Former Defense Minister Moshe Arens yesterday told Ma’ariv he thinks the separation wall – which snakes its way around the West Bank and has been responsible for cutting tens of thousands of people from their livelihoods and from each other – should be torn down. “The wall is no longer of any use and it’s only doing Israel harm,” he told the website. “It’s obvious today that the separation wall [sic] is completely useless. It’s damaging Israel in the international arena and it causes hardship for the Palestinians in their day-to-day lives.” Arens, a noted hawk who has served as defense minister in three different Likud cabinets (Begin, Shamir and Netanyahu), attributed construction of the wall to hysteria rather than strategic thinking. “There was panic. When terror attacks occur almost every day, sometimes twice a day, and the Shin Bet comes to you and tells you it’s impossible to block terrorism without a wall, you get convinced. I was also convinced, but today it’s clear there is no connection between the wall and the cessation of attacks.”

The former defense minister instead attributed the slump in Palestinian political violence to IDF activity within Palestinian areas and the collaboration of Palestinian police forces, adding that “the wall is ugly. It’s like a scar on the face of the Land of Israel. There have been walls before and they fell down.” Finally, he said, “we should remember many Jews live beyond the wall,” and some fear the wall might someday become a political border.

In my mind, the last argument is the most important – both for Arens himself and for the settler politicians who rallied to his support. MK Yoni Chetboun of Habayit Hayehudi party (led by annexationist Naftali Bennett) argued to Ma’ariv that “the wall actually increases motivation for terrorism among the Palestinians by projecting a message of weakness, defensiveness and entrenchment.” Chetboun, who sits on the pivotal Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, credited the wall with a “short term” role in stopping waves of attacks, but said, “what Israel needs is freedom of action within the Palestinian cities, not walls and fences… in some places there’s no operational logic to the wall, and it seems the considerations driving the planners of the wall were made with political motives and with regard for the future border line.”

Orit Strock, possibly the most notorious right-wing hardliner on the Habyait Hayehudi list, said that “building the fence was a mistake that should be mended… Israel spent a fortune on a wall that, according to all the reports by the IDF and the Shin Bet, is not what prevented the terror attacks. Terrorism prevention was made possible and is still made possible today through the presence and activity of the IDF in the Arab cities of Judea and Samaria.”

There are some political subtexts here that indicate shades of opinion within the Right, and are therefore worth highlighting. Arens himself is a noted supporter of the one-state solution and has written and spoken in support of annexing the West Bank and granting full civil rights (including the right to vote) to its Palestinian residents on many occasions (this op-ed from 2010 is particularly worth a read). As a result, he has no problem referring to the barrier by the derisive and highly accurate moniker, “the separation wall.” Of the three, Arens also is the only one who explicitly refers to the hardships the wall causes to Palestinians (which, if nothing else, obviously generates a security liability in the long run) and offers some credit to the Palestinian Authority’s security forces for clamping down on Palestinian armed groups. Chetboun, the next to the right, doesn’t mention Palestinian needs or contributions, but at least refers to them by their proper name.  Strock, finally, doesn’t even recognise the Palestinians as a nation – to her, they are mere residents of “Arab” cities within [Jewish] Judea and Samaria and what’s needed is not only “freedom of action,” but actual “presence” of the IDF within those cities. In short, she is advocating a straightforward resumption of complete, direct military control over the West Bank, without even the fig leaf of the Palestinian Authority.

What all three have in common, however, is the concern that the wall might one day demarcate a political border with a Palestinian state, thus affecting the “Jews beyond the wall” (step forth, Jon Snowowitz) and the IDF’s freedom of action there. Considering that the wall, built entirely on the increasingly vacant pretext of “security,” already eats up much of the miserly territory afforded to Palestinians under the two-state solution paradigm, this reluctance to give up even the little that’s left might seem appalling to two-staters. But the comments of the left wingers quoted in the piece paint the two-state camp in Israel in an even more depressing light.

The Left clings to the wall 

MK Eitan Cabel (Labor) paid tribute to Arens’ achievements, but lamented the “wrong” motivations for his desire to bring down the wall. “It’s actually another step towards the bi-national state in which he believes. It’s not the wall that makes us look bad across the world, but the profound diplomatic deadlock caused by Netanyahu. The only thing that will bring down the wall is an agreement with the Palestinians. The wall is a terrible thing from a humanitarian point of view, but that’s not the reason why Arens wants to remove it.” Chairman of Peace Now, Yariv Oppenheimer, also chips in: “Those who want to completely dismantle the fence seek to create the reality of a single, bi-national state, either non-Jewish or non-democratic. The fence must be moved to the future border based on the 1967 lines and the land taken away from Palestinians from its construction must be returned to them.”

The wall and the entire separation paradigm (“we’re here, they’re there,” as Ehud Barak once put it ) is first and foremost a center-left construct; it’s not for nothing that the most avid champions of the wall were Barak himself and Ehud Olmert. Both progressive public figures seemed more threatened by the remote prospect of a bi-national state than concerned with anything like equality or justice, even in the short-term – otherwise there should have been no problem for them to demand both the immediate demolition of the wall and a return to two-state negotiations.

Oppenheimer’s desire to rebuild the wall on the 1967 border is particularly bizarre, considering he advocates a peace agreement with the Palestinians that would make such a gargantuan fortification superfluous, and considering such reconstruction would necessitate the confiscation of yet more land, causing further hardship.

But it is Cabel’s comments that shed the starkest light on the current condition of the center-left’s two-state project. With the rise of the annexationist Right, the Left, which should have been demanding the demolition of the wall forthwith has now come to hinge upon the wall as its last hope for preserving a nation-state through separation. The size, viability and contiguity of the Palestinian state that will result from this can go to hell, as can the immediate needs of the Palestinians who are catastrophically affected by the wall. Eventual separation is now such an urgent priority that everything and everyone else can wait – let the wall stay where it is, so long as we get two separate states in the long run.

New room for manoeuvre 

The division of opinion here indicates once again the slow redrawing of the political map in Israel: The Right is emerging as the more politically daring and flexible, ready to radically challenge the status quo and offer significant changes, up to and including enfranchisement of Palestinians and/or bi-national power-sharing, even if it is unlikely to offer or accept full individual and collective rights from the get-go. The old Left is becoming more entrenched and conservative-nationalist, determined to preserve the status quo without any profound or systemic changes.

