This article was written before the warfare of May 2021

It has been over 400 years since the first group of slaves from Africa arrived on the shores of Virginia, and yet, against the backdrop of racial tensions between whites and blacks, the issue of slavery has risen again in the United States. A collection of articles appearing in a New York Times supplement in August 2019, entitled “Project 1619,” marked the 400th anniversary of the arrival of that slave ship. The collection soon became the focus of controversy. Black journalist Nikole Hannah-Jones, who edited the supplement, wrote an introductory article that ignited a heated debate.

Hannah-Jones wrote that the founders declared colonial independence from Britain to ensure the continuation of slavery. Jones also slaughters some sacred cows, noting that the authors of the U.S. Constitution, including Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, were themselves slave owners. She went on to accuse none other than Abraham Lincoln of racism, because at one stage he wanted to send the blacks back to Africa.

What has exacerbated the controversy within the U.S. is President Joe Biden’s decision that “Project 1619” will become an optional part of the curriculum in American schools. That decision sparked attacks from Donald Trump, who accused Democrats of educating themselves in self-hatred. Biden even offered to help fund the schools that use “Project 1619” or similar materials. As a result, in late April, Republican Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell sent a scathing letter of protest to the Secretary of Education, urging him to cease his efforts to place such material in schools, stating: “Families did not demand this divisive nonsense. The voters did not vote for it. Americans never decided our children would learn that our country is the very embodiment of evil.”

Interestingly, it was not just the Republican establishment that was alarmed by the Democrats’ attempt to “fix” history. Former Israeli ambassador to Washington Zalman Shoval also intervened in the American debate, adding a “Jewish” angle. In an opinion piece in the Jerusalem Post, Shoval came out against Project 1619, comparing it to the Nazis and Bolsheviks who, he said, were experts in engineering history to serve their political interests, as well as to Palestinian leaders in their efforts to prove the existence of a Palestinian people. These leaders, he wrote, “ are trying to undermine the historical connection of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel and Jerusalem in particular.”

At first blush, there seems to be no connection between the situation of blacks in America and that of Palestinians here. Blacks were brought to America as slaves and it has become their homeland. The conflict between white America and blacks is essentially racial, not national, and the U. S. has never conquered an African country. Despite this, Shoval found it appropriate to add his two cents and find the common denominator between the American and Israeli historical narratives.

Blacks and Palestinians are compared to Nazis when they demand redress of historical injustice and attempt to present a narrative of their own. It is true that America established the first democratic republic in the modern age, but this democracy was at the same time a regime of slavery. It institutionalized a discriminatory and racist regime of a type we today call “apartheid,” the traces of which are still prominent.

In Israel, too, there is an occasional demand to correct the historical narrative. Aluf Ben, editor of Haaretz, published an article entitled “Stop fearing the Nakba” (April 30, 2021), in which he explained his headline as follows: “A country must not run from its past, even when it’s unpleasant and raises difficult moral questions. It is a country’s duty to its citizens, who deserve to know what happened in the past so they can understand the reasons and motives for what’s happening now, namely the nation-state law, the repeated failure of the ‘Anyone but Bibi’ parties to create a Jewish-Arab governing coalition, Hamas in Gaza and the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah, and even the housing projects in the country’s periphery…. These are the ongoing results of ‘the birth of the refugee problem,’ the dark side of the War of Independence. We must talk about it.”

Aluf Ben’s article inspired a full-throated Zionist response. On Wednesday, May 5, Hanan Amiur wrote under the headline: “Aluf Ben is right: Stop fearing the Nakba,” saying that “we have nothing to hide and nothing to be ashamed of.” There is a parallel in the American situation, where the “old” historians rise against the “new” historians: every statement generates a contradiction from the other side. The truth is that even if this historical debate is necessary, it does not resolve the current situation; what drives historical debate is contemporary reality. The current debate in the United States reflects the differences of opinion between the two parties on both sides of the American political map over a simple question: whether or not there is institutionalized, systemic racism.  

The significant difference between what is happening in Israel and the United States is that the Biden administration recognizes the existence of institutionalized racism. Such recognition was also reflected in the unprecedented trial and conviction of the police officer who murdered George Floyd. The black community in the US voted massively for Joe Biden and provided him with his victory. Biden promised not to forget them because they saved American democracy from a racist, fascist movement led by Donald Trump, a soulmate of Benjamin Netanyahu and the settler Right.

