Ireland, Israel and the Occupied Territories Bill

Published in The Irish Times, 4 February 2019 https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/deep-empathy-of-irish-for-palestinians-is-in-no-way-anti-semitic-1.3780678?fbclid=IwAR1iNQzMvahZIHAJUSwaMTOLVWViV52Iyzb_mMuV5D9bVdjBOJagyquBrJo

The published article is available through the link. I re-wrote the final paragraph, as it spoke of ‘human empathy’ which I do not find useful when speaking of political solidarity.

Israel’s response to the passing of the Occupied Territories Bill in the Dail last week entailed, on the one hand, threatening to impose severe economic-political measures against Ireland, including taxing Irish imports and suspending bilateral economic and commercial agreements with Dublin.  On the other hand, Israel accused Ireland of antisemitism, often weaponised against any criticism of the Israeli colonisation of Palestine and its ongoing infringements of international law.

There is no need for me to discuss the merits and effectiveness of the bill here. It’s worth noting, however, that the settlements, from which products would be banned if the bill becomes law, are considered illegal under international law. According to article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, ‘the occupying power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own population into the territories it occupies,’ making Israel’s building and transfering of its population to the occupied Palestinian territory illegal. According to the Israelihuman rights NGO B’Telem, over 200 Israeli settlements have been established in the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) since 1967. Their current population is almost 620,000. Settlements, built on Palestinian (often privately owned) lands, impinge on Palestinian human rights as checkpoints that limit Palestinian movement are erected based on where there are settlements. Palestinians are denied access to farmland near settlements, and settlers regularly attack Palestinian schoolchildren and farmers in full view of the Israeli military.

I am a Palestine-born Israeli Jew, indoctrinated with the dual message of Jewish victimhood and Jewish supremacy throughout my youth, and citizen of Ireland for the past fifty years. Like increasing numbers of American and European Jews, I am an active supporter of Palestinian rights. I wish to discuss two central questions relating to the implications of the Occupied Territories bill: first, is Ireland out of step with the rest of Europe as claimed by both Israel and the Fine Gael government? And second, is antisemitism the driving force behind the bill and the broad societal support for Palestinian rights?

Historian Rory Miller writes that there was reciprocal sympathy in Ireland for the establishment of the Zionist state as Israel hoped for Ireland’s “intuitive understanding of the Jewish-Israeli predicament” and support for what it saw as its struggle for survival and security. Miller argues there is no overt antisemitism in Ireland, though I wonder whether the fact that the Republic allowed only 60 Jewish refugees fleeing Nazism to settle in Ireland between 1933 and 1946 was due to Irish Catholic and state antisemitism.

That said, Ireland regarded Israel as an underdog under attack during the 1967 war, following which foreign minister Frank Aiken attempted to get the UN to consider Israeli concerns, leading Israel’s foreign minister Abba Eban to call on other UN member states to follow the example of his ‘friend’ Aiken. But overall, Miller argues that the Irish refused to translate the kinship between the Irish and the Jews into political support for Israel, as Ireland, and in particular the Republican movement, was increasingly supportive of Palestine, though the Irish government’s official statements about Israel were never explicitly abusive. Miller notes the influence of the Irish army’s UNIFIL role in southern Lebanon as a major source of conflict between Ireland and Israel, and the role of NGOs including Trocaire, Christian Aid and the Ireland Palestine Solidarity Campaign – the latter now one of twenty NGOs banned from entering Israel and Palestine – in mobilising support for Palestinians under occupation and siege.

In relation to solidarity with Palestine, then, Irish society is not out of step with European civil societies. In fact, responding to public opinion and grassroots campaigning, the EU itself has recently introduced rules prohibiting itself from funding Israeli companies and bodies based in illegal Israeli settlements and has warned businesses about the risks of doing business with illegal Israeli settlements; this is only one of the many achievements of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement. Like in other EU states where governments uphold the Israeli state despite growing societal solidarity with the Palestinians, it is rather the Irish political leadership that is out of step with the public; it seems reluctant to give up the high level economic and research and development collaboration with Israel, including in the field of the arms trade. Furthermore, aspiring to play a role in the long discredited ‘peace process,’ Simon Coveney seems keen on Dublin becoming the new Oslo, despite the bankruptcy of the Oslo Accords after which the conditions of the Palestinians under occupation and siege have seriously worsened.

