semitism.net

It’s Andrew’s mom here, blogging for the first time ever. What brings me to this is a very intense three days spent in the company of Elik Elhanan and Souliman Al-Hamri, the Israeli and Palestinian coordinators of Combatants for Peace, who were here (in Western Massachusetts) as part of a 22-city tour sponsored by Brit Tzedek v’Shalom. I was fortunate enough to get to spend a lot of time with Elik and Souliman, including a one-hour drive to Stockbridge when my husband and I took them to meet up with their contact for Albany, NY, for the next stop in their tour.
The Combatants for Peace movement (abbreviated from now on as C4P) is a joint initiative of Palestinians and Israelis who have in the past used violence against one another — the Israelis during their army service, and the Palestinians in a variety of ways in their struggle against the Occupation. Each of the combatants arrived at the personal decision to renounce violence for different reasons: a sudden revelatory moment when the “enemy” turned out to be little children playing in the sand; a long prison term in which time for reflection led to a choice to work for peace rather than perpetuate violence; the realization that to take revenge for one death only led to more killing, more deaths.
Elik’s sister was killed by a suicide bomber, but he says he does not want anyone else to die “in her name.” Souliman spent 4 years in an Israeli prison, during which time he resolved to pursue his education when he got out, and to find non-violent ways to work toward freedom and justice for the Palestinians. As the organization’s brochure says, “After brandishing weapons for so many years, and having seen one another only through weapon sights, we have decided to put down our guns, and to fight for peace.”
When they arrived here, Elik and Souliman were reeling under the news they’d just received that the 10-year-old daughter of Bassam Ariman, a colleague of theirs from C4P, had been killed by an as-yet undetermined object that struck her in the head as she left her schoolyard and went to buy candy at a store nearby. There was a demonstration of some sort going on nearby and the Israeli Border Police were firing rubber bullets and lobbing stun grenades. Palestinian boys were, in response, throwing rocks. Elik and Souliman were visibly shaken when they informed their audiences of what had happened. It has since hit the news, with the father being interviewed on All Things Considered [1/22], and an article in today’s New York Times [1/23]. There was, and to date [1/23] still is, a question as to whether the child was hit by the grenade or a rock. Her family is pressing for an investigation, which they rightly deserve. But in my view, which weapon actually killed Abir Ariman doesn’t matter. The cause of her death is the Occupation, period. It is to her father’s enormous credit that he says her death will only make him work harder for peace, and to continue to renounce violence as the way to achieve justice. And it is to Elik’s and Souliman’s credit that they continued with their tour, still able to talk about dialogue, about a search for peace, about justice for the Palestinians, and about remaining committed to non-violence.
But these are not naive or unrealistic men. Elik’s criticism of the Israeli government’s policies in the Occupied Territories was devestating and harsh, as was his commentary about the treatment of Israeli Arabs within Israel. Souliman, who is an administrator in Fatah, was somewhat more restrained (perhaps because he was aware that he was talking to Jewish audiences and felt he needed to be more tactful), but he presented these audiences with a view of a Palestinian that they rarely, if ever, get. In fact, one of the most common responses I’ve gotten from friends and acquaintances whenever I talk about the various peace movements here and in Israel goes something like: “Fine, but they’re all Jews, or all Israelis. Where are the Palestinian peaceniks?” For anyone who came to the four events we held with Elik and Souliman (a talk in Amherst open to the public, a meeting with students at the local high school, a brunch with invited community Jewish leaders, and a Shabbat pot-luck dinner with members of the Jewish community at large), that question was answered.
Most of you who read this blog don’t need me to review the points they made about the terrible consequences of the Occupation. But there were a couple of particularly interesting responses to questions from the audience that are worth passing on.
When asked about the “problem” of demographics in Israel: i.e., the ratio of Jews to non-Jews, and how Israel will remain a “Jewish” state — (a topic on which I hope to blog in the future) — Elik said what the government really wants is not Jews per se, but “people like us,” meaning, as he explained, educated, European/Western middle class people. “Why else would they take 350,000 people from the Soviet Union,” he said, (many of whom were known even at the time to have lied about being Jewish in order to leave the USSR), “while they are now refusing to take 12,000 Ethiopian Jews who still want to come to Israel?” The “racism” is also “classism.” Elik pointed out that even Jews from the Arab countries are still treated like second-class citizens.
When asked about being a “refusnik” in Israel, Elik noted that a large number of Israeli kids are now getting out of military service by claiming everything from “sweaty palms,” to fear of showering with other men, to mental disability, to very minor physical ailments. The IDF is apparently allowing these kids to be excused from serving. “It’s very easy to get out of the Army,” Elik said. He gave some rather astounding percentages (something like 40%, but don’t quote me on this!) of how many kids either don’t serve at all, or get out of the service long before their tours of duty are completed. It’s striking to me that these young men don’t want to take a principled stand for their unwillingness to serve, but apparently don’t feel the need to “defend” their country, either. I didn’t get a chance to ask them about what the situation is for female recruits but it would be very interesting to have those statistics.
And lastly, Elik’s answer to the (of course expected) question about Jimmy Carter’s use of the term apartheid: “It is a foolish question to waste time on and detracts from the real issues. So in South Africa apartheid is ‘a, b, c and d.’ Maybe in Israel we don’t have that same pattern. Probably it is ‘a, b, f and g.’ Is it worth debating while people are dying?” (Thanks for this direct quote to Carolyn Toll Oppenheim, our chapter co-chair, who took extensive and detailed notes on Elik’s and Souliman’s talk.)
When asked about the rise in power of Hamas, Souliman said he felt it was the unilateral disengagement from Gaza that tipped the scales in favor of Hamas, since the Israelis still control the resources such as water and electricity, as well as travel both within and in and out of Gaza, etc., and there was no viable Palestinian-run infrastructure put in place in what was already a fairly chaotic situation.
Later, in our conversation in the car en route to Stockbridge, Souliman talked about the differences between the first and the second Intifadas. The first one, he said, was highly organized and well planned, with actions decided upon and executed under the general leadership of Fatah. There was much less violence, with strikes and other economic boycotts being used often and effectively. By the time of the second intifada, the unifying administrative infrastructure had been destroyed, primarily because of the fragmentation of Palestinian society resulting from the system of checkpoints throughout the Occupied Territories. Souliman explained that this fragmentation, as well as the disintegration of the economy, gave rise to old tribal and clan hegemonies within the towns and villages, which in turn stimulated old rivalries and led to the increased power of fringe groups within the political spectrum. He also commented that because of this factionalism, the second intifada has made much more use of violent tactics, which require only guns, not organization. “We were disciplined,” he said of his experience as a participant in the first intifada. “We were focused and united.”
Elik and Souliman were very, very well received on this stop of their tour, but that’s not surprising — we know we have a large segment of left-wing Jews here. But they said they were surprised and pleased to find their reception at the previous 8 cities (they have about 13 more to go on their tour) had also been largely positive. They were sure they’d be facing much more difficult audiences: they thought all American Jews were, as they put it, AIPAC supporters. So although one wishes that they were not preaching to the choir, it is nonetheless good to know that they are heartened by the amount of support they find here, and they feel they have been able to mobilize a lot of sympathizers to become more politically active. Although their public talk here in Western Mass. was in was in a “neutral” place (a community center, not a synagogue), they said all of their venues up until then had been synagogues, where they encountered only a very few instances of outright confrontation and hostility. That’s the hopeful part. The dismaying part is the rest of it. But if Elik, Souliman and Bassam Ariman can keep up the good fight, I guess I can too.