I'm Studying Sign Language

I attended my first Women in Black demonstration this past Friday to stand in protest of 40 years of occupation. Many cars honked their horns and gave a thumbs up as they passed by, but I also learned quite a few new hand signs. The first few times that I saw one particular hand gesture, I interpreted it as being supportive and a sign of solidarity. I later found out it is far more offensive than the old school middle finger. This was probably one of the few times I was grateful that I didn't understand Hebrew. Oy! Do they kiss their mothers with those mouths?

When I was doing research on the Israeli Peace Camp, I was always fascinated by the group of women who have been standing in silent protest every week since the first Intifada. Out of all the peace groups, Women in Black is clearly the most moderate, yet they evoke the most contempt from the right-wing elements of society. Check out some very cool women's groups here: http://coalitionofwomen.org/home

What is it about a group of non-confrontational women--mostly mothers and grandmothers--that makes grown men scream obscenities and shake their fists in rage. Existing literature has led me to conclude that women’s groups that voice opposition to the Occupation are especially vulnerable to hostility--more so than all other groups in the Peace Camp. Women's activism is seen more as a betrayal because they deviate from expected gender roles. When people protest they are often labeled leftist or radicals. When a group of women stand in protest, especially middle aged women, their presence lends more credibility to the cause and their protest serves to shame a community. The reaction therefore is less political and more personal.

Ayala Emmett, one of the contributors to Our Sisters’ Promised Land: Women, Politics, and Israeli-Palestinian Coexistence, wrote that counter-demonstrators at the silent vigils in Israel used to hold signs that read: “The Women in Black are longing for Auschwitz”, “The Women in Black—A Knife in the Back of the Nation” and “We ‘recognize’ Black Widows. We recognize that they can kill, and we recognize that they are insects.” By evoking national symbols of vulnerability, the counter-protest signs implied that women in the Peace Camp are betraying the Jewish collective.

Last year, I did a news search for articles about the Peace Camp in Israeli media starting from 1988. I was horrified by the vilification of women's and bereavement groups that want dialogue. In 1990, the Jerusalem Post had an article about attacks on Women in Black. The Kach youth movement would distribute leaflets in Jerusalem listing the names, phone numbers and addresses of members of the Women in Black organization. As a result of this listing, the women had become targets of death threats and threats against the lives of their families. Other callers threatened to burn their houses down. All for standing in silence in a supposedly "free" society. (Margot Dudkevitch. “KACH NAMES WOMEN IN BLACK.” The Jerusalem Post. August 24, 1990, Friday. News. Accessed through Lexis Nexus Academic.) I've also read about cars that have tried to swipe at the women protesters and opposition groups who sprayed protesters with bug spray. Maybe there should be some community workshops on how to use constructive debate instead of vehicular manslaughter to prove our points.

In my research, I found that Israeli society is generally uncomfortable with being occupiers. The symbols of occupation are deliberately kept out of sight, so the average Israeli never actually crosses a checkpoint, sees the Wall or enters East Jerusalem, West Bank or the Gaza Strip. The "occupation" is more of an abstract concept. Yet, like the bogeyman in a child's closet, the specter of Palestinian injustice and its attendant rage is always lurking in their subconscious. When they see people who look just like their mothers standing in the light of day with signs that remind them that the Occupation is real and it is wrong, people don't know how to process their feelings constructively. Like a petulant child being punished for their bad behavior, they lash out at "mommy".

Man, this country could use some serious time on the psychiatrist's couch. Interestingly enough, the other day I was thinking "hmmm, so do I"...for moving to this cognitive rubik cube of a town in the first place.

This Might Be Why I'm Single. I'm a Dork.

Here is where the geek in me comes out. Is it possible to have an academic crush on someone? I am such a huge fan of MJ Rosenberg from Israel Policy Forum. I have sent him emails in response to some of his commentaries--once to thank him for his courage and rational analysis. In one commentary, he was describing the abuse that ordinary Palestinians endure under a military occupation but he also addressed the psychological manipulation soldiers endure at the hands of their own leadership.