As a race scholar I have researched antisemitism and the instrumentalisation of the Holocaust by the Israeli state (see my books Israel and the Daughters of the Shoah: Reoccupying the Territories of Silence, 2000; and Racism and Antiracism in Ireland, 2002). As such I totally reject the accusation by Israel and its supporters that criticising Israel’s policies of colonisation and occupation is antisemitic.

According to the US group Jewish Voice for Peace, which has recently declared itself anti-Zionist, antisemitism, a term describing real experiences of Jewish people around the world, is often exploited to delegitimise the movement for the human rights of Palestinians. This manipulation has added to a flurry of unconstitutional pushes in the US and elsewhere to ban BDS campaigns.

While as an Irish-Israeli citizen and a Jewish activist for Palestinian rights I do not believe that support for Palestine, in Ireland or elsewhere, is motivated by antisemitism, I know full well that within the Palestine solidarity movement some antisemitism does exist. The Ireland Palestine Solidarity Campaign is however extremely careful to root out any displays of antisemitism among supporters, which is why I continue to work with the group comfortably. Irish antisemitism has existedand does occasionally raise its ugly head, but historically many members of the Irish Jewish community have tcastigated me for naming Irish antisemitism, prefering to deny it, choosing instead to stress their integration in Irish society.

Support for Palestinians’ rights and for freedom for Palestine derives instead from political solidarity. As attacks on US academics and politicians, most recently public representative Ilham Omar, have demonstrated, Israel and its Zionist supporters prefer to cry antisemitism whenever criticism of Israel’s policies of coloniality, occupation, siege and of the daily oppression of Palestinian citizens, occupies and besieged subjects is voiced.

Like countless other critics of the state of Israel, Jews and non-Jews alike, I will continue to sound my criticism and denounce Israel as the racial colony that it is, and no name calling – often describing me as a self hating Jew and ‘terrorist lover,’ will stop me.

 

 

Book launch talk “Traces for Racial Exception”

Traces of Racial Exception: Racializing Israeli Settler Colonialism

By Ronit Lentin (Bloomsbury Academic, 2018).

 

Book launch speech, 19 October 2018, Trinity College Dublin

Sponsored by the MPhil in Race, Ethnicity and Conflict, and Academics for Palestine, and launched by Professor Neve Gordon, School of Law, Queen Mary College London.

 

 

Much has changed since I finished the book, including the IDF wanton massacre of unarmed protesters in the Gaza Great March of Return as of March 2018, leading, according to the Palestinian Ministry of Health and the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, to murdering 209 unarmed protesters (including 41 children, 2 journalists and 3 paramedics) and injuring more than 22,500 (of whom over 5,500 with live ammunition); the threatened demolition of the unrecognised Bedouin village Khan al Akhmar; the arrest and subsequent release of the Palestinian teenager Ahed Tamimi; the imprisonment and subsequent release of the Palestinian poet Dareen Tatour; the lynching of three Palestinian citizens on a beach in Israel; and above all, the passage of the racist 2018 Nation State Bill. However, you can never put a final full stop when writing about the Palestine present, as things are getting worse daily, just when you think that they cannot get any worse…

In this talk I outline briefly my choice to use the lens of race to analyse Israel’s permanent war against the Palestinians. I prefer not to use the hackneyed terms ‘Israel/Palestine’ or ‘Palestine/Israel’ – because such coupling masks unequal power. Nor do I call this war ’the Israeli-Palestinian conflict’. This is not a conflict but rather colonization, and to analyse colonization you need to use the lens of race, as argued by the late theorist of settler colonialism Patrick Wolfe in his posthumous 2016 book Traces of History: Elementary Structures of Race: “race is colonialism speaking, in idioms whose diversity reflects the variety of unequal relationships into which Europeans have co-opted conquered populations.”

*

In March 2016 IDF medic Elor Azaria shot to death Abdel al-Fattah al-Sharif, an unarmed Palestinian, minutes after soldiers shot, wounded and ‘neutralized’ him for attempting to stab an Israeli soldier, while he was lying on the ground unable to move. Azaria was charged with murder, later transmuted to manslaughter.

Al Sharif was one of 181 Palestinian ‘terror suspects’ extra-judicially executed between October 2015 and March 2016. The killing was supported by 65 per cent of Israeli Jews; 67 per cent supported pardoning Azaria, who was backed by Netanyahu, Lieberman, and other public figures, and by thousands of Israeli demonstrators shouting ‘death to the Arabs’. Azaria is far from unique: of 186 IDF criminal investigations in 2015, only four led to indictments. Azaria was tried only because he was filmed by the Palestinian cameraman ‘Imad Abu Shamsiyeh, who received many death threats after the video went viral.

