Palestinian harvest in Hebron disrupted by settlers and Israeli forces

19 June 2009

On a piece of land located between two Jewish settlements (Kiryat Arba and Givat Ha’Avot) in an area north-east of Hebron, Palestinian farmers attempted to harvest their land. Accompanied by international from ISM and Israeli activists from Tayyoush, Palestinians hoped to participate in an agricultural activity on the al Jabari family land. The group’s objective was to harvest barley and olive tree branches to feed the family livestock.

The land is also the site of a large tent erected by settlers. The tent has been repeatedly demolished by the Israeli army but has been rapidly re-built following each demolition.

After ten minutes of harvesting, two settler women walked into the general vicinity and made calls on their cell-phones. They remained in the area for several minutes before leaving, after which a truck carrying three Israeli soldiers arrived. The soldiers told the group to stop and leave the land in Hebrew. The Palestinian, Israeli and international activists refused and continued to work the land. Another group of soldiers arrived by truck, along with a settler who began filming the group and asking them questions.  About 15 minutes later, another truck of soldiers, settlers and Israeli police arrived (totaling to 10 soldiers, 5 police and 7 settlers). The settlers attempted to provoke the activists with verbal abuse and their cameras.

The settlers and soldiers continued to harass the Palestinians. One settler kicked an international solidarity activist in the leg. Several members of the group continued to try to work. Eventually, the Palestinian farmers chose to leave the area with the crops they had successfully collected.

Demonstrators march in Al Ma’asara

19 June 2009

Demonstrators gathered in Al Ma’sara today to protest the construction the wall and the illegal expansion of Israeli settlements.

100 Palestinians, Israelis and internationals marched through the streets carrying a 30-foot long Palestinian flag, chanting against the Wall and demanding an end to the occupation. As the march approached a main thoroughfare, soldiers blocked the road with razor wire and refused to let the demonstrators pass. Protesters gave speeches and shouted at the soldiers, demanding to know why they had blocked their peaceful march. Tensions mounted when a soldier began making menacing gestures at an elderly Palestinian woman, but the situation deescalated without confrontation. At one point the protesters sat down in the shade of the Palestinian flag and began having a picnic. The protest lasted for a little over an hour, and dispersed peacefully.

The language that absolves Israel

Saree Makdisi | The Los Angeles Times

19 June 2009

On Sunday night, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu delivered a speech that — by categorically ruling out the creation of a sovereign Palestinian state — ought to have been seen as a mortal blow to the quest for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

On Monday morning, however, newspaper headlines across the United States announced that Netanyahu had endorsed the creation of a Palestinian state, and the White House welcomed the speech as “an important step forward.”

Reality can be so easily stood on its head when it comes to Israel because the misreading of Israeli declarations is a long-established practice among commentators and journalists in the United States.

In fact, a special vocabulary has been developed for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the United States. It filters and structures the way in which developing stories are misread here, making it difficult for readers to fully grasp the nature of those stories — and maybe even for journalists to think critically about what they write.

The ultimate effect of this special vocabulary is to make it possible for Americans to accept and even endorse in Israel what they would reject out of hand in any other country.

Let me give a classic example.

In the U.S., discussion of Palestinian politicians and political movements often relies on a spectrum running from “extreme” to “moderate.” The latter sounds appealing; the former clearly applies to those who must be — must they not? — beyond the pale. But hardly anyone relying on such terms pauses to ask what they mean. According to whose standard are these manifestly subjective labels assigned?

Meanwhile, Israeli politicians are labeled according to an altogether different standard: They are “doves” or “hawks.” Unlike the terms reserved for Palestinians, there’s nothing inherently negative about either of those avian terms.

So why is no Palestinian leader referred to here as a “hawk”? Why are Israeli politicians rarely labeled “extremists”? Or, for that matter, “militants”?

There are countless other examples of these linguistic double standards. American media outlets routinely use the deracinating and deliberately obfuscating term “Israeli Arabs” to refer to the Palestinian citizens of Israel, despite the fact that they call themselves — and are — Palestinian.

Similarly, Israeli housing units built in the occupied territories in contravention of international law are always called “settlements” or even “neighborhoods” rather than what they are: “colonies.” That word may be harsh on the ears, but it’s far more accurate (“a body of people who settle in a new locality, forming a community subject to or connected with their parent state”).

These subtle distinctions make a huge difference. Unconsciously absorbed, such terms frame the way people and events are viewed. When it comes to Israel, we seem to reach for a dictionary that applies to no one else, to give a pass to actions or statements that would be condemned in any other quarter.

That’s what allowed Netanyahu to be congratulated for endorsing a Palestinian “state,” even though the kind of entity he said Palestinians might — possibly — be allowed to have would be nothing of the kind.

Look up the word “state” in the dictionary. You’ll probably see references to territorial integrity, power and sovereignty. The entity that Netanyahu was talking about on Sunday would lack all of those constitutive features. A “state” without a defined territory that is not allowed to control its own borders or airspace and cannot enter into treaties with other states is not a state, any more than an apple is an orange or a car an airplane. So how can leading American newspapers say “Israeli Premier Backs State for Palestinians,” as the New York Times had it? Or “Netanyahu relents on goal of two states,” as this paper put it?

Because a different vocabulary applies.

Which is also what kept Netanyahu’s most extraordinary demand in Sunday night’s speech from raising eyebrows here.

“The truth,” he said, “is that in the area of our homeland, in the heart of our Jewish homeland, now lives a large population of Palestinians.”

In other words, as Netanyahu repeatedly said, there is a Jewish people; it has a homeland and hence a state. As for the Palestinians, they are a collection — not even a group — of trespassers on Jewish land. Netanyahu, of course, dismisses the fact that they have a centuries-old competing narrative of home attached to the same land, a narrative worthy of recognition by Israel.

