The initial item of the 8 below is a brief but happy message from a dear friend and long-time activist, Dror Feiler’s mother, Pnina Feiler. At 86 she still goes with Physicians for Human Rights to the oPt to help with medical advice and treatments. Now she is apparently still in Greece waiting to sail to Gaza. I want to share her excitement and good news with you!
Item 2 reports that Amir Peretz had to make a run for it out of London for fear that he would be arrested and charged with war crimes.
Items 3 and 4 are UN reports, 3 about UN findings on Israel’s conduct on Nakba Day, 4 about the Mavi Marmara incident. Israel does not like the findings in 3, but 4 will undoubtedly please Israel’s officials more, if not entirely.
Item 5 is a report about the airport event in which hundreds or perhaps more people from abroad are expected to land at Ben Gurion and openly say when going through passport check that they intend to visit Palestine. Often people who intend to visit Palestine are not allowed in from BG, and that is precisely the issue at stake with this event. That is to say, participants want to force Israel’s hand.
Item 6 is “a heated debate about prisons,” referring to Israel’s treatment of Palestinian prisoners. Not all is so rosy as Netanyahu would have the world believe.
Item 7 is long, but raises issues that provoke thought. Written by a Palestinian, the question he addresses is ‘what is the right type of resistance?’
Item 8 is Today in Palestine, where, in tonight’s compilation, you can read about (among much else) babies born at checkpoints. Not all survived, nor all the women giving birth.
Let’s keep hoping for a better tomorrow.
Dorothy
===========================================
1. HI DOROTHY, THE SHIP “JULIANO” JS SAILING!!!! LET US HOPE THEY WILL REACH THEIR GOAL. PNINA.I WAS WITH THEM
TILL YESTERDAY BUT WAS ASKED, WITH SOME OTHER PEOPLE, TO LEAVE. ALLTHE BEST, PNINA.
MK Amir Peretz narrowly managed to escape an arrest warrant issued for him in London this past weekend on suspicion of committing war crimes during the Lebanon War, Yedioth Ahronoth has learned.
The Justice and Foreign ministries were aware of the arrest warrant ahead of time, and advised Peretz, who was in New York last week, to cancel his trip to the UK. They told the MK that the warrant was initiated by “extremist organizations” as a provocation, aiming to manipulate the situation for “anti-Israel incitement.”
The former defense minister refused to cancel his visit, claiming that by doing so he would be admitting defeat, sources said. The Justice Ministry accepted his stance, but was prepared to stand by with a legal team.
Peretz was scheduled to give a speech at a London university, and elements estimated that the anti-Israel activists would ambush him there before police would arrive to arrest him.
Following the defense elements’ advice, Peretz decided to trick the activists; he e-mailed the university administration to inform it that he had to cancel the trip for personal reasons. The plot worked, causing the activists to call off the arrest warrant.
‘I don’t intend to run’
Peretz then traveled to the UK and fulfilled his other engagements, keeping a low profile. He spoke before an Israeli business club, and met with representatives of London’s Jewish community.
But word of Peretz’s trip eventually reached the activists, who renewed the efforts to issue a warrant against him. The defense establishment then advised the MK to push his return up from Sunday to Saturday evening – a move that evidently saved Peretz embarrassment, as the arrest warrant was eventually issued right after his departure.
Peretz refused to comment on the incident, saying only that “I do not intend to run away from anyone.”
“But I also don’t intend to fall into the provocative traps of extremist organizations, whose unrestrained positions that even I, as a man of peace, refuse to accept,” he told Yedioth Ahronoth.
=================================
3. Haaretz,
July 06, 2011
UN: Israel used unnecessary force against protesters on Nakba Day
Israel furious over critical UN report that IDF used live fire against unarmed Lebanese protesters, cuts contact with Lebanon coordinator.
A new report of United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon is highly critical of Israel for its handling of incidents on the border with Lebanon on May 15 – Nakba Day. It concludes that the Israeli soldiers used disproportionate force against Lebanese demonstrators, which resulted in seven deaths.
In Israel there is great anger at the UN special coordinator for Lebanon, Michael Williams, who authored the report, and the Foreign Affairs Ministry is cutting contact with him until further notice.
