Understanding the Palestinian Refugee Crisis

Abbas interviewing Palestinian Girls in his refugee camp

Last night I had the pleasure of watching Ziad Abbas of the Middle East Children’s alliance address a full room of students at City College of San Francisco with his presentation, “Cultural Resistance of Marginality: a Personal Perspective on the Untold Stories of Palestinian Refugees.” I had seen Ziad’s slideshow once previously, at a workshop for educators and community organizers on how to teach the history of the conflict, but this time it evoked much stronger emotions in me than before.

Perhaps because most of the students in the room were still raw with emotion from seeing a performance of Seven Jewish Children given in the school library just a few minutes before, or maybe because the presentation was so deeply personal, Ziad clearly struck a nerve. I saw tears well up in the eyes of people I couldn’t have dreamed would still be paying attention after nearly two hours, and hands spring into the air with questions that betrayed a level of critical thinking and understanding that can only manifest when one’s attention is truly gripped.

In his presentation Ziad flows seamlessly between historical lessons and personal narrative, flashing from a map of Palestine in 1878 marking the first Zionist settlement to a picture of the small tent his mother, father, brother, and sister called home in the first weeks after they were forced from their village of Zakariyya. He shows pictures from the Israeli archive opened in the late 1990s –a village being blown to bits after it was cleared, a group of Hagana soldiers leaning against their military vehicle, a trail of men, women, and children saddled with blankets and baskets as they walk into the distance. The last one, he says, reminds him of his mother.

“She locked the door behind her and left our house barefoot, one child on her hip as she took the other by the hand, thinking she’d be back as soon as the fighting ended.”*

He calls her naïve, exhaling warmly.

Next he moves to images of Palestinians, some trying to escape the fighting on their own, some being forcibly transferred.  He lingers on one in particular. In it we see ragged-looking men and women sitting in a tattered bus as tidy, uniformed Jewish soldiers stand guard nearby, guns slung over their shoulders. He turns to us and asks, “What does this remind you of?” A girl I know, unfamiliar with the conflict, shouts, “The Holocaust. The trains.” I’m shocked. How obvious it all is to those with new eyes.

He speaks of the UN making the decision to turn the tents in his Dheisheh refugee camp into brick and mortar rooms, each about 81 square feet and housing at minimum six people. Every few hundred rooms had two bathrooms, one for women and the other for men.

“We felt like we were always waiting,” he said, “waiting in line for food, waiting in line for the bathroom. Waiting, waiting, waiting.”

And he tells us that when the Abbas family finally got their own private bathroom years later, there was a celebration.

He talks about how difficult it was to live under curfew, especially in the beginning when there was no running water, no electricity. Even after these luxuries became commonplace it wasn’t easy. From 1979 to 1995, refugees in his camp spent nearly 4 months out of every year locked down. The longest single stretch happened during the Gulf War; it was 49 days.

Despite these hardships, Ziad has clearly kept his sense of humor. He laughs when he explains how when he got into particularly bad fights with his mother he would run outside and throw stones at his own house in protest, or how every time he had to escort his older sister to the communal bathroom he would ask for change in return.

“It’s how I made my income!” he jokes.

The most moving part of the presentation comes when he begins to delineate the role of the Jewish National Fund in “greenwashing” Palestine’s ethnic cleansing.  He shows a picture of Zakariyya in the 1920’s, and points out the empty hills rolling into the distance. Then he shows a current view of the same village, the hills now covered in non-indigenous trees, the houses gone.

Next he flashes to a sign for a nature reserve. The upper portion is written in Hebrew, but below you can read in English, “Funded in part by a congregation in Kansas City, Missouri.”

“We call it the Israeli-American occupation, sometimes. You see why.”

Here the mood becomes even darker as he tells us in a somber tone that his uncle passed away only two days ago. He was the last person in his family from the “catastrophe generation” as Ziad calls it, referring to those who actually lived through the 1947-48 cleansing. He recalls the time he smuggled his uncle into Israel to see their village a few years ago. By this time his uncle was quite old, and so when he started pointing to forests and nature reserves, giving them Arabic names and describing the villages that used to stand in their stead, Ziad first thought he was simply confused.

“You’re turned around, that’s all. We’ll find our way.”

When his uncle insisted that the reserve they were standing on was in fact Ziad’s mother’s village, Ziad thought the old man had lost it.  

“No!” He bellowed, shaking his head, wringing his hands. “No! This. Is. The. Village!”

Here Ziad becomes very quiet. I realize he isn’t looking at us anymore, but somewhere above our heads. I close my eyes and imagine the scene.

“The stones, the trees, they all started speaking. My uncle is an artist you see, and he listened. Within 30 minutes the village stood before us, as clear as if we had lived there our whole lives. He described the house, the window, the view from the front steps. I saw it all. And then we started digging. I found that step buried in the ground, that first step. I stood on it, imagining what my mother saw as a girl every morning.”

He called it life-altering. I bit my lip to stop from weeping at the thought of it.

He focused the rest of his energy that night on resistance, showing us pictures taken in and around Dheisheh. As I saw boy after boy bravely stare down tanks and armored soldiers, their childish hands clasped around rocks, their shoulders strong and defiant, I felt ashamed. How could I be such a coward? How could I ever let something as silly as the fear of offending someone stop me from raising my voice, when here stood these little children, fighting against the oppression of the longest occupation in modern history with their bare hands?

 More moving than that was the video he showed us, made by a young girl named Zainab. She wasn’t interested in rocks at all. No, Zainab wanted to become a lawyer, “to give rights back to the Palestinian people.” She was so precious, she reminded me of my baby sister.

I became enraged. How could anyone deny her anything, let alone her basic human rights? As if reading my mind, Ziad finished his presentation with these words:

“We aren’t interested in peace. We are interested in justice. And we aren’t asking for miracles, or even anything special. We are asking for what was given to us by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and by resolution 194. There are nearly 7 million Palestinian refugees now. We cannot be ignored.”

*Quotes are not 100% exact but taken from notes

Ethical Oil: The Canadian Oil Industry and the Israel Connection

Last month I discovered a piece on Feministing about a recent Canadian ad campaign for Ethical Oil. According to Ethical Oil’s website, the group:

Encourages people, businesses and governments to choose Ethical Oil from Canada, its oil sands and other liberal democracies. Unlike Conflict Oil from some of the world’s most politically oppressive and environmentally reckless regimes, Ethical Oil is the “Fair Trade” choice in oil. Countries that produce Ethical Oil protect the rights of women, workers, indigenous peoples and other minorities including gays and lesbians. Conflict Oil regimes, by contrast, oppress their citizens and operate in secret with no accountability to voters, the press or independent judiciaries.

The group’s now infamous ad, which can be seen here, speaks of the abuse women endure in Saudi Arabia, and paints Canada’s environmentally disastrous tar sands as the only alternative. But intelligent women aren’t falling for it. As one blogger puts it, “I am a feminist and I am an environmentalist. I don’t really appreciate being asked to compromise one to support the other….If Ethical Oil was truly interested in women’s rights, they’d be campaign for fuel efficiency standards. Instead they’re using the condition of Saudi women as a disgusting gateway to destroying the planet and encouraging an environmental disaster.”

The ad currently runs on Oprah’s OWN network. Upon discovering this, the exceptionally thorough environmentalist and writer Emma Pullman did some investigative work and found the following, which she then included in an open letter to Ms. Winfrey (the article also does an amazing job of unraveling the absurd logic Ethical Oil operates by):

According to Deep Climate, Ethical Oil isn't the low budget grassroots organization it purports to be. Its principals are some of the rising stars of the conservative movement in Canada, and one is a lawyer for tar sands firms.

Here's the back story: Ezra Levant turned "ethical oil" into a meme late last year. Almost overnight, pro-industry and government officials, keen to sell the filthy oil to a skeptical public, picked up the term and ran with it.  After the Conservative election victory in May, Conservative government spokesperson (and former American Enterprise Institute intern) Alykhan Velshi took over at the helm of the ethicaloil.org blog. The blog is registered to Levant, who also has strong links to the Conservatives.