Azaria was given a lenient jail sentence of 18 months, leading Palestinian Knesset member Jamal Zahalka to call Israel a ‘democracy of guns.’ Having served half of his sentence, Azaria is feted as a national hero … But as Neve Gordon writes, Azaria ‘is in no way an aberration of Israel’s colonial project, but rather a clear symptom of its very structure’.

The Azaria case illustrates the centrality of race to Israel’s permanent war against Palestine. First, the ease with which a Jewish Israeli soldier can extra-judicially execute an unarmed helpless Palestinian illustrates the racialization and dehumanization of Palestinians by Israeli Jews, whose white Jewish supremacy parallels their sense of victimhood. Second, Azaria being an Arab (Mizrahi) Jew demonstrates the racialization of Arab Jews in Israel’s complex racial reality. According to Israeli sociologist Yehouda Shenhav, Azaria’s trial would have gone differently had he been Ashkenazi: ‘The Mizrahi is not one of us – we are more moral, better. The trial expresses superiority disguised as morality’. Third, Azaria’s conviction heightened Israelis’ sense of victimhood, the other side of the settler colonial race coin – colonizers on the one hand, eternal victims on the other, a lethal cocktail.

Continue reading “Book launch talk “Traces for Racial Exception””

Oxymorons and metaphors: Israel Studies from racialization to decolonization

make-israel-palestine-again-2

A paper I presented at a workshop entitled ‘Decolonizing knowledge production: The case of Israel-Palestine’, London School of Economics, 6 June 2017, 50 years since Israel’s 1967 war against its Arab neighbours and since the occupation of the West Bank, Sinai, the Gaza Strip and the Golan.


Introduction: Some thoughts about decolonizing Israel Studies

Following Eman Ghanayem (2017) who asks that pro Palestine activists stop using the term ‘Israel/Palestine’ which equates Palestine and Israel and in which Israel dominates the discourse, I propose that the decolonization of Israel Studies is an oxymoron. As argued by Tuck and Yang’s ‘Decolonization is not a metaphor’, the very language of decolonizing education and research used by the colonizers remains a metaphor that re-centres whiteness, resettles theory, extends innocence to the settler, and entertains a settler future (2012: 3). According to Steven Salaita Fanon’s description of decolonization as ‘total disorder’ is not the absence of law, but rather

an act of removing order from the structures of foreign authority. This removal of order is total because… the colonial entity must be rejected completely, subverted, dismantled, decentralized – that is, dis-ordered (2016: xii).

Tuck and Yang argue that teaching settlers to become indigenous occludes the settler colonial project itself. Likewise Israel Studies programmes collude with Israeli settler colonialism, even when attempting to be critical. Thus in 2014 the European Association of Israel Studies demanded that a lecturer from the West Bank Ariel University omit his institutional affiliation in order to participate in the EAIS annual conference – a clear case of having your colonial cake and eating it.

As is well known, Israeli universities are deeply implicated in the settler colonial project through developing weapons and security equipment for the IDF and for Israel’s international arms trade, designing phantom cities for the IDF to practice urban warfare, and training the IDF in poststructuralist theories to be used in new modes of warfare. Israeli universities provide courses for IDF and security personnel, publicly support Israel’s colonial wars, most recently the 2014 assault on Gaza, and give grants and extra exam dates for serving students-soldiers, while systematically discriminating against Palestinian faculty and students.

Until the 1980s most Israeli academics conducted uncritical research that upheld the institutions of ruling. Only in the late 1980s did ‘new historians’ and critical sociologists begin questioning state narratives in relation to the Nakba and to Israel’s permanent war against the Palestinians. Many Israeli scholars researching Palestine are graduates of ‘Oriental’ high-school streams, the IDF Intelligence corps, and university Middle East Studies departments, making them agents of settler colonialism. Even when Israeli scholars employ Palestinian informants and research assistants, the research remains the property of the colonizer scholars who purport to conduct liberatory research (which, as Mohanty [1984] argued in another context, ‘discursively colonizes’ Palestinian reality), while retaining privileged access to knowledge, research grants, publications and academic reputation.


