Friday, 27 February 2009

Jaffa: from eminence to ethnic cleansing

Link

Sami Abu Shehadeh & Fadi Shbaytah, The Electronic Intifada, 27 February 2009



A view from the sea at Jaffa looking east onto the city, 1898-1914. (Matson Collection)
Jaffa was the largest city in historic Palestine during the years of the British mandate, with a population of more than 80,000 Palestinians in addition to the 40,000 persons living in the towns and villages in its immediate vicinity. In the period between the UN Partition resolution (UNGA 181) of 29 November 1947, and the declaration of the establishment of the State of Israel, Zionist military forces displaced 95 percent of Jaffa's indigenous Arab Palestinian population. Jaffa's refugees accounted for 15 percent of Palestinian refugees in that fateful year, and today they are dispersed across the globe, still banned from returning by the state responsible for their displacement.

Jaffa was the epicenter of the Palestinian economy before the 1948 Nakba. Beginning in the early 19th century, the people of Jaffa had cultivated citrus groves, particularly oranges, on their land. International demand for Jaffa oranges propelled the city onto the world stage, earning the city an important place in the global economy. By the 1930s, Jaffa was exporting tens of millions of citrus crates to the rest of the world, which provided thousands of jobs for the people of the city and its environs, and linking them to the major commercial centers of the Mediterranean coast and the European continent.

With the success of its citrus exports, the city witnessed the emergence and growth of various related economic sectors, from banks to land and sea transportation enterprises to import and export firms, and many others. As the city grew, Jaffa's entrepreneurs began to develop local industrial production with the opening of metal-work factories, and others producing glass, ice, cigarettes, textiles, sweets, transportation-related equipment, mineral and carbonated water, and various foodstuffs, among others.

In addition to commerce and industry, a third major pillar of Jaffa's economy in the mandate years was tourism. Tens of thousands of tourists and pilgrims visited the historic city every year, both for its sites of historical and religious significance, its beautiful buildings, and the Christian holy sites scattered throughout the city. As Jaffa's tourism industry grew, so too did its communications infrastructure, and the transportation network connecting it to the rest of Palestine and the Arab world. More investments and jobs were also created for Jaffa's residents through the increasing number of hotels, transportation companies, and the growing number of tourism-related services.

Jaffa was also the cultural capital of Palestine, being home to tens of the most important newspapers and publication houses in the country, including the dailies Filastin and al-Difa'. The most important and ornate cinemas were in Jaffa, as were tens of athletics clubs and cultural societies. The headquarters of some of these societies, like the Orthodox Club and the Islamic Club, have themselves become historic sites still testifying to the city's cultural history. During the Second World War, the British Mandate authorities moved the headquarters of the Near East Radio broadcast studios to Jaffa, the studios becoming a cultural hub in the city from 1941 to 1948. With the growing cultural importance of Jaffa came increasing cultural exchange and interconnection with the main cultural centers in the region such as Cairo and Beirut, which further established the city as a cultural minaret in the region -- lovingly dubbed the Bride of the Sea.

The story of Jaffa's ongoing Nakba is the story of the transformation of this thriving modern urban center into a marginalized neighborhood suffering from poverty, discrimination, gentrification, crime and demolition since the initial wave of mass expulsion in 1948 to the present day.



British soldiers stop and search a Palestinian man in Jaffa, 1936. (Palestine Remembered)

The early years of Jaffa's Nakba

Zionist forces initiated a cruel siege on the city of Jaffa in March 1948. The youth of the city formed popular resistance committees to confront the assault. On 14 May 1948, the Bride of the Sea fell to the Zionist military forces; that same evening the leaders of the Zionist movement in Palestine declared the establishment of the state of Israel. Approximately 4,000 of the 120,000 Palestinians managed to remain in their city after it was militarily occupied. They were all rounded up and ghettoized in al-Ajami neighborhood which was sealed off from the rest of the city and administered as essentially a military prison for two subsequent years; the military regime under which Israel governed them lasted until 1966. During this period, al-Ajami was completely surrounded by barbed wire fencing that was patrolled by Israeli soldiers and guard dogs. It was not long before the new Jewish residents of Jaffa, and based on their experience under Nazism in Europe, began to refer to the Palestinian neighborhood as the "ghetto."

In addition to being ghettoized, the Palestinians who remained in Jaffa had lost everything overnight: their city, their friends, their families, their property and their entire physical and social environment. Most had lost their homes as the Israeli military forced them into al-Ajami. Legislator, judge and executioner in the Ajami ghetto was the military commander; without his permission one could not enter or leave the ghetto, and rights to things like education and work were among those rights that Palestinians were denied. Arab states were classified as enemy states, and so making contact with the expelled family and friends, the refugees, was strictly prohibited. This was the nightmare lived by the Palestinians of Jaffa after the 1948 Nakba.

In the early 1950s, Jaffa was administratively engulfed by the Tel Aviv municipality that became known as Tel Aviv-Yafo; the Palestinians of Jaffa went from being a majority in their city and homeland to the two-percent "enemies of the state," a minority of Israel's main metropolis. The municipality immediately began drawing up plans for what they called the "Judaization" of the city, renaming the Arabic streets of the city after Zionist leaders, demolishing much of the old Arab architecture, and completely destroying the buildings in the surrounding neighborhoods and villages that were depopulated during the 1948 Nakba. The new curriculum introduced in Palestinian schools denied that the place had any Arab-Palestinian history at all, a facet of the Israeli education system that continues until today.

The largest armed robbery of the 20th century

After expelling most of Jaffa's residents, militarily occupying the city and ghettoizing the remaining original inhabitants, Israeli authorities passed the Absentee Property Law (1950) through which it seized the property of all Palestinians who were not in possession of their immovable properties after the Nakba. Through the implementation of this unjust law, the state of Israel sent its operatives to all corners of the land, surveying the properties left behind by the expelled refugees, the internally displaced Palestinians banned from returning to their lands, and those relocated to the ghettos of Palestine's cities. Title to these lands, buildings, homes, factories, farms and religious sites were then transferred to the state's "Custodian of Absentee Property." This is how the Palestinians of Jaffa, the refugees and the ghettoized, had their properties "legally" stolen by the State of Israel.

In the interviews conducted for our research, we heard dozens of stories from Nakba survivors telling us about how their homes, often just meters away from the ghetto, were seized, and how they could do nothing about it. Many told us stories of how their homes were given to, or simply taken by, new Jewish immigrants, and how they would try to convince the new residents of their homes to give them back some of their furniture, or clothes, or documents, or photographs. In some of these cases, the house's new resident would give back some of the items, in most of the cases the response was to consider the original Palestinian owner an intruder, and to call the police or report him to the military commander. Former residents of the al-Manshiyya neighborhood, one of the city's wealthier areas before the Nakba, described the sorrow they felt as they walked past their old houses, and the pain of seeing what remained of the neighborhood demolished to be replaced by a public recreation area.

Some of the most difficult stories are those of the Palestinian farmers and peasants from the villages of the Jaffa district. They describe how they were forced off of their land, how they managed to stay in Palestine, how the Israeli government handed their land over to Jewish settlers, and how these settlers then hired the same Palestinian farmers to work on their own land as day laborers exploited for the personal profit of the Jewish settler off the produce of the land that Palestinians had cultivated for generations. In fact, after their properties and enterprises were seized or shut down, the vast majority of the Jaffa Palestinians who remained became cheap labor for Jewish employers. Their employment was contingent on their "loyalty" to the new state. And so it was that the people who ran the economic hub of Palestine before 1948, became its orphans feigning loyalty to the ones who orphaned them in order to feed their own children.



Palestinians from Jaffa attempt to take with them whatever they can as Zionist militias force them to leave the city, May 1948. (Palestine Remembered)

The daily violations of co-habitation

After the creation of the State of Israel on the ruins of Arab-Palestinian society, the fledgling state began absorbing thousands of new Jewish immigrants from around the world, masses of immigrants whom the state was not fully able to absorb. The state resolved this lack of capacity by distributing the homes of refugee and internally displaced Palestinians to the new immigrants. After all the Palestinian homes in Jaffa had been occupied, Israeli housing authorities began dividing the homes in the Ajami ghetto into apartments so as to provide housing for Jewish families. As such, an Arab family in Ajami, who had been displaced from their original home, and whose family and friends had been expelled, and who lived in a house with four rooms, for example, would have their new home divided into four apartments to absorb three Jewish immigrant families, and the four families would share the kitchen and bathroom.

This process was one of the most difficult for the Palestinian families; they were forced into "co-habitation" with the people who had expelled them and, considering that many of the Jewish families included members who were serving in the army, people who were directly carrying out the ongoing violence suffered by the remaining Palestinian community.

The horrors of war, the loss of their country, the deep rupture in the social environment, the trauma of oppression, occupation, segregation and discrimination, the demolition or theft of their original homes before their own eyes, being forced to share their homes in the ghetto with the people who expelled them from their original homes, all combined to create an overall feeling of despair and impotence among the remaining community of Palestinians in Jaffa. This collective depression eventually led many of Jaffa's ghettoized Palestinian residents down the path of dependency on drugs and alcohol as a way of escaping the burden of powerlessness in the face of colonial oppression. It was this form of colonial oppression that transformed the thriving Bride of the Sea to a poverty and crime-ridden neighborhood of Tel Aviv.

1951-1979: survival and self-improvement

The first generation of Nakba survivors faced immense hardship, and as such the main goal of that generation was survival in a milieu replete with fear of the Israeli authorities. The hope for a better life, for a return to how things once were, for freedom, became a motivating factor in their lives. This was especially true in the late 1950s and 1960s, when the Arab world went through the awakening epitomized by Nasserism. The ideas of Arab unity, Palestinian liberation, cultural revival and the hope entailed by these ideas found fertile ground in the Palestinian society within the "green line" (the 1949 armistice line between the State of Israel and the West Bank and Gaza Strip). This was the environment in which the second generation was raised.

The generation of the 1950s and 1960s grew up in an environment very different from that of their parents. This generation sought self-improvement, to work hard to provide for their families and educate their children by working the manual labor jobs that Jewish immigrants avoided. It was members of this youthful generation who filled the ranks of the Communist Party and the Nasserist Land Movement, among other political currents that aimed to challenge the prevailing oppression, poverty and landlessness of the Palestinian community to varying degrees.

In preparation for its occupation of the remainder of Palestine, and as internal opposition grew and information began to leak out that the "only democracy in the Middle East" actually had two sets of laws for two sets of citizens, the Israeli government formally abandoned the regime of military rule in 1966. While systematic discrimination against Palestinian citizens continued unabated, the 1970s witnessed the emergence of a relatively powerful political and social movement of Palestinian citizens of Israel. In Jaffa, this movement culminated with the formation of the Association for the Care of Arab Affairs in 1979. The Association was formed by activists and intellectuals who aimed to protect what remained of the city's Arab-Palestinian identity and heritage, to fight the systematic discrimination faced by the Palestinians of Jaffa, and to spearhead campaigns on important issues facing the Palestinian community, foremost among them housing and education.

It was in this same decade that "Judaization" of areas within the green line became publicly known as official Israeli state policy. While the main theater of Judaization during the 1970s was the Galilee in the north of historic Palestine, the Palestinians of Jaffa continued to feel increasing pressure to leave their homes in the city through various discriminatory policies and practices, such as those banning Palestinians from renovating their homes since these properties were largely registered as absentee property with title held by the state. The municipal authorities had ignored the neighborhood, allowing many houses to collapse, and in some cases ordered the demolition of Palestinian homes. As a result of these deteriorating conditions, most of the Jewish residents of Ajami had moved to the city's suburbs, and were beginning to move to the West Bank in the newly built illegal settlements where the cost of living was, and continues to be, heavily subsidized by the state.

1979-2000: the return of the spirit

The proportion of Palestinians in Jaffa had grown by the onset of the 1980s, both as a result of natural growth, and because a growing number of Palestinians displaced from the Galilee and the triangle ended up in Jaffa. Literacy and education levels among the adult Palestinian population in the city had also risen as the generation of the '60s and '70s grew and became active members of the society. This second generation benefited from the sacrifices of their predecessors, many of them having opened their own small enterprises like restaurants, contracting firms and car repair shops. A small number had also been able to complete post-secondary education in professional fields such as law, medicine, accounting, engineering and others. As such, the economic, social and demographic balance of the city had begun to restore itself.





Young Palestinian workers in one of Jaffa's many orange groves, 1898-1914. (Matson Collection) The increase in the city's Palestinian population, and the improvement of their social and economic condition was coupled with the increase in the number of Palestinians who began to move to other parts of what remained of Jaffa beyond the the Ajami ghetto, particularly to the nearby coastal Jabaliya neighborhood. This phenomenon was largely the result of the overcrowding in Ajami, and since the combination of poverty, municipal neglect and the discriminatory policies banning Palestinians from renovating had resulted in further deterioration of their living conditions.

The improvement in the standard of living of Jaffa's Palestinians that began in the 1980s involved the increase in the number of Arab owned and operated enterprises, the renovation of Palestinian mosques, churches and public buildings, as well as annual increases in the number of post-secondary graduates most of whom reinvested their acquired skills and knowledge in the betterment of their community. While the state and municipal authorities continued their Judaization efforts, the Palestinian community had become an active and effective player in the life of their city. Working against this economic development within the community has been the fact that the Israeli government has not invested or supported Palestinian-owned enterprise while simultaneously subsidizing and investing heavily in Jewish-owned enterprises in Tel Aviv. This economic discrimination has played an important role in making Palestinian Jaffa economically dependent on Jewish Tel Aviv.

The '90s witnessed a powerful political and cultural revival among Palestinian citizens of Israel as the third generation since the Nakba began to discover and assert their Palestinian identity as the indigenous people of the land. The fear that had been a powerful force facing their grandparents did not affect them in the same way, and as a largely educated generation, the disparity between the ideals of "Israeli democracy" that they had learned in school and the discrimination they faced in their daily lives drew increasing members of this generation into the political arena. The growing national awareness of Jaffa's Palestinians materialized during the outbreak of the second Palestinian intifada when the Palestinian youth of Jaffa protested the brutal Israeli military violence against the Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza by organizing dozens of forums, protests, pickets and fundraising campaigns to stress the unity of the Palestinian people across borders.

Jaffa's ongoing Nakba today

Despite the growth of Palestinian political and social movements, the more than 20,000 Palestinians living in Jaffa today continue to experience an ongoing Nakba. We do not use this description lightly, or to enlist tears of sympathy or nostalgia for what once was; it is an important way of understanding the present, entrenching the demand for redress for the crimes committed by Israel over the past 60 years, and to stress the urgency of the struggle to bring about change for the future. While systematic discrimination and Israeli policies and practices aimed at displacing Palestinians and Judaizing their space permeate all aspects of Palestinian life in Israel, we will focus on the fields of housing and cultural identity.

The most pressing issue facing Palestinians in Jaffa today is the issue of housing and eviction. Every Palestinian in Jaffa is either directly facing eviction by the municipal authorities, or has a neighbor or relative who faces such eviction, an estimated total of more than 500 families are in this situation. The two main excuses for eviction are lack of licensing -- especially since licenses are almost impossible for Palestinians to obtain -- or that the family is considered illegal squatters in their own home which is registered as state property.

