberated" cities of the West Bank could move more than three kilometers outside the city without encountering an Israeli military position, and that from nearly every Palestinian community, residents could see Israeli settlements expanding and encroaching, did not confuse the pubic relations artists of the PA. It did, however, cheapen the stature of the PA's leaders in the eyes oftheir public. _ _
True, Arafat was president of the (virtual) Palestinian state - it said so on the official letterheads of the PA and that is how he was addressed, but the residents of that "state" were dependent on the official stamps of the Israeli Civil Administration for their freedom of movement and their population registry, dependent on information-hungry Shin Bet officers and IDF soldiers at checkpoints to conduct the routine of their lives - no less than they were dependent on the Palestinian officials and the plethora of Palestinian security forces. _ _
The Palestinian government not "only" hid revenues from the PA's treasury, meaning the Palestinian public, and handed out funding to nurture cronies and neglect the majority. It also corrupted the language to make its terminology fit the reality that was promised and never fulfilled: ending the foreign occupation ofPalestinian land and Palestinian society. _ _
Many cooperated with the deception - representatives of the donor countries, UN envoys and Israeli peace camp activists. Symbols of sovereignty (stamps, an airport, uniforms and other perks) made people forget the main issue - that without sovereignty and authority over the land, meaning control over its development and its potential for the future, there was no meaning to the Palestinian civil-administrative responsibility for the people of the West Bank and Gaza. It was very convenient for Israeli public relations overseas, which could argue - and convince the world - that the occupation was over because Arafat controlled 99 percent of the Palestinian population. _ _
Now, and not for the first time, Ariel Sharon is juggling with the term Palestinian state, referring to the Bush framework. Maybe he really thinks it's possible to describe as a "state" a collection of administrative enclaves, which might be connected with a road that makes it possible to talk about territorial contiguity, without control over the borders and the water resources and without evacuating settlements that will continue to separate the enclaves, and as they expand, impose themselves on all the landscape and space of the West Bank and Gaza. _ _
Maybe Sharon really does think the Palestinians don't need any more than that, or that under the pressure of the Israeli military attacks they will accept it as their fate. Maybe he is interested in creating the impression of a debate inside his movement. Maybe he really is so sophisticated that he knows that such a truncated "state" is an impossible project, but that he's really addressing America and he is convinced that George Bush doesn't dwell on details. _ _
People pay attention to the fact that Sharon is speaking of a Palestinian state, not to the fact that this is the castration of a term meant to reflect the principles of the right to self- determination, equality between nations, sovereignty and independent decision- making. And that's the absurdity of our political life - empty talk has turned Sharon into "a leftist" in the Likud. In other words, we've reached the stage where someone who doesn't explicitly preach expulsion or transfer of the Palestinians out of the country or perpetuation of the militaryregime over them, is a "leftist." _ _
As in the Oslo years, with all the talk about a "state," the substance will be forgotten and the shell will be sanctified, when the state is the means, the shell. The essence of the original demand for "two states" was independence for the Palestinian people. But it was also the ability and desire of the State of Israel to be freed from its inherent urge to control the Palestinians and their future and to continue taking over as much of their available lands as possible. That is the inherent urge that sabotaged our ability to live in the region in peace. _ _
The fear is that the "leftist" Sharon's energetic statements and the seemingly sharp debate that he is conducting with his party colleagues over a "Palestinian state" will be enough to give the Labor Party an excuse to rejoin a national unity government and thus lend a hand to perpetuating the bloodshed-ridden conflict with the Palestinians. The fear is that the empty talk will be portrayed as "a political horizon" that requires the Palestinians, in exchange, to give up their hostile activity. And then it will be possible to claim that the Palestinians, once again, missed an opportunity.
Friday, December 6
MCC Palestine Update #67
MCC Palestine Update #67
December 6, 2002
This fall saw the release of a remarkable collection of essays, edited by Roane Carey and Jonathan Shainin, entitled The Other Israel (New York: The New Press, 2002). The volume brings together essays by over 20 Israeli journalists, academics and peace activists who collectively make up a portrait of an "Other Israel," one which believes that peace and Israeli security will be built upon foundations of justice instead of imposed by tanks, bulldozers and machine guns.
