NOVANEWS
Wednesday, March 13, 2013
1 Are Israel’s refusers modern day heroes?All facets of refusal may be instrumental in changing the conscription process and refusal to serve in the Israeli military is not always the outcome of opposing the Occupation. It takes courage and demands fortitude and wide support.
http://972mag.com/are-israels-refusers-modern-day-heroes/67525/
By Ruth L. Hiller
Natan Blanc (courtesy of the family) [use link to see photo. D]
Different people refuse to enlist in Israel’s occupation army for a variety of reasons. Some of them, like Natan Blanc, publicly refuse to serve in the occupation and are willing to go to jail over their decision.
A recent blog post by professor of Environmental Studies at Emory College Uriel Kitron, raised some very important points regarding militarism, refusal, and war culture in Israel and puts forward a good opportunity to look at the wider refusal movement.
Professor Kitron presents his admiration and respect for Natan Blanc, who as of this writing, is serving his seventh incarceration period for refusing to be conscripted. Many people, much like Professor Kitron, consider Natan a modern day hero. He is indeed brave. It is admirable that any 18-year-old Israeli would know so much about human rights, and stand true to his/her convictions and beliefs.
Professor Kitron stresses how Natan is a product of his environment. His family raised him to be a caring person with ideals, and an understanding of human rights. There is a lot to be said for the courage it took to let Natan develop his sense of values, ones that cherishes human life and recognize the Palestinian right to self-determination. This is not a given in Israel.
Without personally knowing the Blancs, I admire the ethics that enabled Natan to question Israel’s policies and to make the decision to refuse military service. I identify with his moral values and the way he was raised. I know it is not easy to develop a critical perspective on Israel’s occupation policies, and that it is even more challenging to encourage your children to do so. It is difficult and energy consuming to continually question and oppose Israel’s brutal policies, especially when indoctrination is ever present.
Refusers like Natan, who openly oppose conscription on those grounds, are far and few between — for good reason. But before we can even begin to examine who chooses to be a refuser and how refusal is manifested, it is important to understand that within Jewish Israeli society, conscription is mandatory by law for Jewish youth, and for young secular men from the Druze community. It is perceived as normal and part of the development of Israeli youth; a rite of passage, meant to instill a sense of national responsibility, service and pride.
Israeli society is brutal and judgmental; loyalty to the state is measured by one’s commitment to military service. It is frightening to step outside the consensus of what is considered acceptable behavior by daring to refuse. A sense of belonging is an essential human need and deciding to go without it requires strength and support. Most refusers don’t want to be isolated from their peer group and if they choose to make a political statement link Natan, they require a close support network.
Among the large number of refusers whom New Profile counsels (an average of 100-110 people a month), most choose not to make a declared political refusal for a variety of reasons. They are not as visible as Natan, but are their refusals less meaningful?
Militarism is strongly embedded in our society: it starts at home and continues with our children’s education. Personally I think there is something very warped in the way Israeli parents are expected to raise their children, nurture them and protect them, teach them to be safe and make rational decisions, and then once they are 18, as if feeding them to the wolves, we send them off to the military no questions asked. What is the price that we and our children pay?
We, as parents, are an integral part of this well-oiled induction system. We are obedient to our leaders and raise generation after generation of fighters for a “war of no choice.” Our compliance is rarely questioned.
Conscription inspires pride amongst parents; military rank brings social status, placing soldiers on a pedestal. This idealization can be compared to hero-worship.
What constitutes a hero? Our children are brought up on the remembrance of exile and the Holocaust, Israel’s fight for independence and our perceived need to be stronger than our enemies. They are taught that soldiers can be national heroes. Those that die in battle are often given exalted status, which gives a measure to death that is considered more worthy. They are raised on the belief embodied in Joseph Trumpeldor’s imputed last words: “It is good to die for your country.”
New Profile examines “what is heroism” and “who is a hero” through a balanced discourse. We are careful not to identify refusers through a hierarchy. Each refuser, both men and women, whether they are pre-conscripts, conscripts, or reservists, are welcomed and admired for the type of refusal they chose and the path they take to achieve their goal.
Some of the viewpoints that we consider are: does civil society necessarily have to reflect the accepted militarized hierarchical ranks and then emulate it with the different ways refusers choose to resist? Is it right to calculate measures of sacrifice, be it jail or being cut off from one’s community? If every hero is judged on his or her merits, should we do the same with refusers?
All facets of refusal may be instrumental in changing the conscription process, or chip away at occupation policies, and we do not advise what path should be chosen. We only map out the different options . If they choose to openly defy the Occupation and go to jail, we give them as much support as we can, rather than holding them up as examples for others.
