In the midst of the struggle, and the dust of battle, many people still don't realize what this is all about... It is not only about land and rights...
Showing posts with label Zionism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Zionism. Show all posts
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Zionism is the problem
Even after the foundation of Israel, anti-Zionism was not a particularly heretical position. Assimilated Reform Jews like Rosenwald believed that Judaism should remain a matter of religious rather than political allegiance; the ultra-Orthodox saw Jewish statehood as an impious attempt to "push the hand of God"; and Marxist Jews -- my grandparents among them -- tended to see Zionism, and all nationalisms, as a distraction from the more essential struggle between classes.
To be Jewish, I was raised to believe, meant understanding oneself as a member of a tribe that over and over had been cast out, mistreated, slaughtered. Millenniums of oppression that preceded it did not entitle us to a homeland or a right to self-defense that superseded anyone else's. If they offered us anything exceptional, it was a perspective on oppression and an obligation born of the prophetic tradition: to act on behalf of the oppressed and to cry out at the oppressor.
For the last several decades, though, it has been all but impossible to cry out against the Israeli state without being smeared as an anti-Semite, or worse. To question not just Israel's actions, but the Zionist tenets on which the state is founded, has for too long been regarded an almost unspeakable blasphemy.
Yet it is no longer possible to believe with an honest conscience that the deplorable conditions in which Palestinians live and die in Gaza and the West Bank come as the result of specific policies, leaders or parties on either side of the impasse. The problem is fundamental: Founding a modern state on a single ethnic or religious identity in a territory that is ethnically and religiously diverse leads inexorably either to politics of exclusion (think of the 139-square-mile prison camp that Gaza has become) or to wholesale ethnic cleansing. Put simply, the problem is Zionism.
For the last several decades, though, it has been all but impossible to cry out against the Israeli state without being smeared as an anti-Semite, or worse. To question not just Israel's actions, but the Zionist tenets on which the state is founded, has for too long been regarded an almost unspeakable blasphemy.
Yet it is no longer possible to believe with an honest conscience that the deplorable conditions in which Palestinians live and die in Gaza and the West Bank come as the result of specific policies, leaders or parties on either side of the impasse. The problem is fundamental: Founding a modern state on a single ethnic or religious identity in a territory that is ethnically and religiously diverse leads inexorably either to politics of exclusion (think of the 139-square-mile prison camp that Gaza has become) or to wholesale ethnic cleansing. Put simply, the problem is Zionism.
It has been argued that Zionism is an anachronism, a leftover ideology from the era of 19th century romantic nationalisms wedged uncomfortably into 21st century geopolitics. But Zionism is not merely outdated. Even before 1948, one of its basic oversights was readily apparent: the presence of Palestinians in Palestine. That led some of the most prominent Jewish thinkers of the last century, many of them Zionists, to balk at the idea of Jewish statehood. The Brit Shalom movement -- founded in 1925 and supported at various times by Martin Buber, Hannah Arendt and Gershom Scholem -- argued for a secular, binational state in Palestine in which Jews and Arabs would be accorded equal status. Their concerns were both moral and pragmatic. The establishment of a Jewish state, Buber feared, would mean "premeditated national suicide."
The fate Buber foresaw is upon us: a nation that has lived in a state of war for decades, a quarter-million Arab citizens with second-class status and more than 5 million Palestinians deprived of the most basic political and human rights. If two decades ago comparisons to the South African apartheid system felt like hyperbole, they now feel charitable. The white South African regime, for all its crimes, never attacked the Bantustans with anything like the destructive power Israel visited on Gaza in December and January, when nearly1,300 Palestinians were killed, one-third of them children.
Israeli policies have rendered the once apparently inevitable two-state solution less and less feasible. Years of Israeli settlement construction in the West Bank and East Jerusalem have methodically diminished the viability of a Palestinian state. Israel's new prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has even refused to endorse the idea of an independent Palestinian state, which suggests an immediate future of more of the same: more settlements, more punitive assaults.
