Archive for the 'The Settlements' Category

The Missing

Probably the best way to start this is with a short bit of accidental wisdom from my older son. I should also probably stop there, too, but since it works so well with my thoughts on my recent trip to Hebron, that I thought I would add the two together. It has been quite hard for me to think about what to say about the essential elimination of life in the Old City of Hebron, or how to say it. Luckily I can always count on the brilliance of a 2.5 year old to help me out of a jam.

We have been trying to teach Eli a bit of Hebrew, or at least get him comfortable with it (he can actually count all the way to arba-im (40) quickly and without a mistake). One of the books we have been reading with him over time is a Hebrew translation of Shel Silverstein’s classic “The Missing Piece.” We always read the Hebrew first, then explain what it means in English, trying to instill at least a few words. But he knows the title primarily in English (it’s a mouthful in Hebrew).

Then, the other day, his class at the YMCA had their end of the year party. So we decided this would be a good occasion to break out a t-shirt of his that we picked up at home awhile back; it’s a red children’s shirt that simply has “Peace,” “Shalom” (in Hebrew) and “Salaam” (in Arabic) on it.

When I put the shirt on him, he looked down and saw the writing.

“What does the shirt say, Papa?”

“‘Peace’, Eli. It says ‘peace’ in English, Hebrew and Arabic.”

“Oh.” Pause. “Like ‘The Missing Piece’?”

I laugh. I then shake my head at how ingenious this is. Then I realize he is still waiting for an answer. “Well, not like the piece missing from the circle in the book. This peace means when people don’t fight with each other. But it’s kind of like the piece in the book, because this kind of peace is also missing.”

“Oh. That peace on my shirt is also missing?”

“Sadly, it is.”

By this time, he was more interested in the Lego blocks he had built into a small column and called his “saxophone,” which he then started to play, so that was that. But it was one of those moments with your kids that you never forget.

And, as I said, it helped me focus on a lot that has been on my mind. Of course, in any place in the world, it’s still a cute story and probably one that any parent would be proud to retell. But here, it comes with so much more.

Because, at any point in time, it’s important not just to know that peace is missing, but why it’s missing. And that changes over time, and is always somewhat different depending on whether you are talking about political/governmental peace or person-to-person/societal peace. Although the former type is what we spend far too much time talking about, it is the latter that really counts, in my mind.

And that peace, the peace between people, is missing because when you are in Israel, the Palestinians are missing. Almost entirely.

And when you’re in Palestine (Eastern Palestine, anyway), although Israel is everywhere – in the form of Jewish-only settlements, Jewish-only roads, the Army, the Air Force and the Wall — and although Israeli soldiers and settlers are all around, the Israeli people with whom the Palestinians must make peace are also missing.

I have remarked on this in other posts from here, but nowhere was this more evident than in Hebron. The Old City of Hebron, the area of the once vibrant souq/casbah, is, quite simply, gone. Military orders, settler violence, settler expansionism, soldiers changing policies from day to day, decimation of the Palestinian economy. Put them all together and you have what I saw in Hebron – shops welded shut, houses empty, streets barren, markets looted, bushes and vines growing in the middle of once-busy streets. (The activists I went with even had pictures from 1999 to prove it, but my memories from being in these bustling areas in 1997 and 1998 were pretty vivid).

(If you want more info, there’s a lot out there. But Meretz USA has a good archive of recent articles and some background pieces at its “Hebron Watch” page. But if you want the full story in one place, look no further than this, as-usual incredible report from B’tselem from this past May.)

I wandered around much of the day taking pictures of essentially the same thing: missing-ness and emptiness. Empty streets. Empty sidewalks. Empty shops (except for those which have been confiscated by settlers to use as new apartments). As B’tselem called it so aptly, it is a ghost town.

Or, at least, a town of Palestinian ghosts, as they exist only in memory. The number of settlers in the city itself is still small (approximately 600 or so, but it gets much larger if you include the ever-expanding Kiryat Arba and other area settlements), but not only are their numbers and their efforts to confiscate Palestinian property increasing, they are ever-present through graffiti that defiles probably 50% of the now-closed shops.

Graffiti like:

“There are Arabs, there are rats.” (Makes more sense as graffiti in the Hebrew, as it’s a bit of a play on words: “Yesh Aravim, yesh achbarim”)

“Arabs to the gas chambers.”

