HRW referred to the 755 Israeli victims of suicide bombings carried out by Palestinians during the second Intifada as crimes against humanity, while the 4,322 Palestinian civilians who have been killed by Israeli soldiers and civilian settlers, the land confiscations, house demolitions and 11,000 prisoners has not led this organization to use the same terms.
A 170-page Report of November 1, 2003 on the issue of suicide bombings. Taken from Sari Hanafi's article.
Showing posts with label Palestine/Israel. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Palestine/Israel. Show all posts
January 22, 2024
September 15, 2010
A massacre is not a massacre by Ghassan Hage
A massacre is not a massacre
Ghassan Hage, The Electronic Intifada, 3 June 2010
I don't write poems but, in any case, poems are not poems.
Long ago, I was made to understand that Palestine was not Palestine;
I was also informed that Palestinians were not Palestinians;
They also explained to me that ethnic cleansing was not ethnic cleansing.
And when naive old me saw freedom fighters they patiently showed me that they were not freedom fighters, and that resistance was not resistance.
And when, stupidly, I noticed arrogance, oppression and humiliation they benevolently enlightened me so I can see that arrogance was not arrogance, oppression was not oppression, and humiliation was not humiliation.
I saw misery, racism, inhumanity and a concentration camp.
But they told me that they were experts in misery, racism, inhumanity and concentration camps and I have to take their word for it: this was not misery, racism, inhumanity and a concentration camp.
Over the years they've taught me so many things: invasion was not invasion, occupation was not occupation, colonialism was not colonialism and apartheid was not apartheid.
They opened my simple mind to even more complex truths that my poor brain could not on its own compute like: "having nuclear weapons" was not "having nuclear weapons," "not having weapons of mass destruction" was "having weapons of mass destruction."
And, democracy (in the Gaza Strip) was not democracy.
Having second class citizens (in Israel) was democracy.
So you'll excuse me if I am not surprised to learn today that there were more things that I thought were evident that are not: peace activists are not peace activists, piracy is not piracy, the massacre of unarmed people is not the massacre of unarmed people.
I have such a limited brain and my ignorance is unlimited.
And they're so fucking intelligent. Really.
Ghassan Hage is professor of anthropology and social theory at the University of Melbourne.
Ghassan Hage, The Electronic Intifada, 3 June 2010
 |
| Occupation is not occupation (Anne Paq/ActiveStills) |
I don't write poems but, in any case, poems are not poems.
Long ago, I was made to understand that Palestine was not Palestine;
I was also informed that Palestinians were not Palestinians;
They also explained to me that ethnic cleansing was not ethnic cleansing.
And when naive old me saw freedom fighters they patiently showed me that they were not freedom fighters, and that resistance was not resistance.
And when, stupidly, I noticed arrogance, oppression and humiliation they benevolently enlightened me so I can see that arrogance was not arrogance, oppression was not oppression, and humiliation was not humiliation.
I saw misery, racism, inhumanity and a concentration camp.
But they told me that they were experts in misery, racism, inhumanity and concentration camps and I have to take their word for it: this was not misery, racism, inhumanity and a concentration camp.
Over the years they've taught me so many things: invasion was not invasion, occupation was not occupation, colonialism was not colonialism and apartheid was not apartheid.
They opened my simple mind to even more complex truths that my poor brain could not on its own compute like: "having nuclear weapons" was not "having nuclear weapons," "not having weapons of mass destruction" was "having weapons of mass destruction."
And, democracy (in the Gaza Strip) was not democracy.
Having second class citizens (in Israel) was democracy.
So you'll excuse me if I am not surprised to learn today that there were more things that I thought were evident that are not: peace activists are not peace activists, piracy is not piracy, the massacre of unarmed people is not the massacre of unarmed people.
I have such a limited brain and my ignorance is unlimited.
And they're so fucking intelligent. Really.
Ghassan Hage is professor of anthropology and social theory at the University of Melbourne.
July 26, 2010
People's Reactions
Written on 04/06/2004, after signing a contract to teach for two years at the American International School of Gaza. (The building was reduced to rubble in January 2009, during Israel's offense/attack/demolition of the Gaza Strip.)
There’s nothing more priceless than people’s reactions:
There’s nothing more priceless than people’s reactions:
“Does your mother know you’re going?”
“Are you f--- out of your mind?”
"Have you seen Not Without My Daughter?" ask's my dad's cousin.
"Have you seen Not Without My Daughter?" ask's my dad's cousin.
“You’re going to give this family a heart attack,” says my aunt.
“You’re so selfish,” chimes in my sister.
The blank stares.
The clueless, "Oh that’s cool," because they don’t know what Gaza is. After a “in Israel…Palestine” then maybe it kind of registers, maybe.
“Anywhere but there,” says my dad. “Go to Cairo, go to Amman, go to Damascas, but don’t go there.” This is the same dad who dropped me off in a barrio of Caracas and refused to come in with me once he saw the place. I was upset and disappointed; he was going to get to meet church-goers I had been spending so much time with. When I got home that night, I asked him why he didn’t come in with me.
“Are you crazy? I would have come out and there wouldn’t have been a car there. And then if I called the police, they would have said it was my fault for having left it there.”
Years later, I related this to a friend—“So he leaves his daughter there, but he won’t leave his car there.”
So then I relay that to my dad.
His reply: “Mi hija es inteligente; ella se puede defender. El carro es bruto; no se puede defender.”
But Gaza completely freaks him out. He says of course they’ll be my best friends, 99% of them. "It’s just that 1% you have to be wary of."
“Well, isn’t it like that anywhere?”
“No. Anywhere else it’s like 1/10,000 but in Gaza it’s 1/100.”
But then they’re the people who know me, who really think it’s the coolest thing ever. Yes, their face registers concern, but they know this is right for me. Because they know me. I thought Texas would be awful, but surprisingly enough, when I went to my old high school yesterday, my former teachers and parents of my friends sincerely looked positive and happy for me.
Texas is so full of surprises.
May 20, 2010
Give Peace a Chance?: Encounter Point (Documentary Review)
Netflix summary of Encounter Point:
As violence continues in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, some of those touched by the bloodshed become advocates for peace. This documentary introduces citizens on both sides for whom an end to conflict has become a personal crusade. Family members of slain Palestinians and Israelis, both military and civilian, share their stories and how they've turned their grief into a force for change in the region.
Ahh, another balanced movie about a very balanced conflict. Anything that claims to be balanced in this conflict is on the side of the Jews. The reality is a huge power disparity, where Jews do not suffer as much as Arabs. The director and production company are Israeli.
This is a feel-good movie. I should feel good because I see Jews and Arabs in Israel coming together to talk about their bereavement, become friends, and go to peace rallies together. They go on the radio and say they want peace. But nowhere in the film does a Jewish person say, "The only way to bring peace is through justice. The occupation is unjust and needs to end." One Jewish man publishes his slain daughter's book of poetry about peace. Another Jewish woman goes to a settlement in Gaza and tells the people they are using the same arguments that white people used in apartheid South Africa, but she comes short of calling Israel an apartheid state.
All the same stereotypes of Palestinians are reinforced. The Jews come off calm, collected, and rational. The Palestinians come off as violent and irrational. At a Jewish funeral, everyone is calm and quiet. At the Palestinian funeral, they take to the streets. The Jewish mother is calm when she talks to the reporters. The Palestinian father yells in the microphone at his daughter's funeral. The Palestinian hero of the film, Ali, who lost his brother and his leg, says that he does not have to forgive or love to be peaceful. The Jew speaks of forgiveness. When the Palestinian suggest that Jews and Palestinians should live in peace, he gets laughed at by his friends. Palestinians, however, repeat that they don't want peace, they want resistance. They, themselves, admit to causing violence. When a peace NGO schedules an event in Occupied Territory, the Jewish woman remains calm in resolving the practical difficulties, while the Arab gives up, hangs up on her, and refuses to pick up the phone. The Jewish woman fights on, despite his belligerent immaturity, and because of her perseverance, the meeting happens. He's just smoking cigarettes and a hooka pipe and chatting with his buddies.
