Category Archives: Anti-occupation

Planning Peace from Afar: Stop Repeating the Trauma

Photo from Jürgen Stroop’s report to Heinrich Himmler from May 1943 and one of the best-known pictures of World War II.
The original German caption reads: “Forcibly pulled out of dug-outs.”

Samir ‘Awad being evacuated from the scene after being shot, 15 January 2013. Photo: Nasar Mghar

Samir ‘Awad being evacuated from the scene after being shot, 15 January 2013. Photo: Nasar Mghar

In an expression of unbridled American optimism, former diplomat Dennis Ross, a key figure in the post-Oslo process, published in today’s (3 March 2013)  New York Times a 14-point agenda for reviving the halted peace process and reviving the two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In principle, there is nothing wrong with being optimistic in an effort to imagine the achievement of peace, but ungrounded optimism can become the grounds for the lost hope of failure. Ross is aware that ‘most Israelis and Palestinians today simply don’t believe that peace is possible’ and that ‘neither side believes that the other is committed to a two-state outcome’, arguing that each side needs to overcome ‘the problem of disbelief’. So, he proposes a package of trust and confidence building measures, most of which can be undertaken unilaterally but in coordination by each side, that ‘can actually generate changes that ordinary citizens on both sides could see and feel’. Never mind that the whole approach of ‘confidence building measures’ championed previously by Ross and US administrations has led into the cul-de-sac of disbelief and despair. He has learned from his mistakes and seeks to repeat them perfectly.

One could take issue with Ross’ specific proposals, which reflect American attunement with Israeli rather than Palestinian concerns. He suggests that the Israeli government from now restrict its settlement building to the blocs in the West Bank that Israel intends to keep as part of any future agreement, while preparing to relocate those settlers who currently live outside those blocs. He does not suggest that Israel dismantle all settlements established since 2001, as required by the 2003 Road Map. Ross does call for Israel to expand the scope of Palestinian self-government and policing in Areas A, B and C of the West Bank, but he does not insist on an end to Israeli military incursions into Area A, the 18% of the West Bank that’s supposed to be under the Palestinian Authority’s full civil and security control.

Last week, there were demonstrations throughout the Palestinian occupied territories in support of the prisoners on hunger strike. In an impassioned appeal to the Israeli public on Israel Channel 2 news on 24th February 2013, PA official Jibril Rajoub spoke of the prisoners and their detention without trial in Israeli prisons as the most sensitive issue of the occupation, the focus of unrest that’s been labeled the ‘prisoners’ intifada’. But that’s not on Ross’s radar. Nor are the numerous, unpunished attacks on Palestinians and their land by extremist settlers, despite the ‘culture of impunity’ regarding such attacks, described in detail in a recent UN Human Rights report. There is no mention in Ross’s list of the ongoing friction caused by the completion of the separation barrier, which entails seizing Palestinian land and separating owners from unhindered access to it. The planned dispossession of Palestinians in the South Hebron hills to clear way for military Firing Zone 918 also does not get Ross’s attention. The weekly catalogue of shootings of Palestinians by Israeli soldiers, their excessive use of force to suppress demonstrations, recorded by the Palestinian Center for Human Rights, does not register for Ross as part and parcel of the insufferable burden of occupation that must be relieved before Palestinians can be convinced that the Israeli government is serious about ending its control over them.

Nonetheless, Ross suggests that the Israeli government take some concrete steps that would be felt and seen by Palestinians. By contrast, the measures he proposes that the PA take would not make much difference to the daily lives of Israelis. Instead, he says that the PA should ‘speak’ of two states, ‘acknowledge’ the existence of a Jewish as well Palestinian national movement, ‘show’ Israel on their maps (though he does not ask for a parallel redrawing of Israeli maps so that they show the ‘green line’), and end ‘incitement’. The only practical step that Ross asks of the PA is to build permanent housing in the Palestinian refugee camps (presumably to reassure Israelis that Palestinian refugees will forego their ‘right of return’ to their former land now in Israel). As he acknowledges that Palestinian security forces fulfill their obligations to collaborate with Israeli forces in preventing armed attacks on Israelis (which he’d like the Israeli government to acknowledge publicly, so long as the PA is equally generous about Israeli good-will measures, such as treating Palestinian patients in its hospitals), Ross does not include in his plan increased PA security action against armed militants. Nor does he explain how the PA should continue to repress Palestinian militant opposition to the occupation while also (as he recommends) focusing on ‘the rule of law’.

What then is Ross asking of the PA, with all this speaking, acknowledging, showing and abstinence from inflammatory language? He is asking that the PA take rhetorical responsibility for the state of mind of the Jewish Israeli public. Ross grasps well that much of the Israeli public feels insecure about its existence, dubious that further withdrawal from territory seized in 1967 will bring peace and security – although the two recent withdrawals he mentions, from southern Lebanon in 2000 and Gaza in 2005 were both unilateral Israeli moves, in the face of incessant armed and civil opposition to their presence. But such an approach, according to which the PA offer Israelis the reassurance they want to hear repeatedly, assumes that the Palestinians (and other Arab nations, and Islamic states) are the source of Israeli insecurity. This is a false assumption, one that does not go deep enough into the trauma that needs to be acknowledged and worked through if peace is to be first imagined, and then made real. The clue is on another page of the same issue of the New York Times, a chilling report on recent research about the Holocaust that dramatically increases the known number of Nazi ghettos, and concentration, slave labour, prisoner-of-war, euthanasia, abortion and brothel camps. Well-meaning, instrumentalist, technocratic, pragmatic ‘confidence-building’ measures cannot be the remedy for a conflict in which a traumatized people has brought trauma to another. The headline of Ross’s piece is ‘To Achieve Mideast Peace, Suspend Disbelief’. The last phrase should be ‘Stop Repeating the Trauma’.

