When the pain hits home – Tristan Anderson shot at Palestine wall protest

Stephanie | Infoshop News

Oakland, California is ground zero for many members of the Slingshot collective, but on March 13, Oakland felt like a distant outpost, really far away from Ni’ilin, in the West Bank, where our friend Tristan Anderson, who also lives in Oakland, was struck in the forehead and almost killed by a high-velocity tear gas grenade. Suddenly the Israel/Palestine conflict had new shades and hues, new depth and angles, wrought by personal connection and pain.

The news that Tristan had been critically injured in the West Bank fell like an emotional bomb on our community. When the news was announced on the local Pacifica radio station it detonated somewhere above us in the atmosphere and radiated outward in waves. It settled around us in a thick cloud that constricted our breathing for a time and tied our stomach in knots. For a week afterward, meeting someone you hadn’t seen since hearing the news was sufficient cause for a new round of tears.

It wasn’t just the what, but the how. News of Tristan’s injury came across the AP news wire around noon on Friday, March 13 and from there seemed to spread within minutes. The wire report said he had been injured at a protest near the Apartheid Wall. It said that Tristan had been struck in the forehead at close range, and that after he had been rushed to the hospital part of his frontal lobe had been removed in order to get out all the fragments of skull lodged in his brain. The International Solidarity Movement released a video of Tristan being put on a stretcher as tear gas canisters continued to fall all around him. His head was bloodied and lolling back and forth unconsciously. His girlfriend Gabby, a familiar voice in the chaos, could be heard in the background shouting, “Tristan! Oh God, oh God oh God….” Tristan has hundreds, if not thousands of friends here who have shared a meal with him, or laughed in appreciation at his stories of triumphs and near-calamities at protests in Oaxaca, El Salvador or Iraq. His nose arcs to the side like a water slide, slipping off at a most improbable angle — once broken, now a healed-up testament to his penchant for daring feats. He has this way of telling stories that involves his whole, wiry frame, and a laugh that is infectious, not least of all to himself. It seems to catch him by surprise and shake his shoulders to and fro. He has lived in the Bay Area for most of his adult life, though most of us have also heard stories of his childhood in Grass Valley, California, and of his family there.

Although Tristan has been arrested at protests more than forty times, he has only twice been brought to trial and has never been convicted. He is not the sort to get angry or confrontational; he is never among the belligerent egotists yelling at the riot police. He takes it for granted that inequality, injustice, and environmental degradation are things to be exposed and eliminated — it is not in his character to shout about something so obvious. Instead he comes home with stories about the amazing collective processes he witnessed, of people realizing their own power and gathering in cramped rooms to attempt all the work of self-governance, of escaping confrontation with armed police by running from showers of rubber bullets and scuttling under barricades to escape being crushed by army vehicles. When Tristan goes on an adventure to attend a protest near or far, he brings back stories, but he also brings back pictures. I have on my hard drive dozens of pictures Tristan uploaded from his camera to post on the internet during the early days of the tree sit on UC Berkeley Campus. Tristan took a few pictures of hand-lettered signs hanging from branches, and smiling portraits of people in the trees, but the vast majority of his photos were of mushrooms, fungus, and lichen, the grove’s least obtrusive form of life, growing green and brown in lovely fractal patterns. He never posted those pictures or spoke of them. They are just beautiful close-ups he created, spiritual and ethereal in their beauty, not the kind of thing every activist takes time to appreciate. Tristan spent a lot of time at the grove in those early days, reading and talking to people under the canopy.

I don’t think many of us knew how Tristan’s injury would affect us even as we first heard about it, and began eagerly scouring the web to find out all we could about the circumstances and conditions, only to learn the gory details, and not much more, until the story broke in local media as “Former Tree Sitter Tristan Anderson Critically Wounded,” which in the collective psyche of many around here translated to, “Dirty Hippy Downed.”

The tree sit ended last September, but a week after Tristan was shot, Debra Saunders, a columnist for the San Francisco Chronicle, wrote an opinion piece that said as much. She opened her opinion piece, titled “Tree Sitter not in Berkeley Anymore,” with a mocking and inaccurate characterization of the protest. “When Tristan Anderson, now 38, was living illegally in the trees at UC Berkeley to protest the administration’s ultimately successful bid to cut down the trees to build a sports training center, life was good. For 21 months, Berkeley’s tree sitters happily fouled their nests with little interference from the authorities. Their biggest fear was falling….”

