All over the world people who challenge Zionism are being accused of antisemitism. You might imagine the one group of dissidents who are safe from this kind of delegitimization is the Israeli Jews—we are not. This cruel irony, when exposed, may actually play a productive role in decoupling antisemitism and anti-Zionism. As actual antisemites take positions of power in the US government while maintaining a pro-Israel stance, the need to oppose the false accusations of antisemitism becomes ever more vital.

I was recently accused of antisemitism over an article I wrote about resistance to Israeli apartheid in the Jordan Valley. At first I was perplexed—could I have said something antisemitic? Surely I’m not immune to bigotry just because I am a Jew whose grandmother fled Nazi Germany to find refuge in Mandatory Palestine with her parents losing their entire livelihood in the process. But after a close reading of the accusations I found them a revealing example on the accusatory phenomenon as a whole. They cite as evidence of antisemitism my citation of reliable UN sources indicating that a process of ethnic cleansing has been occurring in the Jordan Valley since 1967, with no shred of compassion for the Palestinians whose situation I try to make visible. They see the Israeli soldiers and bureaucrats whose actions I condemn as representatives of the Jewish people en bloc, as if we Jews were all one likely-minded monolith. In this logic, however incoherently framed, anyone who criticizes Israel could be accused of antisemitism. This empties the word of meaning, which is a very dangerous prospect when the Nazi salute is being performed minutes away from the White House to celebrate an actual bigot’s presidency.

Zionism and antisemitism are long-time bedfellows, and not strange at that. They’ve been consistently sharing the cause of emptying Europe of Jews while transplanting them in Palestine. Theodore Herzl, the founder of colonial Zionism, stated very clearly in his Diaries: “The anti-Semites will become our most dependable friends, the anti-Semitic countries our allies.” This alliance continues to this day as the burgeoning extreme right aims to have a Jew-free white America while maintaining a staunch support for Israel. Trump’s friendship with Netanyahu is emblematic of this tendency.

Zionists like to think of themselves as the saviors of the Jews, as if Jews were compliant lambs until the Zionists came over and put pitchforks and guns in our hands. This way Zionism attempts to overshadow Judaism’s important contribution to legacies of struggle. In my own life, Judaism informs my resistance to the Israeli state (and to all states, for that matter). I lit candles on Hanukkah commemorating the Jewish rebellion against Hellenistic imperialism almost 2200 years ago. I cherish the legacy of the ZOB, who led the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising and wrote: “All people are equal brothers…. To separate peoples, colors, races – is but an act of cheating!”

If I felt anxiety at the sight of my own picture flagging the word “antisemite,” and thought I may need to choose my words more carefully next time, I can imagine it being quite daunting for non-Jews who feel compelled to support the Palestinian call for equality. Indeed, international groups I speak to often say that fear of the “antisemitism accusation” is the biggest challenge they face as activists. We need to be crystal clear about the illegitimacy of this invocation: to support the Palestinian call for equality and freedom is not antisemitic. It is not a call against Jewish people, but against the dehumanizing policies of a state. Opposing Israel is not opposing Jewish people (on the contrary). Following are five reasons for which these accusations should be opposed and discredited:

  1. Jewish people are not a single monolithic group. Zionism and the State of Israel do not represent all Jews. To consider opposition to Israel as opposition to all Jews makes the assumption that Jews are all represented by the Israeli State – this is a racist assumption. (A similar argument is often made by Omar Barghouti)
  2. The Zionist idea that Jewish people have a birth-given right to colonize Palestine comes out of a nineteenth century white European notion that Ashkenazi Jews are not Europeans, that they are “strange Asiatics” who come from the Middle East and therefore must all “return” to it. This is an unfounded and antisemitic argument. (Authoritatively articulated by Joseph Massad and others)
  3. Accusing people who oppose the State of Israel of antisemitism is an equation that works both ways—it creates a false image of antisemites as people who uphold Palestinian rights. It is therefore an accusation which strengthens actual fascists, as it puts them in a positive light. (See an article by Michael Lesher)
  4. Zionists accuse people of antisemitism in order to silence resistance to Israeli crimes.
  5. At a time in which fascism strengthens globally, the groundless allegation of antisemitism drains the word itself of meaning, making it incoherent and irrelevant, allowing racists who support Israel, such as Donald Trump or his chief strategist Steve Bannon, to hide their antisemitism.

Profiling activists as antisemites, whether those with Holocaust survival in our family history or those without, is not only rhetorically dangerous, but may actually put people at risk. Right now Palestinian solidarity efforts are being criminalized the world over. But fearing these kinds of accusations and limiting ourselves to a false political correctness only leaves a void to be filled by authoritarian politics. It’s time we call antisemitism for what it is. The recuperation of anti-racist politics as a whole is at stake.

– This post was published on:

Homage to Niemöller

First they came for the Arabs, and I was not concerned–
because I was not an Arab;

Then they came for the Mexicans, and I did not speak out–
I was not a Mexican, so I was not concerned;

Then they came for the queers, and I said nothing–
because I was, of course, no queer;

Then they came for the blacks, the natives, the anarchists, the Jews, all kinds of brown people, Asian migrants, and all dissidents,
and I did nothing–
because I was not any of those things.

Then they came for me–
and there was no one left

to stop them.



