Edit

March 23, 2009

‘At War With the Palestinian People’

by Uri Avnery

The most important sentence written in Israel this week was lost in the general tumult of exciting events.

Really exciting: In a final act of villainy, typical of his whole tenure as prime minister, Ehud Olmert abandoned the captive soldier, Gilad Shalit.

Ehud Barak decided that the Labor Party must join the ultra-right government, which includes outright fascists.

And this, too: the former president of Israel was officially indicted for rape.

In this cacophony, who would pay any attention to a sentence written by lawyers in a document submitted to the Supreme Court?

——————————————————————————–

The judicial debate concerns one of the most revolting laws ever enacted in Israel.

It says that the wife of an Israeli citizen is not allowed to join him in Israel if she is living in the occupied Palestinian territories or in a “hostile” Arab country.

The Arab citizens of Israel belong to hamulas (clans) which extend beyond the borders of the state. Arabs generally marry within the hamula. This is an ancient custom, deeply rooted in their culture, probably originating in the desire to keep the family property together. In the Bible, Isaac married his cousin, Rebecca.

The “Green Line,” which was fixed arbitrarily by the events of the 1948 war, divides families. One village found itself in Israel, the next remained outside the new state, the hamula lives in both. The Nakba also created a large Palestinian diaspora.

A male Arab citizen in Israel who desires to marry a woman of his hamula will often find her in the West Bank or in a refugee camp in Lebanon or Syria. The woman will generally join her husband and be taken in by his family. In theory, her husband could join her in Ramallah, but the standard of living there is much lower, and all his life – family, work, studies – is centered in Israel. Because of the large difference in the standard of living, a man in the occupied territories who marries a woman in Israel will also usually join her and receive Israeli citizenship, leaving behind his former life.

It is hard to know how many Palestinians, male and female, have come to Israel during the 41 years of occupation and become Israeli citizens this way. One government office speaks of twenty thousand, another of more than a hundred thousand. Whatever the number, the Knesset has enacted an (officially “temporary”) law to put an end to this movement.

As usual with us, the pretext was security. After all, the Arabs who are naturalized in Israel could be “terrorists.” True, no statistics have ever been published about such cases – if there are any – but since when did a “security” assertion need evidence to prove it?

Behind the security argument there lurks, of course, a demographic demon. The Arabs now constitute about 20 percent of Israel’s citizens. If the country were to be swamped by a flood of Arab brides and bridegrooms, this percentage might rise to – God forbid! – 22 percent. How would the “Jewish state” look then?

The matter came before the Supreme Court. The petitioners, Jews and Arabs, argued that this measure contradicts our Basic Laws (our substitute for a nonexistent constitution) which guarantee the equality of all citizens. The answer of the Ministry of Justice lawyers let the cat out of the bag. It asserts, for the first time, in unequivocal language: “The state of Israel is at war with the Palestinian people, people against people, collective against collective.”

——————————————————————————–

One should read this sentence several times to appreciate its full impact. This is not a phrase escaping from the mouth of a campaigning politician and disappearing with his breath, but a sentence written by cautious lawyers carefully weighing every letter.

If we are at war with “the Palestinian people,” this means that every Palestinian, wherever he or she may be, is an enemy. That includes the inhabitants of the occupied territories, the refugees scattered throughout the world, as well as the Arab citizens of Israel proper. A mason in Taibeh, Israel, a farmer near Nablus in the West Bank, a policeman of the Palestinian Authority in Jenin, a Hamas fighter in Gaza, a girl in a school in the Mia Mia refugee camp near Sidon, Lebanon, a naturalized American shopkeeper in New York – “collective against collective.”

Of course, the lawyers did not invent this principle. It has been accepted for a long time in daily life, and all arms of the government act accordingly. The army averts its eyes when an “illegal” outpost is established in the West Bank on the land of Palestinians, and sends soldiers to protect the invaders. Israeli courts customarily impose harsher sentences on Arab defendants than on Jews guilty of the same offense. The soldiers of an army unit order T-shirts showing a pregnant Arab woman with a rifle trained on her belly and the words “1 shot, 2 kills” (as exposed in Ha’aretz this week).

