Saturday, April 24, 2010

Protest and Explanation, part 2

 

     The first part entitled Jerusalem: nonviolent protests is here.  

     Having corresponded with me helpfully about many pieces on Democratic Individuality, Bruce Fetter, an historian of Africa at the University of Wisconsin, rightly argues that there are a legion of straightforward moral objections to unjust war.  One doesn’t like blowing up 50 women and children at a wedding party in Yemen, one doesn’t like being taxed heavily and getting no social services (and having social security which has always been solvent redirected under a bipartisan cover of silence to the military budget, given the Reagan and subsequent tax cuts for the rich), one doesn’t like our soldiers being required to kill and be killed or maimed for no purpose as in Iraq; one doesn’t like the culture of war in which making 5 aggressions and occupations is considered normal  – in fact, not “tough” enough on national security - for an anti-"dumb" Iraq War President whose administration is even slowly, changing the bizarre US relationship with Israel.  We abhor secret torture prisons - the worst forms of torture held up but not clearly ended - and repeated violations of law and cover-ups in our name, etc.  Since I don’t know Hebrew and have only some Yiddish which enlivened my family’s English, I find Bruce’s phrase for Netanyahu, a cheeky beggar, particularly amusing.  Note that many of these crimes are against ordinary Americans (death, maiming, homelessness, impoverishment) or against ordinary Israelis (they experience dramatic insecurity while supporting the aggression and ethnic cleansing involved in "greater" Israel.

     There are thus plenty of harms mandating that the US get out of Iraq  (it should never have gone in and its occupation is a source only of tension, revolt and ethnic cleansing) or that Israeli government crimes against Palestinians must cease, against which many of us can unite, enough to become a strong political force, regardless of larger explanations.  That politics is what John Rawls calls “overlapping consensus” or radicals once upon a time named “a united front.” Bruce and I agree about Iraq and about Israel settling decently with Palestine. 

         But of course explanations matter.  It is silly to say there is oil in the Gulf of Tonkin – never heard that in Students for a Democratic Society myself, many of us puzzled about the lack of economic interest in Vietnam or the interplay between economic interests and political-military interests in American involvement in the region – but it is not silly to have the slogan of the first Gulf War movement: “what if they grew broccoli in Iraq?”   In the case of Iraq (I leave Vietnam aside here), it is mistaken to not see the removal of the American bases from the holy sites of Mecca and Medina in Saudi Arabia (these turned Osama Bin Laden, the US agent in bringing down the pro-Soviet regime in Afghanistan, against the US) to Iraq by Rumsfeld – as part of a sustained effort to control the Middle East by force. Today we have 19 bases in Iraq to cordon our 50,000 occupying troops after the US has supposedly “withdrawn,” open fighting ceased.  The campaigner Obama mocked McCain’s 100,000 troops in Iraq for a century; President Obama, eye on the war complex, has “reduced” the troops by half – but left the colony/occupation intact indefinitely.  And how many mercenaries from Blackwater/ Xe will Obama retain (the ratio is one to one among US troops in Iraq)?  So perhaps McCain had the right number. Did the British empire ever garrison 100.000 troops in Iraq?. 

         In Blowback and Sorrows of Empire, Chalmers Johnson cites the some 800 military bases abroad, a huge empire, during a period when only France has 5 bases in its former colonies and no other power has bases abroad (others participate jointly in UN activities).  Obama talks about withdrawal of 40,000 troops by August from Iraq – supposing that the US can get Al-Maliki to leave power to allow in the nearer American puppet Allawi (Bush’s failed choice in the manipulated election the last time, a former Saddam spy whom Saddam tried to kill, a  man who, when briefly Prime Minister under the Americans,  according to the Australian papers, shot a prisoner in the head to demonstrate to guards the need for "toughness") to assume power.  The New York Times call Allawi “secular” compared to “al-Maliki” – it means only that the Bush aggression created an Iraq client who was Shiia and allied with Iran, whereas Allawi might front for or at least not rebel against a US/Israel attack on Iran (Obama is still trying to head this off, but not yet definitively).

      The so-called withdrawal of troops means tht some 100,000 soldiers and mercenaries will retire to our military bases in Iraq in case they are “needed.”   It is good that Americans will cease active fighting and being killed there. Why the lie about withdrawal to the American public? 

