MELBOURNE, FLORIDA (MARCH 2008)
Blame it on the Melbourne Beach Public Library. Had they not stocked a visually powerful documentary called Death in Gaza, I probably would have slept that night two months ago. Instead, shortly after midnight I pushed back the recliner in my sister's living room and began to watch the film. My mind quickly leaned back as well, back to the hardest place I've ever been: Rafah, a town in Gaza.
The film follows the lives of three Palestinian boys growing up in Rafah and attempts to understand what motivates and perpetuates the hatred all too common (but by no means ubiquitous) in Palestine. It introduces the viewer to Arab hospitality, but also to violence and the cult of martyrdom. It takes us through classrooms and morgues, into homes and conversations, and shows us the faces of parents watching their children die. The film is anything but a comfortable experience. But at the end it becomes even more uncomfortable when James Miller -- the award-winning cameraman whose work many of you have likely seen on CNN, including "Unholy War" and "Beneath the Veil" -- is killed instantly by a bullet fired from an Israeli tank.
I'm writing this article because his death occurred five years ago this week (May 3, 2003). As we begin to approach Memorial Day in the U.S., I want to also remember those who have died in conflict zones who were not soldiers, especially those who took risks to bring us stories and images we otherwise wouldn't have heard or seen. But I'm also writing in keeping with my conviction that travel is about more than cruises and holidays; it is also about the opportunity to see how others live, to reflect on what it means spend a few decades on this Earth, and to see how we are all parts of a whole.
A beautiful sunset in Gaza City, the evening before traveling to Rafah
RAFAH (MAY 2003)
There is a danger to writing about a place or event after much time has passed, particularly when writing from an environment of calm (I type now from a library nestled in the mountains of northeast Tennessee). This is especially true when the place you are writing about is a place of considerable violence and risk. The writing loses something, namely, I think, a kind of emotional accuracy. But that may be for the best.
I visited Rafah for only a few hours on May 5, 2003. Located right against the border with Egypt, Rafah, with its population of 140,000, was a place where militants used children as lookouts, where bulldozers tore into homes and bullets into people, where Israeli soldiers sometimes fired their weapons not because you were a threat but because you were unliked, where hatred was at times so free-flowing and deep that you had the sensation of drowning. The symbols and signs of hate were everywhere: in the guns, the bullet-scarred walls, the maimed, the sniper towers, the rubble. Rafah was a place where even broken chunks of concrete elicited a visceral reaction, because you associated those blocks -- they were pieces of the hundreds of Palestinian homes which recently had been demolished -- with broken lives.
But Rafah was a place where beauty happened, too. While controversial, there was beauty in the international activists such as Rachel Corrie who were there to put their bodies in front of bulldozers and sleep in the homes of frightened families. There was beauty in Billie Moskona-Lerman, an Israeli journalist writing for the popular paper Ma'ariv, who entered Gaza under the guise of a French journalist so that she could witness things firsthand. Her article, one of the most stunning I've read, illustrates the power of meeting your "enemy." Here is the conclusion of her story:
It was at 7.30 that I went with Laura and Joe to stay the night in the house of Muhammad Jamil Kushta, the first house fronting the IDF position on the Egyptian border, an ill-fated house.
There, in Jamil's house under the ceaseless shooting, guns, missiles, rockets and only the devil knows what else, for four consecutive hours, truly feeling that these might be my last moments, I gambled and revealed my identity as an Israeli from Tel-Aviv.
Then I said that my own sons might be among the soldiers shooting at us, not knowing that I was there in the house they were shooting at, or it might be one of my sons' friends who had visited my home. And that was the moment we started to look at each other and laugh. Three babies, two Americans, a Palestinian couple and an Israeli woman all sitting around a big bowl of salad, with bullets whistling through the air, we started to laugh.
A laughter of despair, of apprehension, of relief at the human closeness which we suddenly found. I knew that with some luck I would get through the night and run for my life, but Jamil and Nora had no escape, that they were doomed to raise their three babies under live fire.
And then Laura opened her mouth to reveal that she was Jewish too, and rather an observant Jewess too. And it turned out that the fiery Alice, the group's "Jeanne d'Arc", the Israel-hater, was Jewish too.
"And the soldiers" said Jamil "they too are just 20-year old children who have to stand out there, alone in the dark, shaking, within the cold steel".
We all agreed: life is short and human beings are silly creatures.
I traveled to Rafah with two Swedish friends who worked in Gaza City. Traveling from Gaza City by taxi, we were dropped off in Rafah at an apartment rented by several international activists. As far as we knew they were the only Westerners living in Rafah, and we hoped they could show us the town. In the apartment I took a seat on the floor and found myself staring at the walls, knowing that people who were now gone had so recently lived in this very room. Rachel Corrie, from Washington State, had been run over and killed by an Israeli bulldozer less than two months earlier on March 16. On April 11, Tom Hurndall, from England, was shot in the head by an Israeli sniper (he would die of his injury by year's end). Both these events happened while I was working with the World Council of Churches in the West Bank, and now as I sat in this Gaza apartment I felt Rachel and Tom's presence -- or their absence? -- in a profound way.
After sharing a customary tea in the apartment, a local Palestinian who was a friend of the activists took us on a tour of town. We were also joined by one of the activists, an American in his late 30s who had fought in the first Gulf War and was now taking several weeks off work back in the States to do what humanitarian things he could to help the people of Rafah. In only a few minutes we reached the "end" of town -- at least the part of town where houses still stood. Beyond this point was a sea of rubble, as if some giant hand had run over the edge of Rafah and broken it to bits. (Between September 2000 and March 2005, the UN recorded 1,728 homes in Rafah demolished by Israeli actions along the border with Egypt. Israel said this was necessary to widen the border zone between Rafah and Egypt. The difficulty was that these were the homes -- i.e., the life savings -- of ordinary people who received no compensation for their loss.)
Our walking soon brought us to the scene of James Miller's death. A flak-jacket clad team from the British Embassy in Tel Aviv had returned with Saira Shah, Miller's coworker and the film's narrator, and were videoing her as she reenacted the events of that night. She had been standing beside him when the bullet ripped through his neck three days earlier; now she was on her knees in the dirt, her voice straining slightly as she told what happened. Everyone around her was silent. It was a silence born of respect and sadness, but also of acute awareness at how randomly death happens in a place like Rafah. One moment drinking tea, cooking dinner, or gripping a camera; the next moment mangled and irrevocably gone.
Saira Shah is on the right
We continued walking and were soon drawn toward the sound of a bulldozer, demolishing yet another home at the end of a street. As we drew within a block of the scene, we walked so that we were flush against the buildings on the right side of the road, well aware of an Israeli sniper tower's clear view of the other side. As I took in the sound of the diesel engine, metal treads, and crumbling concrete, I also took in the children who were playing smack in the middle of this surreal setting. Not even 100 yards from where the bulldozer was at work destroying a neighbor's home -- and in clear view of the sniper tower -- the children played.
About 200 yards further down the street (out of view) is the Egyptian border. The last home on the left is the one where I was invited in.
A family stood inside the home adjacent to the one being demolished. When they saw my camera they invited me inside to take a picture of the bulldozer from their kitchen window. (I could hear but not see the bulldozer from where I stood.) The problem was that I would have to cross the street -- i.e., come into view of the sniper tower -- for a couple seconds as I did that. A bigger problem, however, was that after taking the picture I would then have to exit the house in full view of the sniper tower.
And so the debate began, a score of neighbors passionately hollering at one other from their open windows. Some said I would be fine; others were convinced the soldier in the tower would kill me as soon as he saw my camera, or even my white skin. "This month," one woman exclaimed, "it is even more dangerous being a foreigner than a Palestinian!" I wanted in that house so badly but was acutely aware of the risks in entering and exiting it. As the neighbors continued their audible debate and I conducted one of my own in silence, my Swedish friend Joanna, probably noticing the tension on my face, looked at me with a razor sharp expression of her own. It was a look that said, "We're talking about death. You don't die for a picture. You don't take a picture in a place where three people have already been gunned down or shoved into the dirt, where their deaths are still so fresh, so covered up, so unaccounted for. You don't die because death, particularly the sort that might be waiting across the street, is horrific and does violence to those who survive as well." Then she turned away.
In the end, I decided not to make the uncertain five-second journey to the house. While I thought I probably could have gone in and out just fine, I also knew this was Rafah, particularly Rafah in the Spring of '03, and that death flew through the air for the silliest of reasons. As I looked into the dirt between where I stood and the house only a few feet away, the image of my body lying in the dirt was too real. So was Joanna's face, which had the frozen look of one braced for the possibility of seeing the dead.
On the way back to Rafah we had one other scare, but it lasted only a moment: In 2003, the road between Rafah and Gaza City was dissected by an Israeli checkpoint -- the most heavily fortified checkpoint in the Occupied Territories. The soldiers were invisible inside their concrete pillbox, which had a bulletproof slit of glass in the middle for them to see through. To prevent suicide bombers from detonating cars at the checkpoint, no single-occupant car was allowed to approach the pillbox (for a shekel or two, children offered their services to fill up a car needing to get through), and each car had to stop some 50 yards away from the pillbox until an order was shouted over a loudspeaker granting permission to proceed through. The scare came when an order was shouted: the loudspeaker was so garbled that we couldn't tell if the soldier was telling us to go or stay stopped. Our driver thought go; another Palestinian in the car thought stop. The order was yelled again over the loudspeaker, and our driver inched forward to the frightened protest of the other Palestinian. Then the order -- whatever it was -- was yelled again, even louder! None of us could be sure if the soldier was mad that we were moving slowly, that we were disobeying an order to stop, or what. The driver said we could be shot if we didn't continue forward, the other Palestinian said we could be shot if we didn't stop. Aware of the ease with which machine gun fire could pour through our windshield, I shook my head and smiled at this absurd environment in which some people must actually live day in and day out.
As a wise reporter once said, life is short and human beings are silly creatures.
We were back in Gaza City shortly before sunset and enjoyed another sunset. While Gaza City is no Club Med, it almost feels like it after an afternoon in Rafah.
