Settlement semantics
A dear (and brilliant I might add) friend of mine, who is also a human rights activist and worker, rightly pointed out to me in an email that the correct word to use is Disengagement, not withdrawal, and for good reason:
"Please don't use the word withdrawal to describe disengagement. i know it sounds nitpicky, but 'withdrawal' has political/legal implications of ending the occupation (and israel's repsonsibility) for gaza; the one and only correct term is 'disengagement' and that's why the israelis use it amongst themselves."
I stand corrected. Of course, I knew this, but I supposed I tired of saying the D word one too many times last week and the implication slipped my mind.
He also had this to say on the origin of settlements:
I believe the israelis began construction of a settlement in/near kfar darom even during the six-seven months of occupation in 1956/1957. I remember seeing a ref to it in avi shlaim's 'iron wall'.
The main problem is the of the fundamental issue of EQUALITY. If Jews, whether escaping persecution or not, whether in the 1900s,1950s, or 1990s, had come to live on the land _alongside_ Palestinians asequals, they would have been like the Armenians (which is why there is no great 'Arab-Armenian conflict'); what distinguishes the enterprise of Zionist settlement, whether in the pre-state period or after 1967, is the desire to establish a state for all Jews and for Jews only -- and that can't be square with equality.
posted by Laila @ Wednesday, August 24, 2005
4 Comments:
Actually, the word in Hebrew means something more like 'disconnection'. Yes, semantics are important: I wrote about it when I was in Jerusalem in April.
Dear Celeste,
thank you for the post. It means a lot to hear you say that you share my entries with your students. I would curious how they react, Gaza must seem like a different planet. I'm sorry you have to be away from your son-I can't even imagine how that would be. Please be safe and continue to stop by and email me laila.elhaddad@gmail.com
E-
Dont' even know where to begin with this one. I'm going to make it short and simple. The land that Jews want majority governmental control over wasn't there's in the first place (even if they chose Uganda, the same analogy applies)-and therein lies the problem.
Have you ever thought about the millions of Palestinian refugees that were forced out of their homes, all to make room for the Jewish state, for, as you say, a Jewish refuge from persecution? Have you ever though of the irony that any person who has a fourth-generation Jewish maternal link has a right to retun to Israel, but a Palestinain refugee, SUCH AS MY HUSBAND, cannot? I live in Gaza, yet he cannot come and live with me. IRonic, isn't it?
Here's a very very simple analogy: Its akin to a low-budget film in which a man kidnaps a little girl for ransom, places her in a room, etc. He allows her out for a bathroom visit, she tries to escape, but he catches her. This time, he decides to punish her for trying to regain her freedom, because she's been bad. He tried to be "nice" and "humane" to her, and this is how she repaid him? How can he ever live side by side with her now, she is violent; she does not want to live peacefully under his rule. He locks her in the basement and only allow her out under his supervision. And so on and so forth.
Esstentially, you are blaming the victim.
I think as a religous Zionst you have to ask yourself, 1) were Jews IN Palestine more or less "secure" from persecution 55 years ago than they are today, and do you think they will be more or less secure in 10 years with all the walls, fences, closures, and persecution of Palestinains?
Yes, power for change lies within.
But that is not factoring in the outside variable of occupation into the equation.
Did you ever think about the fact that the Jewish state, whether you like it now or not, was founded on terror? That is the reality.
More later.
Since a million words are insufficient, I'll keep my comment concise.
The very reason the Jews were awarded the right to "reconstitute" their national home by international law in 1922 was the fact that everyone knew this was Jewish land, and they didn't even mention the word Arabs when referring to the non-Jewish communities in the area that the Jewish state would have to protect only so far as private/personal rights, - not national rights which Arabs never had.
And Israel is not only for Jews as claimed in the blog. Our Declaration of Independence makes that quite clear. Oh, and "thanks" for the recent Kassam missiles from Bet Hanoun. Really makes us appreciate your repect for what Israel did with disengagement, or expulsion as we prefer.
Post a Comment
<< Home