RSS Feeds

The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil,    but because of the people who don't do anything about it

Occupation magazine - Commentary Home page  back Print  Send To friend Red Rag: The Shalit deal By: Gideon Spiro 13 October 2011 [English translation 23 October] The Shalit deal As these lines are being written, the Israeli media is dedicating most of its news reports to the agreement that was reached with the Hamas regime in Gaza for an exchange of prisoners, according to which the captive Gilad Shalit will be released in return for over a thousand Palestinian prisoners who are being held by Israel. The outlines of the exchange of prisoners was known already the day after Shalit was captured. Israel�s stubborn refusal to release Palestinian prisoners on the one hand, and the hope that a way would be found to retrieve him by military action on the other, (which nearly certainly would have ended with the death of Shalit as in the case of Nahshon Waksman) meant that Shalit, like his Palestinian counterparts, continued to be imprisoned for five more years. At the end of the day what forced the prisoner-exchange on Israel, was the public struggle here and the absolute compartmentalization of the place where Shalit was being detained in Gaza. All Israel�s intelligence agencies failed to crack it. The Israeli media sheds tears, some of them crocodile tears, over the �heavy price� that Israel is paying for the liberation of one Israeli soldier, and relates to us the murderous acts of some of the Palestinians who have been freed. Indeed, there were serious acts of terrorism in which most of the killed were civilians. Unfortunately, that is the nature of violent struggles for national liberation. Most of the freed Palestinian prisoners are the mirror-image of the pre-State Jewish underground organizations Etzel, Lehi and the Palmah, which murdered civilians by putting bombs in caf�s, markets and buses. Those terrorists now enjoy the status of heroes in Israel, similar to the status enjoyed in Palestinian society by Palestinians who carried out terrorist attacks. To me, attacks on civilians are a phenomenon that should be condemned, even when the objective is a just one such as liberation from a colonial yoke, and that is why I support non-violent struggle. Let us not forget that most of the Palestinians who have been killed by the Israeli Occupation army, the Israel Security Agency (Shin Bet) and the settlers have been civilians. And let us remember this too: when there is violence between an occupier and the occupied, it is always the occupier who stated it. The violence of the occupied is always a response to the violence of the occupier. In a rough divide between Left and Right, the Left supports the prisoner-exchange deal and the Right opposes it. The Right needs the continuation of the conflict because it nourishes, sustains and advances its racism, religious fanaticism and settlements. The Left sees the exchange of prisoners as a process that could bring about talks and the lowering of the flames. One Israeli captive for a thousand Palestinian prisoners reflects the numerical relationship of the prisoners held by both sides. The agreement does not eliminate the Palestinians� motivation to carry out further abductions. As long as Israel continues to hold thousands of Palestinian prisoners in its prisons, there is motivation for further abductions. If another abduction takes place it would be better if they netted a big Israeli fish that will not have to wait for five years in captivity and for whom a deal will be quickly concluded. If it were up to me, I would free all the prisoners, which would not only convey peaceful intentions, but also lower the motivation to take Israeli prisoners. And there is also a macabre or ironic element to the whole affair. The journalist Amit Segal, who is the political correspondent for Channel 2, the most-watched station in Israel, mentioned the moral issue of releasing Palestinian murderers. Amit Segal is the son of the settler Hagai Segal, a terrorist who was convicted of membership in a terror underground that murdered innocents, possession of a weapon and causing serious damage, crimes which, if a Palestinian were convicted of them, would carry a life sentence or at least a few decades in prison. But Segal was sentenced to three years in prison and released after two, which he served under conditions that were more reminiscent of a hotel for important people than a detention facility for terrorist criminals. And like all Israel, I will shed tears at the moving reunion between Gilad Shalit and his family. [Shalit was released on 18 October 2011 � trans.] Was Hanan Porat a fascist? Hanan Porat, from the Kfar Etzion settlement and one of the fathers of the settlement movement, passed away recently. He was one of the people who changed the face of the State of Israel. He was a religious fanatic: he considered the creation of the State of Israel and the conquest of the Occupied Territories to be the realization of the messianic idea of the beginning of the Redemption. To him, the Divine promise as it appears in the Bible constitutes a title deed for the land, between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River for now, and in the future, with God�s help, Jordan too will become part of the Holy State of Israel. He was not just a man of messianic dreams; he also possessed leadership skills that drew many around him, and operational ability. He was a Knesset Member for 10 years and succeeded in mobilizing billions to create the State of the Settlements. He was honoured with the title of Rabbi and was considered by many to be an authority on Jewish law (halacha). Upon his death many eulogized him. Naturally people of the Right sang his praises for the most part, but left-wing Zionists also praised him. Yossi Sarid and Haim Oron, who were both leaders of the Meretz Party, said that even though they had their disagreements, he was a �decent and honest man.