The World is What it Is
In just over a month’s time I hope to be in Kashmir. Specifically, I’ll be in the Indian state of Jammu & Kashmir. There’s also the Pakistani-administered Gilgit-Baltistan and the Azad Kashmir provinces, and the Chinese-administered regions of Aksai Chin and Trans-Karakoram Tract. The Indian and Pakistani areas are divided by the Line of Control, which was the staging post for insurgents during the bitter conflict that flared up during the 1990s. If I try and cross the Line of Control, I am likely to be shot by Pakistani soldiers. If I bring a Kashmiri from south of the Line of Control, in order to help him go and see his ancestral home of Muzaffarabad, I am still likely to be shot by Pakistani soldiers. If I bring hundreds of people with me, my chances of being shot by Pakistani soldiers will increase exponentially. And if I were to do that, who do you think my mother would blame? A clue: it wouldn’t be the Pakistani soldiers.
I’m aware that the analogy with yesterday’s events along Israel’s northern border isn’t exact. But the principle, I think, holds. Nobody on this planet has the right to unilaterally cross an international border, even a disputed one, without thinking that they can get touched. To do so is to endanger one’s life. Whether the existence of that border or the fact that you are forbidden from crossing it is an injustice is beside the point. One cannot act against a perceived wrong by pretending that it doesn’t exist, at least if one isn’t willing to face the harshest consequences (I am working on the assumption that people are capable of understanding the difference between what happened in the north and the regular Nakba Day protests that took place throughout the West Bank). As VS Naipaul memorably wrote at the start of A Bend in the River (which, unforgivably, I still haven’t read), “The world is what it is.”
None of this will stop the glorification of the border-busters, of course. It’s been whispered for some time that the greatest weapon in the Palestinians’ armoury might be a mass march to one of the borders; now it’s been proven with the blood of fresh martyrs. Netanyahu’s non-policy demands as much quiet as possible; now it’s been lost, it doesn’t seem such a great time to fly off to the US Congress and stick two fingers up at Obama, although no doubt he’ll drawn comfort from being able to say ‘I told you so’.
We can now expect a re-run of the flotilla debate, during which those accusing Israel of a massacre will pretend that crossing dangerous borders en masse is one of the most regular events in the world (thus proving, yet again, their commitment to Palestinian exceptionalism). At the same time, those excited folk who tweeted their enthusiasm at yesterday’s events can reap what they sow (Three of my favourites: “Palestinians mark al Nakba by demanding the right of return through nonviolent struggle. Israel remembers by shooting across all borders.” “Your right of return is my opportunity and that of all Israelis to begin restoring our humanity.” “I can’t tell you how many Palestinians have said to me recently, “why can’t we just make a state together?” Israelis have to stop being scared.”) in the form of dead Palestinians. But before you join the universal chorus of condemnation (and remember that some of those killed were shot by Lebanese soldiers), ask yourself if you would do the same thing? And if yes, then for what? And who would your mother blame?
It seems that some of the people caught up in the Golan violence were genuinely seeking asylum in Israel; for them I have genuine sympathy. But the world is what it is: we have to decide what’s more important - our desire to remain a part of it, or to pretend that it’s something it isn’t. Nobody is above reality; even those who show ever more imaginative and suicidal ways to demonstrate their opposition to Zionism, thus proving it was about 1948 all along.
41 comments41 Comments so far
Leave a reply
I am astounded at the willingness of the radical left to regard “direct action” as somehow as morally courageous as “responsible action” (the Fayyad/Abbas/EU/US effort at institution building in the West Bank.
It doesn’t surprise me!
Alex – please don’t get shot while in India. I want to meet that Indian princess!
having just returned from India, I site which really shows the Indo Pak relationship is the Wagah Border crossing in Amristar. You really get to see the bizarreness of the attitude between the two countries.
Yes – amazing place!
I think you’re first point is to demonstrate that most states would have acted in the say way as Israel, and used violence to secure their borders. I agree. The EU used violence to protect its southern border, the US its border with Mexico etc. Its pretty mainstream. This is clearly different to the Flotilla incident, there is no equivalent to the blockade of Gaza.
