1.
Tell me about
your experience on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. Getting on mainstream
television shows and talking about Palestine is incredibly difficult. What made
that episode a reality and did your appearance on The Daily Show indicate that
the mainstream media is beginning to explore the realities of the Israeli
occupation of Palestine?
2.
Someone with
a contact at the show found my DVD transformative and sent in a press release
for Mustafa Barghouti and me to be on. Barghouti was accepted immediately, and
eventually they invited me too because I am Jewish and they thought therefore I
would be a moderating influence. I don’t believe it was their intention to have
a Jewish Palestinian rights activist on and much of what I said of substance was
cut out of the aired version, but they put the full version online and it went
viral. I do believe that Stewart is sympathetic to the cause. I don’t think it
indicates a substantial shift in mainstream media trends, but given that I
don’t watch much mainstream media, I could be wrong! There seems to me a bit
more openness than before to criticize Israel, thanks in part to Israeli
atrocities that are growing too difficult to ignore.
3.
How much of
an impact did the atrocities of Operation Cast Lead and the Mavi Marmara
flotilla have in opening people’s eyes to the Israeli occupation of Palestine?
4.
The impact
has been huge. The “Israel is innocent and virtuous” narrative is no longer
sustainable given these types of crimes, so in its place has been a propaganda
campaign to convey how “complex” the issue is. “Yes,” the narrative goes,
“Israel sometimes does bad things, but it’s just a cycle of violence and it’s
very complicated. We are working on it and you mustn’t pressure us.” This in
some ways is more insidious than the previous narrative because it gives the
illusion of balance where there is none and removes Israel’s responsibility as
the occupier. Calling it “complex” is a way of obscuring the reality and
avoiding responsibility. Jewish emotions surrounding Zionism are complicated;
the task of both sides healing in the future from years of conflict is
complicated; but the injustice of Palestinians being oppressed and denied their
fundamental human rights simply because of their ethnicity and religion is not
complicated. The propaganda campaign is not working. Americans are increasingly
open to the idea that Israel may not be the righteous, peace-seeking country
they thought it was. When I tell people I’m a Palestinian human rights
advocate, they express more interest and less alarm than they used to. The
shift was already happening before 2008 but has accelerated exponentially since
Operation Cast Lead and the Freedom Flotilla attacks. Israeli society is well
aware of this shift, and there is a lot of internal discussion and hysteria
about the way the Flotilla attacks reflected badly on Israel. People think that
Israelis don’t care about the way the world perceives them, but that’s not
true. They care about the legitimacy of their country, their academia, their science,
their economy, and their culture. This is why the Palestinian-led movement for
boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) on Israel is so powerful. It’s their
weak spot–the kind of pressure that works, in contrast to the historic futility
of vapid diplomatic efforts. By the way, there is little internal Israeli
discussion within about the legitimacy of the attacks on the flotilla. The
morality of the killings of nine Turks is not questioned. The discussion is
tactical–how much can they get away with and shouldn’t they have known better?
Apparently their calculus is off because they seem to make one atrocious PR
blunder over another, always at the Palestinians’ (and occasionally their
supporters’) expense.
5.
You have been
traveling to Israel-Palestine for years now. Based on your experience and
observations, what are the biggest myths about the occupation? What are the
myths and what have you learned?
6.
There are too
many myths to name, but many fall into a few categories: Myth 1: “This is an age-old conflict based on religion
and mutual hatred.” This is a conflict about land and human rights, not about
religion. Prior to the Zionist movement, Jews were better treated in the Arab
world than they were in much of the Christian West. There is nothing inherently
incompatible about Jews, Muslims, and Christians, but with the introduction of
the Zionist movement seeking to–and eventually succeeding to–annex Palestine
for European Jews and one segment of the indigenous population while excluding
and discriminating against the other segments of the population, you saw the
emergence of violence. Israel was created and is maintained at the expense of
Muslims and Christians in the area, who are denied their land and their human
rights simply because they are not Jewish. This ongoing discriminatory system
perpetuates the conflict today and until it is addressed we can expect no just
or enduring peace. Myth 2: “The occupation may
be ugly, but it’s for security” (note the switch from the previous narrative
that “there is no occupation”). The majority of the institutions of Israel’s
occupation simply cannot be justified by security. Israel pays its citizens to
move from Israel to the West Bank to live amidst the so-called “enemy”–does
that make them safer? Israel has never declared its own borders, rather it
expands them onto more and more of someone else’s land–does that make Israel
safer? Israel denies Palestinians sufficient water from their own water
sources–Does that make Israelis safer? Although the narrative of “security” as
motivation is accepted without question in mainstream media, it simply doesn’t
make sense when you look at the situation on the ground. Cutting Palestinians
off from their families, schools, hospitals, and livelihoods will never make
Israelis safer. If Israel is serious about ending Palestinian violence, it must
acknowledge the roots of that violence. Myth 3: “Israel
has no partner for peace.” On the contrary, Palestinians have no partner for
peace. No Israeli offer has ever come close to fulfilling Palestinian human
rights. Camp David II in 2000, often referred to as former prime minister Ehud
Barak’s “Generous Offer,” would have annexed 10% of the West Bank into Israel,
including some of most fertile and water rich areas, home to 80,000
Palestinians. The 10% was spread around the West Bank, separating the “future
Palestinian state” into a nonviable archipelago of isolated cantons, separating
Palestinians from their land and each other. Finally, the proposal maintained
Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem (and some control by Palestinians under that
sovereignty) and ignored the human rights of the Palestinian refugees, who
represent the vast majority of the Palestinian population. Offers by Palestinians and the Arab world including
significant compromises have been consistently rebuffed by Israel: In
the 1970s, the PLO endorsed a comprehensive peace plan with Israel in exchange
for its full withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza. Israel rejected the offer.
