Free Radikal

Everyone who saw the brutal treatment of the passengers of the freedom flotilla attempting to break the blockade of Gaza, and heard the Israeli propaganda machine claiming this was done in ‘self defence’ should understand that this self justification has a long history.

As an Israeli child, I grew up on myths of ‘self defence’ and of ‘the few against the many’, which were the building blocks of Israeli state and society from its very inception. Israeli literary scholar Nurit Gertz identifies three ‘ideological narratives’ aimed at conserving the hegemonic power relations. The first myth is the ‘few against the many’ narrative, according to which a Jewish ‘David’ was attacked by an Arab ‘Goliath’, the second is the struggle between the enlightened (Jewish) Europeans and the backwards (Arab) Orientals and the ensuing myth about Palestine being a ‘desert’ which the Zionists made ‘bloom’, and the third is the struggle between the isolated Jewish nation and an uncaring world, a narrative strengthened by the indifference of the world in face of the Nazi genocide. A fourth myth is that of Israel as European, and a fifth – perhaps the strongest myth – was the belief that all Israel’s wars and brutalities are fought in self defence.

Since the early days of the state, all Israel’s wars, including its participation in the imperialist 1956 Suez war, the invasions of Lebanon in 1982 and 2006, and the recent war against blockaded Gaza, were rationalised by the argument that after all, ‘peace loving’ Israel is only acting in ‘self defence’ and that if only the Palestinians agree to its conditions, they could have their tiny state albeit criss-crossed by walls and roadblocks, but that meanwhile, Israel has ‘no partner for peace’.

The fate of the Palestinians, 750,000 of whom were forced to flee or escape their homes during the 1948 war, was never part of the equation. Nor was the fate of those Palestinians exiled a second time, to the West Bank and Gaza in what was the expansionist 1967 war part of the equation. Throughout the occupation and the settlement of hundreds of thousands Jews in occupied West Bank and Golan Heights, Israel kept perpetuating the ‘self defence’ myth.

This is despite scholarship by Israeli and Palestinian historians and sociologists, exposing the extent of the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, particularly, but not exclusively, during and after the 1948 war. Scholars describe Israel as a settler colonial society and a racial state, who colonised Palestine – the biblical birthplace of the Jewish people, but also of a variety of local tribes, including the Palestinians – and then ethnically cleansed as many of its indigenous people as was possible, confining the rest to life in besieged reservations.

Yet, when the occupied subjects try to resist, they are labeled ‘terrorists’, and Israel, the coloniser, claims that its brutal violence is merely ‘self defence’. After all, Israelis say to themselves, ‘the whole world is against us’ (as it has always been), and ‘we are the only Jewish state in a sea of Arab states’ and, of course, ‘the only democracy in the Middle east’.

The mantra of ‘self defence’ is so deeply ingrained that Israeli soldiers believe that stone throwing teenagers and international demonstrators (including Irish Nobel Prize winner Mairead Maguire who was hit by Israeli rubber bullets while demonstrating in Bil’in on 20 April) are fair game. After all, Israelis tell their teenage soldiers, we are only acting in ‘self defence’. Thus the propaganda stories about MV Marmara attacking the poor Israeli commandos while they were abseiling from helicopters – so ‘vulnerable’, according to Defence Minister Ehud Barak – make perfect sense to the Israeli psyche.

The heroic Gaza flotilla passengers and their supporters deserve our admiration and support. However, I am afraid that despite the universal condemnations, Israel will only lift the Gaza blockade if told to do so by the USA, or if deprived of US billions, self defence or no self defence.

On 20 April 2010 I attended a roundtable run by the Equality Authority in Dublin to discuss antiracism. While several of us attending have sat in similar roundtables and other forums for the past 15 years to discuss racism and antiracism, Toyosi Shitta-bey’s killing on Good Friday has clearly moved the EA - curtailed and under-funded though it is - to convene this forum, in a genuine attempt to mobilise members of migrant and ethnic minority groups.