——————————————————————————–

These anonymous lawyers should perhaps be thanked for daring to formulate in a judicial document the reality that had previously been hidden in a thousand different ways.

The simple reality is that 127 years after the beginning of the first Jewish wave of immigration, 112 years after the founding of the Zionist movement, 61 years after the establishment of the state of Israel, 41 years after the beginning of the occupation, the Israeli-Palestinian war continues along all the front lines with undiminished vigor.

The inherent aim of the Zionist enterprise was and is to turn the country – at least up to the Jordan River – into a homogeneous Jewish state. Throughout the course of Zionist-Israeli history, this aim has not been forsaken for a moment. Every cell of the Israeli organism contains this genetic code and therefore acts accordingly, without the need for a specific directive.

In my mind I see this process as the urge of a river to reach the sea. A river yearning for the sea does not recognize any law, except for the law of gravity. If the terrain allows it, it will flow in a straight course; if not it will cut a new riverbed, twist like a snake, turn right and left, go around obstacles. If necessary, it will split into rivulets. From time to time, new brooks will join it. And every minute it will strive to reach the sea.

The Palestinian people, of course, oppose this process. They refuse to budge, set up dams, try to push the stream back. True, for more than a hundred years they have been on the retreat, but they have never surrendered. They continue to resist with the same persistence as the advancing river.

——————————————————————————–

ALL THIS has been associated, on the Israeli side, with an obstinate denial, using a thousand and one guises, pretexts, self-serving slogans, and sanctimonious untruths. But from time to time an unexpected flash of light shows what is really going on.

That happened this week, when one of the pre-military preparatory schools, set up to educate future officers, convened a meeting of alumni, most of them on active service or in the reserves, and encouraged them to speak freely about their experiences. Since many of them had just returned from the Gaza War, and the things were burning in their bones (as the Hebrew expression goes), shocking details were disclosed. These quickly found their way to the media and were published at length in newspapers and on television.

To the readers of this column, they would not come as a surprise. I have written about them before, e.g., in my article “The Black Flag Is Waving.” Amira Hass and Gideon Levy have collected eyewitness reports from Gaza inhabitants, telling much the same stories. But there is a difference: this time the facts are disclosed by the soldiers themselves, those who took part in the events or saw them with their own eyes.

The army was Shocked. Surprised. Revolted. The official Army liar, who bears the title of Army spokesperson, had previously denied anything of the kind. Now he promises that the army will investigate every incident “as the case may require.” The military advocate general ordered the investigative arm of the military police to open an inquiry. Since the same advocate general bragged in the past that his officers had been embedded throughout the war in every front-line command post, one would have to be more than naïve to take his statement seriously.

One can rely on the army to ensure that nothing tangible emerges from the investigation. An army investigating itself – like any institution investigating itself – is a farce. In this case it is even more than farcical, since the soldiers must testify under the eyes of their commanders, while their comrades are listening. In the alumni meeting, they spoke freely, believing that only those present would hear. Even so, they needed a lot of courage to speak out. And since each of them could speak only about what had happened in his immediate vicinity, only a few cases were brought up. The army intends to investigate only those.

But the picture is far wider. We have heard about many cases of the same kind, and they clearly were a widespread phenomenon. A woman and her children were evicted by soldiers from their home in the middle of the fighting and immediately afterward shot dead at close range by other soldiers who had orders to shoot everything that moved. Old people and children walking on open ground were shot in cold blood by snipers who saw them clearly through their telescopic sights, who had orders that everybody moving should be considered a “terrorist.” Homes were destroyed for no reason, simply because they were there. Belongings inside apartments were vandalized just for fun, “because they belong to Arabs.” Soldiers slit open sacks of food intended by UN agencies for the hungry population, because they “go to Arabs.”

I know that such things happen in every war. A year after the 1948 war I wrote a book about them called The Other Side of the Coin. Every fighting army has its share of psychopaths, misfits, and sadists, side by side with decent soldiers. But even some of the normal soldiers may go berserk in battle, lose their sense of right and wrong and conform to the “spirit of the unit,” if it is such.