All of this has led to a revival of the Brit Shalom idea of a single, secular binational state in which Jews and Arabs have equal political rights. The obstacles are, of course, enormous. They include not just a powerful Israeli attachment to the idea of an exclusively Jewish state, but its Palestinian analogue: Hamas' ideal of Islamic rule. Both sides would have to find assurance that their security was guaranteed. What precise shape such a state would take -- a strict, vote-by-vote democracy or a more complex federalist system -- would involve years of painful negotiation, wiser leaders than now exist and an uncompromising commitment from the rest of the world, particularly from the United States.
Meanwhile, the characterization of anti-Zionism as an "epidemic" more dangerous than anti-Semitism reveals only the unsustainability of the position into which Israel's apologists have been forced. Faced with international condemnation, they seek to limit the discourse, to erect walls that delineate what can and can't be said.
It's not working. Opposing Zionism is neither anti-Semitic nor particularly radical. It requires only that we take our own values seriously and no longer, as the book of Amos has it, "turn justice into wormwood and hurl righteousness to the ground."
Establishing a secular, pluralist, democratic government in Israel and Palestine would of course mean the abandonment of the Zionist dream. It might also mean the only salvation for the Jewish ideals of justice that date back to Jeremiah.
Ben Ehrenreich is the author of the novel "The Suitors."
The fate Buber foresaw is upon us: a nation that has lived in a state of war for decades, a quarter-million Arab citizens with second-class status and more than 5 million Palestinians deprived of the most basic political and human rights. If two decades ago comparisons to the South African apartheid system felt like hyperbole, they now feel charitable. The white South African regime, for all its crimes, never attacked the Bantustans with anything like the destructive power Israel visited on Gaza in December and January, when nearly1,300 Palestinians were killed, one-third of them children.
Israeli policies have rendered the once apparently inevitable two-state solution less and less feasible. Years of Israeli settlement construction in the West Bank and East Jerusalem have methodically diminished the viability of a Palestinian state. Israel's new prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has even refused to endorse the idea of an independent Palestinian state, which suggests an immediate future of more of the same: more settlements, more punitive assaults.
All of this has led to a revival of the Brit Shalom idea of a single, secular binational state in which Jews and Arabs have equal political rights. The obstacles are, of course, enormous. They include not just a powerful Israeli attachment to the idea of an exclusively Jewish state, but its Palestinian analogue: Hamas' ideal of Islamic rule. Both sides would have to find assurance that their security was guaranteed. What precise shape such a state would take -- a strict, vote-by-vote democracy or a more complex federalist system -- would involve years of painful negotiation, wiser leaders than now exist and an uncompromising commitment from the rest of the world, particularly from the United States.
Meanwhile, the characterization of anti-Zionism as an "epidemic" more dangerous than anti-Semitism reveals only the unsustainability of the position into which Israel's apologists have been forced. Faced with international condemnation, they seek to limit the discourse, to erect walls that delineate what can and can't be said.
It's not working. Opposing Zionism is neither anti-Semitic nor particularly radical. It requires only that we take our own values seriously and no longer, as the book of Amos has it, "turn justice into wormwood and hurl righteousness to the ground."
Establishing a secular, pluralist, democratic government in Israel and Palestine would of course mean the abandonment of the Zionist dream. It might also mean the only salvation for the Jewish ideals of justice that date back to Jeremiah.
Ben Ehrenreich is the author of the novel "The Suitors."
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Durban II: no-show is slap in face of victims of apartheid
Arjan El Fassed, The Electronic Intifada, 17 March 2009
More and more Western countries are either announcing their boycott or are threatening to boycott Durban II, a United Nations conference scheduled for April to review progress made since the World Conference Against Racism (WCAR) held in Durban, South Africa in 2001, nicknamed Durban I. Earlier this month, Italy became the first EU member to withdraw from the event, stating that it could not endorse a draft agenda that criticizes Israel. Italy followed in the footsteps of Israel, Canada and the United States. France and the Netherlands are threatening their own boycotts. Maxime Verhagen, the Dutch foreign minister, recently explained that "The Netherlands will not be party to a propaganda circus." In December 2008, Verhagen claimed that the 2001 summit was an "anti-Semitic witch-hunt."