The secretary general’s report, which deals with the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1701 (ending the Second Lebanon War ), was disseminated several days ago to members of the Security Council, and Haaretz received a copy.
The report mainly deals with the Nakba Day incidents.
In its conclusions the secretary general expresses concern about Nakba Day and notes that IDF soldiers “used direct live fire against unarmed demonstrators” who tried to breach the border fence. He called on the Lebanese Army and the IDF to avoid such incidents from recurring.
“I call on the Israel Defense Forces to refrain from responding with live fire in such situations, except where clearly required in immediate self-defense. Notwithstanding every country’s inherent right of self defense, there is a need for the Israel Defense Forces always to apply appropriate operational measures, including crowd control measures, which are commensurate to the imminent threat toward their troops and civilians,” the report states.
The report notes that some 8,000-10,000 demonstrators participated in the Nakba Day demonstrations in Lebanon, most of them Palestinian refugees. “Organizers included Palestinian and Lebanese organizations, among them Hebollah,” the report said.
About 1,000 protesters broke off from the main demonstration, which took place without disorder, and moved toward the border fence with Israel, throwing stones and firebombs, and removing 23 anti-tank mines, the report notes.
“Following a verbal warning and firing into the air, the Israel Defense Forces then directed live fire at the protesters at the fence,” according to the report, “killing seven civilians and injuring 111.”
The report is based on the investigation findings of UNIFIL, which note that it was the Palestinian demonstrators who initiated the trouble, were first to use violence, and violated UN Security Council Resolution 1701. However, the majority of the report’s criticism is directed at the IDF.
“Other than firing initial warning shots, the Israel Defense Forces did not use conventional crowd control methods or any other method than lethal weapons against the demonstrators,” the report states.
Moreover, the UN report notes that “the firing of live ammunition by the Israel Defense Forces across the Blue Line [the border fence] against the demonstrators, which resulted in the loss of civilian life and a significant number of casualties, constituted a violation of resolution 1701 (2006 ) and was not commensurate to the threat to Israeli soldiers.”
At the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and at the IDF Planning Directorate which is responsible for dealing with Lebanon, they had expected a particularly critical report, especially because of the tension between Israel and the UN coordinator Michael Williams, who prepared the report on behalf of Secretary General Ban Ki-moon.
Hours after the Nakba Day incidents, Williams assailed Israel and blamed it for the incidents, without condemning the attempt to breach the border fence from the Lebanese side. Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman was furious with the comments Williams made and instructed the Israeli delegation to the United Nations to contact the secretary general’s office and complain about the coordinator for Lebanon. Similar demarches were made to the ambassadors of France, Italy and Spain at the UN, as they are the three countries contributing most of the troops to UNIFIL.
To send an even stronger message to Williams, the Foreign Ministry decided to cancel his periodic visit to Israel, which was due in a number of weeks. Williams asked to hear Israel’s position on the events of Nakba Day, but he was told that there was no time to meet with him, and that Israel would relay its views directly to the secretary general’s office.
Foreign Ministry sources said that it remains unclear whether Israel will resume contact with Williams.
===========================================
4. Haaretz,
July 06, 2011
Gaza flotilla probe: IDF used excessive force but naval blockade legal
The final findings of the UN commission that investigated the events last May do not call for Israel to apologize; Israeli official: Turkish-Israeli reconciliation talks deadlocked.
The UN committee investigating the events of last May’s Gaza flotilla, headed by former Prime Minister of New Zealand Geoffrey Palmer, convened Wednesday in New York to conclude the report.
According to a political source in Jerusalem, the final findings of the Palmer Report show that the Israeli naval blockade on Gaza is legal and is in accordance with international law.
The report also sharply criticizes the Turkish government’s behavior in its dealings with the committee. Palmer, an expert on international maritime law, added in the report that Israel’s Turkel commission that investigated the events was professional, independent and unbiased.
His findings on the Turkish committee were less favorable, with Palmer concluding that the Turkish investigation was politically influenced and its work was not professional or independent.
On Thursday, the Palmer Committee will present its findings to UN Secretary General Ban ki-Moon, yet it remains unclear if it will be made public. Turkey is pressuring the UN to delay that release of the investigation’s findings, but the report is likely to be made public in the coming days.