Instead of making blanket accusations, Rosenberg often illuminates the causal mechanisms behind acts on both sides. In a world of "pick your tribe and shoot 'em up" politics, it is a relief to know that there are still people who refuse to take the bait. Agree with him or disagree with him (I do disagree sometimes, too), but you have to applaud the fact that there are people out there who want to stimulate dialogue and not just spew rhetoric. There are heroes and villains on both sides, but mostly there are good people who want a peaceful life without having to relinquish their dignity. So here's three cheers for MJ Rosenberg for reminding us that those people exist.

This is one article that I found interesting:
Washington, DC, May 11, 2007 Issue # 322

Why Jews Envy the Irish
Tuesday, May 9, 2007 was a great day for the Irish. It was not so great for Israelis and Palestinians.

On Tuesday, the conflict over Ireland, which began in the 12th century (and in which 3500 people have been killed since 1966), ended when ultra-hard-line Protestant leader Reverend Ian Paisley joined former senior IRA commander Martin McGuinness in a power-sharing Catholic-Protestant unity government.

In the words of the BBC, it was a "moment of such improbability that it sets a new benchmark against which the future will judge unlikely events still to come” – like the signing of a peace treaty between Israelis and Palestinians.

For a time, of course, it appeared that Israelis and Palestinians would end their conflict before Irish Catholics and Protestants. It was in 1993 that Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and PLO leader Yasir Arafat signed the Oslo agreement on the White House lawn. But Rabin was assassinated in 1995 and, after that tragedy, neither side fully observed the agreement although it did, nevertheless, succeed in dramatically reducing the violence – which skyrocketed after Oslo collapsed in the fall of 2000.

The Irish equivalent of Oslo was the Good Friday agreement of 1998 which laid the groundwork for the power-sharing arrangement that was implemented on Tuesday.

Like Oslo, the Good Friday agreement hit snag after snag, with both sides caught violating its terms (just two months after Good Friday, 29 people were killed and 200 injured in an attack by an IRA splinter group in the city of Omagh, Northern Ireland designed to scuttle the peace process). But none of the major players on either side was assassinated and each setback was followed by intensive efforts to resuscitate the agreement.

Another difference worth noting is that while Oslo was signed by moderates in the Israeli and Palestinian camps, Tuesday’s Irish peacemakers were hard-liners, known for their intense animosity toward the other side.

Protestant Paisley had famously said, “If an IRA man comes to a Protestant home and my men are there they will kill that IRA man. Yes sir.” Catholic McGuinness once said, “I am prepared to go to jail. I would rather die than disrupt or destroy my code of honor to the IRA.”

This was not so much the center embracing the center as the extremes embracing the extremes (not embracing, actually, but agreeing to live in peace). On Tuesday, it was Paisley who said, “A time to love and a time to hate. A time of war and a time of peace. From the depths of my heart I believe Northern Ireland has come to a time of peace,” while McGuinness said, “To Ian Paisley, I want to wish you all the best as we step forward toward the greatest yet most exciting challenge of our lives.”

The gaps that divided Irish Catholics and Protestants until Tuesday were every bit as wide as those dividing Israelis and Palestinians. Like Israelis and Palestinians, the two sides were fighting over one piece of land (although the Northern Irish could not simply divide it between them as Israelis and Palestinians can and will). The religious animosity was as intense as that between Jews and Muslims. And the 800 year old Irish conflict was some 740 years more ancient than the six decades old Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

So why did the Good Friday Agreement succeed while Oslo collapsed?