She then went on to condemn “Tristan’s friends” for staging a “violent” protest after he was wounded that closed down Market Street in San Francisco when we “could have used the awful occasion of Anderson’s situation to contemplate how wonderful it is to live in a safe country.” She was referring to a protest that came together just three days after Tristan was shot, ironically on the anniversary of the death of Rachel Corrie, an American killed by Israeli troops during a protest in Palestine. Hundreds turned out, for Tristan or Rachel or Palestine or all three. Eight people were arrested — ambushed on the sidewalk by dozens of cops after the protest had mostly dispersed, for what provocation we do not know. To characterize the protest as “violent” in this context seems to mean disruptive or provocative, not violent in the sense of the police treatment of the demonstrators — physically throwing people on the pavement and locking them in pain holds.

The media reaction accentuated two things. First, how truly horrible violence, especially state-sponsored violence, is. And second, how absurdly at odds mainstream culture is with protest culture — setting itself against all of us hooligans hell-bent on obstructing the movement to “get on with things.” Needless to say, here in Tristan’s circles–with Tristan still in a hospital half a world away recovering from pneumonia, infection, half a dozen operations, and an egregious head injury–we felt a range of things about the world’s indifference and lack of sympathy. Personally, I felt embattled: privileged with the kinds of knowledge only available to those willing to witness things first-hand, and traumatized by what I have seen.

It becomes wearying to point out that Tristan was not a threat to the Israeli Defense Force soldiers who shot him, something his friends know automatically because we know Tristan, know protest situations, and know Tristan in those situations. The media will have already made their pronouncements and moved on by the time the details are confirmed: that the IDF was firing on an already dispersed crowd, that the soldier could have fired up (not straight) with his launcher, and that at the time Tristan was shot he was, as usual, taking pictures.

Tristan was in the trees at the oak grove in Berkeley when the final siege began in May of 2008. For six months they had been surrounded by eight foot fences with barbed wire. Several gas generators roared all night long from the guard posts the University had created and the protesters were bathed in floodlights. Then one day, the University raised up cherry pickers full of men with knives, shears and trimmers to cut ropes and branches and to try to get the tree sitters out. A few were extracted, including Gabby, Tristan’s girlfriend. The University reported to the media that they were just trimming the trees and removing unoccupied structures they had deemed “a safety hazard.” The reporters raised no questions about the irony of trimming trees you planned to cut down. Nor did they report much about the horrific way the scene unfolded day after day, with the tree sitters yelling and scrambling from branch to branch, tree to tree as the men in the cherry pickers tried to corner them by cutting rope supports, ramming trees, yelling derogatory insults, and doing everything they could to get them out of the trees short of getting blood on their hands.

Tristan negotiated surrender and came down in early June. He was hallucinating from lack of sleep and dehydration, and had been separated from the rest of the tree sitters during the struggle so that he was hanging out solo on a branch near the road. Physically and emotionally, he was out of stamina. He needed to work the next day, and wanted to download and preserve the over 300 pictures he had taken during the siege, but he still felt enormously guilty for giving up–even though he didn’t give up. He and Gabby sat vigil by the grove day and night for months after, providing ground support and talking to the media. Tristan stayed there even though he got little sleep. He told me he was plagued for months with nightmares of the men in cherry pickers menacing them by pounding their perches and threatening to knock them down.

Out of the hundreds of people who were arrested during the two-year campaign to save the oaks, Tristan was one of the few to go to trial. The day after he surrendered, he was arrested for coming back to the oak grove. The police testified that after he came down from the trees, he had been told he was banned from campus for three days. The prosecution alleged that he had returned as an act of flagrant disobedience, to show the campus cops he had not been beaten. In fact, the arresting officer had forgotten to tell him he was banned from campus–an embarrassing mistake, had she admitted it. She did admit that she forgot to give him the paper copy, and that she planned to present him one at the Berkeley jail where he was held overnight, but that by the time she got around to it he had been released.

The prosecution’s contention that Tristan was an angry radical could not bear the weight of Tristan himself when he took the stand, or when he was shown standing in handcuffs at the time of his arrest carefully explaining, “They are saying I had a stay-away order, but they never gave me one.”

The whole embarrassing waste of public funds resulted in an acquittal for Tristan, a brief triumph in a long and grueling campaign against state power and largess.