Some of Mennonite Central Committee's partners, such as the Palestinian Center for Rapprochement between Peoples, the Wi'am Center for Conflict Resolution, and the Badil Resource Center for Refugee and Residency Rights, work on specific projects (olive harvesting, conflict resolution workshops, a Hebrew-language packet on the rights of Palestinian refugees) with some of these "Other Israelis." Part of the job description of MCC's peace development worker-when he isn't living under curfew in Bethlehem-is to cultivate contacts with this "Other Israel."
Below you will find links to the websites of some of the Israeli peace groups who make up the "Other Israel," along with short descriptions of the groups, most of which are taken from their websites. Together, these organizations provide a timely reminder that there are not simply "two sides," Israelis and Palestinians, but that there are Israelis who join with Palestinians in working for a future of reconciliation and peace built on a foundation of justice.
Rabbis for Human Rights: http://www.rhr.israel.net/ "RHR was founded in 1998, in response to serious abuses by the Israeli military authorities in the suppression of the intifada. The indifference of much of the country religious leadership and religiously identified citizenry to the suffering of innocent people seen as the enemy was a cause of concern to RHR's organizers."
Gush Shalom: http://www.gush-shalom.org/english/ Gush Shalom calls for Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories and for Jerusalem to be the shared capital of the State of Israel and a future Palestinian state.
Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions: http://www.icahd.org/ "ICAHD is a non-violent, direct-action group originally established to oppose and resist Israeli demolition of Palestinian houses in the Occupied Territories. As our activists gained direct knowledge of the brutalities of the Occupation, we expanded our resistance activities to other areas - land expropriation, settlement expansion, by-pass road construction, policies of "closure" and "separation," the wholesale uprooting of fruit and olive trees and more. The fierce repression of Palestinian efforts to "shake off" the Occupation following the latest Intifada has only added urgency to our efforts. As a direct-action group, ICAHD is comprised of members of many Israeli peace and human rights organizations. All of our work in the Occupied Territories is closely co-ordinated with local Palestinian organizations."
Yesh Gvul: http://www.yesh-gvul.org/english.html/ Yesh Gvul (Hebrew for "There is a Limit!") "is an Israeli peace group that has shouldered the task of supporting soldiers who refuse assignments of a repressive or aggressive nature. The brutal role of the Israel Defense Force (IDF) in subjugating the Palestinian population places numerous servicemen in a grave moral and political dilemma, as they are required to enforce policies they deem illegal and immoral. The army demands compliance, but many soldiers, whether conscripts or reservists, find that they cannot in good conscience obey the orders of their superiors."
New Profile: http://www.newprofile.org/english/ We, Israeli women - Jewish and Palestinian - oppose the occupation of the Palestinian people and refuse to take part in any of its destructive aspects. We refuse to live as enemies We refuse to fulfil the roles that women are expected to fulfil during wartime We refuse to pay the economic and social price of the occupation We refuse to be ignorant and to succumb to terrorizing and silencing We refuse to raise children to war, poverty and opression We refuse to remain silent A collective refusal of women can change reality. A feminine refusal means an alternative voice and a language opposed to the language of power.
Ta'ayush: http://www.taayush.org/ Ta'ayush means "coexistence" in Arabic. The Jewish-Israeli and Palestinian-Israeli members of Ta'ayush live out coexistence as they join to help Palestinian farmers harassed by Israeli settlers harvest their olives or make solidarity and relief visits to Palestinian Bedouin in the Hebron hills threatened with eviction by Israeli settlers and the military.
Bat Shalom: http://www.batshalom.org/ "Bat Shalom is a feminist peace organization of Israeli women. We work toward a just peace between Israel and its Arab neighbors that includes recognition of a Palestinian state side-by-side with Israel and Jerusalem as the capital of both. Within Israel, Bat Shalom works toward a more just and democratic society shaped equally by men and women."
The Alternative Information Center: http://www.alternativenews.org/ "The AIC is a Palestinian-Israeli organization which disseminates information, research and political analysis on Palestinian and Israeli societies as well as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, while promoting cooperation between Palestinians and Israelis based on the values of social justice, solidarity and community involvement."
Below you will find two pieces. The first, by Ha'aretz journalist Amira Hass, looks at life at one of the scores of military checkpoints in the occupied territories, including the role played by Israeli peace activists who volunteer their time for Makhsom Watch, a group which monitors soldiers' actions at checkpoints. The second, by Tanya Reinhart of Tel Aviv University, analyzes the prospects for a just peace coming out of the upcoming Israeli elections.