You then make a jump to suggesting that its somehow wrong to attempt to cross a border without permission. I don’t think so – if you think a policy is unjust you may well take risky action in order to overthrow it. Its like protesting against an oppressive regime like Egypt or Syria. If there are a few of you you run a high risk of being beaten or killed. If there are very large numbers of you you might have a chance of changing things.Its straightforward civil disobedience – a brave minority takes huge risks in the hope of creating a mass movement and changing policy/a regime.
I think this incident was a clear example of non-violent resistance, what Jewish and Israeli liberals often call upon Palestinians to do. Do I fall into the trap of ‘exceptionalism’? No – I think border controls are places of repression throughout the world – one of the key ways in which the rich west protects its wealth (much of which it has stolen) from everyone else. Capital? Move around freely. People? Stay where you are. So when I see people breaking across borders and implementing their freedom of movement, my heart lifts, be it in Spain, Mexico, Britain or Israel. I recognise that borders exists, just that I recognise that neo-liberalism exists. Doesn’t mean I’m not going to try and change things.
Well it was predictable that someone would compare this to the protests in Egypt and Syria, but I’m disappointed to see that it was you.
What exactly are those marching at the border from Lebanon resisting? A non-violent protest at the fact that we’ll never, ever let them return maybe. But resistance? You can fantasise about it being part of some grand struggle against capitalism or the nation-state, but it’s nothing as ambitious at that. It’s about reminding Israel that nothing whatsover has changed.
If it’s acceptable for Palestinians to march at Israel’s border, including the supposedly internationally recognised Lebanese border, how on earth am I meant to convince my fellow Israelis that this conflict isn’t just about Israel’s very existence?
No, you’ve missed my point. I was not arguing that those marching at the border were ‘equivalent’ to the protestors in egypt and syria. The causes are clearly very different. I was using them as examples of people, quite reasonably, risking their life in the name of a cause. You accused people of doing such a thing as being naive – I think its often a necessity to bring about large scale change.
Clearly the conflict is about Israel’s existence – its obviously about the events of 1948, not just those of 1967. Palestinian refugees are a big part of that. Do I believe in a wholesale, unrestricted, unregulated right of return. No. Even in a single state I think that, for a reasonable period, no-one else should be coming to Israel/Palestine, lest either side try to change the demographics. So many Palestinians refugees are already there in Gaza, and the West Bank. But, as an anti-nationalist, I do long for a time when people can cross borders freely without restriction.
‘I think this incident was a clear example of non-violent resistance’
It was an infringement of Israel’s borders and territory. It was an invasion. It doesn’t matter if they were unarmed. It was an invasion.
‘Clearly the conflict is about Israel’s existence – its obviously about the events of 1948, not just those of 1967. Palestinian refugees are a big part of that.’
And their large scale, non-negotiated return would end any Jewish state immediately, any Israel shortly thereafter.
That’s an invasion.
Joseph, as Conor says, they were trying to stage an unarmed invasion of Israel. I agree that sometimes risking one’s life is necessary, but my point in this case is that the cause is unjust.
Am going to write a fuller piece about your border fantasies.
We need to be precise about language – even if it was an ‘unarmed invasion’ that doesn’t it preclude it from also constituting non-violent resistance.
“It doesn’t matter if they were unarmed”
I think it matters rather a lot.
‘I think it matters rather a lot.’
I don’t. It’s still an invasion. And it is ‘violent’ in the sense it employs force: the force of many human bodies invading another’s territory.
It’s also violent in the sense that it occurs without the background of a wider Palestinian Arab national peace agreement, or rather with the background of a wider Palestinian Arab national resistance to a Jewish state a priori, a resistance rooted in the a priori Palestinian Arab Muslim and Christian resistance to Jews existing in the land in other than the tiny numbers to which imperial Christianity and Islam had accustomed i.e. traditional Palestinian Christian and Islamic apartheid against Jews.
That is all violent.
And Israeli Jews are entitled to Resist it, back.
Or, to put it another away, Zionism is, among other things, Jewish resistance against traditional Palestinian Christian and Islamic imperial, colonial dispossession, displacement, exclusion, apartheid, expulsionism and eliminationism.
Palestinian Christian and Muslim refugees exist because they and their allies tried to make the same or worse out of Palestinian and Israeli Jews. Until they at least acknowledge that, and apologise for it, any invasion, asides being an invasion, is a de facto act of aggression, which Israeli Jews may resist.
