The meaning of solidarity in the Palestine movement

Palestinians have been denied the right to narrate their experience of oppression and to lead their struggle for liberation for too long.  The official Palestinian leadership has helped maintain this silencing by participating in sham “peace processes” like the Oslo Accords, which ended in the creation of a Palestinian Authority (PA) that fails to represent Palestinians.  It is estimated that between 28 and 32 percent of the PA budget goes to policing and prisons, not to protect Palestinians–but to control them.
 
Palestinian voices are also silenced in Palestinian liberation organizing in the United States.  Whether through accusing Palestinians of bigotry, impatience with Palestinians’ internalized oppression, or as a result of tokenization, racism, Islamophobia or Jewish privilege, Palestine solidarity work in the U.S. all too often contributes to the disempowerment of Palestinians and acts to represent them, rather than allowing them to speak for themselves.  I will address some of the ways silencing of Palestinians takes place in Palestine organizing with the aim of encouraging introspection within our movement.
 
Solidarity means encouraging Palestinian leadership

There is no one Palestinian leadership.  Oppression and exile have created divisions in the Palestinian polity and Palestinians have never had truly representative governance.  This division serves Israel well and is a major source of concern for many Palestinians, some of whom have called for direct elections to a Palestinian National Council representative of Palestinians across the globe.  The division between the PA and Hamas, fomented by the U.S., also serves Israeli interests.  Criticizing the lack of Palestinian leadership without this context is disingenuous.  The results of Zionist policies of fragmentation are often misunderstood by U.S. allies as political backwardness.  It is important for non-Palestinians allies to examine all the ways in which this mostly unspoken and unconscious understanding of Palestinian capabilities shapes our organizing.
 
In contrast to official Palestinian bodies, the Palestinian BDS National Committee (BNC) and the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI) are examples of Palestinian grassroots leadership.  The 2005 call for boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) against Israel until it honors the fundamental rights of Palestinians has been endorsed by civil society organizations inside the West Bank and Gaza, inside Israel, and in the diaspora. The BNC and PACBI have outlined in detail the principles that guide BDS work.  At a bare minimum, solidarity activists engaged in BDS work should become familiar with these published principles and guidelines.  Specifically, the BDS leadership and the wider Palestinian community have been clear that Palestinian liberation work is incompatible with any form of racism or bigotry.  However, at times when individuals in the U.S. movement have been called out for their bigotry, they have reacted with defensiveness and have revealed underlying feelings of racism and Islamophobia.  

Some “allies” have accused Palestinians of collaboration with Zionist interests when their misrepresentation of Palestinian politics or their anti-Semitism was challenged.  One individual involved in Palestine work accused the BNC of giving up the right of return in exchange for funding from George Soros who he characterized as a “soft Zionist”.  Another resorted to Islamophobic name-calling to attack a Palestinian who challenged her when she posted an anti-Semitic video. Still another published a photo of a Palestinian who had been critical of racist motivations in organizing next to photos of Abe Foxman and Alan Dershowitz to imply that they were all in cahoots to silence “dissident” voices. These actions demonstrate that some involved in our work have motivations that are incompatible with Palestinian liberation and solidarity.  
 
Solidarity means accepting insight into the Palestinian perspective as an opportunity, not as a personal attack. We are all learning and no Palestinian expects non-Palestinian allies to fully understand their experience.  Palestinian activists within solidarity organizations should be given space to discuss issues of oppression apart from the larger group without these discussions being seen as a threat to non-Palestinian allies.  It is imperative that Palestinians have space to sort out their priorities and identify the ways that racism may impact their work.  When they are ready, these Palestinian caucuses should feel welcome to report back to other allies in the organization.  It is also important for non-Palestinian allies to discuss the ways their privilege and power may affect Palestinians in their organizing.  

“I wish more Palestinians would get involved”

There is a prevailing lament among U.S. Palestine solidarity organizations that relatively few Palestinians have joined their work.  This is worth examining. 
 
No doubt, Islamophobia and anti-Arab xenophobia in the United States have played a role in keeping Palestinians out of political organizing.  In addition, Palestinians often suffer from internalized oppression and thus subject themselves to self-censorship.  The constant bashing of Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims in our society takes an emotional and psychological toll on people within those communities.  There are times when I encounter a strange loop in my own head when facing discrimination that somehow I may deserve the ill-treatment.  I quickly come to my senses, but the fact that it is present in someone like me with a great deal of political awareness is telling. 

Palestinians in the United States along with other Arab-Americans and Muslims face real consequences for their political activism including physical and verbal attacks, business losses, denial of promotion or tenure, employment termination, government surveillance, and even imprisonment.  In 1985, Palestinian-AmericanAlex Odeh was assassinated in Santa Ana, California for his activism.  More recently, Palestinian-American Hatem Abudayyeh remains the target of an aggressive FBI investigation because of his political organizing. In 2010, his Chicago home was raided by the FBI and then his personal bank accounts were frozen. 

There are many hurdles to engaging Palestinians in the work.  However, if we seek to create new communities and systems that reflect our anti-racist and anti-oppression principles, it is incumbent upon Palestine solidarity organizations to thoughtfully seek ways to involve Palestinians in their leadership. Creating anti-oppression organizations means more than diversity and integration.  It often means slowing down our agenda to make sure Palestinians are involved in the work from the first step, rather than being expected to follow.  

Solidarity means stepping back and listening to those most impacted by Israel’s oppression.  This takes time and patience, resources that are often missing among goal-oriented political activists.  Sometimes it means that allies should encourage Palestinians who may not have prior experience in organizing or public speaking to trust in themselves.  This means yielding the floor and allowing Palestinians to learn and make mistakes. It also means refraining from making judgments about or excluding Palestinians who are not as “progressive” or don’t meet some arbitrary litmus test regarding their political analysis. 

Are we prepared to help provide organizing frameworks for Palestinians that foster their leadership?  Many Jewish allies and other seasoned white activists have a long history of social justice organizing in this country and have had mentors and role models on which to shape their anti-oppression work.  Being a more recent immigrant population in the United States, Palestinians may have fewer models to draw on.  It has been easy for some allies to fall victim to internalized feelings of superiority when working with Palestinians.  
 