(~Amitai Ben-Abba, November 2016)

[This post was published on Mondoweiss and in French on]

I found myself standing in front of a military bulldozer like this:

Cat and mouse, the Jordan Valley, 10/13/2016. Photo: Guy Hirchfeld, Ta'ayush

Cat and mouse, the Jordan Valley, 10/13/2016. Photo: Guy Hirchfeld, Ta’ayush

It was 42 degrees Celsius (107.6 Fahrenheit) in the Jordan Valley. We went for another day of work and accompaniment with the villagers who face constant harassment from Israeli authorities, and we happened to be there when the Forces of Israeli Defense came to demolish a gravel road, the only access road to Al Hadidiyye, a village which has no water supplies except for the overly priced water tanks delivered on this gravel road.

Ro’i, the neighbouring Jewish colony, receives subsidized water. Their main industry is fishkeeping. Yes, they grow ornamental aquarium fish in the desert like this:

Clown fish. Image captured in a Youtube video promoting the Israeli fishkeeping industry.

Clown fish. Image captured in a Youtube video promoting the Israeli fishkeeping industry.

A quick search in the online Israeli “Yellow Pages” reveals that some of the fish they grow is exported via businesses which are registered in Jerusalem and Rosh Ha’ayin, on the other side of the ’49 armistice line. Just an example showing that the boycott movement should focus on the Israeli economy as a whole, and not attempt the logistically impossible task of differentiating settlement products from products produced in so-called “Israel proper.”

Back on the gravel track. I happened to stumble sideways when the bulldozer turned its claws to reach the gravel road from a different direction. We ended up playing a weird kind of cat-and-mouse game, with the bulldozer playing the role of the mouse. The mouse has to reach the cheese – the gravel road – on the other side of the cat. If the cat stands in the way, the bulldozer has to stop, reverse, and try a different route. The problem is that in this version, if the bulldozer stops a moment too late, the cat turns into crushed human flesh. A similar kind of game resulted with the death of Rachel Corrie. The bulldozer operator was playing with a big smile on his face, dangerously testing the limits. Unlike Rachel Corrie, I am a Hebrew speaking Israeli Jew, so the next time he stopped I came by to try to converse with him, at which point he opened the door like this:

Israeli military bulldozer operator. Photo: Guy Hirchfeld, Ta'ayush

Israeli military bulldozer operator. Photo: Guy Hirchfeld, Ta’ayush

And yelled at me to get out of the way. I said that my conscience doesn’t allow me to abide by his venerable orders, and I mentioned Rachel Corrie and how he wouldn’t want to have a similar incident on his conscience, and I advised him to stop the engine and relax and have a smoke until the police arrives. He had heard about Rachel Corrie, and after some cordial yelling, he turned off the motor. His colleague, wearing a glowing yellow vest over his uniform, came to converse with me.

“Bro, are you out of your mind? Do you wanna get hurt?” He said.

“You know that they don’t have running water in this village?” I asked.

“Why do you answer a question with a question?”

“A rabbi was asked why do Jews always answer questions with questions. ‘Why not?’ said the rabbi.”

They chuckled.

“Seriously,” I say. “A couple of months ago they connected water pipes to ‘Atuf nearby. They installed water meters to pay for it and everything, but you came and destroyed it.”

“They didn’t get permission for it.”

“It’s a basic human right!”

“They shouldn’t be here. Why don’t they go to Jordan?” he said.

I’ve been trolling the Israeli military for years, and I still haven’t gotten used to these common revelations that simple bottom-of-the-pyramid soldiers are harbingers of the ethnic cleansing of Palestine. When it comes to the army, the tree doesn’t fall far from the bad apples, as this deranged culture is deeply embedded throughout the chain of command. The last time I visited Al Hadidiyye, our host Abu Saqr took us on a tour to see water cisterns which were demolished in the early years of the ’67 occupation. Some diseased bureaucrat actually sat and mapped all of the water cisterns used by Abu Saqr and all other Palestinians in the Jiftlik-Tubas-Tamun area, and ordered to systematically destroy them all. What that war-criminal understood in his sick mind was that if you deprive a people of water and livelihood, you can quietly displace them in a way that is invisible to international media. “Before 1967 there were over 2,000 of us in Al Hadidiyye,” Abu Saqr told us. “Today we are 98.” Al Hadidiyye is like a microcosm of the Jordan Valley as a whole: as shown in this OCHA report, between 200-300,000 Palestinians were displaced from the Jordan Valley since ’67. And still people look at me like a loony doomsayer when I talk about an ongoing process of ethnic cleansing in Palestine.

But then something quite incredible happened. The bulldozer operator, having been listening to my trolling, apparently decided he’s sick of serving an apartheid system that literally deprives children of drinking water during the hottest year ever measured, turned the bulldozer around and back up the hill, lowered the blade and plowed through the military base until no structure stayed standing, then went back to Al Hadidiyye, gave Abu Saqr all the cash he had on him, advised him to connect a pipe to the nearby Mekorot water drilling facility funneling drinking water from the traditional wells for the settlement’s swimming pool and ornamental fish aquariums, told him that if anyone comes to mess with the pipe he’ll return with his bulldozer to teach them a lesson, and then drove off to the horizon, blade up high, far away from the suicidally racist regime that sought to rob him of his youth and turn him into a war-criminal.

Just kidding. Actually he yelled “What do I care?!” and waited for another unit to come and push my lanky bones out of the way so he could resume the work of turning Al Hadidiyye into a ghetto.