The Palmer Committee also criticizes the IHH organization that organized the Gaza flotilla as well as its ties to the Turkish government, suggesting Turkey did not do enough to stop the flotilla.
Israel does not come out of the report unscathed, with the committee concluding that based on testimony given by passengers, the Israeli naval commandos used excessive force. Israel claimed the soldiers acted out of self defense, thereby justifying the use of force.
According to the final draft of the probe, Israel is not asked to apologize to Turkey, but the report does recommend it expresses regret over the casualties. The Palmer Report also doesn’t ask Israel to pay compensation, but proposes Israel transfer money to a specially-created humanitarian fund.
Palmer says that although international law permits the interception of ships outside territorial waters, Israel should have taken control of the flotilla when the ships were closer to the limit of the naval blockade – 20 miles off the coast. Israel responded by saying that its interception of the flotilla so far from the coast was due to military and tactical considerations, following the organizers’ refusal to stop.
Meanwhile, the efforts to mend relations between Israel and Turkey have reached a deadlock yet again, said a senior political source in Jerusalem on Wednesday. According to the source, talks between Vice Prime Minister Moshe Ya’alon and Turkish senior officials Wednesday in New York ended without conclusive results, and each side remains unrelenting in its stance.
“There is no agreement and no breakthrough on the horizon,” said the source. “Everything still depends on the (Turkish demand for an Israeli) apology. The report will be released soon and a compromise seems very unlikely.”
Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has ordered the Turkish negotiation team not to back down from the demand for an official aplogy. Ya’alon told Turkish Foreign Ministry Undersecretary Feridun Sinirlioglu that Israel will not apologize, but is willing to express sorrow for the flotilla’s tragic results.
Over the past two weeks there have been three rounds of negotiations between Ya’alon and Sinirlioglu – two of them took place in Europe and one in New York. They all ended in deadlock.
===============================
5. [forwarded by Sam B]
Seattle, WA, July 6, 2011
Israel airport gears for pro-Palestinian activists
Passengers are seen on the deck of a boat, shortly after the boat was returned to the port by the coast guard in Agiios Nikolaos, northeastern Crete, Greece on Monday, July 4, 2011. A boat taking part in a flotilla seeking to break Israel’s Gaza Strip sea blockade tried to leave the southern island of Crete Monday but was turned back by Greek forces, as the Athens government warned that lives could be lost if the mission goes forward. The coast guard stopped the boat shortly after it set sail without permission from the port of Agios Nikolaos in northeastern Crete, and towed it back into port Photo: AP / IMAGE PHOTO SERVICES
JERUSALEM (AP) — Hundreds of pro-Palestinian foreign activists planned to fly into Tel Aviv this week, prompting Israeli warnings Wednesday that security would be beefed up at the country’s already heavily fortified international airport.
The campaign coincides with a separate attempt to break Israel’s sea blockade of the Gaza Strip with an international flotilla.
Those set to arrive at Israel’s Ben Gurion International Airport on Friday said they plan to tour the West Bank in solidarity with the Palestinians and don’t intend to stir up trouble. But the prospect of an influx of pro-Palestinian sympathizers sparked agitation in Israel.
The Israeli public security minister claimed some of the potential arrivals were “hooligans,” and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made a show of reviewing security agencies’ plans at the airport before flying to Romania on Wednesday.
“Every country has a right to block the entry of provocateurs,” Netanyahu declared. At the same time, he said, officers were instructed to avoid “unnecessary confrontations.”
The protesters accused Israel of distorting their message, insisting their activities would be peaceful. They said their only protest at the airport would be to declare they had come to “visit Palestine,” and that they hoped to draw attention to Israeli policies that often bar foreigners with Palestinian ties.
Israel has been especially wary of trouble with foreign activists since a deadly clash aboard an international flotilla last year. Nine Turkish activists were killed, and the incident drew harsh international condemnations and forced Israel to loosen its blockade of Gaza. Israeli fears have been further heightened by deadly clashes in recent weeks with pro-Palestinian activists along Israel’s frontiers with Lebanon and Syria.
Central District police commander Bentzi Sao told Army Radio the activists were expected to arrive on 50 flights from Europe between Thursday evening and Friday afternoon.