Title to the vast majority of properties in Jaffa were transferred to the state through the implementation of the Absentee Property Law (1950), and the state transferred this title to Amidar, a state-run company managing state properties in urban areas. After focusing its Judaization efforts on the Galilee and the Negev, the state has now set its sights on Palestinians living in Palestinian cities, officially referred to as "mixed cities," ordering their removal from homes in which they have lived for 60 years, and in some cases longer.

Mass eviction of Palestinians from their homes in these cities is a dual process. The first, and primary, aspect is Judaization aimed at changing the demographic character of these cities so as not to include significant numbers of indigenous Palestinians, and to erase the Palestinianness of the landscape. The second aspect is gentrification; in most cases these properties are slated for demolition to be replaced with expensive condominiums and housing units for the rich. As such, both the political merchants pandering to the ideologically-driven Zionist public, and the real estate merchants hoping to build and make millions off of their "development" projects stand to benefit. We should also note that the Ajami ghetto, while by far the poorest neighborhood in the Tel Aviv-Yafo municipality, is also a coastal neighborhood with some of the highest property value in the city.

The issue of Palestinian housing in Jaffa is more than the sum of its parts; it goes beyond the hundreds of eviction and demolition orders. One cannot but connect the dots between Amidar and the Israeli Lands Administration putting up tens of Palestinian homes for auction, the rapidly increasing property value, the construction of the Peres "Peace" Center on confiscated Jaffa refugee property, and the establishment of a center for Jewish fundamentalists in the heart of the Ajami neighborhood. The picture we see when the dots are connected is worrying, the original inhabitants of Jaffa are uprooted, and their place invaded by those who have money and power: the elites of the Jewish-Israeli establishment. We see the state handing out properties to Jewish settlers almost for free in other Palestinian cities like al-Lydd and Ramleh as well as in the Naqab (Negev) and now Jaffa, while we, the indigenous people of Palestine are dealt with as illegal squatters and intruders. We, the Palestinians who remained in the part of Palestine taken by the Zionist movement in 1948 and who were forced to accept the citizenship of the state that usurped our country, now form 20 percent of the citizens of the State of Israel, but only control 3.5 percent of the land after most of our land and property were confiscated by this state. Since its establishment, Israel has created hundreds of new communities for Jewish settlement, but not one new community for Palestinians.



Jaffa's clocktower, approximately 1914. (Matson Collection)

Reshaping identity, language and history

One of the most prominent landmarks in the city of Jaffa is the clocktower built by the Ottomans at the entrance to the old city, long before Israel came into being. Today, Jaffa's visitors and residents who care to take a look at the structure see a Hebrew-language plaque that states "In Memory of the Heroes who Fell in the Battle to Liberate Yafo." From there, if we turn right to walk up to the old city we catch a breathtaking view of the Mediterranean Sea until we reach the informational signs posted by the Tel Aviv municipal authorities. Here we can read the history of the city covering thousands of years until the present day. One may be surprised to see that these signs are written in four languages, none of which are Arabic. More astonishing is that in none of these appears any mention of Arabs or Palestinians who only pop up in one line: "in the year 1936, Arab barbarians attacked the Jewish neighborhood." More examples of the systematic erasure of the Arab-Palestinian history of the space abound, from the replacing the names of streets, neighborhoods and other landmarks in the city with Hebrew names, most often names of Zionist political and military figures.

An important aspect of the reinvention of Jaffa as an Israeli city, in addition to burying its Arab-Palestinian identity, is Israel burying the evidence of its crime. If we are to accept that there were no Palestinians here, then there were no Palestinians for Israel to kick out. The erasure of Palestinian memory is also strongly reflected in the Israeli education system in Arab schools where the curriculum is geared toward rearing Palestinian youth, ignorant of their identity and history, and loyal to their colonial oppressor.

After the 1948 Nakba, Arab schools came under the control of the Israeli Ministry of Education, through which the Israeli intelligence services play a direct role in the selection of principals, teachers and curricular materials. In social science and humanities classes, Palestinian students in Israel learn about the history of Jewish communities in Europe, the heroic establishment of the modern Jewish state with no mention of the catastrophe that befell the indigenous Palestinian society of which they are a part. Schools are also a site of intimidation against any politicization, especially on important commemoration dates of the Palestinian struggle such as Land Day or Nakba commemoration. For the most part, Arab public schools are largely neglected in the allocation of funding and resources, and the quality of education is very low relative to the schools of the Jewish community. This drove many Palestinian parents in Jaffa to send their children to Jewish schools, a phenomenon that amplified the identity crises facing many of the city's Palestinian youth, as well as their difficulty with the Arabic language.

Jaffa: the struggle continues



A view of Jaffa from the north beach looking south, 1900-1920. (Matson Collection) In response to the Israeli establishment's efforts to Judaize Palestinian space and consciousness, the Palestinian movement in all of its currents has worked to entrench Palestinian steadfastness and dignity. Despite the various processes facing Palestinians in the "mixed cities" that we have described, Palestinians in Israel have remained strong and held our heads up high. For decades, the Israeli authorities have played a carrot-and-stick game to transform Palestinians into a servile minority called "Arab-Israelis," a minority with no connection to their Palestinian identity, with a collective amnesia of their relationship with the land around them and of the ongoing crimes committed against them and most importantly, loyal to their jailers.

Beginning systematically in the 1970s, the Palestinian rights movement consistently challenged Israeli policies and practices with such mobilizations as the 30 March 1976 general strike commemorated as Land Day, and the hundreds of actions taken in support of the first and second Palestinian intifadas. The movement pushed the Palestinian struggle out of its superficial national and religious confines to an internationalist struggle in which Palestinians and Jews struggled side-by-side for justice. In Jaffa, this struggle has managed to bring about some tangible victories, among them stopping the municipality from transforming the beach into a waste-dumping ground, pressuring the Israeli authorities to build housing units for Palestinians in the city, and establishing independent Arab educational institutions such as a nursery and the Arab Democratic School which opened its doors to students in 2003. This struggle has been the main factor enabling Palestinians to remain steadfast in their historic city.

Today, the struggle continues under the banner of the Jaffa Popular Committee for the Defense of Land and Housing Rights (also known as the Popular Committee against House Demolition in Jaffa) which was established in March 2007 as a direct response to the hundreds of eviction orders issued to the Palestinian residents of the Ajami and Jabaliya neighborhoods of Jaffa. The importance of the Committee's work soon became clear to its members when their preliminary research revealed that 497 Palestinian homes in Jaffa were under threat of eviction and/or demolition by the Israeli Lands Administration, which had also put up many of these properties -- all of them "absentee" properties -- for auction. The Popular Committee is made up of residents, social and political activists, movements and organizations and political parties operating in Jaffa. The Committee represents the collective struggle of Jaffa's Arab-Palestinian residents, and is open to membership to anyone who agrees to its demands and political basis of unity.

A central aspect of the Committee's work is pressuring the various arms of the Israeli authorities (the Israeli Lands Administration, Amidar, Tel Aviv-Yafo Municipality) to freeze all legal actions taken for the purpose of eviction, demanding that these authorities enter a dialogue with the Committee instead, in order to reach an agreed-upon solution. The Committee also demands an end to any and all sale and auction of "publicly owned" (i.e. absentee/refugee) land, and entering a dialogue with the committee to implement a system that guarantees the long-term Palestinian presence in the city, and that enables youth and young couples to find affordable housing in the city, particularly in the Jabaliya and Ajami neighborhoods. The motivating spirit of the campaign launched by the Popular Committee is the need to wrest recognition of Jaffa's Arab-Palestinians as a group with a historic rights to the land and properties of the city, and that as such, alternative solutions to Jaffa's housing problem must be reached in consultation and with the consent of indigenous community.