What's the problem with reinforcing stereotypes? As long as the world can empathize with one group (Jews) and fear the other (Arabs), the power disparity will stay put. As long as the oppressed is seen as the oppressor (Arabs), nothing changes. No justice, no peace.
Some might claim this movie is pro-Palestinian. Maybe because it clearly shows that Palestinians have every right to be angry and violent. The movie clearly displays all the injustices daily forced upon them. But this still reinforces the stereotype that all Palestinians are violent. Wouldn't you be if you lived in those conditions?
Peace is a band-aid. It is a coping mechanism for grieving families. Never do they get to the point of asking what is causing the problems. They don't get to the point where they say I have to change my fundamental assumptions and my comforts. What does the mantra "Stop the killing" supposed to mean? Isn't the Jew peace advocate just blaming angry Palestinians when she says that?
The character who makes the biggest strides is Shlomo. At the beginning, he is the stereotypical settler. He believes that the Jews should be occupying Palestine, that it is their land. And he believes that now. But he engages in a process. His thinking changes. He comes far. That process started when he met a left-leaning religious Jewish man, who helped him see past the brainwashing of the settlement where he grew up. He goes to checkpoints and asks what is happening. He decides to meet with a Palestinian (Ali) for the first time in his life. He's asking real questions.
No one else in the film displays a critical, flexible mind. In this conflict, like in all conflicts, people need the imaginative capacity to place themselves in other people's shoes. Developing empathy requires a flexible mind that comes from having a critical stance that can evaluate sources and analyze arguments. It's a process that goes against our nature and our socialization. Shlomo's character isn't feel-good. He's disconcerting (because he is an Israeli settler). But he proves to be the real hero. Instead of paying lip service to peace, he's engaging in expanding his mind and questioning all his beliefs. In this film, he is the only one who really gives peace a chance.
As violence continues in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, some of those touched by the bloodshed become advocates for peace. This documentary introduces citizens on both sides for whom an end to conflict has become a personal crusade. Family members of slain Palestinians and Israelis, both military and civilian, share their stories and how they've turned their grief into a force for change in the region.
Ahh, another balanced movie about a very balanced conflict. Anything that claims to be balanced in this conflict is on the side of the Jews. The reality is a huge power disparity, where Jews do not suffer as much as Arabs. The director and production company are Israeli.
This is a feel-good movie. I should feel good because I see Jews and Arabs in Israel coming together to talk about their bereavement, become friends, and go to peace rallies together. They go on the radio and say they want peace. But nowhere in the film does a Jewish person say, "The only way to bring peace is through justice. The occupation is unjust and needs to end." One Jewish man publishes his slain daughter's book of poetry about peace. Another Jewish woman goes to a settlement in Gaza and tells the people they are using the same arguments that white people used in apartheid South Africa, but she comes short of calling Israel an apartheid state.
All the same stereotypes of Palestinians are reinforced. The Jews come off calm, collected, and rational. The Palestinians come off as violent and irrational. At a Jewish funeral, everyone is calm and quiet. At the Palestinian funeral, they take to the streets. The Jewish mother is calm when she talks to the reporters. The Palestinian father yells in the microphone at his daughter's funeral. The Palestinian hero of the film, Ali, who lost his brother and his leg, says that he does not have to forgive or love to be peaceful. The Jew speaks of forgiveness. When the Palestinian suggest that Jews and Palestinians should live in peace, he gets laughed at by his friends. Palestinians, however, repeat that they don't want peace, they want resistance. They, themselves, admit to causing violence. When a peace NGO schedules an event in Occupied Territory, the Jewish woman remains calm in resolving the practical difficulties, while the Arab gives up, hangs up on her, and refuses to pick up the phone. The Jewish woman fights on, despite his belligerent immaturity, and because of her perseverance, the meeting happens. He's just smoking cigarettes and a hooka pipe and chatting with his buddies.
What's the problem with reinforcing stereotypes? As long as the world can empathize with one group (Jews) and fear the other (Arabs), the power disparity will stay put. As long as the oppressed is seen as the oppressor (Arabs), nothing changes. No justice, no peace.
Some might claim this movie is pro-Palestinian. Maybe because it clearly shows that Palestinians have every right to be angry and violent. The movie clearly displays all the injustices daily forced upon them. But this still reinforces the stereotype that all Palestinians are violent. Wouldn't you be if you lived in those conditions?
Peace is a band-aid. It is a coping mechanism for grieving families. Never do they get to the point of asking what is causing the problems. They don't get to the point where they say I have to change my fundamental assumptions and my comforts. What does the mantra "Stop the killing" supposed to mean? Isn't the Jew peace advocate just blaming angry Palestinians when she says that?
The character who makes the biggest strides is Shlomo. At the beginning, he is the stereotypical settler. He believes that the Jews should be occupying Palestine, that it is their land. And he believes that now. But he engages in a process. His thinking changes. He comes far. That process started when he met a left-leaning religious Jewish man, who helped him see past the brainwashing of the settlement where he grew up. He goes to checkpoints and asks what is happening. He decides to meet with a Palestinian (Ali) for the first time in his life. He's asking real questions.
No one else in the film displays a critical, flexible mind. In this conflict, like in all conflicts, people need the imaginative capacity to place themselves in other people's shoes. Developing empathy requires a flexible mind that comes from having a critical stance that can evaluate sources and analyze arguments. It's a process that goes against our nature and our socialization. Shlomo's character isn't feel-good. He's disconcerting (because he is an Israeli settler). But he proves to be the real hero. Instead of paying lip service to peace, he's engaging in expanding his mind and questioning all his beliefs. In this film, he is the only one who really gives peace a chance.
April 17, 2009
The Lemon Tree (Movie Review)
The Lemon Tree depicts the core conflict that daily confronts the Israeli people: How much human suffering must be incurred in order to ensure reasonable security? Israeli director and co-screen writer Eran Riklis's newest film opens with the Israeli Defense Minister moving into a new house right next to the Green Line dividing Israel from the West Bank. The Secret Service forces him to cut down the lemon grove of his widowed Palestinian neighbor, for his family’s safety and "because a terrorist might cross into Israel through the grove." The protagonist, 45-year old Salma, played by Hiam Abbas, has grown up with the lemon grove that her father planted 50 years earlier. Besides remittances from her son in the US, it is her only source of income. When it is decided that it must be destroyed, Salma, “the Palestinian Erin Brockovich” as Riklis dubs her, fights it all the way to the Israeli Supreme Court.
Before last night's screening at the Jewish Community Center on the Upper West Side, Riklis claimed that he wanted to depict the lives of real people, that he wanted to get past politics, that showing the reality is the best hope for the future. He hopes that the film would hit viewers at an emotional level. This reality made it unpalatable for many Israelis, though it received accolades at film festivals throughout Europe.
It is surprising to see an Israeli director, with funds from the Israeli Ministry of Culture, make a movie that brings to light such an appalling feature of Israeli state policy. With the construction of the Security Wall between the West Bank and Israel, more stories of uprooted olive trees have come to light. It's not a new policy of the Israeli state. In the movie itself, we hear that "1,000 (have to confirm this number) trees have been cut down in the last three months." But ultimately, no one but an Israeli could have made this movie. By reinforcing the same stereotypes and scripts about Palestinians, and vindicating Israel's policy, the film ultimately props up an Israeli agenda, and like most of the media, makes a just and peaceful solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict even more untenable.