Settler colonialism and scholarship

Decolonization is not a metaphor. Tuck and Yang (2012) argue write that ‘because settler colonialism is built on an entangled triad structure of settler-native-slave, the decolonial desires… can similarly be entangled in resettlement, reoccupation, and reinhabitation that actually further settler colonialism’. The metaphorization of decolonization, they argue, enables a problematic set of evasions that reconcile settler guilt and complicity.

The trendy call to ‘decolonize’ education and research occludes settler colonialism, Indigenous peoples’ struggles for the recognition of their sovereignty, and the contribution of Indigenous intellectuals to theories of decolonization. Tuck and Yang argue that the too-easy adoption of decolonizing discourses is part of what they describe as ‘moves to innocence’, that ‘represent settler fantasies of easier paths to reconciliation’ of what is essentially irreconcilable (Malwhinney 1988).

Israeli settler colonials work to indigenize themselves by claiming originary Biblical privilege which, they assert repeatedly, supersedes claims by the Indigenous, who, the settlers claim, are recent immigrants to the invented ‘land of Israel’. These indigenizing claims render Israeli settler law – mostly based on Ottoman and British colonial law – superior to Indigenous laws, customs and epistemologies.

North American settlers’ fascination by indigeneity meant ‘playing Indian’: ‘Americans wanted to feel a natural affinity with the continent, and it was Indians who could teach them such aboriginal closeness. Yet, in order to control the landscape they had to destroy the original inhabitants’ (Deloria 1998: 5). Likewise, Zionist settlers were fascinated by and emulated Palestinian indigeneity. As Yuval Evry (2016: 56) argues, the Zionists saw the settlement of Palestine as a territorial and textual return to the Jews’ Biblical origins, enabling the settlers to negate both the Jewish diaspora and Palestine’s Arab history. The so-called ‘first wave’ immigrants expressed their indigenizing desire through a mixture of proximity to and rejection of the Indigenous Palestinians whose life and folklore shaped the narrative of Jewish return to the land and the Biblical text, considered foundational to the Jewish ownership of Palestine. At the same time Israeli academic research occludes the lived experiences of Palestinian citizens, occupied, besieged and diasporic subjects who Israeli academics help their state to eliminate through collusion with Israel’s permanent war against the Palestinians.

According to Tuck and Yang, the decolonization metaphor is an expression of settler anxiety as the settler attempts to escape her complicity. However, they caution, the settlers’ reconciliation desire is as relentless as their desire to disappear the Native, signifying a wish to no longer face the Indigenous or deal with the ‘Indigenous problem’. In the race to innocence, depicted in countless Israeli fictional narratives, settlers attempt to relieve their guilt without actually giving up land, power and privilege. Settler writers are rarely reflexive (Yizhar is an exception – his story Khirbet Khizeh is the emblematic first-person account of the rage and regret of a 1948 soldier against his company expelling the inhabitants of the Palestinian village they demolish). In contrast, reflexive accounts by settler scholars is a move to innocence that serves only the settlers, as they invent ancient Biblical nativist roots that Goldberg theorizes as ‘racial Palestinianization’ (2008).


Decolonization is not a metaphor

Tuck and Yang outline various moves to innocence used in settler scholarship, including the bracketing of minoritized Indigenous peoples as ‘asterisks’, the discursive move to ‘decolonize your mind’ following the Brazilian education philosopher Paolo Freire, and colonial equivocation whereby different groups are called ‘colonized’ though their relationship to settler colonialism goes unmentioned.

However, decolonization, as Fanon (1963: 36) insists, must involve the actual, rather than symbolic, repatriation of all the colonized land, which is why decolonization unsettles settler moves to innocence although it does not mean Indigenous peoples dominating white people but rather breaking the very structure of settler colonialism by returning land to sovereign Native nations and dismantling the imperial metropole.

Treating decolonization as material rather than metaphorical must also consider the workings of race in the Israeli settler colony. Only in recent years has the Israeli theoretical landscape begun to admit the reality of racism, though very few theorists focus on settler colonial state practices of racial categorization and segregation. Shenhav and Yona’s edited collection on racism in Israel evades state racism and race per se, due, they write, to regarding Israel as exceptional and to Israeli Jews’ own racialized past (2008: 17). This, and theorizing racism in Israel as signifying ‘racism without race’, leads them to disavow race, a theoretical dead end (2008: 43). The race lacuna in theorizing Israel must be addressed because, as Wolfe (2016: 5) insists, ‘race is colonialism speaking, in idioms whose diversity reflects the variety of unequal relationships into which Europeans have co-opted conquered populations’.