In the church divestment work that took place last year, I was invited to attend meetings of the assemblies considering resolutions on the issue because I am a Palestinian Christian.  I am uncomfortable with the identity of Palestinian Christian because–thankfully–Palestinians have not fallen into sectarian traps that divide along religious lines.  I challenge church allies working on Palestine to invite Palestinian Muslims to their meetings in the coming years as divestment is considered.  We must create spaces for listening to the broad spectrum of Palestinian stories.  We cannot do that by excluding the majority of Palestinians who happen to be Muslims.  When will we be comfortable with men with beards and women in veils addressing Christian congregations?  Some in the churches would argue that it is strategic to use Palestinian Christians to address American Christian groups, but this is not an acceptable excuse for excluding Palestinian Muslims.  This approach accommodates racism and Islamophobia and purports to “help” Palestinians by disempowering them.
  
The role of Jewish allies in the Palestine movement

In my view, the main role of Jewish allies in Palestine work is to strive to open spaces for Palestinians to narrate their history for themselves and to create ways for Palestinians to lead the process of their own liberation.  Jewish allies should challenge the common wisdom around discourse on Palestine/Israel that affords greater credibility to Jewish commentary on Israel.  Jewish Voice for Peace has made great strides creating space for Palestinians to be heard. There remains much work to do.  In the last several years, I have attended panel discussions where only Jews were invited to speak at local universities about Palestine/Israel.  I wonder if these institutions would organize a panel on racism in the United States without any African American participants. 

Another way Jewish identity plays a role in Palestine activism is in efforts to engage Jewish establishment organizations. I have been approached by well-meaning Jewish allies to speak within Jewish establishment venues or with “liberal” Zionists. Once the rabbi or Hillel leader meets me, these Jewish allies assure me, their opinions on the issue of Palestine will change.  It has been delicate and difficult to navigate these wishes as I consider those making the requests friends and I believe it is important to meet people where they are in their political journey.  However, I cannot help but feel tokenized and used as an example of a “civilized” Palestinian.  It is as if they want to say, “Look, she’s a modern and educated Palestinian.  Isn’t she deserving of rights?” In the end, it’s not personal, it’s political.

Convincing Zionists of the human dignity and worth of Palestinians is not my priority.  Dismantling Zionism within the Jewish establishment is essential.   I wonder if some Jewish allies invite me in as part of an effort to address collective guilt for Jewish responsibility for the oppression of Palestinians.  But is it the job of Palestinians to make Jews feel less culpable or guilty for Zionism? It is not productive for Palestinians to engage in interpersonal relationship-building that fails to acknowledge or bring about political solutions to structural inequalities and violence. 

I understand that there are enormous issues facing American Jews who support Palestinian liberation.  Creating spaces within Jewish communities and families, reclaiming Judaism from Zionism, and discovering one’s identity within Judaism are vital endeavors.  However, it is important to remember that these individual and communal struggles are not necessarily Palestine liberation work.  I encourage Jewish allies committed to Palestinian liberation to examine how much priority should be given to influencing Jewish organizations that support Zionism. Palestinians will always be on the periphery of this focus.  In contrast, organizing sustainable and movement-building BDS campaigns that create a mainstream constituency for Palestinian rights, together in solidarity, will produce meaningful and effective dialogue on how to end Israel’s crimes and will model the future we hope to create.
 
In conclusion, the challenge for Palestine organizers in the United States is one of reflection on who has power and agency in our movement.  This reflection requires organizations to think about who is at the table and who is missing.  The first step may be establishing ways for white, Christian, and Jewish allies to hold themselves accountable for the privilege and power they possess by calling out racism, Islamophobia, and oppression where it occurs. When these mechanisms are in place, Palestinians may be encouraged to take a seat at the table.

(Source / 16.05.2013) 

Dutch probe sends warning to firms abetting Israel’s crimes

Corporate complicity in Israel’s occupation potentially carries the risk of criminal prosecution.

This week sees the conclusion of a three-year criminal investigation into the Dutch crane company, Riwal, accused of complicity in war crimes and crimes against humanity in the occupied West Bank. The case is unprecedented as it is the first time a company has been criminally investigated for involvement in the Israeli occupation.

Although the case has not resulted in a prosecution, it is nonetheless an important step for those seeking justice for human rights abuses committed against Palestinians. The case sends a clear message to the corporate sector: complicity in Israel’s occupation potentially carries the risk of criminal prosecution.

The case started with a complaint submitted to the Dutch prosecutor by the Palestinian human rights organization Al-Haq in March 2010. The complaint documented the involvement of Riwal’s cranes and aerial platforms in constructing Israel’s wall and illegal settlements in the West Bank. It prompted the prosecutor to launch a large-scale investigation into the company’s activities, including a raid on company headquarters in September 2010.

The investigation established that the company contributed to constructing the wall and settlements in at least six incidents mentioned in the complaint. However, the prosecutor cited various considerations, including the complexity of the case, limited resources and the likely lack of cooperation by Israel in obtaining further evidence, as reasons not to pursue a prosecution. There is a right of appeal against the prosecutor’s decision, which can also be reconsidered if circumstances change or in light of new evidence.

Significant

Despite the lack of prosecution, the decision by the prosecutor to open the investigation, and to pursue it for as long he did, is legally significant. It means the prosecutor accepted two assertions at the heart of the complaint. First, the construction of the wall and settlements in the occupied West Bank entails the commission of war crimes. Second, that companies involved in this construction may be complicit in, and hence legally responsible for, those crimes.

The case therefore supports the assertions that have been made by lawyers and human rights groups for years: not only is the building of the wall and settlements by Israel illegal and criminal, so is complicity with that construction. Those responsible should be open to prosecution in the correct legal forum.

It undermines the charge often made by Israel and its supporters that legal challenges of this kind merely represent “lawfare” — that is vexatious, politicized attempts to abuse the law in order to “delegitimize” Israel.

