http://indymedia.org.il
"Blaming one side and not mentioning the wrongs of the other side"Wednesday 13 Nov 2002
author: Yehudith Harel
summary
I am finished with the "two sides" discourse. I do everything in my capacity to make my audience understand that in principle one cannot equate between victims and victimizers, nor among the above mentioned cases of violence or evils: the violence of the illegitimate occupation and the legitimate resistance against it that unfortunately cannot be completely "violence free".
"Blaming one side and not mentioning the wrongs of the other side"
How a corrupt discourse contributed to the Fall of the Israeli Peace Camp
Yehudith Harel
This is one of the main accusations thrown in the face of anybody who dears to criticize Israeli policies. Not the worst of them though: one may hear much worse stuff like "you are antisemitic"...or " you are a self hating Jew" or even 'worse': "you are an Arab Lover" brrrrr... However, the above mentioned allegation is the one used by the more respectful and so called "objective people". So, I'd like to try to say something very briefly concerning the "blaming one side and not mentioning the wrongs of the other side". This position sounds very logical and moral indeed, and this principle should be normally made the rule. However, the problem is that we are not in a normal situation and once one starts to be so balanced and objective - one loses the main point which is that there is a 35 years old brutal Israeli Military Occupation to be ended unconditionally and without any further delay; that we are the occupiers and the strong party and that we have put ourselves in this impossible situation of occupiers to begin with and made it worse by the intensive colonization of the occupied territories, the blatant abuse of human rights and the war crimes committed by our forces against the Occupied people. We don't really show any serious intent to put an end to this occupation, for sure not now, under the present Sharonian regime. We were not so different in the past either. We were less seemingly brutal but at the same time we were engaged in a most straightforward and highly sophisticated effort to colonize these territories by "creating irreversible facts on the ground", and by doing so rendering any political compromise based on the "Two State Solution" practically impossible. On the other hand we have not offered the Palestinians the other possibility: to keep the land unified and live together in full equality in one Democratic State for all, like any other normal Democratic Modern Nation State. I must say straightforward that I prefer this solution as the best of the two.
Coming back to the main issue, which concerns the kind of discourse we use. One can find "the more balanced discourse" - putting the blame on both sides - in that of the Zionist Left. The traditional position, or rather deliberate strategy of the Zionist Left - Meretz and Peace Now has always been to be very careful and always use a carefully balanced discourse. They were always so careful to talk to the "two sides", to stress that "the two sides are equally responsible" for everything. They always appeal to the two sides to stop the violence etc...They were so careful in this respect that their own constituency forgot who is the Occupier and who is the occupied, who is the mighty military power in the region and who is a powerless and stateless people, and WHY did all this mess start to begin with.... This specific discourse veiled the facts and distorted the reality and the chain of events before and after Oslo and in the aftermath of the outburst of the present Intifada. Consequently people here didn't pay attention that there has been no real peace process almost since the beginning of Oslo in 1993. The colonization process has never stopped, not for one moment - not under Rabin who started the so called "By Pass" roads and strengthened the "strategic settlements" in East Jerusalem and elsewhere, not under Netanyahu who intensified the settlement activity all over and not under Barak either. One must know that during Barak's term the actual number of settlers who entered the West Bank and Gaza was bigger than in the equivalent time of Netanyahu's term...There was a steady growth if 12% in the number of settlers during his short term. And this was Barak the "Peace maker" who "overturned every stone in the quest for Peace and who bravely sacrificed his political career in this course..." Isn't this what one can hear all the time?
Getting back once again to "the balanced discourse". The Zionist left always calls "to stop the Violence on both sides" and pays such careful attention to address both sides as if they were equal in their respective positions, in power, in responsibility, in accountability and culpability. By doing so the Zionist Left creates a corrupt and incorrect equation between two kinds of violence: the Violence of the colonization and occupation which are in contravention to International law and legitimacy, and the violence generated by this occupation and the legitimate de-colonization struggle, a struggle that is a reaction to a result of 35 years of military occupation and ongoing and ever increasing and intensifying colonization process. I know pretty well that legitimate liberation struggles have their red lines and I do not condone suicide bombings. On the contrary - I believe that these acts are both immoral by definition and both counterproductive for the Palestinian Liberation struggle. But we as political people are not engaged in moral teachings but rather in politics and political statements. We must remember that while the Palestinians were very nice and subservient - not at all "violent", before the first Intifada ( before 1987 ) they didn't get anything at all. Nobody recognized their rights and even the Zionist Left didn't recognize the PLO ... and nobody was talking to them about Ending the Occupation. Their economy became subject to the needs of the Israeli economy, they became the cheap rightless and used foreign labour of the Israeli industry and their market became a most convenient market for our products. The Palestinian colleges were not allowed to develop freely, there was no freedom for political organization nor freedom of the press. ( BTW - it is little wonder indeed why the Palestinian Society does not have a rich democratic experience...) Furthermore - there was a quiet transfer going on ever since 1967 and tens of thousands of Palestinians went abroad as a result of the systematic strangulation of the Palestinian economy and their consequent need to go abroad in search for a living and for higher education. Many of these people were not allowed to come back by all kinds of administrative regulations. (Anybody who went out and didn't come back for 3 years was automatically denied from his residence rights!!! ) These became the so-called "displaced persons" who make up more than 300.000 people after 67!!! Moreover, after Oslo the colonization and Bantustanization of the Palestinian Occupied territories intensified with cutting their land into bits and pieces by the so called "by pass roads" and the proliferation of settlement all over the country in addition to the enlargement of the settlement blocks.
And then came Barak's "most generous offers" - the ones intended to legitimize the above mentioned reality on 88% of the remainder of their land...( Only 22% of their historical Homeland) Only in Clintons offers were there some more realistic offers made but Barak himself officially NEVER offered more than 88%...+ all the restrictions that would not allow for a viable and really sovereign Palestinian state to come into existence. This was the reason for the outbreak of the last Intifada - the growing frustration and despair and the realization on behalf of the Palestinian grassroots and the civil society, that the negotiations lead nowhere, but serve as a cover for the ongoing colonization and the skilful and cunning creation of more "facts on the ground" that would later be used by Israel as a pretext for demanding more Palestinian concessions arguing that "there are facts on the ground that cannot be changed and that past wrongs cannot be addressed by new wrongs" - I.e. uprooting settlers and their children who have already been born on the formerly and more recently stolen Palestinian Land...
These kinds of arguments - among other things - made by the Israeli Left made me quit their circles and convinced me of the necessity to change my discourse and adopt one that is both sincere and honest and also accurate.
I came to the belated conclusion that being vague and elusive about the real facts on the ground and using an indirect and "beautified" discourse of "elusions" just in order to be "Politically Correct" in my circles - create a false consciousness that can lead us nowhere. As I have described it - this discourse lead to the collapse of the Israeli Peace camp because people didn't understand "What got into the Palestinians and why did they resort to violence and terrorism" and not continue with the cosy peace talks in all those beautiful hotels and resorts all over the world...
Therefore I am finished with the "two sides" discourse. I do everything in my capacity to make my audience understand that in principle one cannot equate between victims and victimizers, nor among the above mentioned cases of violence or evils: the violence of the illegitimate occupation and the legitimate resistance against it that unfortunately cannot be completely "violence free". At least I do not know such a historical precedence, and don't tell me about the Mahatma Gandhi because he was shot dead.
Yehudith Harel