And, here's another thing that just doesn't add up for me. How is it that a former advisor to Environment Minister John Baird, and communications director for Immigration Minister Jason Kenney, would find himself taking an "unpaid" job as a blogger?

Thanks to the folks over at Deep Climate, it makes a lot more sense. EthicalOil.org is connected to the obscure Ethical Oil Institute. Though there is scant reference to them online, according to their notice of incorporation, the institute was registered on March 9, 2011 to an Edmonton address, 12220 Stony Plain Road, Edmonton AB T5N 3Y4.  

That just so happens to be the address of the law firm McLennan Ross. McLennan Ross makes bathtubs full of money doing work for tar sands firms.

The two members of the Ethical Oil Institute's board of directors are Ezra Levant and McLellan Ross partner Thomas Ross. Thomas Ross is one of ten lead partners in McLellan Ross’s OilSandsLaw.com initiative, a “slick new oilsands cross-selling strategy" and marketing campaign.

But it gets better. Pullman mentioned that Alykhan Velshi also contributes to the group. In fact, Ethical Oil openly states this, saying the site “began as a blog created by Alykhan Velshi.” More than simply an “intern for the American Enterprise Institute,” Velshi was also head of research at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, where he co-founded the Center for Law and Counterterrorism. He is an open supporter of Bush’s doctrine of pre-emptive war, does not believe the Geneva Conventions should apply to those captured in the War on Terror, and advocates the creation of a special National Security Court to try terrorism suspects.

More importantly, Velshi is an open and unabashed Zionist, working for Canadian Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Jason Kenney as his Director of Communications and Parliamentary Affairs. You might recall that Kenney made the news in 2009 as he was embroiled in a battle with Canadian Arab Federation president Khaled Mouammar in which Kenney and Velshi were able to successfully defund CAF after comments Mouammar made criticizing Kenney’s support for Operation Cast Lead. According to Velshi, Mouammar was “anti-Semetic.” See here for the full story.

And there's more. Writing for the Huffington Post, Velshi criticized the Saudi government’s attempt to get Ethical Oil’s ad off the air, explaining:

I have also alerted Foreign Minister John Baird and Dean Allison, Chairman of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, about the incident in writing, calling on the Harper government and the parliamentary committee to investigate a foreign dictatorship trying to censor what Canadians can and cannot see on their televisions.

While in a free, open, and democratic society, we can have vigorous disagreements about energy policy and the role Canada's oil sands should play in the energy supply mix, when a foreign dictatorship like Saudi Arabia tries to censor one side of that debate, we all need to stand as one in defending our rights as Canadians. That means that all of us -- including oil sands critics like Greenpeace -- need to condemn this brazen act of domestic political interference by a blood-soaked, conflict oil-fueled foreign dictatorship.

Wait, what? Need I remind you, this is the same man who played an instrumental role in successfully banning British PM and outspoken Israel critic George Galloway from entering Canada. From wiki:

Velshi told the media that the Canadian government would not reverse this decision, stating that Galloway had expressed sympathy for the Taliban cause in Afghanistan and describing him as an "infandous street-corner Cromwell who actually brags about giving 'financial support' to Hamas, a terrorist organisation banned in Canada.^[33] The decision to ban Galloway was supported by the Canadian Jewish Congress, B'nai Brith Canada and the far-right Jewish Defence League of Canada, which took credit for initiating the action.^[34] It was subsequently noted that Velshi had begun preparing media lines regarding Galloway several days before the ban was announced.^[32]

The Canadian border police would not let Galloway into the country based on instructions from Velshi. Now tell me again, what did he say about free speech and debate?

I guess Velshi has no sense of irony. Either that, or he’s just a hypocrite. A neoconservative Zionist taking talking points from the Canadian Jewish Congress and B’nai Birth Canada, which act as in part as agents of Israel to insulate its “blood-soaked” apartheid regime from Western criticism has the gall to talk about other countries meddling in Canadian affairs. What exactly is his angle here?

In truth, Ethical Oil is guilty of myriad hasbara-esque techniques, among them greenwashing, pinkwashing, and the old familiar but-look-at-those-evil-Arabs-over-THERE excuse by comparison, except this time they're in the service of Canada rather than Israel. But these obfuscations don't work for Israel, and they shouldn't work for Canada either.

Educating Our Children About Palestine

According to a recent Gallup Poll, only 17% of Americans sympathize with Palestinians over Israelis, whereas 63% favor Israelis. What’s more, the percentage of neutral individuals is shrinking in favor of Israel. Taking into account the events of the past three years, Operation Cast Lead and subsequent findings of war crimes/crimes against humanity, the attack on the Freedom Flotilla, and the refusal to halt illegal settlement activity even when bribed, how could it be that the number of Americans sympathizing with Israel is at its highest since the beginning of the fruitless peace process 20 years ago? Clearly something is amiss.

Knowing what I know about Palestine, it is hard to understand how anyone could ignore the damage of occupation, siege and dispossession, choosing instead to sympathize with the perpetrators of violence. Even more disturbing are the consequences of these sympathies on Palestinians’ everyday lives. Every year the United States gives Israel nearly three billion dollars in aid, which Israel then uses to continue the systematic abridgment of Palestinian rights. Without losing my faith in humanity, the only conclusion I can draw from Gallup’s findings is that most Americans are simply mis/uninformed. Otherwise, how can it be so difficult to comprehend Palestinian plight? Why can't we understand that apartheid is just as wrong in South Africa as it is in the occupied West Bank? Why do we implicitly recognize the injustice of racism against African Americans but excuse Israel when it characterizes its Arab minority as a demographic threat? Why do we champion our 2nd amendment right to defend ourselves but castigate Palestinian children for throwing stones at the soldiers who come to take their land? I can only hope that the answer to these questions is simply that no one ever thought of things this way. Something must be done to change mainstream attitudes, not so that we care for Palestinians and not Israelis, but rather so that sympathizing with Israel does not come at the expense of Palestinian life.

Within this context, I attended a workshop last weekend aimed at educators and organizers interested in learning effective methods for raising the issue of Palestine with their students and community. Spearheaded by the Middle East Children’s Alliance, the International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network and Rethinking Schools, the half-day workshop focused on techniques to incorporate Palestine into curriculums in a constructive and educational way that also facilitates the development of critical thinking skills.

Due to the highly controversial nature of the Israel-Palestine conflict among other factors, many school districts avoid the subject entirely. This leaves American students without a lens to interpret key historical developments within the Middle East, including our own military involvement. At the same time they are also exceptionally susceptible to Israeli propaganda and mainstream media bias, all of which contribute to the perpetuation of Palestinian suffering. However, the workshop does not aim to equip teachers with the tools to simply indoctrinate students for Palestine or against Israel. Instead, they are instructed on how to create an environment that values justice, equality and factual accuracy where resistance struggles of all types can be understood and identified with.

Naturally, part of the discussion centered on fears of possible backlash from students’ parents.  Two techniques were offered to mitigate these fears. The first was making sure that any lesson that mentions Palestine is perfectly relevant to the unit at hand, so that it can be defended on the grounds that it is an integral component of reaching an educational standard. The second was to implement the paradigm of “dual perspectives.” Various perspectives on a given event are presented, after which they are examined for legitimacy and their conformity to fact. In this way conflicting viewpoints are offered so students do not see a one-sided picture of things, thereby undercutting accusations of bias. At the same time, an emphasis on factual accuracy dictates that the side which best conforms to reality prevails. When developed within a framework that values social justice and equality, this method of appraisal results in a deeper understanding of Palestinian plight. Most importantly, this understanding manifests organically.

For example, Israel offers the perspective that the Separation Wall is necessary for the security of the State whereas Palestinians find it to be an unjust imposition. These positions seem irreconcilable. However, upon further scrutiny one sees that the route of the wall attests more to a land-grab than to improve Israeli security, thus delegitimizing the former point of view.