Increasing trend

The Riwal case reflects an increasing trend of legal challenges brought by victims and human rights groups against Israel’s violations. Recent years have seen a case in the United States against Caterpillar for its supply of militarized bulldozers to the Israeli army. In Canada, residents of the West Bank village of Bilin brought a case against the companies Green Park and Green Mount International for constructing an Israeli settlement on village land.

There have also been several arrest warrant applications in European countries against visiting Israeli officials for their involvement in war crimes — including a successful application against Tzipi Livni in England in 2009.

Asymmetrical battle

These cases reflect the belief that not only are victims of war crimes entitled to legal redress, but that accountability for Israeli crimes and abuses is an essential prerequisite to achieving a just and lasting resolution to the conflict. The Israel-Palestine conflict is, after all, an asymmetrical battle between a powerful, highly militarized state enforcing a colonial occupation of land that does not belong to it, and an indigenous people fighting against occupation for self-determination.

Accountability for the crimes that are integral to maintaining the occupation is not only right in principle, it constitutes a serious incentive to Israel to desist in its practices. Accountability is essential for achieving a just and lasting peace.

The ad hoc nature of these cases, however — they are invariably brought by victims and human rights groups in domestic jurisdictions — and the absence of a properly resourced, large-scale investigation of Israel’s crimes at the international level, is a result of theimpunity accorded to Israel by the US and its allies.

The report of the UN Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict (the Goldstone report) concludes there was evidence that war crimes and possibly crimes against humanity had been committed by both sides during Operation Cast Lead, Israel’s military assault on Gaza in 2008-09. It recommends the situation be referred to the International Criminal Court (ICC). To date this recommendation has not been acted on and a referral to the ICC would almost certainly be vetoed by the US in the UN Security Council.

Right direction

Also ignored is the International Court of Justice’s ruling in 2004 that the West Bank wall is illegal and must be dismantled and that the international community must ensure that any obstacle to Palestinian self-determination caused by the wall be brought to an end.

Finally, Palestine’s application in 2009 to the ICC for it to investigate war crimes committed in Palestine since 2002 (the date the Rome Statute of the ICC came into force) was rejected.

Within the context of this crisis of accountability, the Riwal case is a positive development. The case did not result in justice for the victims and much more needs to be done. However, it demonstrates that allegations of complicity in Israel’s occupation by foreign companies are a serious legal matter that can potentially result in prosecution.

The case may deter other companies from complicity with Israel’s illegal and criminal occupation practices. It is a step in the right direction in the pursuit of justice and accountability.

(Source / 16.05.2013)

Hamas, the Arab Spring and the West

‘Hamas itself has been willing to negotiate right from the beginning.’

The “Arab Spring”, as we now have come to know it, has seemingly changed the nature of politics and the balance of power in the Middle East forever.

The West was caught off guard and after initially grappling with the new situation, are now dealing with Islamist parties whom they had vowed never to sit at the same table with.

Prior to the Arab Spring, all the branches of the ‘menacing’ Islamic Brotherhood were outlawed, and legitimate targets in the worldwide War on Terror.  The outsized blanket of Islamophobia seemed to smother anyone of Middle Eastern origin, let alone an Islamist. Much to the surprise of the world however, since their coming to power in countries like Egypt, Tunisia and Yemen, the Brotherhood have been welcoming and willing to deal with the rest of world in a refined, professional manner. To the dismay of the fear-mongering neoconservatives, they turned out to be moderates prioritizing stability, security and prosperity in their countries even if it meant relinquishing power and adopting a power-sharing strategy with their former oppressors. Slowly but surely, an increasing number of Western countries have begun to deal with them and found them to be the moderates, they always were.

The neoconservative extremists in the West, as well as the extremist factions in the East, are clearly not pleased. Continuous efforts to undermine the governments and instigate instability within the countries have been the trademark of the first year since the Arab Spring.

One group however, with the exact same moderate ideology and principles, has been excluded. They have always been willing to meet and deal with Western governments. They are the Muslim Brotherhood group in Palestine, better known as Hamas.

Hamas’s popularity in the Middle East knows no bounds. As analysts like Ed Hussein and others have noted, not only Christians and Muslims in the West Bank support Hamas’s resistance, but that is the general thinking pattern of the majority of those residing in the Middle East – be they Christian, Muslim, secular or Islamist. If the West wants popular opinion to swing in their favor – which they always claim they are trying to do – they should “accept the facts on the ground” and open dialogue with Hamas. It is in the best interests of the West to have the newly emerging democracies as well as the 300 million Arabs on their side if they intend to have any influence in the region.

Even the occupying Zionist state that normally fans the fire of separation negotiated with Hamas (in both official and unofficial capacities) to secure the release of the Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit. They also negotiated a ceasefire with Hamas during the last war in 2012 via the Egyptian government.

What the West fails to comprehend is that although Hamas’s image has been portrayed as extremist, they are, and have always been moderates. If dialogue isn’t opened with them, their more radical counterparts will be tougher to deal with. The West must understand the ideological difference between the extremists on one hand who have no political vision and who attack indiscriminately in public areas and on the other hand an Islamist political movement who participates in good faith, in free and fair elections. Hamas has never struck anywhere outside the theater of the occupation for their objective is only to liberate the occupied lands.

The branding of Hamas as terrorists may have worked in the past, but today is to a large extent, falling on deaf ears. History bears testimony that even renowned leaders like George Washington and Nelson Mandela, together with their parties were all regarded as terrorists to suit the occupiers’ needs, whereas the world now hails them as symbols of freedom. Hamas has also come a long way and are different to the Hamas of the past. They have in recent years structured a well-run government dealing with all issues facing their society from security to road maintenance. They have been responsive to the criticism of NGO’s and Human Rights’ organizations alike. They have negotiated ceasefires, accepted the 1967 borders, abandoned suicide attacks and have generally become more flexible in their viewpoints. Far from being a failed state or ‘Hamastan’ as critics initially purported, Gaza is safer today than it has ever been since the occupation began.