--Alain Epp Weaver
1. A checkpoint for life
Amira Hass
Ha'aretz, November 27, 2002
Shabbat. 7 A.M. At the checkpoint at the northern entrance to Ramallah. Four soldiers are checking cars. It's a checkpoint used only by diplomats, Palestinian VIPs, ambulances, UN vehicles and various international humanitarian organizations. Passage is forbidden to "ordinary" pedestrians from neighboring villages heading to Ramallah and back. Not even people who live around the corner are allowed through. Two young women are standing on the northern side of the checkpoint, before the entrance to Ramallah. They are waiting.
On the southern side of the checkpoint, an elderly woman is sitting in a wheelchair. Near her is a bewildered young woman. From a short conversation with her, it becomes apparent that the woman in the wheelchair receives dialysis treatment in a Ramallah hospital. One of the young women waiting on the other side of the checkpoint is her daughter. The young woman beside the daughter is a kidney patient, also a regular at the Ramallah hospital. The young bewildered woman is the sister of the elderly woman in the wheelchair.
"The soldiers don't understand Arabic," she explains. The four come from the same village. It's only by chance that the healthy sister pushed her elderly sister's wheelchair to the checkpoint, so the soldiers allowed her through while preventing the other two young women from passing. "We can't let the entire village through," said one of the soldiers. They were surprised to hear that there's another ailing woman. They said such "ordinary pedestrians" aren't allowed through. The young women said they go through the checkpoint on foot, with the elderly woman, once every two days, equipped with letters from the hospital. An ambulance driver finally shows up and confirms he picks up the women every other day. He negotiates with the soldiers and finally, they allow the daughter of the woman in the wheelchair and the kidney patient through. But they prevent the healthy sister from passing through.
A 10-year-old boy arrives on the scene from the direction of Ramallah, carrying a large pack on his back. His school, he said, is north of the checkpoint, in Kafr Bitin. The ambulance driver's lobbying doesn't help. The soldiers won't let the boy through and, frightened, he backs away.
If the women from Makhsom Watch (Checkpoint Watch), a voluntary group that sends monitors to observe and take notes at checkpoints, were present, would they have succeeded in persuading the soldiers to let the boy and the healthy sister through? They don't usually go to this checkpoint. Sometimes, at other checkpoints they manage to bring some measure of human judgment into the frequently changing rules and interpretations of the rules. Sometimes their mere presence stops the soldiers from delaying dozens of people and cars for long hours for no operational reason. Frequently, they see how dozens of people manage to "steal" through the checkpoints. Usually these are young and agile, but desperate adults, and daring children also try.
Last week, just a telephone call from the Makhsom Watch activists to a Jerusalem hospital made the soldiers allow a couple to pass through a checkpoint to reach Jerusalem, where they were to visit their daughter in hospital. Sometimes an appeal by the activists to the duty officer helps. He instructs the soldiers to hand back the ID cards to the dozens of people whom the soldiers have been delaying for no reason.
Many of the activists in Makhsom Watch emphasize their purpose is not to make the occupation more bearable, but to make Israelis aware of it and of the fact that the checkpoints and blockades don't prevent the suicide bombers from reaching Jerusalem, but do increase the sense of outrage and disgust against Israelis in the general Palestinian population. But often their presence, and sometimes their intervention, moderate the brutal scenes and shorten the hours of humiliation.
Apparently more than they manage to reach the Israeli public, they enable Palestinians to find out that there are "other Israelis." In that sense, their contribution to a future of sane relations between nations is greater than their immediate contribution to the debate inside Israel about the occupation and its dangers.
As one Palestinian school principal from a nearby village, who goes through humiliation and harassment at the checkpoint on a daily basis, said, "Knowing there are Israelis experiencing what we experience, if only for a few hours, eases my suffering and gives me some hope for a different future."
2. The Israeli Elections
Tanya Reinhart
Yediot Aharonot, November 26, 2002
This is an expanded version of a column in the Israeli daily Yediot Aharonot, November 26, 2002.
For quite some time, public opinion polls in Israel appear to be contradictory. On the one hand, t here is a majority of 60-70% for Sharon and an "iron-fist" policy in the occupied territories, and on the other a majority of 60% for immediate unilateral evacuation of most of the territories and most of the settlements.