The central tension of the movie is played out in the relationship between the two female neighbors. Throughout the movie, they look at each other silently through the recently-constructed wire fence. They have chances to speak to each other, but it only happens once. Surrounded by the media and her husband, Mira, the wife of the Israeli Defense Minister, apologizes for stealing some lemons when the caterer for her house-warming party forgot to bring some. Later in the movie, Mira climbs the fence to visit Salma in her house, defying the security guards.
Mira is complicated. Though the viewer anticipates her being drawn to the side of her neighbor, she initially supports her husband's decision. Later, at her party, she is the one who hears the terrorists in the grove, before the first grenade is thrown. As an audience member, you see her dilemma, which is the dilemma of all Israelis. She emotionally connects with her fellow lonely female neighbor, but at the same time she is concerned for her own safety.
Mira is the one who tries to make contact with her neighbor--by being the only one who speaks and by climbing over the fence. In every interaction, Salma remains absolutely silent. The puppy-dog, victimized, almost blank look on her face didn't change throughout the film. It reminded me of Frodo in Lord of the Rings. I kept wondering, how long must we, the audience, be subjected to that pitiful gaze? And the one time a private, personal connection could have been made, Mira (having climbed the fence) sees Salma through the kitchen window, heaped over the counter, weeping. Salma is an object of pity.
In the Q & A period, I questioned Riklis about this depiction of the protagonist. Before the screening, he said he enjoyed working with Hiam Abbass so much in The Syrian Bride (2004) that he wanted to create a new script where she could be the showcase star. And she was in all the trailers and reviews. And yet, he smothers her. She is the stereotypical Arab woman, who for the most part is silent (until her big, moving speech in the courtroom at the end of the movie.) Her disempowered condition is seen in her inability to communicate with or understand basic things that happen around her, since she doesn't speak Hebrew. She must rely on the men to translate for her. (Abbas in The Syrian Bride is a fully bilingual person in her bicultural environment.) Like any Arab woman, she shows her affection and love by making food and cleaning.
She’s also a little strange. She wakes in her bed in the middle of the night, hearing the sounds of the fruit dropping when the grove has not been tended. (It hasn't been tended because the Secret Service enclosed it with a fence and forbade her to go inside. She still sneaks in, though.) She's so ingrained in her traditions, in her poverty, in her land, and she's so lonely that she feels that she should be part of the wolves’ clan that she hears at night coming from the ravine below.
I can identify with Mira. She has to deal with conflicting loyalties. She makes unexpected decisions. She shows courage by attempting to reach out to her neighbor.
But I can't identify with Salma.
The biggest emotional punch for me in the movie, however, was the scene where Salma started throwing lemons at the wire fence. It was the same scene I've seen my whole life—Palestinians throwing rocks against tanks. She’s the crazy, irrational, violent, stubborn Palestinian fighting for her survival against a juggernaut with absolutely no realistic expectation of changing anything. Her fighting in the Israeli judicial system is the same example, though non-violent. Is she an Erin Brockovich? or an irrational, stubborn victim, continuing to fight when all the odds are stacked against her? Her Palestinian lawyer also fits the stereotype--exploiting this case and the surrounding media coverage to land a job with the Palestinian National Authority. Because according to the stereotype, Palestinians don’t try to really help each other, they, instead, use each other for personal advantage.
Other members of the audience seemed to think that the budding romantic relationship between Salma and her young lawyer showed her chutzpah, as well. I strongly resist the tired plotline of a woman oppressed by her traditional society finding her liberation in a sexually illicit affair. Thankfully, Riklis spares us from that.
The director seemed genuinely surprised, and slightly offended, by my comment that I felt that Hiam Abbas's character was static and stereotyped. "How else could I have depicted her?"
That question, for me, sealed the deal. . . This is what it comes down to—
In his eyes, a Palestinian woman really isn't a person. How can she make her own decisions? How can she do something that would surprise an audience member? How can she have internal conflicts with uncertain resolutions?
"You don't know what it's like; that is their society. Those women can't make decisions. They are subjugated by their men. This movie shows her as a hero. How likely would a Palestinian woman stand up for herself?” Riklis said to me.
He believes that Palestinian women cannot stand up for themselves, that they have no voice. It’s the same oft-repeated line of reasoning: that instead of taking responsibility for the effects of their policies, Israelis blame the victims. This line of reasoning follows to a certain conclusion; it goes like this: It is the Palestinian men who keep their women down. It is the Palestinian Muslim terrorist extremists who keep the Palestinians subjugated by fear. These pathetic creatures can't take care of themselves, because their leaders take advantage of them. Therefore democracy doesn't work for them. Therefore we are justified in occupying them.
Presenting Palestinians as objects of pity, as irrational, non-civilized people allows the powers that be to maintain their position. As long as Israelis truly believe that they are better than the Palestinians, they will never leave them to rule themselves--and truly be a democracy, the “only democracy in the Middle East” as they like to call themselves. It is their white man's burden.
I wondered at the beginning of the movie, if it would end with the emotional wallop of bulldozers destroying the lemon grove. Nope. The Israelis being the ultimate just civilization come up with a well-considered nuanced solution that balances all the considerations. The fact that a low-status Palestinian woman even gets her day in court is a testamest to the progressive Israeli society.
But even though the Israelis come off as being ultimately reasonable and clever, the whole premise is fundamentally flawed. There is a legal precedent about "moving to the nuisance." Basically, the Israeli Defense Minister decided to move into a house next to a lemon grove. It was his choice; he didn't have to live there. This isn't a case of eminent domain. So it is unjust to touch her lemon trees, considering he decided to move next to a "security risk."
When I asked the director, "What were the Palestinian critiques of the movie?" he replied, "I don't really look at people's opinions to see if they're Palestinian, or European, or Israeli. It's a human film."
He didn't answer the question. He either didn't know, or just didn't want to say. I think he just didn't know. He did acknowledge at the beginning that it was not favorably received in Israel. Apparently he didn't seek out the opinions of Palestinians. Perhaps because the co-writer of the script is Palestinian, the main actress is Palestinian, and he likes to think of himself as a progressive person who doesn't really harbor any discrimination and racism. Who doesn't like to think of himself as free of discrimination and racism?
The color-blind stance, however, is a position of power. Only the powered majority can use it, such as white people in the US and Israelis in Palestine. Rilkis didn't intend to make a racist (ethnicist?), ultimately destructive movie. He really thought he was doing good. But by presenting and reinforcing the same stereotypes of the Other, the powerful maintain their power. It is what it is—a movie directed by an Israeli, funded by the Israeli government. It ultimately serves the purposes of the Israeli State by vindicating and justifying what critics would claim to be heartless, unjust policies.
Before last night's screening at the Jewish Community Center on the Upper West Side, Riklis claimed that he wanted to depict the lives of real people, that he wanted to get past politics, that showing the reality is the best hope for the future. He hopes that the film would hit viewers at an emotional level. This reality made it unpalatable for many Israelis, though it received accolades at film festivals throughout Europe.
It is surprising to see an Israeli director, with funds from the Israeli Ministry of Culture, make a movie that brings to light such an appalling feature of Israeli state policy. With the construction of the Security Wall between the West Bank and Israel, more stories of uprooted olive trees have come to light. It's not a new policy of the Israeli state. In the movie itself, we hear that "1,000 (have to confirm this number) trees have been cut down in the last three months." But ultimately, no one but an Israeli could have made this movie. By reinforcing the same stereotypes and scripts about Palestinians, and vindicating Israel's policy, the film ultimately props up an Israeli agenda, and like most of the media, makes a just and peaceful solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict even more untenable.