Israeli police spokesman Micky Rosenfeld said hundreds of police officers would begin deploying Thursday evening at the airport.
Two Israeli TV stations said Israel has asked airlines to provide lists of passengers to identify possible activists. The reports said Lufthansa has already been asked to bar 50 people from boarding for Tel Aviv. An airline spokesman said he was not aware of the issue.
In London, Britain’s Foreign Office said it had not been asked by Israel to prevent anyone from boarding flights to Israel.
Sao said Israel would deny entry to those considered troublemakers. He wouldn’t say if Israel had a list, but suggested some activists might be deported or jailed.
Sabine Hadad, spokeswoman for Israel’s Interior Ministry, said authorities would decide on “a case by case basis” who is allowed to enter.
She said a person who wants to visit “Palestine” would not be barred, unless authorities determine they plan to participate in what Israel considers illegal demonstrations or violent acts. Hundreds of foreigners, many of them aid workers or activists, are in the West Bank’s Palestinian-controlled areas at any given time.
“Not everyone is a suspect. Many are allowed in,” Hadad said.
The activists are taking part in a Palestinian program known as “Welcome to Palestine.” Organizers say nearly 600 men, women and children have accepted their invitation to visit the West Bank for a week, in a show of solidarity with Palestinians living under Israeli occupation.
Israeli authorities have the program’s details and are aware that activists are not trying to cause problems at the airport, organizers said.
Sophia Deeg of Germany, a coordinator for the activists, said “most of them are families or elderly people who never were in Palestine” but wanted to draw attention to the severe limitations on movement in and out of the Palestinian territories.
Israel says it has the right to determine who passed through its borders. But the activists note that the only way to enter the West Bank is through Israel-controlled crossings — either by arriving at airports inside Israel and entering the West Bank by land, or via the Israeli-controlled West Bank border with Jordan.
Access to blockaded Gaza is even more difficult.
The Palestinians, along with the activists, said it is a basic human right for Palestinians to be able to receive peaceful visitors.
“There is an arbitrary policy in place to deny or restrict people who desire to enter the occupied territory,” said Sam Bahour of the “Right to Enter Campaign,” a grassroots Palestinian group.
He said it was impossible to compile statistics on the number of people barred entry, because they are stopped and returned to their countries of origin, but said Israeli travel bans have included people of Palestinian origin and foreign sympathizers, among them high-profile academics.
The latest flotilla hopes to breach a sea blockade that Israel says is crucial to stopping weapons from reaching Gaza’s anti-Israel Hamas rulers.
Greek authorities have blocked the flotilla from sailing from the Greek ports where they are docked and have arrested four people.
Athens, which has improved ties with Israel in recent years, said it issued the ban for security reasons, pointing to a similar blockade-busting effort last year that ended in the deaths of nine activists after Israeli commandos stormed a Turkish ship.
Israel has warned it would stop any attempt to try to breach the embargo.
===============================
6. BBC 6 July 2011
Heated debate over Palestinian prisoners in Israel
Abu Jihad Museum aims to reflect the experiences of thousands of Palestinians in Israeli jails
The Israeli government’s plans to make conditions tougher for Palestinian prisoners in its jails is drawing attention to a highly sensitive issue, says the BBC’s Yolande Knell in Jerusalem.
The entrance to the Abu Jihad Museum for the Prisoners’ Movement closely resembles a jail. Step inside the revolving steel door topped by barbed wire and you stand behind bars that surround the ticket desk.
Exhibits at the site, in the West Bank town of Abu Dis near Jerusalem, tell the stories of Palestinian political prisoners from the British Mandate period to modern-day Israel.
Palestinians have come to view their experience of detention, for actions that oppose the occupation of their land, as part of their national identity.
“It was important to establish this museum. Prison is a crucial part of the Palestinian struggle,” says curator, Fahid Abu al-Haj. “The museum contains the suffering of more than 800,000 prisoners.”
The number is hard to verify, but few Palestinian families have never had a member in jail.
The latest figures suggest there are 5,335 Palestinians in Israeli prisons for security or public order reasons, including 211 children. Some have been convicted of murder but others are detained and tried for political activities.