Instructors were encouraged to draw parallels between the concepts familiar to students and Palestinian history. These included:

• Manifest Destiny and Eretz Israel
• The ethnic cleansing of native Americans and the Nakba
• South African Apartheid and the different legal systems for Israeli settlers vs. Palestinians in the West Bank
• The Civil Rights struggle and the situation for Israeli Arabs
• Water conservation and Israel’s unfair allocation of resources
• Racial profiling and Israel’s system of checkpoints

Teachers also discussed including Palestinian artists, writers and poets in their humanities units to familiarize students with Palestinian culture. Some even suggested putting their students in contact with Palestinian youth by partnering classrooms together and facilitating pen pal programs.

Non-educators found that the most effective way to garner strength for Palestine solidarity was by illustrating common needs and concerns within their communities and those in Palestine. By drawing connections between all social struggles, whether for immigrant rights, women’s rights, LGBT rights, indigenous rights, etc, we can see that the injustice suffered by Palestinians is not something too complex, foreign or removed to understand. Once that barrier is broken, a desire to end the occupation naturally springs forth.

With every day that passes, the occupation of Palestine and the perpetuation of the diaspora cause untold suffering. The United States is complicit in this crime. It is imperative that we do all we can to change the situation. By educating our children and our communities on the values of critical examination, justice, equality, and compassion we move one step forward. We owe it to them to raise this issue, confident in the knowledge that we are on the right side of history.

If you are interested in learning more about how you can incorporate Palestine into your curriculum, the following resources are extremely helpful:

Teaching the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict through Dual Narratives

US-Palestine Youth Solidarity Network

International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network – Study to Action: Reader and Curriculum Guide

Highlights From San Francisco Protest In Solidarity with Libya

On Saturday, February 26th, hundreds of East Bay and San Francisco residents rallied in solidarity with Middle East and North African protesters. Organizers scheduled the event at UN Plaza, the same location as previous marches for Egypt and Tunisia. Sponsored by more than 20 different organizations, the protest focused primarily on Libya, though attention was given to uprisings in Bahrain, Yemen, Morocco, Jordan, Syria, Iran, as well as all nations currently fighting for freedom. Many attendees wore keffiyehs. Activists were also joined by marchers from a nearby rally held at City Hall in support of Wisconsin workers fighting to retain their right to unionize.

Turn-out was low in comparison to the rally for Egypt, due in part to the absence of the ANSWER coalition (usually a permanent fixture at such events) which pulled out due to a disagreement "with some of the wording in the protest organizers' press release" and the demonstration lacked the momentum of previous gatherings. One could perhaps attribute the change in tone to the gravity of the events currently unfolding as Gadhafi continues to massacre his own people. Indeed, the protest's largest banner read, "STOP GENOCIDE IN LIBYA" and one speaker began his address with a protracted moment of silence to honor the ever-growing number of martyrs. While most speeches were both hopeful and defiant, a sense of tension pervaded the day, as if we were all holding our collective breath in the hope that the violence will end soon.

Interestingly, there was a lack of consensus among the organizers and the crowd about what should be done to induce Gadhafi's ouster. One Tunisian speaker called on the United Nations to act, warning, "Don't let this be another Rwanda," while another suggested American military intervention. Others felt that that the brave Libyan people should be allowed to claim their own revolution, asking for help only to facilitating the passage of refugees fleeing for their safety.

The crowd was extremely diverse, with many families attending. At one point I stood with a hijabi woman and her three children to my left, a latino socialist passing out copies of The Militant to my right, and a queer Jewish activist (with whom I had just come from a workshop on Palestine education) directly behind me.

The most popular refrain of the entire event was the message that the fear barrier has been broken. Person after person took the microphone to shout that the Arab world will no longer be intimidated by dictators, the military, fears of instability, Islamists, Americans or anyone else as the protesters roared in agreement.

I noticed many faces from previous demonstrations, including one woman in particular. She was carrying a sign that contained a large crescent along with a star of David, a cross and a capital "A" (meant to represent atheism). "I wanted to be inclusive, to show that this is about all people coming together against tyranny," she told me. As the crowd chanted "the people united will never be divided" I looked over to her once more to see her waving her arms emphatically. I couldn't help but smile.

What I find most beautiful about these events is the sense of unity and togetherness they induce. Most people agree that the revolutions sweeping the Middle East and North Africa are powerful. But why so? They are powerful precisely because they have broken down borders and shown the intersection of struggles between peoples. At same time they have "humanized the other" for many Westerners whose only conception of "Arab" is backward and violent.

To some, standing arm in arm with a crowd full of strangers, shouting at the top of your lungs for the freedom of a group of people whom you have never met in a place you may never go is absolutely foolish. But these events have confirmed, for me and for others I am sure, the belief in a common humanity. Some ask why we protest. They ask why we show up time after time, considering it "changes nothing". I think they're wrong. We're sending messages when we assemble -messages to our representatives and our president, messages to our fellow citizens, but most importantly messages to our Arab brothers and sisters. For me that message is best expressed by a line from the film V for Vendetta. If I could, I would say this to every person struggling for freedom the world over:

"I hope that whoever you are, you escape this place. I hope that the world turns and that things get better. But what I hope most of all is that you understand what I mean when I tell you that even though I do not know you, and even though I may never meet you, laugh with you, cry with you, or kiss you. I love you. With all my heart, I love you."

Palestinian Queer Activists Talk Politics

On February 16th, 2011 I attended a public forum entitled “Palestinian Queer Activists Talk Politics” in San Francisco’s Mission District. More than 20 groups including the National Center for Lesbian Rights, Jewish Voice for Peace and the Middle East Children’s Alliance sponsored the forum, moderated by lesbian Chicana activist and writer Cherríe Moraga. The discussion featured three speakers:

• Abeer Mansour works for Aswat, a feminist queer Palestinian women’s group dedicating to “generat[ing] social change in order to meet the needs of one of the most silenced and oppressed communities in Israel."
• Sami Shamali, who resides in the West Bank, represents Al Qaws, which aims to develop a “Palestinian civil society that respects and adheres to human and civil rights and allows individuals to live openly and equally, regardless of their sexuality, sexual orientation and gender identity.” 
• Haneen Maikey, based in Jerusalem, is Al Qaws’ director.

I found the panel particularly compelling in light of its location, just outside of Dolores Park –a popular go-to spot for queer women in the Bay Area, in one of the most gay-friendly cities in the entire world. Because of San Francisco’s internationally known gay community, it has been a primary target of Israel’s re-branding campaign aimed at improving the country’s image through the use of “Pinkwashing.” Pinkwashing is the attempt to justify Israel’s occupation of Palestine by portraying it as a progressive and democratic haven for LGBT individuals in direct contrast with the rest of the Middle East. It plays into a larger effort that aims to disparage Israel’s neighbors in order to justify the country’s existence as necessary by any means, relying on the image of a lone democracy barely surviving surrounded by violent, intolerant, women-hating, and generally backward societies.

Active within the Bay Area LGBT community, I have personally witnessed attempted pinkwashes. In one particular instance, a protest erupted after the California Supreme Court issued its ruling that Proposition 8 (the initiative defining marriage as between one man and one woman) was constitutional despite its prior decision legalizing same-sex unions. Within hours thousands of people took to the streets in protest. After a procession of speakers demanding equal rights for gay and lesbian couples, the rally closed with a rabbi who took the microphone in order to emphasize Israel’s commitment to gay rights and opposition to Prop 8, and to ask us to support the Jewish State because of it. A few activists including myself were disgusted and immediately left. However the majority stayed, and later that year I found myself hearing these same sentiments repeated.

Queer Palestinians, like Afghan and Iraqi women, have consistently found their discourse co-opted by neo-conservative hawks and progressives alike in order to justify war and occupation under the assumption that such actions will ‘liberate’ the oppressed. It is this cynical manipulation that the forum’s speakers work to disparage. Claiming their own voices and movement, queer Palestinian activists are clamoring to be heard and wish for their American brothers and sisters to spread their message. So what is it they have to say?

