Bevraging naar het beeld van mensen van zichzelf hebben aangaande diversiteit in de maatschappij – een introductie

 

Op dinsdag 8 mei 2018 vond in het congres- en vergadercentrum Lamot in Mechelen de officiële presentatie plaats door het Agentschap Binnenlands Bestuur van de survey ‘Samenleven in Diversiteit’ en de Vlaamse Migratie- en Integratiemonitor (hier vind je de volledige bevragingen en resultaten). Deze dag diende 2 doelstellingen: het meedelen van de resultaten, en het bekomen van feedback van het publiek. Om dit laatste te bewerkstelligen werden deelnemers in de namiddag onderverdeeld in 4 parallelle sessies, met telkens een thematische toelichting van de resultaten van de survey ‘Samenleven in Diversiteit’, een panelgesprek met 3 experten en ruimte voor uitwisseling.

Jeroen Windey, administrateur-generaal van het Agentschap Binnenlands Bestuur opende de dag met de legendarische toelichting dat surveys en graadmeters over migratie en integratie puur bedoeld zijn om het beleid t.a.v. integratie aan te passen aan veranderende noden in de samenleving; en niet om polariserende krachten in de maatschappij te versterken. Gegevens uit de graadmeter en de survey zijn dus niet bedoeld om uit de context te halen en te instrumentaliseren als oneliners of waardeoordelen over gemeenschappen van minderheden. Ik haal deze toelichting graag aan, omdat het ook meteen de eerste en enige genuanceerde uitspraak was over de graadmeter en de survey.

De Vlaamse Migratie- en Integratiemonitor (VLIM) in 2018 is de 3^e editie van deze bevraging, en polst onder meer naar de sociaal-economische positie van minderheden in Vlaanderen. Elke 2 à 3 jaar wordt deze bevraging herhaald, en uit de editie dit jaar kwam o.a. naar boven dat de immigratie van vreemdelingen in Vlaanderen sterk Europees is gekleurd: 63% van de instroom van personen met niet-Belgische herkomst, komt uit andere EU-landen. Daarnaast wordt uit de bevraging afgeleid dat een superdivers Vlaanderen de realiteit is : 1/5 van de inwoners in Vlaanderen heeft een niet-Belgische herkomst (de herkomst-definitie vinden we terug in artikel 3 van het Vlaams Integratiedecreet, nl: personen die niet de Belgische nationaliteit bezaten bij geboorte of van wie minstens een van de ouders bij geboorte niet de Belgische nationaliteit bezat). Instromers van buiten de EU blijken niet volwaardig te participeren aan de samenleving wat betreft werk, onderwijs, inkomen en sociale betrokkenheid. Werk aan de winkel dus, en tijd voor bevraging van de beleidsmakers over hoe en waarom hun nalatigheid zulke proporties heeft aangenomen.

Interessante side-note: in Nederland hanteren ze en andere definitie van ‘herkomst’. Arjen Verweij, Adviseur Onderzoek en Kennis bij de Directie Samenleving en Integratie van het Nederlandse Ministerie van Sociale Zaken en Werkgelegenheid, en opdrachtgever van de Survey Integratie Minderheden (SIM) legt uit dat nationaliteit in Nederland niet langer wordt gezien als een afdoend referentiepunt voor ‘herkomst’, omdat nationaliteit niet iets vaststaand is. In plaats van geboortenationaliteit of geboortenationaliteit van de ouders, wordt er in Nederland voor de herkomstdefinitie gekeken naar het geboorteland van de persoon in kwestie. Is hij of zij geboren in Nederland? Dan is de herkomst van die persoon Nederlands. Wie weet kunnen onze beleidsmakers een bevraging organiseren over de herkomst-definitie – en kunnen we iets leren van onze noorderburen.

De Survey Samenleven in Diversiteit (SID-Survey), is een nieuwe bevraging die er is gekomen in opdracht van minister Liesbeth Homans, bevoegd voor integratie en inburgering. De SID-survey zal elke 3 à 4 jaar herhaald worden, en polst naar welk beeld personen van Belgische, Marokkaanse, Turkse, Roemeense, Poolse en Congolese afkomst over zichzelf hebben aangaande hun attitude en denkbeelden t.a.v. culturele diversiteit. Deze survey polst dus naar antwoorden in het genre van ‘ik ben geen racist, maar..’ waarbij de onuitgesproken gedachte na de ‘maar’ niet in de resultaten wordt opengenomen, en het antwoord enkel weergeeft dat de respondent in kwestie geen racist is.