On the contrary: The Palestinians must, he said, accept that Israel is the state of the Jewish people (this is a relatively new Israeli demand, incidentally), and they must do so on the understanding that they are not entitled to the same rights. “We” are a people, Netanyahu was saying; “they” are merely a “population.” “We” have a right to a state — a real state. “They” do not.

And the spokesman for our African American president calls this “an important step forward”?

In any other situation — including our own country — such a brutally naked contrast between those who are taken to have inherent rights and those who do not would immediately be labeled as racist. Netanyahu, though, is given a pass, not because most Americans would knowingly endorse racism but because, in this case, a special political vocabulary kicks in that prevents them from being able to recognize it for exactly what it is.

Saree Makdisi is a professor of English and comparative literature at UCLA. He is the author of, among other books, “Palestine Inside Out: An Everyday Occupation.”

Brick by brick

Free Gaza Movement

18 June 2009

On June 25th, the Free Gaza movement will set sail on its eighth mission to break Israel’s horrific siege and collective punishment of 1.5 million Palestinians in the Gaza strip.

“The Israelis violated international law by ramming the boat I was on which was carrying medical supplies to Gaza. Therefore, I never got to Gaza. Especially after Operation Cast Lead, I want to go to Gaza, and if I’m lucky, one day, I’ll also get to visit a free Palestine,” said former Representative Cynthia McKinney, one of the passengers coming back.

Along with McKinney, 36 others will board the FREE GAZA , a fishing boat, and the SPIRIT OF HUMANITY, a small ferry loaded with building supplies such as cement, only a token of what is needed in Gaza, but a prelude to larger shipments the Free Gaza movement expects to take throughout the summer.

Mairead Maguire, the Nobel Peace Prize winner from Ireland is also going back, “I am going to Gaza to show my love and support for the people of Gaza who continue to suffer under Israeli siege and occupation, yet whose spirit of nonviolent resistance inspires all who believe in equality, freedom and justice,” she stated.

“It is crucial that we continue sending boats to Gaza to challenge Israel’s criminal closure on the Strip,” said Huwaida Arraf, delegation leader of the June 25th voyage. “Gaza does not need our charity but needs us to stand up against the forces that continue to deliberately deny an entire people their human rights. International donors pledged over $4 billion to rebuild Gaza, and yet none of them are doing anything about the fact that Israel is not allowing any building supplies into Gaza, not to mention thousands of other items such as anesthetic, oxygen and cancer treatments, chlorine to treat the water supply as well as paper, books and toys for children, even tea and coffee have been banned.”

This voyage will be the first attempt to challenge Israel’s naval blockade on the Gaza Strip since an Israeli gunship brutally rammed the DIGNITY in December, and nearly sank the SPIRIT OF HUMANITY with all on board in January. This 8th trip will also be the first of a series of boats we intend to send to Gaza as part of our Summer of Hope campaign.

The Free Gaza Movement, a human rights group, sent two boats to Gaza in August 2008. These were the first international boats to land in the port in 41 years. Since August, four more voyages were successful, taking Parliamentarians, human rights workers, and other dignitaries to witness the effects of Israel’s draconian policies on the civilians of Gaza. On December 30, their boat, the DIGNITY was rammed three times while 90 nautical miles out, in international waters, on its way to deliver emergency medical supplies to the people of Gaza, while they were under the infamous attack by Israel.

Help Israeli human rights activist Ezra Nawi

Without international intervention Israeli human rights activist Ezra Nawi will most likely be sent to jail.

Ezra Nawi has been active for years in the area known as South Mt. Hebron. The Palestinians in this small desolate area in the very south of the West Bank have been under Israeli occupation for almost 42 years; they still live without electricity, running water and other basic services, and are continuously harassed by the Jewish settlers who constantly violate both Israeli and International law, and are backed by a variety of Israeli military forces, all of which operate in an effort to rid the area of its Palestinian inhabitants and create a new demographic reality in it.

Nawi`s persistent NON VIOLENT activity in the area is aimed both at aiding the local population in its plight to stay on their lands, but also at exposing the situation in the area to both the Israeli and international public eye. The latter is very much not in the interest of the Israeli settlers who complain that Nawi is disturbing the “status quo” in the area. Nawi has received threats on his life from the settlers in the past. The chief of the investigations in the Hebron Israeli Police once admitted that what Nawi is doing in the area is “exposing the dirt laying under the rug…”

Ezra Nawi`s efforts have been fruitful in the sense that the attempt to rid the South Mt. Hebron from its Palestinian inhabitants has become a visible, internationally acknowledged issue.

The settlers, army and Israeli police have a strong interest to restrict his movement and ban him from the area. Therefore they constantly falsely accuse him of violating the law. Lately he has been pronounced guilty of assaulting a police officer who was demolishing a Palestinian house on July 22, 2007. He will be sentenced this coming July.

As chance would have it, the demolition and the resistance to it were captured on film and broadcast on Israeli news. As depicted on the film (a must see), Nawi, the man dressed in a green jacket, not only courageously protests the demolition, but after the bulldozer destroys the buildings he also tells the border policemen what he thinks of their actions. Sitting handcuffed in a military vehicle following his arrest, he exclaims: “Yes, I was also a soldier, but I did not demolish houses… The only thing that will be left here is hatred…”

Nawi`s case is not only about Nawi. It is also about Israel and Israeli society, if only because one can learn a great deal about a country from the way it treats its human rights and pro-democracy activists.

To support Ezra, please write a letter or email to the Israeli embassy in your country, and send us a copy to support.ezra@gmail.com