gaza in my heart, and on my mind: israel

Imminent is a unilateral ceasefire. As my friend assured me the other night that it would, it comes just before Barack Obama's inauguration and a hazy future of Israeli-American relations. Hazy in that Israel is unsure if it will receive a carte-blanche of destruction from the US government anymore. The relationship between these two nations will continue strong, while others (Mauritenia, Qatar, Syria, Bolivia, and Venezuela) have severed ties with Israel in protest of its inhumane attacks on Gaza. So Israel crammed this 3 week war in, just when Bush was fading out of public view and would surely not take any sort of action against them, and Obama--with his promises of "hope and change"-- had not yet assumed power.

Israel and the United States have signed an agreement for Gaza's border, in which the US will provide "technical assistance" to ensure that Gaza will "never again be used as a launching pad against Israeli cities", as Rice stated. Not, predictably, to ensure that Gaza will never again be starved, occupied, and strangled. It is certainly welcome news that Israel will soon cease its indefatigable attacks on the people of Gaza. God knows they need rest from bombs, shelling, blood, death, and destruction. But, as before-- this ceasefire agreement seems to be missing one key element...the consultation and agreement of Palestinians. Israel and the United States talk, and make agreements which shape the lives (and deaths) of Palestinians, without setting aside their colonialist ideals and taking seriously the words of the Palestinians. Israel runs on unilateral decisions-- its withdrawal fromg Gaza in 2005, its construction of the Apartheid Wall.

These unilateral, and bilateral decisions with the States, will not and cannot lead to any real peace. Palestinians, in the case of the Gaza attacks, Hamas, must have an equally respected and weighted voice in the outcomes of the land. Whether or not Israel likes it, whether or not Israel bombs the hell out of Gaza and builds innumberable illegal settlement-colonies in the West Bank, Palestinians exist. This is the problem Israel has faced since before its creation. Palestinians exist. When Palestinians are consulted, during "negotiations", Israel increases settlement building, continues the construction of the Apartheid Wall, continues demolishing homes, and jailing youth. But far too often-- during these episodes of bloody violence-- Palestinian representatives are not taken seriously in the creation of a cessation of violence. It just does not make sense-- you cannot create a real peace without legitimately and seriously talking with one of the two peoples involved. The US is not being bombed. The US is not being starved. The US has electricity and fuel and functioning hospitals. The US is not watching its children dying continuously with no ability to help them. Gaza is. The US should not replace Palestine in agreements, but should complement them (in absence of any real unbiased mediator). Sidestepping Palestinians reeks of colonialism, when Europeans would decide the fates of the dark, colonized "natives"-- drawing up borders that pleased their own interests, rather than those of the indigenous people, and placing sychophantic leaders, rather than democratically elected leaders from the people (ahem, Hamas). And we all know how well that policy worked out.

A real agreement must include the people of Gaza, the representatives of the people of Gaza. Hopefully Obama's administration will realize that in the case of Palestine-Israel, 3 is company, 2 is ineffective.

gaza attacks, day 22

The Palestinians say: 'This is a war of extermination'
(Ahdaf Soueif, Guardian)

How many divisions?
(Uri Averny, Gush Shalom)

How to sell ethical warfare
(Neve Gordon, Guardian...read this then #3)

'We are creating suicide bombers from the sons of the dead'
(Guardian, on Israeli soldiers who refuse to serve in the army)

Trauma and terror in Gaza
(Sami Abdel Shafi (in Gaza), Guardian)

Fresh evidence of Israeli phosphorous use in Gaza emerges
(Guardian)

Qatar, Mauritania cut ties with Israel
(al Jazeera english)

Time for Israel to be put on trial
(Elna Sondergaard, EI)

Doctor's loss caught on video
(video, al Jazeera English...he was lucky enough to have an Israeli contact, what of the other fathers who have lost their children?)

The plot against Gaza
(Johnathon Cook, EI)

Israel shells UN school in Gaza
(al Jazeera english)

When it comes to Gaza, leave the Second World War out of it
(Robert Fisk)

Wednesday, January 14, 2009

the times they are a-changin'

In Bob Dylan's immortal words...

Come writers and critics
Who prophesize with your pen
And keep your eyes wide
The chance won't come again
And don't speak too soon
For the wheel's still in spin
And there's no tellin' who
That it's namin'.
For the loser now
Will be later to win
For the times they are a-changin'.

Indeed, this time around, in this invasion, public opinion is shifting. Or rather, those who were more reticent to voice their opinions are finding the courage to vocalize their horror. This time around. Increasingly, the words of "holocaust" and "concentration camp"are being applied to the carnage in imprisoned gaza. It took 1,010 dead Palestinians in 19 days, for public spokespersons to find their courage. Now we know at least the level of atrocity that provokes (some) public figures out of their silence. This word of holocaust-- long monopolized by the Jewish community-- is being vocally applied to Gaza. A member of the Vatican recently remarked that Gaza was increasingly resembling a concentration camp. Even the Israeli government, in early spring of 2008, warned of holocaust-like response to Gaza if rocket fire did not cease. This word, a taboo for so long, is finding its way out of the mouths of public figures in response to Gaza, and into public discourse. It is beginning. I recently saw the Israeli film Waltz with Bashir, in which one of the main characters describes the Sabra and Shatila massacres as reminiscent of images of concentration camps. Even within Israeli society there is a shift. Maybe now we can begin to apply this word to other appropriate situations, or dissect its meaning and how we use it. Is "holocaust" synonymous with "ethnic cleansing"? in which case there are a plethora of other historical holocausts. Or does it describe the perversely systematic nature of the experience? To hold the Jewish Holocaust, as horrific as it was, as the singular, apex of human suffering and barbarity is to continuously cast Jews as victims of persecution. And yes, there remains in the world a horrible level of anti-Jewishness. But by constantly evoking this image of Jewish suffering, one regards Jews as the victims of terrible oppression, which they were...but forgets that some Jews are now turning around and becoming oppressors. It somehow exonerates them from treating Palestinians with humanity. This experience, this word, exculpates them in the eyes of the world from gross human rights abuses and war crimes, constantly victimizing them. And that is what pains me so much sometimes, to know that a people who know this suffering...they can then inflict it upon others. But as they say, "history is doomed to repeat itself."

It has taken this level of barbarity for the international community to (sort of) find its voice and say "this time, Israel has gone too far." Not the other times-- 1,000+ dead Lebanese was easier to swallow because it took 33 days to get there. Not when Israel pounded Gaza in 2006, then also killing entire families with one bomb. Now we have an established baseline of outrage-- 1000 in 19 days. An exchange rate of aproximately 53 Palestinians killed each day.

So now some writers are questioning Israel's response and challenging whether this is an "appropriate" level of retaliation. Now they are able to find their voices. Now they are able to say that this is not "acceptable"-- by their standards, for it's always these Western figures who determine the level of "acceptable" numbers of deaths for the non-West, isn't it? How gross. Perhaps, perhaps, a positive outcome of this latest incursion will be that people will be able to voice criticism of Israel's inhumane, illegal actions and not be labeled anti-semetic (which is a misnomer as Semetic describes Jews and Arabs...two people linked from way back. So when you say "anti-semetic" you are refering to discrimination against the Semetic people, who are Arab and Jewish). Maybe standing up for human rights won't mean you are ostracized for your "radical" views. Maybe. I hope so, I hope some positive change comes out of the deaths in Gaza. Maybe the communities fighting for Palestinian rights will become more organized so WE don't let this happen again. Maybe more writers will find the courage to vocalize their condemnation of Israel's actions. Maybe people around the world will continue to see the real images of dead Palestinian children that give them pause to reconsider their inclination of "Israel has the right to defend itself." So keep your eyes wide, though the chance may come again.