The central tension of the movie is played out in the relationship between the two female neighbors. Throughout the movie, they look at each other silently through the recently-constructed wire fence. They have chances to speak to each other, but it only happens once. Surrounded by the media and her husband, Mira, the wife of the Israeli Defense Minister, apologizes for stealing some lemons when the caterer for her house-warming party forgot to bring some. Later in the movie, Mira climbs the fence to visit Salma in her house, defying the security guards.
Mira is complicated. Though the viewer anticipates her being drawn to the side of her neighbor, she initially supports her husband's decision. Later, at her party, she is the one who hears the terrorists in the grove, before the first grenade is thrown. As an audience member, you see her dilemma, which is the dilemma of all Israelis. She emotionally connects with her fellow lonely female neighbor, but at the same time she is concerned for her own safety.
Mira is the one who tries to make contact with her neighbor--by being the only one who speaks and by climbing over the fence. In every interaction, Salma remains absolutely silent. The puppy-dog, victimized, almost blank look on her face didn't change throughout the film. It reminded me of Frodo in Lord of the Rings. I kept wondering, how long must we, the audience, be subjected to that pitiful gaze? And the one time a private, personal connection could have been made, Mira (having climbed the fence) sees Salma through the kitchen window, heaped over the counter, weeping. Salma is an object of pity.
In the Q & A period, I questioned Riklis about this depiction of the protagonist. Before the screening, he said he enjoyed working with Hiam Abbass so much in The Syrian Bride (2004) that he wanted to create a new script where she could be the showcase star. And she was in all the trailers and reviews. And yet, he smothers her. She is the stereotypical Arab woman, who for the most part is silent (until her big, moving speech in the courtroom at the end of the movie.) Her disempowered condition is seen in her inability to communicate with or understand basic things that happen around her, since she doesn't speak Hebrew. She must rely on the men to translate for her. (Abbas in The Syrian Bride is a fully bilingual person in her bicultural environment.) Like any Arab woman, she shows her affection and love by making food and cleaning.
She’s also a little strange. She wakes in her bed in the middle of the night, hearing the sounds of the fruit dropping when the grove has not been tended. (It hasn't been tended because the Secret Service enclosed it with a fence and forbade her to go inside. She still sneaks in, though.) She's so ingrained in her traditions, in her poverty, in her land, and she's so lonely that she feels that she should be part of the wolves’ clan that she hears at night coming from the ravine below.
I can identify with Mira. She has to deal with conflicting loyalties. She makes unexpected decisions. She shows courage by attempting to reach out to her neighbor.
But I can't identify with Salma.
The biggest emotional punch for me in the movie, however, was the scene where Salma started throwing lemons at the wire fence. It was the same scene I've seen my whole life—Palestinians throwing rocks against tanks. She’s the crazy, irrational, violent, stubborn Palestinian fighting for her survival against a juggernaut with absolutely no realistic expectation of changing anything. Her fighting in the Israeli judicial system is the same example, though non-violent. Is she an Erin Brockovich? or an irrational, stubborn victim, continuing to fight when all the odds are stacked against her? Her Palestinian lawyer also fits the stereotype--exploiting this case and the surrounding media coverage to land a job with the Palestinian National Authority. Because according to the stereotype, Palestinians don’t try to really help each other, they, instead, use each other for personal advantage.
Other members of the audience seemed to think that the budding romantic relationship between Salma and her young lawyer showed her chutzpah, as well. I strongly resist the tired plotline of a woman oppressed by her traditional society finding her liberation in a sexually illicit affair. Thankfully, Riklis spares us from that.
The director seemed genuinely surprised, and slightly offended, by my comment that I felt that Hiam Abbas's character was static and stereotyped. "How else could I have depicted her?"
That question, for me, sealed the deal. . . This is what it comes down to—
In his eyes, a Palestinian woman really isn't a person. How can she make her own decisions? How can she do something that would surprise an audience member? How can she have internal conflicts with uncertain resolutions?
"You don't know what it's like; that is their society. Those women can't make decisions. They are subjugated by their men. This movie shows her as a hero. How likely would a Palestinian woman stand up for herself?” Riklis said to me.
He believes that Palestinian women cannot stand up for themselves, that they have no voice. It’s the same oft-repeated line of reasoning: that instead of taking responsibility for the effects of their policies, Israelis blame the victims. This line of reasoning follows to a certain conclusion; it goes like this: It is the Palestinian men who keep their women down. It is the Palestinian Muslim terrorist extremists who keep the Palestinians subjugated by fear. These pathetic creatures can't take care of themselves, because their leaders take advantage of them. Therefore democracy doesn't work for them. Therefore we are justified in occupying them.
Presenting Palestinians as objects of pity, as irrational, non-civilized people allows the powers that be to maintain their position. As long as Israelis truly believe that they are better than the Palestinians, they will never leave them to rule themselves--and truly be a democracy, the “only democracy in the Middle East” as they like to call themselves. It is their white man's burden.
I wondered at the beginning of the movie, if it would end with the emotional wallop of bulldozers destroying the lemon grove. Nope. The Israelis being the ultimate just civilization come up with a well-considered nuanced solution that balances all the considerations. The fact that a low-status Palestinian woman even gets her day in court is a testamest to the progressive Israeli society.
But even though the Israelis come off as being ultimately reasonable and clever, the whole premise is fundamentally flawed. There is a legal precedent about "moving to the nuisance." Basically, the Israeli Defense Minister decided to move into a house next to a lemon grove. It was his choice; he didn't have to live there. This isn't a case of eminent domain. So it is unjust to touch her lemon trees, considering he decided to move next to a "security risk."
When I asked the director, "What were the Palestinian critiques of the movie?" he replied, "I don't really look at people's opinions to see if they're Palestinian, or European, or Israeli. It's a human film."
He didn't answer the question. He either didn't know, or just didn't want to say. I think he just didn't know. He did acknowledge at the beginning that it was not favorably received in Israel. Apparently he didn't seek out the opinions of Palestinians. Perhaps because the co-writer of the script is Palestinian, the main actress is Palestinian, and he likes to think of himself as a progressive person who doesn't really harbor any discrimination and racism. Who doesn't like to think of himself as free of discrimination and racism?
The color-blind stance, however, is a position of power. Only the powered majority can use it, such as white people in the US and Israelis in Palestine. Rilkis didn't intend to make a racist (ethnicist?), ultimately destructive movie. He really thought he was doing good. But by presenting and reinforcing the same stereotypes of the Other, the powerful maintain their power. It is what it is—a movie directed by an Israeli, funded by the Israeli government. It ultimately serves the purposes of the Israeli State by vindicating and justifying what critics would claim to be heartless, unjust policies.
April 6, 2009
Israel's economic warfare on Palestine
This was buried in an article about the effects of remittances on development and international politics.
"Controls on remittances as a form of economic warfare have been most evident in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In 2000, Israel drastically reduced the number of work permits for Palestinians because of security concerns and instead imported roughly a quarter of a million foreign workers, mostly from East Asia and Africa. Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza saw their gross national income per capita decline by about 30 percent in 2001 and 2002 combined. In contrast, remittance outflows from Israel tripled in the 1990s, to nearly $3 billion in 2001."
--Devesh Kapur and John McHale, "Migration's New Payoff", Foreign Policy, Nov/Dec 2003, p. 55.
"Controls on remittances as a form of economic warfare have been most evident in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In 2000, Israel drastically reduced the number of work permits for Palestinians because of security concerns and instead imported roughly a quarter of a million foreign workers, mostly from East Asia and Africa. Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza saw their gross national income per capita decline by about 30 percent in 2001 and 2002 combined. In contrast, remittance outflows from Israel tripled in the 1990s, to nearly $3 billion in 2001."