For better or worse, it seems the agenda in the next few years will be set by Arens, Bennett and co., and if the wall is indeed brought down, it won’t be through the efforts of the mainstream Left. The more interesting question is how Palestinians will respond to this change: will they continue to ally themselves broadly with the partitionist, fading Left, which is happy to drive them into ever narrower confines (with friends like these…), or will they utilize and push to expand the much broader room for maneuver inadvertently being created by the annexationist Right.

Likud MK Tzipi Hotovely said on Monday that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu does not intend to ever carry out the evacuation of West Bank settlements, and that the Bar Ilan speech, in which he accepted in principle the idea of a demilitarized Palestinian state, was meant to please the world and corner the Palestinian leadership, Walla reports.

Appearing at an election event in Jerusalem, Hotovely (#15 on the Likud-Beitenu list to the Knesset) stated:

The Bar Ilan speech was a tactical speech intended for the world…the prime minister was facing an unbearable reality and the speech exposed the Palestinians’ true nature. Likud will not evacuate settlements.

Hotovely added that Ehud Barak will not serve in the new government, an estimate that is shared by most political observers, since the rising power of the settlers within the Likud will allow them to veto his candidacy. Hotovely also estimated that Moshe Ya’alon will serve as the defense minister in the new government.

The Likud-Beitenu party has yet publish a platform for the upcoming elections, and prominent figures within the party demand that if such a document is published, it should not include any reference to a future Palestinian state. The winner of the Likud primaries, Education Minister Gideon Sa’ar, told Ynet that the idea of a Palestinian state was never in the Likud platform and should not be implemented. At another event, Sa’ar said that “it is time to sober up from the idea of a Palestinian state.”

On Monday, a spokesperson for Netanyahu told the Jerusalem Post that the prime minister stands behind his support for the idea of a Palestinian State.

By Anselm Kiersch

German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle (photo: flickr / Liberale CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)

Popular support for the Palestinian cause is as high in Germany as it is in France. However, all German governments have traditionally been strongly supportive of Israel. Consequently, both Merkel and Westerwelle have declared Israel’s security as a “reason of state” for Germany. Thus, Germany has always voted in accordance with Israel and the United States on decisions concerning Israel in the UN.

Faithful to that tradition, Germany was against the resolution in favor of upgrading Palestine to a non-member observer state. Israel and the United States made an effort to get a visible number of countries to agree to vote against the bid. They concentrated on Central European countries like the Baltics, who had sympathy for the Palestinians, because they had lived under occupation themselves. These countries are small in size and large in number. Because each state (regardless of size and influence) has one vote in the General Assembly, they could easily have constituted a visible counterbalance to the expected outcome passage of the resolution.

However, in the end, too many countries in Europe were fed up with Israel’s stubborn settlement policy. It became clear in the days ahead of the vote that all of the Mediterranean and Scandinavian countries would vote to upgrade the Palestinian status. Confronted with this clear trend, none of the Central and Eastern European states, with the exception of the Czech Republic, wanted to be in open opposition to the Mediterranean and Scandinavian countries. They decided therefore to abstain as a compromise. Germany, in a last-ditch effort, tried to get at least a clear majority of European states to vote for abstention, but it failed in the end.

Isolated in the EU, and with popular opinion in Germany against him, Westerwelle would have risked repeating the failure of the Libya vote had he rejected the resolution. The German opposition, widely in support of the Palestinian bid, would have accused him of again isolating Germany in Europe and voting against vital German interests, especially regarding the long-term goal of a united European foreign policy and permanent membership in the Security Council. In abstaining, Germany was joined by Great Britain and some Central and East European countries. The decision was acceptable to the German public and essential for the foreign minister’s political career.

The vote came as a surprise to many political observers in both Germany and Israel. The public had taken a German rejection of the bid for granted due to the tradition of unconditional support for Israel in the international arena. But Westerwelle had learned from his mistakes in Libya, and would not dare to isolate Germany again.

Anselm Kiersch is a German child and adolescent psychiatrist living in Norway. He is a member of the Norwegian Palestinakomiteen, which is part of the International Solidarity Movement for Palestine.

Related: 
European fickleness ahead of UN vote as immature as Israeli response
UN votes yes on Palestinian statehood: Not ‘just’ a symbol 
PHOTOS: Palestinians celebrate UN victory

Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu. So far, the recent diplomatic failures have not hurt Netanyahu  (photo: Avi Ochayon/ Government Press Office)

Israeli ambassadors in several European capitals have been summoned to receive angry responses to Jerusalem’s recent decision to construct 3,000 new housing units in the West Bank settlements and promote the zoning plan for E1 area, northeast of Jerusalem. E1 is the only remaining corridor between the large Palestinian cities in the West Bank. It is the final brick in the great project Likud and Kadima prime ministers have been carrying out in the last two decades, which is designed to encircle the Palestinian part of Jerusalem with Israeli settlements and neighborhoods in such a way that would permanently prevent and division of the city, or any other territorial compromise, for that matter.

A spokesperson for the German embassy expressed “great concern” over the decision and called the Israeli government “to reconsider it.” The head of the French foreign office told the Israeli ambassador that the settlements are “illegal by international law.” Similar messages were expressed by the Netherlands and the British governments.

Greater Jerusalem Map, Updated 2011. The E1 area will complete the Jewish “ring” around Palestinian East Jerusalem, and will disconnect the north of the West Bank from its south (source: Ir Amim)

The language of the European responses seems unprecedented. Haaretz reported this morning that Britain and France were considering recalling their envoys to Tel Aviv (a report later confirmed by the British network Sky). Such a move seems highly unlikely, but the very notion marks a new low point in relations between the Israeli government and its European allies. After four years in power, Benjamin Netanyahu and his government have managed to isolate Israel in a way never seen before.

Yet in the internal Israeli game, all of this won’t matter that much. The Israeli public has grown used to hearing European and American reports which condemn settlement construction projects. The same headlines have been declaring that “the American administration is dismayed” or that “the European Union condemns…” for the last four decades. It seem that Netanyahu won’t lose support with the public, meanwhile Likud ministers have been going around explaining to the public why only “light measures” against the Palestinian Authority were taken.