Analysts like Helena Cobban and others have noted that, “Western governments already engage in intention-probing diplomacy with many international actors whose actions are far more damaging than those of Hamas. (Such as North Korea.)” So the question is asked for the umpteenth time, why not Hamas?

Even the former head of Mossad, Efraim Halevy noted that, “Hamas has demonstrated a will and a capacity to think and act pragmatically when it believes it useful or necessary. There’s no better example of this than its governance of Gaza. Yes, it continues to play the role of peace-process spoiler when that role suits its interests. But Hamas has also demonstrated a serious capacity to exercise responsibility and restraint when that role suits its purposes. It has demonstrated its ability to control Gaza effectively, to both enforce a long-term cessation of hostilities and to withstand the combined efforts of the United States, Israel, and Egypt to bring it to its knees.” He also remarked that dialogue with Hamas is the only way forward.

Hamas itself has been willing to negotiate right from the beginning. In a letter addressed to the Quartet very soon after their electoral win in 2006, members stressed that they, “urge members of the Quartet to intensify their diplomatic efforts to bring both sides to the negotiation table in order to discuss and forge as equal partners a solution to the ongoing conflict that is based on international law and various UN resolutions passed in this regard.” They went on to say that they, “appeal to all peace forces around the world to heed our call for dialogue, peace and justice. We call on the international community to ponder what we perceive as a fair and reasonable stance. And we urge the Quartet to engage us in direct and intimidation-free dialogue. Our ultimate object is to achieve peace for our people, and dialogue has proven the only harbinger for true peace.”

It really isn’t as if the phenomenon of Islamists and the West working hand in hand is something totally alien to the modern world. They worked very well together in Afghanistan and Bosnia against the invading forces, both having the same interests, which produced results that both sides were pleased with.

Is it not high time that the age-old East/West divide is bridged? Can the West afford to contrive on this cultural collision course? Will they carry on in this manner for the next millennium or can they see that there is a better strategy in sight?

(Source / 16.05.2013)

Eying Ethnic Cleansing from the Sky

Google Maps is an amazing tool. Followers of this blog will know it is a tool I utilize a great deal since so much of the issues we deal with are geographic. When it comes to understanding the Nakba though, Google Maps provides a whole new view which I have been sharing with followers over twitter in recent days and will continue to do so this week as we commemorate the depopulation of Palestine from the majority of its native inhabitants.

Thanks to the work of geographers and historians, we have geographic coordinates for Palestinian villages which were destroyed during the depopulation of Palestine. This allows us to see precisely where the villages were through Google’s satellite imagery and what that area looks like today. Another fascinating Google tool is “Street View” which, as you can imagine, allows you to see the view of the area from the street. Now not every street level view is available but many are. A feature of street view includes photos taken and uploaded by individuals with recorded geo-positions off the roads.

In some cases villages were completely destroyed with little physical evidence remaining. In many other cases, however, some structures from the villages still stand or village land is visibly strewn with rubble from the destroyed homes. I’ve been using the street view tool to tweet images of these remains, which I call the “Ghosts of the Nakba“, standing there, often in plain site, as a haunting reminder of a crime perpetuated against the villages and their people.

Google Maps also allows the opportunity to make an interesting juxtaposition in many cases. For hundreds of villages, high-quality aerial imagery of the village exists from before the Nakba. So we can take this imagery and put it next to Google’s satellite imagery of the area today. Take for example, the Palestinian village of Burayr where some 3,000 Palestinians lived before the ethnic cleansing. The before and after shot below shows how Burayr was wiped off the map.

The before image, on the left, shows a village packed with stone houses. The Google Maps image on the right (which you can see here) shows a clearly discernible outline of where the village was. The odd shape contrasts with the square plots surrounding it and, despite being sparsely covered with trees today some of the old village roads are faintly discernible as well. These shapes marking villages, which don’t quite fit in with the surroundings, are clearly visible in a number of cases like Julis, Beit Jibrin, Maghar,  Tal Ubayda, Damun, and many others.

The Ghosts of the Nakba are all around and you will notice them quite easily if you are looking and know where to look. As Moshe Dayan, a former Israeli Defense Minister and Army Chief of Staff  said “There isn’t any place that was established in an area where there had not at one time been an Arab settlement.” Of course, he should know, since he played a role in the depopulation.

Despite this many Israelis do not see the ghosts before them in plain site. Or perhaps, they don’t want to see them. Early this morning and in response to a Ghost of the Nakba tweet I sent about Kafr Saba, Barak Ravid, an journalist for the Israeli Daily Haaretz replied:

 

He has since deleted this tweet.

Of course, Kafr Saba did exist. It doesn’t today. But it was located right here. You can see an odd area in brown which stands out because it literally looks like something had been there before being erased from sight. That was Kfar Saba.

Ravid noted he had been mistaken after several tweeters informed him he was wrong. But this begs the question, just how much do Israelis actually know, or care to know, about the society that was destroyed to make way for the state they live in today? How much do they know or care to know about the Ghosts of the Nakba all around them? How can they not but feel responsibility for the dismembering of a society, a dismemberment that continues today in the West Bank?

If they or anyone else is interested, Google Maps is one place to start and get a bird’s eye view of the ethnic cleansing that took place. As long as, well you know, you’re not afraid of confront some ghosts.

(Source /16.05.2013)

For Palestinians, the Nakba is not history

The Nakba has a dual meaning today. On one hand, it is about the hundreds of villages that were razed in 1948 and the hundreds of thousands of refugees who lost their homes. On the other hand, Palestinians continue to suffer the Nakba daily – the separation of families, continuous confiscations of land and settlements choking every Palestinian village and town.

Palestinians today mark 64 years since the Nakba (catastrophe). They are not commemorating a historical event that has long passed, or a sad moment in their past. Many of the Palestinian people are living the reality of the Nakba today. The pain of the open wound has not healed.

Sixty-four years after the Nakba, Palestinians still have no state and no equality. Refugee camps still exist all over the world and a majority of Palestinians live in the diaspora. Against their will, the Nakba divided the Palestinian people between Palestine and diaspora, between Gaza and the West Bank, between those who hold a refugee identification card and who don’t.