“Arabs are sand n—ers.” (the one I saw of this is signed by the JDL, or Jewish Defense League)

And perhaps most startling to me was that within a 2-minute walk of graffiti saying “Arabs out” was a sign showing the names of the Jewish congregations in the U.S. that had helped support the Hebron settlements with an ambulance. And who knows what else.

Settlers and right-wing American Jews present. Violently and terribly present. Nearly all Palestinians missing.

Such violence and hatred in a city so holy, within view of the reputed tomb of our ancestors Abraham and Sarah, who kept their tent open on all sides to welcome visitors. What would Abraham and Sarah think of a city that had been closed off to its former Palestinian residents, but done in their names?

I still have chills from hearing the muezzin’s call to prayer from the Machpelah/Tomb of the Patriarchs and Matriarchs, which is now divided into a Jewish holy site and a mosque. What does it mean to hear the call to prayer when there is almost no one who can get there? After all, on one of the main streets that a Muslim could theoretically walk to in order to get to the mosque, I was stopped by a border policeman. And he asked me but one simple question.

“Are you Jewish?”

I hesitated. First because I hadn’t quite understood, or expected, the question. Then I realized what he was asking. And I hesitated again because those few hours had again shaken my beliefs, my understanding of Judaism.

Indeed, I had to answer “yes, I am a Jew” in order to even walk on this road.

Now, in the pre-Civil rights era U.S., unless you were participating in an action, the issue of which restaurant or hotel or drinking fountain you used was pre-determined, in some way, by circumstances and factors beyond your immediate control. Whether you were white or “colored” did not really need to be asked.

But, because I was not wearing a kippah or dressed in black and white, the answer was in my hands. And in some way, I reazlied that an answer of “yes, I am a Jew” was an answer of:

“Yes, I believe in segregation and transfer.”

“Yes, I believe I have the right to walk on this street, and the Palestinians who used to live here do not, nor should any other non-Jews.”

“Yes, I equate Judaism with the gun in your hands, with the settlers whom you protect, and with their ideology which you help implement.”

And, mostly because I am not quick enough on my feet (literally or figuratively) and my car was at the other end of this street, I, in fact, answered “yes.” And I am still thinking about everything it meant. And everything I would like it to mean.

But more than anything, I am thinking about the Palestinians I did not see. Those who are missing. In fact, they were also missing from much of the drive to Hebron. I even read in Ha’aretz that the Jewish National Fund, Ministry of Tourism, and Mount Hebron Regional Council are publishing tourist guides that describe the beauty of the region and its attractiveness as a hiking and travel getaway, in no small part because you can now go as a Jew without really having to encounter a Palestinian. The article is worth reading for some of the quotes, but I’ll excerpt this from the article:

In these publications, there is no separation wall, no bypass roads. There are no roadblocks set up next to almost every Palestinian village, limiting the residents’ freedom of movement to the point of feeling suffocated. There are no ridges that have been harmed to make way for settlements that look like fortified and alienated suburbs. There are no cave dwellers who have been banished from their homes on Mount Hebron, and no pupils who cannot go to school because their settler neighbors constantly harass them. No Palestinian communities appear on the map published in the booklet about the Hebron region.

The daily Palestinian nightmare gives way and disappears for the benefit of publications that realize the dreams of the Israeli hiker. Now, in addition to the transportation and security infrastructure that allows the Israeli tourist to avoid encountering nearly any Palestinians and only see their communities from afar, there is a marketing and publishing infrastructure. Awaiting the hiker, for the most part, is good food, amazing scenery and spectacular sunrises. The only thing that remains for Israeli hikers is simply to come, to forget all their troubles - and particularly those of the Palestinians.

More and more, Palestinians have simply been removed from the narrative in Israel, from the reality. They are somewhere else, on the other side of a wall, missing. And so too are the Israelis missing from the lives of Palestinians, whose reality grows more and more to be of one where Jews simply exist as Israeli soldiers, as settlers, as the American Jews who send money to support both groups (Friends of the IDF being the military support side).

As political developments evolve in Ramallah and Jerusalem and Gaza, as these discussions between leaders of peoples who do not exist for one another except in the media and in images of the past, I will wonder back to Hebron, wonder back to everything that is missing from this holy place. Palestinians are missing, Judaism is missing, Israelis are missing.

God is missing.

And ultimately, that is why the peace on my son’s t-shirt is missing. But perhaps, one day, like the circle in the Silverstein story, we’ll all find the right piece of peace.

To do that, of course, we have to find each other first.