In the early evening, a government spokesperson told Haaretz that the decisions Israel has made – among them the confiscation of almost half a billion shekels ($120 million) of tax money that Israel collects for the PA – will not be reconsidered. The government also announced that further steps will be considered if the PA takes any other unilateral actions. Jerusalem, it seems, simply sees Palestinians – their foreign policy included – as its prisoners, subjects to sticks and carrots according to the degree to with which they stay in line with the Likud’s policy objectives.

It is not surprising though that the diplomatic drama of the last couple of weeks is met with indifference among both the Israeli and the Palestinian public. I highly recommend reading Haggai Matar’s account of the sad “independence night” in Ramallah. Clearly, any sense of Palestinian national pride that the UN vote could have brought has been overshadowed by the understanding that at this point in time, there is nothing further from reality than the establishment of a contiguous, independent Palestinian state.

The debate over what contiguity means reflects the low point in which we find ourselves. Under the Oslo accords, Israel specifically committed to viewing the Gaza Strip and the West Bank as one unit. A couple of years ago, I posted an official IDF slideshow, casually mentioning the separation of the Gaza and the West Bank as an Israeli policy objective. Today, with the settlement of Ariel (16 miles into the West Bank) and its access road seen by the government as one of the future “settlement blocs” which will be kept in Israeli hands, and with construction in E1 moving forward, it seems that the West Bank alone will soon be torn into three pieces. The Gaza Strip – whose border is open only from its Egyptian side – could just the same be on a different planet. And the future? Even if Israel was to remove some 50 to 80 thousands settlers – clearly a fantasy at this point in time – all the Palestinians could hope for is something between the famous “Palestinian Archipelago” map and open-air prison which is now Gaza.

European policy, even in its most engaged moments, is using the conceptual framework of the 80s and 90s to deal with a problem that has gone through considerable changes. More failures are all but inevitable. I seriously doubt whether the European Union is able to enforce its own ban on products from the settlements, but even if it does, it would be like trying to turn a car around by arguing with one of its wheels. The economy of the occupation – for Palestinians and settlers alike – is part of the Israeli economy by now, just as the military justice system in the West Bank is part of the Israeli court system. The argument over a single house here or a neighborhood there has clearly run its course.

The Palestinian problem is a human and civil rights problem disguised as a diplomatic issue. An adequate approach to the occupation would focus on the problem at hand and not the desired solution, which at the moment seems more like a fantasy. The problem is the military control over the lives of millions which has lasted for over half a century, and the absence of political and human rights that comes along with said rule. A Palestinian state is one possible solution to this situation, but it shouldn’t be a policy objective on its own. Treating it like one gives the Israeli leadership an incentive to use the Palestinians as prisoners and their land as a bargaining chip. Israel should face demands that have to do with Palestinian rights – including a just solution to the refugee problem – accompanied by adequate policy measures. Among other things, the result will be a more honest public debate in Israel, and a policy which is more accountable for its long term effects.

Related:
Palestinian President Abbas: The only leader fighting for the Jewish state
Resource: What is the E1 area, and why is it so important? 

By Mosab Qashoo

Anyone following the Palestinian struggle will have heard about Mahmoud Sarsak, the imprisoned Palestinian footballer who this week ended a hunger strike of over three months. Meanwhile, the Palestinian Authority (PA) and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) have been publicizing their upcoming meeting with the head of the Israeli Kadima party, Shaul Mofaz, leaving a striking absence of any official comment on Sarsak’s situation.

It seems very bizarre that the PA and PLO ignored one of their national heroes, a rising star in the society’s most popular sport, who was on the brink of death. He was the easiest person to defend. He has never been involved in politics, is not a member of a political party, and had all the necessary Israel-issued permits. He was one of the youngest people to make the Palestinian national soccer team. Above all, he has not been charged or convicted by Israel of any wrongdoing, although Israel held him for three years.

Even considering the PA and the PLO more cynically, any politician could have seen a man in such a situation as a gift from the political gods. Imagine the affirmation they would have received if they negotiated his release. Imagine the photo-ops of officials visiting the soccer team Sarsak was supposed to join when he was seized by Israel. They could have even organized children’s soccer games in his honor. Yet these authorities didn’t not take advantage of this opportunity, neither for selfless nor for self-serving gains.

According to his mother, Sarsak remains in Marash clinic in the Ramle prison, refused access to a proper civilian hospital. He has been refused family visits, which was a condition that Israel had agreed to in previous deals with other hunger strikers. Instead, he was allowed a three-minute phone call with his mother. His eventual release was negotiated so late that Sarsak easily could have died before agreeing to anything.

Most importantly, if Israel decides that he incited other prisoners to go on hunger strike or does any political organizing after his release, he will be arrested again. Agreeing to these terms indicates that the lawyers who negotiated his release, who are paid by the Palestinian Authority, seem to be more interested ending the hunger strikes rather than ameliorating the prisoners’ conditions. Instead of fighting for the rights of their clients, these lawyers appeared to pressure them into accepting whatever deal Israel presents.

Palestinian politicians continue to ignore the three remaining hunger strikers, Akram Rikhawi, Samer al-Barq and Hassan Safadi. Safadi quit his initial hunger strike after over seventy days. He resumed the strike after his administrative detention had been renewed, contrary to the deal he reached with Israel. If the PA really wanted to prevent their deaths, it would be campaigning for them now, not when they’re gasping for their last breath.

While all this might seem odd, it is actually quite a cunning move on the part of those bodies. The Palestinian Authority maintains its power by channeling Palestinian energy into creating a picture of normalcy. It provides the Palestinians in the West Bank with the symbolic functions that a real sovereign state would have, while behind the scenes, everything is controlled by Israel.

For example, the Palestinian passport, seen as one of the most important symbols of national identity, is still inscribed with the Israeli-issued military ID number assigned to that person. These celebrated symbols of statehood do have Palestinian colors and symbols on them but they are still functionally Israeli documents. In another example, the PA has created an official ministry for prisoners, which renders the occupation permanent while simultaneously normalizing the mass imprisonment of Palestinians by Israel.