The clearest message resounding from all three speakers was that if one actually cares about LGBT rights within Palestine, one should be working to end the occupation. That Israel has cultivated a vibrant and open gay enclave is laudable, yet such accomplishments do not give the ‘Jewish State’ a free pass to violate human rights, including the rights of the gay Palestinians they allegedly care for. As Haneen dryly explained, “It doesn’t matter what the sexual orientation of the Soldier at a checkpoint is, whether he can serve openly or not. What matters is that he’s there at all.” Sami echoed the same sentiment, jibing that “the apartheid wall was not created to keep Palestinian homophobes out of Gay Israel, and there is no magic door for gay Palestinians to pass through.”

When pressed by an audience member as to which situation they would prefer, a perfectly egalitarian, queer-friendly society still under occupation or a free Palestine that still suffers from sexism, patriarchy and homophobia, the three became visibly angry. Abeer looked to the audience and asked, “Please raise your hand if you’d like to live one day under occupation,” before saying that occupied people cannot adequately address civil rights issues as they struggle for their very means of survival. Sami went on to contend that freedom transforms the mind, giving people the best opportunity to examine their previously held attitudes. Drawing on recent events in Egypt, he related that while sexual harassment is rampant within the country, in Tahrir square women remarked an utter absence of abuse during the mass protests. At the same time, if one does not wish to see the correlation between the unacceptably slow pace of social change and the increasing weight of the occupation, one cannot honestly contend that Israel's actions do anything to help the plight of Palestinian women/LGBT individials.

Each had their own story to tell about the intersection of queer identity and Palestinian identity, agreeing that Palestinian homosexuality had its own unique experiences. Yet for all three, the liberation of their country reigned supreme in their minds. The meeting ended with a standing ovation as the moderator boomed, “Clap if you understand that queers will never be free until Palestine is free.”

While their discussion did not focus solely on Israel’s abuse of LGBT liberation struggles in perpetuating conflict, I took away from it a deepened understanding of just how much more the West unfairly expects of Palestinians than anyone else. We expect Palestinians to not throw stones at the IDF jeeps who come to teargas their protestations against the illegal confiscation of their entire villages while we wouldn’t bat an eyelash at a man who shot a robber attempting to take his television set; We expect them to not elect representatives that reflect their religious sentiments though no one is surprised when the Christian Right attempts to influence our political system and we ally ourselves with the likes of Saudi Arabia; and we expect Palestinian society to wholly unshackle itself from the bonds of misogyny, racism and bigotry before we acknowledge their entitlement to basic human rights, despite our own shortcomings, including the reality that the realization of LGBT equality within the United States itself is relatively new and still imperfect. In all of the struggles for liberation many Americans support, including civil rights for African Americans, we have never required such a high standard of “goodness” before acknowledging a group’s basic humanity.

Abeer, Haneen and Sami represent a growing coalition of brave Palestinian youth focused on transforming entrenched attitudes from within while simultaneously undermining the imposed constraints of colonialism. Their work is an invaluable contribution to ending the occupation and transforming our understanding of Palestinian society. The message of these activists and their organizations deserves to be heard widely. Please do your part in spreading it to those who claim to care about gay rights. If you would like to attend one of their panels, you can find information for the remaining tour dates here.

What the Poll on East Jerusalem Palestinians Really Means

As a November study by Petcher Polls (slideshow here) elucidating the opinions of Palestinian East Jerusalemites makes its rounds on the internet, many hasbarists have used its conclusions to justify Israel’s illegal annexation of the city.

Indeed, the fact that 35% of Palestinians would prefer Israeli citizenship, and that 40% would relocate to Israel should their residence come to be located within a Palestinian state seems quite damning. Yet upon further inspection, the poll does less to justify Israel’s illegitimate actions than superficial conclusions claim, instead working to elucidate the impact of Israel’s occupation on “facts on the ground.”

According to the poll’s executive summary, “Those who chose Israeli citizenship most often mentioned freedom of movement in Israel, higher income and better job opportunities, and Israeli health insurance.” Palestinians were also particularly concerned with losing access to Al-Aqsa mosque, which Israeli authorities have routinely restricted.

Clearly there is a perceived disparity between Israeli and Palestinian public services, so much so that 35% of Palestinians would prefer Israeli citizenship. However, simple statistics provide an incomplete picture of reality as they do not speak to the cause of this inequality. In reality Israel’s policies of occupation have induced economic crisis within the territories, while the Palestinian governments do all they can to keep their citizens provided for.

A New York Times article focusing on the International Monetary Fund’s study of the Palestinian economy explains, “Following the violent uprising of late 2000 and fierce Israeli countermeasures, an economic crisis began that lasted until 2007 when mild growth began.” Oussama Kanaan, head of the IMF’s mission to the Palestinian territories, attributes growth in the West Bank to “improved security, institution building and transparency from the government of Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, an Israeli easing of restrictions on movement and access and substantial donations from foreign governments.” The article goes on to explain that “all three needed to continue in a predictable way in 2010, Mr. Kanaan said, but so far the Palestinian Authority was the only player clearly living up to its promises.” In this way, as Fayyad continues to build institutions as laid out in his roadmap entitled Palestine: Ending the Occupation, Establishing the State (full text here), the most severe obstacle standing in the way is Israel’s continued and unrelenting stranglehold on the Palestinian economy.

After the final report was issued in September of 2010, Kanaan again reiterated the study’s finding that “growth isn't sustainable without progress in the peace process and the lifting of further Israeli restrictions.” This of course includes Israel’s illegal siege on Gaza, which despite claims to the contrary remains in place as it continues to wreak havoc on the Palestinian population.

Israeli economist Shir Hever comes to the same conclusion in The Political Economy of Israel’s Occupation: Repression Beyond Exploitation. One reviewer summarizes Hever’s conclusions, saying, “The Palestinian economy as a whole is prevented from developing, as part of a broader process of exploitation and subjugation.” He goes on to say:

‘As local sources of income were suppressed by Israeli authorities, the main source of income to the Palestinians became remittances from Palestinian workers living in Israel, in the Jewish settlements in OPT [Occupied Palestinian Territories], and in the Gulf states.’

The 1980s saw a change for the worse. Falling oil prices led to falling demand for Palestinian migrant workers in the Gulf States. A collapse in the Israeli stock market led to problems for Palestinian workers in Israel: a fall in income combined with the tightening of work opportunities for Palestinians, accompanied by discrimination and abuse. The growth of Jewish settlements inside the Occupied Territories involved the theft of Palestinian land, damaging the local economy. And Israeli policy became more belligerent, shifting away from seeking consent and accommodation. All these factors influenced the emergence of the first intifada, the militant rebellion by Palestinians against oppression, which started in 1987.

Fast forward to the Oslo process, which began in 1993. This did nothing for the Palestinian economy; indeed there was a fall in living standards, which was (again) one factor behind the eruption of resistance in the start of the second intifada in 2000. A major problem in these years was the increasing curtailment of employment opportunities for Palestinians seeking work inside Israel. Growing poverty and discrimination fed bitterness and disillusionment.

A gulf opened up during the Oslo years (1993-2000): while the Israeli economy boomed, the Palestinian economy contracted. For Palestinians, poverty and unemployment grew. Living standards fell still further after 2000, when Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank became increasingly reliant on overseas aid to avoid humanitarian disaster.

East Jerusalemites also fear restrictions on movement in both Israel and Palestine should they gain Palestinian citizenship, and rightfully so. As B’Tselem explains:

The restrictions on movement that Israel has imposed on the Palestinian population in the Occupied Territories over the past five years are unprecedented in the history of the Israeli occupation in their scope, duration, and in the severity of damage that they cause to the three and a half million Palestinians who reside there. In the past, Israel has imposed either a comprehensive closure on the Occupied Territories or a curfew on a specific town or village to restrict Palestinian freedom of movement, but never has Israel imposed restrictions as sweeping and as prolonged as those currently in place.

The continued construction of Israel’s annexation barrier in contravention of international law only adds to the issue. Placing Palestine population centers on the “Israeli side” of the green line, sometimes encapsulating entire villages ,cutting off farmers’ from their private lands, bisecting various areas of the West Bank, the annexation wall is a serious impediment to the freedom of movement, an essential component for a thriving economy which includes job opportunities and quality public services.