MELBOURNE, FLORIDA (MARCH 2008)
When Death in Gaza ended -- the film is only 77 minutes long -- I put the recliner back in the upright position and went to the kitchen to pour a glass of water. Back in the living room I petted my sister's two cats, the one snuggled on the couch and the other curled into a ball on the floor. Then I sat back down and looked through the DVD's special features, which included an interview with Miller's wife and his film crew. I didn't like everything about the film. For example, I think they failed to put the emotions and history of Rafah in its broader context, which includes the fact that much of the town's population traces its origin to villages in Israel from which they fled or were expelled in the late 1940s. That experience, an unaddressed wrong seared into the narrative of the community, doesn't justify terrorism or make hatred alright. But it is central if one wants to begin to grasp the worldview of Palestinians in places like Rafah. The film did show us a human face though, even if it was often a troubling and troubled face, and for this I applaud it.
I didn't sleep that night because the memories were fresh. I didn't sleep because I was now in Florida, while more than 140,000 were still in Rafah -- still being shaped and mangled and beaten by a place I sometimes felt was hell on earth. I didn't sleep because I so vehemently disagree both with adults who cultivate for children a vision of violent martyrdom and with soldiers who use their weapons to needlessly kill and terrorize. I didn't sleep because James Miller was dead, and I had just met his wonderful wife and child on my television set. I didn't sleep because I regretted not crossing the street five years earlier, not only to take a photograph but also to visit those whose house I imagined would soon be demolished too. I didn't sleep because Rachel Corrie should have been 28 and Tom Hurndall 26.
Some places are harder to visit than others.
______________________
For a video about Rachel Corrie in Rafah, click HERE. The video, which is on youtube, begins with a moving speech she made in fifth-grade. It also contains a brief comment by her parents and scenes from Rafah
For another video looking at Rachel and Rafah, click HERE.
Finally, I strongly recommend -- maybe even plea? -- that you read in full the article by the Israeli woman who visited Rafah. Rarely do you find an article by an Israeli who has immersed herself in the ugliness, beauty, and fragility of the "other side." You can find that story HERE.
 |  |  | ||
| Joel Carillet, Gather Travel Correspondent | ||||
His articles, based on extensive travels in Asia and the Middle East, seek to shed light on humanity, both our own and that of others. They aim not merely to entertain and inform but also to develop a sense of connection between the reader and the world. Joel's writing and photography have appeared in several publications, including the Kansas City Star, Christian Science Monitor, and The Best Travel Writing 2008. Currently his agent is seeking a publisher for a book manuscript entitled Sixty-One Weeks: A Journey across Asia. If interesting in purchasing photographic prints, check out jcarillet.imagekind.com. When not on the road, he happily calls Tennessee home. Keep up with Joel's article series by joining his network, or subscribing to his content. | ||||
 | ||||
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 115
I really enjoyed reading this~
Sarah -- thanks for wording that so beautifully. Am glad you've had the chance to see the film too.
By the way why were the houses being demolished? Were they planning on building a freeway?
These questions may seem disrespectful of the serious nature of your article. But they are intended to show how any snapshot of a situation, if devoid of context, can be completely misleading.
The answer to your first question is no. Tom Hurndall was murdered, and the soldier who did it -- after the military initially said he did nothing wrong -- is now in jail. James Miller also appears to have been murdered. There was absolutely no one else shooting at the time of either of their deaths.
The Israeli writer I link to explains more about why the houses were demolished, as well as her own experience with being in a home under fire when no shots were being fired from it.
I don't think my article is misleading, though I would agree that it doesn't address Israel's security concerns as they relate to Rafah. This piece was simply meant to convey the tenuous, crazy nature of life in Rafah -- a situation world's away from what is experienced in Israel.
> that it doesn't address Israel's security concerns as they
> relate to Rafah.
That is misleading by itself.
Since you consistantly do this, regularly, it is also misleading to
call yourself a travel correspondent, you are just a mouthpiece
for consistantly showing only one side of this issue.
I don't really understand the hows of why of what you are doing
on Gather or who put you here. Were you to post your picture
and not your endless one-sided lies about the Middle East I
could understand, but you don't.
At least Gather could hire or find someone to show Israel's
concerns and point of view - to not do that - well, I just find
this one-sided lying disgusting however good a photographer
you might be.
I wonder ... go see the movie "Where On Earth Is Osama bin
Laden" and go take come pictures of the school that was
blown up by rockets fired from Gaza on a daily basis.
Calling this photograhy, travelogue and then allowing this
one-sided propagandist BS to constantly show up on Gather
is an inuustice to all Gather members.
And I just wonder who funds all of this?
Searching Google for Carillet Proganda
November 21, 2006 by Dexter Van Zile
Badly Sourced Accusations at Disciples World
The September 2006 issue of Disciples World, the denominational magazine supported by the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), included two articles about the Arab-Israeli conflict.
The first, titled "Israel's security barrier necessary?," sets the bar for courage and journalistic independence by a denominational magazine. This article, a lengthy interview with Tzippy Cohen – who survived a Palestinian suicide attack in 2003 – directly challenges a decision by the denomination's General Assembly in 2005 calling on Israel to take down the security barrier it is building to stop terror attacks from the West Bank. Not only does the article, written by Managing Editor Sherri Wood Emmons, provide a first-person account of the suffering caused by Palestinian terror attacks, it reveals that Tzippy Cohen was denied the opportunity to address the church's General Assembly about the need for the barrier.
Accompanying this story was another article written by Joel Carillet, titled "But They Brought It On Themselves." In this article, Carillet recounts two allegations of Palestinian suffering at Israeli hands. The first allegation is not very detailed, but merely asserts the existence of an unnamed victim of torture who is a friend of the author.
The second allegation offers a more detailed narrative – that of a pregnant woman and her husband being stopped at an Israeli checkpoint. According to Carillet, "the soldiers on duty chose to drink their coffee rather than allow the desperate couple to pass. The mother gave birth beside the dirty road and her baby died in her arms. The baby was a girl and, according to the doctor who later examined her, she had died from the blunt force of being shot out of the birth canal."
The publication of Carillet's article – based on anonymous sources – alongside the first-person interview with Tzippy Cohen, a victim of terrorism offers a powerful juxtaposition for readers. Tzippy Cohen appears as a named, identifiable source (whose photo appears in the magazine) and as a result, her story can be verified. But Carillet's sources are are unnamed, so readers are not able to investigate for more context.
When challenged in a letter to the editor, Carillet stated that the victim of torture asked not to be identified for fear of retribution (presumably by the Israelis). In reference to the checkpoint story, Carillet states: "As for the details and language I used in my article, you can also find them in the Sept. 12, 2003 issue of Israel's Ha'artez newspaper which had the courage to cover the incident." (Both the letter challenging the story's veracity, and Carillet's response appeared in the November 2006 issue of the magazine.)
The article Carillet cites to buttress the credibility of his story was written by Gideon Levy, a reporter with a history of making factual errors. While Ha'aretz may have the "courage" to report alleged Israeli wrongs, it lacks the integrity to correct errors by its reporters – Levy included.
Interestingly enough, Levy at least saw fit to report a robust denial from the IDF about the events as described by his Palestinian source, but this was not included in any of Carillet's writing. Carillet also fails to acknowledge that Palestinians have used ambulances to transport terrorists on numerous occasions – a fact essential to understanding why such vehicles are stopped and searched carefully.
In his response, Carillet does not report how he himself came across the story of the baby dying at the checkpoint, but the original article suggests he heard the story first-hand. (Before telling of the baby dying at the checkpoint, Carillet recounts a scene that took place somewhere on the West Bank where he sat next to an Palestinian claiming to be a victim of Israeli torture while watching President George Bush condemning Saddam Hussein for torturing his citizens.)
A few paragraphs later, Carillet recounts the story about the baby dying at the check point, providing details which, when taken in context with the previous vignette, suggest he learned about this story from on-the-scene reporting, not through Levy's article.
In his response, Carillet does not state explicitly that he used the information from Ha'aretz's article, but merely that the language and detail of the story also appeared in Ha'aretz on Sept. 12, 2003.
They certainly did – in verbatim "language and detail." Here is what Levy wrote about the death of the baby:
"The doctor, Dr. Bassam Alawna of Rafidiya hospital, said that the baby died from a serious blunt force injury received when she shot out of the birth canal." Emphasis added).
Here is what Carillet wrote:
"The baby was a girl and, according to the doctor who alter examined her, she had died from the blunt force of being shot out of the birth canal." (Emphasis added).
The similarities between Carillet's and Levy's writing raise a few questions:
Did Carillet come by the checkpoint story himself while in the West Bank? If yes, why didn't he say so explicitly in his first article?
If Carillet did not come by this story first hand, but was in fact, using information from story originally written by Gideon Levy – a reporter with a long history of getting his facts wrong – why didn't he attribute Levy as his source?
When Carillet wrote his original piece, did he know about the IDF's robust denial of the version of events included in Levy's article? If yes, didn't he have an obligation to at least acknowledge this denial in his piece?
Does Disciples World adhere to journalistic norms, including the prohibition against plagiarizing? Just exactly how much scrutiny did Carillet's article get from the editors at Disciples World?
Is Disciples World irresponsibly passing on badly sourced anti-Israel "atrocity stories" of its own?
Sourcing Problems
The question of sourcing is an important issue for denominational newspapers and magazines because of the added credibility they enjoy by virtue of their religious identity.
Religious magazines have been careful to protect their credibility in the past. During the Holocaust, the Christian Century, the house organ of mainline Protestantism subjected reports of massacres of Jews in Europe to intense scrutiny for fear of repeating errors made by other publications during World War I in which German soldiers were falsely accused of atrocities. A number of allegations of German misdeeds during World War I were ultimately discredited and became known as "atrocity stories." (For more information, see Robert W. Ross's So It Was True, published by University of Minnesota Press in 1980).
The prospect of Carillet and Disciples World inadvertently broadcasting false anti-Israel atrocity stories – especially those regarding unborn children and pregnant mothers giving birth at checkpoints cannot be dismissed out of hand. It has happened before in other venues.
On July 12, 2001, the Associated Press issued a correction about a story alleging the death of an unborn child at a checkpoint, reporting:
Israeli soldiers did not bar a Palestinian woman in labor from passing an Israeli checkpoint, her relatives said Thursday, contradicting initial claims by two Palestinian doctors who blamed a checkpoint delay for the newborn's death.
The corrected article continues:
The family's physician, Dr. Ghassan Hamdan, said initially that he delivered the baby at the checkpoint after soldiers prevented the mother from traveling to a hospital. But he later said he was not present for the birth and only heard of the case second-hand.
On July 25, ABC News issued a correction about the same incident.
