If you’re looking for an explanation of why Israel acts the way it does, look no further than this quote by Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak:
“We live in the Middle East, in a place where there is no mercy for the weak and there aren’t second chances for those who don’t defend themselves,” he was quoted by Haaretz newspaper as saying.
For most people this is either an ideology you embrace (though, hopefully not) or one that simply causes you to look away in disgust. But such a polarizing stance deserves to be understood. What could possibly make someone think this? And more importantly, what can we do to change it?
A good answer to both questions can be found in a recent talk by Palestinian nonviolence leader Sami Awad produced by the Compassionate Listening Project. Awad, who is also the founding director of the Holy Land Trust—a Bethlehem based nonviolence organization—described a visit to Auschwitz, where he witnessed many Israeli youth on a government-funded trip become politicized by an ideology of fear that says, “if given the opportunity, the Muslims, the Palestinians, and the Arabs would do the same thing” to them as what happened to their grandparents. The only way to prevent this, they are told, is to join the Army and support the State.
While Awad does not discount the very real fear posed by what happened during the Holocaust, he is wary of leaders who exploit that fear and worse yet, the world at large, which has ignored it by giving Israel billions of dollars in military aid every year, plus a free-reign political mandate. He says, it’s up to the Palestinians to break Isreal from its culture of fear because “Palestinians are the closest thing to the Israeli Jewish community that can engage in actions and activities that provide an opportunity for healing.” This, he believes, is happening already, as more and more Palestinians embrace nonviolence.
Coincidentally, Awad published a piece in Foreign Policy magazine yesterday that explains the shift in attitude towards nonviolence among the Palestinian leadership.
We are now witnessing a rise in the choice of nonviolence. When the gap was created with the Israeli government refusing to engage in real negotiations, Palestinian leaders began to search for what options were available to them and their community. This is what the Palestinian community engages in on a daily bases, this is what keeps resiliency and steadfastness alive in a community that is literally facing destruction (most acutely suffered in the ongoing siege on Gaza). When leaders looked, they found this value being practiced in villages across the West Bank; they saw people from different political backgrounds unite together in order to save their villages; they saw men and women walk as equals; they saw communities that were empowered to stand and face the harshest of violent responses from the Israeli military; they saw Israelis and internationals join Palestinians in their struggle. As a result, these leaders began to see the value of nonviolence, not only for their limited political survival, but also for the nation of Palestine.
Beyond the mere strategic power of nonviolence, however, is its systemic culture-shifting potential, which going back to Awad’s talk, is ultimately what he’s after. As he put it, ever so bluntly, “Any political solution that doesn’t address the fear within Israeli society will not last.”
Friends, I must respectfully disagree with this article. The fear the Israelis face isn’t the result of the Holocaust. The fear they face comes from the very real, and very currrent, attacks that they come under any time they release their stranglehold on the Palestinian territories. If they lower their guard, even for an instant, they are attacked. This has happened over and over and over and over again throughout the years. If they build a wall, the militants in Palestine shoot rockets over it. If they open a border, buses start getting bombed. If they allow for a greater freedom of movement, suicide attackers self-immolate in restaurants or shops. I have great sympathy for the suffering of the Palestinians, but I have to say that, were I an Israeli, I would opt for policies quite similar to the ones they are now pursuing. The only other choice is to be savaged, again and again, by the lunatics who run the Gaza strip, and their sponsors in Iran and Syria.
The situation is a Gordian knot. I’m sorry for the people who died on the Turkish ship, but they were warned to stay away.
@Michael Spot on.
Hi Michael,
Did you actually listen to the full video clip attached to this post? Awad uses the story about Auschwitz to come around to asking “what responsibility do we as Palestinians have” for feeding into the fear that Israelis feel and asking “what opportunities do we have do change that” through nonviolence. He is directly and specifically addressing and trying to break, through patient and persistent nonviolent action, the Gordion knot you mention.
There is never a “but” when it comes to the victims of violence. That goes for attacks on Israelis, Palestinians and peace activists. Would you tell the families of those who died “but they were warned”? Would you tell the families of those who die by the hands of Palestinian violence “but they were warned”? If you simply switch your references to Israelis and Palestinians above, you have precisely the argument that Palestinians make who say they have “no choice” but to respond violently to Israel. But they would be wrong, just as you are wrong. There is a choice. And Awad is describing it.
I am a Social Worker by background working with the abused and neglected. In listening to them address their experiences of fear and responses to that fear I have witnessed an interesting dynamic. The abused individual will tell you they are reacting to the present violation, but when you go deeper in listening, they will share the reality that all past beatings culminate in their emotional response. That is why there are women today who sit on death row for killing their abusive husbands.
Another interesting fact emerges, if you listen carefully. As abuse is cyclical, past stories of abuse that occurred within the family, regardless of the fact that there was a different perpetrator involved, also contribute to a victim’s fear and emotional response.
Given this, I would contend that Michael is right, insofar as Israelis are reacting to current fears suffered as a result of Palestinian rocket fire, but if one were to listen even more deeply, one might discover that the wound in the Jewish heart lies far deeper.
As adults, we must exercise care in our storytelling. We tell stories to frame the narrative and feel some control over our history, not realizing that we may, in fact, be instilling fear and distrust in another generation. Is that a legacy we seek to impart?
I appreciate the civility of those who disagree with this post and don’t have much more to add in defense of it that Dustin and Katherine didn’t already say. But I would just like to reiterate the point of this post, which is tied particularly to the point of Awad’s talk: We owe it to our “enemy” (for lack of a kinder word) to understand where he or she is coming from. That is what Awad is saying. He is trying to understand why the Israeli’s act the way they do toward his people and then use that understanding to try to draw both sides closer to one another.
So by the same token, Michael, don’t you think Israelis must do the same? I get the sense you think there’s no reasoning with Palestinian militants, especially since, as you say, they still use violence when Israel releases its stranglehold on the Palestinian territories. Basically, this logic says as long as you view them as unreasonable, you can justify said stranglehold.
But what about ASKING why some Palestinians use violence even when Israel loosens up a little? This question will probably lead you to the fact that the ratio of Palestinian deaths to Israeli deaths hovers around the 6:1 mark. That’s a lot of Palestinian deaths and any time that many people are dying, you’re going to see an influx in anger and vengeance. It’s not justified by my moral code, but it’s understandable. So acknowledging this fact and working to reduce it would be a much better way for Israel to move forward.
It seems I had a lot more to say than I thought I did when I began this comment. Hope this continues the so-far constructive conversation we’ve been having.