In these ways, Israel’s behavior directly causes the disparity in living conditions that East Jerusalem Palestinians would like to avoid by becoming full Israeli citizens. Should Israeli policy reverse, the number of residents wishing to obtain Israeli citizenship would likely drop precipitously.

At  the same time, regardless of the poll’s conclusions, the acquisition of territory by war is still inadmissible, Israel’s application of domestic law to occupied territory is still illegitimate, the forcible transfer of East Jerusalem Palestinians is still illegal, and evictions and demolitions of Palestinian property (almost always through the pretext of the repugnant Absentee Property Law) are still unlawful, as is the city’s forced Judiazation.  The fact of the matter is simple: Israel-apologists have attempted to co-opt Petcher’s work to whitewash Israel’s illegal annexation in the name of self-determination, a principle the Israeli government cares nothing for when applied to any group other than Jews. The Israeli government has no regard for Palestinian desires, and will not defer to any kind of referendum on the matter should one ever take place (which it won’t).

Why We Resist Occupation

To the States - Walt Whitman

To the States or any one of them, or any city of the States, Resist much, obey little,
Once unquestioning obedience, once fully enslaved,
Once fully enslaved, no nation, state, city of this earth, ever afterward resumes its liberty.

Israeli Foreign Ministry Plans New Hasbara Effort Against Palestinians

Rafael Barak

Haaretz reports that the Israeli Foreign Ministry has officially launched a diplomatic campaign to dissuade the international community from recognizing an independent Palestinian state along 1967 borders and possibly catalyzing the passage of a UN Security Council resolution against settlement building.

Efforts will include “an immediate public relations campaign on the matter at the bureaus of the premiers, foreign ministers and parliament in each respective country” as well as the dissemination of a “legal position paper” expressing that “only direct negotiations could end the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and not unilateral actions that subvert past accords.”

According to Director-General Rafael Barak, “[Seeking a UNSC resolution on settlement activity] can only hurt attempts to renew talks.” Seemingly unbeknownst to Barak are the myriad of pre-existing Security Council resolutions aimed at settlement activity. From a previous post:

• Operative paragraph one of UNSC Resolution 242, in which the Security Council unanimously “affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of...the following principles: Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict”
• UNSC Resolution 446 explicitly denouncing settlement activity (three abstentions)
• UNSC Resolution 452 explicitly denouncing settlement activity (one abstention)
• UNSC Resolution 465 explicitly denouncing settlement activity (unanimous)
• UNSC Resolution 471 explicitly denouncing settlement activity (one abstention)
• Portions of UNSC Resolution 252, passed with two abstentions, in which the Security Council “considers that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, including expropriation of land and properties thereon, which tend to change the legal status of Jerusalem are invalid and cannot change that status; [and] Urgently calls upon Israel to rescind all such measures already taken and to desist forthwith from taking any further action which tends to change the status of Jerusalem”
• UNSC Resolution 267 explicitly denouncing annexation and settlement of East Jerusalem (unanimous)
• UNSC Resolution 298 explicitly denouncing annexation and settlement of East Jerusalem (one abstention)
• UNSC Resolution 476 explicitly denouncing annexation and settlement of East Jerusalem (one abstention)
• UNSC Resolution 478 explicitly denouncing annexation and settlement of East Jerusalem (one abstention)

Frankly, another UNSC resolution condemning settlement activity would merely be a drop in the bucket.

With these new efforts, Israel makes the claim that Palestinians are illegally sabotaging the entire peace process. This is utter hyperbole. Outside of allegations that the PA has surpassed the legal limitations imposed by Oslo, which can be more thoroughly examined once the Ministry’s position paper is made public, even Barak himself admits that Palestinian actions are “processes that could take place alongside negotiations and a settlement freeze.”

The fact of the matter is Palestinian jockeying in the international community cannot unilaterally end the conflict on Palestinian terms. Since the Palestinian National Council’s 1988 declaration of statehood, more than 100 countries have recognized an independent Palestine. To think that recognition of a Palestinian state along 1967 borders by the majority of the international community will substitute for Israeli withdrawal of the occupied territories is a ridiculous position. Israel knows this. So why go to such lengths to subvert recognition?

Barak plainly states the reason Israel is embarking on its hasbara effort. In his words, “Palestinians were hoping that their proceedings would encourage Barack Obama's administration to take certain steps in their future, including dealing with the 1967 borders and increasing pressure on Israel.” To the Ministry, the realization of such hopes is simply unacceptable. In Barak’s view, all issues must be settled through negotiations which pressure Israel and Palestinians to make equal concessions. This is because Palestinians already have legitimate, established rights to almost all of their demands –rights that Israel is unwilling to accept, and therefore hopes to escape the burden of by “negotiating.”

• Palestinians are already entitled to their Right of Return as enshrined in UNGA Resolution 194, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)
• Israel has never been legally allowed to settle any land in the West Bank or East Jerusalem, as evidenced by the numerous UNSC resolutions mentioned above as well as the decision rendered by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the Geneva Conventions
• Israel’s siege of Gaza was already determined illegal by a UN Fact Finding Mission and must be lifted without condition
• Portions of Israel’s partition wall that cut into the West Bank (85% of the wall) should already be demolished or re-routed per the ICJ’s  decision
• Palestinians’ (unilateral) right to self-determination is already guaranteed by the UN Charter, the UDHR, the ICCPR and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

There are in reality very few issues which could not be settled by Israel simply adhering to established international consensus. The Israeli government is plainly aware of this fact and is consequently trying to trap Palestinians into making concessions to gain what they should already have. This is why the Foreign Ministry is trying to block another resolution. This is why Israel does not want to face extra pressure from the Obama administration. This is why Israel fears further solidification of diplomatic ties between Palestine and other countries. 

If the international community would simply enforce its decisions, the negotiation process would be a very different one. Palestinians would negotiate only on issues that are not already settled, e.g. the sharing of natural resources and security arrangements, or on the best application of internationally recognized principles rather than arguments about whether they are even valid. In this way, Israel would stand to lose much more than in the current situation. Consequently, the Foreign Ministry will fight with all of its power to maintain the status quo.

Call to Action: Help Raise Awareness about Cast Lead on December 27th

We are coordinating an information campaign to commemorate the second anniversary of Operation Cast Lead, hoping it will call attention to Israel’s continued illegal siege on Gaza. The plan centers on an attempt to trend the hashtag #Gaza2, though we encourage people to use other forms of social media, e.g. Facebook to raise awareness as well.

We want users to tweet facts, stats, pictures, personal messages, links, blog posts, videos… anything and everything that relates to Cast Lead, the Goldstone Report, Gaza’s humanitarian crisis etc.

@AmoonaE from @VEPalestine is spearheading the effort. She’s started a twibe for all participants which you can join here.

Some of you might think this is silly, but it’s a very simple effort, and well worth the time it takes to send a few tweets/status updates should it end up being successful.

If you have any questions or input, you can post them on the twibe’s page, or contact any one of its existing members, myself included (@maggiesager).

Congress Aids Terrorism with Position on Palestinian State

On November 29th, 2010 Congressman Ted Poe (R- Texas) submitted H.R. 1734 to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. The main text of the bill, which can be found in its entirety here, does the following:

(1) reaffirms [Congress’] strong opposition to any attempt to establish a Palestinian state outside the negotiating process;

(2) strongly and unequivocally opposes any attempt to seek recognition of a Palestinian state by the United Nations or other international forums;

(3) calls upon the Administration to continue its opposition to the unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state;

(4) calls upon the Administration to affirm that the United States would deny any recognition, legitimacy, or support of any kind to any unilaterally declared ‘‘Palestinian state’’ and would urge other responsible nations to follow suit, and to make clear that any such unilateral declaration would constitute a grievous violation of the principles underlying the Oslo Accords and the Middle East peace process;

(5) calls upon the Administration to affirm that the United States will oppose any attempt to seek recognition of a Palestinian state by the United Nations or other international forums and will veto any resolution to that end by the United Nations Security Council;

(6) calls upon the President and the Secretary of State to lead a high-level diplomatic effort to encourage the European Union and other responsible nations to strongly and unequivocally oppose the unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state or any attempt to seek recognition of a Palestinian state by the United Nations or other international forums; and

(7) supports the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the achievement of a true and lasting peace through direct negotiations between the parties.