� Question: can a person who was one of the founders of the apartheid state in the Occupied Territories be a decent and honest man? Can one who raised millions to rob and plunder the lands of the Palestinian people, a person who was one of the spiritual fathers of the �hilltop youth� bullies, be a decent and honest man? Would Oron and Sarid praise some anti-Semite in Europe that way? Did Porat love the Land of Israel? Certainly the settlers are often represented that way � that they love the Land and feel a bond with every clump of its soil. I do not believe that. Does a person who brings 11 children into the world love children? Not necessarily, and particularly not in the case of many in religious people, for whom reproduction is not at all connected to the love of the child but to the fulfilment of the religious commandment to �be fruitful and multiply� and the conversion of women into baby-machines. It is the same regarding the Land of Israel. [1] In my understanding, Hanan Porat did not love the Land of Israel, nor do his comrades who are still living. Those who love the Land of Israel do not disfigure it with concrete monstrosities, pollute it with sewage and cover it with a patchwork of construction that rapes the landscape; they do not uproot the olive trees of their Arab neighbours and they do not force their presence on the native population and promise us eternal war. Hanan Porat was opposed to the peace with Egypt and the withdrawal from Sinai because it would mean the evacuation of settlements. Better to continue the state of war with Egypt that would bring about more Yom Kippur traumas than to evacuate a single settlement. Similar to having children on the basis of a biblical commandment, holding onto the land in the Occupied Territories stems from a religious commandment that is unrelated to love of the land. Back to the question that appears in the heading, which is based on a question that a friend asked me: was Hanan Porat a fascist? We in the Left tend to affix that label to anyone who supports the regime of Occupation and apartheid, the denial of human rights, undemocratic legislation, homophobia and so on. Those are characteristics that can be found in every fascist, but does it match the encyclopaedia definition? Here are some characteristics of fascism according to Mussolini: 1) The Total State. The State before all, and its value is absolute, unlike the relative values of individuals and groups. 2) Individuals are important only if their interests match those of the State. 3) The Leader stands at the centre of the fascist ideology. 4) Admiration of force, violence and war. 5) Fascism despises personal softness and rejects humanitarian ideas with contempt 6) People are not equal and the principle of equality is despicable and foolish. (Source: The Encyclopaedia of Sociology) Hanan Porat sanctified the land like a pagan [2], but he did not worship the Total State to the extent that it was a secular state led by liberals and leftists. He did sanctify it if it would be a halacha state in which experts on Jewish law would play the role of the fascist leader. In the other details Hanan Porat, his pupils and his ideological comrades come under the fascist canopy. It is possible be that he was easy-going in his relations with his friends and family, but he was not a humanist, and did not love the Land of Israel in the sense that I understand love of the land. I am not disregarding the fact that when I pass away, somebody from the State of Settlements will probably write an article entitled, �Was Gideon Spiro a traitor?� And his answer will be positive, and he will be right, because according to the principles of the State of the Settlements I am indeed a traitor. Hooray! Another Nobel Prize Professor Dan Shechtman has won the 2011 Nobel Prize for Chemistry. On 10 December the King of Sweden will give him the prize certificate with the modest addition of a million and a half dollars. Israel is rejoicing as if Israel itself had won the prize. The President gave his blessing, the Prime Minister invited the professor to his office, the press mentioned that Shechtman is the tenth Israeli to win a Nobel Prize. I�m sorry to rain on the parade, but it was not Israel that won the prize; Dan Shechtman won it for his scientific achievement. Undoubtedly Israel is a technological and scientific power in comparison to its neighbours. But is that indicative of moral superiority? In Nazi Germany too there were scientists who were gifted in their fields, also in the Soviet Union and now in China. In Iran too there is a scientific technological infrastructure that will eventually come up with a nuclear bomb. The Technion is home to three chemists who have won the Nobel Prize. What is their position on the issues of human rights, the Occupation and the settlements? Have they campaigned against the restrictions that the Israeli military administration has been imposing on the Palestinian universities in the Occupied Territories that constrain academic freedom? What is their view of the apartheid college in Ariel, in the Occupied Territories? Did they protest, at least with a declaration, against the arrest of the president of Al Quds [3] University, Sari Nusseibeh? A substantial proportion of Israel�s scientists collaborate with the Occupation and with the Israeli war industry. Some of them live in the Occupied Territories and enjoy the privileges that the apartheid regime confers on them. In short: congratulations are in order for scientific achievements, but voices should be raised in protest against those closed people in laboratories who are not interested in anything else. Morality and science do not always go hand-in-hand. There is also good news A judge at the magistrates� court in Tel Aviv, Shoshana Almagor, has dismissed a suit for libel that the settler Moshe Zar submitted against me for 200 thousand Shekels over a published column in which I described him as �one of the biggest land-robbers in the Occupied Territories.