In Israel, Palestinian citizens remain excluded from centers of political influence. In the occupied territories, beyond the separation wall, they lack fundamental human and civil rights. The Israeli Left has always preferred national unity with the Right and the preservation of Israel’s national religious character over democracy. This is where the story of the Zionist Left and the victory of the extreme Right begins and ends. Without participation of the Palestinians in the struggle against discrimination and racism, against religious coercion, against predatory capitalism and the climate crisis, the Israeli Left will not experience a revival. The common denominator between blacks in the United States and the Palestinians here is not a similar history, but the fact that their problem reflects the crisis of democracy in both countries.

In the United States, until the mid-1960s, two regimes existed at once – democracy for whites and apartheid for blacks. So too, in Israel there is democracy for Jews and apartheid for Palestinians. This must be talked about, because the facts are there for all to see. They cannot be twisted without stretching credulity beyond the bounds of reason. These facts are our daily reality, dictating every moment in our political, social, economic and cultural lives. A checkpoint is a checkpoint is a checkpoint.FacebookTwitterשת

Even if Aluf Ben is right that it is important to talk about 1948 to cope with the roots of the national conflict between Israelis and Palestinians, bringing about understanding and cooperation between the two peoples, it is even more urgent to talk about the present and the future. History is being written by each of us. Institutionalized discrimination against the Arab population in Israel is backed by statistics, and the attitude toward citizens of the Palestinian Authority is horrific. For example, Israel has been vaccinated and is emerging from the pandemic, while in the West Bank and Gaza, infection rates are rising. Yet Israel is unwilling to provide the Palestinians with the vaccines that lie unused in its warehouses. Israel maintains a regime of work permits and checkpoints, preventing freedom of movement, and has been imposing a military regime on civilians without rights for more than 50 years.

In the United States, until the mid-1960s, two regimes existed at once – democracy for whites and apartheid for blacks. So too, in Israel there is democracy for Jews and apartheid for Palestinians. This must be talked about, because the facts are there for all to see. They cannot be twisted without stretching credulity beyond the bounds of reason. These facts are our daily reality, dictating every moment in our political, social, economic and cultural lives. A checkpoint is a checkpoint is a checkpoint.

The post Virginia 1619, Israel/Palestine 1948 first appeared on Da'am Party: One state - Green Economy.

“Kite terror” is what newspapers call incendiary kites that set ablaze the fields of Israeli farmers on the “Gaza periphery.” This new terror has replaced “tunnel terror,” which, in turn, was neutralized by the IDF deployment of a new detection system and underground barrier against tunnels that crossfrom the Gaza Strip into Israel. “Qassam terror” was also neutralized by the Iron Dome rocket interceptors. So year after year we witness this cat and mouse game: Israel imposes a military blockade, the Gazans come up with new methods of fighting back, and Israel develops ways to deal with them.

However, skilled Hamas cells are not required to produce kites. Kites do not need workshops, lathes and explosives. Kites are flown by children who have ‘upgraded’ their hobby with added value attached. Kites serve the homeland and alleviate a life of desperation and despair. Kite terror puts Israel in a ridiculous light, not because of its dubious effectiveness, but because it completely negates the existing Israeli mantra that “We left Gaza,” as if there’s a real border between Gaza and Israel. What kind of border is it if you can fly kites that ignite the neighbor’s fields?

In order to deal with kite terror there is no need to sink billions into developing a sophisticated counter-punch, it’s enough to beef up the fire department. However, thousands of fire trucks, underground barriers, and sophisticated missile systems will not extinguish the great ball of fire that is just about to roll over Israel – an unprecedented humanitarian crisis that is presently erupting in Gaza. Every Israeli air force raid deep inside the Gaza Strip, which varies from 5 to 12 kilometers in width, only adds destruction and worsens the humanitarian disaster.