In fact, it is simple to reconcile this contradiction. Since at least the nineties, a division to three thirds can be observed in Israeli society: The ideological third on the left opposes the occupation on moral and principled ground. The ideological right supports Israel's policy of expansion and the settlers. The middle, non-ideological, third are people who just want quiet and a normal life. They don't care about the Palestinians, but also not about the settlers.
The polls reflect the confusion and despair of this middle third. It is impossible to conclude from these polls that Sharon's victory in the coming elections is guaranteed, as so commonly argued. The winner of the elections will be the candidate drawing more of the votes of the middle third.
A prevailing mistake is to call this middle third 'center'. The word 'center' has ideological content. It is associated with moderate stands, at the heart of the consensus. The ideological center is afraid of absolute positions, like getting out of the territories immediately, but it also does no t like the idea of transfer (-mass expulsion). However, this ideological center exists only in the political discourse. In real life, the middle third consists of scared citizens whose life has turned to hell - people who watch the collapsing economy and wait anxiously for the next terror attack or for the days of gas masks and sealed rooms. It is reasonable to assume that their instinct will be to vote for whoever offers a clear rescue path.
The "iron fist" platform of the right right-wing is indeed sharp and clear. But its drawback, for the middle third, is that it has been tried for two years already, and nothing has changed for the better. The question for them is what the left has to offer.
Up until now, the left left-wing offered only verbal solutions: Let's sit down and talk and discus s and negotiate - has been their message for years. That's how the Oslo model was born - a model of eternal negotiations, while Israel continues to expand settlements and appropriates more Palestinian lands. By now, everyone in Israel knows where this road leads, and it is impossible to win the elections with this message.
But Mitzna has something new to offer - a plan that started, at least, as a clear determination to act, rather than just talk. Its roots are in the resolutions of the Council for Peace and Security of February this year. As reported in Ha'aretz, "after four months of intense discussions, the Council for Peace and Security, a group of 1000 top-level reserve generals, colonels, and Shin Bet and Mossad officials are [sic] to mount a public campaign for a unilateral Israeli withdrawal from all of Gaza and much of the West Bank. Unlike some of the other unilateral withdrawal plans, like 'Life Fence', for example, the council's plan involves evacuating some 40-50 settlements" (Lili Galili ,Ha'aretz, February 18, 2002).
The Council for Peace and security is definitely a mainstream body, and its plan is heavily backed by business and corporate circles in Israel. They are not necessarily motivated by moral considerations of what Israel is doing to the Palestinians, but by concerns regarding the dangerous implications of this policy to the future of Israel. Although I do not share their world-view, I believe that implementing their plan is a huge step forward. The conception underlying this plan is that the real disagreement between mainstream Israel and the Palestinians is confined to three matters: The Right of Return, Jerusalem, and the fate of the big settlement blocks in the center of the West Bank.
These center settlements are built on land confiscated from the Palestinians, but the sad reality is that there are already 150.000 Israeli s living in these blocks, who cannot be evacuated over night. However, in territorial terms, the areas under dispute are no more than 10% of the West Bank (1), and there is no reason to occupy the rest of the territories because of this dispute. The 90 percent that are agreed upon can and should be evacuated immediately, and the 40-50 isolated settlements scattered in these areas should be dismantled.
Immediately after the evacuation, negotiations should start regarding the three difficult problems under dispute. Until these problems are solved, there will be no end of conflict, and no one can promise a complete end of terror. However, when in 90% of the West Bank (and the whole of Gaza) people have reason to wake up in the morning, the danger that they will opt for suicide over the Right of Return is much smaller.
If Mitzna sticks to this plan, which offers a real alternative and hope, there is a good chance that he will be the next Israeli prime minister. But there are many dangers lurking on his way. From the right-wing pole, pressure is exerted on him to "appeal to the center" and, thus, become vague a nd meaningless.
But the bigger danger is from the pole labeled left, in his own Labor party. Beilin and the other masterminds of Oslo are working against the idea of immediate evacuation: -Why evacuate immediately - they say - when we can simply resume the road of negotiations. Let's sit down with the Palestinians; let's talk and discuss. In the meanwhile, the IDF (Israeli army) will continue to maintain order in the occupied territories. Perhaps the Palestinians will give up eventually, and allow us to implement the Beilin Abu-Mazen plan, which does not require the dismantling of a single settlement.