Back in Jerusalem again. The Western side of the city keeps on pacing in elephant steps towards its realization as an overly populated messianic Zionist capitalist dystopia, wrought with new twelve-story luxury apartment complexes, replete with orange-yellow Jerusalemite stone all the way to the cellular antennae on the red-tiled European rooftops. The streets overflow with the razzmatazz of chic blue Jeans clad boys dancing with their Breslev yarmulkes to the heartwrenching sound of a troupe of Christian Koreans playing Jewish music.

This is real. I saw them last night next to Jaffa Gate on the way to play samba with my friends. The Koreans distribute awkwardly written Hebrew leaflets saying, “We are really sorry for what Christianity and Christians have been doing to Jews since the fourth century.” The last line reads, “From Koreans who love Jews and pray for Israel.” The walls of the Old City shine in blue and white colored LED lights nearby.

Korean apologists in action. Sorrryyyy...

Korean apologists in action in Jerusalem. Sooorrryyy…

Our samba band assembles, incidentally, at a march for animal rights. I love playing samba. The whole world turns into a blend of delicious tunes, a symphony of simple beats fitting into each other like puzzle parts to make a shapeshifting auditory complex. I play and let the world disappear, joyfully ignoring the absurdity of marching next to the occupied Judiaizing Old City for a single-issue protest with soldiers who wear the new vegan military boots. That’s one small cruelty-free step on Palestinian rights, one giant leap for Israel.

נעליים לטבעוניים. לא עשויות מעור

Of synthetic leather, the vegan boots. Photo stolen from: the IDF Spokeperson’s Unit.

This is all more absurd considering that the ever-growing animal rights movement in Israel is possibly the one confirmed anarchist conspiracy that actually worked. As revealed by an insider in this interview, Anonymous (in English they normally call it “Anonymous for Animal Rights” to avoid confusion), an NGO and the biggest animal rights organization in Israel, was an early 1990’s anarchist plot, a way to inject compassion into the Israeli public from an unexpected avenue. The organization was gradually taken over by single-issue minded activists, until the anarchists finally split in 2001 to form the group One Struggle, who eventually became Anarchists Against the Wall.

israeli troops beating palestinian in jerusalem

Now available with vegan boots. Israeli troops kicking a Palestinian boy next to the Old City of Jerusalem.

The dissonance inherent in advocating solely for animal rights in an apartheid regime is apparently not as evident as one would hope. An example is a new single-issue group with mainstream appeal called the Animal Liberation Front in Israel, founded by a vegan winner of the reality TV show “The Big Brother.” Any connection to the ALF is purely coincidental. My veganarchist friends call them “Hahazitush,” which in Hebrew makes their name sound like “the cute little Front-y with sparkly glitter.” Halfway into the march yesterday, as I was still tripping on funky music, the Hazitush held a direct action against our samba band, forcing us to stop playing. “We came here to yell against death and you’re turning it into a carnival!” One shouted. Still high, I called, “Animal Liberation Front, where are your ski masks? Where is the black bloc?” To which they responded, “I feel like I’m in Rio De Janeiro!” I was tempted to reciprocate their coherence and yell an old Symbionese Liberation Army slogan calling for death to the fascist insect who preys on the life of the working class, but my bestie calmed me down hissing through his two missing front teeth, “You’re blending Jerusalem inside of itself.” To my defense, I did have a long, memorable day. More on that some other time.

[This piece was originally published on Counterpunch. More to come!]

“Paying your taxes is violent.” I signal to both ends of the hall and say, “This side is ‘totally agree’ and this side is ‘totally disagree.’”

The workshop participants spread across the spectrum and stand at places that best signify their level of agreement with the statement. One participant sighs in frustration as he stands in the same place somewhere in the middle, clenching his fists as if unable to move.

A Palestinian participant stands at the far edge of the spectrum showing she totally agrees. “Would you like to explain your position?” I ask.

“When I pay taxes to the Israeli government,” she says. “I contribute to the occupation and to all of the violence against Palestinians. So in my opinion paying your taxes is violent.”

I hand the microphone over to the participant who sighed in frustration earlier. “I can’t move.” He laughs. “I am torn by my wish to express my political position to the rest of the group and by the understanding that the term has become totally meaningless to me.”

This workshop comes at the beginning of the very last section – the social change section – of a March 2016 two-week residential training in Nonviolent Communication (NVC) at EcoME Center in the occupied West Bank. The conclusion of the (Dis-)Agreement Spectrum described above is clear: violence means different things to different people. While some people find it important to show their opposition to acts like touching someone against their will or supporting an oppressive regime, others mill about in confusion around the middle of the space when facing supposedly unambiguous statements such as “murder is violent.” Participants from the same family or the same activist group disagree on the classification of certain acts as violent.i In our context, two important questions arise out of this apparent incoherence of the term: what are the implications for Nonviolent Communication? And, what does this mean about nonviolence as a political strategy for social change?

Let’s start with the latter. After the last statement of the (Dis-)Agreement Spectrum – “linking up arms in front of a police line is violent” – I read a statement from a UC police captain as quoted in The San Francisco Chronicle justifying the use of force against students at the University of California at Berkeley:

The individuals who linked arms and actively resisted, that in itself is an act of violence… linking arms in a human chain when ordered to step aside is not a nonviolent protest.

We then try to come up with a collective definition of violence. A participant suggests that one way to understand violence is in terms of the threat perceived by other people. In this light, if police perceives a line of protesters as a threat, then they could define the protesters’ actions as violent. Building on top of that, I suggest that violence is a floating signifier which shows the emotional disposition of the person using the term with respect to acts which they do not like. I express a concern that in the broader political discourse, the term often narrows down to a hegemonic framework in ways which de-legitimize any action which challenges the powers that be. The state can define anything which challenges its power as violent, whether it involves protesters linking arms or consumers calling for boycott, as exemplified by the UC police captain or by the way Israeli officials categorize the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement as “economic terrorism.”

It follows that nonviolence as a political praxis – or pseudopraxis, in Ward Churchill’s words – is easily co-optable, and intentionally used by states in order to contain and control social movements. This process is documented in great detail in the book How Nonviolence Protects the State by Peter Gelderloos. One way in which it manifests is with the nonviolent rewriting of history. The film A Force More Powerful, which was screened at our NVC training, is a good example. The first part presents the three historical processes most often claimed as examples of the power of nonviolence – the decolonization of India, the Civil Rights movement in the US, and resistance to Apartheid South Africa – as purely nonviolent movements. There is a pattern of deceit in this narrative. All of those movements had armed factions, and all of them had widespread organized rioting (or “ungovernability,” as the ANC called it). No success can be attributed solely to nonviolent efforts.ii In fact, different methods informed each other in a diversity of tactics. It is no coincidence that the film was funded by the United States Institute of Peace, an Orwellian-named Reagan-era institution with close ties to American intelligence services and whose administrators championed counterintelligence and outright genocidal programs in Central America, Iran, and elsewhere.iii

Upon reviewing the literature challenging the hegemonic role of nonviolence, another pattern emerges with the way the discourse for and against nonviolence flows up and down the social hierarchy. While corporate media, big labor unions, NGO’s, and celebrated authors ignore and whitewash at best and at worst vilify and demonize people who choose to engage in more combative tactics, the latter can respond only from the margins of empirical discourse,iv or with anonymously written self-published pamphlets,v or with graffiti on city walls. The debate normally stalls after the unheard response, and the proponents of nonviolence repeat the same old dead-horse arguments, misquoting Audre Lorde on the “Master’s Tools” over and over again and so on, as if no one has ever pointed out their mistakes, ad nauseum. To use a term from NVC – these proponents of nonviolence don’t “reflect back” when confronted with critique. From their position on the hierarchy, they can meet their needs quite well without engaging in conversation, empathic or otherwise.

Many activists have had the experience of knocking on the doors of the people in power, begging them to acknowledge grievances and change their ways. When the powers that be smile and turn the activists down, many still return with even lengthier petitions and more colorful banners. The problem with this form of communication, however, is that it is not communication, at least in the NVC sense of the term. In this format, empathy really goes only one way up the hierarchy.

Thankfully for us NVC enthusiasts, Marshall Rosenberg, the founder of Nonviolent Communication, articulated a way out of the stalemate. In his classical book A Language of Life, he briefly describes the idea of “the protective use of force”:

In situations where there is no opportunity for communication, such as in instances of imminent danger, we may need to resort to the protective use of force. The intention behind the protective use of force is to prevent injury or injustice, never to punish or to cause individuals to suffer, repent, or change. (2003: 169)

His main point is about differentiating between protective and punitive use of force towards the abolition of the latter. The concept of protective force is left perhaps intentionally vague. There is no clear articulation of injustice, nor is there a generalization for the protective use of force in the larger political The concept is open for interpretation, and may have place for the use of force or self-defense the way it is understood by popular and resistance movements the world over. As I insinuated elsewhere, is it not the protective use of force to pelt an occupying army with stones and Molotov cocktails? And isn’t the lack of decisive action in the face of genocidal injustice inherently violent in and of itself?

It is nigh time to introduce the concept of structural violence, defined by Johan Galtung in terms of universal human needs, as a form of violence in which some social institution or structure harms people by preventing them from meeting their “fundamental human needs” (1993). Or, as David Graeber claims, structural violence is “systematic inequality ultimately backed up by the threat of force” (2009). In Palestine/Israel examples abound. Structural violence allows for Jewish citizens to speed past checkpoints while Palestinians squander hours and days. In less dramatically visible manifestations, it governs and enforces implicit gender roles, like the Hebrew news on TV given in the male form and the kitchenware commercials in female. Structural violence is the invisible billy club which keeps the penniless out of the supermarket when they hunger for food. It is the lack of Arabic characters on police cars, silently showing for whom lies their allegiance.

Which leads us to answer the first question I raised earlier – there is little chance of nonviolent communication in situations which are structurally violent. Some basic human needs remain invisible to the party higher up on the hierarchy. An effort to hold that kind of dialogue without observing, acknowledging and attempting to meet those needs simply normalizes the structurally violent power dynamics. Calls for reconciliation without an end to injustice evoke the image of one person beating up others to a pulp, while demanding them to accept his feelings and needs. That is, indeed, the essence of “normalization,” meaning a process in which the inequality between occupier and occupied is made “normal” or invisible. EcoME and many other coexistence projects in Palestine/Israel are often accused of “normalizing” the conditions which perpetuate apartheid by facilitating dialogue on the level of the occupier without actively undermining the power structure.