In 2002, Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah, along with 21 other members of the Arab
League, proposed not only peace but normal relations and regional integration
with Israel in exchange for an end to the occupation and a “just solution” to
the issue of refugees. Israel rejected the offer. The Arab Peace Initiative was
reiterated in 2007 and again refused. Hamas has repeatedly offered a 30-year
ceasefire with Israel in exchange for an end to the occupation. Israel has
dismissed this possibility and refused to talk to the elected Palestinian
government on grounds that it refuses to renounce violence, recognize previous
agreements, and recognize the existence of another people’s state in historic
Palestine. Interestingly, Israel is guilty of all three of the very things for
which it faults Hamas. Myth 4: “An end to the
1967 occupation would be an end to the injustice.” This one is more prevalent
in the peace and justice community. While an end to the occupation is a
condition for peace, it is only one part of restoring Palestinian human rights.
The rights of Palestinian citizens of Israel also need to be addressed. What
does it mean to be a citizen of a state that does not represent you, and
systematically discriminates against you? (Mossawa is a good source for
information about discrimination of Palestinians inside the Green Line.) Moreover,
the vast majority of Palestinians are families of refugees from 1948, who were
forced to leave their homes in order to create a Jewish majority in a land
where most people were Christian and Muslim. Still today, I, as a Jewish American,
could go and live on land that was stolen from Palestinians and is now reserved
exclusively for Jews. Meanwhile, a Palestinian born on that same land is
forbidden simply because of his or her ethnic and religious background. An end
to the occupation and a return to the 1967 borders solves the immediate problem
of many (but not all) of the 4 million Palestinians living under occupation in
the West Bank and Gaza Strip, but it does not address the primary grievance of
the vast majority of Palestinians, namely that they have been exiled from
Palestine and can’t go back because they are not Jews. Their right to come home
and live at peace with their neighbors is reaffirmed year after year in the
United Nations; it is not debatable, it’s a right that belongs to all refugees,
no matter what color their skin is.
7.
The Israeli
boycott, divestment, and sanctions movement has been growing on college
campuses across the country. How much traction is this movement gaining in
terms of pressuring the Israeli government and its policies?
8.
A lot. The
successes are too numerous to name, but the Interfaith Peace Initiative
compiled a comprehensive list of global actions to date, filling 88 pages. The number of actions has doubled
since the Flotilla attacks. They include divestment by universities, churches,
unions, and governmental institutions. Musicians and sports teams have refused
to play in Israel. The 2005 Palestinian-led call has been endorsed by some
Israeli and Jewish groups, among hundreds of others. In five years, the BDS
movement against Apartheid Israel has achieved more successes than the BDS
movement against Apartheid South Africa had in its first twenty years of
existence. The success of these campaigns is evidenced in the mass hysteria
presented in Israeli newspapers. This is seen as a great threat to the status
quo, which is the goal. As Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. said, “Freedom is never
voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.”
Privilege is given up only when it comes at a cost.
9.
Many people
today are referring to Israel as an apartheid state. Do you agree with this
characterization and what evidence have you seen that indicates that apartheid
exists in Israel?
10.