Of course he is now once again a symbol of the abuse of state power, this time on a much larger stage, but also a symbol of how divided the world has become when people are unsympathetic towards anyone killed or injured at a protest–even if they were nonviolent, even if they were members of the press. It seems so banal and brutal to me.

We are getting regular reports on the progress of Tristan’s recovery, and among the community of friends here, I would say the mood is cautiously optimistic. The larger picture of facing down tyranny and oppression is harder to view. I think of the pain and reverberations Tristan’s injury has caused here in Oakland, and then I think of the thousands of people injured in the occupied territories, and the multiplicative reverberations those casualties must cause in an Arab population of just 3.7 million, and I can honestly see why people work so hard to dehumanize these people as terrorists. It is impossible to rationalize their oppression otherwise.

State Attorney’s Office to police: forbidden to fire tear-gas canisters directly at demonstrators

B’Tselem

4 May 2009

According to media reports, the State Attorney’s Office has ordered the Police to review its guidelines for dispersing demonstrators. The order comes in the wake of the death of Bassem Abu Rahma, a Palestinian who was demonstrating in Bi’lin, and of injuries suffered by a number of other demonstrators recently. B’Tselem welcomes the State Attorney’s Office’s directive, which follows requests by B’Tselem to stop firing tear-gas canisters directly at persons. The real test, however, is whether the directive is implemented in the field. B’Tselem calls on the State Attorney’s Office to investigate incidents of tear-gas canisters fired at people and to prosecute the police officers and soldiers who were responsible for the prolonged and flagrant breach of regulations, and the commanders who allowed the forbidden practice to continue.

In recent weeks, B’Tselem has warned law-enforcement authorities about the life-threatening danger inherent in directly firing tear-gas canisters, a practice that has already resulted in injury to dozens of persons, some seriously. In its April letter following Abu Rahma’s death, B’Tselem demanded that the army enforce its Open-Fire Regulations, investigate incidents in which soldiers have violated the regulations, and prosecute the delinquent soldiers.

On 3 May, B’Tselem received a response from the legal advisor of the Judea and Samaria Division, Col. Sharon Afek, stating that an explicit, comprehensive directive would soon be issued prohibiting the direct firing of tear-gas canisters at people. B’Tselem also called on the Judge Advocate General to ensure that military forces cease firing tear-gas canisters directly at people.

B’Tselem also provided law-enforcement officials with video documentation of soldiers and border policemen firing directly at demonstrators, evidence that the breach of the Open-Fire Regulations was not an isolated incident, but a widespread practice known to senior officers.

B’Tselem wrote to the Judge Advocate General, Brig. Gen. Avichai Mandelblit, demanding to order a Military Police investigation into the circumstances of the death of Abu Rahma, and to make it clear to security forces that it is absolutely forbidden to fire tear-gas canisters directly at a person. B’Tselem had sent a letter in similar spirit a month earlier, following the severe injury to the American Tristan Anderson, who was struck in the forehead by a tear-gas canister. B’Tselem did not receive a reply to its letter.

Attached to the letter was a selection of video clips filmed in the villages of Ni’lin, Bi’lin, and Jayyus. The clips showed repeated firing of tear-gas canisters directly at demonstrators, indicating that, for some time, and contrary to army claims, security forces in the West Bank have used this practice.

http://blip.tv/play/gukm97tThKtR

Israeli forces suppress Ni’lin demonstration

8 May 2009

Construction site of the Apartheid Wall in Ni'lin
construction site of the Apartheid Wall in Ni'lin

Before the start of the weekly Friday demonstration against the Apartheid Wall in Ni’lin, international solidarity activists visited homes that Israeli forces occupied last Friday. As soldiers were already present in the olive groves of Ni’lin, the internationals stayed at the homes to deter another attempt by the Israeli army to occupy their homes.

Around 100 demonstrators gathered, accompanied by international and Israeli solidarity activists, to march against the construction of the Apartheid Wall on Ni’lin’s land. Demonstrators reached the construction site and were able to damage a part of the illegal Wall. Then protestors were pushed back into the village when Israeli forces opened fire with numerous tear-gas canisters.

The protest continued as demonstrators were pushed back, and the young men from the village responded to the army violence by throwing stones. Israeli forces occupied a rooftop next to the outskirts of the olive groves to shoot at the protestors.