The main speakers were, as usual, white, settled Irish people, but around the table were leaders of migrant-led groups and networks (mostly Africans, with scant representation for Asians and Eastern Europeans, and only one Traveller, Ellen Mongan, the only Traveller who has ever sat on a local authority council). Everyone was asked to speak, and participants outlined their experiences of racism, and spoke of the anger and fear in their groups and neighbourhoods. A few  ‘usual suspects’ proposed what has been proposed so many times before: establishing an antiracism forum,  reforming the useless 1989 Incitement to Hatred Act (promised so many time by successive ministers for justice),  educating and holding information campaigns ( the government has clamped down on public awareness campaigns, but  one wonder were these ever really useful?)

However, only Chinedu Onyejelm of Metro Eireann had the courage to say that holding more forums and  meetings will make no difference in the absence of government commitment - a sentiment I am completely in agreement with.  Furthermore, the government has positively done  all it can to portray migrants as ‘a problem’ ever since the first influx of asylum seekers in the early 1990s.  Incarcerating asylum seekers in direct provision, thus making it near impossible for them to organise politically; ignoring the appalling conditions they are forced to live under (see, for instance, AkiDwA’s disturbing report on women in direct provision hostels); and making the work permit regime harder and harder for migrants to navigate - all make it patently clear that ‘integration’ is but an empty word.

That said, remember that migrants are doing a lot to integrate themselves and their groups into Irish society through involvement in hundreds of migrant-led networks and assocciations, providing advocacy, education, public information, service provision and culture.

However, too many migrant-support groups are headed by white Irish people. Thus  it was not surprising that most speakers stressed - yet again - the need for fair representation. However, when Kensika Monshengwo, formerly of the NCCRI, suggested that  Irish people often do a very good job at representing migrants’ and minorities’ needs, Ellen Mongan asked, rightly in my opinion, how long more should Travellers and migrants belong to organisations headed by white, settled Irish.

In the absence of government commitment to allow migrants to represent themselves and live a free and decent life, and its determination to deport as many ‘failed’ asylum seekers as possible (often rounded up at dawn and deported before campaigners have a chance to publicise these deportations) - the valiant Equality Authority has little chance to succeed in re- awakening Irish antiracism. Irish antiracism groups are encountering further difficulties with the recession, due to both scarce funding and more and more people blaming migrants for economic difficulties (see, for instance, media talkbacks on migrants ‘getting apartments, welfare and cars’ as the  reason for poor Toyosi’s killing!)

As antiracists we need to be less apologetic, saying  loudly and clearly, that we do not want to continue to live in a state that  racialises  Travellers (who it refuses to define as an ‘ethnic group’) and migrants (who it criminalises for seeking asylum or losing their work permits for no fault of their own, and who, when deemed ‘failed asylum seekers’, it deports mercilessly). We need to eradicate institutional and state racism before there are more killings.

He was a 15 year old who played football with Shelbourne FC.  He came to Ireland from Nigeria 11 years ago, had a lovely smile and a loving family and was popular with his Tyrrelstown school friends. On Good Friday he got into a row with two Irish men outside a house at Mount Garrett Rise sparked by racist jibes, and before he knew what was happening, Toyosi Shittabey was stabbed several times in the chest and was taken to Connolly Hospital in Blanchardstown where he died an hour later.

According to initial reports the Gardai, reportedly concerned about tensions in Tyrrelstown, which has 50 per cent non-Irish residents, were thinking in terms of a racist crime. They arrested brothers Paul (38) and Michael (23) Barry, who got away in a black Nissan. After a brief investigation Paul was charged with manslaughter and Michael was charged under section 11 of the Firearms and Offensive Weapons Act with possession of a hockey stick. Both were released on bail.

What became apparent very soon after the mindless killing of Toyosi Shittabey was the haste with which everyone, from Gardai and local politicians to the local Muslim leader Dr Muhammad Umar al-Qadri and the Nigerian ambassador Dr Kemafo Nonyerem Chikwe, insisted that the killing was not about racism, and appealed for calm.

I am just back from a postgraduate conference on migration studies at DCU, where a leading Dutch sociologist spoke about integration without mentioning racism even once. Racism, it seems, is increasingly becoming unmentionables. I do not wish to use Toyosi’s killing to make political capital, but it is important to note how quickly what was patently a racist crime became ‘not specifically a racist attack’ according to al-Qadri.

