By Yesh Din, written by Yossi Gurvitz

Illustrative photo: A judge ruling in court (Shutterstock.com)

In the last few days, the High Court of Justice leisurely reviewed a petition that Yesh Din, along with Hamoked: Center for the Defense of the Individual, filed two years ago. The petition deals with an unreasonable procedure presented by the Military Police Criminal Investigations Division (MPCID) in May 2010, i.e. more than three years ago. What is it about? Nothing serious, just the decision that if you consider suing the IDF for some injury caused to you, or even if someone else considers doing so, you will not be able to appeal the decision of the MPCID to close the relevant criminal case. Or, rather, you could appeal, but it will be an empty gesture since you’ll have nothing on which to base your appeal.

It sounds complicated, so let’s look at an example. A. and M., residents of Ramallah, find themselves at a checkpoint manned by particularly bored IDF soldiers. The soldiers beat them, humiliate them in public, and cause them medical and financial damage. The case is fictional, but similar cases take place often.

A., who always had a soft spot for lost causes, decides to press charges against the soldiers. Meanwhile, M. is worried about his new medical bills, so he turns to an attorney, who – without coordinating with A. – files a Notice of Damage, i.e. informs the IDF that M. is not yet certain whether he wants to sue them, but he reserves himself the right to do so. Filing a Notice of Damage is necessary for people living in the West Bank if they intend to sue in the future.

According to the MPCID’s procedure from May 2010, as soon as M. files his Notice of Damage, which may or may not ever mature into a civil suit, A. automatically loses the right to receive the investigative materials necessary to appeal the MPCID’s decision that everything was hunky dory at the checkpoint that day. This is how Captain Guy Comforti, the MPCID’s legal counsel, explains the procedure by which MPCID will share its closed investigation files with victims or their attorneys: “Assuming the case is involved in any legal procedure (related to the Military Prosecution or the State Prosecution), the applicant will receive a note informing him of it, and that no relevant details from the file may be shared.”

What does this mean, translated from Bureaucratese? It means that if there is any hint of a chance that a person harmed by the IDF might sue the state demanding monetary compensation, MPCID will not provide him with his case’s investigative file. Furthermore, it will not serve him the file even if he did not file a civil suit, but just wants the soldier who abused him to be punished by being held on base two hours later than usual. That is, in order to defend the state from the possibility that it may actually have to compensate the people it harmed, MPCID will prevent victims from accessing the evidence – material for which it is the exclusive body in charge of gathering (aside from the absurd cases when MPCID demands that we gather evidence for it, on which I’ll write in a future post.)

The MPCID and military prosecution no longer even pretend to protect the rights of Palestinians: if you dare demand what you deserve, you won’t receive the relevant evidence. But there’s another problem here: that of time.

A normal civil suit is settled even more slowly than criminal legal procedures, and may take years to conclude. During this time, no appeal can be made regarding the decision to close a criminal case in which soldiers are suspected of abuse, pillage or murder. Since an appeal would be impossible, even though the investigative negligence may stink to high heaven, the meaning of the government’s self-defense against civil suit is that criminals avoid facing justice.

Cynics would say that that is precisely the point: killing two birds with one stone. The less cynical would say that unfortunately, this possibility does not seem to bother the organization called the Military Police Criminal Investigation Division. Let’s hope it bothers the High Court.

Written by Yossi Gurvitz in his capacity as a blogger for Yesh Din, Volunteers for Human Rights. A version of this post was first published on Yesh Din’s blog.

By Natasha Roth and Leah McDonnell

Ibrahim, a refugee from Sudan, holds a document given to him by the UN in Egypt, as he takes part in a protest held by refugees and activists outside the UN offices in Tel Aviv, June 10, 2012 (Oren Ziv/Activestills.org)

A recent article in The Post‘s Sof Hashavua magazine, which was subsequently translated into English and published in The Jerusalem Post, addressed the topic of asylum seekers in south Tel Aviv. Unfortunately for all concerned, the piece was extraordinarily inflammatory and heavily speculative. Additionally, a great deal of the information used to support the arguments put forward in the piece was factually and statistically incorrect. Furthermore, none of this information was backed up with credible (or indeed any) sources. We attempted to contact the journalist in question, Ben Caspit, but our calls to the Jerusalem Post were not returned.

It is very easy to create an endless, back-and-forth dialogue between two sides with competing interests and opposing worldviews, which is why we have decided to focus on challenging the damaging inaccuracies found in the original article. This is not to ignore that many have been left appalled and saddened by the leading and prejudiced nature of the article – to say that the language used is racist and bordering on incitement is certainly a reasonable assessment of the overall tone. But incorrect reporting of facts must be overturned, and in doing so we hope to limit the damage caused by irresponsible and sensationalist journalism. Please note that where we have used the term “asylum seekers” in this response, the original article referred to “infiltrators.”

Click here for +972′s full coverage of African asylum seekers in Israel

Below we have summarised, and challenged, the main points of misinformation in the article. All sources are linked, with explanations of how the reader can check the information for themselves.

_________________________________

1. The article repeatedly asserts that there are between 60,000 and 80,000 asylum seekers currently living in south Tel Aviv. This is incorrect. According to the government’s own data, as of May 2013 there are 54,580 asylum seekers living in Israel entire. Not all of this populace is based in south Tel Aviv, making the Post‘s figures even more inaccurate. This information is freely and clearly available on the website of the Israeli Immigration and Border Authority (PIBA), a source which has previously been used by the Post. The information, which is in Hebrew, is on the second line of the table on page 3.

2. Caspit states that there are several ‘myths’ regarding asylum seekers in Israel. The first is that most asylum seekers are from Eritrea and Sudan. This is not a myth; according to PIBA’s statistics, 36,114 (66 percent) of asylum seekers currently in Israel are Eritrean, and 13,806 (25 percent) are Sudanese. Clearly, this combined figure constitutes the vast majority of the asylum seeker population.

