A Conflict out of Context (Part II)

p16vcu3ohl6as2f01qp01jmg1mvd0_46140In the light of current events, Graduates of Democracy focuses on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. As many people know, it is a violent and complex clash. This has been the case for almost 70 years and maybe even longer. Today it is not any different, violence rules the streets with many victims. Experts are nowadays even talking about a Third Intifada. 

This conflict is also very much debated and discussed in Europe. Everyone has an opinion about it or tries to formulate one. This often leads to confusion and frustration. Many Palestinians and Israeli’s don’t feel understood by Europeans. Graduates of Democracy therefore invited two speakers, one Israeli and one Palestinian, to share their perspective on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. They get free space to share their opinion and what they think are the real causes.

The second author is Mohammed Alhammami, Gaza’s Project Manager of We Are Not Numbers (WANN) and Undergraduate of Franklin and Marshall College in Pennsylvania with a joint major in public policy and government.

Find Tom Wexler’s first article from an Israeli perspective here.

A Conflict out of Context

“If you want to dispossess a people, the simplest way to do it is to tell their story and to start with ‘secondly’.” — Palestinian writer Mourid Barghouti

The most dangerous threat Palestinians face in their struggle for freedom and human rights, besides the Israeli war machine, is the absence of historical context, or any context for that matter, in political discussions and media coverage of the conflict; this deliberate omission is demeaning, demonizing, and dehumanizing.

When people talk about the current state of unrest, “the Third Intifada,” they typically start the conversation with Palestinian stabbings of Israelis. There rarely is a discussion of what might have triggered such anger. Likewise, when the media covered Israel’s 2014 assault on Gaza, they started their reporting with Hamas “militants” firing rockets at Israel, omitting the inhumane, seven-year Israeli blockade on Gaza, and positioning Israel as merely defending itself.

Even when talking about the rise of the Palestinian Liberation Organization or the emergence of Hamas, or when the O-word is finally used, people naively believe that the conflict between the two people started in 1967, when Israel militarily occupied the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. They ignore altogether the Nakba and the refugee crisis the Zionist creators of Israel orchestrated.

This narrow focus not only is careless, it is dangerous, both to understanding the nature of the conflict, its causes and factors, and for finding a just and lasting solution to the impasse.

What the absence of historical context does—intentionally or unintentionally—is leading people to believe that Israel is merely responding to provocation, to believe that Palestinians are only those living in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. So when talking about the causes of the conflict, it is easy to reach the conclusion that merely the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza is the cause and ending it would be the ultimate solution. But what about Palestinians who live in Israel as second-class citizens? What about Palestinians living in refugee camps in Jordan, Lebanon and Syria in degrading conditions, often without the basic right to work in many types of jobs? What about the internationally recognized right of return to their lands that were unilaterally annexed by Israel in 1948? And finally, what about Palestinians who have been accepted as citizens in countries like the United States, but who are denied the ability to visit their former homeland?

I recently wrote a piece titled “It’s the occupation, stupid!” explaining the Palestinian’s position on the current state of unrest; it’s not as an independent action, but rather as a reaction to institutionalized violence and harassment by Israeli settlers and soldiers, expanding illegal Israeli settlements, the segregation wall and military checkpoints—all which play a vital role in dividing Palestinian communities and ruining their social and economic structure. But in that commentary, I only scratched the surface. I didn’t explain the conflict; rather, I described the forces driving Palestinian frustration and desperation.

We could aimlessly argue back and forth about the so-called “Palestinian incitement”, or “Israeli security necessities”, or how “Palestinians teach their children to hate” (a supremacist, demonizing, and dehumanizing statement in itself), with a total disregard to Palestinian lives and Israeli policies. However, to truly understand the conflict, one must recognize and comprehend the ideology behind it: political Zionism. Today, political Zionism is woven into the very fabric of Israeli society. It is a leading force, significantly shaping the Israeli mindset and policies on all levels.
Political Zionism emerged as a movement in the late 1800’s, Theodor Herzl being its founder. Herzl created the movement as a reaction to anti-Semitism, which was swamping Europe at the time. For Herzl, and political Zionist leaders who came after him, the answer to anti-Semitism was not integration, nor a homefront fight against racism, but expulsion: the expulsion of Jews from Europe to a “Jewish Homeland,” and the expulsion of non-Jewish indigenous population from that Homeland (which explains the cooperation and transfer agreement between Zionists and the Nazis during the 1933 international boycott of Nazi Germany). However, what is interesting is that political Zionism was not the only form of Zionism that emerged as a reaction to anti-Semitism. A competing movement also started called “cultural Zionism.” While both types of Zionism concurred on the necessity of creating a Jewish Homeland, they disagreed on the nature, structure, and methods of creation.

For political Zionists, a homeland meant a political state, where Jews must hold an absolute majority. For such a state to be created, the land had to be cleansed of its non-Jewish indigenous people. On the other hand, cultural Zionism sought the revival of a universal Jewish spirit, Hebrew language, and Judaic culture. It desired a cultural homeland with intellectual centers, not a political state with borders and a Jewish army to enforce those borders. Cultural Zionists were dissidents of political Zionism and urged for equality between Palestinian Arabs and Jews in Palestine, mainly through the formation of a binational state. The source of this dissention was the bleak future that would inevitably result from political Zionism, which unfortunately has become today’s reality: a heavily militarized, undemocratic Jewish state driven by blind chauvinism.

Political Zionists abused Jewish suffering to appeal and impose their ideology on Jews so they could carry out their colonial project in Palestine without much fuss. Many Jewish intellectuals, such as Albert Einstein, recognized the fact that, if political Zionists succeeded in creating a “Jewish state,” they would do so on the expense of the non-Jewish inhabitants of the land, who would be forced out. In addition, he understood that Jews in a Jewish state would naturally develop blind nationalism, which ultimately would results in the suffering and abuse of Palestinians, who were in fact the majority inhabitants of historic Palestine.

In April 1935, Albert Einstein addressed the National Labor Committee for Palestine, stating:

If Palestine is to become a Jewish national center, then the Palestinian settlement must develop into a model way of life for all Jewry through the cultivation of spiritual values.

Under the guise of nationalist propaganda Revisionism [right-wing branch of Political Zionism] seeks to support the destructive speculation in land; it seeks to exploit the people and deprive them of their rights…

Furthermore, the state of mind fed by Revisionism is the most serious obstacle in the way of our peaceable and friendly cooperation with the Arab people, who are racially our kin.

Indeed, the destruction of land, the exploitation of people, and the deprivation of rights are what followed and still happening. In 1948, the Zionist militias expelled more than 750,000 Palestinians from their homes and erased more than 530 Palestinian villages and towns from the face of earth, ethnic cleansing at its best. Near the end of the 1948 war, the United Nations General Assembly adopted Resolution 194, which stated Palestinian “refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property”. Israel has yet to comply.

Resolution 194 was passed to recognize the efforts of UN peace mediator Folke Bernadotte, who had helped save Jewish lives during the Holocaust. He was assassinated by the Zionists in September 1948.

In 1967, when Israel won the Six-Day War, it occupied the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, and annexed East Jerusalem, which is also considered an occupied Palestinian territory, under international law. The UN Security Council passed Resolution 242, calling Israel to end its occupation of Palestinian territories. Israel has yet to comply.

Desmond Tutu, who fought apartheid in South Africa, compared Israel’s oppression of Palestinians to the abuse of black South Africans under apartheid. “I have witnessed the systemic humiliation of Palestinian men, women and children by members of the Israeli security forces,” Tutu said in a statement. “Their humiliation is familiar to all black South Africans who were corralled and harassed and insulted and assaulted by the security forces of the apartheid government.”

This is today’s reality in historic Palestine (Israel and Palestinian territories): apartheid. There are three classes of citizens: Jews, with all privileges and entitlements; Palestinian second-class citizens of Israel, who have some rights, but are institutionally discriminated against; and stateless Palestinians living in the Bantustans of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, who are deprived of virtually all rights.

Noam Chomsky went even further, calling Israeli policies toward Palestinians “much worse than apartheid” in South Africa.

Therefore, it is no surprise to see Israelis sitting on top of a hill, drinking beer, and cheering as they watch their army bombing Gaza and lighting the night sky; to see Jewish youths full of hate, taking to the streets and chanting “Death to Arabs!” (even when they wish us death, they cannot bring themselves to call us Palestinians); and to see Israeli ministers calling for genocide against Palestinians, from Interior Minister Eli Yishai urging “to send Gaza back to the Middle Ages”, to Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked declaring “the entire Palestinian people is the enemy” urging the destruction of Palestine’s “elderly and its women, its cities and its villages, its property and its infrastructure.” To top it off, she called for the death of Palestinian mothers, who gave birth to “little snakes.” Should you be surprised to hear Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu asserting the “need to control all of the territory for the foreseeable future” to “forever live by the sword”?  This is blind nationalism, blind chauvinism. This is political Zionism.

Political Zionism is an ideology that is inherently racist, supremacist, and exclusivist. If you seek to understand the conflict, if you believe and strive for a just peace in Israel-Palestine, this is where your fight starts. Ultimately, until Israelis break away from the chains of Zionism, until Palestinians regain their dignity, humanity, civil, political and human rights, this land will see no lasting peace.

Mohammed Alhammami is Gaza’s Project Manager of We Are Not Numbers (WANN) and Undergraduate of Franklin and Marshall College in Pennsylvania with a joint major in public policy and government.

Find Tom Wexler’s first article from an Israeli perspective here.

Advertisements

One thought on “A Conflict out of Context (Part II)

  1. That both sides will engage in selective readings of history is inevitable. But one should be wary of accusing the other side of demonisation and in the same breath engaging in the same conduct.

    One should be equally wary of selective readings of history that portray themselves as the full truth. If anything the Palestinian Nakba is the least ignored of the two Nakbas that occurred in the aftermath of the Arab-Israeli war, the other being of course the ethnic cleansing of 800.000 Jews from Arab countries. Ignoring the latter (willfully?) constructs the Palestinians as the ‘only dispossessed’ and the ‘only refugees’ of the conflict.

    Finally, it should be evident Palestinian violence is not an epiphenomenon of the occupation. That is to say, the occupation is not the only cause of Palestinian violence, though it most certainly is influenced by it. There is a very clear, very visible (any Palestinian city will have posters lionising violent acts) ideology of incitement in Palestine today, that glorifies violence against Jews as a good in itself or even a religious duty. A history of the subordinate role of the Jew as a dhimmi in Islamic societies is pertinent here. I would argue that Palestinians perceive Jewish self-determination as particularly offensive because of that history.

    Then a final question, what is the difference between Zionism and other nationalism, why is it so particular and worthy of condemnation in a way that, say, Palestinian nationalism is not?

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s