Perhaps in September 2001, the world was not yet ready to accept the notion that Israel is in fact practicing apartheid. But ever more observers are coming to precisely that conclusion. The New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman warned four years ago that "if Israel does not relinquish the West Bank and Gaza, the Palestinians will soon outnumber the Jews and Israel will become either an apartheid state or a non-Jewish state."
Four years later, Friedman wrote, "Well, having taken a little drive through part of the West Bank, as I always do when I visit, it strikes me more than ever that it's not only five after midnight, it's five after midnight and a whole week later."
The Israeli organization Peace Now stated early in March that Israel's housing ministry has plans that would nearly double the number of settlers in the West Bank, rendering a two-state solution impossible. Israel has planned 73,000 new housing units in the occupied West Bank, the Israeli group stated, of which 15,000 have already received approval. Moreover, Israel's prime minister designate Benjamin Netanyahu announced that a government he leads will expand settlements.
Israel worked hard to influence its allies to stay away from the forthcoming review conference. However, this is not the first time that it has done so. The first two conferences of 1978 and 1983 took strong positions against apartheid and are credited by observers as having contributed greatly to end apartheid in South Africa. In 1978 the US led a boycott of the WCAR and was followed by a number of European countries, because the document of that conference, which referred to apartheid-era South Africa, also included a condemnation of Israel's systematic violations of Palestinian rights. In 1983, the WCAR declared that "apartheid as an institutionalized form of racism is a deliberate and totally abhorrent affront to the conscience and dignity of mankind, a crime against humanity and a threat to international peace and security." In September 2001, the US and Israel walked out of Durban I. In that year, preceding the UN conference, the African National Congress (ANC) stated that having defeated apartheid, South Africans had a direct stake in the eradication of apartheid practices on a global scale and particularly in relation to the plight of the Palestinian people.
Since Durban I, an increasing number of respected observers have borne witness to the reality of Palestinian life under occupation. Most prominently this includes Nobel Peace laureates Archbishop Desmond Tutu and former US President Jimmy Carter as well as veterans of the ANC anti-Apartheid struggle.
Even Israel's outgoing prime minister Ehud Olmert admitted to the truth of the apartheid analogy, albeit without endorsing it, when he warned in November 2007 that Palestinians, already equal in number to Israeli Jews within the borders of historic Palestine, could soon demand political rights in a single state. Olmert warned that Israel would "face a South African-style struggle for equal voting rights, and as soon as that happens, the state of Israel is finished." More recently, Avigdor Lieberman, leader of Yisrael Beitenu, proposed that hundreds of thousand Palestinians in towns in northern Israel be stripped of their Israeli citizenship and transferred to a future Palestinian entity.
Last year, UN General Assembly President, Ambassador Miguel d'Escoto Brockmann of Nicaragua, stated that "although different, what is being done against the Palestinian people seems to me like a version of the hideous policy of apartheid. That cannot, should not, be allowed to continue."
It may take time for these hard truths to be fully absorbed but ever more individuals who make an effort to understand the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and look for creative solutions are convinced that the occupation must end and that peoples need to live in freedom and be respected on the basis of full equality no matter where they live.
Arjan El Fassed is co-founder of The Electronic Intifada and the author of Niet iedereen kan stenen gooien (Uitgeverij Nieuwland, 2008). In 2001 he was part of the Palestinian non-governmental delegation to the World Conference Against Racism in Durban, South Africa.
 |
| Israel has been convincing its allies to boycott the upcoming anti-racism conference, which in the past has criticized Israel's treatment of Palestinians in the occupied territories. (Wissam Nassar/MaanImages) |
More and more Western countries are either announcing their boycott or are threatening to boycott Durban II, a United Nations conference scheduled for April to review progress made since the World Conference Against Racism (WCAR) held in Durban, South Africa in 2001, nicknamed Durban I. Earlier this month, Italy became the first EU member to withdraw from the event, stating that it could not endorse a draft agenda that criticizes Israel. Italy followed in the footsteps of Israel, Canada and the United States. France and the Netherlands are threatening their own boycotts. Maxime Verhagen, the Dutch foreign minister, recently explained that "The Netherlands will not be party to a propaganda circus." In December 2008, Verhagen claimed that the 2001 summit was an "anti-Semitic witch-hunt."