Mitzna is showing signs of surrender. At the eve of the Labor primaries, he spoke only about immediate evacuation from Gaza. For the West Bank he proposed a year of negotiations, which in practice means negotiations under the supervision of the Israeli army. In other words, he proposed another year of the present lunacy, but with some negotiations in the background. If, at in the end, what Mitzna offers to the middle third would turn out to be an Oslo B plan, the middle will vote Sharon. ========= (1) This is the figure in the maximalist approach of Barak, who demanded to annex these ten percent in Camp David. The actual land that the settlements sit on is much smaller. However, Barak demanded to maintain territorial continuity between the annexed settlements.
In the Taba talks the Israeli side set the figure on 8% - "6 percent annexation and additional 2 two percent under lease agreement" (Ambassador Miguel Moratinos report, Ha'aretz, February 15, 2002). The Palestinian side acknowledged "3.1 percent annexation [to Israel] in the context of a land swap", (there). For more details on the land percentage and the Taba negotiations see my Israel/Palestine: How to end the war of 1948, Seven Stories, 2002.
(2) Here is how Beilin himself described the Beilin Abu-Mazen plan (which was completed in October 1995) in an interview in March 1996: "As an outcome of my negotiations, I can say with certainty that we can reach a permanent agreement not under the overt conditions presented by the Palestinians, but under a significant compromise [on their side]...
I discovered on their side a substantial gap between their slogans and their actual understanding of reality--a much bigger gap than on our side. They are willing to accept an agreement which gives up much land, without the dismantling of settlements, with no return to the '67 border, and with an arrangement in Jerusalem which is less than municipality level." (Interview by Lili Galili, "I Want to Entangle the Likud with as Much Peace a s Possible," Ha'aretz, March 3, 1996).
December 6, 2002
This fall saw the release of a remarkable collection of essays, edited by Roane Carey and Jonathan Shainin, entitled The Other Israel (New York: The New Press, 2002). The volume brings together essays by over 20 Israeli journalists, academics and peace activists who collectively make up a portrait of an "Other Israel," one which believes that peace and Israeli security will be built upon foundations of justice instead of imposed by tanks, bulldozers and machine guns.
Some of Mennonite Central Committee's partners, such as the Palestinian Center for Rapprochement between Peoples, the Wi'am Center for Conflict Resolution, and the Badil Resource Center for Refugee and Residency Rights, work on specific projects (olive harvesting, conflict resolution workshops, a Hebrew-language packet on the rights of Palestinian refugees) with some of these "Other Israelis." Part of the job description of MCC's peace development worker-when he isn't living under curfew in Bethlehem-is to cultivate contacts with this "Other Israel."
Below you will find links to the websites of some of the Israeli peace groups who make up the "Other Israel," along with short descriptions of the groups, most of which are taken from their websites. Together, these organizations provide a timely reminder that there are not simply "two sides," Israelis and Palestinians, but that there are Israelis who join with Palestinians in working for a future of reconciliation and peace built on a foundation of justice.
Rabbis for Human Rights: http://www.rhr.israel.net/ "RHR was founded in 1998, in response to serious abuses by the Israeli military authorities in the suppression of the intifada. The indifference of much of the country religious leadership and religiously identified citizenry to the suffering of innocent people seen as the enemy was a cause of concern to RHR's organizers."
Gush Shalom: http://www.gush-shalom.org/english/ Gush Shalom calls for Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories and for Jerusalem to be the shared capital of the State of Israel and a future Palestinian state.
Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions: http://www.icahd.org/ "ICAHD is a non-violent, direct-action group originally established to oppose and resist Israeli demolition of Palestinian houses in the Occupied Territories. As our activists gained direct knowledge of the brutalities of the Occupation, we expanded our resistance activities to other areas - land expropriation, settlement expansion, by-pass road construction, policies of "closure" and "separation," the wholesale uprooting of fruit and olive trees and more. The fierce repression of Palestinian efforts to "shake off" the Occupation following the latest Intifada has only added urgency to our efforts. As a direct-action group, ICAHD is comprised of members of many Israeli peace and human rights organizations. All of our work in the Occupied Territories is closely co-ordinated with local Palestinian organizations."