Caspit then claims the dictatorial rule and enforced military service that Eritrea is notorious for are also myths, and that according to “data and research” (which he does not name), “Eritreans are not refugees.” This contradicts the latest information and advice given by the UK Border Agency and the US Department of State, which declares Eritrea an “authoritarian regime,” practicing “unlawful killings…torture, harsh prison conditions, and incommunicado detention,” as well as identifying that “the government continued to force persons to participate in its national service program, often for periods of indefinite duration.” Furthermore, the idea that Eritreans are not refugees is somewhat undermined by the fact that, as per the latest UNHCR statistics, 74 percent of Eritrean asylum seekers worldwide are recognised as refugees, and 84.5 percent are given protected status of some kind – whether as refugees, on humanitarian grounds, etc. (Those wishing to verify this information can download the UNHCR’s statistical spreadsheet at the link provided, and check tab 11.)

Eritrean refugees living in Israel take part in a protest outside the Eritrean embassy in the city of Ramat Gan, near Tel Aviv, February 1. 2013. The protesters were calling for the ousting of the dictatorship regime in Eritrea, and the release of all political prisoners. (Photo by: Yotam Ronen/Activestills.org)

The article also claims that the violence in Darfur has “cooled down,” suggesting that Sudanese are no longer justified in fleeing their country. As this recent report from The Daily Beast confirms, this is far from the reality – and the situation is in fact worsening again. As acknowledged in this report, the violence is government-sponsored – and the UN Refugee Convention, to which Israel is a party, specifies that one may be considered a refugee if they are “unable or, owing to such fear… unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country.” Being persecuted by the state fits this category. The US Department of State also notes the ongoing instability of the Darfur region. In addition, the populations of the South Kordofan and Blue Nile regions of Sudan are currently being subjected to, at the very least, crimes against humanity – as confirmed in this recent report from Amnesty International. (It must be added that the UK Border Agency refers to Amnesty International sources in its assessments of asylum seeker claims, lest their credibility be in question.)

Once again, the UNHCR’s statistics contradict the idea that Sudanese are not genuine refugees – globally, 71.44 percent of Sudanese asylum seekers are given refugee status, with 74.4 percent receiving some kind of protected status, whether refugee, humanitarian or other (tab 11 of the spreadsheet). Caspit’s reference to low levels of Sudanese in Europe receiving asylum status is misleading, for it suggests high levels of rejection. In fact, the reason that acceptance rates are low is because there are relatively small numbers of Sudanese in Europe claiming asylum – as per the UNHCR’s statistics, as of 2011 there were fewer than 5,000 Sudanese asylum seekers in any European country – and data is not provided for such small figures (tab 5 of the spreadsheet). Additionally, Caspit’s muddling between Sudanese and Africans in general in this paragraph rather weakens his argument.

A Sudanese woman shows her UNHCR Refugee card from Egypt during a refugee protest in front of the government’s offices in center Tel Aviv October 14, 2012. (photo: Oren Ziv/Activestills)

3. Remaining with the comparison between Israel and Europe, Caspit’s article declares that “in 2010 and 2011 there were more African infiltrators in Israel than in any other European country.” This is a meaningless statement and a misleading ‘statistic’. The country (or even continent) of origin is irrelevant – an asylum seeker is an asylum seeker. Overall, as of 2011, many countries in Europe – France, Germany, Italy, Sweden, Switzerland and the UK, for example – have larger asylum seeker populations than Israel (tab 1 of the spreadsheet). As a general rule, the bigger the country is, the larger its asylum seeker population is. The ethnic or national origin of an asylum seeker is immaterial, unless you are a racist.

4. In Caspit’s summary of PIBA Director Amnon Ben-Ami’s report on asylum seekers in south Tel Aviv, the claim is made that the numbers of asylum seekers coming to Israel is increasing again. This is directly contradicted by PIBA’s statistics and a recent address by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to the Knesset. The monthly figures for asylum seekers crossing into Israel for 2013 are as follows: January – 10; February – 5; March – 3; April – 10; May – 2.

5. The article states that the police “cannot open files on illegal infiltrators.” This is incorrect. PIBA’s regulations for dealing with asylum seekers involved in criminal proceedings (the latest version is available in Hebrew, the previous version in English – the relevant information is the same in both) refer specifically to those with files open; furthermore, they make provisions for re-opening – or delaying the closing of – files if the appropriate authorities see fit, in order to open up a route to begin deportation proceedings.

6. Caspit bemoans the stopping of the “‘quick drop-offs’ of infiltrators on the Egyptian side of the fence,” neglecting to mention that this practice, actually known as that of “hot return,” violates international law.

7. Another erroneous statement is that once asylum seekers have crossed into Israel, they “receive a ride from the Israeli authorities to Tel Aviv.” As per the Prevention of Infiltration Law, once asylum seekers cross into Israel they are detained for a minimum of three years, in a prison which is nowhere near Tel Aviv.

A view of the new section in Saharonim prison destined for imprisonment without trial of asylum seekers and refugees, August 31, 2012. (photo: Activestills)

8. Caspit claims that asylum seekers have “everything we have.” There are too many instances where this is simply incorrect to list exhaustively, but to take a particularly striking example, asylum seekers do not have access to basic healthcare, as per the provisions of Israel’s National Health Insurance Law. The universal right to medical care is enshrined in Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (which Israel voted in favor of), yet those without legal status in Israel have access only to emergency care, as standard health provisions are reserved for those with legal status.

___________________

Beyond these inaccuracies, there is a great deal in Caspit’s piece that is wildly misleading. We are unable to fathom where the story of worshippers being forced out of a Georgian synagogue in south Tel Aviv a few weeks ago, and the subsequent transformation of that synagogue into a near-bordello, has come from. An Israeli of Georgian descent, who owns a shop on the corner of Rosh Pina and Neve Sha’anan streets, confirmed that there is no Georgian synagogue in the area – and suggested that the nearest is in Bat Yam or Holon. Another employee at the shop confirmed that there is a former synagogue in the area which is now an Eritrean restaurant, but that the synagogue closed about six months ago.