     The notion that the US is an empire and that economic interest is one central part of it – including controlling Middle Eastern oil, not that the US is very good at it (the first contract went to China, perhaps one reason why the new administration, not being quite as incompetent at it as Bush, prefers Allawi) – is a central part of the picture.  One cannot decide everything about the subtleties of the war complex without lots of argument, but the hypothesis that the war complex makes even Obama, who is cautious about all this, not only a war president but a president who expands wars  (the four others), is surely better than the hypothesis that the US has no structure of elite interests that generates war (the point, I take it, of Bruce’s disparaging remark about the “left and right”). 

       In contrast, Johnson, long a leading political scientist at the University of California who has always disliked Marxism and viscerally detests the Chinese Revolution even though he has become a radical, suggests that the US empire is military and not economic.  That is a much subtler disagreement with “Marxists.” I should note: saying the US is an empire, in rivalry with the Soviet empire which has collapsed because of its war economy and suggesting the US will go the same way – all leading points of Johnson’s – sounds quite a lot like Lenin on inter-imperialist rivalry, and I am afraid the family resemblance of the views will not be put aside by Johnson’s distaste for Marxism or for his innovative insistence that modern empires are both importantly and novelly military.  

     But following his argument, an internal critic might note, the military part of the empire, which is enormously destructive to soldiers and those on whom they are quartered, not to mention the whole world economy, has to be sustained by some other factor than just military need.  It does extend from the Cold War, but what were the motivations in the Cold War?  Perhaps one might say, there are obvious economic beneficiaries on the industrial side of this complex.  And GE, formerly an electrical company but now centrally a weapon’s-maker, owns NBC and MSNBC.  A modestly dialectical view will suggest that there is a war complex (of the sort I emphasize).

        But a Marxian might say, surely civilian economic interests play a role.  XE/Blackwater is pure military, diplomatic “protection” but Halliburton/Kellogg Brown and Root for example is oil production, mixed in with a variety of military activities and services.  And surely Bush, Cheney and Rice are all oil executives before entering “public” service.  And some sectors of the American economy like computers or derivatives from the housing market- in fact, the whole financial casino in which ordinary people and some billionaires lose - are not driven by the war in the Middle East.  

           To which one might respond: there is obviously a larger interplay of economics, military activity, and politics in which there are different, sometimes clashing interests.  And one must hope that the prospects for a green economy, dealing with global warming and permitting use of American dollars to help the unemployed, those who need medical care (instead of its denial by “insurance” companies) the students who are our future, and the like rather than the military-industrial economy becomes the American way forward.  Even the military is realizing that green security is part of what will save the planet and prevent increasing and increasingly bitter wars.  There is, one might say, more than one force in the American economy, and different paths of development possible even securing important elite interests.  And one is surely much more hopeful than the other.   There is thus a path of arguments, many of which are subtle or complicated.  Probably that path will not be foreclosed by remarks, like the one Bruce makes, about silly leftist and rightist formulations. 

       Just a note on protests and explanations.  My friend Dick Miller (philosophy, Cornell) has written a lot on the role of being anti-racist in intuition and action, as resulting in eventual social science insights.  He invokes for example, Franz Boas who as a young man sympathized with the German democratic revolution of 1848, then came to America and moved anthropology in an anti-imperial, anti-racist direction (see Fact and Explanation).  Vietnam and American racism were easy to protest (moral clarity about the matter was never an issue), hard to explain.  The difficulties center on contrasts of social theory and empirical argument, not underlying moral standards.  I have come to write a lot about the clarity or objectivity of certain moral judgments and unravel confusions in Marx and mainstream philosophy and social science about these matters out of that original impulse (see my Democratic Individuality).  But I am equally interested in how to characterize the possibilities of where we are (many radicals decry too easily Obama, even though as ought to be plain, I share their concerns) and where we might be going. 

