FEATURES
The reek of injustice
Emma Williams says good and
conscientious Israelis live in denial of what is being done to the
Palestinians
Living in Jerusalem for the past two and
a half years has meant living Israeli fear: the fear of taking children
to school and hearing a suicide bomber detonate himself outside the
school gates; of not wanting to go to a restaurant or bar or coffee
shop for fear of being blown up; of hesitating to call Israeli friends
for fear that one of their children had been killed in the latest
Palestinian terrorist atrocity.
Living in Jerusalem also means seeing the suffering imposed on three
million Palestinians because of these fears. The realities are ugly,
difficult to talk about, difficult to believe: the brutality, the
injustice, the silencing, the denial, the racism — above all, the
Occupation.
Most Israelis never go to East Jerusalem; most Palestinians avoid
the West. Jerusalem is desperate, beautiful and divided — so clearly
divided that you could put up a wall along the seam. Indeed Israel
is putting up a wall, but not along the seam. It doesn’t so much divide
Israelis from Palestinians as Palestinians from each other, and Palestinians
from Israeli settlers, grabbing yet more land in the process; all
part of the extremists’ plan to make any future Palestinian state
unworkable by expanding the network of colonies, intersecting roads
and industrial developments, leaving the Palestinians living between
the mesh, in ghettoes.
Unhappy word, ghetto; but there is no other word for the enclosures
being built around Palestinian towns. Qalqilya, a once thriving market
town of 45,000 people, is now shut off from the world by a fence and
wall of concrete 24 feet high. There is one exit, guarded by the Israeli
Defence Forces (IDF), who determine whether the occupants, their produce,
their food and medicines may or may not pass. The word ‘ghetto’ comes
from mediaeval Venice. It described the walled-off quarter in which
Jews were obliged to live: a barbarous, discriminatory policy.
But they were allowed out of the ghetto when they wanted. And even
in the worst days of P.W. Botha, the Bantustans were nothing like
as restrictive as life in some of the West Bank cities or Gaza — surrounded
by a massive barrier, with armed guards at the only entrance that
allows through selected foreigners and a handful of Palestinians with
special permits. It is hard to describe the pricking alarm you feel
when approaching the giant wall and its concrete watchtowers, manned
by IDF soldiers who, for whatever reason, sometimes fire in the direction
of the children within. I can say this from experience; it happened
to my children, who are six and nine, when I took them to the local
zoo.
‘How irresponsible to take your children to such a place!’ I hear
the outcry. Blaming the victim is common practice in this conflict.
In March a 23-year-old American student, Rachel Corrie, was crushed
to death by an IDF bulldozer. The response: she was ‘irresponsible’
to have been there in the first place. It was an image reminiscent
of another brave demonstrator, this time in Tiananmen Square, facing
down a tank — except that the driver managed to go round, not over,
him.
Corrie was demonstrating against the demolition of Palestinian homes.
Apparently it is the Palestinians’ fault when they see their life
savings, possessions, memories — their homes — crushed under the military
earth-movers. They shouldn’t build without a permit. But wait; permits
are given to Israelis to build illegal settlements on occupied land,
yet not to Palestinians to build on their own land.
Injustice: the place reeks of it. Drive along the apartheid settler
roads. Look at the watered settlement lawns and just beyond to the
dusty Palestinian towns where water is rationed. Listen to Palestinian
joy at a shower of rain, not because it is good for the crops (or
the lawn), but because they might be permitted a little more drinking
water. Daily the caged-in Palestinians watch the settlements bloom
across the West Bank, riveting the Occupation into what remains of
their small share (22 per cent) of Palestine.
The start of the Intifada set the scene: before a single Palestinian
shot was fired, the world was shocked to see ‘riot control’ that consisted
not of baton charges and water-cannon, but of shooting dead scores
of stone-throwers and bystanders.
After that, the massively disproportionate response to Palestinian
provocation, and the disregard for justice and international law,
became commonplace. Unless it was bizarre, or directed at foreigners
such as Ian Hook, a senior British UN official killed in his office
by an IDF sniper, it was rarely considered newsworthy.
Almost all studies of violence in the occupied territories have found
countless cases of Israelis firing on children, onlookers, old women;
of pregnant women dying at IDF checkpoints because they are not allowed
through; of hundreds of schools closed, tens of thousands of olive
trees uprooted, thousands of houses bulldozed into rubble, entire
quarters of historic Palestinian towns razed to the ground.
Earlier this year the Israeli daily Ha’aretz reported that the IDF
fired internationally banned fléchette shells (designed to explode
into thousands of razor-sharp darts) at a children’s soccer field
in Gaza while boys were playing. Nine were hit. Israel’s supreme court
has rejected an appeal by Physicians for Human Rights, an Israeli
advocacy group, asking the court to ban their use.
Most stories of the daily brutality against Palestinians, unlike those
of brutalities against Israelis, are not reported by international
witnesses. But some slip through. Chris Hedges of the New York Times
witnessed an IDF unit in Gaza taunting children over loudspeakers,
in Arabic, to come out and throw stones: ‘“Come on, dogs. Come! Son
of a whore! Your mother’s cunt!” whereupon the soldiers shot them
with silencers.’ Hedges commented that he had seen children shot in
several other conflicts, ‘but I have never before watched soldiers
entice children like mice into a trap and murder them for sport’.
The statistics speak of an Occupation unhindered by international
or humanitarian conventions, that keeps thousands in administrative
detention, imprisons hundreds of children, and has only recently abolished
the official use of torture. B’Tselem, the Israeli human-rights organisation,
numbers 102 planned assassinations by the IDF, in which 50 bystanders
were also killed. There have been 231 incidents of Palestinian ambulances
coming under fire.