The assertion that MK Stern, even with all his experience, had never before witnessed someone taking drugs until he saw “an African woman … sniffing cocaine or heroin,” suggests that drug abuse is an imported problem. But the Jerusalem Post reported in 2011 that “a study prepared by the Knesset’s Research and Information Center … added that according to the last poll carried out on the subject, 11.42 percent of the adult population used illegal psycho-active drugs.”

Caspit quotes a man who states that Eritreans will do the work of Israelis, but for far lower wages – implying that this is putting people out of work. Given their inability to gain a work permit and, consequently, a guaranteed wage, Caspit fails to present the idea that asylum seekers may not wish to be paid so little, but rather that they have no other choice. It should be noted that there are some excellent employers of asylum seekers in Israel, but this is not the case for all. Many asylum seekers face extortion by their employers, in terms of being under-paid when collecting their wages.

Caspit also argues that it is very easy for asylum seekers to open businesses because they do so illegally or pay off a landlord. In truth, asylum seekers with a 2(a)5 permit (essentially a non-deportation order) are unable to gain access to business licences. According to business consultant Anat Kilger, at the Tel Aviv University Buchmann Faculty of Law, it is in fact official policy for the Tel Aviv Municipality not to even consider business licence applications for those with a foreign ID only. This does not make it difficult for asylum seekers to legitimately open a business, it makes it impossible. Those who do try and get a business licence tend to go through an Israeli. They are required to pay this person a large sum of money to apply for a business licence; the Israeli will then ‘hire’ the asylum seeker as the manager. So, while the asylum seeker runs the business, legally it is registered with an Israeli citizen. This is another form of extortion. Many asylum seekers are unable to pay a third party to open a business for them, and others are not used to having to apply for a business licence in their country of origin, therefore not realising they need one. As a consequence, some asylum seekers will resort to opening a business illegally.

Tel Aviv municipality inspectors and border policemen raided and closed down an African run shop in Neve Sha’anan street in South Tel Aviv, May 12, 2013. At least five shops and bars, all owned by African asylum seekers, were closed down in a night operation conducted by border police forces and local municipal inspectors. The businesses were closed down for not having a legal business permit. Israel officially prohibits asylum seekers from legally working or owning businesses, although tens of thousands of them are employed. (Photo by: Oren Ziv/ Activestills.org)

The article accuses NGOs of “taking advantage of this political vacuum to change Israel from a country for Jews to a country for everyone.” In reality, however, these NGOs are simply trying to push for Israel to fulfil its obligations as a party to the 1951 Refugee Convention. The idea of an NGO conspiracy theory is incorrect and fanciful. Furthermore, stating that this is the intention of all “leftist and human rights organizations” based on a single anonymous testimony from a research report that was never cited, lacks due diligence and credibility.

The list goes on. Caspit decries the fact that landlords are dividing apartments and charging more for smaller units, without considering that this is extortion – no matter who the residents are. He discusses an ‘incident’ in Ramat Aviv, but offers no more information than that “three black men were spotted sitting on a bench.” This, apparently, was a sufficient offence for them to be picked up by the police. (One calls to mind Rosa Parks.) We are warned that “[v]isits to the child health centers have become impossible,” with no explanation as to why. The loud and crude observation that arches over all of this is simply that many Israelis do not want Africans around them. A photo in the original Israel Post article, which somehow failed to make it into the Jerusalem Post translation, shows a solitary white (presumably Israeli) woman walking down a street whose other occupants are exclusively black males. The message is stark, leading, and would be almost laughably propagandist were it not so dangerous. Other canards used by Caspit are equally irresponsible and disappointing – to coin the phrase “African Republic of Zion,” and raise an alarm about an Islamic fundamentalist “fifth column” in our midst is evidence of the dreadful brand of malignant amnesia at which Israel’s policymakers and opinion-shapers excel. Yet perhaps the most offensive blow was struck with Caspit’s attempts to render the atmosphere of an evening in south Tel Aviv. To say, as he did, that “[i]t’s as if an imaginary ship was brought here from the bowels of Africa,” is a phrase of such abhorrent suggestiveness that it is difficult to believe it appeared in two separate national newspapers. It says much about Israel that so shameful an anachronism is considered acceptable for mass consumption.

In Caspit’s defence, the article title, “South Tel Aviv: Abandoned by the state,” is a correct assertion. The south of Tel Aviv has been abandoned by the state – and has been for several years. Historically, the south has been an overlooked, underfunded area. There is not the same access to services that one would have in the north. The area is fraught with drugs, prostitution and trafficking. It can be dangerous at night. These assessments are all true – but these are issues that existed long before asylum seekers arrived in the area. All of south Tel Aviv’s residents – asylum seekers and Israelis – are fearful, as there is a lack of state interaction. The absence of police engagement with the south is also exacerbating the area’s lawlessness, allowing a small percentage of violent and dangerous actors (Israelis and asylum seekers alike) to move with impunity. This is a real threat – but not in the way that Caspit implies. The majority of asylum seekers are not violent criminals, and an official Knesset report – which cited police statistics – confirmed as such, before it was pulled from the Knesset’s website and its author, Dr Gilad Natan, removed from his post. The state and the Tel Aviv Municipality have failed the people of south Tel Aviv. The infrastructure of Neve Sha’anan is unable to support the amount of residents it now has. The stench that Caspit continuously refers to is not because all the asylum seekers use the sidewalks as toilets, but rather because the city will not fix the overrun sewage system or collect garbage properly. A local Israeli from the area explained that residents, herself included, have tried many times to contact the municipality to have these issues rectified but, to their knowledge, nothing has yet been done.

There is much that remains to be challenged in Caspit’s article; in omitting its other follies, we are not seeking to downplay their gravity. But these are complex conflicts which cannot be addressed in one response. As the renowned British journalist C.P. Scott stated, “comment is free, but facts are sacred.” Truth is the first, and forgotten, casualty of hatred. We are starting out by restoring its sanctity.