The Nakba has a dual meaning today. On one hand, it is about the hundreds of villages that were razed in 1948 and the hundreds of thousands of refugees who lost their homes. I remember taking a group to Qubeibeh, a Palestinian village on the outskirts of Hebron. Qubeibeh was destroyed in 1948. On the trip, I asked two Palestinians who lived there before the war to join us. They walked around the destroyed village telling the stories of each house, each family, the gossip of the town, funny and sad anecdotes. The tears streaming down their faces were tears of longing and passion, about loss and love.

Timmermans, luister naar advies AIV over Israël

 

Minister Frans Timmermans van Buitenlandse Zaken.

Minister Timmermans van Buitenlandse Zaken zou er verstandig aan doen om de aanbevelingen van het recente rapport van de Adviesraad voor Internationale Vraagstukken (AIV) over Israël en de Palestijnen op te volgen, vindt Jaap Hamburger.

De AIV publiceerde vorige maand zijn opvattingen over het Neder­landse beleid ten opzichte van Israël en de Palestijnen. Het advies, geschreven op verzoek van de Eerste en de Tweede Kamer, ziet een duidelijke rol weggelegd voor Nederland om te handelen in zijn contacten met de strijdende partijen.

Het advies benadrukt de algemeen geaccepteerde voorwaarden om –in het kader van een twee­statenoplossing– te komen tot een duurzame vrede in het Midden-Oosten. Tegelijkertijd is het adviesorgaan realistisch over het vredesproces van de afgelopen jaren: „Goedbedoelde internationale oproepen [hebben] in het verleden weinig effect (…) gesorteerd.” De praktisch gerichte aanbevelingen van de AIV proberen dan ook inhoud te geven aan een actief Nederlands beleid om Israël en de Palestijnen in de richting van een oplossing te bewegen. Deze aanbevelingen zijn het tegendeel van wat VVD-woordvoerder 
Ten Broeke karakteriseerde als „opinies uit de studeerkamer.”

Concreet zou de Nederlandse regering een brede Midden-Oosten­vredesconferentie op Europese bodem kunnen faciliteren. De AIV haakt hierbij in op het Arabische vredesinitiatief, oorspronkelijk uit 2002, dat voorziet in een volledige normalisering van alle betrekkingen door de hele Arabische wereld met Israël als dat land zich terugtrekt tot de grenzen van juni 1967. Een initiatief waarop opeenvolgende Israëlische regeringen overigens nooit een officieel antwoord hebben gegeven.

De AIV ziet echter ook andere mogelijkheden, zowel in EU-verband als in de directe betrekkingen tussen Nederland en Israël. Een van de aanbevelingen is dat Nederland erop toeziet dat Israël geen profijt heeft van zijn nederzettingen in het kader van de nauwe handelsbetrekkingen tussen Israël en de Europese Unie. De AIV gaat nog een stap verder en stelt dat „restrictieve maat­regelen” genomen kunnen worden om de export van nederzetting­producten naar de Europese markt aan banden te leggen.

Deze aanbeveling sluit aan op recente berichtgeving dat dertien EU-lidstaten, waaronder Nederland, werk gaan maken van het correct labelen van Israëlische nederzettingproducten. Tot nu toe worden veel van deze producten (bewust misleidend) geëtiketteerd als komend uit Israël, waardoor zij ten onrechte vallen onder de voor Israël geldende gunstige Europese importtarieven.

De AIV durft in zijn advies zelfs te stellen dat bij onveranderd Israëlisch beleid of het verder ver­diepen van de bezetting in de Palestijnse gebieden, de betrekkingen, „vooral op economisch en militair niveau”, bevroren of zelfs beperkt kunnen worden. Deze bewoordingen leiden mogelijk tot gefronste wenkbrauwen op het ministerie van Buitenlandse Zaken, maar maken de aanbeveling van de AIV gedurfder. Het vredes­proces verkeert in een impasse. Van enige serieuze poging om tot een oplossing van het conflict en een beëindiging van de bezetting te komen, is de afgelopen jaren weinig tot niets gebleken. Ondertussen verankert de bezetting zich steeds verder en wordt de kans op een onafhanke­lijke, levens­vatbare Palestijnse staat met de dag kleiner.

Dit zou de internationale gemeenschap moeten nopen 
om meer te doen dan zich blind 
te staren op het starten van weer een ronde van tot nu toe vrijblijvend gebleken vredesonderhandelingen. Die hebben niet kunnen verhinderen dat Israëls nederzettingen zijn gegroeid en de bezetting zich heeft verscherpt, met alle funeste gevolgen voor de Palestijnen, hun mensenrechten en hun recht op zelfbeschikking, maar ook voor het democratisch gehalte en de toekomst van Israël zelf.

In navolging van de Nederlandse regering en de inter­nationale gemeenschap ziet de AIV de twee­statenoplossing als meest aanvaardbare oplossing van het conflict. Maar de steun daarvoor neemt af, mede als gevolg van de bijna onomkeerbare situatie die door Israëls nederzettingen­politiek lijkt gecreëerd.

Als sterkste partij in het conflict en als bezettende macht is het logischerwijze in de eerste plaats aan Israël om de noodzakelijke stappen te zetten om een einde te maken aan de bezetting, en daarmee ruimte te scheppen voor het oprichten van een onafhankelijke Palestijnse staat. De internationale en Nederlandse benadering van de afgelopen jaren heeft gefaald, is de conclusie die te trekken valt uit het AIV-advies. Inzetten op concrete druk op de sterkste partij in het conflict –Israël– is daarom het enige werkbare alternatief om zowel Palestijnen als Israëliërs te ontdoen van de loden last van de bezetting.

De auteur is voorzitter van Een Ander Joods Geluid.

(Source / 11.05.2013)

Stephen Hawking is right, it’s time to end international support for Israeli impunity

As long as Israel can count on a blank cheque from the international community, it will continue to displace more Palestinians and further abuse and curtail their rights.

A woman shows a palcard reading ‘Israel criminal, boycott Israel’ during a demonstration on November 17, 2011 in eastern France.