        One last thought. I have a lot of sympathy for those who speak up on behalf of unpopular arguments and take heat for it. When I was a senior at Harvard, I became interested in a kind of Marxism, and offered some radical arguments.  In general, I worked harder on my papers than I had before.  But my grades went down briefly from As to A-s, including on my thesis on why there was a peasant Communist revolution in China and not a socialist revolution in industrial Germany with Barrington Moore.  It was not subtle; one grader commented specifically on a Marxist aspect of my arguments as a “weakness,”  As a young professor just having published a contextualist interpretation of Marx’s politics, I had a wonderful political theorist who had been at Harvard at the time and moved on, exclaim to me one evening over drinks at a conference “I can’t believe we produced a Marxist.” 

     But I might say the reverse: the many teachers at Harvard whom I admire and have grown more deeply to admire over time, were precisely those who challenged me like Stanley Hoffmann or Michael Walzer or Judith Shklar, taught me new things or new ways of looking things, encouraged me to go my own way. 

     I have amusingly come to defend decency in modern liberalism and conservatism fiercely (in Democratic Individuality, for example, which is, in one aspect, an attempt to highlight what decency is from the point of view of modern political theories.  I defended the core of modern liberalism (rejecting slavery, toleration) more clearly than most liberals who, in an era of purportedly value free political science, often entertain views which are doubtfully liberal (and contradict much of what they otherwise believe). During the Bush period, I identified with Scott Horton and Andrew Sullivan, conservatives who stood up against torture and for habeas corpus and the rule of law.  Hanging on to what is decent in the United States – by no means a sure thing even under Obama – is an important fight.

      I have also come to think that King and Gandhi have a better approach to mass militant protest than revolutionary violence in this era.    I am, again, amused to be guided by experience and argument, not by partisanship.

       With Leo Strauss for example, I take Socrates and Plato and Nietzsche and Heidegger seriously (there is lots of room not to come to Strauss’s conclusions about any of them) precisely because it takes some courage and thought, around here, to get into them.

         In addition,  that explanations for protests in the occupied territories are not taken seriously, for example, that Palestinians existed on the land given to Israel by the UN and that Palestinians are humans until just this moment in the United States, does not mean that they are untrue.  Israelis need a safe place to live; such safety is only possible with a state of Palestine for, and some justice and toleration towards Palestinians.    

         In any society, it is good, with Socrates and Rilke, to stand up for questions, to live with them, to try to unravel the twists and turns of argument or insight (poetry is not philosophy), and not to be put off by what is alleged to be just “around here.”

        The characteristic of a good teacher is that she is not put off by disagreement and thinking among students, but rather delights in it, raises questions, furthers the argument, helps each student mark out his or her own eccentric path…

        Bruce writes:

“I think, Alan, that we get to the same conclusion through different arguments. I got on to the Portside website, because I opposed the Iraq invasion in February, 2003. I saw similarities to our Vietnam involvement, which I opposed after 1967 because I understood not only what it was doing to the Vietnamese, but to us as well. Beyond the interests of Eisenhower's military industrial complex and the fantasies of oil in the 
Gulf of Tonkin and in Iraq (hoaxes that were held by both the left and the right), I opposed both wars because I felt that they were not in the US interest--undermining
 our economy and putting our military in harm's way. I don't think that we need
 evil capitalists to explain totally erroneous arguments about our strategic interests. As far as the Israeli government is concerned, I have concluded that they have been off track since the invasion of Lebanon in 1982 (when I began supporting
 Peace Now). I believe in the survival of a Zionist state within the 1967 borders, but am appalled by the venal political culture which has flourished in the country since maybe 1948. I remember one short-tail relative who said that she could live in Israel because she just felt she was back in Poland. I do not doubt that the Israelis have real enemies including the Iranians and Saudis and, for that matter, the late Saddam Hussein. I think I'll join J Street. What irks me most about
 Netanyahu almost as much as his colonialist politics is that he is a chutzpadike shnorrer, an aggressive beggar, who insults US leaders despite $3 billion a year. Finally, as to your reference to the Jewish tradition of prophetic politics, I think that line of thinking can be traced to Abraham Geiger in C19 Germany and to the C20 US Reform movement as enunciated by Louis Hartz and Neal Riemer. I am more often in agreement in secular politics with Reform Jews than I am with members of my own Modern Orthodox congregation, but these latter are guided by an older Jewish tradition based on the Pentateuch rather than the Prophets: 613 commandments which can be extrapolated from the Torah as elucidated by rabbinical (originally oral) law. Maybe my training 
as a historian of Africa has influenced me. All best Bruce"  

   In addition, I enclose two articles by Amira Hass, the great Israeli journalist, from Haaretz on what the occupaton amounts to:

Access denied
By Amira Hass


Defining a Palestinian with a Gaza Strip address as a punishable infiltrator if he is found in the West Bank - as implied by a military order that has now gone into effect - is one more link in a chain of steps that Israel has taken, whose cumulative effect is to sever the Strip from Palestinian society as a whole. 