--Devesh Kapur and John McHale, "Migration's New Payoff", Foreign Policy, Nov/Dec 2003, p. 55.
January 17, 2009
Open letter to Arab Summit in Kuwait (From an E-mail I received)
Beirut, 15 Jan. 2009
Open letter to Arab Summit in Kuwait.
Excellencies kings and presidents of Arab World,
This is a proposal from Arabic citizen to your highness,
Due to very hard situation in Gaza, your excellencies may stop the Arab Oil Exporting for the same period that Israeli aggression may long on Gaza, and the oil will continue exporting with your conditions when the aggression stops.
Best wishes to your excellencies, finding way which stop the aggression.
Arabic citizen
Fareed Mohsen
Open letter to Arab Summit in Kuwait.
Excellencies kings and presidents of Arab World,
This is a proposal from Arabic citizen to your highness,
Due to very hard situation in Gaza, your excellencies may stop the Arab Oil Exporting for the same period that Israeli aggression may long on Gaza, and the oil will continue exporting with your conditions when the aggression stops.
Best wishes to your excellencies, finding way which stop the aggression.
Arabic citizen
Fareed Mohsen
January 4, 2009
Responding to some comments
Wally asked, "please let us have your opinion as to why Hamas chooses the most populated areas from which to launch their rockets?"
Matt said I don't need to defend Hamas.
So somehow the media is so genius that straight-up carnage is shown on television. Raw #'s 430 Palestinian, 4 Israelis dead. And yet they talk their way out of the reality.
Self-defense against Hamas terrorism. People shouldn't have to live with the constant threat of rockets.
No, no one should live with the constant threat of rockets.
And no one should have to live with no electricity, no medicine, now no food, no freedom of movement, no ability to work, no way to pursue any kind of future, constant surveillance, constant humiliation, illegal occupation, and NOW this kind of bombardment. This is the worst kind of terror. You can see it with your own eyes.
And yet, it gets spinned. Don't empathize with the Palestinians. Empathize with the Israelis. How does this happen?
1) Israelis are Americans. Arabs are not Americans.
2) Palestinians are terrorists. The media and Israelis keep saying the target is Hamas. Hamas is a bad government. Hamas is terrorists. But Hamas is the democratically elected government of a people who are contending with a peace process that has done nothing for them. Gaza is the area of Detroit. Everyone is related to someone or knows someone in Hamas. To some extent there are weapons anywhere, and most of the people would have no idea.
Israel can say they are going after military, terrorist, Hamas targets. But when you ask them what it is. It's the whole of Gaza. Those guys in New York told me that the women are terrorists, and those "children" want them dead. So therefore Israel doesn't have to answer for the numbers of 80 children and 30 women dead. Though the rest of the world would define them as civilians (though of course women can be whatever).
The only way this works is to make a distinction between Hamas and Palestinians. The Israeli/U.S. defenders of these atrocities say that they're targeting Hamas, not Palestinians. But if you really ask them, to them it is all the same. Or in reality, there is no way to make the distinction.
Everyone who asks me to empathize with an Israeli living with the threat of rockets must be able to empathize with a Palestinian living under illegal Israeli occupation.
Neither is right. I'm not justifying Hamas. But I'll justify the right of a Palestinian to live as a human being. Anyone who looks at the TV and keeps empathizing for those people who live where 4 people died, and at the same time refuses to empathize with the people who have to live where 400 have died has no moral ground to stand on.
The cease-fire calls for everyone to stop.
Matt said I don't need to defend Hamas.
So somehow the media is so genius that straight-up carnage is shown on television. Raw #'s 430 Palestinian, 4 Israelis dead. And yet they talk their way out of the reality.
Self-defense against Hamas terrorism. People shouldn't have to live with the constant threat of rockets.
No, no one should live with the constant threat of rockets.
And no one should have to live with no electricity, no medicine, now no food, no freedom of movement, no ability to work, no way to pursue any kind of future, constant surveillance, constant humiliation, illegal occupation, and NOW this kind of bombardment. This is the worst kind of terror. You can see it with your own eyes.
And yet, it gets spinned. Don't empathize with the Palestinians. Empathize with the Israelis. How does this happen?
1) Israelis are Americans. Arabs are not Americans.
2) Palestinians are terrorists. The media and Israelis keep saying the target is Hamas. Hamas is a bad government. Hamas is terrorists. But Hamas is the democratically elected government of a people who are contending with a peace process that has done nothing for them. Gaza is the area of Detroit. Everyone is related to someone or knows someone in Hamas. To some extent there are weapons anywhere, and most of the people would have no idea.
Israel can say they are going after military, terrorist, Hamas targets. But when you ask them what it is. It's the whole of Gaza. Those guys in New York told me that the women are terrorists, and those "children" want them dead. So therefore Israel doesn't have to answer for the numbers of 80 children and 30 women dead. Though the rest of the world would define them as civilians (though of course women can be whatever).
The only way this works is to make a distinction between Hamas and Palestinians. The Israeli/U.S. defenders of these atrocities say that they're targeting Hamas, not Palestinians. But if you really ask them, to them it is all the same. Or in reality, there is no way to make the distinction.
Everyone who asks me to empathize with an Israeli living with the threat of rockets must be able to empathize with a Palestinian living under illegal Israeli occupation.
Neither is right. I'm not justifying Hamas. But I'll justify the right of a Palestinian to live as a human being. Anyone who looks at the TV and keeps empathizing for those people who live where 4 people died, and at the same time refuses to empathize with the people who have to live where 400 have died has no moral ground to stand on.
The cease-fire calls for everyone to stop.
December 31, 2008
How Media Bias Works
When I woke up this morning, this Washington Post article was the first article listed under the Top Stories in my Google News aggregator.
Let’s look at the structure of this article and some quotes to see the media bias and how people who just read American sources will come out in favor of Israel.
1) The article opens by saying that Israel rejected the cease-fire because it needs a guarantee that Hamas will stop firing rockets into Israel.
All the quotes in this entire article come from Israel, or the EU or the White House spokesman who are supporting Israel's position.
2) "By Wednesday afternoon local time a barrage of more than 20 rockets and mortar shells had struck southern Israel, including five that crashed in and around the city of Beersheba, about 25 miles from Gaza. There were no serious casualties reported."
Nowhere in the article does it describe the kinds of terror the entire population of Gaza is living with. They cannot leave; they are imprisoned. But we know that the Israelis have to live with the terror of rockets being fired upon them, that most of the time do not kill anyone. By including three numbers, the writer give us a sense of immediacy and factuality which makes it easier for the reader to relate to a distant place.
3) "Israel continued to pound the Gaza Strip for the fifth day from the air and from the sea, targeting Hamas outposts and the network of tunnels along the Gaza-Egypt border used by the militant group to smuggle weapons, the Israeli military said. "
It does not say they have killed more that 370 people or any of the other extensive damage, especially to non-military targets. There is one number (fifth day). Many other very important numbers are noticeably missing.
The reason for the Israeli violence is made clear: targeting military installations. A justification is made clear. It says nothing of non-military casualties and damage.
4) Israel "consider[ed]" and "publicly weighed" a ceasefire. "Hamas, meanwhile, vowed to continue firing rockets."
So Israelis are very rational and civilized, but Hamas is just violent and shoots rockets for no reason. This source does not go into any of the reasons for Hamas's behavior or actions, but as noted, the article shows how Israel's (seemingly indefensible) actions are justified.
5) “Since Israel withdrew its soldiers and settlements from Gaza in 2005, rockets launched from the strip into Israel have killed 13 civilians, according to the Israeli government.”
