Hello Everyone:
Things are pretty intense here in Israel / Palestine these days. Tense anxiety is even felt in the bustling streets of Tel Aviv. The following are two op-eds were forwarded to me by my fellow MCCers Tim and Chris Siedel, living in Bethlehem.
I encourage you to take the time to read the following; I think these pieces really give a holistic perspective of the pullout of Gaza and the ongoing occupation of Palestine, from varied perspectives.
DB
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This past week we had the pleasure of meeting a Jewish woman who survived the Holocaust. She was part of an AFSC (American Friends Service Committee) delegation visiting the region. Telling us of a speaking event that she was asked to participate in several years ago at the behest of Elie Wiesel, she described it as "one of the only good things he [Wiesel] has done." Reading this op-ed piece in which the departing settlers who are ending their illegal, colonizing presence in the occupied Gaza Strip are referred to as "the dispossessed," minimizing the past and current ongoing realities of dispossession that Palestinians experience, I can understand this woman's commentary a little better. Peace, Tim
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The New York Times August 21, 2005 The Dispossessed By ELIE WIESEL
IN 1991, when Saddam Hussein's Scud missiles fell in a deafening din on Tel Aviv, some Palestinians danced in the streets and on the roofs of their houses. I saw them. I was in Jerusalem, and I could see what was happening in the Arab quarter of the Old City. It happened again later, each time a suicide terrorist set off a bomb on a bus or in a restaurant. I evoke these scenes with sadness, and for a reason: we have just seen them repeated in Gaza.
The images of the evacuation itself are heart-rending. Some of them are unbearable. Angry men, crying women. Children, led away on foot or in the arms of soldiers who are sobbing themselves.
Let's not forget: these men and women lived in Gaza for 38 years. Successive governments, from the left and the right, encouraged them to settle there. In the eyes of their families, they were pioneers, whose idealism was to be celebrated.
And here they are, obliged to uproot themselves, to take their holy and precious belongings, their memories and their prayers, their dreams and their dead, to go off in search of a bed to sleep in, a table to eat on, a new home, a future among strangers.
From far away, we watch them on television screens and in the pages of newspapers. Some have behaved in an offensive and undignified manner. They insulted and wounded soldiers; they spat on officers - including some who are decorated heroes, all of them ready to give their lives for their country. But the majority have responded in a dignified way: with tears. As though united in the same despair, soldiers and evacuees cried together, even to such an extent that certain commentators have reproached them, saying: our warriors of yesterday and tomorrow shouldn't give way to easy emotion.
On a strictly military level, the operation is a success. For that, and for his brave decision to pursue future peace even at present political cost, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon deserves praise. But starting now, Israelis and Palestinians must face the question: What next?
And here I am obliged to take a step back. In the tradition I claim, the Jew is ordered by King Solomon "not to rejoice when the enemy falls." I don't know whether the Koran suggests the same.
I know only that in my opinion, what is missing from the chapter now closing is a collective gesture that ought to be made, but that hasn't been made, by the Palestinians.
Let's imagine it, if you will. Let's imagine that, faced with the tears and suffering of the evacuees, the Palestinians had chosen to silence their joy and their pride, rather than to organize military parades with masked fighters, machine guns in hand, shooting in the air as though celebrating a great battlefield victory. Yes, imagine that President Mahmoud Abbas and his colleagues, in advising their followers, extolled moderation, restraint, respect and a little understanding for the Jews who felt themselves struck by an unhappy fate. They would have won general admiration.
I will perhaps be told that when the Palestinians cried at the loss of their homes, few Israelis were moved. That's possible. But how many Israelis rejoiced?
And now, where are we? A lull is imperative. The tears must be allowed to dry and the wounds to heal. Haste, in this delicate moment, is dangerous. Any pressure from outside risks being counterproductive.
Why these words of warning? Because last May, at an official dinner offered by King Abdullah II of Jordan, I spoke with the Palestinian prime minister, Ahmed Qurei. When I asked him what he thought of Mr. Sharon's courageous decision regarding Gaza, it was with a wave of the hand that he objected, adding with disdain: "All that is worth nothing, means nothing. If Sharon doesn't begin right away to negotiate definitive borders, a great catastrophe will be the result." He repeated those words: "right away" and "a great catastrophe."
The optimist in me wants very much to believe that those were just words. Gaza, after all, is but one chapter in a book that must ultimately be about peace.
Elie Wiesel, a professor of humanities at Boston University, was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1986. This article was translated from the French by The New York Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/21/opinion/21wiesel.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following is one reader's response posted on the NYT website:
Wiesel's Weaseling
Elie Wiesel, once a man with a sound moral compass, offers some disheartening and cynical agitprop in this piece.
Wiesel's characterization of the settlers as rootless, homeless, and looking for a place to rest their heads is ludicrous spin--a wretched abuse of poetical license. Each family received hundreds of thousands of dollars cash, and they all had months to dismantle their homes and rebuild exact replicas elsewhere, if they wanted. That some chose not to is their problem. And even the ones who thought God would not allow their removal, and did nothing to prepare, still have plenty of cash!