PETER JENNINGS: And one other note from the Middle East: A Palestinian family has confirmed to us that reports of a newborn baby who died because the mother was held up at an Israeli Army checkpoint are not correct. The baby apparently suffered respiratory failure en route to the hospital. (World News Tonight, July 24, 2001)
In his movie, The Road to Jenin, French filmaker Pierre Rehov documents how a journalist working for a PA-controlled television station, Ali Smoddi, coaches a father. to level false allegations at Israeli soldiers. Smoddi concocts a familiar story in which a pregnant woman is delayed at an Israeli checkpoint. A previous CAMERA essay by Tamar Sternthal provides the detail:
On Jan. 25, 2003, [Rehov] accompanies Palestinian journalist Ali Smoddi of the PA-controlled Jenin television station as he and his crew set out to interview a Palestinian man and his wife whose baby was just delivered by a doctor. In the car on the way there, Smoddi constructs a fictitious story in which the husband was forced to deliver the baby: "I want to emphasize certain elements. The husband has no experience in delivering and in spite of that he's the one who delivers his wife. It's the climax of all tragedy." Smoddi then takes a call from the couple's doctor, and asks: "You're the one who delivered her? . . . No, don't let them go."
At the hospital, Smoddi's crew does several "takes" of the father's account of the birth, each with a different spin. In one version, the father claims that the ambulance they intended to meet was held up at a checkpoint for 15 minutes, and he was forced to deliver his infant son in the car, as the ambulance had not arrived. In another telling, the father says: "The soldiers took me down to the ambulance to check my identification and my wife gave birth in the ambulance and went to the hospital." In each account, Smoddi prompts the father and makes suggestions about the events. Smoddi then prompts the new mother: "The tank stops you while giving birth. You're alone in the car, talk about your feelings."
This does not appear to be an isolated incident. Professor Richard Landes has documented the existence of a veritable industry of propaganda in the West Bank and Gaza which has manufactured film footage of Palestinians dying at the hands of Israeli soldiers. In particular, Landes has obtained footage in which apparently dead Palestinians spring to life and climb back onto stretchers from which they have fallen while being carried away from a staged battle. Sadly, it is not these images of bogus events that make their way into Western media, but of a fallen "militant" being carried away from the scene of his heroic death. (For more information see www.seconddraft.org and www.theaugeanstables.com).
To be sure, pregnant women have been prevented from getting to the hospital at Israeli checkpoints as documented by a UN report Carillet invokes to lend credence to his story. What Carillet fails to acknowledge, however, is that the report clearly indicates that the number of women giving birth and the number of infants at checkpoints has declined substantially in recent years. The relevant paragraph follows:
Information was received from UNFPA, UNRWA and WHO in the course of August 2005. WHO quoted statistics from the Palestinian Ministry of Health indicating that 61 women had given birth at checkpoints between September 2000 and December 2004 and 36 of their babies died as a result. A breakdown of these figures shows that in 2000-2001, 31 pregnant women delivered at checkpoints and 17 of the babies died; in 2002, 16 women gave birth in similar conditions and 11 babies died; in 2003 and 2004, the numbers decreased: 8 and 6 women gave birth at checkpoints and 3 and 5 of the babies died, respectively. (Aug. 31, 2005 – High Commissioner for Human Rights).
The death of any Palestinian on his or her way to the hospital is a tragedy – as are the Israeli deaths Israel's security measures are meant to prevent, but Joel Carillet and Disciples World have an obligation to ensure that the information they provide to readers in the U.S. about the Arab-Israeli conflict is substantiated and offered in a responsible manner.
The editors at Disciples World need to ask Joel Carillet some difficult questions about the information he provided to the magazine's readers; namely, who are his sources and just how credible are they?
Or, how about actually posting a political story and not hiding behind pictures, and back up your theses with facts and information from both sides of the issue?
Mary: Why would that be doing you a favor?
Some Palestinians and some Israelis are the villains. But, they are not all villains.
But I do want to respond to the CAMERA piece he refers to: this is a group with a highly specific agenda, which does sometimes point out factual errors but also has a history of slandering writers, telling half-truths to manipulate a story in its own way, and doing some rather unethical things. Just recently it got busted for trying to infiltrate Wikipedia so that over the longterm it could alter content to fit its own agenda. For an example of that, see this recent article about its plan to rewrite history on Wikipedia.
What you do not read in the CAMERA piece about my story (since they do not provide a venue for an attacked author to reply) is that the story is not a journalistic piece but a private journal entry/reflection that a magazine asked to publish. CAMERA would lead you think that what I was writing was an analysis of events in Israel/Palestine rather than what it actually was: a critique of the "us v. them" and nationalistic attitudes so prevelant in American churches (of which I'm a part). CAMERA would also have you believe -- and I particularly was angered by the accusation -- that I sneakily made up stuff. On the contrary: Every item in this story was either witnessed firsthand, reported by a respected journalist (who CAMERA hates), or corraborated by B'tselem, Israel's respected human rights group. I think almost everyone but CAMERA actually understood the point --and genre -- of the story.
Bruce -- if my stories bother you, you may also want to write letters to Israeli human rights groups like B'tselem who care very much about the same things I care about and seek to shed light on many of the same stories. You will also want to write a slanderous letter to the Israeli reporter who went to Rafah (see the link at the end of my article), loves Israel, but also had the moral fortitude and discernment to see that most Palestinians are ordinary people who really are harmed and threatened in ways that aren't just. If I were to ask you one question, it would be: What did you think of her article? You act as if I'm viciously attacking Israel (rather than bringing to light what it is like to be in the West Bank or Gaza); the fact is, my writing stands side by side with many Israelis who are equally disturbed by what too often happens in the Occupied Territories. My writing is NEVER anti-Israel. Again, please read the article by the Israeli journalists I link too.
As a "travel correspondent" it is laughable how you return to post pictures from Palestine and the same arguments about every other article you post.
I point out an objective fact, and you think I have an agenda.
To me that points out true bias in your intent.
Your stories do not bother me Joel, but you have to behave as if they do. I do not mind your point of view, I mind your pretending to be a travel reporter, and then posting about politics, and the one sided-ness of your posts.
Your photographs are good. You intent is certainly not to inform or bring photographs of travel to people, it is to support this ongoing terrorism by Palestinians.
From what I see as your perspective, you have the best of all worlds, you can post pictures with your propganda, and then not respond on the political issues and call people mad because they see the political issues.
Your's is the worst kind of propaganda and argument.
As I said, why not show some attrocities on the Israelis side for balance, and then show what the Palestinian government does to the perpetrators?
Why not delete the unfair posts of those who contend there is something wrong with me for wanting to express my valid opinion? Or are they working for you and supporting your agenda?
As you've noticed, I actually am not in the habit of deleting coments -- even the inflammatory ones you left on my post several weeks ago.
As for why I write about Palestine, it is much the same reason I write about SE Asia: these are the two places where I have lived, traveled too, and actually know quite a bit about because of years of research and conversations with people across the spectrum. I also write about Palestine because I think the history and situation is poorly understood by most Americans, and the evidence supports that. (The average reader of this post will know a lot more what a terrorist attack in Tel Aviv looks like than what a few hours in Rafah look like). I do not like writing like yours, which is at one extreme (you express hatred toward Palestinians as a people), nor do I like the angry articles that express hatred toward Israelis as a people. I try to write with a different tone, and about things that seldom get told.
I disagree that this post is primarily about politics. It is about a place that is utterly shaped by political decisions, yes, but it is indeed about the place first and foremost. Rafah is not a beach in Cancun where you can write without any political implications. The very act of a crossing a street in Rafah makes one completely aware of how heavily politics and policy shapes some places. This is a perfectly legitimate thing to write about in a travel column, unless one thinks travel is confined to beaches and pleasant places.
There are many things one can choose to write about, and only so much time to write. If I felt people didn't understand terrorism and its costs, I would write about it. But everyone and their uncle has been writing about it for several years -- so much so that some stories (the ones I try to cover) have too often gotten lost. I'm sorry you thing the stories I choose to write about make me imbalanced. I disagree.
I am glad stories about terrorism and its costs are being written. What I try to do with my writing is contribute to that larger body of writing and reporting, trying to correct in some small way what I am convinced is a less than balanced perception of the region as a whole. I don't think one person needs to do all the work him or herself; I do think a person needs to have a sense of where his or her work fits into the whole, and to work where he or she sees gaps. And that is what I try to do.
However in my opinion it is not enough even to encourage different viewpoints. I am aware of lots of different viewpoints. I don't mean this to be inflammatory, but there were some Jews who worked with the Nazis ... and they would have a right to express their viewpoints. Even evil viewpoints are viewpoints.
I can point you to articles about people who have been arrested in countries in the Middle East for suggesting that Israel and the Jews should be tolerated and let to live in peace. There was a man who ran a small newspaper in Bangladesh who last I heard was under trial for his life for just that.
There are many points of view, and your articles in my opinion are slanted in an unfair way. The forum that you present allows you to put forth these ideas and stifles any debate or discussion because it seems to interfere with the enjoyment of your photography - which is good by the way. This just seems unfair to me.
First, I do not hate the Palestinian people at all. I think they are the victims of just about everyone around including themselves because they are desperate.
I support helping the Palestinians. Why don't you write some facts about the Palestinians you have met and spent time with. How many are Muslim? Christian? Etc? I would like to learn more from someone who can rise about their own opinion and give me infrormation that is objective that I do not know yet.
I do not support some of what Israel does including building settlements, and some of the police state tactics, but most of that seems to be done in the name of security, and erupts in abuse out of frustration.
You seem to indicate that you think you are being fair by showing opinons that are anti-Israeli or highlight Israeli mistakes when you pass on negative comments by Palestinians and Israelis who agree with you. I never hear any acknowledgement that the other side even exists other than to shoot people without cause in your writing.
Even that would be fine, if that is your opinion, put it down in a political piece, and we can argue facts, and ends and goals maybe to some positive result.
Do you think I am unfair in complaining that you are indeed political on this subject when it is advertised as a travel article? Do you see political opinions in your own writing, and do you think that because you are a travel correspondent that you should have some special privilege to interject political opinions and not be questioned on them, or not have to respond when you are?
thank you for sharing this moving if not sad story with us.
I read this as an article from a travel writer about what he has experienced, not as a reporter covering the ongoing atrocities of both sides in Gaza. What part of Travel Article don't you understand, Bruce?