It gives the numbers of Israeli casualties. It doesn’t say how many people the Israelis have killed. I can guarantee it’s a lot more than 13. Nowhere in the article does it say how many people in Gaza have died or the extent of the damage.
6) "Israel allowed 93 trucks into Gaza -- 50 with humanitarian supplies and the rest with commercial goods. The humanitarian shipments included flour, rice, sugar, lentils and medication -- all donated by aid groups."
Great details, and absolutely no details about the extent of the humanitarian disaster and chaos. How many people don't have electricity or water or food or basic sanitary conditions or even houses?
7) " Israel has not allowed foreign reporters into Gaza since its operation began Saturday. "
So then what kind of information is coming out? Is the Washington Post saying this to cover its ass, for not getting quotes from the other side? There are plenty of journalists and bloggers and photographers inside who are selling all kinds of information. This is the only economy right now in the Occupied Territories. If they wanted to, they could present some details and numbers and even justifications from the other side.
The New York Times article (now listed as #1 in the Google News aggregator) is essentially the same, emphasizing the diplomatic measures Israel is considering and how much humanitarian aid they're allowing in. It includes many details of rockets being fired into Israel, and hitting an "empty school". No description at all of the situation in Gaza. I have no picture what it is like there. But they do say "punishing air attacks". But they are punishing, since Gazans clearly brought it upon themselves. Again, absolutely no way of explaining their rational reasons for engaging in the actions that they do.
But they do include "Palestinian officials say that more than 370 people have been killed, among them, the United Nations says, at least 62 women and children and an unknown number of civilian men. Two sisters, ages 4 and 11, were killed in a strike in the north as concern was growing around the world that the assault was taking a terrible toll on civilians."
And then in the second page, they include the details I'm looking for: quotes from the Gazans and images. They're joking about the specific way they will be incinerated as they wait in lines for four hours to purchase necessities that are in short supply. There is no electricity, but this is "for the first time." I beg to differ with that.
And of course, they put in this quote, "When asked his view of the situation, Yousef took an unusual stand for someone in Gaza, where Israel is being cursed by most everyone. 'I blame Hamas. It doesn’t want to recognize Israel. If they did so there could be peace,' he said." That quote was in the article before the NYT found someone to give it to them. I know how that works. During the July War in Lebanon, I talked on the phone with a reporter from Fox who needed a foreign student who was really scared and thankful that their government was giving them a free ride. They already had the article written; they just needed a name to fill in.
In the New York Times, the #4 most popular e-mailed article right now is an Op-Ed entitled "Why Israel Feels Threatened". As if we need to hear the same things again and again: painting themselves as a victim. "The Holocaust is increasingly becoming a faint and ineffectual memory and the Arab states are increasingly powerful and assertive." Where does it talk about what it's like to live as an Arab in the Occupied Territories? It would be so hard to believe. Americans would say it's a lie. They wouldn't understand. They wouldn't want to be implicated in the extent of the human rights abuses. Check out alternative sources of media, like Electronic Intifada. Look at the other side. It is shocking.
Let’s look at the structure of this article and some quotes to see the media bias and how people who just read American sources will come out in favor of Israel.
1) The article opens by saying that Israel rejected the cease-fire because it needs a guarantee that Hamas will stop firing rockets into Israel.
All the quotes in this entire article come from Israel, or the EU or the White House spokesman who are supporting Israel's position.
2) "By Wednesday afternoon local time a barrage of more than 20 rockets and mortar shells had struck southern Israel, including five that crashed in and around the city of Beersheba, about 25 miles from Gaza. There were no serious casualties reported."
Nowhere in the article does it describe the kinds of terror the entire population of Gaza is living with. They cannot leave; they are imprisoned. But we know that the Israelis have to live with the terror of rockets being fired upon them, that most of the time do not kill anyone. By including three numbers, the writer give us a sense of immediacy and factuality which makes it easier for the reader to relate to a distant place.
3) "Israel continued to pound the Gaza Strip for the fifth day from the air and from the sea, targeting Hamas outposts and the network of tunnels along the Gaza-Egypt border used by the militant group to smuggle weapons, the Israeli military said. "
It does not say they have killed more that 370 people or any of the other extensive damage, especially to non-military targets. There is one number (fifth day). Many other very important numbers are noticeably missing.
The reason for the Israeli violence is made clear: targeting military installations. A justification is made clear. It says nothing of non-military casualties and damage.
4) Israel "consider[ed]" and "publicly weighed" a ceasefire. "Hamas, meanwhile, vowed to continue firing rockets."
So Israelis are very rational and civilized, but Hamas is just violent and shoots rockets for no reason. This source does not go into any of the reasons for Hamas's behavior or actions, but as noted, the article shows how Israel's (seemingly indefensible) actions are justified.
5) “Since Israel withdrew its soldiers and settlements from Gaza in 2005, rockets launched from the strip into Israel have killed 13 civilians, according to the Israeli government.”
It gives the numbers of Israeli casualties. It doesn’t say how many people the Israelis have killed. I can guarantee it’s a lot more than 13. Nowhere in the article does it say how many people in Gaza have died or the extent of the damage.
6) "Israel allowed 93 trucks into Gaza -- 50 with humanitarian supplies and the rest with commercial goods. The humanitarian shipments included flour, rice, sugar, lentils and medication -- all donated by aid groups."
Great details, and absolutely no details about the extent of the humanitarian disaster and chaos. How many people don't have electricity or water or food or basic sanitary conditions or even houses?
7) " Israel has not allowed foreign reporters into Gaza since its operation began Saturday. "
So then what kind of information is coming out? Is the Washington Post saying this to cover its ass, for not getting quotes from the other side? There are plenty of journalists and bloggers and photographers inside who are selling all kinds of information. This is the only economy right now in the Occupied Territories. If they wanted to, they could present some details and numbers and even justifications from the other side.
The New York Times article (now listed as #1 in the Google News aggregator) is essentially the same, emphasizing the diplomatic measures Israel is considering and how much humanitarian aid they're allowing in. It includes many details of rockets being fired into Israel, and hitting an "empty school". No description at all of the situation in Gaza. I have no picture what it is like there. But they do say "punishing air attacks". But they are punishing, since Gazans clearly brought it upon themselves. Again, absolutely no way of explaining their rational reasons for engaging in the actions that they do.
But they do include "Palestinian officials say that more than 370 people have been killed, among them, the United Nations says, at least 62 women and children and an unknown number of civilian men. Two sisters, ages 4 and 11, were killed in a strike in the north as concern was growing around the world that the assault was taking a terrible toll on civilians."
And then in the second page, they include the details I'm looking for: quotes from the Gazans and images. They're joking about the specific way they will be incinerated as they wait in lines for four hours to purchase necessities that are in short supply. There is no electricity, but this is "for the first time." I beg to differ with that.
And of course, they put in this quote, "When asked his view of the situation, Yousef took an unusual stand for someone in Gaza, where Israel is being cursed by most everyone. 'I blame Hamas. It doesn’t want to recognize Israel. If they did so there could be peace,' he said." That quote was in the article before the NYT found someone to give it to them. I know how that works. During the July War in Lebanon, I talked on the phone with a reporter from Fox who needed a foreign student who was really scared and thankful that their government was giving them a free ride. They already had the article written; they just needed a name to fill in.
In the New York Times, the #4 most popular e-mailed article right now is an Op-Ed entitled "Why Israel Feels Threatened". As if we need to hear the same things again and again: painting themselves as a victim. "The Holocaust is increasingly becoming a faint and ineffectual memory and the Arab states are increasingly powerful and assertive." Where does it talk about what it's like to live as an Arab in the Occupied Territories? It would be so hard to believe. Americans would say it's a lie. They wouldn't understand. They wouldn't want to be implicated in the extent of the human rights abuses. Check out alternative sources of media, like Electronic Intifada. Look at the other side. It is shocking.