Most have been dealt with by the Israeli military justice system, which is criticised by human rights campaigners.
Continue reading the main story Palestinian prisoners in IsraelTotal in Israeli Prison Service (IPS) custody: 5,335 In administrative detention: 228Detained under illegal combatants law: 2Total minors detained (under 18): 211Minors detained under 16: 39 (All figures May 2011; IPS compiled by B’Tselem)
Mr Abu al-Haj himself spent a total of 10 years in jail, beginning in 1978. He had commanded forces belonging to the Fatah faction that has long led the nationalist cause.
He was illiterate when he was placed behind bars but took the chance to get an education. Eventually he gained a degree and wrote a book on the life of a prisoner.
“We struggled just to get paper and pens,” he says, “but there are people who took the opportunity to build their personalities in jail.”
Shalit backlash
The treatment of Palestinian prisoners has become a hot issue as Israel marks the fifth anniversary of the capture of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit.
Continue reading the main story “Start QuoteWe decided to change the conditions of prisoners. This celebration is over”
End Quote Benjamin Netanyahu Israeli Prime Minister
Militants from the Palestinian group, Hamas, attacked the soldier’s tank in a cross-border raid into southern Israel in 2006. He has since been held in Gaza with no access to international humanitarian organisations.
So far attempts to agree a prisoner exchange with Hamas have failed.
“Everybody demands the immediate release of Gilad, and first of all a visit to him in captivity by the Red Cross,” said Israel’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, recently.
“In addition, we decided to change the conditions of [Palestinian] prisoners. This celebration is over.”
The Israeli media reported that several Hamas prisoners had been placed in solitary confinement. Other Hamas inmates were then said to have refused food for 24-hours in protest.
There have also been threats to withdraw privileges for those in jail such as academic studies, to put pressure on Gilad Shalit’s captors.
Supporters of Staff Sgt Shalit point to the fact that he is denied basic human rights by his captors in Gaza.
The continued captivity of Gilad Shalit has been strongly condemned internationally
Israeli newspapers raised the stakes with reports such as one in Maariv headlined: “Feasts and free internet: the good life of the terrorists in jail”.
It printed pictures, said to come from a high-security prisoner’s Facebook page, showing him preparing a lavish meal and smiling while posing with other inmates.
The report said this left the Israeli relatives of those killed in Palestinian attacks with their “blood boiling”.
Other papers highlighted prisoners’ access to mobile phones, television and videos, as well as conjugal visits and what they claimed were flexible visitor conditions.
Opposing views
It is difficult to draw an accurate general picture of how Palestinian detainees are treated by their Israeli jailors.
Some of those convicted have similar living conditions to prisoners in Western countries, with limited access to television and exercise and occasional family visits. They can often obtain mobile phones through informal channels.
Continue reading the main story “Start QuotePrisoners, we look at them as heroes, people who sacrificed years of their lives for others”
End Quote Nidal al-Azraq Brother of Palestinian prisoner
But rights groups have also investigated certain interrogation centres where detainees have no access to lawyers and are harshly treated. They described them being held in isolation in tiny windowless cells with poor hygiene. Such conditions are similar to those in which Gilad Shalit is assumed to be kept.
There is widespread frustration among Palestinians about the recent direction of Israeli public debate on prisoners.
Israel recently arrested several activists in the West Bank who had been taking part in non-violent protests against the separation barrier, settlements and occupation.
In the village of Nabi Saleh, 20km (12 miles) north-west of Ramallah, two cousins Bassem and Naji Tamimi, were arrested in March on charges of organising unauthorised marches, incitement and solicitation to throw stones.
The men are being prosecuted in Israeli military courts and human rights groups question key evidence in the case.
“We have been trying to make the whole world see the Palestinian people are not terrorists. It is our right to demonstrate against the occupation in a peaceful way,” says a relative, Iyad Tamimi.
Others in the West Bank complain of difficulties visiting their relatives in Israeli jails despite assistance from the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC).
Ghazali Sarahna is growing up in the West Bank without her parents who are in Israeli jails
Ten-year-old Ghazali Sarahna lives with her grandparents in the Duheisha refugee camp near Bethlehem.