Something has happened to our army. Its commanders never tire of calling it “the Most Moral Army in the World,” and this has become a slogan like “Guinness is Good For You.” But what happened during the Gaza operation testifies to a massive deterioration.

This deterioration is a natural result of the definition of the war as used in the document submitted to the Supreme Court. This document must arouse shock and condemnation and serve as a wake-up call for every person to whom the future of Israel is dear.

This war must be ended. The river must be channeled into a different bed, so that its waters will make the earth fertile – before we become irreversibly bestialized in our own eyes and in the eyes of the world.

Edit

Thanks for the link. Although aware of it, its not one I have often used in rebuttal to the I-firsters. I am kind of fond of “Peace Now”, “Americans for Peace Now”, and “If Americans Only Knew”.

http://www.peacenow.org.il/site/en/homepage.asp

http://www.peacenow.org/

http://www.ifamericansonlyknew.org/

Granted, the Palestinian website is arguably one sided, but the sources for their statistics are quite clearly identified, and many of the statistics are from Israeli sources and credible human rights organizations.

But believe it or not, in rebuttal to the I-firster’s arguments, I am especially fond of using the official AIPAC website. It is amazing the blatant distortions and untruths that AIPAC is willing to post on its website. Here is an example….

Directly from the AIPAC website…..

http://www.aipac.org/

“In a video address to the Iranian people in celebration of the Nowruz holiday, the president urged Iran to discuss “in mutual respect” the issues that have led to the Islamic Republic’s international isolation, including Iran’s illicit nuclear program, support for global terrorism and anti-Israel rhetoric”

What Obama actually said….

THE PRESIDENT: Today I want to extend my very best wishes to all who are celebrating Nowruz around the world.

This holiday is both an ancient ritual and a moment of renewal, and I hope that you enjoy this special time of year with friends and family.

In particular, I would like to speak directly to the people and leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Nowruz is just one part of your great and celebrated culture. Over many centuries your art, your music, literature and innovation have made the world a better and more beautiful place.

Here in the United States our own communities have been enhanced by the contributions of Iranian Americans. We know that you are a great civilization, and your accomplishments have earned the respect of the United States and the world.

For nearly three decades relations between our nations have been strained. But at this holiday we are reminded of the common humanity that binds us together. Indeed, you will be celebrating your New Year in much the same way that we Americans mark our holidays — by gathering with friends and family, exchanging gifts and stories, and looking to the future with a renewed sense of hope.

Within these celebrations lies the promise of a new day, the promise of opportunity for our children, security for our families, progress for our communities, and peace between nations. Those are shared hopes, those are common dreams.

So in this season of new beginnings I would like to speak clearly to Iran’s leaders. We have serious differences that have grown over time. My administration is now committed to diplomacy that addresses the full range of issues before us, and to pursuing constructive ties among the United States, Iran and the international community. This process will not be advanced by threats. We seek instead engagement that is honest and grounded in mutual respect.

You, too, have a choice. The United States wants the Islamic Republic of Iran to take its rightful place in the community of nations. You have that right — but it comes with real responsibilities, and that place cannot be reached through terror or arms, but rather through peaceful actions that demonstrate the true greatness of the Iranian people and civilization. And the measure of that greatness is not the capacity to destroy, it is your demonstrated ability to build and create.

So on the occasion of your New Year, I want you, the people and leaders of Iran, to understand the future that we seek. It’s a future with renewed exchanges among our people, and greater opportunities for partnership and commerce. It’s a future where the old divisions are overcome, where you and all of your neighbors and the wider world can live in greater security and greater peace.

I know that this won’t be reached easily. There are those who insist that we be defined by our differences. But let us remember the words that were written by the poet Saadi, so many years ago: “The children of Adam are limbs to each other, having been created of one essence.”

With the coming of a new season, we’re reminded of this precious humanity that we all share. And we can once again call upon this spirit as we seek the promise of a new beginning.