Natasha Roth, a British immigrant to Israel, is a researcher and former coordinator at the ARDC. Leah McDonnell is a Canadian research volunteer at the ARDC. McDonnell recently completed a graduate diploma program in International Development. The African Refugee Development Center (ARDC) is a non-profit organization founded in 2004 by refugees and Israeli citizens to assist, support and empower refugees and asylum seekers in Israel. 

Related:
When ‘black’ becomes synonymous with ‘infiltrator’
A year in review: Anti-African racism and asylum seekers in Israel
Israeli plan to offload Eritreans: An affront to international law 

Transcript of above State department press conference (video above):

Associated Press: Ma’am, for many years now the common assumption has been that 2+2=4. Yet for some reason, your administration – and the ones before it – continue to say that 2+2=5. In light of growing evidence that the answer is indeed 4, will American policy on this equation change?

State Department spokesperson: Again, we are not saying that 2+2 does not equal 4. We’re just saying it equals 5, but it would be better if it equals 4.

AP: So, it equals 4 or it doesn’t?

SDS: I think I’ve made it very clear that we don’t accept the legitimacy that it equals 5. We encourage all sides to embrace the 4 option, even though 2+2=5 is actually the correct answer.

AP: But… but you always say that. You always say you’re not happy with the 5 option but nothing really ever changes, does it? You still say 2+2=5.

SDS: Yes, and that’s why I expressed my concern today.

AP: I’m trying to understand something. Because you and Secretary Kerry have said more than once that we should be optimistic that 2+2 actually does equal 4. But you don’t provide any evidence that suggests it actually does equal 4.

SDS: Our strategy is to keep these equations private. We believe that’s the best way to create an environment to bring all people to understand that it’s 4 and not 5.

AP: And what if that doesn’t work?

SDS: It’s worth the shot.

AP: Ma’am, maybe after all these years the U.S. should stay out of the equation? Shouldn’t there be some kind of consequence for people who say 2+2=5?

SDS: Well, our focus right now is not on consequences as much as working with everyone involved to reach 4. As I mentioned earlier, we find the 5 option very unhelpful, and Secretary Kerry will continue in his efforts to bring about the 4.

AP: But you’ve been stuck with this 5 for over 60 years. Shouldn’t you change your policy? Before some people say that 2+2=6?

SDS: That’s not the current plan. We’re having discussions and expressing concerns where needed.

AP: So, is it still U.S. policy that for those who say 2+2=4 there will be consequences?

SDS: You’re familiar with our policy, it hasn’t changed.

AP: So, in other words, there are no consequences for people who say 2+2=5, but there are for those who say 4. Correct?

SDS: Well, let’s just—

AP: — I just want to make sure I understand.

SDS: There’s no change in our policy on either front.

AP: So, U.S. policy, I just want to get this straight, is that 2+2=5.

SDS: Well, again, I think you’re referring to the correct equation and the understanding of that equation. Meaning, the answer is 4 but our understanding is 5.

AP: So, 2+2=5.

SDS: That’s not what I’m saying. But yes. Next!

A group photo of the 33rd Israeli government, March 19, 2013 (Avi Ohayon, GPO)

Economy Minister and Jewish Home Chairman Naftali Bennett is the latest MK to join a robust list of Israeli government coalition members who have publicly stated that the two-state solution is dead and that the notion of a Palestinian state is a thing of the past. Although it’s no new position for him, Bennett is making it clear that no matter what Prime Minister Netanyahu says or what polls show, the Israel of 2013 is squarely against a two-state solution.

Bennett stated that ”the idea of forming a Palestinian state in Israel has reached a dead end,” speaking at a settler council meeting Monday morning, comparing the “Palestinian problem” to a “piece of shrapnel” lodged in someone’s rear end; that one needs to learn to live with a pain in the ass rather than surgically remove it and risk becoming disabled.

Bennett also asserted there is no occupation, since Israeli Jews cannot be occupiers in their own home (echoing the Netanyahu-commissioned Levy Report from nearly a year ago that concluded there is no occupation) and called on Israel to annex Area C of the West Bank. This is similar to what Likud MK and former Knesset speaker Reuven Rivlin said last year: “Today, almost 20 years since Oslo, one could clearly argue that the idea of separating between the nations has failed … Between the Jordan River and the sea, there can only be one state, Jewish and democratic, with a solid Jewish majority.”

There are plenty of other coalition members who have publicly come out against the two-state solution and the possibility of a viable Palestinian state, as a Knesset committee meeting on the subject exposed last month. It’s not just fundamentalist Hebron settler Orit Struck from Jewish Home, who said two states are ”not part of the government’s guiding principles, and for good reason.”

MK Yoni Chetboun, also from Jewish Home, said at that meeting that, “the government has not even decided that it supports two nations for two peoples.” He is also the MK who publicly accused the Obama administration of boycotting Ariel University in the West Bank when the student body was not invited to his Jerusalem speech in March.

MK Ofer Shelah, from Yair Lapid’s Yesh Atid party, said recently that Israel will become an apartheid state if it does not pull out of the West Bank and called the occupation “corrupt.” Yet two of his party members – Pnina Tamano-Shata and Dov Lipman - attended the launch of the Knesset pro-settlement caucus a few days ago, which is committed to “bolstering the legal status of the Jewish people in the entire Land of Israel” and “rectifying the grave mistake of the disengagement [from Gaza] and preventing its recurrence.” Knesset Speaker Yuli Edelstein also attended the event.

Yair Lapid isn’t any better. His declaration that there will be no compromise on Jerusalem and no settlement freeze is pretty much as good as saying no to a two-state solution.

Likud of course has its fair share of anti-two-staters who openly oppose establishment of a Palestinian state. Likud MK Tzipi Hotovely, at the start of this year said the two-state solution is an “illusion.” Just the other day, Likud MK and Deputy Minister Ofir Akunis said settlements are actually good for peace and followed it up with the declaration that “Palestinians are not ready for statehood.”