The Popular Committee also works on information gathering and research mainly from the directly affected residents of Jaffa facing eviction and home demolition; direct action to prevent eviction and home demolition which has involved mobilization of activists to be physically present in homes slated for demolition; organizing popular activities such as pickets, protests, information forums and others; as well as a media campaign to raise awareness about the plight of Jaffa's Palestinian community in local and international media. We are constantly looking for ways to fundraise both for our legal costs and for activities to enable youth, women, and young couples to find affordable housing. Increasingly the committee has taken on organizing extracurricular activities for youth, and workshops to support women and youth to run their own businesses with the understanding that the economic viability of the community is directly linked with our ability to remain steadfast.

Reversing the ongoing Nakba

Today the estimated number of Palestinian refugees from Jaffa hovers around 700,000, which is one-tenth of the Palestinian refugee population. While most of these refugees are in Gaza, the West Bank and Jordan, many are further away with foreign passports that can enable them to visit what remains of their city. Perhaps one of the most important steps in reversing the Nakba, which involved shredding up the Palestinian body and dispersing us to various far corners of the earth, is to intensify efforts to reconnect this body. If it is not physically possible because of Israeli travel restrictions on Palestinians, the Internet and other communication technology can play an effective role in this process.

At least as important is the international solidarity needed to stop the Israeli policies and practices that constitute the ongoing Nakba. In Jaffa, the ongoing Nakba has brought about ongoing resistance. This resistance may not be able to turn back the clock, and we may not be able to live as if the past 60 years never happened, but at least we can work to prevent further suffering and destruction of our city and our society, and we can work to rebuild the eminence that was the Bride of the Sea.

Sami Abu Shehadeh and Fadi Shbaytah are residents of Jaffa, and members of the Jaffa Popular Committee for the Defense of Land and Housing Rights. This article was translated from Arabic by Hazem Jamjoum, and was originally published in the upcoming (Autumn 2008/Winter 2009) issue of al-Majdal, the quarterly magazine of the Badil Resource Center for Palestinian Residency and Refugee Rights (http://www.badil.org/).

Are Palestinians Allowed to Resist?

Are Palestinians Allowed to Resist? (Part 2)


Dina Jadallah-Taschler
http://ramallahonline.com/articles/are-palestinians-allowed-to-resist-part-iiii










keffiyehmural483.jpg



Part One

There is an abundance of discourse over the means and methods that are pursued and / or justified by the Palestinians in their quest for independence and liberation. In the first part of this essay, I presented the legal, historical, and current context that form the root of their current predicament. In this segment, I want to address the pros and cons of pursuing an exclusively non-armed struggle both by looking at the uniqueness of Palestinian circumstances and also by comparing it with the Indian National Liberation Movement, which is usually presented in Western narratives as almost exclusively non-violent, and successful, for having (ostensibly) been so.


A Brief History of Palestinian Non-Violent Resistance


Palestinians are continuously asked to not resist. The truth is that whether they resist violently or non-violently, Israeli violence continues unabated. Perhaps the scale, ugliness and the immediacy of the trauma are exaggerated in a massacre like we recently saw in Gaza, but the reality of purposeful eradication persists.


Examples of Palestinian non-violent resistance have existed since the very start of Jewish immigration into Palestine, but were never enough to attain freedom. Ultimately it is an imperative but frequently unstated precondition, that Palestinians accept a permanent subjugated and defeated status, preferably outside of their historic lands. It is otherwise known as the Yigal Allon Plan (1967), a policy actively pursued by even the "Dove" Shimon Peres and entailing the expulsion of Palestinians. The Allon plan formed the basis of Israel’s settlements / colonization. Frequently unacknowledged in mainstream Western coverage is that only after acceptance of defeat and eradication can Israel’s violence (aka "retaliation") against Palestinians stop.


Unwilling to accept that, and choosing a policy of "sumoud" / steadfastness on the land, Palestinians pursue(d) non-violent resistance as a complimentary and grassroots approach against the occupation. Here are just a few examples of Palestinian non-violent resistance to Israeli aggression: in 1902, villages of al-Shajara, Misha, and Melhamiyya peacefully protested against the takeover of 7000 hectares of agricultural land by the first Zionist settlers; in 1936, Palestinians held a six-month industrial strike protesting the British Mandate’s refusal to grant them self-determination; in 1986, Hannah Siniora and Mubarak 'Awad (who advocates the power of non-violence and is a self-described disciple of Gandhi; recently deported by Israel) drew a list of civic disobedience activities heavily reliant on boycotting Israeli products and economic self-sufficiency, helping launch the 1987-93 First Intifada; in 1993, the signing of the Oslo Accords and the pursuit of the "settlement" path; and currently, the holding of protests in the villages of Jayyous, Budrus, Bil’in, Ni’lin and Umm Salamonah against the apartheid wall (1: http://www.palestinemonitor.org/spip/spip.php?article49). Today, the tradition of non-violence is still practiced and promoted by some secular and independent Palestinian political leaders, like the Palestinian National Initiative led by Mustafa Barghouti. And even Hamas, often presented as the ultimate terrorist organization, upheld a six month ceasefire with Israel but was still subjected to a non-lifting of the suffocating siege of Gaza. (The ceasefire ended on November 4, 2008 when Israel conducted a targeted assassination that killed six Hamas members.)


Needless to say, these facts are rarely, if ever covered in mainstream accounts. Instead the focus is consistently on "terror" and "Israel’s right to defend itself," ignoring the cumulative suffering of the occupation. As for Israel’s response, it consistently uses overwhelming force, including tear gas, rubber bullets, live ammunition, etc. against protesters and justifies this as "self-defense," even when protecting illegal settlement colonies.


Which raises the question of the efficacy of non-violent resistance as the sole or primary means of achieving national liberation. While each national liberation struggle is unique, there are certain conditions and methods that may translate across people. One thing that many have in common is that non-violent resistance was not pursued exclusively. This was true of the African National Congress’ anti-apartheid Boycott and Divestment Movement in South Africa, which accompanied armed struggle. It was also true of the struggle for national liberation from British rule in India, a fact usually unmentioned in Western press, which tends to focus on Mahatma Gandhi’s satyagraha / non-violent path to resistance. In doing so, there is a grave disservice done to explaining how Indian independence came to be. There is also a convenient decontextualization of the struggle. And I use "convenient" intentionally, because Gandhi’s model is often held up (by Israel and the West) as the best and "most civilized" one that ought to be emulated by the oppressed Palestinians.


Gandhi in Context: Was the Indian National Liberation Struggle Entirely Non-Violent?


The name Gandhi and non-violent resistance (satyagraha) are almost synonymous in most people’s minds. Satyagraha’s aim is not just to defeat the opponent, but aims to convert the adversary as well. And yet there are important nuances and definite progression in Gandhi’s approach to war and colonialism. On the subject of whether it is better to be a coward or to resist violently, he said: "I do believe that, where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence… I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honour than that she should, in a cowardly manner, become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonour…" (2: Eds. R. K. Rabhu & U. R. Rao, "Between Cowardice and Violence," The Mind of Mahatma Gandhi, Ahemadabad, India, 1967, p. 3) He also said: "Though violence is not lawful, when it is offered in self-defence or for the defence of the defenseless, it is an act of bravery far better than cowardly submission. The latter befits neither man nor woman. Under violence, there are many stages and varieties of bravery. Every man must judge this for himself. No other person can or has the right. (3: Ibid, pp. 369-70) Applied to the Palestinian context, this would indicate that Palestinians have the duty to fight back against their own annihilation. However, he would have probably qualified that by saying that non-violence could cause the same changes with lower loss in life.