Perhaps in September 2001, the world was not yet ready to accept the notion that Israel is in fact practicing apartheid. But ever more observers are coming to precisely that conclusion. The New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman warned four years ago that "if Israel does not relinquish the West Bank and Gaza, the Palestinians will soon outnumber the Jews and Israel will become either an apartheid state or a non-Jewish state."
Four years later, Friedman wrote, "Well, having taken a little drive through part of the West Bank, as I always do when I visit, it strikes me more than ever that it's not only five after midnight, it's five after midnight and a whole week later."
The Israeli organization Peace Now stated early in March that Israel's housing ministry has plans that would nearly double the number of settlers in the West Bank, rendering a two-state solution impossible. Israel has planned 73,000 new housing units in the occupied West Bank, the Israeli group stated, of which 15,000 have already received approval. Moreover, Israel's prime minister designate Benjamin Netanyahu announced that a government he leads will expand settlements.
Israel worked hard to influence its allies to stay away from the forthcoming review conference. However, this is not the first time that it has done so. The first two conferences of 1978 and 1983 took strong positions against apartheid and are credited by observers as having contributed greatly to end apartheid in South Africa. In 1978 the US led a boycott of the WCAR and was followed by a number of European countries, because the document of that conference, which referred to apartheid-era South Africa, also included a condemnation of Israel's systematic violations of Palestinian rights. In 1983, the WCAR declared that "apartheid as an institutionalized form of racism is a deliberate and totally abhorrent affront to the conscience and dignity of mankind, a crime against humanity and a threat to international peace and security." In September 2001, the US and Israel walked out of Durban I. In that year, preceding the UN conference, the African National Congress (ANC) stated that having defeated apartheid, South Africans had a direct stake in the eradication of apartheid practices on a global scale and particularly in relation to the plight of the Palestinian people.
Since Durban I, an increasing number of respected observers have borne witness to the reality of Palestinian life under occupation. Most prominently this includes Nobel Peace laureates Archbishop Desmond Tutu and former US President Jimmy Carter as well as veterans of the ANC anti-Apartheid struggle.
Even Israel's outgoing prime minister Ehud Olmert admitted to the truth of the apartheid analogy, albeit without endorsing it, when he warned in November 2007 that Palestinians, already equal in number to Israeli Jews within the borders of historic Palestine, could soon demand political rights in a single state. Olmert warned that Israel would "face a South African-style struggle for equal voting rights, and as soon as that happens, the state of Israel is finished." More recently, Avigdor Lieberman, leader of Yisrael Beitenu, proposed that hundreds of thousand Palestinians in towns in northern Israel be stripped of their Israeli citizenship and transferred to a future Palestinian entity.
Last year, UN General Assembly President, Ambassador Miguel d'Escoto Brockmann of Nicaragua, stated that "although different, what is being done against the Palestinian people seems to me like a version of the hideous policy of apartheid. That cannot, should not, be allowed to continue."
It may take time for these hard truths to be fully absorbed but ever more individuals who make an effort to understand the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and look for creative solutions are convinced that the occupation must end and that peoples need to live in freedom and be respected on the basis of full equality no matter where they live.
Arjan El Fassed is co-founder of The Electronic Intifada and the author of Niet iedereen kan stenen gooien (Uitgeverij Nieuwland, 2008). In 2001 he was part of the Palestinian non-governmental delegation to the World Conference Against Racism in Durban, South Africa.
Broad nonviolent resistance to Zionism
Ahmad Hijazi, The Electronic Intifada, 18 March 2009
Amid the escalating violence, and the 60-year-long status quo, there are certain fundamental questions that need to be asked.
Are there certain values and absolute foundations that make resistance in general, and against Zionism specifically, a moral and humane necessity? What is the framework for nonviolent resistance, and how is it connected to these values? What is the ultimate end goal of the struggle? Is it returning the land and some rights to the indigenous Palestinian population, or can it lead to "solutions" that include acceptance of Zionism or even its right to exist?