December 30, 2008
Get Involved--Protest, Donate, Sign Petition
There are many protests today. To find locations and times of protests in your area, go to http://answer.pephost.org/site/
News2?abbr=ANS_&page=NewsArticle&id=8871&news_iv_ctrl=1621
To donate money to organizations doing relief work, go to http://www.aaiusa.org/get-involved/3734/aai-statement-on-gaza-crisis
I don't know how on-line petitions work, but if you want to sign one: http://www.avaaz.org/en/gaza_time_for_peace/
News2?abbr=ANS_&page=NewsArticle&id=8871&news_iv_ctrl=1621
To donate money to organizations doing relief work, go to http://www.aaiusa.org/get-involved/3734/aai-statement-on-gaza-crisis
I don't know how on-line petitions work, but if you want to sign one: http://www.avaaz.org/en/gaza_time_for_peace/
Protesting Israeli attacks in Gaza
Sunday afternoon, I met a friend in front of Rockefeller Center to protest the Israeli massacres in Gaza. After receiving an e-mail that morning, I forwarded it to at least 20 people who live in New York. Only one got back to me. A guy who had lived in Beirut for two years.
Supposedly, there were 3000 people. I couldn't tell. It was all very organized. The police were very present and professional. They closed streets so we could pass through. I didn't get that feeling that at any moment I could get squished by the crowd, like I would feel in protests in Beirut.
There were Hassidic Jews with signs that said "The Jewish People Will Never Recognize the State of Israel." "Israel is Not a Jewish State"
I got passed a sign from a guy who had to leave early that said "No More Dollars for Israeli War Crimes." I liked that message. Some of the better slogans we chanted included: "Shame, Shame, USA. Helping Israel all the way." "No more nickels. No more dimes. No more money for Israeli crimes." "Stop the killing. Stop the crime. Get Israel out of Palestine." "End the Occupation Now." Of course, there was the tried and true: "No justice. No peace." The one in Arabic they said a lot was, "In spirit, In blood, We will sacrifice ourselves for you, O Palestine." The most common chants were: "Free, Free Palestine" and "Free, Free Gaza"
Some of the signs said, "Killing Children is Not Self Defense" "Stop the U.S.-Israeli Attacks on the Gaza" "Stop the Holocaust Against Palestinian People" "Stop US Funding of Israeli Murder Machine" "Might Does Not Make Right" "Stop Zionist Genocide in Gaza"
I wasn't down with all the messages, especially when they started yelling "Intifada" or "Allahu Akbar." I don't think it helps the cause to reinforce stereotypes that Arabs are violent and scary. But of course, what would you do in that situation? There's boiling anger and that nauseous feeling in the pit of my stomach--it comes out however the hell it comes out. Why should people think rationally about whether or not they're reinforcing stereotypes? They're angry and sick. I'm angry and sick. If more people were just angry and sick, no one would have to worry about how others portray them.
Supposedly, there were 3000 people. I couldn't tell. It was all very organized. The police were very present and professional. They closed streets so we could pass through. I didn't get that feeling that at any moment I could get squished by the crowd, like I would feel in protests in Beirut.
There were Hassidic Jews with signs that said "The Jewish People Will Never Recognize the State of Israel." "Israel is Not a Jewish State"
I got passed a sign from a guy who had to leave early that said "No More Dollars for Israeli War Crimes." I liked that message. Some of the better slogans we chanted included: "Shame, Shame, USA. Helping Israel all the way." "No more nickels. No more dimes. No more money for Israeli crimes." "Stop the killing. Stop the crime. Get Israel out of Palestine." "End the Occupation Now." Of course, there was the tried and true: "No justice. No peace." The one in Arabic they said a lot was, "In spirit, In blood, We will sacrifice ourselves for you, O Palestine." The most common chants were: "Free, Free Palestine" and "Free, Free Gaza"
Some of the signs said, "Killing Children is Not Self Defense" "Stop the U.S.-Israeli Attacks on the Gaza" "Stop the Holocaust Against Palestinian People" "Stop US Funding of Israeli Murder Machine" "Might Does Not Make Right" "Stop Zionist Genocide in Gaza"
I wasn't down with all the messages, especially when they started yelling "Intifada" or "Allahu Akbar." I don't think it helps the cause to reinforce stereotypes that Arabs are violent and scary. But of course, what would you do in that situation? There's boiling anger and that nauseous feeling in the pit of my stomach--it comes out however the hell it comes out. Why should people think rationally about whether or not they're reinforcing stereotypes? They're angry and sick. I'm angry and sick. If more people were just angry and sick, no one would have to worry about how others portray them.
May 18, 2008
Talking Politics (on the 60th Anniversary of the Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine)
Here in Lebanon, I feel like I see things from all sides, having befriended people from all the religious sects, and having lived in three different neighborhoods, representing three of the major sects. I’m not with any political party. Actually, I’m against all of them. There’s no one I support. They’re all power-hungry thugs.
So then, can I be like this when it comes to Israel? I make it pretty obvious where I stand on this. When I’m in the US and especially New York or around my fellow former Harvard classmates, it comes up way too much. Here, in Lebanon, it’s a non-issue. I don’t have to explain or defend myself. Everybody, no matter what her background, is on the same page.
Isn’t it silly to make politics so important? To have it be something that could divide people. Here in Lebanon, it’s obvious how political leanings lead to violence. But when I’m in the US, I experience a kind of violence, also. When I talk to people who are “educated” who really think Israel is justified in its policies, I feel under attack. It’s one of the things I hate most about being in the US.
I ask myself: Are these people completely ignorant or do they just not have souls? Of course, I want to think it’s the former. Can I blame people who are only fed the Western media? Maybe they just don’t know any better? But then I think, Daaaag, they have fancy college degrees and have fancy professional jobs. Some people get paid a lot to be consultants and lawyers, to do research and analysis, which means they should have some understanding of world events and issues. And yet, I know people who have all these qualifications and still think that Israel is justified in its ethnic cleansing policies. (They, of course, don’t call it ethnic cleansing.)
My friend, one of those NYC law-firm lawyers, says that the brainwashing/propoganda is non-stop. He goes to fancy dinners and events all the time, and gets his heartstrings pulled as to the sad situation of Israelis who have to live with the constant threat of terrorism. Of course, after September 11, they have a receptive audience in NYC.
Oh wait, back to the issue. Can I put myself in their shoes? Let’s see. Being educated in the US, I’ve read a very good amount of Holocaust literature (The Chosen in 7th Grade, The Diary of Anne Frank in 8th grade, Night, Survival in Auschwitz, Maus). It’s like it’s in my blood. But did I ever read anything about Al Nakba (it means catastrophe in Arabic–the Palestinian version of 1948)? Were there any excerpts by Arabs, Palestinians or Arab-Americans in the school anthologies when I was a student? (Today there are.) Every time I visited Washington, D.C., about four times in my life, I visited the Holocaust Museum. I wanted to. It’s important. My first day at Harvard, a Jewish kid who lived downstairs from me, tried to indoctrinate me with the whole party line (after he found out I was Jewish.) It goes something like this:
1) We’re a small speck in a sea of Arabs who hate us and want to decimate us at any given moment.
2) Everyone else hates us and have tried to ethnically cleanse us throughout history. We’ve never been welcome anywhere.
3) We worked so hard tilling the desert and set up the best military and spy network in the world and miraculously (1967) managed to carve out a small space for ourselves.
4) And anyways, you’re a Christian. You know that God promised us this land.