The most significant reason is the perseverance of some critical outsiders. The governments of Prime Minister Bertie Ahearn of the Irish Republic and Tony Blair of the United Kingdom made securing peace in Northern Ireland a top priority. Both leaders intervened strenuously every time there was a set-back. Blair enlisted President Clinton to help and Clinton appointed former Senate Majority Leader, George Mitchell, as his Special Envoy to Northern Ireland. Mitchell played a critical role in keeping the process alive at its darkest moments. Additionally, leading Irish-American politicians like Sen. Edward Kennedy weighed in to keep the two sides talking.

There are additional reasons for the success of the Good Friday agreement and yesterday I asked an expert what they were. I called John J. Cullinane, a Boston based computer entrepreneur (the company he founded became the first publicly traded software company) and philanthropist. Cullinane, an Irish Catholic, has been involved in the Northern Ireland peace process from the beginning; his particular emphasis is job creation which he sees as essential to conflict resolution in economically hard hit areas.

I asked Cullinane what those of us active in advancing the Israeli-Palestinian peace process can learn from the Irish experience. His response came in a ten-point e-mail a few minutes later.

1. Getting any group of people to give up any power, whatsoever, is extraordinarily difficult, virtually impossible.

2. Doing so requires the full time effort and influence of world political leaders, other stakeholders, diasporas etc., using every possible opportunity, because the antagonists can't, or won't, do it themselves.

3. Governments can only do so much such as negotiate cease fires, arrange meetings, and organize conferences, so they need good ideas from the private sector that they can support.

4. Business leaders in the area must get involved and use their influence to promote peace and not leave things to the extremists from both sides of the conflict. G7, a group of seven business organizations which was formed in Northern Ireland to do exactly this, is a perfect example.

5. The diasporas of both sides of the conflict have to help promote peace and economic development in a coordinated fashion. Communicating the sense that both diasporas are working together is critical. The Friends of Belfast is a good example.

6. Only the private sector can create the all-important peace dividend of jobs and economic development.

7. Even the prospect of peace can set in motion a great economic revival in a depressed area.

8. The sooner most people feel that they are better off, the easier it will be for the politicians to negotiate an agreement. It’s remarkable how quickly political leaders can agree once it suits them to do so.

9 . There will always be those who will try to disrupt any progress towards peace with violent acts, or question the motives of the other side, but those promoting peace can't let these acts, or views, deter them.

10. If the conflict can be resolved in Northern Ireland, every conflict is resolvable if the respective leaders want to, or are helped to do so. This obviously includes the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Cullinane's points make sense. However, there is one critical difference between the two conflicts. In the case of Northern Ireland, once the decision to pursue peace was made, the constituency for continued conflict started disappearing not only in Ireland but in the diaspora as well. Irish Americans wanted President Clinton to put his weight behind the peace process. They applauded Ted Kennedy, Pat Moynihan and other Irish-American politicians for helping end the Irish “troubles.” Those Irish-American groups that thrived on the conflict either changed course or shriveled away.

That never happened after Oslo. The mainstream pro-Israel community here was ambivalent about Oslo right from the start. Almost immediately groups sprang up to "monitor" the Oslo process and point to its flaws. Pro-Israel speakers and spokespeople were able to bring crowds to their feet by spouting the tired old pre-Oslo rhetoric.

And, contrary to the Irish-American support for politicians who backed the peace process, pro-Israel groups here deem the most extreme and virulent Palestinian-bashers as “staunch friends of Israel” rather than as people who contribute to Israel’s problems. Many politicians (although in ever diminishing numbers) believe that the best way to be pro-Israel is to be anti-Palestinian and anti-peace.

Fortunately the situation is changing, even though powerful institutions continue their fight to preserve the status quo. But their message is growing stale and fewer politicians are paying attention. And even those who are will tell you privately that they are eager to pursue peaceful alternatives but are constrained by campaign considerations.

That is why we have a long way to go before we can celebrate the kind of event the Irish did on Tuesday. And it is also why that is why a great day for the Irish was just another ordinary day for Israelis and Palestinians. Ordinary, and bleak.

Yesterday a pregnant Palestinian woman lost her six month old baby when a random shot fired by Israeli soldiers struck her while she was lying in her bed in the Al Ein refugee camp in Nablus. And a six-year-old Israeli boy was badly injured when he jumped from the window of his home after going into shock due to one of three Kassam rockets that landed in Sderot.

The beat goes on.

But here is some good news. According to the Forward, "The Center for American Progress is set to launch the Middle East Bulletin , which will be arriving in subscribers’ inboxes beginning next week. It aims to take on Daily Alert, published by the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations and prepared by a right-wing think tank in Israel." The Center is one of the most influential think tanks in Washington and its new bulletin will surely have a positive impact. You can get a free subscription here .

MJ Rosenberg is the Director of Israel Policy Forum's Washington Policy Center. If you have colleagues or friends who would appreciate receiving this weekly letter, or you would like to unsubscribe, send an e-mail to: ipfdc@ipforumdc.org
Copyright 2007 Israel Policy Forum. All Rights Reserved.
National Office: 165 East 56th Street, 2nd Floor, New York, NY 10022 Tel: 212.245.4227 Fax: 212.245.0517 ipf@ipforum.org Washington Office: 122 C Street NW, Suite 820, Washington, DC 20001 Tel: 202.347.3811 Fax: 202.347.6130 ipfdc@ipforumdc.org Israel Office: 43 Emek Refaim Street, Suite 10, Jerusalem Israel 93141 Tel: 972.2.561.7258 Fax: 972.2.561.7437


I think that one point that needs to be emphasized is that not only is it necessary to have the "perseverance of some critical outsiders", but these outsiders must be single-minded in their focus: resolve the issues that are crucial for both sides. This conflict does not need outsiders with agendas biased to one particular group. Regardless of political or religious allegiance, outsiders must be single-minded in their pressure: removal of illegal settlements and outposts, removal of a wall that appropriated Palestinian lands and separates Palestinians from their communities in order to "protect" illegal settlements, demand for the immediate halt of violence from both sides--whether perpetrated in or out of uniform or under the guise of promoting "security", removal of barriers to movement within Palestinian communities, acknowledgement that economic empowerment will not succeed under a military occupation that by its very existence stifles entrepreneurship.

I often hear remarks about how Palestinians can improve their situation in spite of the Israeli occupation. Usually, these comments aren't based on the reality on the ground, but on "economic theory" Cliff Notes. I should know, I was one of those people. I wrote my college application essay on the importance of economic growth in the Palestinian/Israeli conflict--but I missed some important variables. Yes, there is no doubt that people are less likely to take up arms in they have food on the table, a roof over their heads, a good school for their children, etc...I think that it is safe to say that most Palestinians are aware of that too. So, the question then is "Why haven't they been able to build a viable economy in which peaceful coexistence can thrive?" What barriers are there to production and market access? What resources are necessary for a factory to be built? What laws are in place to facilitate or restrict the development of industry? What resources are necessary for the shipment of goods?

No one is acknowledging the flip side of the coin. Most would-be entrepreneurs and industrialists are in a cage, guarded by lions. The outside world keeps asking: "Why don't you just make it a nicer cage?"

Point #5 needs further elaboration. I have been discussing the lobbying culture in the U.S. quite a bit lately. It is definitely a topic that requires a post of its own, but I'd love to learn more about a coordinated grassroots Palestinian Diaspora movement in the U.S. The pro-Israel lobby and coordinated Jewish Diaspora was not a spontaneous collective. It is the product of years of strategic planning and activity. Like any successful social movement, the Jewish lobby is the result of strong formal and informal network ties, strong leadership that can strategically coordinate direct action campaigns and stimulate political pressure, a long history of building donor relationships and a constructed identity that links followers to the survival of the State of Israel. Is there an emerging lobbying rival in the Palestinian Diaspora community? I only know about the Arab American Institute and the Arab American Anti-Discrimination Committee. If anyone knows of more, please drop a line.