Millions of persons hope for a chance to participate in this noble struggle, yet can't find the medium in which they can contribute. This is where there is an important role for a group of "movers" to create the vehicles for individual and collective contributions within the above framework and mobilizing the hitherto wasted support to achieve measurable results.
The Oxford Dictionary of World Religions defines Zionism as: "a global, political, ideological movement that aims to return the land of 'Israel' to the Jewish people," but this definition, besides its racist flavor (as it doesn't mention or consider an entire people who were inhabiting that land), doesn't tell the complete story. It might be important to mention that UN Resolution 3379 of 10 November 1975, after a prolonged discussion of the mechanisms of racist regimes, their alliances and human rights violations, decided that Zionism was equivalent to racism (the General Assembly revoked this decision by resolution 84/86 in 1991 after the advance of "peace negotiations").
To properly understand Zionism we cannot rely only on how it defines itself or how the dictionary defines it, as indicative as those might be. We must also look at the behaviors and practices that have characterized Zionism from the beginning of the movement and that were given intellectual and ideological rationales, fundamentally related to the materialization of Zionism through a state.
Zionism could not have effected its program without the ethnic cleansing of the people that inhabited what it called Greater Israel. Forced displacement, terrorism, murder and devaluation of the most basic human rights were justified because of the complete belief in the right of the Jewish "race" which consequently becomes racially "supreme" because Zionism claims that this "race" possesses an undeniable and superior "right" in this land.
The existence of Zionism, and its continuation as it is, constitutes a legitimization of all the previously mentioned crimes, co-existence with the logic of power, and the acceptance of the practical if not openly acknowledged racial inferiority of the Palestinian (read "Arab") people.
The right to resist derives from the values of justice, equality and freedom, but in the case of the Arab people it specifically gains the added value of being an existential struggle and a fight against the supremacist vision of the inferiority of the Arab people, and a refusal of the ideology of the oppressing power. Thus it is in no way merely a nationalistic, Arab or Islamic idea and its end goal can never be fighting the Jewish people or even uprooting Israel.
The clear goal of resistance should be defeating the Zionist ideology. This is an existential fight and one should never fear clearly stating a complete refusal of this ideology and its result (which in no way is an uncivil or a non-life-loving expression). Peace negotiations achieved nothing regarding this central dimension of the struggle, although removing Zionism as an ideology and practice is vital for peace in the Middle East.
The rocket and the gun -- as significant as their role may be -- cannot have the decisive word in the realm of the cultural, intellectual and humanistic battle. We need to understand the role of holistic resistance that the Arab people now more than ever have the ability and interest in deploying to place a siege around Zionism and racism. This resistance is very closely connected to values, culture and history.
In the age of globalization, the Internet and social media, the importance of centralized efforts is diminished as compared with decentralized, self-driven networks. More than ever, nonviolent resistance can harness the work of individuals contributing to a worldwide effort that has several aspects:
The knowledge dimension (cultural/educational/learning): This dimension is the most connected to the motives for resistance and is the logical input into the other dimensions. Understanding the motives and reasons behind the struggle and understanding the adversary and its methods, contributes to building the relationship between the values of justice and humanity on the one hand and the actions of resistance on the other. This dimension answers the "why" and increases the sense of moral and humane responsibility. Resistance must include learning curricula about the values being defended, and the educational and cultural work has to attack Zionism through arts and literature and the other cultural contributions. This is an important role of parents, researchers, writers and the elites in general.
Media and public relations: This dimension has internal and external aspects. The internal is directed to Arab audiences, educating them about the struggle, its goals, methods and cultural importance which it should be emphasized are humanistic and not nationalist or religious.
The external effort is directed to global public opinion which has a central role in the cultural struggle. Zionism realized this from the start and developed its strategy of hasbara (propaganda) and became a model to be studied in polishing the reputation of Israel and pressuring different groups and organizations. There are so many Israeli websites that aim to "educate" volunteers on how to refute accusations against Zionism, on creating pressure groups and organizing networks and public relations campaigns through tapping the huge potential of networks ready to provide support. We need to develop this dimension to empower the many people who believe in the cause but lack the means get the chance to express themselves.