Just to labour the point, Palestinian Arab nationalists regarded Jews settling in Palestine perfectly peacefully, but above the tiny numbers to which they thought they were entitled, as an invasion which they were entitled to resist.
That is, in fact, the origin of Palestinian Arab resistance. When, even now, the P.A. NY rep. will not sign up to ‘two states, for two peoples’, lest one of those peoples be interpreted as the Jewish, that policy arguably continues to this day, even in the most secular and moderate Palestinian Arab nationalist circles.
But, I should stress, that, for my part, I still think the Geneva Accord is the way to go.
‘The world is what it is’ sounds like a recipe for keeping it as it is: a hellhole for so many, including so many Palestinians.
You spin a nice yarn, yet really simply end up campaigning against those who campaign. Unarmed intruders don’t deserve to be shot dead (or would you kill unarmed burglars as well?) Israel routinely shoots unarmed protesters. I see no great difference with the Nakba Day massacre.
I don’t understand your obsession with India. Or what’s so special about Kashmir: listening to some of the leaders of their secessionist movement doesn’t inspire me with confidence at all. Give these people equal rights within whatever state, w/o creating yet another failed mini-state.
‘Former ambassador to the UN Gabriela Shalev told a Knesset committee on Monday that the Palestinians’ move toward UN recognition of their state was an “intermediate goal” that seeks “to destroy [Israel] before the international community.”
Over the decades, open warfare gave way to terrorism and then to missile attacks. Now Israel faces “nonviolent” infiltration of its sovereign borders, the uncompromising demand for a “right of return” that would destroy it as a Jewish state, an unholy Palestinian alliance with a terror group openly bent on Israel’s destruction, and a diplomatic campaign for recognition without reconciliation.
Though some of the tactics are new, the goals have all-too plainly not changed since 1947.’
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Editorials/Article.aspx?id=220855
Gert – I think Conor has dealt with most of your objections. For a Manchester United supporter, he’s very wise.
Re. Kashmir – I am neither pro or anti Kashmir independence/autonomy. It is none of my business – it is for them to work out. It was just a convenient analogy.
There were two major attempts to cross LoC by civilian enmass. I 1993, I suppose hundreds of JKLF activists tried to march from Pakistani Kashmir to Indian-occupied Kashmir but Indian troops warned of massacre. Pakistani soldiers had to prevent JKLF people led my Ammanullah Khan to cross over the LoC. In 2008 when hindu right wingers blockaded key state highway linking muslim kashmir with Hindu india, pro-independence leader Sheikh Aziz led a huge procession to cross over to Pakistani Kashmir ( Free Kashmir in common parlance). At Uri near LoC six protesters including Aziz was killed by Indian army.
So Alex, next time you approach LoC be scared of Indian army not Pakistani.:)
Thanks for clearing that up Arif – very interesting!
To describe these actions, however unwise (or suicidal), as an “invasion” is ludicrous, as it is to talk about movement of bodies across a border as constituting violence in and of itself. At what point would you distinguish between something that is obviously symbolic and real acts of aggression – tanks, guns, guerrillas, etc. Do you consider it an “invasion” or “violence” when migrants flee to western countries? Plenty of bodies involved. Or do they have to be all at once? What matters – numbers or concentration? Sure, in this case, there’s a significant amount of symbolic aggression (rejection of a two-state solution, inaliable right of return etc) but it should be described as that, rather than in these hysterical terms which only serve to mystify. As for direct action, when there are no democratic channels to express grievances, or when they are so superficial as to be meaningless, I think it’s an entirely legitimate tactic. The first reply to your post offers nothing but spluttering tautology. And “The World is What it Is” is a depressing statement of fatalism posing as pragmatism, and one you would not make, Alex, in other contexts. The world can be remade – if you want to argue for the status quo argue for the status quo. Here as elsewhere you seem to provide evidence that the title of your website is now meant to be taken literally: we have more choices than to “desire to remain a part of [the world]“, if this is to mean accepting it on the terms it is offered to us, or “to pretend that it’s something it isn’t.”
It’s not ludicrous. It’s a fallacy to equate weakness with morality; if you march on the border of a neighbouring country (while telling anyone who’s willing to listen that you think said country should be destroyed), that’s an invasion. Not a very good invasion, but an invasion nonetheless. It’s not the movement of bodies that counts (obviously I wouldn’t describe a genuine movement of asylum seekers as an invasion), but the intention, which was clear. It’s only symbolic because of the weakness of those involved, but that doesn’t alter the bigger picture. Intention is the key.