The catastrophe has gone on for a long time. As in the case of global warming, all know it is happening but  prefer to bury their heads in the sand. Gazans go thirsty while Israel “dries up.” For Israel, the solution is simple – shower two minutes less. In Gaza, they have forgotten what a shower is. They clean themselves with bottles of water filled from public fountains. For years, various observers have talked about 2020, the date when Gaza’s wells will be completely depleted and the Strip will die of thirst. The last seven dry years have accelerated the process. Gaza has already dried up.

Missiles and subterranean barriers, even if they provide protection, do not constitute an effective response to a humanitarian crisis. On the contrary, they foster the illusion that Israelis can continue living normally by showering two minutes less. In the meantime, Gazans live without electricity, and the only sound of water they hear is sewage flowingin the alleyways of refugee camps.

Israel’s interest and concern for its own population oblige it to act with maximum vigor to tackle the humanitarian tragedy in Gaza. Urgent answers are needed for water, electricity, infrastructure, sewage and hospitals, in addition to sources of employment that will lift the population out of poverty and return children to schools where they can study and read instead of making kites. However, the Israeli government headed by Binyamin Netanyahu and Yvette Lieberman is not built to meet such a human challenge. If we look at Israeli “solutions” to traffic congestion on Tel Aviv’s Ayalon Freeway, the long period of delay that doggedthe light railway in its capital, and the failures of modern public transport, we understand that the solution to Gaza’s problems will not come from Jerusalem.

Moreover, this impossible task has become more complicated since Gaza has been under the control of Hamas, which won a large majority in the Palestinian parliament in 2006 and established a government headed by Ismail Haniyeh. Hamas saw in its victory a mandate for ‘jihad’. Armed resistance took precedence over the daily lives and welfare of Gazans.

In June 2006, four months after the establishment of Haniyeh’s government, Gilad Shalit was kidnapped. A year later, Hamas staged a coup against the Palestinian Authority in Gaza and renounced the Oslo Accords, prompting a tightening of the Gaza blockade that continues to this day. The Hamas way of dealing with this blockade was to build a tunnel-based economy. The smuggling from Sinai into Gaza enriched Hamas coffers while keepingmerchants, tunnel diggers and operatorsbusy. The military coup in Egypt that ousted the first elected president, Mohammed Morsi, replacing him with General Sisi, a sworn enemy of the Muslim Brotherhood and therefore of Hamas, ended the “goodtimes.”

The rise of Hamas in the 2006 elections was not an accident, but a direct result of the PA’s complete failure to establish a proper government and economy inthe territories under its control. The problems in Gaza did not begin with Hamas but with the arrival of Arafat, who promised to turn Gaza into a “Singapore.” Instead, he set up another corrupt Arab regime like those swept away by the Arab Spring.

For its part, Israel worked with the corrupt regime. Israeli-Palestinian partnerships sprang up like mushrooms after the rain – from a casino in Jericho to various fuel and cement monopolies. The border crossings between Israel and Gaza were a source of easy income for PA officials and heads of security services, such as Mohammed Dahlan and Jibril Rajoub, who partnered with Palestinian entrepreneurs seeking to open businesses.

In other words, during the ten years of Fatah rule in the West Bank and Gaza, the situation of Gazans has deteriorated under the watchful eye of Israel, whose sole aim has been to maintain security in the occupied territories, lining the pockets of the leaders of the Palestinian security services.

Disaster is imminent. The timing hinges on the heartbeat and immune system of the “omnipotent” Mahmud Abbas (Abu Mazen). The Netanyahu government has resolved, with the encouragement of President Donald Trump, to forgo the political process. Netanyahu hopes that economic interests and security cooperation with Israel will succeed in preventing total chaos in the West Bank when Abbas dies.

Like the issue of water in Gaza, and like global warming, the death of Abbas is a foregone disaster, even if the precise date is not known. Any cough or weight loss immediately raises the anxiety level in Israel. He’s an anti-Semite, he’s not a partner, he doesn’t recognize Israel as a Jewish state, but he maintains strict security coordination with it. In the meantime, all’s well: The many casualties in Gaza (over 100 recently) have not triggered an uprising in the West Bank, and Hamas, after losing its credibility both as a fighting force and a state-builder, has difficulty recruiting. Thus the Israeli Right can sink into the deep slumber of the returning warrior, imbued with the feeling that the Palestinians are defeated.