However, after the NVC intensive at EcoME, I am hopeful that NVC has the potential of transcending these structural boundaries. As a participant in one workshop early in the program, I raised a concern that introducing NVC to the region may be a pacifying force in a situation which really warrants a decisive resistance movement. I pointed out that radical proponents of Palestinian dissent aren’t heard in the space, because they don’t attend in the first place out of objection to normalization (of course, some of them are also physically excluded from this geographic location). This triggered a long and tearful conversation. One Israeli woman expressed deep feelings of hurt, frustration and anxiety, and a need for acceptance of her differing views and background in Israeli settlements. When members of the group applied “emergency first aid empathy” – meaning they attempted to hear her observations, understand her feelings, and help meet her needs – I noticed the conversation oscillated away from the concerns I raised. Radical voices of Palestinian dissent were not introduced to the conversation, as it was consumed by the facilitation of the occupiers’ experience. In my mind I saw that image I mentioned of the crying man expressing regret and asking for reconciliation while repeatedly striking blows at another person prostrated at his feet. Although I left that conversation spent and frustrated, having given empathy without fully expressing my observations and anger, I noticed that the person went through a very deep process over the course of the retreat, really listening to grievances expressed by Palestinian participants, and really transgressing their enemy images. The question of whether she will actively participate in a decisive movement against Israeli apartheid (or in other words – whether this transgression will develop into the protective use of force when communication is impossible) is yet to be answered.

In conclusion I would like to offer two new premises: 1) that NVC can and should integrate a more refined understanding of violence, and an analysis of systemic inequality; and 2) that NVC should not be conflated with nonviolence as a political praxis. This framework can help NVC practitioners to avoid the implicit re-enforcement of structural violence, and give space for change-seeking activists to use NVC as a process of compassionate communication, without the sense that they’re being asked to give up their uncompromising fight for a livable planet. After this two-week NVC session in Palestine, I believe that NVC can be divorced from its curious wedding with state-sponsored nonviolence, and be a useful tool for activists in terms of prefiguring a harmonious society, solving inner-conflicts, and assisting group processes, among the rest. The ways in which a fundamental-needs-based worldview can inform social movements and political strategising is a topic for future analysis.


iOne can imagine that if different family members have different notions of violence, then the polarization will be much more extreme across different cultures. In our falafel context, as acutely noted by the anonymous interlocutor of this CrimethInc interview, most Palestinians see “nonviolent” simply as “unarmed,” or “popular.” Popular struggle with use of stones and Molotov cocktails is widely accepted as a legitimate form of protest. A similar observation is made by anthropologist David Graeber with respect to Egyptian revolutionaries during the Arab Spring.

iiGelderloos mentions how those movements were not nonviolent, nor were they really successful. With a deeply entrenched neocolonial system of inequality in India, an unfathomably elaborate prison industrial complex replete with a racist police force in America, and a status-quot in which a white minority controls the flow of resources and most of the land in South Africa, one can’t help but wonder whose interests are served by the nonviolent historical narrative.

ivSee, for example, Peter Gelderloos, an ex-political prisoner and college dropout writing from the squats of Barcelona, in his latest The Failure of Nonviolence, published by the esoteric Left Bank Books, carefully dissecting Chenoweth and Stephan and other establishment proponents of nonviolence who were published and endorsed by high academia.

vOne such noteworthy pamphlet was written in an attempt to explain the window smashing at the anti-WTO protests in Seattle at 1999, an event which triggered a media fiasco around the smashing of windows, regardless of the harm to individuals: “When we smash a window, we aim to destroy the thin veneer of legitimacy that surrounds private property rights … The number of broken windows pales in comparison to the number of spells—spells cast by a corporate hegemony to lull us into forgetfulness of all the violence committed in the name of private property rights and of all the potential of a society without them. Broken windows can be boarded and eventually replaced, but the shattering of assumptions will hopefully persist for some time to come.”
viAlthough he directs us to an out-of-print book about the topic: Irwin, Robert. Nonviolent Social Defense. Harper & Row, 1962.

It is especially early in this day of winter. We’re hoping to pass before the auhtorities arrive. Last week Taayush activists have been stopped, driven slow and madly backwards, with a one-of-a-kind warrant of ideological profiling, prohibiting activists from reaching the South Hebron Hills. They tried crossing the checkpoint by foot. The ever-dope Amira Hass wrote about it last Sunday. Ezra was let through, though. He almost crashed the car into the military barricade and was stopped not a moment too soon due to Luana’s sharp harmonious scream – “Ezra-a-a-a!!!” She said he’s so used to not being stopped on the way out into the West Bank that he just kept on driving. Everyone laughed hysterically, and the approaching gunmen were obfuscated. “They’re my four wives, don’t worry,” Ezra cried signaling at the laughing passengers and then driving off. The rest were stopped but they found their ways through uncanny roads, to meet closed military zones in every accompaniment spot.

A week later, we drive down, and the road is still snowy on the terraces. Not in the deep South Hebron Hills, though, which are turning slight green, minutely adorned with small pink colchicum, or lahlaah in Arabic or sitvanit in Hebrew. “Autumn saffron” or even “naked lady,” confused by the strange weather our region is now facing. The weird south has seen twenty centimeters of snow, as Mahdi will tell me. In this, I bet, Mr Peabody’s unprotected facetious affair with Coal has played a role. Are we in a stage in which only a universal climate disaster will lead to a global political response? Perhaps a methane catastrophe in an ice-free Arctic? Sam, my Dalai Lama Welcoming Committee comrade, wrote about indigenous resistance in Black Mesa. These are the places from which, I hope, that global response will emerge. But I digress.