There is an unspoken consensus among the international community in
Jerusalem — at least among those who have any exposure at all to Palestinians
— on two points: the enormity of the injustice, and the difficulty
of being able to report it fairly. It is the same with diplomatic
cables, published UN reports, news stories and articles: you meet
the authors, hear their outrage at what they have seen, and then bemoan
the reality that their products are unfailingly censored somewhere
along the line (often by themselves in order to avoid the ubiquitous
charges of anti-Israel bias by chancelleries, lobbies, editors, proprietors
and advertisers).
There is almost universal admiration for the courage of Israelis who
speak out: journalists such as Gideon Levy and Amira Hass who report
graphically on the horrors of the Occupation; activists such as Jeff
Halper, who takes matters into his own hands (literally) by rebuilding
demolished Palestinian houses; Israeli groups who try to protect Palestinian
farmers from marauding settlers; the refuseniks who decline to be
party to the Occupation, risking prison and ostracism in a society
built on military service; and the many Israelis who demonstrate,
refusing to succumb to the mass denial that holds the majority in
its thrall.
Denial makes the continuing brutality and injustice possible; most
Israelis are ‘unconscious’ of what is being done in their name. It
is impossible to believe that any Israelis who visit the Occupied
Territories and see the pitiful state of the lives of Palestinians
— screwed down under curfew, humiliated at checkpoints, forced, despite
their degrees and skills and dreams, into penury and desperation —
would not choke in revulsion.
But they are not allowed to go. Nor do they want to. In February,
Gershon Baskin described Tel Aviv as teeming with young people enjoying
the sunny afternoon, as they should be. ‘But just a few miles away
hundreds of thousands of people are living under curfew, locked in
their homes and towns. Army jeeps parading the streets screaming “Curfew,
curfew — get back into your house”; those who refuse the orders are
threatened at gunpoint. This is the reality on both sides.’
One has to imagine what this means. Under curfew, you are in prison
but have to fend for yourself, forced to remain indoors for up to
eight days at a time, a brief release for an hour or two, and then
several days’ curfew again. In the grinding heat of the Middle Eastern
summer, a family of 14 people in two rooms, with no running water
and no air-conditioning you run out of baby milk because the Israelis
didn’t tell you how long the curfew would be, and anyway you have
no money as you haven’t been allowed to work for months, and if you
step out you are shot on sight, and sometimes if you just go near
a window you will be shot. If someone is ill, you have no medicine,
and have to risk breaking the curfew to get help. And all the time
the children scream because they are hungry and bored and beg to be
allowed to go to school or just outside.
More than 700 Israelis and 2,000 Palestinians have been killed in
this Intifada. That sentence is a problematic one, referring to the
deaths of both peoples in the same sentence in order to be even-handed.
Israelis call this ‘moral equivalence’ shocking. Many genuinely feel
that to compare the intentional, random and innocent deaths caused
by suicide bombings to those carried out by the IDF — always ‘with
regret’, ‘in self-defence’ or as a ‘preventive measure against more
terrorism’ — is an abomination.
But there is another way to look at moral equivalence: as the violence
of a people who have struggled for 36 years to free their land from
foreign military rule, as opposed to the violence of a massively strong
army fighting to maintain and tighten that rule — in contravention
of far more UN Security Council resolutions than Iraq has ever been.
One should be ‘even-handed’, but what is less acceptable is equivalence
between the resistance of the occupied and the repression by the illegal
occupier.
Even-handed is what most members of the international press sincerely
try to be, despite the reams of contrary accusations. There is always
talk of suffering on both sides, as if they are somehow equal. Justice
apart, and even numbers of casualties apart, one has to look at this
suffering. It is true that the Israeli economy has declined by 5 per
cent, that Israelis are demoralised, that people feel uneasy going
to discotheques and shopping centres. But what about the other side?
They don’t feel nervous about going to cinemas; they are forcibly
prevented from going anywhere at all. Their economy has not declined;
it no longer exists.
Israelis justify all their actions on the basis of ‘security’, which
cannot be compared with Palestinian ‘terror’. For a country whose
intelligentsia has more of a conscience than any other in the world,
how can so many be so unreflective when it comes to the Palestinians,
especially given the security and economic millstone that the settlements
represent for Israel?
It doesn’t get more racist than this: critics silenced because of
the ethnicities involved. I will be accused of racism — racism against
the occupiers. There will be letters that accuse me of anti-Semitism;
of not acknowledging that this is all in self-defence; that the occupiers
don’t like doing this to their victims; that it’s the Palestinians
who ‘make’ them do it.
After two and a half years of watching the realities of this conflict,
travelling and working in the Occupied Territories, getting to know
many Israelis and Palestinians, I am left with a sense of the tragic
waste of two peoples, their lives and their futures. Of course the
Palestinians are guilty of atrocity and injustice, of silencing and
racism. Theirs is a brutalised, sometimes brutal society. Many feel
they have nothing to lose but their lives, and are ready to commit
despicable acts in the process.
On the other side, a majority of Israelis feel they have no choice
but to trust a government that has brought them nothing but more insecurity
and economic difficulty, which appears to have little intention of
ending the Occupation, and some of whose members openly advocate ethnic
cleansing.
Talk of international ‘road-maps’ out of the conflict are to be welcomed,
but when the political map proposing reason, hope and peaceful co-existence
bears no resemblance to the geographical map, whose reality is an
ever-expanding colonisation of steel, concrete and extremist ideology,
which map is likely to prevail? And at what cost to Israel’s future?
© 2002 The Spectator.co.uk
|