� Here is the story in summary. The prestigious investigative journalism show, ��Uvda� (�Fact�) that is broadcast on Channel 2 and presented by Elana Dayan, broadcast an item on the settler Moshe Zar, who calls himself a �land-dealer�. In the item Zar pointed out with pride that many of those whom he claims sold land to him were murdered. In the story Zar calls the Palestinians �subhuman and stoned�. In my column of 16 January 2008 I replied to those arrogant racist words and as we have seen, I called him a land-robber. In the text of the lawsuit he represents himself as having been harmed: �Me, a land-robber? I am a decent and honest land-dealer who works in compliance with the law.� I suggested that he reply to my article, but he refused. My lawyers, Attorneys Michael Sfard and Avisar Lev, claimed in their written defence statement that Zar�s objective is to do away with freedom of expression by means of huge lawsuits directed against whoever has a little money. The expression �land-robber� should be understood in its metaphorical sense, of which there are many in the Hebrew language (for example: Ms Arison robs the clients of Bank Hapoalim by means of excessive service fees. Nobody understood what was written in the literal sense of a thief who goes into a bank branch with a pistol and steals the money). In my testimony I pointed out that everything that is being done by Israelis and Israel in the domain of real estate in the Occupied Territories is land-theft in my view, which violates international law and my own moral and ideological principles. Every settler is a party to the theft of land. A legitimate land-deal in its democratic sense, between two people with equal rights, is highly unlikely under conditions of occupier and occupied. A political debate is taking place on the subject within Israeli society. Invoking the importance of freedom of expression, the judge ruled that this was a political argument that should not be choked off, pointing to the importance of freedom of expression, and she accepted the claim that it was a metaphor and ruled that I am entitled to the �good faith� defence in an article that expresses an opinion. My lawyers Michael Sfard and Avisar Lev combined judicial knowledge with idealism and creativity, which are also apparent in the judge�s enlightened ruling. For those who want to read the ruling in its entirety, the link is here. It is highly recommended [Seven pages. Hebrew only � trans.] http://kibush.co.il/downloads/SPIRO_ZER.pdf There is also bad news A few days ago the High Court of Justice (Justices Rivlin, Rubinstein and Meltzer) decided to turn down Mordechai Vanunu�s appeal for the lifting of the restrictions that have been imposed on him and to be permitted to leave Israel. Eight or nine appeals have been submitted already since he left prison in April 2004, all of them were turned down in the same ritual, which has taken on a religious character. It doesn�t matter who the judges on the bench are, every appeal involves secret exchanges between the judges and the ISA in the absence of the other party. No one can monitor what is said in these secret meetings. In my opinion, the ISA people lie through their teeth to the judges, tell tall tales about �security dangers� that every rational person knows no longer exist after the passage of 25 years, because the reactor in Dimona has undergone so many changes, technologically and otherwise, and Vanunu has no idea what is going on there. But none of that makes any difference, because this is a religious ritual we�re dealing with here, in the style of a Medieval secret society. And this time too, like every year, after the closed-door meeting between the judges and the ISA they wrote a ruling relying on what they were told in that same closed meeting, and Vanunu and his lawyer have no opportunity to challenge it in cross-examination. And justice is left in the corner, ashamed and forsaken. In memory of Rani Talmor This column is being written in mourning for the death of Rani Talmor who held a central position among human rights activists. Where injustice, oppression and human rights violations prevail, her voice was heard on the heights. She and those like her provided inspiration to continue the struggle for a more humane and just world. Let us remember her with love. Translator�s notes 1. Here �Land of Israel� does not refer only to the land within the borders of the State of Israel; it includes the West Bank and Gaza Strip and the Golan Heights. 2. Literally: �worshipper of stars and planets.� 3. Al-Quds is �Jerusalem� in Arabic. Translated from Hebrew for Occupation Magazine by George Malent Links to the latest articles in this section Is there still a chance to break the cycle of revenge and bloodshed? Israelis Against Apartheid Statement Following ICJ Hearing Three weeks into the Gaza War - a somber and sober assessment, with some historical perspectives