Since this submission, another bill proposed by Rep. Howard Berman, Chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and allegedly penned by AIPAC has passed as of December 15^th.  Though the text of this bill has yet to be made public, the American Association for Palestinian Equal Rights and the U.S. Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation are basing their critique of the legislation on the text of H.R. 1734.

Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX)

This legislation stands in testament to the well-established fact that American politicians not only consistently act unfairly in the interests of Israel to the detriment of Palestinians, but further imperil the lives of  American citizens with their actions by directly and unnecessarily contributing to the perpetuation of terrorism against the United States.

H.R. 1734 speaks to the inherent hypocrisy of the US government’s position on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict in that it takes specific issue with the concept of “unilateral declarations of statehood,” apparently lost to President Truman’s recognition of Israel’s (unilateral declaration of) statehood within 11 minutes of the 1948 proclamation. Upon being recognized by a majority within International Community of States, Israel was accepted into the United Nations, against the objections of Palestinians and various Arab nations. 

Seemingly, there is nothing objectionable in this series of events in the House's view regardless of its impact on the conflict. However, Palestinians cannot be afforded the same opportunity to appeal to the international community when negotiations prove unproductive. Because the legislation makes no mention of the means by which Israel declared statehood, nor of the violence that resulted, one cannot conclude that congress is trying to avoid making the same mistake as before. Instead, the House simply contends that Palestinians must be subjected to Israel’s proclivity for intransigence for an indefinite period of time ,so as not to adversely affect the virtually non-existent peace process, remaining trapped by agreements that Israel routinely violates while the Palestinian Authority falls over itself to improve Israel’s security situation.

While congress claims that the PA has not lived up to its Oslo promises, a charge that stems from alleged shortcomings in preventing terrorism and incitement, reality tells a different story. According to recently released wikileaks cables, Israel is fact quite pleased with the PA. What’s more Palestine solidarity activists, investigative journalists and human rights organizations routinely accuse the PA with human rights violations in its attempts to strangle both violent and non-violent resistance, and generally accepting Israel’s attempt to outsource the occupation.

Even the Department of State agrees that the PA has done exceedingly well in living up to its security obligations, stating, “the Palestinian Authority (PA) continued its counterterrorism efforts in 2009, with an emphasis on controlling the activities of terrorist organizations, particularly Hamas, in the West Bank.” The report goes on to state that the main threat to Israeli security comes from Hamas’ qassam fire, and that during the reporting period “Israeli authorities, among others, identified the improved capacity and performance of PA security forces as a leading contributor to the improved security environment of the West Bank.”  Finally, “Security cooperation between the PA and the Israeli government was close and productive, although there were continued Israeli military incursions in Palestinian population centers in the West Bank, which the PA strongly criticized. PA officials stressed the importance of close security cooperation with the Israeli government.” Thus the PA is not only fully engaged in maintaining security within the occupied West Bank and for Israel, but would like to cooperate with Israel even more so than it already does.

Yet Palestinians are no closer to achieving statehood, and instead are being called upon by congress to continue to engage “without precondition” (read: while simultaneously letting Israel confiscate Palestinian land in violation of international law). Why on earth should they? Simply because Congress is under the impression that peace can only be achieved through direct negotiations, despite the utter lack of progress toward a lasting solution, and continuous steps in the opposite direction.

Congressmen Poe and Berman would rather attempt to strong-arm Palestinians and the international community at large into sitting down to Israel’s table. This brings us to the next issue with the bill: the United States government’s insistence on actively interfering with Palestinian diplomacy on behalf of Israel. The United States is perfectly warranted in refusing to recognize a Palestinian state along pre-1967 borders. There are many states within the United Nations that do not recognize one another. However, actively attempting to convince other nations to follow suit, and threatening to veto any legislation that would otherwise pass through the Security Council is not only inherently wrong and prejudiced, but perfectly exemplifies one of the main reasons the United States is a consistent target of terrorism.

Authors of The Israel Lobby John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt content that there is “abundant evidence that U.S. support for Israel encourages anti-Americanism throughout the Arab and Islamic world and has fueled the rage of anti-American terrorists.” [1] Mearsheimer and Walt go on to explain:

While some Islamic radicals are genuinely upset by what they regard as the West’s materialism and venality, its alleged “theft” of Arab oil, its support for corrupt Arab monarchies, its repeated military interventions in the region, etc., they are also angered by U.S. support for Israel and Israel’s harsh treatment of the Palestinians. Thus, Sayyid Qutb, the Egyptian dissident whose writings have been an important inspiration for contemporary Islamic fundamentalists, was hostile to the United States both because he saw it as a corrupt and licentious society and also because of U.S. support for Israel. Or as Sayyid Muhammed Husayn Fadlallah, spiritual leader of Hezbollah, put it in 2002, “I believe that America bears responsibility for all of Israel…America is a hypocritical nation…for it gives solid support and lethal weapons to the Israelis, but it gives the Arabs and the Palestinians only words.”

Unconditional American support for Israel was also one of the chief reasons Al Qaeda used to target the World Trade Center in 2001. The 9/11 commission determined in a background study, bin Laden attempted to expedite the attack upon witnessing the beginning of the Second Intifada in the fall of 2000 and again when he learned Ehud Barak was to visit Washington in June 2001. What’s more, the 9/11 Commision Report states Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the so-called “principle architect” of the attack, had an animus toward the United States that “stemmed not from his experiences there as a student, but rather from his violent disagreement with U.S. foreign policy favoring Israel.” [2]

In the same vein, Osama bin Laden articulated myriad justifications for targeting the US and its citizens in his global jihad in his 2005 “Letter to America.” First and foremost, bin Laden explains that “it is very simple: Because you attacked us and continue to attack us.” His first example: “You attacked us in Palestine.”

Pre-dating the letter by nine years, bin Laden’s 1996 Fatwa was primarily concerned with the fact that “people of Islam had suffered from aggression, iniquity and injustice imposed on them by the Zionist-Crusaders alliance and their collaborators; to the extent that the Muslims blood became the cheapest and their wealth as loot in the hands of the enemies. Their blood was spilled in Palestine and Iraq.” The title of the fatwa was “Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places."

Clearly, US foreign policy in general and unwavering support for Israel in particular has contributed greatly to the United States’ problem with terrorism. When politicians advance such potentially destructive pieces of legislation, they must keep this fact in mind, or be prepared to face the consequences –hopefully not with calls to escalate the War on Terror, thereby missing the point entirely.

This is not to say that Americans should yield uncritically to the demands of terrorists, letting them control US foreign policy as citizens cower in fear. Yet the United States consistently exacerbates its own problems by arrogantly dabbling in the affairs of other nations, offering fuel for the fire, and American citizens and troops (not to mention citizens of other countries) pay the price, ...all for what? The truth of the matter is that congress is worried that unilateral declaration and recognition of a Palestinian state will not offer Israel the guarantees it was hoping to squeeze out of the PA with the help of its largest benefactor.

Unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state, and the subsequent recognition of that state by the international community will not solve the conflict. It will simply allow Palestinians to act from a place of authority and empowerment when settling final status issues with Israel.  Without some kind of political capital to rely on, the PA will not be able to guarantee a just solution for its people. Far from being concerned with simply settling the conflict –which the United States could easily do by applying serious pressure to Israel and the PA equally, the US wants to settle the conflict on Israel’s terms.

Some might contend that this characterization is overly cynical, and perhaps congress truly believes negotiations are the answer. Unfortunately, regardless of the veracity of that contention, one can say with confidence that it is the not the way the international community, or the enemies of the United States for that matter, will view such legislation.

[1] The Israel Lobby - John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, 2007, pg 67

[2] 9/11 Commission Report -National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States, 2004, pg 147 

Collapse of Negotiations a Gain for Palestine

As the United States sends US Envoy to the Middle East George Mitchell to grasp at straws in hopes of restarting negotiations to create a Palestinian state after the Israeli government refused to curb settlement construction, Obama’s inability to entice Netanyahu’s coalition to comply with international law has frustrated many who wish for peace between Israel and Palestine. However, upon closer inspection it becomes apparent that Obama’s specific failure and the now-seemingly inevitable collapse of negotiations in general constitute a tactical victory for Palestinians.