Israel Issues Yet Another Settlement Tender

Here we go again. This morning I woke up to hear on NPR news that Ariel Sharon has announced he is willing to give up more territory to bring peace with the Palestinians. First story after the Tsunami anniversary. Hm. It’s not exactly news… his plan all along was to dismantle a few Jewish settlements in outlying areas of the West Bank that Israel doesn’t want. The real issues are around East Jerusalem and the huge settlement blocks that project from around Jerusalem almost to the Jordan River… |inline

Caught in the Act: Israeli Annexation Plan Documented by Brits

The New York Times and The Guardian are reporting today on a leaked British Foreign Office report that sketches out in stark detail Israel’s strategy for Judaizing Arab East Jerusalem in order to prevent it from becoming the capital of a Palestinian state in future negotations.  The report, prepared by the British consulate in Jerusalem, was presented at a meeting of the European Union foreign ministers, but was tabled at the request of the Italian representative (Italy being Israel’s most steadfast European ally).  According to the report, Israel is using settlement construction, the security barrier and the non-issuance of work and building permits to Arabs as a means of limiting Palestinian access to and residence in East Jerusalem: "the Jerusalem master plan has an explicit goal to keep the proportion of Palestinian Jerusalemites at no more than 30% of the total..."

|inline

The Real Jerusalem

If our names are indeed written in the book of life on Yom Kippur, and our fate ordained, then perhaps Kineret Mendel (23), her cousin Matat Rosenfeld-Adler (21 and newly married), and Oz Ben-Meir (14) were not meant to live out the year. Who, singing Avinu Malkeinu in synagogue, can guess that he will be murdered the following week..?

From the Washington Post report:

Palestinian gunmen killed three Israelis and wounded four others Sunday in drive-by shootings in the West Bank that officials on both sides said would probably hamper efforts to begin peace negotiations.

Only days before Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas was scheduled to meet President Bush in Washington, the armed wing of his Fatah movement asserted responsibility for the shootings…

The Post offers quotes from Israeli spokesmen, to the effect that Abbas is losing control of the Palestinian factions, and should move quickly to disarm them. The Boston Globe quotes Ghassan Khatib, a member of Abbas’ cabinet:

“In Palestine, Fatah people are divided and though Abu Mazen (Mahmoud Abbas) is relatively popular, he needs to be more decisive with his own faction,” he said in an interview.

Khatib said Abbas’s critics intended to weaken him before his meeting with Bush. “People in Washington should look at this incident as an attack physically on Israelis but politically on Abu Mazen…”

Only several paragraphs down in the Post article do we find out:

The late afternoon shootings came soon after an Israeli police patrol near the northern West Bank city of Jenin killed a military commander of Islamic Jihad, a smaller faction that like Hamas is at war with Israel.

Violence begets violence.

The Post reports that the shooting took place at “a bus stop popular with Israeli settlers hitchhiking south from Jerusalem”. The victims lived in Gush Etzion, a large settlement bloc outside Jerusalem. Settling this area is, by all accounts, a part of Israel’s strategy for annexing territory contiguous with Jerusalem.

The settlers are accustomed to traveling freely around the West Bank, on Jewish-only highways, guarded by watchtowers and gunposts. It’s easy to forget the Palestinians are there. Until they shoot at you.

From the Christian Science Monitor:

Although senior officials in the Palestinian Authority were quick to condemn the shooting, many Palestinians note that it did not take place in a vacuum.

Just last week, four Palestinians were killed in Israeli raids in the West Bank and Gaza, two of them children, according to the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights in Gaza…

“The Israelis want a cease-fire from the Palestinians, but also to reserve their unilateral right to keep going out on raids and continuing to kill,” says Ziad Abu Amar, a Palestinian legislator from Gaza. “If the Israelis continue to arrest and kill members of (militant groups), it will be embarrassing for others to just sit by and watch.”

Dr. Abu Amar, an author and expert on Hamas on other Palestinian militants, describes the situation as most Palestinians see it.

As long as Israel continues military activities in the West Bank, expands settlements, and keeps building the security barrier, he says, Palestinians will look at the horizon and see more intifada than peace process.

“Did the Israelis expect that once they leave Gaza they will get a license from the Palestinians to swallow up the West Bank? It’s fine to expect that the struggle over the West Bank will continue,” Amar says. “Palestinians will try to resist by using violence.”

What does it mean, that I cannot track down the names of the Palestinian children who were killed last week? It was barely covered.

We prefer to see the violence as one-sided, irrational - as stemming from an implacable Palestinian enmity to Israel, to peace.