Conclusion: Decolonizing Israel Studies as an oxymoron

Decolonization stands in contrast to reconciliation which underpins settler moves to innocence. Instead of reconciliation Tuck and Yang propose incommensurability that insists that the question ‘what will be the consequences of decolonization for the settler?’ need not be answered for decolonization to take place. Decolonization is not accountable to settler futurity, but rather to Indigenous sovereignty and futurity.

Writing about silencing Palestinian voices at a recent conference in a British university marking 50 years to the occupation, Hawari and Sleiman insist that decolonizing knowledge must begin from Palestinian knowledge production, as Western as well as Israel Studies knowledge production remains structurally colonial. This, they write, means not only including more Palestinian voices, but also rejecting false discourse of ‘balance’ of which the present conference, organized by Israeli scholars, is a culprit. Hawari and Sleiman argue that the ‘continuing process of indigenous erasure takes place both on the material and on the epistemic levels… and should no longer be considered as such in the academy. Re-centring our views around the experience of the Palestinians is the only way we can decolonize knowledge production on Palestine/Israel’.

To conclude, let me reiterate that the call by settler scholars to decolonize Israel Studies is an oxymoron because Israel Studies is itself a colonizing practice. Instead – as a member of the perpetrator collectivity, I suggest that we need ‘dangerous understandings of uncommonality that un-coalesce coalition politics’, even though this rejects false balance, dialogue, coexistence, normalization and even co-resistance projects that do not demand the total dismantling of the settler state, returning all the land to its Indigenous Palestinian owners and facilitating the return of all Palestinians refugees to their homes and lands.

As settler scholars we must relinquish settler futurity. Decolonization means removing all asterisks, quotes, and conditional clauses that underwrite settler innocence. The ethic of incommensurability will become possible only when the Israeli settler colony is dismantled. ‘Decolonization’, Tuck and Yang conclude, ‘is not an “and”. It is an elsewhere’ (2012: 35-6).


References

Deloria, P. (1998) Playing Indian. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Evry, Y. (2016) ‘Translation without origin: The question of ownership of text and territory in the transition from oral Palestinian tradition to Hebrew literature’, in

Fanon, F. (1963) The Wretched of the Earth, New York: Grove Press.

Ghanayem, E. (2017) ‘Towards better ally-ship for Palestine: A letter to the US activist community’, Mondoweiss, 23 March (accessed 28 March 2017)

Goldberg, D. T. (2008) ‘Racial Palestinianization’, in R. Lentin (ed.) Thinking Palestine, London: Zed Books.

Hawari, Y. and H. Sleiman (2017) ‘Challenging Knowledge Production in the British Academy: Who Can Speak on Palestine?Jaddaliya, 29 May 2017 http://www.jadaliyya.com/pages/index/26597/challenging-knowledge-production-in-the-british-ac (accessed 29 May 2017).

Lentin, R. (2010) Co-Memory and Melancholia: Israelis Memorialise the Palestinian Nakba, Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Malwhinney, J. (1998) ‘Giving up the ghost’: Disrupting the (re)production of white privilege in anti-racist pedagogy and organizational change’. Masters Thesis: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of the University of Toronto. http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/obj/s4/f2/dsk2/tape15/PQDD_0008/MQ33991.pdf (accessed 28 March 2017)

Mohanty, C. T. (1984) ‘Under western eyes: Feminist scholarship and colonial discourses’, Boundary 12 (3): 333-358

Sand, S. (2014) The Invention of the Land of Israel: From Holy Land to Homeland,

Salaita, S. (2016), Inter/Nationalism: Decolonizing Native America and Palestine, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Shenhav, Y. and Y. Yona (eds.) (2008), Racism in Israel, Jerusalem: The Van Leer Institute Hakibbutz Hameuchad Publishing House.

Tuck, E. and K. W. Yang (2012), ‘Decolonization is not a metaphor’, Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education and Society, 1(1): 1-40.

Wolfe, P. (1999) Settler Colonialism and the Transformation of Anthropology: The Politics and Poetics of an Ethnographic Event, London: Cassells.

Wolfe, P. (2016) Traces of History: Elementary Structures of Race, London: Verso.

Yizhar, S. (2015 [1949]) Khirbet Khizeh, London: Farrar, Straus and Giroux