Firstly, Obama’s initial offering and its subsequent rejection have opened the door to mounting malcontent among the American public, causing some to examine the United States’ special relationship with Israel more critically. The very contents of the aid package began this process. In the midst of a prolonged recession the US offered Israel $3 Billion worth of F-35 fighter jets among other incentives (such as a  guarantee of U.S veto should the Palestinian Authority call upon United Nations Security Council to recognize a Palestinian state) at the same time that Bush tax cuts for the wealthy were extended for two years. To many Americans, politicians’ Israel First attitude became glaringly obvious –and quite a few did not like what they saw. Incidents such as this offer a powerful foundation for reexamining Israel’s special place in the United States’ pocketbook. The context of this offer, embedded in a time in which the state of the economy has facilitated the emergence of staunch movements against large government expenditures, could not be worse for Israel, which relies on US aid to sustain the occupation. Undermining this relationship has real consequences for Palestinians on the ground.

On a political level, the generosity of the offer exposed the United States’ impartiality in the matter. America usually functions more as Israel’s lawyer than a third-party facilitator of negotiations. Illuminating Obama’s position and methodology gives observers a perfect example of such behavior. Recognition of this reality is an integral component of its correction.

Luckily, US taxpayers avoided further subsidizing Israel’s war crimes and in doing so escaped an unnecessary if not immoral burden. Obama’s failure also did more to expose the United States’ weakness in the face of Israeli obstinacy, calling into question exactly who is in control of this relationship. Palestine solidarity activists and impartial analysts have long argued that Israel “wags the dog” when it comes to the US to American detriment. Israel’s refusal to cooperate with US demands is not new, yet this particular incident highlights the country’s arrogance in a startlingly demonstrative way. Each instance of recalcitrance works to undermine Israel’s position in American esteem, or at the very least stretches the bounds of what previously unconcerned Americans are willing to stand.

Some believe that Obama’s offer was simply a pretext for items that Israel will inevitably receive irrespective of compliance with any US demands. Various analysts have suggested this is the very reason Netanyahu was unable to convince his coalition to accept a partial moratorium –why by the cow when you can get the milk for free? Yet the delinking of the package from the peace process again offers US citizens more grounds to question policy toward Israel. Apologists might be compelled to excuse the fiscal magnitude of Obama’s gift with the belief that peace is worth any price. What excuse can they offer if Israel still receives it regardless of intransigence? If receiving these items were inevitable, there are only three outcomes. 1) The US will be further exposed as putting Israel’s interests ahead of its own in even more explicit terms 2) Israel will have to actually pay for the jets or 3) The US will be forced to create another pretext for the gift.  In any event, Palestinians win.

As for US Security Council veto, while many assume Israel needs no such guarantee as the US consistently veto’s “anti-Israel” legislation without precondition, Israel’s refusal to meet demands obviates 100% certainty on the subject.

The current stall in and ultimate failure of negotiations also renders moot the weakness of any agreement that would have been reached, specifically the inability to enforce it due to Hamas’ absence in the process. As the ruling government of what will be the other half of a Palestinian state, Hamas’ cooperation with Fatah in implementing any promises made to Israel and acceptance of Israel’s pledges as sufficiently just are integral to the contract’s viability. Leaving Hamas out only works to ensure that the entire process will be an exercise in futility, in which case Palestinians will (most likely) have given up much in exchange for nothing at all while Israel exploits Hamas’ non-cooperation to excuse its own inevitable shortcomings. If the peace process does not fall apart completely, at the very least stalling the resumption of negotiations will give Hamas and Fatah a chance to continue the next round of reconciliation talks between the two factions.

In most cases, Israel has sufficiently controlled popular discourse concerning all aspects of the conflict, whether they center on war history, the humanitarian situation in Gaza, the level of existential threat the country faces, justifications for various human rights abuses or the disintegration of negotiations. The latest collapse serves as a marked departure from such control of the narrative.

While Arabs were unfairly blamed for everything from their own ethnic cleansing (by not implementing the UN’s 1948 Partition Plan) to not accepting a state of their own when they were offered one (as Arafat rejected Camp David), the world has finally woken up to Israel’s role in perpetuating conflict. Main stream outlets’ coverage of negotiations plainly refers to Israel’s refusal to curb settlement construction as the reason for the stalemate. Couple this development with international backlash against Operation Cast Lead in 2008 and reactions to the flotilla massacre this past May and Palestinians just might be getting the sympathetic ear their cause deserves. People are looking at the conflict through a new paradigm, one which is more reflective of reality and consequently works to empower the Palestinian position.

At the same time, the more radical elements of Netanyahu’s settler-controlled coalition are finally being exposed. The more racist legislation that passes through the Knesset, the more opportunities for peace that the coalition rejects, the more Israel will be treated like a rouge pariah state. The political isolation that will ensue provides Israel with a compelling reason to fall in line with accepted international norms or will at minimum mount international support in defense of Palestinian rights.

The international community has already begun to act in solidarity with Palestine as a result of Obama’s failure. The Palestinian Authority’s threat to appeal to the United Nations to facilitate the declaration of an independent state has been historically seen as an empty threat, however as a result of the latest collapse Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay have formally recognized a Palestinian state along 1967 borders in the past weeks. The European Union will discuss recognition in as soon as one year. Israel is losing its chance to impact the substance of a settlement.

What’s more, the media are now openly discussing other alternatives to solving the conflict, including a one-state solution. As Alex Kane reports, while the debate on a one-state solution has been discussed in reference to its allegedly disastrous consequences for Israel, any solution-oriented debate that utilizes the term “apartheid” is a step in the right direction to achieving justice for Palestinians both inside and outside Israel.  

Because the proposed settlement moratorium was admittedly partial (excluding East Jerusalem in contravention of international law) and temporary (only to last 90 days), Palestinians did not stand gain much tangibly. In contrast, Israel’s rejection of Obama’s incentive package has provided myriad advantages to the Palestinian cause which would have proved difficult to attain in alternate iterations of events. While peace still seems illusive, it is fair to say that Palestinians have gained more than they have lost this week.

Jennifer Peto: Jews, Zionism and Holocaust Education

Jenny Peto

Currently, a controversy has arisen regarding University of Toronto graduate Jennifer Peto’s thesis, “The Victimhood of the Powerful: White Jews, Zionism and the Racism of Hegemonic Holocaust Education.” According to certain members of the Canadian government as well as Holocaust educators, Peto (a queer anti-Zionist Jew, the granddaughter of a Holocaust survivor) has produced a “shoddy” piece full of “unsupported” theories which constitute an outrageous form of “anti-Semitism.”

That critics would attempt to silence Peto under the banner of self-hating anti-Semitism is altogether unsurprising. Very few have even bothered to read the work before dismissing it wholesale, else they make superficial criticisms such as the contention that Peto did not defer to mainstream texts on Holocaust education or that regardless of her supporting arguments, questioning Holocaust education in any context is unacceptable.

Beware of sensationalism. Peto does not suggest that all Holocaust education must be done away with, or that all Jews are racists or anything else of the sort. Outside of the apparently controversial idea that Jews possess the capacity for racism, she focuses her thesis on the contention that as a result of various factors (which she discusses at length) Ashkenazi Jews have surpassed the mantle of victimhood in Western society. In the same vein as Norman Finkelstein's Beyond Chutzpah, using empirically demonstrative data, Peto argues that rampant, entrenched anti-Semitism is all but gone. She then criticizes specific methods of what she terms "hegemonic" Holocaust education  which seek to not only obfuscate this fact, but use invocations of perennial victimhood to excuse various Israeli policies. An example: the March of the Living takes Jewish youths on a week-long tour of Polish concentration camps, and has them "march" down the same path as their murdered ancestors draped in Israeli flags. Peto argues that the march is purposefully constructed this way in order to implicitly suggest that the state of Israel is the only thing standing in the way of another Holocaust, and thus must be shielded from any criticism. She also takes issue with various manifestations of ethno/eurocentricism embedded within particular Holocaust education centers. 