A police car stops the transit. The cop approaches asking if we’re anarchists. “We’re here to identify anarchists, and return them back!” He explains. He asks for IDs or passports. G refuses, saying, basically, that there’s a court rule against arbitrary controls that forces police to conduct a search only with a provable suspicion. The cop threatens to detain him if he doesn’t identify himself. Uriel jumps in and presents his ID.

“Mr. V, are you anarchists?” The cop asks.

“Am I an anarchist?!” Uriel exclaims, and shuffling through his wallet, says: “Do you see an anarchist ID in here?”

The group is then released. This possibly immortal scene was captured in a hilarious video [Update: now with English subtitles!]:

The cops must have sat in the car comparing pictures of Emma Goldman and Tolstoy. Policeman approaches dark-clad person carrying sack full of treasure as an alarm reverberates through an alleyway. “Are you the burglar?” “The burglar? No, why do you ask?” “You’re not in a position to ask questions. Show me an ID. … Are you sure you’re not the burglar?” “Sure I’m sure.”

We meet Mahdi from Maghair al-‘Abid, a village on the outpost strip of the firing zone. David Shulman used slightly different names talking about it in this typically beautiful piece of writing. In close vicinity to Havat Ma’on, Mahdi and his family face daily harassment from the ultra-violent settlers. His mother was shot in her thigh. Over seventy, she goes in and out of surgery. His son is hospitalized with a mouth disease. He gives us bread. Three of us join him to carry the petrol for the plowing truck. We accompany him close to Havat Maon outpost, fast-paced, headed in a slithering line to his valley underneath the hill of the previous Havat Ma’on, two hundred meters east of their current location. Two others join us with sacks full of grain on the truck. Mahdi tells us to spread around the valley, so that if the settlers attack they won’t be able to assault all cameras at once.

The old truck noisily plows the soil in circular paths. I take a mental photo when it makes the letter Q. The work is completed successfully, undisturbed. Ezra manifests himself and picks us up. He has a new automobile, bought with some readers’ generous donations (thank you!). He says he indulged a cop that questioned him earlier. They talked about the problems of the Hebron police station. The cop told him a high-ranking officer said that no logistical changes are planned because in two years the settlements will be evicted anyway. Is the beginning near?

Our next stop is the land of the Shamasti family close to Susiya. Everyone is quickly shooed off the land with a Closed Military Zone order. Settlers come down but stay away. A strange all-adult coexistence dialogue normalization group on tour stops by. Border Police, Civil Administration, international solidarity activists from Germany and Italy, and us anarcha-anarchist folks all find ourselves together on a desolate hill with the multi-generational Shamasti family. The co-existence group had a camp or something of the kind in Germany. Israeli and Palestinian folks engaging in dialogue in a so-called neutral context. In my experience, these dialogues are often set within the occupier’s discourse, assuming a kind of symmetry between conflicting sides that simply have a misunderstanding, assuming good intentions on the part of the State, thus normalizing the reality of occupation. Tami says that people often get entrenched in their expected views and fail to communicate. Reub asks one of the Palestinian members of the co-existence group how she relates to the Israelis. She responds: “I can’t talk to them. I’ve been doing these projects since I was ten years old. They’re all Europeans. They should go where they came from.”

In the chapter “Dilemmas of Privilege” in the book Anarchists Against the Wall, Kobi Snitz writes that “normalization” means that “any interaction that Palestinians carry out with Israelis, be it for the most positive purpose, while the conditions are such that Israel occupies Palestine, contains with it a degree of adjustment to these conditions.” (2013 55-56) In this light it is obvious that if we believe that a joint struggle has potential for change, normalizing the situation cannot be entirely avoided. This creates a lot of the weirdness that we encounter daily in our activism. When are we normalizing apartheid and when are we acting in solidarity within a joint struggle?

Having the language and privilege and a curious willingness to do so, the Israeli members of the coexistence group talk to the soldiers that stand on the edge of the military zone and try to convert them to a more lefty position. I guess we do it as well sometimes, changing our language in order to make it comprehensible, placing ourselves in a slightly dishonest position. Sometimes Israeli activists find themselves negotiating “concessions” with commanders on behalf of their Palestinian comrades, in order to allow farmers to access a particular patch of land for a limited amount of time and under specific behavioral conditions, or in demonstrations. This in turn may warrant more brutality if the agreement is “breached,” or create a situation in which some protesters police the others in the name of their self-appointed negotiation. Policing forces, of course, will always try to impose their control with use of martials from the protesters themselves, in exchange for minor privileges like the ability to walk outside of pens. This is why, as David Graeber writes in The Democracy Project, folks at Occupy Wall Street in NYC decided not to have a police liaison. Interaction with authority is all different, I believe, when a clown nose is placed on the other side of the gun’s barrel.

I chat with Abdullah on the side. We’re asking ourselves what the hell is going on. One enlightened and post-military-looking fellow from the coexistence group commences interaction with us in basic Arabic. We’re not particularly welcoming to him. GH tells me off for it afterwards. He’s already made the first step, he tells me, and that’s big. “I never manage to bring people down here.” He’s right. I often complain that the movement is not welcoming and not inclusive enough. Every fit-looking man that approaches is treated as a potential douchebag (or in its new Hebrew blogosphere term – hel’an). Maybe I’m just projecting what I secretly feel about myself. I’d rather be kind next time.