Yet even the defeated need water, medicine, food, a livelihood, and schools for their children. Not to mention freedom of movement, freedom of opinion and freedom to create, which were taken away more than fifty years  ago. Since the PA will collapse with or without Abu Mazen, and in Gaza there is no one to depend on, it is known in advance who the great winner in this long struggle will be. But he will bear the responsibility for what’s going on in the territories that “we have already left,” and he will be on the receiving end of incendiary kites.

The idea of two states is dead. Unilateral disengagement is dead. What remains are snipers facing desperate youngsters, airstrikes on military sites in Gaza, and five million stateless Palestinians. They did not succeed in building a state for themselves but they have not given up the dream of freedom and civil rights, just like every Israeli living nearby. According to the headline of an article by Shimon Shiffer on May 29th in Yediot Ahronot, “The Jewish underground has been victorious” (referring to a group of ultra-right religious settlers that plotted to blow up the Dome of the Rock). His conclusion is simple: “The two-state solution is no longer feasible. It’s finished.” The status quo of “no solution” will not remain forever. Paradoxically, the lack of a solution sets the stage for alternative possibilities within the framework of one state, where the resources will be divided equally among all.

* Translated from the Hebrew by Robert Goldman

The post Even Kites Shoot first appeared on Da'am Party: One state - Green Economy.

Until 2008 the boycott against Israel, known also as the BDS movement (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions), was a marginal phenomenon. It began on July 9, 2005 when 171 Palestinian NGOs called for a boycott at an economic and cultural level. Over time, the initiative spread beyond the Occupied Territories to the wider world. But the Palestinian Authority (PA), which maintains diplomatic, security and economic ties with Israel, refused to express support (and refuses until now). The world’s governments likewise withheld support. Here and there, a famous singer or actor cancelled a gig in Israel, and demonstrations were held abroad when Israelis performed there, but these did not have an impact on public opinion in Israel, or on its government, which regularly accused the boycotters of anti-Semitism.

The reason for the boycott movement’s marginality before 2008 was the extremist political message of some of the organizations involved, which called for a one-state solution from the Jordan River to the sea. Most boycotting organizations compared Israel to the South African Apartheid regime, against which boycott had been the obvious step. But Israel’s status in the world—the support it receives from the international community, the US above all, the fact that it has diplomatic relations with Egypt, Jordan and the PA, and the fact that its Arab citizens, despite rampant discrimination, enjoy the right to vote—rendered this political platform untenable, making it easier for its detractors to claim that its only aim is the destruction of Israel.

When Barack Obama entered the White House in 2008, however, things began to change. What had been a marginal movement began growing until it took center stage, especially in Europe. In countries friendly to Israel, such as the Netherlands and Britain, and even in the Scandinavian countries under whose patronage the Oslo Accords were signed, the call for boycott was heard in universities and unions. Obama declared that the solution to the conflict was the foundation of a Palestinian state side by side with Israel, even marking a date for the end of the process: September 2011. This gave new impetus to the efforts at pressuring Israel. When the time came, the Palestinians turned to the UN for recognition as a state, but the US vetoed the move. The Palestinians have since backtracked on this approach, but because of the deadlock in negotiations, Europe has become increasingly frustrated with Israel’s refusal to halt settlement construction, and the boycott on goods from the settlements has grown.

When John Kerry became US Secretary of State, the rules of the game changed. The US government gave up on its demand for a settlement freeze as a condition for talks, and pressured Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) to enter negotiations, threatening to stop the flow of US aid to the PA. Kerry succeeded in this aim, but Obama’s second term coincides with Netanyahu’s third; Netanyahu has established a coalition which grants settlers key ministries, and Israel’s position has become ever more hawkish position. The sides agreed to reach a final settlement by April 2014, but this date is no different from the other dates that passed quietly. Since Israel adamantly refuses to discuss the core issues and avoids delineating clear borders, the negotiations are meaningless. Despite this, Kerry insists on prolonging them, but knows he cannot do this without determining clear parameters, including borders, the status of Jerusalem, and the refugees. For the first time, Israel is being pressured to clarify its stance on the core issues, which the Oslo Accords had circumvented, thus allowing the settlement project to continue.