While Palestinian officials pretend to make real changes, such changes are impossible to implement while Israel still occupies the territories and prevents the refugees from returning. The empty symbolic gestures of the PA and the PLO obscure the occupation from view as much as possible, especially within their “Ramallah bubble.”

The brave activism demonstrated by the various waves of hunger strikers is a direct threat to their scheme. They want Palestinians to forget the occupation and its brutality. The hunger strikers bring this to the front and center. They represent a decentralized and informal “people power” that cannot be easily contained and controlled, at levels unseen since the First Intifada.

The Palestinian Authority fears an intifada perhaps more than Israel, as another uprising would erase its final remaining excuse to stay in existence, as the symbol of a normalized Palestinian state with formal negotiators, armies and ambassadors.

In an intifada, the people speak and act directly for themselves. For Sarsak, each person could be his/her own prisoner minister. Most importantly, an intifada would present a direct confrontation with the occupation the PA is so desperately trying to imagine away. Thus the PA and the PLO have been silent for fear of awakening the people from their collective daydream of non-occupied life. The narrative of Mahmoud Sarsak, heroic national football star taking on the occupation armed only with an empty stomach, had the ability to bring the intifada back, and the PA knows it.

Mosab Qashoo grew up in an agricultural village outside of the West Bank town of Qalqilia, between the first and second intifadas. He studied Information Technology, Industrial Engineering & Conflict Management in the West Bank and London. He is currently based in New York City, where he is a food activist and founder of Palestine Farm Project, which provides support to farmers in order to create a sustainable agricultural economy in the West Bank.

Related:
Deal reached to free hunger striking footballer Mahmoud Sarsak
Hunger striking Palestinian footballer at risk of death
Eric Cantona, FIFA head demand release of Palestinian footballer

By Elsa Rassbach

On March 20th, I interviewed Dr. Mustafa Barghouti about the plans for a new international initiative for Land Day, March 30th: a Global March to Jerusalem, to bring together in one nonviolent action all of the Palestinian political parties and civil society organizations in historic Palestine as well as in the diaspora, with supporting actions around the world.

Then on March 27, Mustafa’s distant cousin, Fatah leader Marwan Barghouti, issued a letter from the Israeli prison where he has so far served ten years of five life sentences. In it, Marwan Barghouti called on the Palestinian Authority to end peace negotiations and all coordination with Israel, to institute a total boycott against Israel, and to turn to the UN General Assembly to advance the bid for statehood.  He also called on the Palestinian people to begin a new a popular nonviolent uprising in the spirit of the Arab Spring: a third intifada. As punishment, the Israelis put him in solitary confinement.

Both Barghoutis are calling for increased Palestinian popular resistance, which is an implicit criticism of the old-guard Fatah leadership. Both Barghoutis have called for unity between Fatah and Hamas and all other Palestinian parties, yet the two might well compete against each other in a new Palestinian election: Marwan as leader of the more activist second generation Fatah activists and Mustafa as leader of the Palestinian National Initiative party (Al-Mubadara). During the 2005 elections, as candidate for president of the Palestinian Authority, Mustafa Barghouti won 19 percent of the vote. The Israelis thereupon banned him from entering Jerusalem, where he was born and had worked as a medical doctor for fifteen years.

In the Global March to Jerusalem this year, Palestinians and their supporters planned to march as close to Jerusalem as they could get: whether at the borders of Lebanon, Syria and Jordan, at the checkpoints in Gaza and in the West Bank, or at Israeli embassies around the world.  The closest point Mustafa Barghouti could reach was the Qalandia checkpoint between Ramallah, where he now resides, and Jerusalem.  At Qalandia he was injured and brought to a hospital, amid conflicting reports regarding the cause of his injury.

Reports on the success of the Global March to Jerusalem were also mixed.  Far fewer demonstrators amassed on the borders of Lebanon and Jordan than had been predicted by some, and, as far as is known, no one attempted to cross over into Israeli controlled territory. Yet the organizers have stated that they had achieved their most important goals.

I recently spoke with Mustafa Barghouti again by Skype.

What was your response to the call that Marwan Barghouti issued from prison?

I agree with him that Israel is trying to make the Authority a security sub-agent while Israel continues occupying and oppressing us. Thus all this coordination with the Israelis should stop. I think we also share the same opinion about popular nonviolent resistance.  That’s what we’ve been working on for the last ten years. And I am personally proud and happy that now all political forces that in the past did not consider nonviolent resistance effective are recognizing it and adopting it.  This is the biggest success that can happen.  And I believe that this is now a good opportunity for all of us to conduct a unified struggle.

Did this nonviolent approach arise from the villages in the West Bank and their struggle?

Already back in 1936 there was in Palestine a nonviolent resistance movement, a strike which went on for six months. There is a tradition, and the best example is the first intifada.  But the new nonviolent resistance in its most purified form started in villages like Budrus and Safa, then moved to Bil’in and then Nil’in and then to other villages, then to Jerusalem, then to Hebron and now it’s spreading everywhere.  If you go back to statements we made three or four years ago, we were anticipating that this nonviolent resistance would spread. People believe in it now for three reasons: first of all, the total failure of the so-called peace process, which became nothing but a substitute to peace and a cover for Israeli expansionist policies; second, because many people understand and realize now that nonviolent resistance is much more effective than military actions; and third – and this is very important – it is a very good way of linking the Palestinian struggle to international solidarity with a clear aim, which is to change the parameters of the struggle and of the conflict and change the balance of power. We believe that so far the Israeli occupation has been profiting from occupying us, and this popular nonviolent resistance is going to make the occupation costly.  The nonviolent resistance takes multiple forms, and that is good.  One of the most important acts we did was to try to break the siege on Gaza: I remember in 2008, when we went in a small boat and managed to break the siege, how much this affected many leaders in Gaza regarding their belief in and acceptance of nonviolent resistance. But there are many more forms: hunger strikes, demonstrations, and the very important form of boycotting Israeli products, which we are planning to increase in the coming weeks.

Why is nonviolence more effective?

It works better because it allows everybody, and not just a small group of people, to participate. It works better because it does not allow the Israelis to claim that they are victims in this conflict. It reveals and exposes them as they are in reality: the oppressors, the occupiers, and the creators of an apartheid system.