Protest in Nabi Samuel. Friday December 27. Photo: Amir Bitan

Protest in Nabi Samuel. Friday December 27. Photo: Amir Bitan

The Sabbath ritual of Umm al-Arayes went accordingly, we’re told. With a Closed Military Zone and the pushing and so on. Sumoud.

We visit Umm al-Kheir. The outdoors oven is still getting attention from the settlers of Karmel. Two days ago they came with water buckets to put it out and sabotage it. Settlers wreck it regularly, they dislike the smoke.

On the way back north, Abdullah takes us to see houses facing new demolition orders in Beit Ummar. Buildings not yet completed. Ezra says the idea is to block the village’s expansion northward.

Around four o’clock, when we get back home, settlers from Havat Maon attack Twaneh. With slingshots and covered faces, they throw stones and hit Hafez in the head. He is taken for treatment in a hospital in Yatta.

Abdallah stares for a second, like a chess player that has already picked a move but is now imagining the board after the move has been played, as a final precaution.

“This hat – why do you put it on your head?” He points at me.

Tagging along, I respond, “Weapon against the sun.”

“Weapon against the sun. Would you put sunscreen on your head?”

“No,” amused, I imagine his hair white and greasy with sunscreen.

“Exactly, you can’t replace one weapon for another. I am a photographer, my weapon is the camera. Fair enough. So, if you say that your demonstration is peaceful, what is your weapon?”

Yoav brings up the point Eishton wrote about (Hebrew, quoting Black Panther George Jackson). “The protesters think,” Eishton asserts, “that they alone determine the nature of the protest, not very different from the way a man thinks he can decide if it’s sex or rape. In practice, a protest is peaceful only if both sides agree that it’s so.”

“The concept of nonviolence is a false ideal. It presupposes the existence of compassion and a sense of justice on the part of one’s adversary. When this adversary has everything to lose and nothing to gain by exercising justice and compassion, his reaction can only be negative.” (-Black Panther George Jackson on nonviolence)


Work in Bir al-‘Id

It is early in the morning and the air is fresh from a night of rest. The big sphered sun has finally passed the hilled line of the horizon with its entirety, and the sky is blue and clear. We’re at Bir al-‘Id, the place with the nicest view in the Wild South, in my opinion. One can lose one’s inner eye beyond the firing zones beyond the city of Arad and between the mountains of Moav.

This beaten dirt road we’re working on today has been blocked twice recently by settlers from the nearby illegal outpost called Mitzpe Yair. The military has given its quiet consent, and soldiers have been documented shaking hands with the outlaws. We’re working quietly. The military follows us from the moment we arrive in the Wild South. Four or five jeeps quickly gather around on the asphalt road leading to the settlement nearby.

We’re quite efficient in our work on the dirt roads. We worked last Tuesday in Safa, which suffers frequently from the outpost of Bat Ayin, among the rest. The road we’re working on this Saturday is an important one, a major pathway into the area that has been deemed “firing zone 918” (more on this below). One person reveals the edges of a rock with a pickaxe, one sticks a heavy pole underneath the rock and lifts it up, others roll the rock out of its place, and finally, the remaining hole is filled with use of a shovel. We work a bit and just begin to sweat when the military approaches us.

Activists repairing the road in Bir al-'Id. Photo: Guy

Activists repairing the road in Bir al-‘Id. Photo: Guy

The Civil Administration demands we stop working or they’ll present us a Closed Military Zone order. It has already been issued, and it contains the area of Umm al-Ara’is as well, before the grazing has even begun over there. They present us the warrant, and the soldiers swarm around to shoo us off.

Our point has been made – the military Civil Administration doesn’t allow voluntary repair work for roads that have been blocked by settlers. They quietly endorse destruction, and cruelly remove restoration. We head out, but an overly-enthusiastic commander wickedly decides that we must exit from the other way, not the way we entered, but over there, into the desert. We protest, “he declares the area is militarily-closed and then doesn’t allow us to exit it.” The Civil Administration commander whispers to him for a short while and we start heading off in our way. The army then moves to heckle our Palestinian comrades, saying that the road we’re going to is restricted for Palestinian movement. But there has been a court sentence on this particular road with this particular issue and after a couple of phone calls to certain authorities, we are all let out of the area.


Weddings in the Weird South

It’s wedding season in the South Hebron Hills. Now that Ramadan is over, the weddings flood the hills. Umm al-Kheir is festive. Murad, that I got arrested with a month ago, is getting married today, and excitement fills the air. The army thought the gathering is a demonstration, and there was large military presence behind the fence on the side of the settlement Carmel.

Yatta is filled with weddings as well. Saleh from Umm al-‘Amad is getting married in the city. Shepherd accompaniment in both Umm al-‘Amad and Umm al-Kheir went along with no noteworthy instances, and our group splits to congratulate both families.