Despite the rallying of Tyrrelstown community around the Shittabeys, and the shows of solidarity, not naming racism takes us back to the pre-interculturalism age, when Irish people were convinced that there was no racism in Ireland ‘until these people came’. Migration studies scholars speak about integration without pointing at the state’s racist categorisation of migrant populations, and without linking restrictive immigration and asylum policies with street racism, that brought about Toyosi’s death.

What is not racist about two grown men insulting a young Nigerian schoolboy and stabbing him several times in the chest? Why is such wanton act turn from murder to manslaughter? Why were the killers granted bail? And – most importantly – why is everyone so afraid of the R word?

In Britain, the murder of Stephen Lawrence galvanised a powerful antiracism campaign, and led to the MacPherson Report which named police ‘institutional racism’. Though the campaign did not bring Stephen back to life and did not stop the British government from enacting its own draconian migration policies, antiracism is not dead in Britain. In the Republic, on the other hand, we are pretending that if we don’t call it by name, racism will disappear.

Many Irish-African people are justifyably angry. As Benedicta Attoh said in the conference today, Toyosi came to Ireland at the age of four; he could have been born here and be an Irish citizen. Many young African people are afraid to leave home after dark, because, whether or not they are Irish citizens, racism lurks on every street corner and we all need to mount a vigorous campaign against it, beginning by naming the problem, before it is too late.

Religion is fast replacing other ideologies such as Marxism-Leninism and anti-colonialism as determining social and political relations in our postmodern world. One result of the post September 11 world has been the demonization of Islam and the ‘politics of fear’ around the discourse of Islamic fundamentalism. This is despite the fact that fundamentalism, that potent ‘f word’, is originally Protestant, not Muslim, put forward in California in 1910 in a pamphlet titled The Fundamentals: A Testimony of Truth, which was circulated in 3 million copies, aiming to stop the erosion of what they saw as the ‘fundamental’ beliefs of Protestantism.
I do not need to re rehearse here the consequences of discourses such as ‘the clash of civilizations’ and the racial profiling of Muslims in the wake of 9/11 and the attacks in Madrid and London, which have resulted in what has been named the war on/of terror, waged mostly against Muslims.
One interesting consequence of this demonization has been the Swiss referendum put forward last November by the Swiss People’s Party aiming to ban the construction of minarets in Switzerland.
There are 400,000 Muslims in Switzerland (a small minority in a population of 6.4m of whom 1.96m have ‘immigrant background’), and only four minarets. Minarets, therefore, are not a huge problem, yet, according to the SVP, they are ‘a sign of Islamisation’. More than 57.5% of Swiss voters in 22 out of 26 cantons - or provinces - voted in favour of the ban, which was condemned by most world leaders from the Pope to Muslim leaders, yet has remained surprisingly undiscussed. There are unofficial Muslim prayer rooms in Switerland, and planning applications for new minarets are almost always refused. However, supporters of a ban claimed that allowing minarets would represent the growth of an ideology and a legal system - Sharia law - which are incompatible with Swiss democracy.
In the face of the success of the minaret ban, it is startling to think of the other Swiss referendum, put to voters in March, proposing to adopt the rights for animals to be legally represented. The proposal is based on an existing system in Zurich, according to which creatures such as goldfish and canaries, pigs, budgies and other animals should have legally enshrined rights including the right to be regularly exercised and cared for. This proposal was rejected by nearly 80 per cent, but the implications are interesting.
On the one hand, Switzerland has voted to outlaw the right of its Muslim citizens and residents to exercise their religious rights by praying and congregating in a publicly sited mosque, complete with a minaret. On the other, the Swiss seriously considered extending legal rights to animals – symbolically placing animals above people of the Muslim faith.
According to Maynooth media scholar Gavan Titley, the minaret ban – which means Muslims in Switzerland have to continue to pray in private facilities and thus keep their religion in the private domain – is part of a perceived ‘crisis of European multiculturalism’ which is accompanied by an ‘unapologetic demand for disintegrated migrants and Muslim populations to display loyalty, adopt ‘our’ national/liberal/universal values, and prove the legitimacy of their presence and belonging’.