Refusal to serve in the Israeli military is not always the outcome of opposing the Occupation. Other reasons for refusal may be pacifism, the interconnection between feminism and anti-militarism, religion and national identity. Sometimes young people are unable to define “what feels wrong,” yet they still opt to vote with their feet and don’t conscript.
Any action that challenges Israel’s policies and all choices to refuse to do military service demand fortitude and support. Refusal takes great courage. One refuser is not better than the next; each is significant in his/her own way and each way works effectively in growing an underground movement that successfully manages to shake the pillars of the establishment from time to time.
Ruth Hiller, mother of six, is a longtime peace activist and one of the original founders of New Profile. Four of her children have refused to serve in the Israeli military. You can follow her on Twitter @hillerruth.
2 Haaretz
March 12, 2013
Palestinians to High Court: Israel’s West Bank land claim will cut Bethlehem off from south
Israel’s High Court of Justice is to rule on the state’s right to declare ownership of 1,000 acres of undeveloped land located in West Bank settlement of Efrat, which Palestinians say belong to them.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/palestinians-to-high-court-israel-s-west-bank-land-claim-will-cut-bethlehem-off-from-south.premium-1.508988
By Amira Hass
Mar.12, 2013
The Ramat Zayit neighborhood of Efrat. Photo by Emil Salman
The Israeli government is seeking a ruling from the High Court of Justice on Wednesday that would permit it to declare ownership of a large swath of land in the West Bank settlement of Efrat.
The Palestinian petitioners in the case are seeking to head off such a declaration, claiming they own the land. Local Palestinians have also expressed concern that if the land is claimed by the state, Efrat will be expanded and Bethlehem will ultimately be cut off from Palestinian towns to the south.
The land in question spans about 1,000 undeveloped acres within the municipal boundaries of Efrat.
In 2004, the twelve petitioners, who are from Bethlehem and the village of Nahleh, learned that about 325 acres of land, of which they each claim to own part, was about to be declared state land. They then filed an appeal with the military appeals court in an attempt to counter Israel’s denial of their ownership rights. The state based its position on a claim that all or part of the parcels had been unfarmed over a 10-year period and were not registered with the Land Registry Office.
For their part, the petitioners argued that in the 1990s and the first decade of the 2000s, residents of Efrat had denied them access to the land and attempted to build a road through it.
A double standard?
Wednesday’s session before the High Court is the fourth on the matter since it accepted the case in 2009. In the course of the legal proceedings, it became clear that a Jewish-owned parcel of about 25 acres was not being declared state land even though it had not been cultivated or officially registered. The petitioners’ lawyer, Sani Khoury, cited this as evidence that the state had intended all along to expropriate the land his clients claim as their own and transfer it to Jews. If true, this would make the declaration of state ownership of the land invalid under the law.
About two months ago, Israel – which says its declaration of ownership of the land is in accordance with the prevailing law in the West Bank and the past decisions of the High Court – announced it was reducing its claim by about 74 acres, excluding a parcel adjacent to student dormitories at Bethlehem University.
The land, known in Efrat as Har Eitam, is located about 1.5 kilometers from the developed part of the settlement, with the Palestinian villages of Nahleh and Wad Rahal in between. A corridor of about 37 acres that runs through the state-claimed part of the land has for some time been registered to Himnuta, a subsidiary of the Jewish National Fund.
In the two decades following the Six-Day War, Jewish land dealers bought land in the area under the guise of Himnuta. In 2011, the Israel Defense Forces gave Efrat permission to establish a farm on the Himnuta-owned land. But it was only accessible through other land claimed by individual Palestinians from Bethlehem and Nahleh.
Contesting history
In November 2012 and again in February 2013, several residents of Efrat, including a security officer who is well-known in Nahleh, attempted to create an access road to the farm. Residents of Nahleh blocked the road and declared it off limits to the settlers.
In 2002 and 2009, settlers also tried to build a road across the land in two places to connect Efrat with the settlement of Tekoa, about 4.5 kilometers to the east. Palestinians in the area again thwarted the attempts, and in 2010, an indictment for trespassing was even filed against a man involved in the effort to build a road.
Residents of Bethlehem and Nahleh have expressed concern that in the prevailing political atmosphere in Israel, Efrat will be allowed to continue to expand eastward, limiting the development of Palestinian towns in the area and separating Bethlehem from Palestinian villages to the south. There is also still concern over efforts to build a road between Efrat and Tekoa.
Dror Etkes, who has researched Israeli control of land in the West Bank, said a final declaration of the disputed land as state land and the building of roads by settlers would be another step in encircling the major Palestinian towns in the area – Bethlehem, Beit Sahour and Beit Jala – through the expansion of settlements, military camps and limitations on movement where there is full Israeli control.
+++
3 Today in Palestine
March 12, 2013
http://blog.theheadlines.org/theHead/