Christian Zionism makes me ashamed to call myself Christian, and it’s not even theologically Christian anyways. According to my reading of the Bible, the chosen people are those who follow Jesus, who come from any racial or ethnic background. Our Promised Land is not a specific piece of earth; our inheritance and home is in heaven.
Am I big hypocrite? Am I really looking at all sides of the Israeli-Palestinian issue? I like to think so. I have all kinds of information. I’ve made a rational decision based on collecting and evaluating different evidence.
What is this evidence? First, look at news sources that aren’t American. Second, talk to the Palestinians you know. (Do you think they’re all liars?) My American friend who lived in the West Bank throughout the 80s (during the first intifada) talks about:
• Israeli soldiers stopping little kids with plastic bags. Because Israel had banned schools, neighborhoods set up home-school networks. If kids had books, they’d be sent back home.
• Having to break curfew one night to get her kids medicine, a teen-aged Israeli soldier was high and started yelling at her. When she flicked him off in response, he almost shot her. She was saved by his friend who pushed him back.
• A “break your bones” policy where Israel soldiers would come in the middle of the night, pull men from their houses, and beat them up. One night, they let up on her husband because she was really loud and bitchy and American.
More commonly cited features of the Israeli occupation of Palestine, include:
• A landscape completely divided by roadblocks and checkpoints. People can’t visit their relatives in neighboring villages. What should be 10-15 minute trips take hours. People can’t get to their jobs.
• A deliberate policy of bulldozing and burning thousands of ancient olive trees, which symbolize the land and roots of the people. The Israeli Defense Force justifies itself in its need to “build settlements, expand roads and lay infrastructure.” Besides the fact that they are a major commercial crop which many families depend on for their livelihood.
• Humiliation, physical and verbal abuse.
There are only a million documentaries and books on the subject. Go to your public library. I highly recommend Palestine by Joe Sacco. Get some factsheets from http://endtheoccupation.org/. For some information and analysis about media bias, go to http://www.doublestandards.org/biaspale.html and http://www.ifamericansknew.org/media/. Any Internet search will bring up all kinds of first-hand accounts and photos of the situation. This is not difficult or hard-to-find evidence. It’s just that some people don’t want to see it.
Israeli policy towards its Palestinian population is very bad, and the US should not support it. US policy in the Middle East is very bad, and it needs to change. US domestic policy that keeps more than 1% of its population (the highest in the world) in prison is a sore human rights violation.
People get offended when I talk about Israel. I get offended that these people haven’t looked at very clear and abundant evidence or have an agenda to obfuscate it. I get offended when people justify, support, and propogate basic human rights abuses.
So then, can I be like this when it comes to Israel? I make it pretty obvious where I stand on this. When I’m in the US and especially New York or around my fellow former Harvard classmates, it comes up way too much. Here, in Lebanon, it’s a non-issue. I don’t have to explain or defend myself. Everybody, no matter what her background, is on the same page.
Isn’t it silly to make politics so important? To have it be something that could divide people. Here in Lebanon, it’s obvious how political leanings lead to violence. But when I’m in the US, I experience a kind of violence, also. When I talk to people who are “educated” who really think Israel is justified in its policies, I feel under attack. It’s one of the things I hate most about being in the US.
I ask myself: Are these people completely ignorant or do they just not have souls? Of course, I want to think it’s the former. Can I blame people who are only fed the Western media? Maybe they just don’t know any better? But then I think, Daaaag, they have fancy college degrees and have fancy professional jobs. Some people get paid a lot to be consultants and lawyers, to do research and analysis, which means they should have some understanding of world events and issues. And yet, I know people who have all these qualifications and still think that Israel is justified in its ethnic cleansing policies. (They, of course, don’t call it ethnic cleansing.)
My friend, one of those NYC law-firm lawyers, says that the brainwashing/propoganda is non-stop. He goes to fancy dinners and events all the time, and gets his heartstrings pulled as to the sad situation of Israelis who have to live with the constant threat of terrorism. Of course, after September 11, they have a receptive audience in NYC.
Oh wait, back to the issue. Can I put myself in their shoes? Let’s see. Being educated in the US, I’ve read a very good amount of Holocaust literature (The Chosen in 7th Grade, The Diary of Anne Frank in 8th grade, Night, Survival in Auschwitz, Maus). It’s like it’s in my blood. But did I ever read anything about Al Nakba (it means catastrophe in Arabic–the Palestinian version of 1948)? Were there any excerpts by Arabs, Palestinians or Arab-Americans in the school anthologies when I was a student? (Today there are.) Every time I visited Washington, D.C., about four times in my life, I visited the Holocaust Museum. I wanted to. It’s important. My first day at Harvard, a Jewish kid who lived downstairs from me, tried to indoctrinate me with the whole party line (after he found out I was Jewish.) It goes something like this:
1) We’re a small speck in a sea of Arabs who hate us and want to decimate us at any given moment.
2) Everyone else hates us and have tried to ethnically cleanse us throughout history. We’ve never been welcome anywhere.
3) We worked so hard tilling the desert and set up the best military and spy network in the world and miraculously (1967) managed to carve out a small space for ourselves.
4) And anyways, you’re a Christian. You know that God promised us this land.
Christian Zionism makes me ashamed to call myself Christian, and it’s not even theologically Christian anyways. According to my reading of the Bible, the chosen people are those who follow Jesus, who come from any racial or ethnic background. Our Promised Land is not a specific piece of earth; our inheritance and home is in heaven.
Am I big hypocrite? Am I really looking at all sides of the Israeli-Palestinian issue? I like to think so. I have all kinds of information. I’ve made a rational decision based on collecting and evaluating different evidence.
What is this evidence? First, look at news sources that aren’t American. Second, talk to the Palestinians you know. (Do you think they’re all liars?) My American friend who lived in the West Bank throughout the 80s (during the first intifada) talks about:
• Israeli soldiers stopping little kids with plastic bags. Because Israel had banned schools, neighborhoods set up home-school networks. If kids had books, they’d be sent back home.
• Having to break curfew one night to get her kids medicine, a teen-aged Israeli soldier was high and started yelling at her. When she flicked him off in response, he almost shot her. She was saved by his friend who pushed him back.
• A “break your bones” policy where Israel soldiers would come in the middle of the night, pull men from their houses, and beat them up. One night, they let up on her husband because she was really loud and bitchy and American.
More commonly cited features of the Israeli occupation of Palestine, include:
• A landscape completely divided by roadblocks and checkpoints. People can’t visit their relatives in neighboring villages. What should be 10-15 minute trips take hours. People can’t get to their jobs.
• A deliberate policy of bulldozing and burning thousands of ancient olive trees, which symbolize the land and roots of the people. The Israeli Defense Force justifies itself in its need to “build settlements, expand roads and lay infrastructure.” Besides the fact that they are a major commercial crop which many families depend on for their livelihood.
• Humiliation, physical and verbal abuse.
There are only a million documentaries and books on the subject. Go to your public library. I highly recommend Palestine by Joe Sacco. Get some factsheets from http://endtheoccupation.org/. For some information and analysis about media bias, go to http://www.doublestandards.org/biaspale.html and http://www.ifamericansknew.org/media/. Any Internet search will bring up all kinds of first-hand accounts and photos of the situation. This is not difficult or hard-to-find evidence. It’s just that some people don’t want to see it.
Israeli policy towards its Palestinian population is very bad, and the US should not support it. US policy in the Middle East is very bad, and it needs to change. US domestic policy that keeps more than 1% of its population (the highest in the world) in prison is a sore human rights violation.
People get offended when I talk about Israel. I get offended that these people haven’t looked at very clear and abundant evidence or have an agenda to obfuscate it. I get offended when people justify, support, and propogate basic human rights abuses.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)