This year on Palestinian Land Day, March 30, there was a new nonviolent initiative, the Global March to Jerusalem, of which you were a principle supporter.  What role did your political party, the Palestinian National Initiative, and the other political parties play in this initiative?

I represented all political parties in the West Bank in the coordination committee of this March. In the West Bank all the political parties were completely involved in the organization of the Global March to Jerusalem, along with the civil society institutions and other structures. And we all agreed that we would come to the March with Palestinian flags as well as with our political party flags.  The idea was to encourage party members to come in big numbers, and it worked. There was a long effort to bring all the Palestinian factions together, and so the Global March to Jerusalem seems to be at least a symbolic step towards unity.  During the demonstrations in the West Bank, all of the leaders of the political parties marched in front. It’s of course our duty to be in the front, because we cannot have young people to be hurt by the Israelis and wait behind and direct them from the comfort of an office. The Palestinian Initiative had a lot of its supporters from different regions of the West Bank participate in the March.

On Land Day, Amnesty International’s deputy director for the Middle East and North Africa called on Israel to stop using excessive force against demonstrators.  Did the Israelis use an unusual amount of violence against the Global March?

It was unusual how early they started attacking us. I think they were hoping that somehow the demonstrations would be aborted, and when they realized they would not be, they immediately turned to severe violence. Not only was the violence disproportionate and extreme and excessive, but also – for example in Qalandia, where I was – they started shooting the tear gas and the metallic bullets covered with a thin piece of rubber when well before we reached the checkpoints, before we were even given any chance to approach them. Then this violence did not stop.  And this has become a habit, the constant and disproportionate use of violence by the Israeli Army against nonviolent demonstrations. And I think this will continue for as long as the international community does not criticize and pressure them sufficiently. I really thank Amnesty International for directing attention to the excessive violence and force they used. On Land Day they injured at least 320 people, including one who was killed in Gaza with a high velocity bullet; a man in Bethlehem who was hit directly in the face, with a broken jaw; and I myself received one of their tear gas bombs that grazed my head.

On Land Day Amnesty International also cited reports that Palestinian Authority security forces tried to prevent protests in areas under their control and that Hamas security forces had beaten protesters in Gaza.   Is the popular resistance in Palestine now facing Palestinian security as the first obstacle?

The Palestinian security forces did try to stop the demonstration in Bethlehem, but they could not, and people from Mubadara and Fatah and other groups managed to get past the security officers who were standing there to conduct their demonstration.  In Qalandia, there was a mob that attacked the people participating in the demonstration and tried to prevent the demonstration from reaching the checkpoint.  Of course these were people wearing civilian clothing.  We don’t know them.  We don’t know exactly who was directing them, but clearly there are suspicions that there were efforts to try to prevent the demonstration from proceeding. The Palestinian Authority officially declared that it supports popular nonviolent resistance. So we expect that no Palestinian should try to prevent or stop Palestinians from nonviolently, peacefully struggling for their rights, because we are struggling for the freedom of everybody.  They should support the popular nonviolent resistance rather than try to obstruct it or co-opt it. The authorities in the West Bank and in the Gaza Strip have no right to stop Palestinians from participating in peaceful nonviolent resistance, whether it’s in Gaza or in West Bank or anywhere else.

On Land Day you were injured during the demonstration and brought to a hospital, and there are conflicting reports regarding the causes of your injury. Can you tell us what happened?

As Land Day this year was on a Friday, it began with two prayers, one in the street and one inside the mosque. When the one in the street finished, people started to move, with Mr. Alol who is a member of the central committee of Fatah and others and I leading.   Then some guys said there are others waiting still in the mosque, so we stopped the demonstration and waited. After that everything went well until the Israeli Army attacked us. In the second wave of the teargas bombs, one of the bombs hit me in my head. I was injured and a wound started to bleed. I was rushed to an ambulance. As I was trying to enter the ambulance, some of the people who had been trying to co-opt the demonstration and prevent it from moving tried to attack me.  And when I got into the ambulance, they started attacking the ambulance, hitting it, and we were just lucky that they couldn’t break through.  They assaulted not only the ambulance I was in, but also two other ambulances. The Palestinian Authority is investigating this matter now, and we are waiting for the results.

Who were these people?

This is being investigated.  We think anybody who attacks Palestinian demonstrators during a demonstration against occupation cannot be serving the interest of the Palestinian people. Only the occupation will benefit from such acts.   I spoke with President Abbas on this matter three times.  We met, and he condemned such acts against any Palestinian leader. He wished me recovery from the Israeli tear gas bomb injury. Many other officials came to see me in the hospital.  And now there is an investigation to find out why some of these guys tried to block this demonstration, because we will not allow this to be repeated.  We have to be unified.  The Global March to Jerusalem on Land Day was organized in very close cooperation between my party, the Mubadara, and Fatah, PFLP, Hamas, everybody else. And when I was in the hospital, all the leaders of all parties — Fatah, Hamas, PFLP (Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine), PPP (Palestinian People’s Party), everybody — came to see me to express their respect.  So we will not allow this to affect our unity. There was no conflict between the political parties.  This was an act by a small group of people who instigated attacks on ambulances and on injured people and on some demonstrators.  These people have to be investigated.  We have to find out who directed them and who motivated them. And I think the Israelis are ridiculous when they try to take away the responsibility for injuring me.  Would they also claim that they are not responsible for the other 320 others they injured on Land Day and for the death of the 19-year-old Mahmoud Zakout in Gaza?

What was accomplished on Land Day towards building Palestinian unity?

I think it consolidated this unity.  And it was a great day because you had people participating at the same time in activities and in demonstrations inside Israel — the Negev and Galilee — in West Bank, in Gaza, in Jerusalem, and in the Diaspora.  This was a great sign of regaining Palestinian unity again around common goals, and it was also a great merger between Palestinian popular nonviolent resistance with international solidarity.

But though there were solidarity demonstrations in more than 80 countries around the world, these activists mostly so far have not had much influence on their own governments to convince them to support the Palestinian cause.  

This is not true.  The activists are building very good influence in their countries. Our struggle is like the anti-apartheid struggle in South Africa. It takes time and it needs to be built gradually. We need to stop dreaming about getting the solution from the United States government, as some politicians do. Like the anti-apartheid struggle, people are working now at the grassroots level in many countries, and gradually it will have an impact on parliaments.  It has already changed even the European Parliament a great deal.  And after parliaments, governments will change. And the last to change will be the United States. We know that.