We don’t want to see it as related to our own sin, coveting our neighbor’s land: the thing that started the settlement project in the first place.

YNet, reporting on the funeral:

In their eulogies, the family members mentioned their grandfather Eliezer, who immigrated to Israel on his own after losing his wife and son in the Holocaust.

“Matat and Kineret, ask Grandpa Eli to go to Abraham and tell him, ‘You sacrificed your son once, why do I have to sacrifice three times?’” they said.

On her blog, Umkahlil offers a translation from the Arabic of an interview with the leader of the Falcon Brigades, the division of Al Aqsa that claimed responsiblity for the attack:

“Abu Jihad,” leader of the Falcon Martyr Brigades’ southern contingent, told Ma’an, “We are preparing for suicide bombings in Gush Etzion, and God protects our brigade members who caused settlers and soldiers to be frightened after an attack by armed Palestinians. A suicide bomber will achieve more in another coming attack.”

Will the sword never perish from the earth?

Perhaps, in the real Jerusalem, the one we all share at the end of time. Not in this one, which we are trying so hard to keep for ourselves; which others are trying so hard to take from us.

The Left’s Absence from Disengagement

In general, I am not a fan of Ari Shavit. My opinion of him, for what it’s worth, is that he is one of the classic examples of those who claim to support peace, write headlines about how much they support peace, but when you read between the lines, it’s a lot less clear. He often likes to sound strident and urgent about the big picture, but then just can’t go all the way when it comes to the details. I suppose, though, that not everyone can be Gideon Levy or Amira Hass. Regardless, his piece in Thursday’s Haaretz, “Israel Must Sit Shiva,” is extremely powerful and worth a careful read because, well, it hurts. It hurt me, anyway, because it says so clearly what I have been trying to say in my last few posts…

Shavit’s piece begins with a description of disengagement that evokes the feeling of war that the settlers were, in some way, hoping to bring out with their actions.

The settlers have been defeated. Their greenhouses are withering. Their synagogues are empty. Their rooms are wide open. Their villages are ghost towns.

Shavit then does not, as he sometimes does, backtrack and attempt to evoke sympathy for the settlers because of the “withering greenhouses.” He does not wonder whether there may have been another way, whether disengagement was the wrong way to go:

Should they have been here? No. Was it necessary to remove them? Yes. The 30 years of pointless settlement on the Gaza coast had to come to an end. The great injustice done to the Palestinians had to be ended. Israel’s great historic mistake had to be corrected.

For many on the left, this is the beginning, middle and end of the story. And for most of my years of working against the occupation, this was all I focused on. Settlements are wrong, and by extension, the settlers were all wrong for being there. The only solution was to eradicate settlements and move the settlers. Nothing else needed to be said or considered.

And this is how so many on the left approached disengagement: it needed to be done. After all, not only was the settlement project wrong, but many of the settlers are extremists, Jewish fundamentalists, who have acted inhumanely not only toward Palestinians, but to many Israelis and other Jews as well.

So with the settlers so opprobrious, why should any of us who have opposed them bother to care about how they are evacuated? We’re right, they’re wrong. And when they were “winning” and living a life of virtual impunity behind settlement walls, did they care about the humanity of those who were “losing?” Of course not. When the government that they helped elect made the decision to remove them, did they respond with understanding and acceptance? Perhaps they did not respond with mass violence, but the Holocaust imagery they invoked, the accusations hurled at young soldiers that they were akin to Gestapo, will not soon be forgotten by anyone. Their playing of the Holocaust made everyone a loser.

But that’s precisely the point. The left is not supposed to be different from the right only in ideology or preferred media outlets, but in practice. In humanity. And the shock to the system disengagement caused to the settlers, and will cause to Israel and the entire Jewish community for some time to come, required that level of humanity.

But that humanity did not materialize in any real way, and although the focus of the world’s attention and media has been on the settlers, on the soldiers and the logistics of disengagement, Shavit gets it exactly right by focusing things back on the absence of those who have been far away from the process:

Dovish intellectuals were not here this week. Perhaps they are busy. Perhaps they have more important things to do. But the fact that the chief rabbis of Israeli secular morality did not see fit to make a genuine human gesture toward 8,000 fellow citizens who were forcibly uprooted from their homes is a fact laden with significance. It reorganizes Israel’s normative framework. Soon they will discover that those who do not stand emotionally with their fellow citizens when their lives are being destroyed have lost the right to preach morality to them regarding the destruction of the lives of others.

