The report from yesterday's ICAHD tour is forth-coming, but I've been ruminating on a couple things that the tour guide said. It's been stuck in my mind for the last 24 hours.
The first thing that he said that jarred me was that Palestinians in East Jerusalem aren't very political or politically aware, and that it was frustrating (for Israeli peace activists) to try to mobilize them to oppose housing demolitions because they didn't seem to be as interested in working together as they were in looking out for their own families. (Note: I'm recalling from my notes and paraphrasing.)
I don't know a lot of East Jerusalemites, so I don't really feel terribly qualified to dispute that, but based on what I know of Palestinians elsewhere, I can't quite imagine that being a truthful statement. Most of the Palestinians I know are extremely politically aware, but their level of political engagement varies. People who are politically active put themselves at risk here. When non-violent resistance and public demonstrations are responded to with violence, arrests or harassment, it tends to cut down on participation. The silencing of dissent is pretty corrosive if you're trying to have an engaged citizenry and mobilize people politically. It happens when organizing resistance to Israeli occupation, and it also happens within Palestinian society (the anti-Annapolis demonstrations being fresh in my mind).
Second, I don't think it's the role of Israeli peace activists (or internationals) to be mobilizing the Palestinians. Supporting, sure. Idea-sharing? Sure. Partnership? Why not? Organizing? Hmm.
Third, I can imagine how people who have a standing demolition order on their house may be reluctant to speak out against the demolition of someone else's house. It may not be internal rivalry or lack of concern for their neighbors that prevents people from organizing. The sheer terror of possibly losing one's home probably prevents the residents of East Jerusalem (and elsewhere) from organizing to oppose housing demolition orders.
--
The other thing that he said that was interesting to me was that the occupation has succeeded in creating different classes of Palestinians, and how that is being used to maintain hegemony over the Palestinian people.
This thesis is based on the following assumptions/observations:
Palestinians in the diaspora are disconnected and marginalized.
Israeli Arabs (Palestinians who stayed inside Israel) are not interested in being part of a Palestinian state, because their Israeli citizenship gives them a lot of social benefits, in spite of not being fully equal citizens inside Israel.
East Jerusalem Palestinians, like the Israeli Arabs, are also not enthusiastic about being part of the Palestinian state, for the same reasons as the Israeli Arabs. (This seems a little unlikely, given the fact that most residents of East Jerusalem haven't accepted Israeli citizenship.)
West Bank Palestinians accept what is happening in Gaza because they don't want their lives to become like those in Gaza.
Gazans = isolated and imprisoned, no rights.
The resulting observation was that because nobody wants to risk giving up/losing the benefits and privileges they have, there is no Palestinian unity. Without Palestinian unity, Israel and its supporters can do just about anything they want and play each faction off of each other in order to maintain chaos while grabbing more and more land for settlements and other projects.
I'm not sure what to make of this analysis. It may be a bit simplistic, but it also makes some sense, and wouldn't be the first time that the game "divide and rule" was played. I guess the million dollar question is: what can be done about it?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment