The Logic of Occupation - Part 1
Violence Breeds Violence
by Aron Trauring
I recently had the honor of being on a speaking panel with Ghassan Andoni, professor of physics at Birzeit University. Professor Andoni is a key Palestinian leader of the non-violent resistance movement in Palestine, and a co-founder of the International Solidarity Movement. Andoni spoke about the "logic" of occupation in an insightful and extremely coherent way. Two years into this second Intifada, it's worth reflecting on what occupation means, both for Israelis and Palestinians.
Andoni began by noting that all colonial occupation has two aspects: control and expansion. Israeli colonialism is no different. When Israel conquered the West Bank and Gaza from Jordan in 1967, the Palestinians moved from the economic sphere of a very backward country, to that of a far more advanced economy. Consequently the standard of living of Palestinians rapidly accelerated. In the early years (and even today) Israeli would point to this as proof that the Palestinians are better off under Israeli rule and should be grateful they live under Israeli protection. And in fact, until the outbreak of the first Intifada, resistance by Palestinians inside Israel (as opposed to the Palestinian diaspora which form the backbone of the PLO) was minimal. Nonetheless, during this period over 600,000 Palestinian men had been arrested on one pretext or another. That represent one third of the population, and is the main indicator of colonial control - restrictions and intimidations even against a "quiet" population.
The purpose of control is, of course, expansion. The colonial power wants to own and exploit the occupied land for its own purposes. Of course, all colonial powers, as they grow more secure in their sense of ownership, increase their expansion, and thereby began to pressure the local population. Expansion and exploitation inevitably cross a threshold which leads to an explosion. This was the first intifada.
Andoni commented that the first intifada was relatively non-violent on the part of the Palestinians. As someone who served in the Israeli army during that period, I can attest to the fact that the Intifada mainly expressed itself through stone throwing, strikes, spray painting nationalistic slogans on walls and waving the illegal flag of Palestine. The colonialist response to any sort of resistance is to increase control of the oppressed population. The argument is that extreme force needs to be applied, since the native population is losing its fear, and unless a firm hand is shown, worse violence will follow. This was exactly the Israeli response to the first Intifada.
The economic and social price paid by Israel, along with American pressure, led to the Oslo process. Keep in mind that nearly all Israelis did not give up their colonialist mentality. They still felt that the West Bank is "ours." Oslo was seen as a tactic, even by the left, of quieting the restless natives. Only when one understands that, does one understand why during the years of the Oslo process, Israel significantly increased control over the Palestinian population as well as significantly increased expansion. The goal was to limit to the extent possible what was to be conceded to the natives. Throw them a sop to shut them up, rather than address the fundamental injustice of the situation.
The result was inevitable. For one thing, the first Intifada raised the national consciousness of Palestinians, and taught them that resistance can bring results. For another, the contrast between the hope of Oslo and the deterioration in their day-to-day lives, as well as the continued Israeli land grab, all contributed to a rising sense of frustration and alienation on the part of the Palestinians. It was inevitable that the second Intifada erupted.
When it started, it had the same characteristics as the first - a popular, relatively non-violent resistance. This time, however, the Israelis responded with incredibly brutal force. As a recent report by Amnesty International notes:
The colonialist says: "See what happens when you try to appease the natives? You give them a finger and they want the whole arm. We have to show them who is boss now, before things get worse." At some stage, the colonialist begins to view the whole indigenous population as an intractable bunch of savages or "terrorists." The natives are seen as lacking any moral restraint and therefore no restraint need be shown in dealing with them.The majority of Palestinian children have been killed in the Occupied Territories when members of the IDF responded to demonstrations and stone throwing incidents with unlawful and excessive use of lethal force. Eighty Palestinian children were killed by the IDF in the first three months of the intifada alone.
Of course, the colonialist logic has the reverse effect on the indigenous population. The violence used against them only increases their will to resist. One needs to keep in mind that Palestine is an extremely small and densely populated area. The massive use of force inside heavily civilian areas led to huge civilian casualties. Andoni pointed out that by bringing the war to the cities and towns of Palestine, Israel created an atmosphere where Palestinians felt Israelis needed to pay the same price. Moreover, as Andoni points out, the victim always believes all his acts are morally justified, including murder. So after a few months of intense pressure, particularly after Arik Sharon came into power, the Hamas suicide campaign began in earnest with popular Palestinian support. From the latter's perspective, Hamas terrorism is morally equivalent to Israeli state terrorism.
Further complicating the picture is that Israelis are not only colonialist, but also view themselves, as Jews, as the world's ultimate victims. Everything is justified to Jews because of what we suffered in WW II. This combination of victim-hood with colonial arrogance has given the Israeli occupation an especially deadly and dangerous nature. An excellent insight into this mentality can be found in this article by Ran HaCohen (in fact all his articles are excellent and well worth a read). One quote:
Another soldier opposing refusal explained that even in Gaza, he felt very clearly that he was defending his parents and girl-friend back home. Saving one's own family, one's own people, was a moral duty, though some of our actions were admittedly morally problematic. In fact, the term "moral dilemmas" was used by every speaker; for some, it's the old Israeli tradition of "shooting and weeping", where a heart tortured by "moral dilemmas" clears one's conscience of immoral actions
The logic of occupation, as well as the "shooting and weeping" mentality, shows up full force in an articlein today's New York Times about the tight control of Israel over the West Bank town of Nablus. On the one hand, says the Israeli colonel who is the commander of the infantry brigade that is now warden of this city of 200,000 Palestinian residents: "They will suffer until they understand. My job is to stop suicide bombers."
On the other hand he recognizes on some level the problem in his actions: "When you look at this through Palestinian eyes, you can understand why they hate us so much." Nonetheless he is willing to delude himself into thinking, like all colonialists do, that he will eventually be the victor: "We're in the middle of a hundred-years' war. That's what I tell my soldiers."
But the article shows the futility of this thinking, by presenting the Palestinian side:
Ghassan W. Shakah, the city's mayor, is praised by Israeli officials as a "positive" force. He said he opposed suicide bombing. But he scoffed at the idea that making life miserable would put a stop to it.
"We have to think about the logic," he said. "The people like me, who are 50 to 60 years old, when you put pressure on them, they use their minds. But when you put pressure on 17-, 18-year-old boys, you create bitterness and anger."
"I don't believe this is pressure to calm down," he said. "This is pressure to build a bomb and commit suicide." That view was echoed by young people interviewed here today
The article was posted subsequent to a day of extreme violence in Nablus. Two ten year old Palestinians boys were killed. Their "crime": throwing stones at Israeli tanks. The same day a young Israeli soldier was killed. His "crime": believing the lies he was taught - that he is protecting his homeland. That young soldier is a nephew of a childhood friend. I was heart broken when I heard the news. But those two 10 year old boys have mothers, fathers, brothers and sisters as well. Three families destroyed by the logic of occupation. Again, from the Amnesty report:
The logic of occupation is actually a form of madness. Violence breeds violence without end. Andoni and many others on the Palestinian side are trying to change the equation. They are trying to transform Palestinian resistance back into a popular uprising. Andoni argues that colonial oppression only ends when two conditions occur: the price of colonialism exceeds its benefits. Within the occupying power as well, an anti-colonial peace movement must grow, which opposes the colonialism on moral and pragmatic grounds. This is the vanguard that leads the rest of the population to the inevitable conclusion - its time to withdraw. But to achieve this, Andoni contends, the price extracted of Israelis need not and should not be in body bags. Nonetheless there will continue to be those on the Palestinian side who demand to extract a price in blood. Israelis and their American Jewish cousins, because of their colonial arrogance and sense of victim-hood, cling to the logic of occupation and fail to understand the transformations taking place on the Palestinian side. We do so at great peril.Children are increasingly bearing the brunt of this conflict. Both the Israeli Defence Force (IDF) and Palestinian armed groups show an utter disregard for the lives of children and other civilians, Amnesty International said today.
Respect for human life must be restored. Only a new mindset among Israelis and Palestinians can prevent the killing of more children.
The impunity enjoyed by members of the IDF and of Palestinian groups responsible for killing children has no doubt helped create a situation where the right to life of children and civilians on the other side has little or no value.
Enough of unacceptable reasons and excuses. Both the Israeli government and the Palestinian Authority must act swiftly and firmly to investigate the killing of each and every child and ensure that all those responsible for such crimes are brought to justice.