This is where Shavit hits closest to home, at least for me. When I first read this, I wondered why, as I said above, these standards and expectations should only apply to the left? Did any of the settlers, extremist or not, “stand emotionally with their fellow citizens” who lost their family and friends in military units sent to protect the settlements? With the families of their fellow citizens whose relatives were killed by Eden Natan Zada? With their fellow citizens who opposed the separation wall, or any number of incursions into Gaza? In the end, there are many Israelis whose lives have been destroyed, in one way or another, by the occupation, so why is it only the left who should show up to “stand emotionally with,” and ease the pain of, those on the other side?

Because that is what the left is about. The left seeks an end to the destruction of lives, as Shavit rightly captures it. What is often so distasteful to the left about the occupation, and those on the right who support it, is that it divides and separates people. Literally and figuratively.

There is a criticism often hurled at Israel, by me on occasion, that by being an occupier, we are repeating, in some way, sins of the past. Only the sins now are committed by us, rather than upon us. Although simplistic, it bears some truth. But the same logic is true for those fighting occupation as well. By not responding differently than those we oppose, we respond the same. We repeat their sins. We divide between them and us. And there is no peace or justice in that.

The Israeli human rights group “B’tselem” takes its name from the passage in Genesis in which we are told that God created all human beings “B’tselem Elohim,” in God’s own image. We who have asked that this commandment be respected by our opponents vis-à-vis the Palestinians must now adjust our thinking to include those same opponents as well. I will admit that I am not even sure what this means, but it is up to all of us, working together, as the left always seeks to do, to figure it out.

Part of the reason, of course, that many on the left, including me, did not respond to or embrace disengagement is skepticism about Ariel Sharon and whether this process is really “Gaza first, Gaza last.” We must continue to fight to make sure that this is not what happens. But along the way, we must remember to fight in a different way, in a way that will bring the completeness to the “day after occupation” that the Jewish mourning process of shiva, which Ari Shavit asked us to observe, is meant to bring.

Seeing the Settlers…and My Own Anger

As we are starting to experience in the United States, occupation is, among so many other things, divisive. The entire point of an occupation is, in some sense, to divide. Dividing one group of people from another, dividing land, dividing power. And over time, occupation further divides groups, both the occupier and occupied – for/against, collaborator/protester. But with disengagement, I have been experiencing something new, something I never expected to feel. Internal division between anger and sympathy.

(I realize that my posts of late have not been as fact-based or event-based as others, but Andrew does such a good job of that, I have been inclined to try to take a few steps back).

Since my “awakening” to the realities in Israel and Palestine in 1997, I have spent much of my time reading about, writing and speaking out about and working against the occupation. And as I have written elsewhere, partly this was because of my outrage at the oppression the Palestinians were experiencing because, in essence, no group of people should be experiencing what the Palestinians have for the past 38 years. But more, I was outraged that Israel, that the Jewish people, were the ones doing the oppressing. And oppression is something that I could envision being done/had been taught in Hebrew school could be done by just about any group of people other than Israel and the Jewish people.

And the fact that it was Jewish people, even if not “the Jewish people,” doing this, well, it made me angry.

But I have never really admitted to myself until the last few days that I was angry, or certainly seemed angry. Rather, I explained it as evidence of “passion for Judaism” or “urgency for the Jewish people” or “outrage at injustice.” Yet as I read article after article about the settlers — listening to the pleas and vitriol of the extremists, as well as the calm resignation of the less extreme who say (now, at least) they just want to stay in the homes they and their families have built for over a generation — I am finally admitting to myself that, really, I am angry. And that I think many of the people on the anti-occupation left are angry, or at least sound angry (yes, self-righteousness sounds angry), and that this anger, whether real or perceived, or some of both, could perhaps lie at the core of why we have been, frankly, unsuccessful at building movements and/or directing change.

Because, while I am angry at the occupation and the settlements that have been (and will continue to be in the West Bank) the occupation’s core, I am finding that doesn’t address all of my emotions around disengagement. The pleas of the settlers are getting to me in some way. To the point where I admit that I am leery to read or hear more because I simply can’t be sure of how I will react. I want to be steadfast, resolute. But being steadfast and resolute is precisely what I cannot be, yet neither should I be blinding myself.