Yesh Gvul: http://www.yesh-gvul.org/english.html/ Yesh Gvul (Hebrew for "There is a Limit!") "is an Israeli peace group that has shouldered the task of supporting soldiers who refuse assignments of a repressive or aggressive nature. The brutal role of the Israel Defense Force (IDF) in subjugating the Palestinian population places numerous servicemen in a grave moral and political dilemma, as they are required to enforce policies they deem illegal and immoral. The army demands compliance, but many soldiers, whether conscripts or reservists, find that they cannot in good conscience obey the orders of their superiors."
New Profile: http://www.newprofile.org/english/ We, Israeli women - Jewish and Palestinian - oppose the occupation of the Palestinian people and refuse to take part in any of its destructive aspects. We refuse to live as enemies We refuse to fulfil the roles that women are expected to fulfil during wartime We refuse to pay the economic and social price of the occupation We refuse to be ignorant and to succumb to terrorizing and silencing We refuse to raise children to war, poverty and opression We refuse to remain silent A collective refusal of women can change reality. A feminine refusal means an alternative voice and a language opposed to the language of power.
Ta'ayush: http://www.taayush.org/ Ta'ayush means "coexistence" in Arabic. The Jewish-Israeli and Palestinian-Israeli members of Ta'ayush live out coexistence as they join to help Palestinian farmers harassed by Israeli settlers harvest their olives or make solidarity and relief visits to Palestinian Bedouin in the Hebron hills threatened with eviction by Israeli settlers and the military.
Bat Shalom: http://www.batshalom.org/ "Bat Shalom is a feminist peace organization of Israeli women. We work toward a just peace between Israel and its Arab neighbors that includes recognition of a Palestinian state side-by-side with Israel and Jerusalem as the capital of both. Within Israel, Bat Shalom works toward a more just and democratic society shaped equally by men and women."
The Alternative Information Center: http://www.alternativenews.org/ "The AIC is a Palestinian-Israeli organization which disseminates information, research and political analysis on Palestinian and Israeli societies as well as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, while promoting cooperation between Palestinians and Israelis based on the values of social justice, solidarity and community involvement."
Below you will find two pieces. The first, by Ha'aretz journalist Amira Hass, looks at life at one of the scores of military checkpoints in the occupied territories, including the role played by Israeli peace activists who volunteer their time for Makhsom Watch, a group which monitors soldiers' actions at checkpoints. The second, by Tanya Reinhart of Tel Aviv University, analyzes the prospects for a just peace coming out of the upcoming Israeli elections.
--Alain Epp Weaver
1. A checkpoint for life
Amira Hass
Ha'aretz, November 27, 2002
Shabbat. 7 A.M. At the checkpoint at the northern entrance to Ramallah. Four soldiers are checking cars. It's a checkpoint used only by diplomats, Palestinian VIPs, ambulances, UN vehicles and various international humanitarian organizations. Passage is forbidden to "ordinary" pedestrians from neighboring villages heading to Ramallah and back. Not even people who live around the corner are allowed through. Two young women are standing on the northern side of the checkpoint, before the entrance to Ramallah. They are waiting.
On the southern side of the checkpoint, an elderly woman is sitting in a wheelchair. Near her is a bewildered young woman. From a short conversation with her, it becomes apparent that the woman in the wheelchair receives dialysis treatment in a Ramallah hospital. One of the young women waiting on the other side of the checkpoint is her daughter. The young woman beside the daughter is a kidney patient, also a regular at the Ramallah hospital. The young bewildered woman is the sister of the elderly woman in the wheelchair.
"The soldiers don't understand Arabic," she explains. The four come from the same village. It's only by chance that the healthy sister pushed her elderly sister's wheelchair to the checkpoint, so the soldiers allowed her through while preventing the other two young women from passing. "We can't let the entire village through," said one of the soldiers. They were surprised to hear that there's another ailing woman. They said such "ordinary pedestrians" aren't allowed through. The young women said they go through the checkpoint on foot, with the elderly woman, once every two days, equipped with letters from the hospital. An ambulance driver finally shows up and confirms he picks up the women every other day. He negotiates with the soldiers and finally, they allow the daughter of the woman in the wheelchair and the kidney patient through. But they prevent the healthy sister from passing through.