You don’t count on Obama, if he’s reelected, to help you?

No. Maybe there will be a miracle and he will change. But I count on the people of the United States, who will gradually learn and know, including the Jewish American community.  I spoke the last week in March at a conference of a Jewish organization called J Street in Washington, DC, and it was amazing.  And I think as more and more people understand the reality and the moral integrity of the Palestinian struggle, and how immoral the Israeli oppression is, the more we will prevail.  And I believe in the people who will change their governments.

What about Germany?

People in Germany more and more understand the situation, and more and more of them are more enthusiastic for the Palestinian cause. I am sure you read the remarks that were made by the head of the Social Democratic Party when he went to Hebron and said this is apartheid.  This is just one indicator.  The more these leaders come to Palestine, the more they will understand the situation. People in Germany need to comprehend that our struggle to free Palestine does not negate or undermine the sufferings of Jewish people during the Holocaust, nor even during the pogroms in Russia or during the Inquisition in Spain.  None of what we do negates this, but on the contrary, that suffering of the Jewish people should be a motivator to the government in Israel not to repeat the same mistakes, not to oppress the Palestinian people. Our nonviolent resistance is not only about freeing Palestinian people from the oppression, but it is also about freeing the Israelis themselves from the last colonial settler system in modern history and from the worst apartheid system in modern times.  When the German people understand that, I think they will realize that supporting our struggle is also about supporting both people and preventing conflict for both people and saving lives on both sides.  The Israelis themselves will not be free until the Palestinians are free.

A shorter version of this interview appeared in the German newspaper “Neues Deutschland” on April 10th.

Elsa Rassbach is a filmmaker and journalist from the United States, now based in Berlin. She is a member of CODEPINK, an organization that endorsed the Global March to Jerusalem. She is a frequent contributor to German and U.S. publications. Her award-winning film, “The Killing Floor,” an historical dramatic film about a union’s struggle against racism in the Chicago Stockyards, will be re-released this year. 

Here are a few photos.

Leaving Jaffa Gate to march toward Sheikh Jarrah in support of Palestinian independence, 14 July, 2011 (Photo: Dahlia Scheindlin)

The goal of this demonstration was very clear: The creation of a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders. Many expressed a clear demand to the Israeli leadership: recognize that state. Stickers such as this one were common – for some reason, they tended to appear on people’s backs.

"Bibi, meet (also: recognize) Palestine" - Sticker calling on Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to recognize a Palestinian state, Solidarity Movement march in support of Palestinian independence, Jerusalem, 15 July, 2011 (Dahlia Scheindlin)

Typical for Sheikh Jarrah Solidarity Movement’s Friday demonstrations, flags and good cheer were in abundance; but by design, Israeli flags are very rare.

Solidarity march in support of Palestinian independence, Jerusalem, 15 July 2011 (Photo: Dahlia Scheindlin)

Solidarity march in support of Palestinian independence, Jerusalem, 15 July, 2011 (Photo: Dahlia Scheindlin)

A lone "Two people/two states" sign at the Solidarity Movement march in support of Palestinian independence, Jerusalem, 15 July 2011 (Photo: Dahlia Scheindlin)

"Israeli - Palestine, two states for two peoples" sign at Sheikh Jarrah Solidarity Movement march in support of Palestinian independence, Jerusalem, 15 July, 2011 (Photo: Dahlia Scheindlin)

Personally, I think it’s time for all Israelis to realize that the creation of an independent Palestinian state is in Israel’s best interest. The Sheikh Jarrah Solidarity Movement can do what it wants, but wouldn’t it be powerful if a far greater range of Israelis recognized this logic, and joined our demand for pragmatic decisions from their leaders, including in the name of Israel and with Israeli flags?

At various points, the march highlighted the gap I sometimes feel between the activists and the East Jerusalem residents who observe, or sometimes cheer – but it feels as if they aren’t quite a part of this struggle.

Parent and children crossing the street past demonstrators, near Damascus Gate, Old City, Jerusalem, during Solidarity Movement march in support of Palestinian independence, 15 July, 2011 (Photo: Dahlia Scheindlin)

Youngsters cheering marchers from the Solidarity Movement march in support of Palestinian independence, Jerusalem, 15 July, 2011 (Photo: Dahlia Scheindlin)

Indeed, toward the end, as the marchers – who are largely Israeli – gathered in the traditional square in Sheikh Jarrah, a group of Palestinian teenagers gazed awkwardly at them. When I asked one of them if he was part of the demonstration, Muhammad, 18 years old, said he was not – he was just living his life. “I’ve gotten used to Israelis,” he said. Although Palestinian statehood would be a good thing, he responded when pressed, he didn’t have time to join the demonstration, because he had a coffee shop to run.

The demonstration also received support from some very special ladies, at least I thought they were special:

Women demonstrating at the Solidarity Movement march in support of Palestinian independence, Jerusalem, 15 July, 2011 (Photo: Dahlia Scheindlin)

Women demonstrating at the Solidarity Movement march in support of Palestinian independence, Jerusalem, 15 July, 2011 (Photo: Dahlia Scheindlin)

A number of marchers called on the international community to join the struggle.

Sheikh Jarrah Solidarity Movement march in support of Palestinian independence, Jerusalem, 15 July, 2011 (Photo: Dahlia Scheindlin)

Solidarity Movement march for Palestinian independence, 15 July, 2011 (Photo: Dahlia Scheindlin)

Solidarity march in support for Palestinian independence, Jerusalem, 15 July, 2011 (Photo: Dahlia Scheindlin)

There were not too many politicians to be found. Haaretz reported that Zehava Galon was there. The only MK I managed to find was Dov Khenin, of Hadash.

Dov Khenin at Sheikh Jarrah Solidarity Movement march in support of Palestinian independence, Jerusalem, 15 July, 2011 (Photo: Dahlia Scheindlin)

Maybe there were many other pragmatic politicians there, but the actual crowd size was so large that they were swallowed up in the masses. Maybe; but it’s not likely. For now, it seems, vision, activism and a way out of the quagmire will be left to the few thousand Israelis and Palestinians who are willing to confront hot Fridays and apathy to demand solutions.