The political-social dimensions: And here I don't mean politics in its direct relation with the military struggle, but rather as the translation of the wishes of the people. It should reflect the people's hopes of a dignified life and culture, and advancement towards good living that supports the belief in the values of justice. Civil society should, as a unit, communicate the values of resistance, justice and equality.
The economic and financial dimension: This is a very important weapon that we have until now failed to utilize. The least we can do is not buy the products of companies that are committed to the prosperity and development of the Israeli economy. I am not calling for a mass-scale boycott here, but rather surgical boycott of certain companies that really have a black history of unlimited and unjustified support to Israel, after communicating with them clearly about the reasons and the intent to boycott their products. There is already a global and growing boycott, divestment and sanctions movement that provides a framework to build on and support.
The judicial dimension: To try all Israeli and other individuals (and the state) for their responsibility for all the crimes (massacres, assassinations, displacement, theft, piracy, murders, rape, kidnapping and more) and flooding the international courts of law and civil rights groups with cases addressing Israeli crimes on all levels. There is a secondary role to this activity which is to direct the world's attention to the gravity of the various crimes. This should include all institutions that and individuals (even those deceased) who have actively contributed to supporting Zionism so they are recognized for what they are: criminals. There seems to be a need here for a central body that can coordinate the efforts of many research and legal groups.
All the above-mentioned aspects of nonviolent resistance are at the heart of a dignified, prosperous and humane life. The belief in and practice of these values can never be negative or destructive, but is a positive, value-affirming activity.
All efforts need to be directed to the origin of the problem in order to solve it, and the origin here is very clear: Zionism. As for occupation, that is just a symptom.
Ahmad Hijazi is Lebanese writer and researcher on the Arab-Israeli struggle and the effects of media and international opinion on shaping it. His blog is nth-word.blogspot.com.
 |
| An artist in Gaza paints a mural depicting the Nakba in 1948 and the ongoing war on Palestine. (Hatem Omar/MaanImages) |
Amid the escalating violence, and the 60-year-long status quo, there are certain fundamental questions that need to be asked.
Are there certain values and absolute foundations that make resistance in general, and against Zionism specifically, a moral and humane necessity? What is the framework for nonviolent resistance, and how is it connected to these values? What is the ultimate end goal of the struggle? Is it returning the land and some rights to the indigenous Palestinian population, or can it lead to "solutions" that include acceptance of Zionism or even its right to exist?
Millions of persons hope for a chance to participate in this noble struggle, yet can't find the medium in which they can contribute. This is where there is an important role for a group of "movers" to create the vehicles for individual and collective contributions within the above framework and mobilizing the hitherto wasted support to achieve measurable results.
The Oxford Dictionary of World Religions defines Zionism as: "a global, political, ideological movement that aims to return the land of 'Israel' to the Jewish people," but this definition, besides its racist flavor (as it doesn't mention or consider an entire people who were inhabiting that land), doesn't tell the complete story. It might be important to mention that UN Resolution 3379 of 10 November 1975, after a prolonged discussion of the mechanisms of racist regimes, their alliances and human rights violations, decided that Zionism was equivalent to racism (the General Assembly revoked this decision by resolution 84/86 in 1991 after the advance of "peace negotiations").
To properly understand Zionism we cannot rely only on how it defines itself or how the dictionary defines it, as indicative as those might be. We must also look at the behaviors and practices that have characterized Zionism from the beginning of the movement and that were given intellectual and ideological rationales, fundamentally related to the materialization of Zionism through a state.
Zionism could not have effected its program without the ethnic cleansing of the people that inhabited what it called Greater Israel. Forced displacement, terrorism, murder and devaluation of the most basic human rights were justified because of the complete belief in the right of the Jewish "race" which consequently becomes racially "supreme" because Zionism claims that this "race" possesses an undeniable and superior "right" in this land.
The existence of Zionism, and its continuation as it is, constitutes a legitimization of all the previously mentioned crimes, co-existence with the logic of power, and the acceptance of the practical if not openly acknowledged racial inferiority of the Palestinian (read "Arab") people.