Stephen Hawking’s decision to withdraw from Israel’s President Conference deals a huge blow to Israel’s attempts to whitewash its crimes by branding itself as a technologically advanced liberal democracy. His decision highlights the growing consensus that Israel’s oppression of Palestinians is intolerable. More than that, Hawking has made an immensely significant contribution to the campaign for boycotts, divestment and sanctions (BDS) against Israel that has in recent years won support from musicians, artists, trade unions, faith groups and people all over the world.

Such effective forms of solidarity are badly needed in the face of government inaction. A ruling by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in 2004 on the illegality of Israel’s Wall and settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories failed to persuade western governments to take action against Israel’s continued violations of international law. The reality is that Israel’s crimes against the Palestinian people are only made possible through the continued financial, military and diplomatic support it receives from western states.

Palestinian civil society thus joined in 2005 to call for broad boycotts, divestment initiatives, and sanctions against Israel, until Palestinian rights are recognised in full compliance with international law. This call was endorsed by over 170 Palestinian political parties, organizations, trade unions, and social movements.

While Matt Hill argues that “the problem with the BDS campaign is that the message it sends Israel is anything but clear,” the demands set out in the BDS call could not be any more straightforward: Israel must comply with international law. It must end the occupation, respect the right of return for Palestinian refugees, and guarantee equal rights for Palestinian citizens of Israel.

Campaigns against institutions operating in the Occupied Territories, the kind Hill recommends, are indeed taking place and play a major role in the growth and success of BDS. Such campaigns, including boycotts of and divestments from Elbit, Veolia, Sodastream, Ahava, and numerous other companies, can be hugely powerful. French multinational Veolia looks set to end some aspects of its involvement in illegal Israeli settlements after losing billions of pounds worth of local government contracts in the UK and across Europe in the wake of BDS campaigns against it. Facing complaints from its members, the Co-operative supermarket chain agreed not to source fruit and vegetables from any Israeli company that operate inside illegal Israeli settlements. Campaigners are now pressuring Sainsbury’s and other supermarkets to do the same.

Israel’s human rights violations however are not just limited to settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. The Bedouin community of Al-Arakib has seen its village in the south of Israel bulldozed more than 50 times. In Gaza, Palestinians live under a brutal siege and millions of Palestinian refugees languish in refugee camps outside their homeland.

Likewise, campaigns seeking to end the international support on which Israel’s continued impunity relies cannot focus solely on the settlements. One major BDS campaign targets security giant G4S over its contract to equip and service prisons inside Israel at which Palestinians prisoners, including children, are held without trial and subjected to torture. In the past year, banks, charities and universities across Europe have cut their ties to G4S, hitting the company’s bottom line and ensuring that there is a price to pay for corporate complicity with Israeli crimes.

Public appearances in Israel by prominent figures help Israel portray itself as a state like any other. Like Hawking, many other eminent figures including Roger Waters from Pink Floyd, Elvis Costello, Alice Walker, Iain Banks have pledged not to participate in events inside Israel in order to put pressure on the government to abide by international law. News of Hawking’s cancellation was front page news in Israel, reminding Israelis that the status quo is unsustainable and that their country is becoming a pariah in the way that South Africa once was.

Negotiations lead nowhere, not because Palestinians have insisted on a “fantastical goal”, as Hill argues, but because, ultimately, the outcome of any negotiation closely reflects the balance of power between the negotiating sides. As long as Israel can count on a blank cheque from the international community, a toothless world public opinion, it will continue to displace more Palestinians and further abuse and curtail their rights. The purpose of BDS is to alter the balance of forces that maintains the current situation.

There is another aspect in Hawking’s support for BDS that Hill sadly misses. In his letter to the organizers, Hawking makes a point of explaining that his decision to withdraw was based first and foremost on the advice of his Palestinian colleagues, academics whose freedom of speech, movement, teaching and learning is denied daily by Israel’s occupation. To support Palestinian rights means little without the fundamental willingness to listen to Palestinians voices who are best positioned to explain why Palestinians advocate a global, non-violent campaign of BDS and see it as a necessary and effective form of solidarity.

(Source / 11.05.2013)

Israel’s Man in Damascus

Why Jerusalem Doesn’t Want the Assad Regime to Fall

A man holds a roll of pictures of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad during a rally in support of him  in Damascus, 2011.

In October 1995, Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin telephoned Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to inform him that peace was at hand between Israel and Syria. Two weeks later, Rabin was dead, killed by a reactionary Jewish Israeli fanatic; the peace agreement that Rabin referenced died not long thereafter. But Israeli hopes for an eventual agreement with the Assad regime managed to survive. There have been four subsequent attempts by Israeli prime ministers — one by Ehud Barak, one by Ehud Olmert, and two by Benjamin Netanyahu — to forge a peace with Syria.

This shared history with the Assad regime is relevant when considering Israel’s strategy toward the ongoing civil war in Syria. Israel’s most significant strategic goal with respect to Syria has always been a stable peace, and that is not something that the current civil war has changed. Israel will intervene in Syria when it deems it necessary; last week’s attacks testify to that resolve. But it is no accident that those strikes were focused solely on the destruction of weapons depots, and that Israel has given no indication of wanting to intervene any further. Jerusalem, ultimately, has little interest in actively hastening the fall of Bashar al-Assad.

Israel knows one important thing about the Assads: for the past 40 years, they have managed to preserve some form of calm along the border. Technically, the two countries have always been at war — Syria has yet to officially recognize Israel — but Israel has been able to count on the governments of Hafez and Bashar Assad to enforce the Separation of Forces Agreement from 1974, in which both sides agreed to a cease-fire in the Golan Heights, the disputed vantage point along their shared border. Indeed, even when Israeli and Syrian forces were briefly locked in fierce fighting in 1982 during Lebanon’s civil war, the border remained quiet.