She was a baby when her parents were convicted of transporting a suicide bomber to Rishon Lezion, south of Tel Aviv, where he killed two Israelis. Her mother insists she did not know of her husband’s plans.
“It gives Ghazali psychological problems,” says Zeinab, the girl’s grandmother. “She never had a chance to build a relationship with her mother and it’s extremely hard for her to see her parents in jail.”
The grandmother says Ghazali is often turned back at the Israeli checkpoint as she doesn’t have an Israeli identity card. She herself was once beaten by the soldiers, the grandmother adds.
“Now [Ghazali] says it’s torture whether [she] stays or goes to the prison,” the grandmother says.
National heroes
For Nidal al-Azraq, from the nearby Aida Camp, incarceration is the high price to be paid for political activism.
Continue reading the main story Key termsAdministrative detention – part of Israel’s military legislation in the West Bank. Allows detention without charge or trial, authorised by administrative order rather than judicial decree. Used to detain thousands of Palestinians over the years, sometimes for several yearsInternment of unlawful combatants law – used to detain Palestinians from Gaza without trial since Israel’s 2005 withdrawal from the territoryMilitary justice system – generally used to prosecute Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza. Activists say this offers fewer rights and less protection to defendants. Arab-Israelis and East Jerusalemites are usually prosecuted in Israel’s criminal courts
“Prison is really tough,” he says. “The living conditions, the interrogation techniques. Many prisoners died. Look how many are very sick or blind. But in the end it’s a step of resistance towards freedom from the occupation.”
All of Mr al-Azraq’s siblings have been detained at some point. His brother, Khaled, was accused of organising attacks on the Israeli army. His latest jail term began in 1991.
“Prisoners, we look at them as heroes, people who sacrificed years of their lives for others,” Mr al-Azraq says.
Such is the high esteem in which Palestinian detainees are held that many continue to wield great influence behind bars.
Some Palestinian analysts warn that making their living conditions worse could prove counter-productive in efforts to free Gilad Shalit.
A few left-wing Israeli commentators urge their politicians not to copy Hamas. They argue a society is judged by the way it treats its prisoners.
=================================
7. Al Jazeera,
06 Jul 2011
What is the ‘right’ type of resistance?
Media coverage of the Palestinian resistance movement is shaped to fit the Western narrative of nonviolence.
Even when Palestinians resist nonviolently, the Israeli response is always violent [GALLO/GETTY]
Over the past few months, several international media outlets have published articles fixating on the so-called “new” Palestinian nonviolent movement. Two fallacies have accompanied such reporting and analysis. First the use of the term “nonviolent” and its connotations; and second, the narrative surrounding the movement.
Unfortunately, the source of these articles is often respected media outlets that have reported fairly on the Palestinian cause, including Al Jazeera English.
The latest articles in the series are Al Jazeera English’s “Green shoots emerge at Qalandia checkpoint”, the Economist blog’s “Here comes your non-violent resistance”, and Time magazine’s “Palestinian Border Protests: The Arab Spring model for confronting Israel”.
The articles are replete with quotes such as “but the traditional resistance of burning tires and throwing stones will not change overnight. We need to give the world a picture of nonviolent Palestinian resistance”, and “we’re going to continue marching in nonviolence until it is very clear in the international media who is violating human rights”.
#1: There is no such thing as Palestinian “nonviolent” resistance
To start with, the danger of using the term “nonviolent resistance” insinuates that any other form of resistance is violent, hence giving it a negative undertone.
In Arabic, Palestinians do not distinguish between violent and non-violent resistance, but rather between armed resistance and popular resistance. The Palestinian people and political factions have relied on both forms, as well as others, throughout the past century.
In fact, and unlike other colonial schemes in South Africa or Algeria, the goal of the Zionist colonial plan is to uproot and ethnically cleanse Palestine of its indigenous people – hence, by simply existing and standing firm on their land, Palestinians are actually resisting.
While I don’t mean to advocate for a specific form of resistance here, there must be a clear distinction between two different notions.
On the one hand, there are attempts to impose the idea that nonviolence is the only form of resistance “allowed”, thus falsely implying that all other forms of resistance are violent, immoral or illegal. On the other hand, a general consensus views resistance as a legitimate right of the Palestinian people, as it is the right of any people living under oppression, colonisation and foreign occupation.