The resolution, backed by 87 senators, reasons that US policy is committed to a two-state solution through negotiations and thus any unilateral action by the Palestinians is counterproductive. As the resolution states:

Reaffirming the commitment of the United States to a negotiated settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through direct Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, reaffirming opposition to the inclusion of Hamas in a unity government unless it is willing to accept peace with Israel and renounce violence, and declaring that Palestinian efforts to gain recognition of a state outside direct negotiations demonstrates absence of a good faith commitment to peace negotiations, and will have implications for continued United States aid.

This is a ridiculously insulting double standard. Israel has been taking unilateral actions for decades with impunity, actions which have drastically changed facts on the ground and continue to undermine the very notion of negotiations. Can you imagine the US making aid to Israel contingent on anything it does? On the contrary, the US has offered to sell more and more weapons to Israel in exchange for basic steps like stopping to build settlements in the West Bank for a few months.

Threatening the Palestinians for “absence of a good faith commitment to peace negotiations” is absurd when it is clear Israel not only lacks faith, but takes unabashed and at times highly provocative steps to continue taking as much land as it wants with no regard for how a viable Palestinian state could ever be realized.

The fact is, someone should pass a resolution against the US government for acting “unilaterally” towards Israelis and Palestinians: when the former takes unilateral actions, the US reacts with “deep disappointment,” but when the latter does, their funding is threatened.

If the US wants to be an authority on what is acceptable behavior for furthering the peace process, it should be a tiny bit more evenhanded in its approach.

The two-state solution? Instead of an end to the occupation, September might bring us not just more of the same, but worse: an occupied pseudo-State of Palestine, alongside a deteriorating pseudo-democracy in Israel

The expected UN General Assembly decision on the establishment of an independent Palestinian state was perhaps supposed to usher in a new spirit of optimism among advocates of human rights and democracy. Self-determination for Palestinians and an end to the Occupation ought not only to have heralded a dramatic improvement in the human rights situation in the territories; it could also shift resources previously channeled into the Occupation towards Israel itself, boost efforts to reduce socioeconomic disparities, rally investments for equal opportunity in education and employment, strengthen the legal system, advance full civic equality, and promote progress toward numerous other life-affirming goals and objectives. For all those crucial goals and objectives that have been mired in the swamp of the Occupation, this was to be their hour.

A new spirit of optimism? Not exactly.

The scenario that now seems to be emerging turns out not to be one that will end the occupation of the Palestinians or revive Israeli democracy. On the contrary. In the territories – we can expect to see no end to occupation, but a pseudo-state under the further prolonged state of occupation. In Israel – it looks like there not to be a revival of democracy or improvements in civic equality, but further and even accelerated deterioration towards a pseudo-democracy. The result will be a pseudo-state there and a pseudo-democracy here.

In the territories, even if 150 or more nations vote in September at the UN for the declaration of a Palestinian State, this by itself will end neither the occupation nor the human rights violations to which the occupation, by its nature, necessarily gives rise. In fact, at least in the short run, such a step may intensify the violence and lead to even broader human rights violations than hitherto, including harsher limits on freedom of movement for Palestinians in their state under occupation, and further entrenchment of the separate and unequal legal and administrative systems to which Palestinians and Israeli citizens living in this new “state” will be subject. In the occupied Palestinian state, the new, internationally recognized sovereign will have pseudo-control, while the actual sovereign will continue its reign well into a fifth decade.

Inside Israel, the process that is already underway – whereby the rights of Palestinian citizens of Israel are being limited as if to levy an advance payment for the future Palestinian State – is liable to accelerate and intensify. The political logic subscribed to by a wide range of parties, from Kadima to Likud to Yisrael Beytenu and National Unity (Ichud Leumi), holds that as Israel is confronted by the “future Palestinian State,” it must move immediately to strengthen its “Jewish identity” – identity in a sense that is both demographic and anti-democratic. That means solidifying demography at the price of democracy.

Hence the government is considering bills such as “no loyalty, no citizenship” and legalizing communities’ rights to reject those found to be “unsuitable” (read: Arabs); hence expressions of Palestinian national identity within Israel must be silenced, extra rights for Jews must be legislated, and a drive to boost Jewish-nationalist education is being launched; hence the Bedouins should forget about justice for their villages, and hence the moves to ensure that those pests at the Supreme Court and in human rights organizations can’t be too much of a nuisance. In the Israel that the current policies are shaping, all that will remain of democratic governance will be a barely discernible shadow, as the experiment in creating a “democracy for the Jews” collapses from the weight of its own internal structural contradictions.

Here are the public opinion data: On the one hand, a huge majority  of Israelis (80 percent, according to the Israel Democracy Index) prefers “democracy” to any other form of government. Democracy – but what kind of “democracy” do they mean? Without freedom of speech (50 percent believe that there is “too much” of it, according to a 2010 survey by Professor Daniel Bar Tal of Tel Aviv University); without freedom of action for human rights organizations (58 percent favor restricting organizations that “expose immoral acts by the State,” in Bar Tal’s survey); without equality for Arabs (46 percent of Jewish youth would deny Arabs the right to hold public office (in a 2010 survey by Maagar Mochot). Democracy? Pseudo-democracy.

*          *          *

Is there an alternative to this double-pseudo scenario? Israelis who desire a less hollow future must now stand up for two principles. First, internalize the fact that the world will not end the occupation for us: this is a struggle that must be led by Palestinians and Israelis, and this struggle will not end in September with the UN decision. Secondly, within Israel, standing up for the rights of Palestinian citizens is not a matter solely for the Supreme Court or for Palestinian citizens themselves. In Israel within the Green Line there has been and will be a large national minority, with individual rights and with collective rights. The protection of those rights must not be conditional on external negotiations over a future diplomatic solution. But alas – at present, even in the absence of negotiations, the rights of Israel’s Palestinian minority are already being eroded.

Today, only a minority of Israelis is prepared for the complex process required if we are to deal with the core issues of ending the occupation and delivering equality for the Palestinian minority in Israel. This creates a situation in which, step-by-step, our lives are being emptied of the accepted moral foundation for running democratic states, with the principle of equality the first to go.