Deputy Defense Minister from Likud Danny Danon takes the cake with his statement last week that the government will block any chance of a two-state solution and that any efforts at negotiations are futile. (MK Ahmed Tibi rightly said Danon is the most honest in the coalition as he at least does not hide Israel’s plans.)

Likud MK and Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon said in Washington a few days ago that the Arab Peace Initiative (for a two-state solution along 1967 borders in exchange for normalized relations with the Arab world) is just “a spin.”

As for Likud chairman, Prime Minister and acting Foreign Minister Netanyahu, he has himself said Israel must reach an agreement with Palestinians to avoid becoming a binational state and that a “demilitarized’ Palestinian state could be established. So Netanyahu is in fact – as far as the political rhetoric goes – the most moderate of the bunch. Scary. Though an official in his office just stated just the other day that in fact the government “has no official position on the Palestinian issue.”

And we mustn’t forget Justice Minister-cum-chief Israeli negotiator Tzipi Livni of Hatnuah, one of the last ministers in the governing coalition still publicly invoking a two-state solution as the only way to keep Israel Jewish. But considering her work environment, she cannot be seen as much more than a fig leaf for this government.

By Idan Landau, translated from Hebrew by Ofer Neiman

House demolition in Anata, Northern Jerusalem, April 14, 2008 (Photo: Meged Gozani/Activestills.org)

When people summarize the Zionist project, with the fanfare of victory or the gloom of defeat, one thing will be certain, they will be puzzled over one strange mystery. How could so many people associate Zionism with creation and construction, and not with regression and destruction. After all, in parallel with the endless construction frenzy, especially beyond the green line, the hum of bulldozers has always been audible: beating, breaking, shattering. Housing projects for new Jewish immigrants were built in record speed. Build-your-own-house neighborhoods, neighborhoods for IDF career officers, commuter suburbs, and luxury residential towers popped up everywhere; and at the very same time, the angel of Zionist history left more and more piles of ruin and devastation behind.

The demolition policy has, of course, been the Arabs’ share. From time to time, the state demolishes a tiny shred of a Jewish outpost in the occupied territories; just going through the motions, while bowing sanctimoniously to the Israeli High Court of Justice (HCJ). Let no one compare the master race, whose members have the benefit of myriad legal options when building their house, to the enslaved race, whose members are denied access to land, everywhere, by mountains of legal barriers; those who wish and even succeed in building their home on stolen land, to those who wish and fail to build their home on their own private land; those whose house will be protected by the sovereign through a reign of terror imposed on their neighbors, to those who can only dream of having the sovereign’s protection.

And perhaps those analysts in the future will inquire further as to why so few Israelis knew about this devastation at all, even though it took place constantly, week by week. Hardly a day goes by between the Jordan River and the sea, without a demolition of an Arab home by the State of Israel. And they will be baffled by the short Israeli memory, a memory that had forgotten long ago that the foreign British rule had committed the same crimes against us. And the greatest mystery of all will regard those who had known, yet had always assumed that the demolition policy was right, appropriate, legally justified; those who had assumed, with unquestionable simplicity, that half of the population between the river and the sea, which happens to be the Arabic-speaking half, was also delinquent by nature, simply unable to abide by the laws of planning and construction; and not only that, the other half also suffered from such staggering folly and shortsightedness, that it brought those endless demolitions upon itself, impoverishing itself to perdition in the process. After all, would there be anything simpler than lawful planning, and lawful submission of plans, and lawful attainment of permits, followed by construction? In short, is there anything simpler than being Jewish?

Yes, that is what law-abiding Israelis think to themselves, and someone will be perplexed by this as well one day. Let us now put all this perplexity aside, and get back to the dismal reality of rubble and furniture lying upside down. It happens all the time, with hardly any media coverage; reports go through one ear and come out through the other. The hum of bulldozers is the constant background noise of Zionism. Listen to it for a few moments.

***

The demolition of the el-Arabiyeh family home in Anata exceeds all the terrible things I have seen in my 17 years in Rabbis for Human Rights. The sight of a boy or a girl coming back from school and discovering that their house was demolished is something I would not wish my worst enemies to see.
(Rabbi Arik Asherman)

* * *

Excluding bodily and psychological harm, no graver cruelty can be inflicted on people than the demolition of their home. The financial consequence for most people is the loss of most of the capital they had accrued throughout their lives; being pushed back 20-30 years as far as their financial independence is concerned. But the demolition amounts of course to much more than that. It’s a demolition of the personal, intimate space where one’s most precious memories were formed; for a child – it is the space where all her/his intimate memories were formed. Every little detail of the house, seemingly trivial to the outside observer, is loaded with intensive meaning to those living in it. The tree in the backyard, the angle formed by shadows penetrating the room, the cracked door frame, the personal arrangement of clothes or toys. All these are wiped out in a brutal instant when the bulldozer goes over your house, and you are bound to feel disconnected – sheer detachment and floating in an alienating, impersonal space; this word, which has undergone such appalling devaluation in our language – “Trauma” – describes the situation precisely.

* * *

The State of Israel demolishes, time and time again. Here is a sequence of such demolitions, a devastating sequence, from the beginning of the year up to the past few days. It is impossible to document everything. Hundreds of photos, of every single house demolished by the state in the past six months, cannot be uploaded. One must perceive the catastrophe, but it is imperceptible. For now, we will settle for a sample. Hail the demolishing hero.

The State of Israel demolished the house of Rafat Issawi, in order to pressure his brother Samer, who went on hunger strike, Issawiya, East Jerusalem, Jan 4 2013, (photo: Activestills/Shiraz Grinbaum)

The State of Israel demolished four houses and left 36 people homeless, Um el-Kheir, South Hebron Hills, Jan 14 2013, (photo: Activestills/Keren Manor) 

The State of Israel demolished 70 structures and left an unknown number of people homeless, Jan 17 2013, Hamam el-Maleh, Jordan Valley, (photo: Activestills/Ahmed el-Bazz)

The State of Israel demolished 55 structures, leaving 187 people homeless, El-Maita, Jordan Valley Jan 20 2013, (photo: Activestills/Keren Manor)   

The State of Israel demolished two houses and left 30 people homeless, Feb. 5 2013, Beit Hanina, East Jerusalem. (photo: WAFA)

The State of Israel demolished the Abu-Saffa family house, leaving 12 people homeless, Feb 18, Beit Hanina, East Jerusalem. (photo: PNN.)