Maybe you could go into some of the other travel articles and see if it is average or normal to continually return to the same place and tell what amount to political stories that only cover one side of the issue. I have not seen anyone else doing that myself.
A talented photographer and wordsmith could paint a compelling picture of the life of a convict in jail; the dreariness of his day to day life, the indignities, the wasted potential, and the inevitable occasional unwarranted brutality of a guard. The family of the prisoner could be shown suffering without a father and husband. The institution of prisons emerges form such a portrait as an evil be destroyed.
But the picture thus painted is incomplete if the convict has murdered and raped others. And gives every sign that he will do it again if set free. Suddenly a prison becomes a good thing or at least the lesser of two evils. The first picture was false by omission.
I think the article is also false by omission. Not acknowledging the compelling reasons for Israel's presence and it's demolition of homes, is the equivalent of not acknowledging why the convict is in jail. Pointing out the Arab children playing in full sight of the Israeli guns without acknowledging that they did so without fear because the Israelis did not shoot children is to omit truth. Not acknowledging that the Israeli soldier who you say shot someone without justification was jailed by the Israeli authorities, (this was mentioned only in a response to my earlier comment) in the context of your article gives the impression that random murders by Israeli soldiers are every day occurrences and is official Israeli policy .
Art is wonderful. But not when it used to misrepresent reality and poison people's minds.
I echo Sarah. Most of your readership clearly understand what you state in the first part of your article:
"But I'm also writing in keeping with my conviction that travel is about more than cruises and holidays; it is also about the opportunity to see how others live, to reflect on what it means spend a few decades on this Earth, and to see how we are all parts of a whole."
We do not, for one nanosecond, believe that you are championing one person's human rights over anyone else's. It has always been clear that your sense of justice and humanity is for ALL and that your passion for peace is extraordinary.
I read Billie Moskona-Lerman's full article. What an extraordinary experience and piece of writing. What you both bring to this situation is the glimpse of how the politics of the region are destroying the humanity and lives of the people on both sides; the scared young men in the towers and babies that have to endure a life of of gunfire.
Certainly everyone can agree that this is no way to live and as compassionate, creative human beings we ought to be able to work out a better solution.
> as compassionate, creative human beings we ought to be
> able to work out a better solution.
What has happened so far has not helped, so maybe the one
sided story-telling is not so objective as you want to believe
Linda. Maybe listening to different points of view, and not
threatening to delete them is a good thing.
If we want to do better we have to focus on the whole issue,
not zoom in on the dead babies from one side or the other and
manipulate based on one-sided sympathetic images or one
person's pain at the expense of another's.
I perceive a conflict in your comment, and your thinking where
you express a desire to do better and to fullfull human values,
but I cannot see any real way you are sincere about your words
when you express yourself like this:
> We do not, for one nanosecond, believe that you are
> championing one person's human rights over anyone else's.
You have essentially dismissed my comments and point
of view by just saying they are nothing. This is the old
way that has led us to this point.
The least amount of real action and intent would involve
talk about fairness, yet you deny and dismiss expressions
that this article is inherently biased and unfair.
You simply cannot have it both ways, either you are pursuing
truth, peace, fairness and human values for everyone or you are
not whatever words you use, pictures you look at or icon you
choose to represent yourself, you cannot hide actions.
"You are a total manipulative jerk, pretending innocently to be friends with an Israeli and pretending like you give a damn when you can attack savagely their right to even exist. Your writing is great ... great lying propaganda, and I have sensed it before, but you are an expert at pulling string to tell a disgusting lie."
Does that sound like someone wanting to understand a writer's perspective so he can then explain why he disagrees. I don't think so: you can't stand me from the start, and you're not interested in real discussion.
You speak about why you are no longer writing respectfully, but you BEGAN by being disrespectful and below the belt. If you were honest you'd acknowledge that...and you might understand why some others commenters find it easy to dismiss you -- because you attack more than communicate.
Having said all this, if anyone -- including Bruce -- has an issue with something particular I've said in my article, I'll try to address it. I will not try to address someone who throws the entire book at me because they hate my very motives for writing. Ask me a genuine question -- one that really seeks to understand my viewpoint because you think I'm incorrect -- in a respectful, sincere way, I will strive to answer you with all my heart. Begin your comment by calling me a manipulative jerk or disgusting, I'll feel no responsibility at all toward even giving you the time of day.
Somehow you seem to understand why the children in Rafah felt comfortable playing in front of a sniper tower. Your answer clearly indicates you have never talked to any of these children or their parents, and that you have never been to Rafah. So let me correct you so that anyone reading this discussion isn't misled:
The children play in front of sniper towers in Rafah because, until Israel pulled out a couple years ago, there was no other place to play. THIS WAS THEIR ONLY NEIGHBORHOOD, THE ONLY PLACE WHERE THEY COULD PLAY. And they knew damned well they could get their brains blown out. They knew this because sometimes it happened in Rafah, because they knew other children by name who were now dead. I don't disagree that very few soldiers would shoot a child, and certainly not maliciously. But I -- and the children playing in this street -- also knew full well that it sometimes does happen. You have no business acting like you understand why the kids were playing in that street when you know so little about their environment and have never sat with the families and seen the tears on their faces as they describe raising a child in such a hell hole. (A striking number of children in Rafah have also lost the will to live, which explains not only why so many are open to the idea of suicide bombing but also why they will play in places that aren't safe.)
In the October 2001 issue of Harper's, Chris Hedges, describing a scene he witnessed in Khan Younis (a town next to Rafah), writes:
"Yesterday, at this spot the Israelis shot eight young men, six of whom were under the age of 18. One was 12. This afternoon they kill an 11-year-old boy, Ali Murad, and seriously wound four more, three of whom are under 18. Children have been shot in other conflicts I have covered - death squads gunned them down in El Salvador and Guatemala, mothers with infants were lined up and massacred in Algeria, and Serb snipers put children in their sights and watched them crumple onto the pavement in Sarajevo - but I have never before watched soldiers entice children like mice into a trap and murder them for sport."
(By the way, writers like Hedges get regularly attacked for their reporting on places like this too.)
> disgusting, I'll feel no responsibility at all toward even
> giving you the time of day.
I can understand your reaction and find it rational. In terms
of the things I have done to attack you I am not happy with
it, but I am also not happy that you do not take my reason,
even if it was a bad one, for escalating the tone of my
comments as truthful. I am a hothead on this issue because
I think unless the world changes the way it thinks about
this it is going to be expanding in the misery of the world -
and I do not blame it all on Israel's existence.
Kind of my point, that everyone has their frame of reference
that makes sense to them. It is only by being able to listen
to each other's frames of reference that a process starts.
Admittedly I do not hear your frame of reference Joel, because
I think I see patterns of symbols that I find emotionally
negative. I try to discuss that, and it is a volatile issue, but I
have never gotten what I think of as a clear satisfactory
response that leads anywhere from you.
I am not blaming you for that, maybe I was offensive or
you were defensive, it does not matter. And merely
hearing each others points of view is not that prodructive
either.
Widening my perspective to this whole Middle Eastern
"whatever it is" I seek a resolution, or discussion about
resolution because it is ripping apart the world.
I know what I consider facts. I know what I have heard
the history is. I know there are things I am not aware of
too. I can only use the means I know to express the
thoughts I have.
When I turn to Gather's main page and see one of your
articles, and a continued coverage of Palestinian side of it,
I have a reaction with I imperfectly try to respond to and
understand.
I am lacking an understanding as to why you would do this
unless you are poltically pro-Palestinian, or Anti-Israeli, and
why. What is your context for your feelings and beliefs, and
why I perceive that your point of view gets more force in
your articles than trying to be a fair journalist?
So ... I apologize for the name calling and I would like
to understand your point of view, and others, as long as
there is something I think of as productive going on.
If I am in error I do not see it, except for obviously losing
my temper which is probably not such a good idea.
One final thought from your last post"
> If you were honest you'd acknowledge that...and you might
> understand why some others commenters find it easy to
> dismiss you -- because you attack more than communicate.
Yes, I would agree with you. But the first thing that occurs
to in my defensive mode is that this is exactly what the
terrorists groups do, and maybe what makes me so
frustrated. How can Hamas, Hezbollah, and most of
the Palestinians attack Israel on a daily basis with rockets,
gunfire, suicide bombers, and in endless conversations
and classroom, in their media about how Israel is their
enemy and has no right to exist, which in my opinion leads
to the continuation of this conflict, and when I say an
insulting word out of frustration it is somehow worse, or
validation for a whole Anti-Israeli, Anti-Western POV?
To attack me in microcosm and use my personal bad
behavior, or language, on a personal level as an excuse to
associate that with whatever is happening in the Middle
East seems a logical and human error of large proportions.
You quote Chris Hedges saying he say saw Israeli "soldiers entice children like mice into a trap and murder them for sport" Do you believe this? Is that what you saw at Rafah? I remeber htis article and I remember Hodges being attacked - for being a liar. Of course a little literary license is okay if it for the cause.
More significant is why, given the history of complete fabrications by Palestinians in the past, should any one believe this? I am not referring to omissions and distortions that give the wrong impression such as stating that many Palestinian children have been killed without stating how many died with guns in their hands, how many were killed when they were used as human shields by adult Palestinian "militants", or how many of the deaths have been confirmed by israeli or other sources. I am referring to outright lies such as the thousands killed in Jenin, the sterilization of palestinian women by poisoning the wells, funerals where the "deceased" then gets up and walks away.
Many of thes lies are maintained despite having been shown to be false. For a famous example, on the third day of the violence in the fall of 2000, 12-year-old Mohammed al-Dura was shot dead in his father's arms while cowering behind a barrel and became the poster child of the intifada. At first, the American outlets, except (surprise) ABC, reported noncommittally that the lad had died in a crossfire. But then Israeli spokesmen acknowledged probable responsibility, and thereafter reports said the death was caused by Israeli fire. Months later, after a painstaking probe, the Israelis concluded that the fatal shots likely came from Palestinian guns (a conclusion also reached by an investigative team from the German television network, ARD and many others). Palestinian spokesmen lie shamelessly. Arafat claimed to have ordered a "very serious investigation" of the Ramallah lynching. Palestinian spokesmen heatedly denied knowledge of the arms ship Karine-A. They all claimed a "massacre" had occurred in Jenin: Saeb Erekat estimated the death toll at between 500 and 1,500. Arafat at various times claimed massacres in a half dozen other West Bank towns. PA spokesmen described the "reconstruction" of an ancient synagogue that had been set on fire in Jericho. (It was turned into a mosque.) All of these claims, and many more, sheer nonsense.