A 10-year-old boy arrives on the scene from the direction of Ramallah, carrying a large pack on his back. His school, he said, is north of the checkpoint, in Kafr Bitin. The ambulance driver's lobbying doesn't help. The soldiers won't let the boy through and, frightened, he backs away.
If the women from Makhsom Watch (Checkpoint Watch), a voluntary group that sends monitors to observe and take notes at checkpoints, were present, would they have succeeded in persuading the soldiers to let the boy and the healthy sister through? They don't usually go to this checkpoint. Sometimes, at other checkpoints they manage to bring some measure of human judgment into the frequently changing rules and interpretations of the rules. Sometimes their mere presence stops the soldiers from delaying dozens of people and cars for long hours for no operational reason. Frequently, they see how dozens of people manage to "steal" through the checkpoints. Usually these are young and agile, but desperate adults, and daring children also try.
Last week, just a telephone call from the Makhsom Watch activists to a Jerusalem hospital made the soldiers allow a couple to pass through a checkpoint to reach Jerusalem, where they were to visit their daughter in hospital. Sometimes an appeal by the activists to the duty officer helps. He instructs the soldiers to hand back the ID cards to the dozens of people whom the soldiers have been delaying for no reason.
Many of the activists in Makhsom Watch emphasize their purpose is not to make the occupation more bearable, but to make Israelis aware of it and of the fact that the checkpoints and blockades don't prevent the suicide bombers from reaching Jerusalem, but do increase the sense of outrage and disgust against Israelis in the general Palestinian population. But often their presence, and sometimes their intervention, moderate the brutal scenes and shorten the hours of humiliation.
Apparently more than they manage to reach the Israeli public, they enable Palestinians to find out that there are "other Israelis." In that sense, their contribution to a future of sane relations between nations is greater than their immediate contribution to the debate inside Israel about the occupation and its dangers.
As one Palestinian school principal from a nearby village, who goes through humiliation and harassment at the checkpoint on a daily basis, said, "Knowing there are Israelis experiencing what we experience, if only for a few hours, eases my suffering and gives me some hope for a different future."
2. The Israeli Elections
Tanya Reinhart
Yediot Aharonot, November 26, 2002
This is an expanded version of a column in the Israeli daily Yediot Aharonot, November 26, 2002.
For quite some time, public opinion polls in Israel appear to be contradictory. On the one hand, t here is a majority of 60-70% for Sharon and an "iron-fist" policy in the occupied territories, and on the other a majority of 60% for immediate unilateral evacuation of most of the territories and most of the settlements.
In fact, it is simple to reconcile this contradiction. Since at least the nineties, a division to three thirds can be observed in Israeli society: The ideological third on the left opposes the occupation on moral and principled ground. The ideological right supports Israel's policy of expansion and the settlers. The middle, non-ideological, third are people who just want quiet and a normal life. They don't care about the Palestinians, but also not about the settlers.
The polls reflect the confusion and despair of this middle third. It is impossible to conclude from these polls that Sharon's victory in the coming elections is guaranteed, as so commonly argued. The winner of the elections will be the candidate drawing more of the votes of the middle third.
A prevailing mistake is to call this middle third 'center'. The word 'center' has ideological content. It is associated with moderate stands, at the heart of the consensus. The ideological center is afraid of absolute positions, like getting out of the territories immediately, but it also does no t like the idea of transfer (-mass expulsion). However, this ideological center exists only in the political discourse. In real life, the middle third consists of scared citizens whose life has turned to hell - people who watch the collapsing economy and wait anxiously for the next terror attack or for the days of gas masks and sealed rooms. It is reasonable to assume that their instinct will be to vote for whoever offers a clear rescue path.
The "iron fist" platform of the right right-wing is indeed sharp and clear. But its drawback, for the middle third, is that it has been tried for two years already, and nothing has changed for the better. The question for them is what the left has to offer.
Up until now, the left left-wing offered only verbal solutions: Let's sit down and talk and discus s and negotiate - has been their message for years. That's how the Oslo model was born - a model of eternal negotiations, while Israel continues to expand settlements and appropriates more Palestinian lands. By now, everyone in Israel knows where this road leads, and it is impossible to win the elections with this message.