According to this view, popular resistance is perceived to be more effective than armed resistance at this stage of struggle. Because of the discrepancy between these two statements, the term “violent” has been extended to reach the throwing of stones at Israeli tanks or heavily armoured military checkpoints.
Many different forms of popular resistance characterised the first Intifada, including children jumping from house to house during curfew hours to provide sugar and flour to neighbors; youth playing soccer on the edges of streets so as to warn graffiti writers when a military vehicle was passing through; volunteer work; commercial strikes and boycotts; as well as mass protests that included throwing stones at army outposts and military vehicles.
The fact is, facing a brutal war machine with stones is but a symbolic gesture. It is a symbol of the vast discrepancy in power between the Palestinian people and Israel’s war machine.
Stones aimed at Israeli tanks or other armed vehicles were a means for the unarmed indigenous people of Palestine to demonstrate their refusal of occupation and oppression. Youth, women, the elderly and all sectors of society participated in this form of resistance.
Stones could be violent, however, when used systematically by Israeli soldiers to smash Palestinians’ limbs, as part of a policy ordered by Yitzhak Rabin, then Israeli minister of defence, to “break their bones”. The Knesset refused to even investigate Rabin’s order, and he was never been held accountable.
Moreover, media outlets advocating for these nonviolent tactics have chosen to completely overlook the Boycott Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel. Although it does not fall under the two forms of resistance mentioned earlier, it can be only be categorised as a strictly non-violent tactic, aiming to pressure Israel to abide by its obligations under international law.
The overwhelming growth in the BDS movement, met with little to no coverage of its successes by most mainstream media outlets can only be an indicator of the hypocrisy of their coverage of Palestinian resistance: only shedding light on forms of resistance they categorise as relevant – or, dare I say, worthy.
Finally, it is important to comprehend the context of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict that is often called “complex”. In fact, and at the risk of oversimplifying, it is a conflict between an oppressor and an oppressed. Within that context the use of violence and force can be exemplified perfectly in the words of Paulo Freire:
“Never in history has violence been initiated by the oppressed. How could they be the initiators, if they themselves are the result of violence? How could they be the sponsors of something whose objective inauguration called forth their existence as oppressed? There would be no oppressed had there been no prior situation of violence to establish their subjugation. Violence is initiated by those who oppress, who exploit, who fail to recognise others as persons – not by those who are oppressed, exploited and unrecognised.”
#2: Western narrative and terminology
The second problem posed by this narrative and the discourse surrounding these articles is more significant and more worthy of criticism.
The articles present the current so-called nonviolent movement as the “correct” way to resist, where Palestinians’ choice of the correct resistance method will demonstrate our worthiness to be given our rights and independence.
Portraying our rights to freedom and self determination as contingent upon our chosen method of resistance is at best inaccurate, and at worst rather racist.
Implying that our rights have not been fulfilled because we have not demonstrated our worthiness of them relieves Israel of the need to uphold international law and grant us our basic rights, and also excuses Western hegemonies for awarding Israel full impunity to carry on with its violations and crimes.
It must be made clear that our right to return and to end Israel’s occupation, colonisation and apartheid are guaranteed by international conventions, and their fulfillment is an obligation – irrespective of the methods of resistance we choose to follow, or any other factors, for that matter.
In addition, suggesting that popular protest is a new phenomenon in Palestine where “the real Martin Luther King-style nonviolent Palestinian protestors have arrived” is a shameful distortion of facts by media outlets.
Resistance in Palestine, and particularly popular resistance, is more than a century old, where the overwhelming majority of resistance to Zionist colonisation, British rule, and later Israel’s oppression has taken the form of civil, popular uprisings. Palestinian popular resistance can only be Palestinian-style! Journalists need to abandon lazy journalism, and expand their memory-span to more than ten years.
Thus we are allowed to follow Western values and figures, or the footsteps of those whoever they find acceptable, such as Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr (MLK). While everyone is waiting for the next “Palestinian Gandhi”, what if we want a Palestinian Che Guevara or Malcolm X?