The first time one innocently believes an Israeli atrocity story that turns out to be fiction it's shame on them for lying; by now it's shame on you.
I appreciate your more engaging tone in this last comment. Let me say a few things in response:
1. MY UNDERSTANDING OF TRAVEL: As regular readers of my column know, I approach travel differently than most. I take a much more relational angle than many, I take more risks than average, and I tend to spurn stories about beaches and temples (not because they are bad but because that's not my niche). I have written articles from Gaza and the West Bank, but also from Tibet, Pakistan, India, Indonesia, Cambodia, Uzbekistan, Turkey, Egypt, and numerous other places. I write about oppression, the kindness of strangers, joy, loneliness, imperfection (in self and others), etc. And I often try to write sorts of stories that aren't told -- or about places where I think a half-story has been told so often that people have genuinely been duped into thinking they're more aware of something than they are.
2. WHY I WRITE ABOUT ISRAEL/PALESTINE. I write about Israel and Palestine often -- but as much as I do about Asia -- because I genuinely care about both people there. I don't get offended easily, but in your comment the other week when you, who know so little about me, accused me of not giving a damn about my friends in Israel, you were entirely out of line, as many of my Israeli friends would tell you to your face. With some of my Israeli friends I do have disagreements about political things, but that doesn't in any way negate the reality or sincerity of our friendship. And through our friendships we learn from one another and sometimes see things in a new light. Just last week one of my Israeli friends emailed me a book recommendation (by the Israeli writer David Grossman) and I'm anxious to get to that book soon, both because she liked it and because I seek out thoughtful Israeli voices that help me understand things better.
3. THE WHOLE STORY. I never claim that what I write is the entire story. No writer writes the entire story. But that is not necessarily -- as I think you unfairly have said about me -- a sign of sinister manipulation of the reader. If IS a sign of the author focusing on what he want to be the theme of the story. When someone writes an article about people who survived the attack on the WTC on 9/11, for instance, you don't expect fairness to mean that the author must jaunt off to an al-Qaeda camp in Afghanistan to ask the folks there why they did this. So in this article when I'm attacked for not going into the details of security, etc. to explain why, from an Israeli military perspective, more than 1000 in Rafah have been demolished in recent years, I'm alright with that. Similarly, I'm alright if a writer, in talking about a suicide boming in Jerusalem, focuses on the trauma that event caused and does not go into an expose on the bomber's background, including the very real trauma he or she may have had experienced that tipped him or her toward doing such an act.
So I reject that an article is manipulatory just because its focus is narrow. And trust me, if a lot of other people were writing these sorts of stories -- i.e., offering a look at the people of Rafah that revealed their (broken) humanity rather than painting them as a bunch of rabid animals -- then I would turn my attention elsewhere.
It has seemed to me that part of your anger toward my writing is that it portrays Palestinians as a people group that does not all have bombs strapped to their waist and that really do suffer under occupation. (My understanding is that you think the Palestinian leadership is pretty much solely to blame for the current situation, as opposed to the Palestinian leadership AND the Israeli leadership. I also think you and I disagree deeply on the ramifications and morality of establishing a state by, and expecting to live in peace after, uprooting 3/4 of the non-Jewish population in the process. In a recent interview in The Atlantic, PM Olmert, when asked by a Jewish writer about "the flaws in the execution of the Zionist program," responded by saying, "Of course there are flaws. Who cares?" A leader who wants peace -- and want to be able to recognize how others have been deeply wronged even if the intentions were good -- needs to care.)
I'll stop here and continue in a moment....
Chris Hedges was attacked primarily by CAMERA. And after my own experience with CAMERA, I trust Hedges' integrity and motives more than CAMERA. No, I don't know if this actually happened but I suspect it did. Hedges is a respected correspondent, and a year after the event I spoke with a journalist who had accompanied him on that trip. My point in sharing that story was to challenge your assertion in the "purity of arms" or whatever you want to call it. Malicious acts of abuse happen daily in the occupied territories, and murder happens occasionally.
Jacob, I hope you appreciate that there are a lot of lies and propogranda out there -- on both sides. The Israeli spokespeople can lie through there teeth just as well as a Palestinain propograndist, and they have. Thus you do indeed have to be careful about what you believe...and really care to see the truth on both sides.
I've never seen an Israeli soldier kill someone, but I have seen some revel in causing property damage (i.e., shooting up the water tanks of my neighbors for sport). But I do know people are sometimes wrongfully killed. And according to B'tselem, most of these killings are never investigated and, if they are, they are seldom prosecuted.
4. Part of my motivation for writing about my experiences in the Occupied Territories on Gather is that before I ever did I saw so many articles that were telling only the Israeli side of the story -- and often doing it by gross caricatures of Palestinians that were, in my experience and understanding, inaccurate and utterly unhelpful if the goal of all this is to better understand what makes for peace. Of course, one confounding thing in talking about all this is the very question of how one defines peace. Across the world, those in positions of dominance tend to speak of peace as the absence of violence; those in positions of oppression and occupation tend to speak of it in terms of justice. Most people I saw writing on Gather when I first got on two years ago very much had the view of peace as the end of violence; they said little about peace as justice.
5. I AM PRO-HUMAN. I am not pro- or anti- Israel or pro- or anti- Palestine, and I find such dichotomies unhelpful. Those who think it as an either/or conflict between two national groups are not analysing this very well. I think it is more helpful to see it as pro-moderation or pro-extremism. If I write about Timbuktu, I do so because I am pro-human. If I write to a Gather audience about Rafah or speak in a Palestinian refugee camp about why I do not like suicide bombings, I do it because I am pro-human. (So far, the only people that have spoken hatefully about my writing or speaking are people so strongly "pro-Israel" that they can't stand a "pro-human" focus that brings to light the incredible suffering that Israel's actions -- whether necessary or not -- have brought upon so many innocent people. The response so often tends to be: But Israel HAS to do this because Palestinians are terrorists. But actually so much of what Israel does is not really related to terrorism at all. And if one reads my stuff with a listening ear, I think this becomes evident. Sadly, we all have things we have difficulty hearing.)
I am however, pro some policies/attitudes and anti other policies/attitudes. I do not think you can/should conflate criticising policy and attitude with being "anti" a people group. And sometimes criticising someone/thing you care about is the most loving thing you can do.
6. MY CONTEXT FOR MY FEELINGS. This is a big question but a good one, Bruce. I didn't know much at all about this region until I visited in 1996 with a college study tour, and what I did know had mostly led me to be sympathetic to Israel. On the tour we met with Knesset members, Palestinian refugees, rabbis, human rights group, settlers, and lots of others. Each person was insightful and I was captivated by how multi-faceted this situation was. I also realized for the first time how years of reading the news had left me only partially aware of what was actually happening here. The focus had always been on the destructiveness of physical violence, not the destructiveness of land confiscation, house demolitions, and settlement building. (I also began to comprehend just how much money the US gives Israel, and how that surely gives me some right to pay extra attention to what is happening there.)
One of the people we met on that trip was a Palestinian Christian in Bethlehem who spent two years in prison during the first Intifada. His crime: he got caught videoing Israeli soldiers beating children (he had been sending the videos to Western stations). And so a very good guy -- he was not a security threat to Israel; he was a proponent of nonviolence determined to expose the hidden abuse of his occupied people -- sat in jail for two years, where he was sometimes abused. The worst part of the story, however, had to do with why he decided to take the risk of videoing these things: one of friends, a young Christian woman, was approached by the Israeli intelligence services and asked to spy on her community. She refused and, long story short, they put her in such an untenable position that she committed suicide so that her family's honor would not be damaged by the pictures the intellegence folks threatened to post of her around town. And so I saw how Israeli policy and behavior can not only put outstanding individuals in jail but also lead to their deaths as surely as any suicide bombing could.
That experience and others like it are a key reason I've dedicated the last few years to writing and photography even at great sacrifice. (Bruce, to address your slightly underhanded remarks about who "funds" me, etc, you should no I'm well below the poverty line in this country. I don't do this for money; I do it out of conviction, and because I've seen too many of the faces of those who suffer...and the faces of those who so easily condemn and cast judgement from the comfort of their homes.)
The final thing I want to say is that my Gather articles are not what I would write were I a reporter for the NYT or some other paper. I have the liberty to choose my themes and angles in a way a reporter doesn't. That's because this is a different genre of writing from pure journalism. I write so that readers see things through my eyes; a mainstream journalists generally writes so that he is invisible.
Readers are of course free -- and expected to -- not always see the same things I do. But nobody can rightfully accuse of seeking to lie, mislead, or maliciously manipulate.
I meant to also say that I wasn't clear what you were getting at in the last couple paragraphs of your last comment. The tone of your earlier comments don't in any way affect my views of the Middle East, if that is what you were saying.
There are things with which you and I -- and many other people -- would disagree about that don't have to do with whether something is a fact or not but rather has to do with what to do with those facts. This is where values and worldview come into play, and why some things aren't so easy to solve. For instance, I certainly think HAMAS and terrorism is a significant obstacle to peace, but I think just as much -- maybe even more -- is 40 years of Israeli settlement activity. It is a delimma hard for an Israeli Prime Minister to get out of now, even if he wanted, because the settler block is politically much more powerful than their small numbers would indicate. Even if HAMAS mysteriously vanished tomorrow and there was no more Palestinian violence, settlers still wouldn't want to leave the West Bank.
As I've said before, this conflict is often framed as between Arab and Jews. But it is no less a conflict between people within each group.
> a significant obstacle to peace, but I think just as much
> -- maybe even more -- is 40 years of Israeli settlement
> activity.
Joel, you put a lot out there and I am tired and burnt right
not and have stuff to do. I think this last comment you
put out there is significant.
The road forward cannot be build if both sides hold on
to the exact world view they have, and I have seem much
more willingness to budge on the part of the Israelis than
the Palestinians ... since the have uprooted settlements
and given lots of land back at this point, showing some
concrete goodwill.
One thing you might ponder, since Palestinians and Arabs
do live in Irsrael, why is it that no single Jew can live in
Palestine without being killed?
Am I just wrong on that?
Why do the Palestinians and a whole group of Islamists
refuse to recognize even Israel's right to exist?