But Mitzna has something new to offer - a plan that started, at least, as a clear determination to act, rather than just talk. Its roots are in the resolutions of the Council for Peace and Security of February this year. As reported in Ha'aretz, "after four months of intense discussions, the Council for Peace and Security, a group of 1000 top-level reserve generals, colonels, and Shin Bet and Mossad officials are [sic] to mount a public campaign for a unilateral Israeli withdrawal from all of Gaza and much of the West Bank. Unlike some of the other unilateral withdrawal plans, like 'Life Fence', for example, the council's plan involves evacuating some 40-50 settlements" (Lili Galili ,Ha'aretz, February 18, 2002).
The Council for Peace and security is definitely a mainstream body, and its plan is heavily backed by business and corporate circles in Israel. They are not necessarily motivated by moral considerations of what Israel is doing to the Palestinians, but by concerns regarding the dangerous implications of this policy to the future of Israel. Although I do not share their world-view, I believe that implementing their plan is a huge step forward. The conception underlying this plan is that the real disagreement between mainstream Israel and the Palestinians is confined to three matters: The Right of Return, Jerusalem, and the fate of the big settlement blocks in the center of the West Bank.
These center settlements are built on land confiscated from the Palestinians, but the sad reality is that there are already 150.000 Israeli s living in these blocks, who cannot be evacuated over night. However, in territorial terms, the areas under dispute are no more than 10% of the West Bank (1), and there is no reason to occupy the rest of the territories because of this dispute. The 90 percent that are agreed upon can and should be evacuated immediately, and the 40-50 isolated settlements scattered in these areas should be dismantled.
Immediately after the evacuation, negotiations should start regarding the three difficult problems under dispute. Until these problems are solved, there will be no end of conflict, and no one can promise a complete end of terror. However, when in 90% of the West Bank (and the whole of Gaza) people have reason to wake up in the morning, the danger that they will opt for suicide over the Right of Return is much smaller.
If Mitzna sticks to this plan, which offers a real alternative and hope, there is a good chance that he will be the next Israeli prime minister. But there are many dangers lurking on his way. From the right-wing pole, pressure is exerted on him to "appeal to the center" and, thus, become vague a nd meaningless.
But the bigger danger is from the pole labeled left, in his own Labor party. Beilin and the other masterminds of Oslo are working against the idea of immediate evacuation: -Why evacuate immediately - they say - when we can simply resume the road of negotiations. Let's sit down with the Palestinians; let's talk and discuss. In the meanwhile, the IDF (Israeli army) will continue to maintain order in the occupied territories. Perhaps the Palestinians will give up eventually, and allow us to implement the Beilin Abu-Mazen plan, which does not require the dismantling of a single settlement.
Mitzna is showing signs of surrender. At the eve of the Labor primaries, he spoke only about immediate evacuation from Gaza. For the West Bank he proposed a year of negotiations, which in practice means negotiations under the supervision of the Israeli army. In other words, he proposed another year of the present lunacy, but with some negotiations in the background. If, at in the end, what Mitzna offers to the middle third would turn out to be an Oslo B plan, the middle will vote Sharon. ========= (1) This is the figure in the maximalist approach of Barak, who demanded to annex these ten percent in Camp David. The actual land that the settlements sit on is much smaller. However, Barak demanded to maintain territorial continuity between the annexed settlements.
In the Taba talks the Israeli side set the figure on 8% - "6 percent annexation and additional 2 two percent under lease agreement" (Ambassador Miguel Moratinos report, Ha'aretz, February 15, 2002). The Palestinian side acknowledged "3.1 percent annexation [to Israel] in the context of a land swap", (there). For more details on the land percentage and the Taba negotiations see my Israel/Palestine: How to end the war of 1948, Seven Stories, 2002.
(2) Here is how Beilin himself described the Beilin Abu-Mazen plan (which was completed in October 1995) in an interview in March 1996: "As an outcome of my negotiations, I can say with certainty that we can reach a permanent agreement not under the overt conditions presented by the Palestinians, but under a significant compromise [on their side]...
I discovered on their side a substantial gap between their slogans and their actual understanding of reality--a much bigger gap than on our side. They are willing to accept an agreement which gives up much land, without the dismantling of settlements, with no return to the '67 border, and with an arrangement in Jerusalem which is less than municipality level." (Interview by Lili Galili, "I Want to Entangle the Likud with as Much Peace a s Possible," Ha'aretz, March 3, 1996).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