Because the controversy has stemmed from a fundamental misunderstanding of Peto's arguments and supporting evidence, before judging their merits I encourage you to read the entire work for yourself.
It is my sincere hope that the landslide of negative attention will do more to expose Peto’s ideas to a wider audience, magnifying the impact of her work than it will to tarnish her reputation, thereby mitigating her extremely powerful words.

Again, I encourage you to read Peto's thesis on your own. Nevertheless, I have copied her conclusion below; Judge it for yourself.

__________________________________________

On December 27, 2008 I sat down to finish my thesis. As is my usual habit of  procrastination, I decided to check my email before getting started. My inbox was flooded with messages informing me that Israel had begun a full-scale military strike on Gaza that had killed over 300 people in the first few hours of bombings. Any thoughts of writing my thesis immediately disappeared. I am an organizer with the Coalition Against Israeli Apartheid in Toronto and we immediately began planning our response. Within 24 hours, we organized a rally outside the Israeli consulate that had over 1000 people in attendance. By the next week, the demonstration had grown to over 10,000 protesters. The Jewish Defense League, an extremist, right-wing Zionist group organized small counter-demonstrations at each of our rallies. The media coverage of our demonstrations chose to focus on tensions between pro-Palestinian and Jewish groups, often skewing the numbers of protestors on both sides to make the demonstrations appear even in size. The Canadian government ignored demands to call for sanctions against Israel. Instead, they expressed unconditional support for Israel and repeatedly spoke of Israel’s right to self-defense. Although the mainstream Zionist community was late to enter into the public debates over the war on Gaza, they eventually mounted a campaign against Palestinian activists and their allies. The Canadian Jewish Congress held a press conference, alleging anti-Semitic hate crimes had taken place at many of the demonstrations across the country. Their evidence of these claims was merely video footage of protestors chanting in Arabic and burning Israeli flags – activities that are in no way anti-Semitic.

During the first week of the war, I attended an informal meeting of people looking to engage in direct action to bring attention to the war crimes being committed in Gaza. At that meeting, a group of Jewish activists, myself included, decided to occupy the Israeli consulate in Toronto. Our goal was to disrupt the dominant media message that this is an inter-religious conflict and that all Jews support Israeli aggression and violence. We wanted to draw attention to the fact that many Jews oppose Israel’s actions, in order to help neutralize attempts by Zionists to characterize all criticism of the war as anti-Semitic. Our hope was that this action would allow others – both Jewish and non-Jewish – to feel more empowered to voice their criticism of Israel’s violence against Palestinians without fearing accusations of anti-Semitism. On January 7, 2009, eight of us occupied the Israeli consulate for about two hours before being arrested. We were held in the back of a police wagon for about an hour before being released without charges. All the major news networks were at the consulate and many of us were interviewed, but the story never aired on the evening news. Some articles were published in local newspapers, but for the most part, the media in Canada kept the story quiet. Word of the action spread around the world and we received messages of support from across the globe. In the following days there were similar actions in Montreal, Los Angeles and San Francisco. One success of the action was that after the occupation, there has been noticeably more acknowledgement in the media that there is dissent within the Jewish community and that there are Jewish people who oppose Israeli Apartheid. 

In the weeks that followed the occupation of the consulate, I became one of two main spokespeople for the group that was involved. I was asked to speak at rallies, teach-ins and other events about Gaza and Israeli Apartheid. I received a great deal of attention and recognition for having been part of the action, as well as an outpouring of gratitude from my friends and comrades in the Palestinian community. It was an overwhelming experience and it was difficult to maintain perspective given the pseudo-celebrity status that often comes with direct action. Given the magnitude of suffering in Gaza, alongside the on-going brutality of Israeli Apartheid in the West Bank, Israel and for Palestinian refugees worldwide, it felt inappropriate to be receiving so many accolades for having been arrested and held for just over an hour in a police wagon. The whole experience, especially the attention and praise, only made my privilege that much more evident. I began asking myself a lot of questions about the role of allies in solidarity movements and the place of Jewish anti-Zionist activists in Palestine solidarity work. 

This questioning continued after Israel stopped bombing Gaza as I worked with other activists to finalize preparation for Israeli Apartheid Week (IAW). In March 2009, the fifth annual IAW was held in over 40 cities worldwide. Here in Canada, we faced a tremendous backlash for organizing this week of lectures. Members of Parliament, including Liberal leader Michael Ignatief and Jason Kenney, Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism, issued statements condemning IAW as a ‘hatefest’. Several Zionist organizations, including B’nai Brith and the Canadian Jewish Congress called on universities to ban IAW from their campuses. The poster for the event was banned at Carleton and the University of Ottawa. Here in Toronto, our posters were vandalized and torn down as quickly as we could put them up. The Jewish Defense League protested outside our events and on at least three separate occasions, their members assaulted our organizers and guests. University security and police forces at Ryerson University, York University and the University of Toronto did little to protect organizers and participants from this violence. 

It was during IAW and the intense protests leveled against us, that I once again saw the importance of anti-Zionist Jewish participation in Palestine solidarity activism. I remain convinced that it is not our role to speak for or about Palestinians and will openly criticize other anti-Zionist Jewish activists when they cross that line. Our role is a supporting one – where possible and appropriate, we can help to open up spaces to talk about Palestine and Israeli Apartheid. We can work to counter the false accusations of anti-Semitism and hate crimes that are being increasingly aimed at events like IAW and other Palestine solidarity activism. As Jews we can use our privilege to put forward the argument that criticizing Israel is not anti-Semitic, but is actually part of a broader movement towards social justice. We need to fight for and defend the rights of Palestinians and their allies to speak without fear of spurious accusations of hatred and anti-Semitism. It is vital that we constantly recognize our privilege and find ways of being allies without falling into the narcissism that so often comes with white privilege, narcissism that would make us mistakenly believe that this is somehow our movement to lead. All Jewish anti-Zionist activism must start with an understanding that there would be no movement without Palestinian resistance and we must always remember that this is a Palestinian-led struggle, in which we can and should play a supporting role. 

Jewish anti-Zionism must be rooted in genuine solidarity and the desire to fight for justice, but to be sincere in these efforts we need to admit that we as individuals, and the Ashkenazi Jewish community as a whole, have much to gain from the ending of Zionism. I personally come to this work out of a strong commitment to fighting racism and imperialism, but I also have a stake in reclaiming Holocaust memory and taking back the history of my ancestors from the Zionist hegemony that has co-opted it. I believe that we need to find ways of honouring the Holocaust that are focused on healing the Ashkenazi Jewish community and that challenge Zionism and Jewish racism, as well as the oppression and violence that exists within the Jewish community. To do so, we need to express our rage and sadness about the abuse of Holocaust memory for Zionist and racist purposes. We need to openly challenge hegemonic Holocaust memorial institutions, which have become sacrosanct within Jewish and non-Jewish communities. We must demand a drastic change in the ways in which we engage with the violence of anti-Semitism and the Holocaust. It is time to end memorials that are meant to traumatize and re-traumatize by forcing generations of Jewish people to try to recreate and relive the horrors. We must force the Ashkenazi Jewish community to face the trauma of our past and admit to the ways in which we have chosen to align ourselves with power in an attempt to ensure that we are not victimized again. We must focus on healing from the trauma of the past so that we can move forward because this morbid focus on victimization and the Holocaust prevents us from understanding the wrongs we commit within the community and against others that are less powerful than we are. 

I am well aware of the controversy that comes with challenging Zionism and the even more intense controversy that can happen when doing so involves criticizing Holocaust memorials and education. I chose to take up these issues because it is my hope that my academic work can be useful in exposing the ways in which Holocaust education and Jewish claims to victimhood are being used obscure Jewish racism, and to garner support for Israeli Apartheid. If my thesis can contribute, even in some small way, to normalizing criticism of Israel and Jewish racism, and if it can open up conversations about the damaging effects of hegemonic Holocaust education I will be satisfied with this academic endeavour.