Space limitations prevent listing more than a sampling of these measures here. But even looking at them in abridged form can serve as a reminder that one needs to analyze every regulation of the military occupation in the context of its predecessors and their implementation on the ground. Indeed, this is what the legal experts at the organization Hamoked: Center for the Defense of the Individual did when they warned against the ramifications of the new Order No. 1650 regarding Prevention of Infiltration (Amendment No. 2). 

1972 


The Israel Defense Forces permits Palestinians to move throughout the country (Israel, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank), by means of a "general exit permit." The hope in Israel is that economic integration will cause national aspirations to be forgotten. But the unintended result is freedom of movement for all Palestinians. For the first time since 1948, the Palestinians throughout Israel and the territories experience themselves as one people living within the same borders, under the same regime. Family ties, work ties, friendships and school ties - all are forged and renewed on both sides of the Green Line. 

The general rule: The right of all Palestinians to freedom of movement is respected, aside from certain categories determined by the Israeli authorities. 

1988-1989 

The first intifada: A magnetic card, valid for one year, is introduced in the Gaza Strip for those who have security clearance to enter Israel. In the absence of checkpoints, it is relatively easy to get around this restriction. 

1991 

January 15, on the eve of the Gulf War: The general exit permit from the West Bank and Gaza Strip is cancelled. From now on individual permits are required. 

Gazan students who are enrolled in studies in the West Bank do not receive permits to enter Israel, and cannot attend school. "Split" families (between the West Bank and Gaza) see each other less and less often, in the absence of permits. 

The police conduct daily searches for Palestinian laborers in Israeli cities, and check whether they have valid permits for being in Israel (as the Worker's Hotline organization discovers, people are frequently considered permit violators even if they are caught in a movie theater or a cafeteria, instead of at the workplace listed on the permit. Hundreds are arrested and fined, although generally the policy is easy to circumvent. Also, the policy is not enforced in East Jerusalem, and people are convinced that there is no need for a permit to stay in their religious, cultural, and economic capital. 

Peace talks are launched at the Madrid Conference. 

1993 

March. A "general closure" is imposed on the territories (existing permits are revoked), after which the ban on leaving without individual permits is applied more stringently in East Jerusalem (which is why to this day West Bankers erroneously say that the actual closure policy began in March 1993). 

September. The Declaration of Principles between the Palestine Liberation Organization and Israel stipulates that both sides recognize Gaza and the West Bank as a single territorial unit. 

There is intensive construction at the northern exit of the Gaza Strip, which is transformed into a checkpoint that vets thousands of people a day. It is operated by the Civil Administration and the IDF. Other crossings in the Gaza Strip are shut down. 

The closure becomes a permanent reality that exists to the present. The number of travel permits Israel grants changes occasionally, but the principle remains the same: Freedom of mobility is denied to all Palestinians, except for those who fall into in a number of categories that Israel determines (laborers, businessmen, patients, collaborators, Palestinian Authority officials, etc.) 

1994 

May. Civil powers in Gaza are transferred from Israel to the Palestinians. A partial solution to the problem of exit permits is found: Gazans depart through the Rafah crossing, travel from there to Jordan, and enter the West Bank via the Allenby Bridge. This solution is used mainly by students and people with families in the West Bank. 

1995 

October. The Interim Agreement (civil powers also transferred in the West Bank ). Clause 28 of the agreement stipulates that the Palestinians have the authority to change an address on the identity card, but the change must be reported to the Civil Administration. 

1996 

Contrary to what is stated in the Oslo Accords, Israeli officers from the Civil Administration inform Palestinians that a change of address from Gaza to the West Bank requires Israeli authorization. Authorization is granted only to some of those who apply for a change of address, based on unknown criteria. 