Historically, too Gandhi’s attitudes to war evolved. While still in South Africa, and in reaction to the Bambatha (Zulu) Rebellion of 1906 against a new British poll-tax, to which Britain responded by declaring a war, Gandhi encouraged the British to recruit Indians. He wanted to advance Indian claims as full citizens of the Empire. He also encouraged Indians to join the war through his columns in Indian Opinion.


Gandhi’s statecraft and thought did not happen in a vacuum. Likewise, India’s independence was not the work of only one man or one concept or one strategy. In fact, India’s nationalist feelings pre-existed Gandhi and the Congress Party, and evidence of it can be found as early as 1857. The first group to call for complete independence was the uncompromisingly secular Ghadar Party, organized in 1913 by Indian immigrants in California. (3: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghadar_Party) The party actively pursued violent resistance and revolution (rejecting caste as well) and predictably, their actions were labeled as "terrorism" by Britain. Operating mainly in the first two decades of the 20th Century, the Ghadarites were successful in recruiting Indian soldiers in the British Army (in Hong Kong, Singapore, Rangoon, and Basra) and urging them to revolt.


As for Gandhi, once in India, he progressed to advocating non-violent resistance as a "weapon." His political views on Indian independence evolved as well. Consider that at the age of 45, Gandhi still held some esteem for the British empire, calling it a "spiritual foundation," in contrast to the views of most Indian revolutionaries. (4: http://www.zimbio.com/Ghandi+quotes/articles/18/Mohandas+Gandhi+Flawed+Manipulative+Politician) It wasn’t until after the Amritsar Massacre of civilians by British troops in the Punjab, that Gandhi advocated complete self-government maturing into independence (swaraj). In the intervening years there was a constant push and pull between Gandhi’s satyagraha policy and other political personalities and groups pursuing independence -- not always non-violently.


A massive wave of revolutionary unrest swept India in 1919. British violent retaliation was unable to quell it. For example, there were more than 200 strikes in the first six months of 1920 alone. And yet in 1921, when Muslim leader Hasrat Mohani wrote a resolution asking for complete independence, Gandhi led the opposition against it and secured its rejection. Likewise, he supported Britain in WWI by trying to recruit Indians for the war effort. He himself volunteered twice for it, in present-day Iraq and in France, reasoning that he "owed" this to the empire in return for military protection. (5: Ibid) This led to deep divisions within the Congress party and also caused a dramatic drop in the popularity of Congress. Young revolutionaries like Rash Behari Bose, Shaheed Bhagat Singh, and revolutionary groups like the Workers and Peasant Party (Kirti Kisan Party) and militant unions like the Bombay textile workers were frequently at odds with Congress. Armed revolutionary groups that emerged in this period included the Hindustan Republican Army and the Hindustan Socialist Republican Army in northern India, as well as the "Revolt Groups" in Bengal (e.g. Chittagong group led by Surya Sen). Working class and union resistance continued throughout the 1930s. Eventually, it was in response to this revolutionary tide, that the Congress Party became less conservative and more supportive of the more militant attitude. As for Gandhi, he returned to advocating non-violent struggle and launched the salt satyagraha (1930-31) and the boycott campaigns. He has been criticized by some for not taking advantage of this revolutionary tide, thereby delaying independence.


Even at the time of World War II, Gandhi prevaricated on non-violence: first offering "non-violent moral support" to the British effort, and only later rescinding that decision when members of the Congress Party objected to the inclusion of India in the war effort without her consultation. In 1939-40, strikes and uprisings in the countryside swelled dramatically. Afterwards, the Congress party was compelled by grassroots pressure to launch the Quit India movement in August of 1942. It is important to note that this period in the struggle was one of extreme violence, mass arrests, and so forth. And yet, Quit India’s success in contributing to independence is controversial. Those arguing that it failed say that it fizzled out after five months (largely due to the army’s loyalty) and didn’t topple the Raj or bring it to the negotiating table for independence. In contrast, those who see it as a success, focus on how it sapped colonial energy and resources and on its success at mobilizing masses of people.(5: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quit_India) Importantly, it inspired the final phase of the fight for independence, which witnessed increasingly militant peasant uprisings, sometimes joined by some of the landlords.


By the end of the war, Britain was indicating that power would be transferred to Indians. Aware that they couldn’t hold on any longer, they instead focused on partitioning India – bringing to mind Israel’s recent attempts to divide Gaza from the West Bank. In the meantime, Congress’ adherence to a policy of non-violence was entirely dependent on the British soldiers – as opposed to the armed Muslim League – and were unable to prevent partition. Thus, Congress’ inherent conservatism with regards to armed struggle hindered its goal of keeping India intact. They failed to build on numerous past instances of Hindu-Muslim cooperation against British colonialism. (Not all members of the Muslim league supported Muslim self-determination: Communist leader Ghaffar Ali opposed it vociferously.)


As is evident from the history recounted above, the agreeable and reasonable- sounding frame of the superiority of peaceful resistance sets up a false dichotomy. Presenting satyagraha as the exemplary approach to liberation is deceptive mainly because India’s independence was not achieved through non-violence alone. Moreover, its historical context and enemy are do not translate well across time and location. Finally, while inspirational and useful on many levels, it is not sufficient as sole guide or solution to achieving Palestinian liberation.


Options for Palestinian Resistance


Fundamentally, all theories of national liberation emanate from the ethical and legal principle that a people has the right to be free from alien occupation and exploitation. Resistance is their inalienable right. Insistence on non-violent resistance can sometimes be counterproductive – as happened with Gandhi’s insistence on it when confronting partition. Relying solely on non-violence subordinates the fundamental moral and ethical goal of independence to all sorts of conditionalities in order to achieve it in the "right" way.


All events so far indicate that non-violent resistance has been of modest benefit to Palestinians, with the important exceptions of tarnishing Israel’s image and moral claims. One could argue that Israel pursued the (sham) Oslo peace process precisely because the First Intifada rendered the population ungovernable. Unfortunately for the Palestinians, the Fateh leadership of the PLO squandered those achievements and marginalized popular input. Since then, pursuit of "settlement" and "negotiation" in the absence of a concomitant armed struggle has produced regressive and contradictory effects. Why is that?


One reason is the nature of the adversary. Zionist and Israeli ideology and statecraft are fundamentally violent, involving ethnic cleansing and relying first and foremost on war as an instrument in achieving Greater (Eretz) Israel. Unlike Great Britain, which had developed a liberal democratic tradition when Indians were struggling for their independence, Israel is essentially a highly militarized, ethnically-based and legally privileged society. It made no difference whatsoever how the Palestinians resisted, whether violently or not. As happened in other Western colonial historical experiences, like the US, Australia, or apartheid South Africa, the settlers use overwhelming force to convince the native populations of their ultimate defeat.


A second important difference is that after World War II, England could no longer hold onto its colonies. This is in sharp contrast to the US-superpower-backed-Israel, which maintains a pronounced military superiority over all its neighbors.


A third difference is that ever since the Jewish Land Agency started buying Palestinian lands from absentee landowners, and continuing after its war-time conquest of land, Israel stipulated that Palestinians cannot lease or be employed on purchased land. As a result, Palestinians are less important to the Israeli economy than India was to Britain. Their marginalization and de-development are intentional and serve to facilitate Israeli expropriation of valuable water, land, and other resources. Moreover, Israel receives significant financial and military "aid" from the United States which also reduces its need to integrate economically with its neighbors. The lack of economic dependency makes non-violent resistance much less effective as a weapon in fighting the occupation. Any economic levers the Palestinians may have had were further diminished (intentionally) via their PA leadership’s dependency on and distribution of foreign "aid." This had the double effects of corrupting and ensuring the cooptation and cooperation of the leadership, as well as minimizing the size and role of an educated middle class that could lead the struggle – as was the case in India.