What should be Israel's reaction?
And assuming that whatever Israel's reaction is,
there are going to be extremists on both sides. Can
you comment on what you think justice is like. I did
mention earlier than my percepion is that Israel punishes
its criminals for all to see. I have never heard of this
being done with Palestinians. What I have seen are
documentaries and news stories about Palestinian
prisoners let loose to commit suicide bombings.
> As I've said before, this conflict is often framed as
> between Arab and Jews. But it is no less a conflict
> between people within each group.
This is a good statement, but my perception, again, is
that you show only one side of this, and I think it is a
biased side, and I think it is unfairly biased in your
constant presentation and in your followup arguments
or lack of them.
I do appreciate your comments which I will read in detail
and respond to.
I am no expert on the Middle East. I have never lived there
and I am not a member of any of the religions fighting in the
region. I have followed the history as much as is possible,
and I feel this conflict is huge, and the root causes of it are
being hidden or undeveloped. I find I know far more than
almost any American I talk to about this, and I find the errors
most Americans have slanted in a particular directions.
At this point I believe the progress of the whole world is
held hostage by this conflict, and if it is not solved then it
will escalate to something worse than the world has seen
before.
I am not sure I can do this fairly but here is a quick list of
what I think are relevent facts, it is fast and not perfect, but
I wonder if this is a way to at least get some common context:
1. Islam has a long history of intolerance towards any other beliefs. All religions have had this kind of history, and this would be insignificant if it was not happening to a greater extent technologically and geographically as well as now, in the present.
2. Radical Islam tends to intensify in radicalization as it moves towards the Middle East where the societies have oil wealth, insular and extreme in hierarchicalization.
3. Muslims have institutionally oppressed Jews for hundreds of years in the Middle East area. Pograms to raid and kill Jews and destroy Jewish settlements in this area are talked about extensively by defecting Palestinians such as Walid Shoebat and are historically documented.
4. Because of this oppression and the hard work of the "Zionist" movement that started in 1898, the Jews eventually got themselves a homeland. Part purchase, part charity, and part fighting.
5. Israel is a tiny portion of the Middle East itself, let alone Muslims lands from Morocco to the Phillipines. Consider if given the history it is too much to ask for a small homeland for the Jews?
6. The Kurds are also oppressed by the Muslims, as are every other minority that lives within Muslims lands, as well as the Muslims themselves though they do not know it. The Kurds seek a homeland to be free of oppression. Turkey is attacking them for it.
7. The Islamic Middle Eastern countries confiscated the property of and drove out the Jews who lived there and forced them to go to Israel, more than the number of Palestinians who were made refugees in Palestine.
8. The Palestinians are not and seemingly can not unify to form a government, and the only thing they can seem to agree on is that Israel does not have a right to exist. Palestinians tried to take over the country of Jordan at one point, and have ruined Lebanon by turning it into a military zone through which to attack Israel.
9. The totalitarian countries run by religious tyrannies use the Middle Eastern conflict to blame frustrations of their people caused by their oppression on Israel and the Middle East, and this movement has brought us to the point of an almost worldwide war of Muslims on everyone, and extreme absurd demands that Muslims be allowed special treatment inside Western Democracies.
Anyway, just an attempt to explain my context. I will respond to your lengthy numbered comments above when I am able. Thanks for making them.
An outstanding article. Your reports and photography have consistently met the highest standards for journalism.
The ignorance of bruce k. of the history of Palestine and of Israel has long been evident from his posts on Gather. He is an embarassment to most Israelis.
* It is a myth, perpetuated by a media that likes to oversimply, that Jews cannot live in the West Bank without being killed. I have actually been in the home of a Jew -- an Israeli Jew even -- in the West Bank town of Ramallah. Her name is Neta Golan if you'd like to learn more about her. In addition to her, I know many, many Jews who have traveled and been received hospitably by Palestinians throughout the West Bank, and I have hosted Jews in my West Bank home when I lived there in 2003. Having said this, it is true that a Jew from a settlement who enters a Palestinian town will be at risk. But the reason for that risk is not primarily that the person is a Jew but that he or she has chosen to live on occupied land in an illegal settlement that has had a severely detrimental affect on the local Palestinian population. Sadly, some Palestinians have conflated "Jew" with "Oppressor"-- much as some in Israel and the West have conflated "Palestinian" with "Terrorists"-- but in my experience the majority of Palestinians in the West Bank will act warmly toward a Jew who comes to into their home not as a soldier or settler but as one who cares.
As for the Arabs who live in Israel, they aren't entirely comfortable -- especially when people like Israel's Deputy Prime Minister has openly suggested removing as many of them as possible from Israel. Imagine Dick Cheney saying he really hated the fact that black people lived in America and he hoped the state found a way to get rid of them.
* Palestinians have recognized "Israel's right to exist" -- though I don't like this phrase because (1) I don't think anyone has a "right" to uproot 75% of a local population in order to make their state and (2) it doesn't tell me what this phrase means once Israel's Arab population approaches a 50/50 split demographically with the Jewish population. If Israel means a Jewish state at all cost, even if Jews are one day the minority, I think that is very problematic from a moral and democratic standpoint. I also think South Africa has a right to exist, but I don't think it had a "right" to exist as an apartheid state. Israel is currently not an apartheid state at least within Israel itself, but according to some polls I've read in Israel, it one day might be as the state considers moving away from democracy to ensure its Jewishness. This is a long-term can of worms that makes peace now all the more imperative. (But back to the Palestinians recognizing Israel: I think they made this move many years ago, though obviously Hamas' rise to power was a significant step backward -- and came partly because of Israel's inability to do more to take concrete steps (e.g. halting settlement growth) to signify that it too was serious about recognizing "Palestine's right to exist".
* I disagree that Israel has given up "a lot" of land in the last few years. It did give up its settlements in Gaza (less than 8000 settlers) but has made clear it intends to keep most of the settlements upon which most of the 450,000 settlers in the West Bank and Palestinian areas of Jerusalem live. And it continues to expand many of them not only in continued violation of international law but also in violation of some of its own promises to the US and Palestinians.
Really, the vocabularly of "give up land" may obscure the fact that Israel was OBLIGATED under international law and the Geneva Conventions to never build a single civilian home for Israelis in Gaza and the West Bank. But they built like crazy. So in "giving up land" they are actually "complying with the law."
You choose to believe Chris Hedges because he was attacked primarily by CAMERA. Camera has an agenda, but areading of its critique of the article can not be dismissed by attacking the author of the criticisms rather than the facts and arguments adduced to support their point. You say that "No, I don't know if this actually happened but I suspect it did." Why do you "suspect" that it.happened? Does your having seen Israeli soldiers shoot up water tanks transfer to acting in a way that according to Hedges is worse that death squads lining up innocents and mowing them down? You say that "My point in sharing that story was to challenge your assertion in the "purity of arms" or whatever you want to call it." Actually I didn't call it anything. I didn't say a word about "purity of arms". Although that such a concept exist in the Israeli army as a standard to which to aspire, even if soldiers on the ground sometimes fall short, is commendable. Actually Hedges story defies belief.
Hedges entire article is a diatribe against Israel without any response by Israeli spokesmen. The climax is a section in which Hedges accuses Israeli soldiers in Gaza of goading Palestinian children to their death: "I have never before watched soldiers entice children like mice into a trap and murder them for sport."
Hedges offers no corroborating evidence -- no photos, no videos, no outside verification. Hedges never even saw or heard the shots of the alleged crime. He wrote that the Palestinian youth "descend out of sight behind a sandbank in front of me. There are no sounds of gunfire. The soldiers shoot with silencers. Are silencers standard Army equipment? I don't think so. Hedges apparently was unaware that silencers do not exist in the Israeli arsenal, and it is difficult -- if not impossible -- to outfit an M-16 high velocity rifle with a silencer. Hedges apparently confused "silencers" with canisters of rubber projectiles -- a non-lethal alternative used by the IDF soldiers on the end of their M-16s.
But people tend to believe what fits into their preconceived view of a situation. Facts that don't fit in with ones view create cognitive dissonance and tend to get ignored or disbelieved. I respectfully suggest that you choose to believe Hedges' story because it is consonant with your underlying assumptions. I don't believe it because it is not consonat with mine. Fortunately for my cognitive tranquility the facts are more consistent with mine. The Israeli army does not deliberately kill children. The concept of purity of arms, which you belittle, although impossble to always maintain, is a standard it tries to maintain. The children who you saw playing within sight of Israeli guns were not shot. I wonder what would happen to Jewish children who were in the sights of Hamas guns?
Your writing reveals a number of these assumption. I would like to address what is perhaps the most fundamental.
You write that "I'm alright if a writer, in talking about a suicide bombing in Jerusalem, focuses on the trauma that event caused and does not go into an expose on the bomber's background, including the very real trauma he or she may have had experienced that tipped or her toward doing such an act."
Here you reveal your assumption that a suicide bomber is a traumatized person – traumatized by Israeli oppression. This is not only wrong, it is insulting to those Arabs who sacrificed their lives for a cause in which they believed. That's right, I respect the suicide bombers. If you saw someone sacrifice his life to save the lives of others, then you would probably agree that that person is a hero. The same would apply for someone who gave his life for some other good that justified such a sacrifice. An Arab martyr believes he is dying for the Arab nation and/or the glory of Allah. It is just a question of the value that you attribute to the destruction of Israel and the eviction of the Jews who occupy a part of the House of Allah.
The President of Iran does not advocate the destruction of Israel because he has suffered under the occupation. Nor did most of the clerics who promise the martyrs paradise and (I forget how many) black eyed virgins. The occupation ,justified or not, has nothing to do with it. The PLO, with its charter calling for Israel's destruction, was formed before the 1967 war and thus the settlements are not the cause. The Arab anti-Jewish riots of the 11930s and the 1920s and before were not based on Israel having uprooted the Arabs; the Jews were then not in a position to have uprooted anyone even if they had wanted to. Rather some of the Arab leadership saw Jews becoming a dominant force in Palestine by dint of buying land from willing sellers. If this were to continue, they correctly reasoned, the Arabs would become a minority and the country would no longer be Arab or even Muslim but Jewish. From a nationalistic and religious perspective this was intolerable to many.