Re. the legitimacy of direction action. If I were opposed to Israel’s nuclear power plant in the Negev, would it be legitimate for me to try and break through the wire to hold a protest there? No, I would deserve to be arrested.
And you’ve missed my point: of course the world can be remade, but not by pretending it’s something it isn’t. What the protesters did is like the guy from Into the Wild marching off, without sufficient equipment, into the Alaska wilderness, and then being surprised that his life was at risk. To secure change, we have to use our sechel (nice Yiddish word, that). Actions like storming Israel’s borders only make Israelis more hostile, and peace less likely.
Who’s equating weakness with morality? I never said the actions were moral. I’m simply pointing out that “invasion” has a definite meaning which cannot simply be elided with illegal border crossing. You seriously think these men were trying to launch an invasion? It was in intention obviously a symbolic act, a protest designed to convey a specific meaning (and one which I agree is not helpful to peace / justice) rather than to achieve any material gains.
Direct action – legitimate, if those carrying it out have exhausted other means of bringing attention to an issue which they have weighed up in seriousness, and if they are prepared to accept the consequences of their actions (arrest, imprisonment). You think the Suffragettes were illegitimate?
All efforts to enact change start with the imagination. They have to think strategically, sure, but there is always an element of imaginative risk; the Arab Spring uprisings happened because people found the courage to act “as if” it were possible to challenge the status quo without violent suppression. Your argument sounds suspiciously like an “end of history” type argument – no fundamental change is possible, just tinkering with existing mechanisms.
This piece makes the point better than I did – http://972mag.com/crossing-a-border-from-enemy-territory-is-not-nonviolent/
Re. direct action – we make value judgements based on what we think of the cause. In this case, I think the cause sucks.
You haven’t really replied to me. The argument in the linked piece about the terminology is basically tautology: it’s violence because I say it’s violence (with the juvenile irritation of “period” thrown in). The only reason I can make out is that the incursions were not prevented, thus the protestors were emissaries carrying out the neighbours’ latent violence. This is like everything you say about Zizek. Being armed matters. Intention matters. Inflicting direct force on people matters. The intention in this case was obviously to stage a symbolic protest via an aggressive act of trespass. None of this bears on whether Israel has a right to respond with force (it does), but you should describe these events accurately. “Invasion”, in particular, is absurd.
Tearing down a border-fence is clearly an act of violence, no? Invasion may be an exaggeration, but it neatly describes the intentions of the right of returners.
I think it’s also worth pointing out that this new fun game of sending thousands of people to break down fences and march into another country (or land effectively controlled by it) is predicated on the certainty that the authorities of that country will not be willing to use more than a tiny fraction of the force at their disposal to stop it.
Those who wail about the brutality of the Zionists base their attempt to destroy the Jewish national project on their knowledge of the unwillingness to indulge in mass killing of its leaders.
“the unwillingness of its leaders”
‘I’m simply pointing out that “invasion” has a definite meaning which cannot simply be elided with illegal border crossing’
But ‘invasion’ means ‘entering (if not exactly crossing) into’, and by convention, since antiquity, ‘contrary to the will of those whose territory is entered into’.
It is in invasion, because it threatens the Jewish state of Israel in all kinds of ways.
It is the invasion of the Palestinian Arab Muslim and Christian nation, which historically rejected partition and, by its leadership at least, threatened Palestinian and Israeli Jews with expulsion or elimination.
It is an invasion. End of.
‘Direct action – legitimate, if those carrying it out have exhausted other means of bringing attention to an issue which they have weighed up in seriousness, and if they are prepared to accept the consequences of their actions (arrest, imprisonment). You think the Suffragettes were illegitimate?’
In which case, the direct action which Israel will have to take to repel invasion is also legitimate.
Direct action brings direct reaction.
‘To describe these actions, however unwise (or suicidal), as an “invasion” is ludicrous, as it is to talk about movement of bodies across a border as constituting violence in and of itself’
It constitutes a forceful incursion which merits forceful repulsion. It constitutes a use of force.
‘You haven’t really replied to me.’