The State of Israel demolished a restaurant, Beit Jalla, Apr 18 2013. (photo: Anne Paq/Activestills)

The State of Israel demolished parts of the Jaradat family house, a-Tur, East Jerusalem, Apr 24 2013 (photo: Ryan Rodrick Beiler/Activestills)

The State of Israel demolished the Sabah family house and left two parents and five children homeless, Shuafat Refugee Camp, May 20 2013. (photo: Tali Maier/Activestills)

The State of Israel demolished 15 structures and left tens of Bedouins homeless in the unrecognized Bedouin village of Atir, Negev (within the 67 borders), Mat 21 2013. (photo: Oren Ziv/Activestills)

The State of Israel demolished two apartments belonging to the el-Salaima family, leaving 13 people homeless, Beit Hanina, East Jerusalem, May 21 2013. (photo: Lazar Simeonov) 

* * *

In 2011 alone, Israel demolished around 1,000 houses in the Bedouin villages in the Negev. The Ministry of Interior refuses to disclose data for 2012.

In 2012 alone, Israel demolished around 600 buildings throughout the West Bank. As a result, 880 people, more than half of them children, have lost their homes. Around 90 percent of the demolitions were carried out in Area C, and the rest in East Jerusalem.

As of now, more than 400 houses in neighborhoods of East Jerusalem are under the threat of imminent demolition.

Since 1967, Israel has demolished more than 28,000 Palestinian buildings in the Occupied Territories.

37 percent of state owned land on the West Bank has been allotted to Jewish settlements since 1967. Over the same period, just 0.7 percent of this land has been allotted to Palestinians.

Since 1967, East Jerusalem’s Palestinian population has grown by almost 250,000; throughout the same period, only 3,900 building permits have been issued in that part of the city.

Nearly half of East Jerusalem still does not have zoning plans, after 46 years. 35 percent of the planning area has been designated as “open view areas,” on which construction is prohibited. Just 17 percent of Palestinian East Jerusalem is available to residents for housing and construction, and these land resources have been nearly exhausted. Palestinian residents of East Jerusalem have no legal way of building houses.  

Between 2005 and 2009, the construction of 18,000 housing units in Jerusalem was approved; just 13 percent of them were in Palestinian East Jerusalem.

In most parts of East Jerusalem, building density is restricted to 75 percent. In West Jerusalem, the rate goes up to 150 percent.

180,000 Palestinians who reside in Area C have to settle for just 0.5 percent of this area for legal construction.

In 2009-2010 just 13 out of 776 requests for building permits by Palestinians in Area C were approved, no more than 1.7 percent.

Demolition orders have been issued against the majority of the buildings in the 180-year-old village of Hirbet Susya, home to 250 people, and the same goes for the inhabitants of the Hirbet Dukaikah and Hirbet Zanuta (Hebrew), home to 550 people. The State of Israel intends to wipe out entire villages in Area C.

* * *

And what happens when you demolish the wrong house? Mistakes (by Jews) are paid for (by Arabs), and then you confess (to Jews) and get a warm embrace:

* * *

Your country lies desolate,

   Your cities are burned up with fire.

   Foreigners devour them in your presence,

   And it is desolate, as overthrown by strangers

ISAIAH 1:7

In principle, I don’t think there would be anything unjust in going so far as to draft Israeli Arab youths to do a year or two of civilian national service in hospitals, schools, etc.  – even though there is a well-known, deeply entrenched pattern of discrimination against Arab citizens in this country. If it’s unjust to draft them to do national service in an old-age home, it’s much more unjust to force them to pay income taxes, much of which goes toward the state machinery that keeps them second-class citizens, occupies the Palestinians and occasionally attacks neighboring Arab countries – and I don’t hear Israeli Arabs saying they should be exempt from income taxes, or national health insurance payments, or traffic fines or other obligations borne by all Israeli citizens. (I use the term “Israeli Arab” or “Arab citizen” rather than “Palestinian” just to avoid confusion with Palestinians elsewhere, not to make a political point.)

I said “in principle,” though; in practice, drafting Israeli Arabs into national civilian service would meet far, far more resistance than it would be worth; even the Netanyahu government, which supports such a program, isn’t trying to actually implement it. Furthermore, it would have to be done in consultation with Israeli Arabs, with Israeli Arabs in key leadership positions and be free of any “Zionist content,” because no Arab should be expected to be a Zionist.

But yesterday, the government gave its support to a new bill that, even though its main purpose is to screw Israeli Arabs, and even though it’s been deemed discriminatory and unconstitutional by the attorney general, inadvertently offers Israel Arabs a historic opportunity, one that they should jump on if the bill gets through the Knesset and the Supreme Court (which, however, seems unlikely).

The bill gives veterans of IDF and national civilian service preference in hiring, salary, allocation of state land for housing, acceptance to college, and student housing. This would do more for the cause of Israeli Arab equality than anything I’ve ever heard of. But Israeli Arabs are against the bill not only because of its clearly malign intent (it was introduced by one of the Knesset’s great Arab-bashers, Likud’s Yariv Levin), but because Israeli Arab political leaders and opinion-makers have, for the last decade, been waging a campaign that brands Arabs who do national civilian service as the local version of Uncle Toms. At a meeting earlier this month of the Arab Monitoring Committee, which is made up of Arab Knesset members, mayors and other political leaders, MK Jamal Zahalka, head of the Balad party, warned:

Anyone who does national service should be ashamed. A young woman needs to know that if she performs national service, there is a chance no one will marry her and she will be ostracized. The same is true for every boy.