When there is, for example, a medical condition, the first step in determining a treatment is to diagnose the nature of the disease. Otherwise you can prescribe treatments that not only do not help, but make things worse. The problem in Palestine is not that the Israelis seized lands in 1967 or uprooted Arabs in 1948 and giving those lands back or allowing the refugees to return will not therefore bring peace. The suicide bombers are not avenging Israeli atrocities, imaginary or real; they are sacrificing themselves for the glory of the Arab nation and of Allah.
To think otherwise is to belittle the sincerity of the Arabs and to misdiagnose what is actually going on.
There is no disputing that Israeli soldiers -- like Palestinian gunmen -- have sometimes maliciously shot innocents. And the reasons I suspect Chris Hedge's article is correct in its assertion is based both on what I myself have seen, heard, and researched in the Occupied Territories and on what I know of Hedge's honesty.
And you are really off the wall if you don't think a lot of suicide bombers have experienced trauma -- individually and/or socially -- and that this plays into their decision to do commit such a tragic act. I did not imply that this is the overriding cause for suicide bombing, but it is a factor.
If interested in reading an article about my visit to the home of woman the day after she blew herself up and killed three others, click on EATING IN HEBA'S HOME.
As for bruce, bear in mind that he seems to be an avid "existentialist" (and he probably is NOT even consciously aware of those meanings) ... he has no compassion for the "other side" of his arguments, his views are generally the only valid one, he argues with all others claiming them wrong and ignorant ... as for deleting comments, that is something he does readily and often ... and I see that you Joel are above doing that, good for you, a mark of wisdom lacking in others.
Bruce has ONE most powerful fixation in life, fear of Muslims, to him they are ALL potential terrorists, he is very much for immediate actions to rid the world of the threat he perceives is imminent and final, world domination and death to the infidels ... he seems consumed by that in all of his writings on Gather ... it is his way or no way ...
Yes, he does at times "act" cooperative with words such as he used above on occasion, a good sign, but I have found it to be a ploy in my experience with him ... beware !
bruce, you say in part quoted below:
"Kind of my point, that everyone has their frame of reference
that makes sense to them. It is only by being able to listen
to each other's frames of reference that a process starts."
Part of what I mean by your being a hypocrite ...
Then you say in part:
" ... I would like to understand your point of view, and others, as long as
there is something I think of as productive going on. "
Key there; productive in agreeing with you only !!!
As for your claim bruce of "one sidedness" by Joel, that is just because it conflicts with your own one sidedness ... you bruce should just stick with FOX, CNN's Mormon fellow who also hates Muslims, along with the rest of MSM that are very much pro-Israel and thus one sided also ... too bad you cannot handle the truth of balance bruce ... if you could you would have a lot less fear and hatred in your life ...
"There is no disputing that Israeli soldiers -- like Palestinian gunmen -- have sometimes maliciously shot innocents." The comparison is, frankly, obscene. There is a stark difference betrween an army and a society that tries to avoid killing innocents, even if some of its members fail to live up to the stadards expected, and those that try, deliberately to kill innocents; between one that jails a soldier who kills a non-combatant without justification and one that makes them heroes to be emulated.
"And the reasons I suspect Chris Hedge's article is correct in its assertion is based both on what I myself have seen, heard, and researched in the Occupied Territories"
I suppose the discrepancies that I pointed out mean nothing. Let's not let facts interfere with suspicion.
Also, exactly when have you seen Israeli soldiers entice children into the open so they can be killed? The story reminds me about a story in the Palestinian press a few years ago about the latest Israeli tactic of having a curvacious female soldier stand on top of a baracade and start removing her clothing one item at time. When red blooded Arab youth came closer for a better look, she would pull a revolver out of her panties and shoot them. This was actually an accustion made by the Palestinias. When no one took it seriously they dropped it and went on to the next fabrication. The news is a weapon to be used. And the gullible are easy targets. As I said earlier, the first time it's shame on them; by now its shame on you.
"And you are really off the wall if you don't think a lot of suicide bombers have experienced trauma -- individually and/or socially -- and that this plays into their decision to do commit such a tragic act." What trauma did the 9/11 suicide bombers suffer? They were not Palestinians. What trauma do the suicide bombers in Iraq suffer? The American occupation isn't old enough to have warped their personalities ?
I think you are deluding yourself into thinking that the trauma of the Israeli occuaption causes the phenomenon. It obviously does not as evidenced by the existence of suicide bombers that have not suffered the trauma of the occupation.
"and I read books that present arguments I am inclined to disagree with." For example?
Maybe that is not bad, I am biased and I argue in favor of my point of view. But I also do not hesitate to listen to and react to other opinions and facts - not saying I have to believe everthing I hear.
The point about this "tactic" of using one's personal experience (which is great to hear some someone who has been there) but that is not everything.
There is a movie called "Blind Spot. Hitler's Secretary". I have not seen the whole thing at this point, but the gist of it is that people who support, agree, and contribute to the absolute worst things in the world are nice people to the people who know them.
As I think I have said, I enjoy Middle Eastern people that I meet and I like to talk to them. I love the food, culture and music from both sides. I am extremely partial to Islamic architecture and tiling and mosaics.
This thing in the Middle East is sustained by one side that could end it tomorrow.
I don't know if you agree with that, but I think there is absolutely no chance that Israel and US wants to take away the lands of the Middle East and give them to Israel.
In our discussion I have asked a lot of specific pointed questions, and I do not think I have gotten answers for them. I would like to know why, or I would like to know what you think your friends would say about them.
You say you know Israelis who do not support the Israeli government? What do they envision happening in the future, what do they expect Israel to do.
If all of the Arab states are going to be religious states, why is there not room for a Jewish state? Or a secular state? Why can not Islamic states open up and allow other people to live there as full citizens free to do and speak as they want.
I am sure many radical Muslims are great people but if you happen to get on the wrong side of them, draw the wrong cartoon, then what? How can that continue peacefully into the future. What do they see as the future of Islam ...
The continue to come to the West, expand, and agitate, and no one can come to their countries and bring new ideas or change.
I find these articles so one sided and I see a commonality in the attacks, and tactics used by radical Islam to use our own system, our own desire for peace and tolerance and multiculturalism as a weapon against us.
You say about that not many Israelis are affected by rocket attacks. That may be so, but implicit in your statement is the idea that rocket attacks that do not kill people, or kill few people are somehow acceptable, or not as bad as the bad experiences that happen to you and your friends.
It is like somehow since the rocket they have used so far are not very accurate that the Israelis ought to sit back on their porches and enjoy the explosions like the 4th of July.
I don't understand it. I live in California, and the minute someone starts sending rockets at me I would pick up a gun and not stop shooting until they were dead in self-defense.
I'd like to hear something more substantial from my critics here than how ignorant they think I am - Clarke. Take some of my statements and explain where I am wrong. It is easy to namecall, and use slanted comments like Jerry K's "apologist for your favored group", clever little barb or anti-semitism from a guy who spends 7x24 on Gather talking about how spiritually advanced he is.
Yeah, Jerry, is an apologist someone who wants to spread human rights, and justice? Are you intelligent enough to actually step up to the argument you make that there is no difference from a rogue Israeli soldier who murders someone, and a national policy of withholding the right of existence to an entire people based on a twisted interpretation of the Koran?
Joel, you also said the Arabs who live in Israel are not entirely comfortable ...
How many Jews live in Palestine? How many jobs do Palestinians give Israelis? How many jobs to Israelis give to Palestinians.
If there is a Jew in Palestine what are the chances that he is there to murder people to blow himself up. If there is a Palestinian in Israel, is it understandable why Israelis might be security conscious.
Seems like recognizing Israel's right to exist might be a step forward, why have they not done that. Are the Palestinians working in good faith for peace, or is all of this an elaborate subterfuge to keep the pressure cooker on the Palestinians and keep them aimed at Israel?
Also what about the many times the Israelis have called a truce, and not fired back for almost a year at one time. Not reacted to attacks in an attempt to show sincerity for peace. If there is one slip, does that negate the whole effort?
What is it that you are supporting here. And what is the echo in the people's voices that are backing you with that?
> West Bank will act warmly toward a Jew who comes to
> into their home not as a soldier or settler but as one who cares.
Joel, but the way I did read this and did not mean to ignore
it. That is a very important statement and I want you to know
I hear you.
In your experience can you compare the number of Palestians
who visit Israeli homes in a day with the number of Israelis who
visit Palestinians homes.
Can you compare the number of Israeli programs where they
educate Palestinians children and Jewish children together with
the number of Palestinian schools where they attempt to
bring children together?
> suicide bombers have experienced trauma -- individually
> and/or socially -- and that this plays into their decision to
> do commit such a tragic act. I did not imply that this is
> the overriding cause for suicide bombing, but it is a factor.
I believe that is true, not the whole story, but certainly true.
I believe that it is a trauma to be stuck in Palestine. I believe
that in much of the Islamic world it is a trauma to be born and
live there. From your first breath of life, the adult power
structure represents God, and tells you where you place is
in their world, with plenty of traumatic examples of what
happens to people who do not follow God's law. Public
punishments, beheading, beatings, threats, shootings,
burnings and the constant talk of these things.
It traumatizes me to even think about it and I am safe
thousands of miles away in my house.
I thought my own upbringing was traumatizing and
dehumanizing enough. Corporal punishment in school,
and children bullying each other and adults behaving
like petty dictators when they got a little power ...
imagine how insufferable it must be to be around
a bunch of religious police who think they speak for
God ... and probably have a 4th grade education.
What would be the point of these rocket attacks?
You show me places and experiences I will never go to, I am too timid. I think in your passage, "But I'm also writing in keeping with my conviction that travel is about more than cruises and holidays; it is also about the opportunity to see how others live, to reflect on what it means spend a few decades on this Earth, and to see how we are all parts of a whole." you really live your philosophy. I agree with it.
I don't think both sides are blameless in the Israeli-Palestine conflict, I am not brain-washed because of your articles. I am more exposed to the people who live with the results of it.
I am so glad you did not take the picture Joel. I hope your articles continue, so take better care of yourself! Get some vitamins, gain some weight, and a good nights sleep occasionally!
> conflict, I am not brain-washed because of your articles.
This is sort of another way of saying both sides are equally
to blame, which I think is a mistake and has led to the confusion
and prolonging of this worldwide horrible and expanding
situation.
In my biased opinion it is good that you think you are not
brainwashed, but what if the brainwashing is more subtle,
and it exists to make you think both sides are equally to
blame and there is not a way to move forward.