Tuesday, January 13, 2009

gaza attacks, day 18

Mideast Dream Team? Not Quite
(Roger Cohen, NYT)

Gaza, day by day
(the interactive guide to Gaza)

Gaza Diary: Are we not human?
(read this for a very real feeling of the fear and sense of injustice plaguing Palestinians in Gaza)

Gazans trapped in no man's land between fire, farmland
(Amira Hass for Ha'aretz)

Who will save Israel from itself?

Israel is targetting medics

Gaza survival
(2 minute video)

Demands grow for Gaza war crimes investigation

We believe in resistance, not revenge
(Basim Naim, Minister of Health in Gaza government of Hamas. This posting is not a show of support for Hamas, but I think it is important to hear what Hamas representatives have to say to get a balanced understanding of the players involved.)

Monday, January 12, 2009

the oppressed must bear the burden of liberating themselves, politely and inoffensively.

at a protest yesterday against israel's continuing violence in gaza, a group of guys next to me started chanting "long live the intifada! long live the intifada!" (for those who don't know, 'intifada' means 'uprising' in Arabic)...and i thought how easy it is for us, over here, far far far away from hunger, true cold, and bombs to vocally support another uprising, without ourselves suffering any of the consequences of it directly. perhaps their call was for literally, another uprising. maybe they were chanting to lend their support to any sort of continued palestinian resistance--armed, intellectual, artistic...whatever form it might take...subsumed under the title of intifada.

peter beaumont wrote today in the guardian of the merits of armed resistance. for as long as i've been critically engaged in the palestinian struggle, i've tried to formulate one opinion on armed resistance-- good or bad? right or wrong? moral or immoral? and still, after years, it is grey in my mind. i know i don't believe in violence as means to an end. i have deep moral qualms about the taking of another person's life, even if that person has committed haneous, unforgivable crimes. i am not comfortable with violence of any form-- physical, emotional, psychological...but at the same time, i know that no resistance movement has ever suceeded which did not have aspects of it which were militant or violent. every independence movement i know of included factions which embraced violence-- from the Black civil rights movement in the US to the Indian independence movement to the anti-apartheid struggles of Africans in South Africa. struggles have always included an array of resistance strategies and actions. Even Patrick Henry, as we learned in 4th grade American history class, espoused the desire, "give me liberty or give me death!"...a life without liberty is none at all...so how do you acheive it? i don't know...

beaumont poses the question, "when do we regard armed resistance as being acceptable?"...which glosses over the fact that "armed resistance" implies that there is something to resist against-- implicit in this question is the acknowledgement that there is an oppressive force which merits resistance...armed or not being the focus of this postulation. and again the onus is borne upon the shoulders of the oppressed to fight their oppression and subjugation in terms acceptable to "the free world" and the judging allies of its oppressors. the oppressed must bear the burden of liberating themselves, politely and inoffensively.

so in turn, i would pose the question, "when do we regard oppression as being acceptable?"

Saturday, January 10, 2009

gaza attacks, day 15

The time of righteousness
(by Gideon Levy...READ THIS ONE)

If you (or I) were Palestinian

a week in Rafah

Israel: Boycott, Divest, Sanction

Tired Middle East comparisons
(Robert Fisk)

Friday, January 9, 2009

gaza attacks, day 14

CNN and Mustafa Barghouti on who broke the ceasefire

Mark Regev interview
(with real questions..around minute 9)

Israel shelled Gazans after evacuating them, UN says

Rafah razed

Not in my name
(Jewish voice of dissent against Israel's bombardment)

the children
(they wonder where the hate comes from...it comes from bombs)

A Jew's prayer for the children of Gaza
(read after the pictures)

gaza in my heart, and on my mind

Tuesday, February 10, 2009

gaza aftermath, day 23

Thursday, February 5, 2009

gaza aftermath, day 19

Tuesday, February 3, 2009

gaza aftermath, day 17

Sunday, February 1, 2009

gaza aftermath, day 15

Friday, January 30, 2009

gaza aftermath, day 13

Wednesday, January 28, 2009

gaza aftermath, day 11

Saturday, January 17, 2009

3's company? not with Israel