The right to resist derives from the values of justice, equality and freedom, but in the case of the Arab people it specifically gains the added value of being an existential struggle and a fight against the supremacist vision of the inferiority of the Arab people, and a refusal of the ideology of the oppressing power. Thus it is in no way merely a nationalistic, Arab or Islamic idea and its end goal can never be fighting the Jewish people or even uprooting Israel.
The clear goal of resistance should be defeating the Zionist ideology. This is an existential fight and one should never fear clearly stating a complete refusal of this ideology and its result (which in no way is an uncivil or a non-life-loving expression). Peace negotiations achieved nothing regarding this central dimension of the struggle, although removing Zionism as an ideology and practice is vital for peace in the Middle East.
The rocket and the gun -- as significant as their role may be -- cannot have the decisive word in the realm of the cultural, intellectual and humanistic battle. We need to understand the role of holistic resistance that the Arab people now more than ever have the ability and interest in deploying to place a siege around Zionism and racism. This resistance is very closely connected to values, culture and history.
In the age of globalization, the Internet and social media, the importance of centralized efforts is diminished as compared with decentralized, self-driven networks. More than ever, nonviolent resistance can harness the work of individuals contributing to a worldwide effort that has several aspects:
The knowledge dimension (cultural/educational/learning): This dimension is the most connected to the motives for resistance and is the logical input into the other dimensions. Understanding the motives and reasons behind the struggle and understanding the adversary and its methods, contributes to building the relationship between the values of justice and humanity on the one hand and the actions of resistance on the other. This dimension answers the "why" and increases the sense of moral and humane responsibility. Resistance must include learning curricula about the values being defended, and the educational and cultural work has to attack Zionism through arts and literature and the other cultural contributions. This is an important role of parents, researchers, writers and the elites in general.
Media and public relations: This dimension has internal and external aspects. The internal is directed to Arab audiences, educating them about the struggle, its goals, methods and cultural importance which it should be emphasized are humanistic and not nationalist or religious.
The external effort is directed to global public opinion which has a central role in the cultural struggle. Zionism realized this from the start and developed its strategy of hasbara (propaganda) and became a model to be studied in polishing the reputation of Israel and pressuring different groups and organizations. There are so many Israeli websites that aim to "educate" volunteers on how to refute accusations against Zionism, on creating pressure groups and organizing networks and public relations campaigns through tapping the huge potential of networks ready to provide support. We need to develop this dimension to empower the many people who believe in the cause but lack the means get the chance to express themselves.
The political-social dimensions: And here I don't mean politics in its direct relation with the military struggle, but rather as the translation of the wishes of the people. It should reflect the people's hopes of a dignified life and culture, and advancement towards good living that supports the belief in the values of justice. Civil society should, as a unit, communicate the values of resistance, justice and equality.
The economic and financial dimension: This is a very important weapon that we have until now failed to utilize. The least we can do is not buy the products of companies that are committed to the prosperity and development of the Israeli economy. I am not calling for a mass-scale boycott here, but rather surgical boycott of certain companies that really have a black history of unlimited and unjustified support to Israel, after communicating with them clearly about the reasons and the intent to boycott their products. There is already a global and growing boycott, divestment and sanctions movement that provides a framework to build on and support.
The judicial dimension: To try all Israeli and other individuals (and the state) for their responsibility for all the crimes (massacres, assassinations, displacement, theft, piracy, murders, rape, kidnapping and more) and flooding the international courts of law and civil rights groups with cases addressing Israeli crimes on all levels. There is a secondary role to this activity which is to direct the world's attention to the gravity of the various crimes. This should include all institutions that and individuals (even those deceased) who have actively contributed to supporting Zionism so they are recognized for what they are: criminals. There seems to be a need here for a central body that can coordinate the efforts of many research and legal groups.
All the above-mentioned aspects of nonviolent resistance are at the heart of a dignified, prosperous and humane life. The belief in and practice of these values can never be negative or destructive, but is a positive, value-affirming activity.
All efforts need to be directed to the origin of the problem in order to solve it, and the origin here is very clear: Zionism. As for occupation, that is just a symptom.
Ahmad Hijazi is Lebanese writer and researcher on the Arab-Israeli struggle and the effects of media and international opinion on shaping it. His blog is nth-word.blogspot.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