Prof. Rivka Carmi
President of Ben-Gurion University of the Negev
Office of the President
Ben-Gurion University of the Negev
P.O. Box 653
Beer-Sheva  84105  ISRAEL
Tel:  +972-8-647-930
Cell:  +972-526-839-367
Fax:    +972-8-647-2991
Email:  board@bgu.ac.il
berkan@exchange.bgu.ac.il
justman@bgu.ac.il
ngordon@bgu.ac.il

23 January 2010

Cc.
Prof. Moshe Justman, Dean of the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences
Dr. Neve Gordon, Chairman of the Department of Politics and Government
Staff
Ms Anne Berkeley, Liaison Officer to the Board of Governors

Dear Prof Carmi,

We, Israeli, Palestinian and British academics, are writing to express our deep concern at the treatment of Dr Ahmad Sa’di, a Senior Lecturer at Ben-Gurion University’s Department of Politics and Government, who was subjected to racist treatment on 3 January 2010 when he arrived at Ben-Gurion University train station, as he does every teaching week.  He was humiliatingly searched, yelled at and embarrassed by the security staff at Mexico Gate, which we find offensive and unacceptable.We believe that Dr Sa’di’s reaction on the date was exemplary; he did not block the entrance nor did he insult the security staff.

Following the incident Dr Sa’di complained to the university authorities on 3 January 2010 and again on 10 January 2010. Dr Sa’di strongly believes that his treatment at Mexico Gate on 3 January was only the last in a whole series of racist encounters and harassment he has faced in the past ten years of his employment at Ben-Gurion University. Other incidents included his car being stopped, his bags searched and security staff making calls to ascertain whether he should be allowed to enter the university.

We are extremely concerned that Dr Sa’di’s formal complaint about his treatment on 3 January has neither been looked into seriously by Ben-Gurion University nor been met with anything like a response that it requires from your institution’s senior management. Although Ben-Gurion University acknowledges that Dr Sa’di was insulted and humiliated on 3 January, no further disciplinary action were pursued.

Ben-Gurion University claims to be like other European universities. Yet the response by Ben-Gurion University is another indication of an entirely different sort of system where racism is accepted as routine.  Had a complaint of this nature been made in the UK, there would have been automatic suspension with pay of the individuals involved.  This would then be followed by an investigation by the university department of Human Resources. Yet the fact that Dr Sa’di complaint of racism was dismissed, almost instantly, by the Director of the Department of Security says volumes about your attitude to racism.  You simply are not taking this complaint of racism seriously and we emphatically object.
We also believe that Dr Sa’di’s treatment by Ben-Gurion University is very typical of a wide range of experiences of racist encounters made by Palestinian citizens of Israel, in their face to face, day in and day out confrontations with your security.  This makes life near impossible for many Palestinian academics teaching for Israeli institutions.  It also makes travel to international conferences difficult.  Academics moving in and out of other Israeli institutions have similar experiences to those of Dr Sa’di’s.  It is this that we find so appalling.  It dehumanises those who do some of the very best work.

We call on Ben-Gurion University to take measures preventing further harassment of Dr Sa’di and we hope you realise that such racist treatment and the lack of any serious redress by senior management at Ben-Gurion seriously damages the reputation of your institution and offends the international family of academics to the core.

Sincerely,

Signed by

Professor Avi Shlaim, Oxford University, UK
Professor Nur Masalha, St Mary’s University College, UK
Dr Ronit Lentin, Trinity College, University of Dublin, Ireland
Dr Paul Kelemen, University of Manchester, UK
Keith Hammond, Glasgow University, Scotland
Professor Nira Yuval-Davis, University of East London, UK
Professor Lila Abu-Lughod, Columbia University, New York, US
Professor Gabriel Piterberg, UCLA, US
Dr Nadje Al-Ali, SOAS, University of London, UK
Professor Ilan Pappe, Exeter University, UK
Professor Elia Zureik, Queen’s University, Canada
Dr Laleh Khalili, SOAS, University of London, UK
Dr Stephanie Cronin, Oxford University, UK
Professor Mary Grey, St Mary’s University College, UK