Israel does not feel as confident, though, about the parties to the current conflict, and with good reason. On the one hand, there are the rebel forces, some of whom are increasingly under the sway of al Qaeda. On the other, there are the Syrian government’s military forces, which are still under Assad’s command, but are ever more dependent on the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and Hezbollah, which is also Iranian-sponsored. Iran is the only outside state with boots on the ground in Syria, and although it is supporting Assad, it is also pressuring his government to more closely serve Iran’s goals — including by allowing the passage of advanced arms from Syria into southern Lebanon. The recent visit by Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Salehi to Damascus, during which he announced that Iran would not allow Assad to fall under any circumstances, further underscored the depth of Iran’s involvement in the fighting. It is entirely conceivable, in other words, that a post-Assad regime in Syria would be explicitly pro–al Qaeda or even more openly pro-Iran. Either result would be unacceptable to Israel.

Of course, an extended civil war in Syria does not serve Israel’s interests either. The ongoing chaos is attracting Islamists from elsewhere in the region, and threatening to destabilize Israel’s entire neighborhood, including Lebanon, Jordan, and Iraq. It could also cause Assad to lose control of — or decide to rely more on — his stockpile of chemical weapons.

Even though these problems have a direct impact on Israel, the Israeli government believes that it should deal with them in a way that does not force it to become a kingmaker over Assad’s fate. Instead, it would prefer to maintain neutrality in Syria’s civil war. Israel does not want to tempt Assad to target Israel with his missile stockpile — nor does it want to alienate the Alawite community that will remain on Israel’s border regardless of the outcome of Syria’s war.

Last week’s attacks were a case in point. Israel did not hesitate to order air strikes when it had intelligence that arms were going to be funneled from Syria to Hezbollah. Although Israel took care not to assume official responsibility for the specific attack, Minister of Defense Moshe Yaalon publicly stated that Israel’s policy was to prevent the passage of strategic weaponry from Syria to Lebanon. But parallel with that messaging, Israel also made overt and covert efforts to communicate to Assad that Jerusalem was determined to remain neutral in Syria’s civil war. The fact that those messages were received in Damascus was reflected in the relatively restrained response from the Assad regime: a mid-level Foreign Ministry official offered a public denouncement of Israel — and even then the Syrian government offered only a vague promise of reprisal, vowing to respond at a time and in a manner of its choosing.

As brutal as the Syrian war has become, Israel believes that another international crisis is even more urgent: Iran’s continued pursuit of a nuclear program. Jerusalem has long believed that mid-2013 would be an hour of decision in its dealings with Iran. In the interim, Israel wants to focus its own finite resources on that crisis — and it would prefer that the rest of the world does the same.

That is not to say that Israel will make efforts to actively support Assad; like most other countries, Israel believes that it is only a matter of time until the Syrian leader is forced from power. But a country of Israel’s size needs to prioritize its foreign policy goals, and Jerusalem does not feel like helping shape an adequate alternative to Assad is in its interest or within its capacity. It will leave that task to others. Indeed, Israel has welcomed the initiative by Russia and the United States to organize a peace conference aimed at resolving the conflict. In the run-up to the conference, Jerusalem will be sure to remind both Washington and Moscow that they share an interest in preventing a permanent Iranian or jihadist presence on Syrian soil.

In that sense, it is safe to say that Assad is not the only recipient of covert communications from Israel. That leaves two questions — when the White House will decide what its own policy will be, and how it will implement it.

(Source /10.05.2013)

Five reasons why Hawking is right to boycott Israel

Hawking should be commended for pulling out of an Israeli conference as a protest at Israel’s treatment of Palestinians.

British cosmologist Stephen Hawking had been due to speak at a high-profile conference in June organised by Israeli President Shimon Peres

As announced by the British Committee for the Universities of Palestine (BRICUP) and subsequently covered by The Guardian, Reuters and others, world-renowned theoretical physicist and cosmologist Professor Stephen Hawking has decided to heed the Palestinian call for boycott, and pull out of an Israeli conference hosted by President Shimon Peres in June. After initial confusion, this was confirmed - Hawking is staying away on political grounds. Here are five reasons why Professor Hawking is right to boycott: 5. Whitewashing apartheid  The Israeli government and various lobby groups use events such as the “Presidential Conference” to whitewash Israel’s crimes past and present, a tactic sometimes referred to as “rebranding”. As a Ministry of Foreign Affairs official put it after the 2009 Gaza massacre, it is the kind of approach that means sending “well-known novelists and writers overseas, theatre companies, [and] exhibits” in order to “show Israel’s prettier face, so we are not thought of purely in the context of war”. “Brand Israel” is all about creating a positive image for a country that is the target of human rights campaigners the world over – as if technological innovations or high-profile conferences can hide the reality of occupation and ethnic cleansing. 4. Shimon Peres  Despite his reputation in the West as a “dove”, Peres’ career to date includes war crimes in Lebanon,support for collective punishment of Palestinians in Gaza, and, in private discussions, incitementagainst non-Jewish citizens. Anyone would do well to avoid a conference hosted by such a hypocrite. Simply not being Ariel Sharon does not really cut it; Peres should be scheduled for a trip to The Hague, not welcoming foreign dignitaries and celebrities. 3. Boycott is not incompatible with ‘dialogue’  Contrary to the rhetoric of Israeli officials and sympathisers, boycott is not contrary to dialogue. Hawking’s decision, for example, will mean people are discussing Israeli policies and strategies for ending occupation. That is not atypical – BDS initiatives often encourage a meaningful exchange of views and perspectives. However, some people abuse the concept of dialogue to defend an asymmetrical status quo, leaving intact a colonial power dynamic where, in the words of South African poet James Matthews, “the oppressor sits seared with his spoils/with no desire to share equality/leaving the oppressed seeking warmth/at the cold fire of/Dialogue”. Boycott has nothing to do with having, or not having, conversations – it is about accountability for, and opposing, basic violations of a people’s rights. Confronting and resisting the reality of Israeli apartheid begets a dialogue that is fully realised in the context of equality and decolonisation. Gaza Crisis   2. Impunity and accountability  The boycott is grounded firmly in the well documented facts of Israeli policies. The US State Department speaks of “institutional discrimination” faced by Palestinian citizens, while Human Rights Watch says Israel maintains a “two-tier system” in the West Bank. From the “discriminatory” control and distribution of water resources (Amnesty International) to the “forced transfer of the native population” (European Union), it is no wonder that the UN’s Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has reportedIsrael as violating prohibitions against “racial segregation and apartheid”. Illegal settlements are used to colonise the West Bank, Palestinians in Gaza are blockaded and bombed, Palestinians in East Jerusalem have their homes demolished – and all the while, of course, expelled Palestinian refugees just a few miles from their properties are still prevented from returning home on the basis they are not Jews. And note that the “But what about China/Myanmar/Syria etc” line misses the point (as well as placing Israel in some rather interesting company). A boycott is a tactic, advisable in some contexts, and not in others. It is not about a scale of injustice or wrongdoing. It is about a strategy targeting systematic human rights abuses and breaches of international law, called for by the colonised. Which brings us to… 1. The Palestinian call for solidarity  Palestinians suffering under Israeli apartheid are calling for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) as a strategy in the realisation of their basic rights, a fact that many Zionists choose to ignore when attacking boycott campaigns. The Palestinian civil society call for BDS was officially launched on July 9 2005, a year after the International Court of Justice’s advisory opinion on the illegality of Israel’s Separation Wall. Signatories to the BDS call come from representatives of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, Palestinian citizens of Israel, and Palestinian refugees. Since then, growing numbers of people in the likes of academia, the arts world, trade unions and faith communities have answered the BDS call with initiatives that put the focus firmly on Israel’s routine violations of international law and ending complicity in these crimes. Professor Hawking is to be commended for seeking the advice of Palestinian academics, and heeding their request for international solidarity in a decades-long struggle for freedom and justice. (Source / 09.05.2013)