The main argument against national service for Israeli Arabs, whether compulsory or voluntary, is that they shouldn’t serve a state that denies them their right to equality. But in any plausible arrangement, they wouldn’t be serving the state as it oppresses Arabs or advances the Zionist cause; they would be serving regular people getting health care, education, practical assistance and other basic human services.

Above all, they would be paying their dues and thereby gaining legitimacy as Israeli citizens – not Zionists. This, I’m convinced, would reduce the alienation from Israeli Arabs on the part of Israeli Jews, and make it much, much harder for Israel to keep them down.

I know, and I agree, that Israeli Arabs shouldn’t first have to do national service to gain civic equality. But the fact is that standing on that principle isn’t getting them anything, while doing national service in rehabilitation centers and the like – which does not shame anyone – would bring progress.

And the thing is, the Israeli Arab public has shown a lot of support for national service, which is why their political leadership has been working so hard against it. Haifa Prof. Sammy Smooha, the leading pollster of Arab-Jewish relations in this country, found in 2007 that 78 percent of Arabs aged 18-22 would be willing to volunteer for national service. That figure dropped to 40 percent last year – but even then, support for national service among the Arab public at large was still at 62 percent. Meanwhile, the number of Israeli Arabs volunteering for national service multiplied tenfold – from 240 to 2,399 – in the six years after a new program was instituted in 2005.

And this is despite the organized, intense campaign by Israeli Arab leaders – as well as the steadily growing antipathy toward Israeli Arabs by Israel’s Jewish majority, especially in the four years since Netanyahu and the far right took over.

Arab citizens are not Zionists and don’t want to be, but they do want to be equal, integrated members of Israeli society. If the Arab nationalists and Jewish nationalists would stop pounding at them from both sides, there’s no reason why they wouldn’t go into national service in large numbers, which I believe would do wonders for the cause of equality and integration. It would be good for the Arabs, good for the Jews, good for the society. And it doesn’t have a chance in hell of happening, all because of our old friend, nationalism.

Related:
Palestinian citizens cannot be expected to serve Jewish state 
Debate on draft reform moves Israel further away from democracy 

Join the discussion:

Price tag settler attack on mosque in Tuba Zangariya, Galilee Oct 7, 2011 (Activestills.org)

Prime Minister Netanyahu and his security cabinet have declared that ‘price tag’ perpetrators – thugs who attack Palestinian property in the West Bank, vandalize Christian or Muslim holy sites and private homes of left-wing activists within the Green Line – will not be labelled “terror” groups, but rather as “illegal associations.” The designation is important because it indicates which laws authorities can apply in their effort to crack down on these activities.

Israeli news has been reporting the authorities’ frustration in trying to break into the cells and prevent the attacks; the move is supposed to be part of a stepped-up effort to address the problem. It is hard not to be cynical, though, when military courts and jails are full of Palestinians for every stone thrown, but other crimes – like torching cars and burning mosques – just seem far too complex and sophisticated for a simple Israeli intelligence outfit to solve.

In truth, I don’t think this is worth a lengthy moral or ideological debate about whether the group should be labelled as terrorists in general, since it has not killed civilians, thank god. What matters is that the government stop the violence that indeed terrorizes people and sows lawlessness in the land under Israel’s control, while entrenching the unequal standards of law enforcement for two different populations. To that end, perhaps the most deplorable point in Haaretz‘ coverage of the issue (Hebrew) is the following. Barak Ravid writes:

Prime Minister Netanyahu hesitated from the decision to declare “price tag” activists as a terror organization, especially against the background of political pressure from settler leaders in the West Bank and from the Jewish Home party, as well as figures in his own party. Holding a vote within the government about defining the “price tag” activists as a terror organization could have sparked a coalition crisis. [My translation - DS]

So if true, the settlement leaders who have gone out of their way to publicly decry such acts, are now privately pressuring the government (Ravid cites an unnamed source) into taking softer measures in the extremely urgent need to combat the violence. The elected leaders of Naftali Bennett’s Jewish Home and Likud parties, who sit in the governing coalition and therefore lead this country, argue against a designation that would allow authorities to fight this scourge more extensively.

This is not a left- or right-wing issue: Justice Minister Tzipi Livni and Defense Minister Moshe (Bogie) Yaalon favored the “terrorist” label. It’s simply a political defense of price tag violence. What kind of commitment to order and justice does that show from public officials?

Related:
Police ignore Palestinian complaint about settler violence
Price tag attack on J’lem church provokes religious condemnation
Study: Settler violence is structural, not a ‘price tag’ matter 

According to the draft legislation, favoring people who served in the IDF will not be considered discrimination nor will it be challengeable in court. Since Palestinian citizens of Israel are not required to serve in the military and most ultra-Orthodox are exempted from doing so, the new bill will give employers and real-estate owners a legal way to reject Palestinian applicants. Palestinians are already under-represented in the public sector and in access to national resources.

Yesterday (Sunday) The Knesset’s Ministerial Committee for Legislation decided to support the bill. Justice Minister Tzipi Livni has already announced that  she would appeal the decision, meaning that the Knesset votes on the bill will be postponed.

Related:
Israeli government to back law allowing discrimination against Palestinians, ultra-Orthodox

In July 1989, as a young, bored soldier in the IDF’s main draft base in Tel Ha’Shomer, I asked my colonel to be transferred to the Civil Administration in the Gaza Strip. We were on friendly terms and he quickly made the arrangements, walking through my first sham court martial. I was in charge of running a small garden toolshed, which was broken into while I was on vacation – many of the tools stolen. This was standard procedure; I myself broke into a rival’s shed a few days later and stole some of my stuff back. But not enough. My staff sergeant, who did not at all like me, made certain I’d stand trial for the missing hoes and shovels. The colonel made it all go away in two minutes, and the public property (admittedly, not much of it) simply vanished into air.

I had other reasons to leave Tel Ha’Shomer besides a vengeful NCO and a boring job. The First Intifada was in full bloom and I was itching to do something worthwhile. I have recently left my yeshiva under a cloud, was highly militant in my leftist views, and felt I needed to do something.