Thank you, and Eid-eh Shoma Mobarak.

END

The irony, when one considers the nature of the goods blocked from entering Gaza, and the razing of Palestinian farmland, orchards and infrastructure, the excuse of “defense” is completely unsupportable. At one point Israel was even blocking the entry of hygene products, such as toilet paper. Such moves are obviously not defensive in nature, but are instead designed to dehumanize, humiliate, and heighten suffering. So, while constantly using the accusation of racism (anti-semitism) as a rebuttal tool to criticism, Israel is engaged in employing policies that can only be interpreted as racist in nature. Simply put, the Israeli leadership doesn’t seem to think a Palestinian life is worth much. Much like the value we placed on Indians or negros during our own early history. Desired land was more valuable than human life. And such is the reality in modern day Israel.

Obama has already telegraphed his intention to maintain the status quo in our relationship with Israel. And his appointments don’t exactly spell easier times coming for the Palestinians. Factor in this new Israeli government, and Lieberman’s rise in popularity, and I expect we will see a new round of carnage in Gaza in the near future, using American arms and munitions to murder Palestinians and steal their land. And it will be done on your and my dime.

Now I’m confused. We shouldn’t criticize them for what both sides call illegal settlements ? Considering that some people think the whole damned country (Israel) is illegal ?

Does that make us less an ally of Israel? That’s what the American public will have to make clear before our politicians will say what they do in private in public.

The Likud lobby wields a lot of political money around; their counterpart needs to do the same and maybe we’d at least change the debate.

My worry is that Obama will be consumed by the financial crisis, so that he won’t do what’s needed on the Middle East. It’s not an accident that George Mitchell was appointed, but nothing has happened since.

Netanyahu’s list for the U.S., which Steve Clemons covered brilliantly, is evidence of what’s expected. HRC’s got the spine for it, but she doesn’t set policy and it’s unclear if Obama’s willing to draw a line between our relationship with Israel, and the need to criticize them on settlements, (the construction of) which simply must stop.

TM Note: The addition in italics was added to this comment. The sentence needs a different construction, so consider the language in parenthesis a band-aid.

I’ll probably sit this one out, just to digest the comments. This thread will undoubtedly determine whether or not I will join this community of commentors.

One short comment. It is interesting to me that it is the “progressive movement” that seems to be the more inclined to criticize both “the lobby”, and its mother, Israel. Yet the poiticians on the left, who one would like to believe are the hope of the “progressive movement”, are completely and utterly in bed with “the lobby”, and are supportive of Israeli policy, across the board. Obama’s silence while the Israelis were frying Palestinians in white phosphorous was despicable. And Rahm Emanuel, Dennis Ross, Hillary Clinton, etc are hardly the crew that one can expect “change” from in regards to discontinuing our fealty to the corrosive and insidious machinations of “the lobby”. It seems those of us that have acquired a distaste for the blatantly racist policies of Israel, resulting in epic levels of human suffering in Gaza and the West Bank, have no where to turn for leadership. The politicians that have dared speak out are marginalized, demonized, and labeled as “anti-semitic” or “conspiracy theorists”, such as Carter, Ron Paul, or Kucinich. Obama’s failure to defend the very able and remarkably honest Freeman tells us all we need to know about where Obama stands. (Or should I say “kneels”?)

pmichael is spot on. We must relentlessly fight back against the creeping Christian theocracy.

YES! take the GOD out of government, wait the GOV out of government…

A Religious War in Israel’s Army
By ETHAN BRONNER
Published: March 21, 2009

JERUSALEM — The publication late last week of eyewitness accounts by Israeli soldiers alleging acute mistreatment of Palestinian civilians in the recent Gaza fighting highlights a debate here about the rules of war. But it also exposes something else: the clash between secular liberals and religious nationalists for control over the army and society.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/22/weekinreview/22BRONNER.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss

Is Obama going to Turkey a part of the overall Mideast strategy? I have been wondering why Turkey would be so high on the early sightseeing tour for the President.

Taylor did you say Livni ran a “Hope” campaign? sounds vaguely familiar