Israel mulls new strategy on muzzling its critics

Jerusalem conference will discuss ways of thwarting campaigns urging a boycott of Israel.

Israel’s foreign ministry is preparing to hold the fourth international conference of the Global Forum for Combating Anti-Semitism, a gathering that has served as an important focus for efforts to fight Palestine solidarity activism and boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) campaigns.

Meeting in Jerusalem between 28 and 30 May, the conference is officially hosted by Zeev Elkin, the deputy foreign minister who is currently standing in for Avigdor Lieberman, while the latter’s trial for fraud continues. The Global Forum was established in 2000, with international conferences in 2007, 2008 and 2009.

Those coming from around the world to participate in this month’s conference will be attending an “anti-racist” meeting being run by a government guilty of institutional discrimination and apartheid. In fact, Elkin is himself a settler, opposed to a Palestinian state and a supporter of anti-boycott legislation.

It is evident from the conference’s official agenda and “working group mission statements”that this year, as on previous occasions, delegates will have Palestine solidarity activists in their sights.

The 2007 conference ran working groups on “academic and economic boycotts: pre-emptive strategies” as well as “means of response to hostile faculty and student bodies.” In 2009, the conference ran a working group intended to “come up with imaginative, effective and successful solutions to counter this evil [of BDS],” with participants coming from a variety of Jewish communal organizations and hasbara groups. (Hasbara is the Hebrew term for “explaining” but has become synonymous with Israeli propaganda.) Topicsdiscussed included a “five-year plan” involving the implementation of “legislative prohibitions vs. BDS,” taking into account “different legal traditions.”

“Positive image”

This year’s gathering is no different, with three working groups of particular interest for anti-apartheid campaigners. The first is “the working group on the guise of delegitimization and anti-Zionism,” whose goal is “to identify… new legal, political, economic and other strategies [that] can be employed to pre-empt and defeat these campaigns” such as “changing the law to sentence boycott activists.”

Aside from a commitment to further “lawfare” strategies — challenging Palestine solidarity campaigns in court — this group also aims to “improve communication and intelligence about the delegitimizers” and “identify offensive steps that can be taken … to help create a more positive image of Israel.”

Another task force of interest is the “working group on law, legislation and enforcement in combating anti-Semitism,” which notes the role of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act in the US context, and that “anti-Israel demonstrations on campuses … have not been banned and create a hostile atmosphere for Jewish students.”

A goal for the group is to discuss “the feasibility of implementing the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights’ working definition of anti-Semitism in university campuses,” and “recommend [its] adoption … within university campuses and law enforcement agencies.” (The EU “definition” — never formally endorsed by the Union — was drawn up by pro-Israel lobbyists and deliberately conflates criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism.)

Finally, a third working group is dedicated to “anti-Semitism on campus and education for tolerance and mutual respect.” The preamble talks about college campuses having become “increasingly hostile to Jewish students and scholars,” when in fact, what they are referring to is “Israel [being] increasingly delegitimized and demonized on campus.”

The explanation for this state of affairs includes “the impact of funding, and potential funding, from Gulf states to academic institutions in the West” and, in the case of France and Belgium, “a convergence between brown, green and red ideologies.”

“Prosecutor not victims”

The group explains that hasbara efforts by “most pro-Israel organizations, including diplomatic representatives” have been focused on countering “the negative campaign against Israel with a strategy of positive messaging about Israel, unrelated to the conflict.” This is a reference to the “Brand Israel” project, which aims to distract from Israel’s treatment of Palestinians by depicting Israel as liberal and sophisticated.

But “Brand Israel” is deemed to be insufficient. There is a need for “a new effective strategy to confront the demonization of Israel” that “put[s] the focus on Israel’s detractors, rather than on Israel itself,” according to a preparatory document. The group proposes using “the language of human rights” as “prosecutors not as victims.”

Other suggestions include “research … to discern the group or groups that may be funding, directing, influencing and/or manipulating anti-Israel agitation,” and “critical studies of Palestinian society, and other Middle Eastern societies, its politics and culture for developing a new symbolical weapon in this struggle.”

Overall, the tone of these working groups suggests that years of successes for BDS campaigns have increased the desperation of the Israel lobby, boosting support for “offensive” lawfare-based tactics, alongside “positive” hasbara. Ironically, given that the conference is hosted by a settler, delegates forget that colonialism and state-sanctioned racism are what continue to “delegitimize” Israel.

(Source / 06.05.2013)