Europe and the US are the main funders of the PA. The Palestinian government has recently approved the state budget to the tune of 4.2 billion dollars, most of which come from contributing states and the taxes that Israel collects for the PA. This is a ridiculously small sum, whose main purpose is to pay the low wages of Palestinian officials. The tiny budget perpetuates the poverty suffered by most Palestinians while keeping them quiet. Europe sees little point in continuing this flow of funds when no Palestinian state is in the offing and the conflict escalates. Israeli announcements of settlement expansion, along with Netanyahu’s declarations that he will not dismantle a single settlement and that the River Jordan is Israel’s security border, increase the frustration and wrath of European taxpayers, who indirectly bankroll the occupation by enabling the status quo. It must be remembered that Europe agreed to fund the PA on the assumption that a final agreement would be signed in 1999, according to the Oslo schedule. Now they feel cheated. The more Kerry tries to define the parameters, the louder the outcry from central ministers in the Israeli government, like Economics Minister Naftali Bennett and Defense Minister Moshe (Boogie) Yaalon (who is fully backed by the prime minister).

Israel’s obstinacy has played a part in making boycott an effective tool for pressuring Israel – what Thomas Friedman in his New York Times column called the “third intifada.” While Netanyahu admits that the aim of the talks, from his point of view, is to play for time and ward off European pressure, the Europeans have seen through this game and are applying even more pressure. This time the boycotters are not extreme leftwing groups or radical professors, but a central Dutch pension fund and a central Danish bank. Netanyahu has set up a special committee to address what has become a strategic threat, appointing Yuval Steinitz, Strategic Affairs minister, to deal with the issue. But the pressure is not letting up, and none other than John Kerry is warning Israel of a boycott if the negotiations fail. This has raised a storm in the country, where he is accused of supporting a boycott himself.

The gravity of the growing boycott lies in the fact that unlike the BDS movement, which offered no realistic political path, the new boycott has a political agenda based on the two-state solution. Passively supported by the US, this newer European boycott has two goals:

(1) To bring about political change inside Israel, for it is clear that the current coalition cannot accept any agreement which refers to – or even hints at – the 1967 borders, Jerusalem, or the settlements. In other words, the Jewish Home party led by Bennett has to go. That is why Bennett is making so much noise, aiming to torpedo any agreement taking shape. On the other hand, the replacement of Shelly Yachimovich by Yitzhak Herzog as Labor Party chief, and the orthodox Shas party’s strong desire to get back into the government, make this political trick possible: if Bennett leaves, others will enter. The more Kerry presses and Europe boycotts, the more Netanyahu will feel compelled to take leave of his settler friends. Yair Lapid’s tweets on the likely damage a boycott will cause have also given the impression that his alliance with Bennett, which forced Netanyahu to set up the coalition in its current form, is crumbling.

(2) The second goal is to tie the boycott to a political program. But the question is: What program?

Kerry’s emerging parameters commit the same sin as the Oslo Accords: they offer no clear solution to the problem of the settlements, Jerusalem and the refugees. All Netanyahu is being asked to do is make some adjustments in his coalition. Abu Mazen, however, is being asked to perpetuate a situation in which the PA continues to be dependent on Israel: the “separation fence” will continue to strangle West Bank residents; border crossings will continue to be under Israeli control; and settlements will continue to divide the West Bank. Thus the Palestinian state will be helpless.

To achieve the goal, generous cooperation from Abu Mazen is needed. The interview he gave to the New York Times was intended to indicate exactly this. Abu Mazen is willing to accept (1) the presence of NATO forces instead of the IDF and (2) Israel’s gradual withdrawal from the West Bank phased over five years.

An editorial in the newspaper Al-Quds does not hide the intention behind this declaration, which is to show the world Abu Mazen’s flexibility as compared with Netanyahu’s intransigence.

It is not certain that Netanyahu will manage to make the required coalition changes, and it is even less certain that Abu Mazen will manage to force another Oslo agreement on his people. What is certain is that Kerry’s program seeks to compromise with the occupation instead of putting an end to it. Thus the current threats of boycott, wrapped as they are in the pale political program being promoted by Kerry, leave the bitter taste of yet another wasted opportunity.

– Translated by Yonatan Preminger

The post The boycott: To what end? first appeared on Da'am Party: One state - Green Economy.