Israeli forces used tear-gas canisters, sound bombs and live ammunition against the protest. The demonstration continued until 5.30pm.  Seventeen people were badly enough injured by the tear-gas to require medical treatment. One young man lost the tip of his finger after he was shot by a canister.

The Israeli soldiers came back to the field, close to the houses in the village, around 7pm. Residents went out to protest against their presence on their lands for an hour.

Israeli occupation forces have murdered four Ni’lin residents during demonstrations against the confiscation of their land and critically injured one international solidarity activist.

Ahmed Mousa (10) was shot in the forehead with live ammunition on 29 July 2008. The following day, Yousef Amira (17) was shot twice with rubber-coated steel bullets, leaving him brain dead. He died a week later on 4 August 2008. Arafat Rateb Khawaje (22), was the third Ni’lin resident to be killed by Israeli forces. He was shot in the back with live ammunition on 28 December 2008. That same day, Mohammed Khawaje (20), was shot in the head with live ammunition, leaving him brain dead. He died three days in a Ramallah hospital. Tristan Anderson (37), an American citizen, was shot with a high velocity tear gas projectile on 13 March 2009 and is currently in critical condition. In total, 26 persons have been shot by Israeli forces with live ammunition.

Police negligent in probing fence protest casualties

Dan Izenberg & Yaakov Katz | The Jerusalem Post

5 May 2009

The death of Palestinian Bassem Ibrahim in Bil’in two-and-a-half weeks ago might have been prevented had the police carried out orders to investigate previous incidents in which protesters against the separation barrier were hurt by grenade canisters, a senior Justice Ministry official told the police on Monday.

Ibrahim, 30, died when a border policeman fired a canister directly at him and hit him in the chest during a protest at Bil’in on April 17.

The protest was one of the weekly protests held by villagers, Israelis and pro-Palestinian demonstrators from abroad against the route of the fence that separates the villagers from much of their agricultural land.

According to a statement issued by the Justice Ministry, Yehoshua Lemberger, deputy state attorney for criminal affairs, has asked the police to review the guidelines for dispersing protesters.

Lemberger said Ibrahim was one of several protesters in the recent past who have been hurt by gas bombs or grenades “which have aroused suspicions of illegal use of means to disperse protests.”

According to a knowledgeable source, the Justice Ministry asked the police to investigate four incidents that occurred in Nil’in, another Palestinian village that holds weekly protests.

In one case in September 2008, a Palestinian suffered head injuries when shot by a border policeman.

In January, a Spanish journalist and an Israeli protester were injured. On March 13, an American citizen, Tristan Anderson, was shot in the face and critically wounded by a tear gas canister.

Lemberger added that even if it was right from an “operational point of view” to use gas grenades, bombs and other ordinance, it was wrong to aim directly at protesters.

IDF sources said that the direct fire of gas grenades at demonstrators had always been against official military regulations. Military forces operating at Bil’in, the sources said, would continue to use gas canisters since it was an “effective tool” in dispersing violent demonstrations.

The sources said that the IDF has always made a distinction between “direct fire” of the canisters at specific demonstrators as opposed to “indirect fire” in the nearby vicinity.

“There is nothing wrong with firing gas canisters,” one source said. “The problem is with direct fire but that has always been against military regulations.”

Lemberger also pointed out that investigations of border police conduct in the West Bank are conducted by the police, rather than the Justice Ministry’s Police Investigations Unit, which does not investigate incidents of shooting involving border policemen unless they take place in Israeli population centers in the administered territories.

Boycott this Israeli settlement builder

Abe Hayeem | The Guardian

28 April 2009

The British Foreign and Commonwealth Office must be commended for its decision to cancel renting premises for the UK embassy in Tel Aviv from the company Africa-Israel, owned by Israeli businessman and settlement builder Lev Leviev. This is an encouraging step that should now be backed by stronger sanctions against the building of the separation wall and the building of illegal settlements by Israel. Furthermore, the governments of Norway and Dubai should emulate the example set by the UK and sever their relationships with Leviev’s companies.

The Israeli paper Ha’aretz reported on 3 March 2009 that “Due to the public pressure” several months ago in a special debate in parliament, Kim Howells of the Foreign Office was asked to explain plans to rent the embassy from Leviev.

This pressure, by a letters campaign to the FCO, was initiated by Architects and Planners for Justice in Palestine with human rights organisation Adalah-New York, followed by the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, Noam Chomsky, Norman Finkelstein, former BBC correspondent Tim Llewellyn and hundreds of others.