On the day after May 15, 2011, the Knesset was addressed by the “leader of the opposition” (who did not even bother to show up to vote against the Acceptance to Communities Law or the Nakba Law or the “Transparency” Law or the Slavery Law or the Annulment of Citizenship Law): “These [Palestinian] children, who are wearing those keys around their necks, must understand that the door their key will unlock is no longer in the State of Israel.” Heartfelt imagery – but to what end? What of the keys we are missing? What is the key that will enable us to deal with the challenges that most of us are avoiding? What of the key around our own necks, the key within our hearts and embodied in our deeds, the key that will open the door to our future here?

Hagai El-Ad is the Executive Director of the Association for Civil Rights in Israel. This is the English version of a Hebrew op-ed originally published earlier in Israel on Haokets.

————————

+972 magazine needs your support. Check this post to see why, and how can you help to keep this project going

A few days back I participated in a Rubinger Forum event, which hosted UN special envoy to the Middle East, Robert Serry, who spoke about what might actually happen when September comes around. Serry, a professional diplomat, is someone it is a pleasure listening to, even when he’s glum; and he was rather glum.

He gave a brief description of the situation on the ground, noting that only after the Annapolis meeting did Israel officially start talking about a two-state solution (contrary to common myth, the Oslo Accords did not mention a Palestinian state). Serry said that as he sees things, and his estimate is supported by the World Bank and the IMF, the Fayyad government will manage the transformation into a state – but reminded his listeners that Fayyad controls only 40% of the West Bank. Israel rules the rest.

Serry was very disturbed by what may take place in September. To make a long story short, he estimated that the Security Council will fail to reach a decision on a Palestinian state – which is presumably Diplomatique for “the US will veto the resolution” – which may lead to a decision by the General Assembly, but the legitimacy of such a decision will be questioned. The process for such a move exists, but has never been used. Serry said that unless a political arrangement is reached by September, everything gained in the West Bank in the last few years may be lost. He elegantly avoided saying it, but he hinted a new round of violence may be upon us.

Violence does not serve the Palestinians; it serves Israel. The goal of Israel, then – once you move past the pious platitudes of “we always wanted peace” – is to goad the Palestinians into violence. Such an outburst will, Israel’s leaders seem to think, grant them legitimacy for some old ultra-violence of their own.

This seems to be supported by Netanyahu’s speech to the Knesset on Monday. He set a list of conditions the Palestinians cannot accept. No Palestinian leader will accept the idea of Israeli enclaves (or, as Israel inelegantly calls them, “gushim,” blocs) inside Palestine, nor the presence of Israeli troops on the Jordan; they mean a Palestinian state both encircled and penetrated by Israel. As an aside, the Israeli demand for military presence on the Jordan is a relic of the 1990s, when the army felt threatened by an Iraqi invasion. That threat is no more; the demands are here to stay. Netanyahu refrained from speaking about a settlement freeze, East Jerusalem as a Palestinian capital, demanded recognition of Israel as a Jewish state, and kept referring to his opposition to the Hamas-Fatah reconciliation. In short, Netanyahu clove to his old method: Say “yes, but…” and add six impossible terms before breakfast.

There was something odd about Netanyahu’s speech (Hebrew). He spoke of a girl, who, while marching in Bil’in, carried a large house key. He waved this incident – assuming it did happen; Netanyahu’s connection to reality is somewhat frail (Hebrew) – as proof that the struggle with the Palestinians is not on the 1967 lines but rather on the 1948 ones. He said “they want our houses in Jaffa, Ramla, Haifa.” Jaffa and Ramla were Palestinian towns in 1948; Haifa had many Palestinian residents. Netanyahu did not speak of Tel Aviv, or Ein Harod, or even Jerusalem; he was speaking of towns that were clearly Palestinian in 1948, and stressed the words “our houses.” The reference to Bil’in is also puzzling: The par-excellence example of a non-violent struggle against so clear an injustice that even Israel’s Supreme Court, whose Justitia’s eyes are blindfolded with guncloth so she won’t recognize her kidnappers, noticed it and ordered it to be corrected. It can hardly be considered an error; a political speech by the prime minister – assuming it wasn’t written by Sarah Netanyahu, in which case all bets are off – is meticulously examined before he declaims it. This is no error; this is forethought.

So why did he speak as he did? I believe Netanyahu wants a clash with the Palestinians in September. Like Golda Meir in 1973, he is looking for a war, because he thinks it may let him keep the territories he holds, which for him are more important than peace. That’s why he talks about war for the home: He knows most Israelis would return Shvut Rachel or Goliath’s Testicles to the Palestinians without having to think about it twice. So he has to convince them the war is not for the loony hill settlers, but for their own homes. This is what Ehud Barak did, before he went to the talks with Arafat in 2000: Prepared the Israelis for war. He who wants war, should pretend to seek peace.

To get what he wants, Netanyahu will have to frustrate the Palestinians until they blow up: To snatch away their state, which is almost within reach. Netanyahu goes to the US, I think, to make it clear to Obama that he wants a veto in September, and that he controls congress. To Israel’s misfortune, a large segment of the American population has strong emotional ties to it. As the Chinese and the Cubans learned, this means an irrational policy by the US towards their country, a bear’s hug which is supposed to improve their situation but in fact worsens it. Netanyahu may well control congress through AIPAC, and Obama did not show, so far, a real willingness to confront him.

War, for Netanyahu, is good for two reasons: It will put an end to the two-state solution, and it will postpone for many years the necessary international debate about the only option left, a bi-national state. After all, you can’t discuss this while a war rages on, and the IDF will make sure war will always rage on. And in the meantime, Israel will do what it did best throughout most of its existence: Settle the West Bank and disinherit the Palestinians.

Israel could pull this shtick in 2000, when the IDF happily used Palestinian violence and went to town. I strongly suspect it won’t again. You can’t fool all the people all the time. One must hope the international community will realize Netanyahu’s ploy, and will say a loud “yes” to a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders, not an inch less or more, in September. The Palestinians, for their part, will have to commit themselves to the end of the conflict; Serry notes that Israel owes its existence to a UN resolution, and so will Palestine.

If that’s not how it will play out, if Netanyahu is allowed to win, then we’re probably done for.