I go to the wedding in Yatta. It’s my first Palestinian wedding, and it ticks like a clock. Hundreds of people show up. We’re passed through stations. We’re taken to eat at long tables. Strangers sit on the other side and urge us to eat. The sheep that we accompany in the mornings are presented to us from the insides today, on top of big plates with yellow rice and peanuts. I stick to the rice. Cans of cheap soda are brought to us. Soon enough, the paper table-cloth is wrapped up and we stand to make way for the next group. On the next station, we receive a small cup of coffee from a young man in costume wearing a large Arabic coffee pot on his back and a blade on his belt. I see my friend Fares from Umm al-‘Amad and cordially congratulate him for the wedding of his cousin. The next station is sitting-down-time with strangers and cigarettes. A young man in a suit looks at me with suspicion in his eyes. An older man approaches Ezra and kisses him. He says Ezra picked him up from a checkpoint once. Or maybe it had something to do with prison. I’m not sure, and Ezra isn’t, either. He’s done deeds of generosity and bravery, big and small, with hordes of people, and he can’t remember many of them. The man leaves, Ezra says he couldn’t remember him, but at least now he can blame it on age, he smiles, the perfect excuse.

Next, and final, station – kissing the groom. Saleh stands in the heat in his suit, another very young man stands next to him in an identical suit (turns out there are two weddings in the price of one), and we join the line of kissers. Two kisses on each sweaty cheek and off we go.


Abdallah’s Prison Stories

“There’s order in prison,” Alla’ says. “But not in every prison. There’s sijn madani and sijn amani. The madani is horrible, prisoners kill each other. But my brother and I, we were in the amani, because we were sentenced for stone throwing. That’s the prison to which all of the political organizers go to, so there’s order. When you arrive, you have to choose your section – Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc. You have to choose, but it’s good for you. So you choose one of them, no matter what, and they take care of you. And you take care of them. You respect the elderly, and they respect you in return. Fih niTham fi-sijn. These people, that hate each other outside of prison, or at least that’s what we’re told, work with each other and respect each other on the inside. If you’re ill or injured, it is forbidden for you to work, mamnu’a! And if you’re over thirty or under eighteen, also, work is forbidden for you. There are public services organized. There’s prisoner solidarity networks, how do you think they get hundreds of prisoners in different sections and different prisons to hunger strike together?! There’s education. There are old professors, old teachers that give free classes. You can learn anything in prison – engineering, nursing, religion.”

Did you learn some Hebrew?

“Just enough to heckle the guards. Shomer, ani rotze essshhh (guard, I want a lighter)!

“I’m telling you, in the prison, there’re no differences, you’re all just Palestinians. There’s no Khalili or Nabulsi there’s just Falastini. “

This conversation, that seems hectic, like one long monologue, was held over many minutes, many fractions of hours, on the course of many views of stones and rubble on a workday in Safa. The written word is captured on a screen but reality, conversation, imagination, is adrift. The spoken word, said on a spur of a moment, is but a vague representation of a different universe, the universe of a Palestinian inmate. Can it ever transport the experience of incarceration? Transfigured, the moment moves from present to memory to imagination to emotion to spoken to memory to imagination to feeling to thought to written to history. Transfigured like an iridescent soap bubble gliding on the wind.


High Court Sends 918 Firing Zone to Mediation

It felt like a wedding in the High Court. A big reunion. Mingling people wearing their fanciest clothes. There’s great natural light in the Israeli Supreme Court, lighting the halls and the corridors with the power of the sun alone, and no photovoltaic mediation. A light that sheds bureaucratic darkness on the very stark reality of apartheid. At the end of long hours of technical discussion between people in costumes, the Israeli State and the Palestinians of the South Hebron Hills were sent to mediation. The State has a month to agree to this, the villagers’ representation agreed on the spot. Sent to counseling with Yitzhak Zamir, the mediator, a former Supreme Court judge, and, few know this, a crucial historical supporter of the Begin administration in the 80’s and of massive settlement construction on private Palestinian land (Hebrew). The 918 Firing Zone. Wedded to the State, mediated by the State, kept in an atrocious status-quo with the State, and finally, possibly, evicted by the State.

The case of the 918 Firing Zone is no case for counseling, but for a divorce. State matrimony is prison. Life in a firing zone is prison. Mediation may take a couple of years, during which things will be quite the same. With little to no access to water, night raids, vehicle confiscation, no livelihood, no education, no doctors, no social services whatsoever, and constant intimidation. What can be mediated in this case of utter asymmetry? The shepherds will be allowed to take the herds to graze between 6-8 AM to enable the army to train between 9 and 5 the next day?

“This is a special case,” said Court President Judge Grunis, “that requires a creative solution.” Beware of the word “solution” when uttered by state necromancers. The “two-state solution,” or the “Prawer Plan – a solution for the Bedouins in the South,” elaborate plans designed by those in power to keep the Palestinian access to influence as it is, forever dismembered, in silence. A million square kilometers of land in the West Bank have been declared as firing zones. It has been the most effective means of ethnic displacement since 1967, evicting hundreds of thousands from the Jordan Valley alone. It’s always been a war crime under international law. What makes the case of 918 “special,” in the High Court’s mind? Perhaps the fact that there’s an international struggle against it.

The halls were filled with activists, diplomats, and journalists, as well as the villagers themselves (the few that did receive permits to attend the discussion on their own future, of course). Authors, including Noble laureates, have signed a petition against the firing zone. Major Israeli jurists have signed a letter of their own. The Facebook campaign that we initiated less than two weeks before court had an outreach of tens of thousands. This desolate corner of the West Bank is where the firing zone method of ethnic displacement will come to an end. The struggle to cancel the 918 Firing Zone will continue for a while. Plug in.

"Move it grandma, on the truck, the boys need to practice." One of the memes that flooded Facebook last week. Photo: Activestills

“Move it grandma, on the truck, the boys need to practice.” One of the memes that flooded Facebook last week. Photo: Activestills