This got me to thinking about what it is about the occupation and the settlements that has made me so angry. I trace it back to a meeting during my summer living in Ramallah in1997, when my members of my program had the chance to meet with a few members of the city council of Ma’aleh Adumim, the largest settlement in the territories. All of the settlers we met with were Americans, who spoke about how displaced they felt as Jews in the United States, how they felt as if they never quite fit in, even though they had been born and bred there. And how different, how completed they felt in Israel. And in Ma’aleh Adumim specifically because, in addition to the amenities it provided (close commute to Jerusalem, green lawns, beautiful pools, their own Little League), they felt they were fulfilling a deeper commitment to Israel and the Jewish people by being on this specific land.

Understandable, I thought. Not my experience, but understandable. After all, who wouldn’t want to live and feel all of those things, especially when they come with tax breaks (never mind why you would create a Little League, the essence of the land where you felt so unwelcome)?

But then I had the chance to ask them about their feelings toward the Jahalin Bedouin “living” within view. Not next door, but within sight of the settlement’s outskirts. That summer, the Jahalin became the center of a fierce legal battle over land rights, and many were “living” in Israeli government-provided shipping containers, the ones you see piled high at ports or big factories. They, including their children, were also “living” next to the Jerusalem city dump. (The Jahalin have been a longtime campaign of Rabbis for Human Rights, which has written a brief summary of the issue at http://www.rhr.israel.net/pdf/thejahalin.pdf.

When I asked the Ma’aleh Adumim residents about their feelings toward the Jahalin, they neither defended the government’s actions, nor did they express any level of sympathy with the Jahalin’s plight.

They told me they didn’t know what I was talking about. They simply didn’t see the Jahalin at all. Whether they refused to see, or refused to admit they saw, doesn’t matter. They told me they simply didn’t see.

And from that moment on, I have been angry.

And in the subsequent 8 years, my anger at those in Ma’aleh Adumim who refused to see the Jahalin has simply been extended to everyone else. The other settlers for being just like those in Ma’aleh Adumim and not seeing what they have been causing around them, not only to Palestinians but to the young Israelis conscripted to defend the settlements. The Israeli public for not seeing and/or not moving beyond sight to understanding. The American Jewish community for not seeing the reality on the ground, or at least the ground beyond the steps set out for them by their Birthright tour leader. The American Jewish community’s leadership for seeing to it that things stay that way.

I have been angry at all of these groups for not seeing. Because seeing is not only the essence of Judaism, it is really the essence of humanity. Sight need not lead everyone to the same understanding or conclusions, but without sight, you can’t even make an argument. Sight may be difficult, but blindness is not – or, should not be — a choice people can make, but a malady that only an unfortunate few are forced to suffer.

But I now see that anger has made me, well, blind. There is first the fact that I need to admit that not everyone in the groups I am angry at is the same; some indeed have seen, but just have reached different conclusions than me, which I cannot be angry at, per se.

But the bigger picture is that my anger has been blinding me to the human drama the settlers are experiencing. Anger allows me to see them as simply gamblers who lost, exploiters who have been taking advantage of everyone for over 20 years in order to live on and control land that should not have been theirs to live on, extremists doing harm to Judaism.

Anger allows me to not see the questions the settlers are asking about why they must leave their homes, and simply respond with circular questions about the Palestinians whose homes have been destroyed. Anger allows me to not see the questions about democracy being posed by settlers, about why Sharon did not put disengagement to a referendum, and simply say that democracy has never been extended to the Palestinians. Anger allows me to see – and support — Jewish soldiers who say they are “just following orders.”

As I pondered in an earlier post, blindness, like an agenda, makes me just like a settler.

Those of us who work against the Occupation cannot blind ourselves to what is happening this week. Regardless of its causes, or its necessity, or its ultimate justice, disengagement is another in a line of human tragedies in Israel and Palestine. And if we really want it all to end some day, we (well, at least I) must do a lot more to make sure we really see and understand all of what is happening — not just the part of it we agree with.

Eden Natan Zada, Religious Fundamentalism, and Terrorism

I am sure most readers have heard about the bus shooting in Gaza yesterday. Four deaths… relatively few, as incidents in this conflict go. But the fact that it was “Jewish terrorism” is drawing a lot of attention. It breaks the usual boundaries that govern our understanding of the conflict. In addition to mourning the deaths - as we should all of them, Jewish and Arab, over all these decades - we might reflect a bit on the nature of violence and on our own part in perpetuating it. To dismiss Natan-Zada as “other” is just too easy…

|inline


About

You are currently browsing the semitism.net weblog archives for the The Settlements category.

Longer entries are truncated. Click the headline of an entry to read it in its entirety.