A fourth difference is the lack of a charismatic leader like Gandhi. Which brings us right back to the first reason, the nature of the opponent. Israel has a long history of assassinating and / or deporting any potential leader who is incorruptible or charismatic or effective. (6: For a partial list of Palestinian leaders assassinated by Mossad, see http://wapedia.mobi/en/Category:Palestinians_assassinated_by_Mossad)


In the final analysis, non-violence is still a worthy means of resistance. Significantly, it enhances growing international perceptions of the brutality of the occupation and builds on the legal consensus and framework of the legitimacy of Palestinian rights, as recurrently affirmed through UN General Assembly annual resolutions and the most recent ruling against the apartheid wall at the International Court of Justice. Non-violent resistance, by being more accessible to ordinary people, additionally creates more sustainable and widespread networks of resistance. At a minimum, it establishes a network of interdependence for the newly liberated society to build on.


But it is not enough. And arguably, it has never been enough, especially in the absence of a more just as opposed to legalistic international relations.





Dina Jadallah-Taschler is an Arab-American of Palestinian and Egyptian descent, a political science graduate, an artist and a writer.
<!-- END STORY -->

The Jewish Year 6000

Link

The Jews believe that human life will only last for 6,000 years. Christian Zionists want to destroy the world, and believe that they will be raptured as the rest of the human race dies. These apocalyptic views are addressed, analyzed and criticized.





AIPAC (ISRAELI LOBBY) HAS U.S. HOUSE AND SENATE ON A STRANGLE HOLD!

Source

web_logo41AIPAC LOBBIED FOR THE IRAQI WAR , ISRAEL’S CRIMINAL ATTACK ON GAZA AND NOW AIPAC IS LOBBYING THE U.S. TO GO TO WAR WITH IRAN!

AIPAC The American Israeli public affairs committee with a 65 million dollar budget is considered one of the most powerful lobbies in Capital Hill. Over 50 years Aipac has worked to lobby support for the srael. Its annual policy conference in Washington, D.C. last year was one of Washington’s largest gathering of lawmakers, topped only by the President state of the Union Address. The conference guests were two thirds of the House, half of the Senate, and Vice President Cheney. Aipac supports U.S. multi Aid to Israel which amounts to 3 Billion per year.
Aipac supports massacres and was successful in getting House members and the Senate to pass two resolutions that backed Israel’s criminal attack on the Civilian population of Gaza where over 1350 innocent civilians were killed, and over 5,500 were wounded. 40% of the killed and wounded were Children.
The indictment of Keith Weissman and Steve Rosen of AIPAC who were accused of passing U.S. national security information to a foreign government agents (Israel). Rosen was not a mere employee, but widely believed to be the man who built AIPAC into the $60 million powerhouse it is today. Aipac closely coordinates policy with the Israeli Embassy in Washington, DC and the Israeli government, making it an agent of a foreign government. AIPAC should not be allowed to keep its 501(c)(3) tax-deductible charitable status, but should be required to register as a lobbyist for a foreign agent. This would greatly cripple its role in US politics.

The lobbyists, Steven J. Rosen and Keith Weissman, were senior staff members of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or Aipac, a pro-Israel lobbying organization with close relationships to officials in the Bush administration.

Larry Franklin worked in the Pentagon Office of Special Plans, run by Richard Perle, at the time Perle (who was caught giving classified information to Israel back in 1970) was insisting that Iraq was crawling with weapons of mass destruction requiring the United States to invade and conquer Iraq. There were no WMDs, of course, and Pearle has dumped the blame for the “bad intelligence” on George Tenet. But what is known is that the Pentagon Office of Special Plans was coordinating with a similar group in Israel, in Ariel Sharon’s office.

With two suspected Israeli spies (at least) inside the office from which the lies that launched the war in Iraq originated, it appears that the people of the United States are the victims of a deadly hoax, a hoax that started a war.

The leaking of the investigation of AIPAC to the media on August 28th, 2004 gave advance warning to other spies working with Franklin. The damage to the FBI’s investigation was completed when United States Attorney General John Ashcroft ordered the FBI to stop all arrests in the case. Like the Stephen Bryen case and the hunt for “Mega”, this latest spy scandal seems destined by officials who have their own secret allegiances to protect, barring a massive public outcry.

On January 20, 2006 A federal judge sentenced a former Defense Department analyst, Lawrence A. Franklin, to more than 12 years in prison today after Mr. Franklin admitted passing classified military information to two pro-Israel lobbyists (Steven J. Rosen and Keith Weissman) and an Israeli diplomat.

The organization at the heart of the latest spy investigation, AIPAC, wields tremendous influence over the US Congress. Through its members and affiliated PACs, AIPAC directs a huge flow of campaign cash in favor of, and occasionally against, Senators and Representatives solely on the basis of their willingness to support Israel. As an example, in 2002, U.S. Rep. Arthur Davis, D-Birmingham received so much help from pro-Israeli pacs that 76% of his campaign budget came from OUTSIDE the state of Alabama, mostly from New York.

A Congressman AIPAC wanted elected received more money from pro-Israel groups outside his state than from his own constituents inside his state. Who is that Congressman going to be thinking of when he votes in Congress?

For two years, the FBI has suspected AIPAC of spying for a foreign country, and for those two years (and for decades before) that group suspected of spying for Israel has been reshaping the US Congress for the benefit of a foreign government.

Think about that as billions of your tax dollars flow to Israel while 52% of Americans cant afford Health Insurance, and the rising unemployment is in records high, and there are 10,000 home foreclosures daily in the U.S.

Think about that when you and a million of your fellow citizens march down the streets of America opposing wars built on lies and deceptions: Policies that are influenced by Aipac who has a strangle hold on the U.S. Congress and Senate.


February 26, 2009 Posted by Farhud NEWS & POLITICS , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , No Comments

Tribute to Sincere Journalism

SourceBy Guest Post • Feb 26th, 2009 at 17:41 • Category: Internet and Communication, Newswire, Opinions and Letters, Resistance


WRITTEN BY Kourosh Ziabari


"Journalism" is the profession of informing people; feeding them with the accurate and reliable information, making the world a better place for life and spreading the messages of peace, stability and friendship by all of the technical and professional means at one’s disposal.



The above sentences are not the captivating and mesmerizing slogans of hawkish leaders who accumulate nuclear weapons in their arsenals, enjoying the UNSC immunity and meanwhile chanting clumsily the call of peace and friendship. These are the obscured and muddled objectives of journalism which were once the ambitious aims of our ancestors.



"The duty of the journalist is to further [those] ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues. Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty." Isn't it inspirational and dreamlike? It isn't a part of Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but the Preamble of Society of Professional Journalists' Code of Ethics Statement.



The very concept of journalism was once interlaced with trustworthiness, candor and sincerity. However, it was revolutionized gradually to some level that you cannot any longer separate it from black propaganda, fabrication and slander.



Last week and for the first time, I paid a memorable visit that will be recorded in the annals of my personal chronicle evermore. Although I am myself based in the northern city of Rasht and do not commute over Tehran so regularly, I made a trip to the mega-capital in order to have a meeting with the people of Tehran Times newspaper, the most prominent English language paper in Iran which is being published for 30 years ceaselessly.



Upon my arrival and after a couple of hours dashing to find the correct address of the headquarters, I finally landed up with the bureau which was located on the end of a calm and narrow alley, somewhere close to the Pakistan Embassy and the Kuwaiti Airlines Representative office in a northern district.



The newsroom was almost silent and you could not find the people scampering from this room to that corner with turmoil and noise. A monitoring agent, putting a massive earphone on his head, was responsible for taking care of the mainstreams and what they say about Iran. He was regularly switching between CNN, Al-Jazeera, BBC and CBS, sitting before an aged Pentium III desktop and pursuing the live shows and commentaries through a TV Broadcast software and his headset.