Warsaw Ghetto 1943

Obama and the Hope for Peace

Memorial in Rabin Square

Memorial in Rabin Square

Obama.20000

Since 6th February, 2013, 20,000 people have signed up to a Facebook campaign calling on US President Barack Obama to address the Israeli people from Rabin Square during his upcoming visit to Israel next month. What does this direct, socially-mediated call to Obama mean? What do those Israelis want from Obama? The answers to those questions are simultaneously encouraging and dispiriting, indicating both grounds for hope and despair.

To begin with, there is the powerful symbolism of Obama speaking form the same platform as former Israeli Prime Minister, Yitzhak Rabin, did on the night he was assassinated by a right-wing extremist on 5th November, 1995. The large square in central Tel Aviv, formerly known as Kings of Israel Square, was renamed after Rabin following his murder, and a small group still visits the memorial to Rabin at the side of the square, on the spot where he was shot in the back, after addressing a large pro-peace rally. Israeli public support for the Oslo process, fiercely contested by the settler movement and Israeli right-wing, as well as Hamas and Islamic Jihad on the Palestinian side was waning at the time. The key slogan for the rally was: ‘yes to peace, no to violence’, but violence prevailed. Whether or not the terrorist’s shots killed the Oslo peace along with Rabin is another question, but that is how it seemed to those Israelis who saw in Rabin’s death the sacrifice of an idealized ‘warrior for peace’ and the embodiment of the Jewish Israeli public who had voted for him – largely Ashkenazi, middle class, educated, secular, and culturally hegemonic. The mourning for this idealized figure became melancholic, becoming an ongoing state of being, in which love was not redirected to another champion of peace (or peace initiative), but wrapped up in narcissistic identification with the lost object. In brief, some of the symbolism of Obama speaking from Rabin’s platform refers to melancholic mourning in which the loss of peace is mourned, but peace is not pursued actively.

Yet, perhaps if Obama speaks from Rabin’s platform, all that emotional investment in mourning peace will instead be transferred to Obama. Perhaps Obama will bring the peace that Rabin was prevented from making. Such hopes were attached to Obama on his election in 2008, among others by veteran peace activist Uri Avnery in his weekly column. Not coincidentally, the peace group that Avnery heads, Gush Shalom, published a notice on 8th February 2013 in the Ha’aretz newspaper (as it does each week) that repeats the expectation that Obama will sort things out for Israel: ‘President Obama/Will ask for/Clear answers/On Peace, The Palestinian state, Occupation and settlements’. Obama’s political image, especially in those thrilling days of 2008, is one of hope. The Facebook campaign for Obama to speak for peace in Rabin Square is a campaign for hope that peace, not mourning for its loss, can fill Israeli hearts again. Obama can be our leader, another Moses, an African prince found in the bull rushes who will lead us to the Promised Land. I’d like to believe that myself. He could even Hebraize his name for the role, becoming Baruch Ben Ami.

But from the start, the expectations for Obama’s visit and progress to peace should realistically have been kept low. On 5th February 2013 the New York Times reported that the US president was ‘not expected to unveil concrete proposals for bringing Israelis and Palestinians together during his visit or initiate a specific new peace process’. The prevailing opinion is that on the agenda for his visit will be the ‘burning issues’ of the Iranian nuclear programme, the civil war in Syria, leaving the question of Palestinian-Israeli peace further down the list of priorities. Writing in Challenge, an on-line magazine, on 17th February 2013, Yaacov Ben Efrat of Israel’s Daam Party remarked that: ‘When Obama reaches P[alestinian] A[uthority] territory, he will see that his policy of appeasing the Israeli right has nearly killed the PA’. Obama has already been burned by the Palestinian issue and won’t want to take up the challenge again. Obama may utter some vague, uplifting phrases about peace, but offer no practical means to achieve it.

Ben Efrat also wrote that: ‘it will not be long until the unrest in the West Bank becomes palpable to the Israeli public on its side of the wall’. In the last few days, that is precisely what has happened, with Palestinian protests over the prisoners’ hunger strike, the death in custody of Arafat Jaradat, and the flare of up the regular clashes with violent, armed settlers, as explained by Noam Sheizaf in the +972 blog. The sidelining of peace, of the daily travails of the occupation for Palestinians, of the routine violence of extremist settlers and the institutionalised violence of the Israeli occupation forces and the settlement process, from Obama’s visit agenda may be overtaken by events. Precisely because of the expectations raised by a presidential visit, Palestinian protestors have good reason to show that they have not gone away, that their frustrations have not dissipated, that occupation is the burning issue, that peace is urgent. Interviewed on Israel Channel 2 news on 24th February 2013 about the unrest, PA official Jibril Rajoub called on Israel to make a clear choice – for peace and security, or settlements and annexation. ‘Don’t expect us to come with a white flag’, he said, ‘We are a people living, existing under a cruel, racist occupation for 46 years, which brings shame on Jewish history. Enough! Enough! Enough!’ There is nothing Obama could say to the Israeli who want to hear from him that is clearer about the need to end the occupation and move to peace than that.