There are many ways and dimensions to assign "blame" and they
are all fairly unproductive, so the question is, what keeps the
situation from moving forward and getting resolved? I think I
have posted my opinions and demonstrated a willingness to listen
and respond honestly.
Any ideas?
have posted my opinions and demonstrated a willingness to listen
and respond honestly." Really?
Because I don't agree with your opinions, I may have been brainwashed, but don't know it? And you have to throw in the comment that you think it is good that I don't know it? That backhanded reference in itself shows you do not accept that there are other opinions out there that have a right to exist. I don't have to agree with you Bruce. Can you just acknowledge that without beating it to death? Can you let others enjoy something without throwing out your "subtle" insults? Or do I get to bear the brunt of your ire because I have said I don't agree with you?
Barabara, since you have not stated any facts or any indication in your posts of a reply or any opinon I have not idea what you know or what your thinking process is. That you understand this subject is deeper than photographs or has two sides of it or how that might be important to others seems to be lacking in your being.
Since you seem blind to my point of view and hostile to it, by saying I am beating it to death. Most of the other posts here in my opinion aside from Jacob's and Joel's are just saying nice pictures.
It is not that you do not agree with my opinions, it is that you seem to feel I have no right to express them, or I am detracting from your enjoyment of these pictures by trying to have a deeper discussion?
If you were seeing pictures of plantations in the old South, and someone was speaking about slavery would that ruin the pictures for you? I wonder why I cannot express my thoughts. It's true, I am not so eloquent or charming as some, I express what I think as a real person, that's just the way I am, at least on this issue here and now.
This title says a lot.
I'm trying to understand how posting many of the same type of article from the same point of view helps me to understand anything but why you might think the way you think ... and I do not think I understand it even now. I really do want to hear and understand your point of view.
What I pick up from these articles is images that bypass the reasoning objective mind and associate Israel with attrocities and violence. Then to follow that are comments that say "yes - thank you for your point of view and your important work".
The people who comment always seem supporting of your stories, and your underlying emotional tone, but they never seem to demonstrate any understanding of the big picture, and often show a tone of being anti-Israeli, with these one-sided stories being their only argument.
Since you are apparently making a living off doing this selling books and photos, and there are many many photo books out there trying to be sold, it is necessary for anyone who seeks to make a living at this to distinguish themselves in the marketplace, to find an audience and a niche.
I wonder what would be the effect on the sale of your book and the marketing of your experiences if you had a more balanced approach to these stories and did not support the opinions you do. I see there does not seem to be a market for showing how awful Palestinians violence and terrorism is .. that I know of.
If you get out to the Bay Area in Ca to give a talk please post about it I would like to hear what you have to say, or of there are any YouTube of CSPAN videos I would be intrerested to listen.
Maybe the book has stories sympathetic to all. There is no reason to jump to conclusions.
For two years you have repeated the same untruths, although this has been pointed out to you by many, again and again. You never learn because you deny anything that contradicts your belief, like a lemming who only thinks of running to its destruction.
If someone shot rockets at you -- or me -- in California, we would both be angered and frightened by that. But when the people shooting rockets are largely people who once lived in California until we unceremoniously kicked them out and denied THEIR right to the land (which was no less valid than our right -- or moreso, actually), then that is important to understanding what is happening.
I do not think shooting rockets into Sderot or Askelon is good; I think it is bad. But I think comparing what is happening there to a hypothetical California setting (in which you as a Californian have just been minding your own business all along rather than establishing your presence by force and denying the right of the original habits to return as your rase 400+ of their villages as they languish in refugee camps), is a poor analogy . The rockets from Gaza are wrong, but they have a context in terms of the history of the conflict and the tit for tat violence that has killed a lot more civilians in Gaza than in Sderot and Askelon. When Olmert says "we will respond to this," that is the same thing Hamas says when Palestinians are attacked too. So like you, there are plenty of Gazans who would say, "If someone is shooting missiles and sending tanks into our communities, we'll fire back."
You seem skeptical of the validity of narrative and human-interest stories to take their place in understanding this conflict (or at least of one writer focusing on that). I suspect, however, that you have never harped on anti-Palestinian writers in the same way, accusing them of being too one-sided. Or have you? (Because there are certainly plenty on Gather.)
I am a fan of narrative and human-interest stories. And here's why: they challenge the gross stereotypes so often thrust upon people.
I suspect you will not dwell long on this next point, but I hope you do: When I am in the context of a Palestinian refugee camp talking to people who have dehumanized the other side, I challenge them with human interest stories about Jews. When you say I only speak about one side you say that because you have never actually spoken with me or traveled with me -- certainly not into the rough regions of Palestine. Concretely speaking, I have done more to humanize Israel before listening Palestinians than you or perhaps any other reader of this thread. I have walked with young men who have considered being suicide bombers and grabbed them by the shoulders -- out of both love and desperateness -- as I made the case against it (and the case FOR something else, something more constructive).
I have sat with Palestinian university students as they discussed nonviolent approaches to challenging occupation and injustice, and spoke with utter seriousness at what they would do when/if one of them was killed or beaten by a soldier because of their nonviolent acts.
I have seen so many sides of the issue on the ground that you never touch on in your comments or complaints about Islamic terror, desires for conquest, etc. So much of what I have read by you -- in this post and on other people's post -- makes invisible so much that must be seen, because in seeing it some of these stereotypes completely crumble, and others are seen in the context of being only a small part of a bigger picture.
My stories are not marginal anecdotes, they are glimpses into systemic injustice and decades of oppresssion, and they tell how they affect real people. They are not tangents to what began and perpetuates this conflict; they are key factors.
Even many of your questions suggest a lack of awareness of the geographical layout of the conflict. You asked how many Jews live in Palestine: hundreds of thousands do, and they inserted themselves there and are maintained there by force or the threat of force. There are some 100 illegal settlement outposts (by illegal I mean even by Israeli standards) and the government doesn't lift a finger to remove them (i.e., to enforce their own law). And many of these settlers pose a significant threat to Palestinian villagers merely wishing to tend to their olive trees or herd their goats. Often settlers will destroy or damage Palestinian crops, and sometimes they'll beat or shoot a Palestinian who is doing something as simple as picking his own olives. The Israeli government does relatively little to hold them accountable for their crimes, and some members of the government even applaud it. Baruch Goldstein, who slaughtered more than a score of Palestinians as they were on their knees in prayer a in the mid-1990s, even has a memorial in his honor in one settlement and is considered a hero by some Israeli politicians.
Either you don't realize or you don't appreciate just how systemic and brutal the occupation can be. Again, this injustice is systemic rather than an abberation. (Again, scan though Btselem's website if you want to hear an Israeli organization say the same things. And to dismiss this -- as you've done before with the article I linked to in my story-- by saying even some Jews or well meaning people liked Hitler is not only ridiculous but also insulting to those Jews who are working day and night to draw attention -- in their own communities and outside -- to what is going on in the Occupied Territories.
* If the Israeli government really cares for its Arab population, why has there not been one single new community established for them since 1948 even though the Arab population has expanded several fold (and meanwhile, new communities for Jews have been built throughout the country)?
* Why is it that an Israeli Jew can meet a person in Russia or even in a Thai village and bring him or her home to Israel but an Israeli Arab can't meet someone and bring them back "home" to Israel. (This to me is one of the more glaring examples of the second-class status of Arabs in Israel: you fall in love with someone but have no right to marry and live in your home country because you're not Jewish -- only Jews have the right to fall in love outside their borders and bring that special someone home to begin a family and new life.)
* If you were a Palestinian from, say, Haifa, and in 1948 your loved one died because a Jewish militia shelled fleeing Palesitnian civilians (not fighters) as they waited frantically to board boats at the port, how would you feel about that country's establishment? Would you recognize that it came about, in part, through acts of terror and ethnic cleansing?
* If next year a massive influx of foreign immigrants organized into a strong body and shoved you and 75% of Californians into Oregon and Nevada as they set up a state for themselves -- and then shot you if you tried to return to your old home (which were now either demolished or housing new owners who aren't going to compensate you and forever more will deny your very right to return to them), what would you think about that. REALLY, WHAT WOULD YOU THINK ABOUT THAT?
You asked what I thought justice would look like in a conflict on its way to a solution. I'll try to answer that next time I'm online, hopefully in a few days.
And thanks, Jacob, for suggesting Bruce not jump too quickly to conclusions about the book. And indeed, it has a wide assortment of stories in it. If interested in reading it, I published my contribution on Gather this past summer, so you can find it here -- it's about Jews and Palestinians working together to rebuild a Palestinian's demolished home. It is an example of people working together to oppose a discriminatory policy, and it is also a critique of how the news covers bad events more than hope-inducing events.
this issue. I do appreciate also that you seem to appreciate the importance
of bringing people together. I am aware of no programs to do that on
the Palestinians side, thus my skepticism about their and your intent.
That is just what I am aware of, and I have not lived there, so your
experience would be very valuable to hear.
I think it is good to go back and look at the history too. The operative
reality being that in order to secure rights and autonomy the Jews
felt they needed to have a Jewish state and as I said they had a
multi-pronged approach on that.
What would happen if the Kurds got a homeland? Or any oppressed
people in a hostile majority?
I agree there is unfairness there, probably the root of the issue.
You are then aware I take it of even more Jews being forcibly moved
to Israel from the surrounding nations of the Middle East then, and
then how do the arguments stack up to each other?
If a small area of California was given to an Indian tribe, I would just
move on. But that is because I do not live in the same world as people
in the Middle East - so I do not expect them to feel as I do.
But, on the other hand, of the many things that can happen, the one
thing that did happen was the exact thing that will explode in the face
of the world forever unless it is solved.
Palestinians have lived in Jordan, and tried to kill the king and take
over. The made and still are making a mess of Lebanon.
It is true, I see these people as the problem, that is my bias,and I am
willing to talk about it and be honest. It is not because I hate Muslims
of love Jews, I am neither, and I am not a Christian or an anything.
I try to look at this pragmatically with all contexts balanced together
in some way that can make sense.
The ONLY way that makes sense for the leaders of the Palestinians
radicals in the destruction of Israel it seems? What can anyone do with
that? How is there anything, any step, any good faith effort that can
trump someone wanting you dead?
I have a hard time thinking that a two state solution, the latest hope,
can work either, because the Palestinian ... radicals, simply do not want
their own state as much as they want Israel destroyed.
There is a great debate on PBS called the Intelligence Squared debates
where they talk about how Islam splits