Each of the editors and reviewers possessed his/her own PC and I could behold near to 20 computer desks in a single room.



There was for the first time when I meet some people whom I can never forget; the people to whom I should pay an immense tribute and a timeless homage.



I first met a distinguished Pakistani journalist to whom I had just chatted online and talked via phone earlier. I met Mr. Gul Jammas Hussain, a esteemed editor at the Tehran Times and one of the most committed, dedicated journalists that I've ever seen.



His tranquil, modest demeanor was exemplary for me. His voice tone would not exceed a certain amount and his warm welcomes I can by no means forget. Seeming abundantly taciturn and reserved in speech and appearance, you should have struggled hard to elicit the flashes of his treasures of knowledge and cognition.



He was the first one who punished me overtly, and made me face the obscured realities which the compromising society was long withholding from me. Although I had made his acquaintance just a few weeks previous to our reunion, I can name him the only one who genuinely unveiled the price of humility and meekness for me, and helped me encounter the reality of unassumingness.



Aside from being a successful journalist whose articles are published in the most prestigious newspapers of Pakistan and Iran, he is now to me, an exalted mentor, educative trainer and dependable brother. It's my duty, and will be forever, to thank him for the opportunities which he offered me.



The next figure, which I conferred with, was indescribable and unprecedented. Mr. Hamid Golpira, a senior editor at the Times and an internationally accomplished journalist. The symbolic scarf which he always ties around his neck in the sign of solidarity with the oppressed nation of Palestine would not be detached from him.



Talking to me in a charismatic and unique manner, he uttered vigorously: "Even this scarf is older than you." And he was right; the American-Iranian Hamid was living with that historic scarf for years, shared a series of memories and anecdotes with "him".



In Hamid, I'll remain loyal and faithful perpetually. He knows whatever he says, and you can compile an encyclopedia of general information from the overflowing, excessive amount of data which he releases while working and speaking.



I don't know how to describe my feelings about this respected and cherished man, who is a "human", rather than an old-hand journalist. The image of his pale, wheaten hairs, sparse beard and matchless way of walking is incorporated in my mind and I wish I could expose myself, for endless hours, to the ocean of his knowledge and conscience.



I should not overlook Mr. Mohammad Ali Saki, another expert journalist and editor, to whom I owe the honor of becoming a contributor of Tehran Times. He gave a leg up to me, and helped me pull the string and climb. He prized his confidence and trust to me, and I hope I can respond his trust with merit and hard-work.



All of these people that I named have their own stories and anecdotes. You can figure out the most interesting and exceptional legends and tales from their lives, and the most common thing which they all share is that they are doing every kind of sacrifice to fulfill the dreams of their ancestors.



With their unpretentious yet brilliant and outstanding endeavors, Tehran Times is now standing on the pinnacle of independent media in Iran, and a wide range of international audiences count on it as their number-one source of undistorted, unbiased and impartial news not only about Iran, but on the whole international affairs.


Although I'm not a regular contributor to Tehran Times, I honor to have friends in a media outlet where sincerity, authenticity and "humanity" is still enshrined and preserved.

Palestinian Honeymooners

Link

By Hanitizer

Cabanas, huts, cabins, and shacks are all temporary places of choice for honeymooners. Now Palestinians have added tents to that list.

A news story on Al-Arabiya, reports the emergence of a new trend in Gaza weddings. As a result of the Israeli assault on Gaza and the full and the partial destruction of many homes in the Strip, a large number of Palestinian families have been residing in tents provided by various NGOs. According to the article, the young men and women of Gaza who have lost their homes are not backing down on their marriage plans and opting out to spend their honeymoons in tents. The tents are provided by wealthy Arab donors from the Gulf, notorious for their own appetite for marriages.

Ahmad Darwish El-Harish, a 23 year-old Gazan is one of those tent honeymooners. His fiancé, Iman, approved the idea of substituting an apartment with a tent which they now call their little love shack. Ahmad had an apartment adjacent to the Nizar Ryan, the Hamas figure that Israel sent to meet his Maker, while destroying several nearby homes in the process one of which included Ahmad’s. An anonymous donor from the Gulf learned of Ahmad’s struggle and the plight of countless others and promised to cover their wedding costs and to provide them tents.

Apparently (like everywhere else in the world) in the strip, you strip to make babies, thus giving Israel the middle finger yet again. No one will stop the Palestinians from making babies. The downside however, screamers need not apply.

[Tarboush Tip: Carlos]

Gaza One Month Later

Link

By Mohammad

It’s been four weeks since the end (or temporary pause) of the war on Gaza. Israel’s merciless pounding of the tiny, sealed strip of land, chronically overcrowded with three generations of refugees, resulted (predictably) in a massive loss of life and catastrophic levels of destruction.

My father returned from Gaza today having spent the better part of a week there. He went to be with my grandfather who has fallen seriously ill. My dad is exceptionally lucky. Through his work, he is one of the few allowed into Gaza and the only member of our extended family who sees and is seen by our relatives there.

He didn’t get much time to tour Gaza, the place he grew up, because he spent most of his time with my grandfather in hospital and in the family home in Khan Younis after the old man was discharged. There’s a large poster hanging in the house now of Hamada, my uncle Mahmoud’s 22-year old brother in law, a police officer who was killed by an Israeli airstrike on the first day of the war. Hamada’s dad, whose own brother was shot dead by the same forces that murdered his son, met my dad at the hospital when he went to visit my grandfather. He spent almost an hour talking about his son.

Hamada had died in the first minutes of the war when tens of Israeli warplanes attacked Palestinian police stations all over Gaza, killing around 120 policemen in one raid. He had been on the job for less than a month.

On the day he died, December 27th, 2008, Hamada was not even supposed to be at the police station. It was his day off, but he had told his mother that he wanted to volunteer his time and help the other officers. His father recalled how excited his son had been about receiving his first paycheck, promising to gift it all to his parents and promising to buy everyone at work shawarma sandwiches.

The family received his paycheck after his death. His dad kept his son’s promise, and bought all the surviving police officers shawarma sandwiches, then donated the rest of his son’s first and only salary to charity.

My dad did manage to visit some of the areas most affected by the destruction, including Tal al-Hawa, where he stayed with his brother for a night, and Jabal al-Rayyis, Jabal al-Kashef and Izzbet Abd Rabbo, all east of Jabalya. He shot videos of the last three areas, which were almost completely flattened. Virtually no building are left standing there; homes, factories, mosques, businesses, shops-all reduced to compact mounds of rubble. He told me that a whole month after the war, the soil of Jabal al-Rayyes is still drenched with the stench of gunpowder. He described the smell as being as potent as tear gas, causing him to cough and tear up just by walking around the area.

He also visited the Islamic University which had been hit during several air strikes. The missiles destroyed a girls dormitory and the main science lab, destroying millions of dollars of equipment and countless projects and studies-years of research wiped out in a split-second of barbarity. During his visit, bulldozers were removing some of the rubble (picture at right). Simply clearing the rubble from the tens of thousands of destroyed homes will cost hundreds of millions of dollars and may take years.

What stood out the most to my dad though is the spirit and resoluteness displayed by those who lived through and survived those 22 days of hell. He admitted that at times during the war, as the warplanes bombed and the hundreds of dead piled up, he began to doubt that those appearing on TV to proclaim their steadfastness were being truthful to themselves or to the viewers. But in Gaza he saw it everywhere; in the togetherness between neighbors, in the way families pitched their tents next to their destroyed homes, in the Palestinian flags rising high above the mounds of rubble everywhere.

This is Gaza: A surreal collective of pain, bravery, strength and conviction. Even after the carnage of the war was assessed and billions were lined up for rebuilding the shattered infrastructure, the borders remain sealed, with few allowed in, almost none allowed out, and an average of only 100 trucks a day are permitted to supply 1.5 million people with humanitarian aid. Building materials are still banned. Nobody knows how long the crushed structures will remain in view. It is relatively easy for Israel to destroy bricks and mortar, but it has found it impossible to destroy the people’s spirit.

Remember Gaza.

Balad and Hadash—Election Campaigns Take Different Directions

Link

Written by Shir Hever, Alternative Information Center (AIC)

Friday, 27 February 2009



While in the past, the Hadash and Balad political parties have competed for the same constituency, in this election cycle, the two parties have taken different directions.
In the past few elections, two political parties—Hadash and Balad, have competed for the vote of non-Zionist, secular Palestinians with Israeli citizenship. Hadash was usually the bigger party (and it’s certainly an older party, as it dates back in different forms to pre-state Palestine before 1948). Both parties, but especially Hadash, also count on support from a (small) group of Jewish voters.

The two parties, who combined have held about 4%-6% of the Knesset seats in recent elections, have a much greater significance for non-Zionist political discourse in Israel than their electoral strength may suggest. The two parties stand at the center of the discussion among non-Zionist about the right strategy regarding the electoral process in Israel—whether to participate in it in order to glean whatever benefits may be gained, constantly challenging the concept of a Jewish state from within, or to reject the electoral process outright and boycott the elections.

The two parties have many similarities as well as ideological differences. Both parties support equal rights for all citizens of Israel regardless of nationality (which puts them at odds with Israel’s definition as a Jewish state), the establishment of a viable, sovereign Palestinian state based on the 1967 border (therefore both support the evacuation of the settlements and the division of Jerusalem), and both parties promote human rights, gender equality and democracy. Both parties are equally opposed to Israel’s attacks against Palestinians in the occupied territories as well the discrimination against Palestinians within Israel.

The differences between the parties are not insignificant, though. Hadash is a leftist party with a socialist platform and many communists among its ranks. It puts environmental concerns among its highest priorities, and promotes a joint Palestinian-Jewish struggle. Balad puts greater emphasis on Palestinian national rights and on transforming Israel from a Jewish state to a state of all its citizens.

Because the two parties compete among similar demographic groups, arguments between them often became heated, and in the 2006 elections, the conflict between them even escalated to violence in several instances.

In the 2009 elections campaign, however, mutual accusations between the parties have become lighter. This is probably due to the fact that the two parties are targeting different people in this election. This change is largely due to the attack of the Gaza Strip by Israeli forces in December 2008 through January 2009.

During the attack, the Israeli Knesset voted to disqualify Balad and Ra’am-Ta’al from running for elections. The reason given was that these parties reject Israel’s definition of a Jewish state. The immediate cause, however, was the emotional state of Israeli politics during the attack on Gaza. Zionist parties expressed a combination of unquestioning, even bloodthirsty, support for the attack but at the same time great concern from the international response to Israel’s aggression. Israeli Palestinians (including Balad, Hadash and Ra’am Ta’al politicians), shocked and dismayed by the brutality of the attacks, expressed their anger with strong statements and in mass demonstrations. Hundreds were arrested.

The disqualification of the two Palestinian parties created debates among the potential voters of these parties (mostly Palestinians and non-Zionist Jews) who felt that voting for a different party or appealing to the Israeli High Court to reinstate the parties would only serve to reinforce Israel’s image as a democratic state, and, instead, a better strategy would be to boycott the elections altogether.

Balad and Ra’am-Ta’al chose to appeal to the High Court, won the case, and focused their efforts on convincing Israeli Palestinians not to boycott the elections. Thus they have shifted their focus from the Hadash voters, whose party didn’t go through the process of disqualifying and reinstatement.

Meanwhile, during the attack on Gaza the Zionist-Left Meretz party supported the attacks and the invasion, a move that alienated many of its voters. Many Israelis who opposed the aggression against civilians in Gaza felt that Meretz no longer represents them, and have begun to view Hadash as a possible alternative. Even some who don’t identify with Hadash’s platform of full national equality and socialism have decided that a consistent voice against war justifies a compromise on other issues.

The Hadash party was also encouraged by the success of Dov Hanin, one of its parliament members, in the municipal elections in Tel-Aviv. Though Hanin wasn’t elected mayor, he won a third of the votes, quite an accomplishment for an openly non-Zionist candidate in a city with a large Jewish majority.

Thus, Hadash turned its efforts in this election campaign to getting Meretz voters to cross over to Hadash, and launched a campaign that emphasizes messages in Hebrew.

One of the results of the Israeli attack on Gaza is thus a change in the non-Zionist politics in Israel. It remains to be seen if this change will make the non-Zionist parties stronger and more influential in Israeli politics, especially as the Zionist parties take increasingly belligerent positions against Palestinians in Israel and in the occupied territories.


Why Must Meretz & Peace Now Also be Criticized?

Written by Michael Warschawski, Alternative Information Center (AIC)

Friday, 27 February 2009


Peace Now and Meretz both supported the Israeli military attack on the Gaza Strip.
Several readers of the Alternative Information Center’s website have asked why, during the Israeli massacre in Gaza last month, I did not limit my attacks to the government and the parties that are in this government, bur added Peace Now and Meretz to the list of those who have to be criticized and blamed. The answer is, unfortunately, very simple: because they have openly and unconditionally supported the aggression, and defended the government’s rationale behind it.
According to Peace Now and Meretz, the aggression against the people of Gaza was justified, indeed necessary. Repeating like parrots the arguments of the government, “Gaza” was a threat to Israel security, and a preemptive strike was the only way to protect the very existence of Israel. Like the right-wing, the Zionist left didn't make any distinction between Gaza population, Hamas government and the marginal groups that were firing pathetic rockets on Sderot. “Gaza” is a terrorist entity and should be eradicated or at least severely punished. “Gaza delenda est.”

Only on 15 January, Peace Now general secretary, Yariv Openheimer, published a statement calling on the government “to stop at once the attack on the center of Gaza. […] The conditions are now matured for a ceasefire, and every additional day of fighting is morally illegitimate.” Three days later, after the ceasefire, Peace Now published a new statement: “We need to use the blow suffered by Hamas and to make this movement irrelevant through an agreement with Abu Mazen.” The same week Peace Now published a paid advertisement in Haaretz with the title: “Now it is time to speak.” In other words: the Gaza massacre was fully justified, but it shall now be followed by negotiations with Mahmud Abbas.

In an article published in Meretz website, Daniel Caletti, a former Peace Now/Meretz activist wrote: “The worst was, of course, the final betrayal of Meretz […] with its support for the last war in Gaza, the ‘children's massacre war.’ MK Haim Oron even forbid [!!!] his colleagues in the Knesset from demonstrating against this bloody war.” While explaining the collapse of Meretz in the last elections, Caletti comments: “The true leftist voters left Meretz and voted instead for Hadash, while the rightists-disguised-into-confused-leftists deserted to Kadima, in order ‘to strengthen Tsipi’.”

One must add that this new betrayal of the Zionist Left was not supported by all the leadership of Meretz, and leaders like Mossi Raz and Galia Golan took part in the demonstrations against the Gaza massacre and didn't hide how ashamed they were of the position of their movement.

The electoral fiasco of Meretz confirms that Left-Zionism has reached a dead-end. The non-Zionist Left now has the historical responsibility to build a new political home for the many thousands of orphans of Meretz/Peace Now who didn't choose to join Kadima as a supposedly lesser evil. And we must do it without compromising on principles, but also without irresponsible sectarianism.