1997 

Gazans are barred from going abroad via the Allenby Bridge or from using it to enter the West Bank, without individual permits from Israel. 

1999 

October. A "safe passage" between Gaza and the West Bank is introduced along one southern route. 

2000 

End of September. The second intifada breaks out. 

The safe passage is closed. 

Israel bars Gazan students from attending school in the West Bank (the ban becomes clear retroactively, several years later). 

Israel puts a freeze on change of addresses from Gaza to the West Bank. 

2001 

Entry into the Gaza Strip of anyone who is not Gazan is reduced to a minimum (mainly in cases of deaths of first-degree relatives). 

2002 

For the first time, the authorities declare Gazans in the West Bank to be illegal residents. Many are deported to Gaza having been incidentally discovered during IDF raids or when crossing checkpoints. 

2004 

November. Army forces raid an apartment in Bir Zeit, near Ramallah, arrest and deport to Gaza four engineering students. 

2005 

The "disengagement." Gaza Strip crossings are declared "international" crossings. 

2007 

Departure from Gaza is permitted only in extreme humanitarian cases (and to those with connections in the PA). 

For the first time since 1967, Israel institutes a permit giving permission to stay in the West Bank intended for Gazans in the West Bank (along the lines of the residence permit required of those who are in Israel). Many applications for the permit are declined. Thousands of Palestinians without permits are scared to go through internal West Bank checkpoints, lest they be caught and deported. They live like prisoners in their towns of residence. 

2009 

March. The state declares that Palestinians from Gaza are not entitled to live in the West Bank. This is done by means of a new regulation that comes to light through Hamoked petitions to the High Court of Justice. The state is willing to process applications to reside in the West Bank only for the following groups: chronically ill patients who can only be treated in the West Bank; minors under 16 with only one parent who lives in the West Bank, and who do not have a relative to look after them in the Gaza Strip; people over 65 who require nursing care and do not have a caregiver available in the Strip. All others - those who are healthy, not orphans, not solitary old people in need of nursing care - do not have the right to live in the West Bank. 

2010 

April. A military order goes into effect that defines anyone staying in the West Bank without a permit as an infiltrator and a punishable offender.


Last update - 05:14 23/04/2010
Israel expels West Bank Palestinian to Gaza upon release from prison
By Amira Hass

A Palestinian prisoner from the West Bank was forcibly deported to the Gaza Strip on Wednesday, immediately after his release from prison in Israel. 

Ahmad Sabah, 39, who was released from Ketziot prison after serving his sentence, was put on a bus to Gaza while his wife, son and other relatives waited for him since the morning hours at the Tarqumiya checkpoint in the West Bank. 

Sabah was told only before boarding the bus at about noon that he was being taken to Gaza. His family and relatives only found out in the evening that he would not be coming home. 


Sabah was born in Jordan to a refugee family from the village of Um a-Shuf near Haifa. In 1994 he joined the Palestinian defense forces entering the Gaza Strip with Yasser Arafat and received a Palestinian identity card with a Gaza address. About a year later he moved to the West Bank, where he settled down and raised a family. 

In 2001 he was arrested, tried and convicted of membership in a Fatah militia, throwing fire bombs and making and conspiring to plant a bomb. 

During the first five years in prison Sabah's family was not permitted to visit him, he and his wife Hanan told Haaretz in separate telephone calls. 

At a later stage his wife and young son, Yazan, were allowed to visit him once every six months. The last time they saw each other was in October 2009. 

Sabah set up a protest tent near the Erez checkpoint in the Gaza Strip and says he will not leave until he is allowed to return home to his family. 

Since 1996, in violation of the Oslo Accords, Israel has forbidden the Palestinian Authority to change the identity card address of people who moved from Gaza to the West Bank. Since the end of 2000 Israel has been classifying these people as "illegal aliens" in the West Bank. 

'In keeping with procedures' 

An IDF spokesman said Sabah's release to the Gaza Strip was "in keeping with the Prison Service procedures to release prisoners to their registered address except in extremely irregular cases." 

The spokesman said Sabah had been told he was being sent to Gaza, and did not object or mention having a family in the West Bank. Nor did he say he wanted to be released to the West Bank, the spokesman said.




No comments:

Post a Comment