Further voices included Daniel Machover of Lawyers for Palestinian Human Rights, Palestinian notables including Hanan Ashrawi, Mustafa Barghouti and Luisa Morgantini, vice president of the European parliament.

The move was frozen after ambassador Tom Phillips requested details from Africa-Israel about its activities in the settlements.

Subsequently, on 5 March, the BBC reported the FCO’s Karen Kaufman saying that: “We looked into the issue of Africa-Israel and settlements and settlement holdings and we asked for clarification …. The UK government has always regarded settlements as illegal, but what has happened in recent months is that we are looking for ways to make a difference on this issue.”

Still, despite the FCO decision, Leviev’s companies persist in their goal, backed by the Land Redemption Fund to which Leviev is one the largest donors, of “blurring the Green Line” and connecting the illegally built Zufim settlement with Israeli communities inside the Green Line, retaining 6,000 dunams of the village Jayyous’s land sequestered by the wall. This land grab is being facilitated by the enforced construction of the apartheid wall, which the International Court of Justice firmly judged to be illegal under international law in 2004, and demanded its removal.

There are weekly non-violent protests by the Jayyous villagers, Israeli and international peace groups, together with Bil’in to stop their precious land from being taken to expand settlements and build the wall. These are being suppressed by Israeli forces on a terror rampage with live fire, beatings, tear gassings, mass arrests, house occupations and, more recently, threats of home demolitions, and pogroms.

Following an Israeli supreme court ruling that the route of the wall in Jayyous should be moved slightly, Israeli authorities are trying to blackmail Jayyous’s mayor, saying if he doesn’t accept the new wall route, there will be no gates in it for the village’s farmers to access their lands. The mayor has refused to sign. Without international intervention, Jayyous will not be able to hold on to its lands behind the wall, which contain their four vital agricultural wells and most of their greenhouses. Leviev will then be able to freely expand Zufim on to Jayyous’s stolen lands. Currently, Leviev is building 35 new housing units in Zufim.

At Bil’in, where Leviev companies are also building settlements, mainstream media failed to cover the 17 April murder of Bil’in non-violent protester Bassem Abu Rahmeh, 29, by Israeli forces. A soldier shot him with the same new type of “rocket” tear gas round, as fast and lethal as live ammunition that left US activist Tristan Anderson in critical condition.

The brutal crackdown in Bil’in continues despite three Israeli supreme court orders to move the wall in Bil’in closer to the Matityahu East settlement “outpost” where Leviev’s Danya Cebus built about 30% of the units. Israel’s court has shown itself to be the accessory of this land grab. Israel’s architects, designing these settlements, are also in breach of professional ethics, and will be held to account by their international peers.

While the US, UK and the EU seem to be keen to join Israel, the perpetrator of war crimes, in boycotting the Palestinians who are the victims of crippling sieges, deadly incursions and a prison-like occupation, they are reluctant to take any positive action to stop Israel’s breaches of international law. For instance, the Norwegian government has invested €875m in 2008 in Africa-Israel. By investing its populace’s pension fund in a company at the heart of illegal Israeli settlement building, the country that sponsored the Oslo accords violates its spirit. Norway should follow the precedent set by the UK’s FCO, in one of the latter’s few bold moves, and divest from this company.

The United Arab Emirates is also shamefully equivocating after a year-long campaign against Leviev selling his diamonds in the emirate of Dubai. Dubai’s government, despite repeated assurances that Leviev would not be allowed to open two diamond boutiques in the emirate, has allowed Leviev to open stores under another name while his website advertises a Leviev store-in-store at one of the “Levant” shops of his Dubai partner, Arif bin Khadra. A second Levant store in Dubai’s Atlantis hotel boldly touts the Leviev brand.

If Dubai does not wish to be become known as the “emirate that supports settlements”, it should take immediate action, and follow the UK’s lead and demonstrate it will not allow Leviev to profit from this indirect funding of his settlement building, that steals the future of Jayyous’s children who are growing up in the shadow of Leviev’s ever-expanding Zufim settlement.

While the new Netanyahu/Leiberman government is doing all it can to obfuscate the issue of a proper peace settlement to establish a viable Palestinian state, a clear message must be sent to Israel. The sanctions against Leviev should be the start of a wider boycott of all who profit from the enforced acquisition of Palestinian land.