1."...when the Palestinians cried at the loss of their homes, few Israelis were moved. That's possible. But how many Israelis rejoiced?"
The Palestinians didn't "lose their homes"--their homes were bulldozed by the Israeli army. They weren't given hundreds of thousands of dollars in compensation, nor given months to remove their belongings and fixtures (from the roof tiles to the floorboards). To compare the ad hoc bulldozing of people's homes to this well-organized and highly compensated act of eminent domain is odious. Wiesel of all people should be sensitive to this sort of hyperbole, as it is similar to arguments relying on "Holocaust equivalence."
2. He says that "what is missing from the chapter now closing is a collective gesture that ought to be made, but that hasn't been made, by the Palestinians."
The close of this chapter is just beginning. The pullout is not complete. The Gaza airport is still in Israeli hands. Why should the Palestinians "silence their joy" at the end of this 35 year-long provocation? Did Wiesel "silence his joy" upon his release from Nazi brutality?
The Palestinians can be excused their outbursts of joy. (When did they last make a gain of this magnitude?) Wiesel insists on magnanimity by the Palestinians as they see the "tears and suffering" of the 'evacuees' (a nice term for self-righteous squatters who knew a good deal when they saw one). The Israeli Army is still there. The West Bank settlements and the Wall are still there. This gesture by Sharon is, hopefully, the first of glimmer of a return to sanity and humanity by the government. But hardly the sort of "victory" that demands magnanimity.
And from another reader's response:
"There are three "Arab" quarters in the Old city -- Muslim, Christian and Armenian. There is one Jewish quarter."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The New York Times August 21, 2005 Live From Gaza: A New View of Israel By DAOUD KUTTAB Ramallah, West Bank
SOMETHING strange happened last week: Israeli settlers and Jewish extremists appeared human on Arab TV. This is not to say that Arabs have suddenly become soft on their historical enemies. But hours and hours of watching - on all stations, including Al Jazeera - close-ups of mothers and babies, of young women and older men, visibly in anguish as they were forced out of their homes, had an emotional effect.
Of course, Palestinians didn't miss the context. Talk in our living rooms and over Turkish coffee at the office has been mixed: "Do you think they were acting?"; "Anyway, they were illegally on our land"; "Imagine what Palestinian refugees felt as they were being forcibly evicted years ago"; "What about the 120 homes in Rafah that were razed a few months ago?"; "Where was the world press as Palestinians were killed, often by these same settlers?"
Surprisingly, the coverage on Arab news networks has reflected these contradictions. One Arab reporter on the scene asked his anchor back in Dubai, "Did you see the soldiers crying?" Another network countered such images with an interview with the parents of Muhammad al-Dura, the 12-year-old boy who was photographed dying in his father's arms in 2000 and whose image has become a symbol of the intifada. But for the most part, the language on the broadcasts has been accurate and straightforward.
Even the largest Palestinian newspaper, Al Quds, had to deal with the emotional aspect of the evacuations. It carried an editorial on Thursday about the effects of the images of settlers crying and Israeli soldiers embracing them. It concluded that such scenes could have been avoided had Israel not grabbed Palestinian lands in the first place. Of course, Al Quds was correct in pointing out the obvious context - but this didn't lessen the way the pictures affected average Palestinians.
The Gaza evacuations also produced many interesting comparisons. Many Palestinians compared the kid-glove treatment given to the protesting settlers (who will be handsomely compensated) with the violent response to even peaceful Palestinian protests. And the much-shown clip of an Israeli father lifting his young daughter into the faces of emotionless soldiers reminded many of Palestinian mothers lifting their young sons in the air and publicly calling on them to avenge the deaths of a brother or a father.
The comparative images of religion were also evident. Fanatic Islam was mirrored by fanatic Judaism. One CNN reporter even had a slip of a tongue, mistakenly saying that settlers holed up in a synagogue were in a "mosque."
Then there was the common dynamic of minority factions monopolizing political discourse. Just as with the exaggerated political powers that Palestinian militants enjoy, it was clear that a few fanatic Jews were hijacking the anti-evacuation cause - note that the last protesters to be removed have been nonresidents dragged from synagogues in which they probably had never worshiped.
Whether Palestinians and Arabs will admit it or not, the powerful images of the last few days can't be ignored. Irrespective of the facts that Jewish settlements are illegal and that the Palestinian refugee problem was created by Israeli military force, the human cost on both sides of the conflict is huge. While not agreeing with either the settlers or the actions of Palestinian militants, the rest of us must start understanding and respecting them as humans. And it would help if the international news media began portraying ordinary Palestinians, too, with a touch of humanity.
Any sane person should by now realize that any long-term solution can only be achieved by level-headed leaders who can make mutual compromises and concessions. This means that continued Israeli unilateralism will do little to move the post-Gaza peace process forward. Only bilateral Palestinian-Israeli talks, with the help of the international community, can bring a lasting agreement.
The dramatic scenes from Gaza should lead us all to double our efforts to ensure that Palestinians can be free in an independent state, alongside a safe and secure Israel.
Daoud Kuttab is the director of the Institute of Modern Media at Al-Quds University.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/21/opinion/21kuttab.html?th&emc=th
No comments:
Post a Comment