That’s because the only answer you will accept is that Israel has to capitulate. She has to allow such unauthorised incursions or invasions of her territory.
If you propel yourself into my territory, I will propel you out.
‘Being armed matters.’
No it doesn’t. Force your way in, be forced out.
‘Intention matters.’
The intention being to return to your exact ancestral home, or whatever, and recover your exact property or whatever you think belongs to you.
We know the intention. And, yes, it does matter.
‘None of this bears on whether Israel has a right to respond with force (it does),’
Sorry, I missed this part.
But, might I observe that, in the US, at least, the police refer to ‘home invasions’?
OK. Perhaps these were symbolic invasions. But they were still invasions.
BTW, Alex, the NUS has insisted on BDS until complete ROR:
http://ujs.org.uk/news/664/nus-slammed-for-divisive-undemocratic-anti-israel-policy/
Yep – bad news.
Conchover – your semantics over invasion are embarrassing. I think most readers would agree that there is a fairly definite idea of what constitutes “invasion” and that these protests, whatever your moral take on them, do not amount to that.
Embarrassing also to spend time contesting a point I didn’t make. Again – Israel is entitled to repel incursions into its territory (although not to use indiscriminate lethal force).
Also thanks for isolating phrases like “being armed matters” from their context. As you will notice, I’m referring to whether these protests could be deemed violent, not on whether there is a right for Israel to police its borders. The intention in this case was clearly not to pitch up at the ancestral home on the day and evict its inhabitants, but to stage a symbolic protest in favour of eventual return. Which is not a distinction without a difference, however misguided or deplorable.
Unequivocally, these were non-violent protests. Non-violence as traditionally understood almost always involves an element of confrontation or obstruction or trespass. As I said to Alex, it would be much better to focus energy on the impossibility of meeting maximalist demands for ROR than inflating the level of force involved to comic proportions. Meet the key question head on: what is the argument here, and is it just? The tactics, however, are a significant step forward from blowing up pizza parlours and hurling paraplegics from cruise liners.
Nick – you make an important point in the final paragraph; I shall relate to it in my upcoming piece on Palestinian Non-Violence
Hi Nick,
well, I did apologise for misreading or ignoring you where I saw that I had.
However, I still think ingress into the territory of another contrary to their will, en masse or with the threat (or ‘symbol’ of en masse), especially with the wider national threat to undo that state in no small part, certainly with hostility, constitutes an invasion.
The protests, as you call them, were relatively small. For this reason you call them ‘symbolic’. And I agree, to an extent, to the degree that the part alludes to or represents the whole i.e. full ROR for Palestinian Arab refugees i.e. an invasion.
In which I case I think (and have already said) it may constitute a symbolic invasion.
I am afraid, with my semantics, I think I have a point. As I said, the US police call an invited guest in one’s house a ‘home invasion’. For them ‘invasion’ means ‘entering one’s home or territory without permission’, not even, necessarily with hostile intent, since the very act of entry without permission may be deemed hostile.
I am afraid I think forced or forcible entry, against the will of the owners of the house or territory constitutes violence of a sort. That may be ‘non-violent’ to you (what you call ‘as traditionally understood’, whatever that is, by whatever authority you acknowledge), it is not to me.
Perhaps this is a quibble about the meaning of ‘violence’. ‘Violence’ is fairly widely interpreted even in British law, and need not actually comprise physical assault.
Forcible or forced entry into one’s house or territory, against the will of the owner, particularly en masse, or with the threat or en masse, seems to me to constitute a form of violence.
This would be especially the case with the threat of mass ROR of Palestinian refugees. Especially without a wider Palestinian Arab national agreement. Israeli Jews cannot ignore that history, for instance, which has been extremely hostile to Jews in Palestine and Israel.
IN ANY CASE: forced entry may be forcibly repelled.
I actually disagree: the prospect of 100s of 1000s or 1 000 000s of Palestinian Arab refugees attempting to forcibly enter Israel a potentially much more dangerous development, because Israel is damned if she does do something about, and lost if she doesn’t.
‘As I said to Alex, it would be much better to focus energy on the impossibility of meeting maximalist demands for ROR than inflating the level of force involved to comic proportions.’
That’s an absurd argument. No one here is exaggerating the force involved. The problem is precisely that a small imvasion is symbolic/threatening of a larger one.
Which is exactly your argument!