About that time, Yonathan Geffen – a two-bit pundit (who was actually a much better poet) – wrote a column, suggesting a leftist has three options facing the Intifada. The first was dropping out: feign insanity or religious conversion, and get out of the military. The second was dumbing down and closing your mind: obey your orders, initiate nothing, and try to repress everything you see. The third was actively changing the military by volunteering to serve in trouble spots and leading by example. There was a fourth option which Geffen didn’t mention and which tells you about conventional leftist discourse at the time: disobedience.

It didn’t occur to me, either, and so I asked for and receive a transfer to the Civil Administration unit in Deir El Balah, in the central region of the Gaza Strip. It didn’t take me long to notice violent and illegal behavior among my colleagues; it took them even less time to realize they have a leftist on their hands and basically shut me out of such knowledge the best they could.

What people who didn’t serve in a military unit don’t realize (and what the people who did and asked others why they didn’t complain understand all too well) is just how intensive this experience is and how much pressure is put on you. I tried my best. I complained to the colonel about an incident (I cannot recall the details, but it included unjustified violence) only to be ignored. Then, following the advice of the leader of my town’s the left-wing Ratz party leader Avi Oren (of blessed memory), I wrote a report to MK Dedi Tsuker, then of Ratz and the founder of B’Tselem (an Israeli NGO which documents human rights violations in the occupied territories), describing a particularly violent incident by my direct officer. A soldier reporting an incident to an MK is an act in accordance with the law.

The officer and his two goons summoned a Palestinian for some trivial offense – building something with a permit, if I recall correctly – and then proceeded to beat him senseless. The officer burst into my office, white-faced, told me the prisoner has passed out, and ordered me to summon a doctor. I did, and then, as per procedure, wrote out a report about it in the operational journal. This was my job, and this was a noteworthy incident. The officer returned to the office and glanced at the journal. “Did you report it to headquarters already?” he asked quietly. I told him no. He took out a knife and cut the page from the journal.

Now, most of those incidents would not have made it into the journal in the first place. I was unusual. Reporting the incident to B’Tselem was even more unusual. When the shit storm broke out in the pages of the late, lamented daily paper Hadashot, the Civil Administration went into crisis mode. We received phone calls from the chief of staff’s bureau, and the officers in Deir El Balah needed less than an hour to identify the leak.

My officer took me out for a ride. We were in the vehicle – him, me, a driver and one of his two goons. He ordered the driver to take us to the outskirts of the Dir El Balah refugee camp, one of the most notoriously violent camps around. He ordered the driver to halt the vehicle, and told me “get out.” I stared at him, and he began ranting that since I was so friendly with the Arabs, I might as well join them. This went on for several minutes, with no one else saying a word. I ended the rant by cocking my rifle and chambering a round, making clear my intentions without saying a word. He shut up, and told the driver to drive us back to base.

Would I have pulled the trigger? I don’t know.

The incident quickly made the round at the base – I guess the driver talked – and people came to shake my hand and congratulate me on my courage in facing down an officer. But afterwards, few of them would exchange words with me. I became a pariah. The officer was promoted several weeks later, out of the unit, though not before putting me on trial for some trumped-up charges (he failed after the unit’s executive officer saw through it).

This wasn’t the end of it. I was contacted by the Military Police Criminal Investigations Division (MPCID), and pressured into serving as an informant. I think I did an excellent job. Some people would boast about harming some Palestinian and would find themselves under investigation several weeks later. MPCID did a better job at protecting me, I must say, then Tsuker did: they basically collected reports from the victims before summoning the soldier, so as to cover me. I still came under suspicion, but as I pointed out, they didn’t take me into the field anymore, so I couldn’t have witnessed anything, could I?

Six months after the initial incident, I was put on trial, despite a promise from the Chief of the Civil Administration that I wouldn’t be, under the condition that I tell him precisely what happened, which I did. My new commanding officer protested that a promise had been made and broken, to no avail. A colonel came during the night to try me. I received a suspended sentence for reporting an incident to an MK, which – again – was my legal right. The officer who beat someone for a building offense until he lost consciousness and illegally destroyed the report? Promoted.

In the process, I became an accessory to the occupation. Yes, I ensured that some criminals were put on trial, and I tried to do my best to help people, but I also had to do my job, which included ordering bulldozers so that house demolitions could be carried out, and writing reports which made it possible for the occupation to function in that regard.

The Civil Administration isn’t a proper army. It is supposed to be the carrot, not the stick. People who served in combat units knew that reporting on their comrades meant reporting on people whom they will have to rely on in real combat zones, such as Lebanon. It simply wasn’t done.

This is what I would say to any of the hypocrites who ask the “silence breakers” why they didn’t go through the proper channels when they had the chance. And to any young person with a conscience, I would simply say: don’t repeat my mistakes – you can’t reform the army. At best you’d serve as a fig leaf, at worst you’d get seriously beat up for your troublemaking. Refuse to serve, or dodge your way out of the system, but simply don’t go there. You can’t win and, anyway, this isn’t your game. You can’t save others; save yourself, at least.

WATCH: Former female Israeli soldiers break their silence

Related:
Why soldiers don’t ‘break the silence’ to the IDF
The soldiers’ stories that Israel lacks the courage to hear

According for the suggested legislation, favoring people who served in the IDF will not be considered discrimination nor will it be challengeable in court. Since Palestinian citizens of Israel are not required to serve in the military and most ultra-Orthodox are exempted from doing so, the new bill will give employers and real-estate owners a legal way to reject Palestinian applicants.

Palestinians are underrepresented in almost all areas of public life in Israel. While they constitute 20 percent of the population, only 8 percent of the public sector’s workers are Palestinian. Unemployment is higher among Palestinians, and two-thirds of Palestinian citizen’s children grow up beneath the poverty line.

“On the one hand, the government claims that participation of Palestinians and ultra-Orthodox in the workforce should increase, while at the same time, it initiate laws which are meant to leave them out of it,” Meretz leader Zehava Gal-On told Ynet News.