It was them, after all, who analysed and focused on the “international western power structure”, a structure that has only developed in influence and tools since the 50s and 60s. And while having the utmost respect for the satyagraha of Gandhi and MLK’s battle in the civil rights movement, Palestinians need not look far to find role models within Palestine’s history and heritage for alternative means of resistance.
In this issue, as in others, the hypocrisy of Western hegemonic powers is prevalent.
Democracy is only acceptable if the outcomes are what they have chosen – only neoliberal economic policies that please the real axis of evil (World Bank, International Monetary Fund, and the World Trade Organisation) are allowed in developing countries; and queer communities around the world must follow Western mechanisms of pride and advocacy.
Though these are all apparently different issues, the same paradigm applies to all of them: Western hegemonic ideologies and forms of action are used to measure the legitimacy of others that are suggested around the world.
Particularly for Palestinians, narrative is one of the key issues.
Israel has the world in its hands, not because it is threatening them by force or military power, but because it controls the discourse. That is why when a group of Israelis harass Palestinians and plot to assassinate a head of mosque they are referred to in the media as “mobsters and gangs”, or mentally unstable such as Baruch Goldstein – never as “terrorists” or “extremists”.
This is similar to the indirect control processes applied throughout hundreds of years of colonialism, the same trope has been used to reinforce the coloniser’s power: the primitive barbarians vs the enlightened people.
A recent ad campaign in the US demonstrates this, it reads: “In any war between the civilised man and the savage, support the civilised man. Support Israel. Defeat Jihad.”
It is our role as Palestinians to be aware of the narrative distortions and to fight against that discourse. If we succeed, it would be much harder for someone such as Binyamin Netanyahu to humiliate the Palestinian people and the so-called Palestinian “leadership” in front of the US congress as he did so recently.
The ‘right’ form of resistance?
While there is no question that, within Palestinian society, all forms of resistance to oppression must be respected and valued, it is crucial not to be dragged into the Western narrative, especially since a large number of us among the nation’s youth are already exposed to it by the media, the internet or via studying abroad.
The idea that there is only one “right” way of resistance or that armed and popular resistance are contradictory is false (or at least lacks historical evidence) if a simple review of colonial history is applied (Algeria, South Africa, etc).
The priority nowadays, indeed, should be to widely engage all movements, groups, and individuals in the demand to produce a new legitimate leadership institution that represents all Palestinians regardless of their venue. That body would be able to democratically (and internally) identify the most potent form of resistance.
In the aforementioned articles, Palestinian participants in popular protests are often quoted in a manner such as: “If some teenagers threw rocks, they had apparently failed to attend the workshops on nonviolence the organisers had arranged”, and that they “insist no stones were thrown until Israeli troops fired tear gas, and then only by adolescents”.
These statements show Palestinian protesters to be apologetic for the symbolic gesture of throwing stones – and this is at the expense of questioning the very presence of Israel’s occupation forces.
History has shown that Israel’s use of extreme violence is a constant – irrespective of the violent or nonviolent actions of Palestinians. It is crucial we realise that throughout the years of our struggle against Zionism and colonialism, the Zionist response to all the various forms of resistance was, in essence, the same – violence.
Sixty years ago, forty years ago, in the first and second Intifadas, and in the recent “peaceful” marches, the Israeli response was always violence and bloodshed – young men and women have been shot with live and rubber-coated ammunition, beaten with clubs and suffocated by toxic gas.
It would be naive to expect the Israeli response to differ in the future, nor would it be required to resist nonviolently to show the ugly face of Israeli occupation – since it is demonstrated in every single action of Palestinian daily life.
Regardless of our strategy, Israel will continue to deny our existence as a nation, will not admit the ethnic cleansing it committed in 1948, and will continue its suppressive measures of oppression against Palestinians everywhere.
It is our role to focus on our similarities and points of agreement about resistance rather than our differences.
The Palestinian people must mobilise around resisting Israeli apartheid through a program that is generated from a discussion within a truly representative body – which is only possible through direct elections for a new Palestinian National Council (PNC).
Ibrahim Shikaki is a UC Berkeley graduate. He works as an associate researcher at the Palestine Economic Research Institute (MAS) and is a Ramallah-based youth organiser.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent Al Jazeera’s editorial policy.