The 1973 UN International Convention on Apartheid defines the crime of apartheid as any systematic
oppression, segregation, and discrimination to maintain domination by one
racial group—‘demographic group,’ in Israeli parlance—over another, as through
denial of basic human rights and freedoms, including the right to work,
education, movement, and nationality; torture or inhuman treatment; arbitrary
arrest and illegal imprisonment; and “any measures designed to divide the
population along racial lines by the creation of separate reserves and
ghettos,… the expropriation of landed property belonging to a racial group… or
to members thereof.” The definition clearly cites crimes perpetrated by Israel
both in the 1967 Occupied Territories—where the situation goes so much further
that the Archbishop Desmond Tutu himself maintains that the occupation is worse
than apartheid—and within the state of Israel itself. 1948 Palestinians (the
descendants of the small number of Palestinians who remained in 1948 in what
became Israel), aka “Palestinian citizens of Israel” (or “Israeli Arabs,” which
many see as an offensive title that ignores their Palestinian national and
historic identity), are subject to countless discriminatory laws that deny them
many of the same human rights and freedoms as their counterparts in the 1967
Occupied Territories. Although Israel calls itself a “democracy,” it does not
hide its determination to maintain its demographic domination of Jews over
non-Jews. 1948 Palestinians are referred to as the “demographic bomb” in
reference to their increasing percentage of the population due to reproduction
and the emigration of many Jewish Israelis. Israeli Minister of Foreign Affairs
Avigdor Lieberman openly advocates the forced transfer of 1948 Palestinians out
of Israel. Although 1948 Palestinians are citizens of Israel, they are not
“nationals,” because Israel is not the state of its citizens but rather the
state of the Jewish people. Palestinians
were denied the right to work in dozens of jobs reserved for Israelis who have
served in the Army (from which Palestinians are excluded). Additionally, 93% of
the land in Israel is managed by the Israeli Lands Administration, an extension
of the Jewish National Fund, rendering it either very difficult or outright
impossible for non-Jews to move to. Most of this land was taken from
Palestinians in 1948. These are just a few examples of apartheid within Israel.
The most comprehensive compilation I’ve seen documenting these cases and many
more is Jonathan Cook’s article, “The Unwanted Who Stayed,” published by Americans for Middle East
Understanding. There is a phenomenal booklet compiled by Israeli Committee
Against House Demolitions-USA summarizing a legal study by the Human Sciences
Research Center of South Africa. It’s called “Is Israel an Apartheid State?” and in 7.5 pages systematically goes through
seemingly every one of Israel’s laws that discriminate against Palestinians in
the 1967 Occupied Territories as fits the crime of Apartheid (it acknowledges
its limitations of not having pursued the same exploration within Israel—yet).
I read examples I’d never even known about. It’s very shocking and it’s a great
organizing tool to draw parallels compelling communities that took the step of
divesting from Apartheid South Africa to do the same against Apartheid Israel
today.
11.
Peace talks
are taking place as we speak in Washington DC. What aspects of these
negotiations are people not seeing in the media? What kinds of context and/or
issues are getting buried from stenography reporting that we’re used to seeing?
12.
One
over-arching issue of years of failed US-brokered Middle East “peace-talks” is
that the security and ethno-nationalist Jewish character of Israel is
considered the first priority, and Palestinian human rights come second. The
trouble is, Israel cannot exist as a state only of the Jewish people (as
opposed to Israel being the state of the Jewish people and the indigenous population)
without the denial of Palestinian rights (because the minute you give
Palestinians the same rights as Jews, Israel stands to lose its Jewish
majority). So when Prime Minister Netanyahu says “Both sides need to make
significant compromises,” he is talking about compromising Palestinian human
rights. He’s saying, “Look, you can have some human rights, but you will have
to give up others.” But human rights are non-negotiable. They are not up for
debate—this is very clear in international law. The basis for peace-talks must
be human rights, equality, self-determination, and security for everyone
involved. Because Hamas has refused to pre-conditions that de facto already
sign away certain Palestinian rights, Palestinians have been denied
representation by their democratically-elected leaders. And while Netanyahu
expects Palestinians to compromise their most fundamental rights, he has shown
no willingness to compromise on even the most basic issue of freezing
settlement construction. Palestinians have again been forced into a situation
of compromising with nothing in return. This imbalance is no surprise; a
prisoner negotiating with his prison guard cannot expect a fair outcome. Until
we see a solution based on justice rather than the normalization of injustice,
we will not see a lasting peace in Israel/Palestine.
13.
Despite the
on-going Israeli-Palestine conflict, what have you seen or experienced that is
positive and does not get mentioned?
14.
The
Palestinian-led liberation movement growing on the ground is usually ignored by
US mainstream media. Hundreds of Palestinians march every week in protest of
Israeli atrocities, often joined by Israeli and international solidarity
activists. I am very inspired by the resilience of Palestinians on the ground
in the face of tremendous oppression. The BDS movement is also underreported,
to put it mildly, but together with Palestinian resistance on the ground will
forge, I believe, the path to justice. I am also consistently surprised by the
willingness of Palestinians who advocate a democratic one-state solution to
live alongside their oppressors once the injustice ends. The one-state solution
is always presented as a great compromise for Israel, but it is an
extraordinary compromise for Palestinians. It provides a genuine model for
peaceful coexistence in the future, which gives me hope.
15.
Is this your
first time in Brattleboro or southern Vermont? What have you heard about
Brattleboro or southern Vermont and what do you hope to do or see while you are
hear?
16.
Vermont is
one of nine states I haven’t spoken in, and I’m excited to finally be going. I
passed through it on a New England tour years ago and love the beauty of the
area. Plus, the sheer number of emails I’ve received this week tells me that
this is a hot topic! It should be an interesting event and I look forward to
it.
17.
Thanks Anna!
No comments:
Post a Comment