5 stellingen die naar voren kwamen uit de SID-Survey, verdienen elk een eigen blogbericht:

• Hoe jonger, hoe meer personen van Belgische herkomst open staan voor diversiteit.
• De 2^e generatie personen van Marokkaanse, Turkse en Congolese herkomst staan opener t.o.v. holebiseksualiteit.
• Openheid tussen de verschillende groepen van buitenlandse herkomst onderling is niet evident.
• Er bestaan traditionele genderrollen bij personen van Marokkaanse en Turkse herkomst.
• Hoe hoger opgeleid, hoe opener personen van Belgische afkomst staan t.o.v. culturele diversiteit.

Wat alvast erg belangrijk is vooraleer iemand conclusies trekt uit de bevraging van personen naar de mening die ze over zichzelf hebben: hoe iemand over zichzelf denkt, is een subjectief gegeven. Hou hierbij het Thomas-theorema in gedachten, nl: ‘if men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences’. Kies jouw gepercipieerde realiteit dus wijselijk, want hoe je een situatie voorstelt heeft werkelijke gevolgen.

Emancipatie?

Als je gehuwd bent, kan je een deel van je inkomsten als het ware “verschuiven” naar je echtgenoot / -te die geen job uitoefent. Voor dat deel moet je dan minder belastingen betalen op je loon. Dit wordt een “fiscaal voordeel voor gehuwden” genoemd. Dit kan worden gezien als een fiscale erkenning of waardering voor het harde werk dat thuisblijvende ouders doen in het huishouden en vooral in de opvoeding van de kinderen / verzorging van de ouderen.

Recentelijk is dit belastingvoordeel voor gehuwden in de aandacht gekomen doordat vertegenwoordigers van verschillende politieke partijen in Vlaanderen hun opinie te kennen hebben gegeven over het afschaffen van dit fiscale voordeel. Open Vld-voorzitter Gwendolyn Rutten (Het Laatste Nieuws, 21/10/2017) stelt voor om het geld  te herbestemmen naar investeringen in opleidingen voor thuisblijvende ouders. Zij stelt dat mensen die thuisblijven en niet deelnemen aan het heersende economische model van “werken”, niet geëmancipeerd zijn. De bezorgdheid is dat kinderen van een ouder die laag is opgeleid, zelf ook de school zullen verlaten zonder diploma. Daarnaast pleit Rutten ook voor een verplichte gemeenschapsdienst, omdat “wie een uitkering krijgt, in ruil iets moet doen voor de gemeenschap”.

Er zijn een aantal vragen waarvan ik hoop dat die nog gaan worden beantwoord.

Eerst en vooral is er de principiële vraag over wat wordt verstaan onder “emancipatie“. Een algemene definitie: het zelfbewuster worden en opeisen van gelijke of gelijkwaardige rechten door voorheen achtergestelde groepen in de bevolking. Het belastingvoordeel is er voor thuisblijvende echtgenoten/-es, dus gaan we na hoe zij door het afschaffen van het belastingvoordeel meer zelfbewust worden en meer hun gelijke rechten opeisen dan voorheen. Getrouwde thuisblijvende vrouwen worden door de afschaffing aangespoord om niet thuis te blijven en niet te kiezen om de opvoeding van de kinderen op zich te nemen of zich in te zetten voor het huishouden en verzorging van ouderen. De keuze wordt voor een deel voor hen gemaakt doordat er geen fiscale erkenning meer is voor het harde werk van thuisblijvende ouders. Hetzelfde geldt voor getrouwde thuisblijvende mannen: na de afschaffing zal er op het loon van de verdienende echtgenote meer belasting worden betaald en zijn er minder middelen in het huishouden. Ook voor hem wordt de keuze voor een deel gemaakt: fiscaal gezien wordt jouw inzet voor de samenleving thuis niet erkend. Zowel voor de thuisblijvende man als voor de vrouw is de afschaffing geen emancipatie: mannen en vrouwen worden bewust gemaakt van het feit dat de maatschappij ervoor kiest dat beide ouders gaan werken. Dit is iets anders dan “zelfbewust worden” en “opeisen van gelijke/gelijkwaardige rechten”. In deze beperking van de keuzevrijheid knelt ook het schoentje voor Kris Peeters en Wouter Beke van CD&V. Zij stellen dat thuisblijvende ouders hard werken en dat ook zij ondersteuning verdienen.

Een tweede bemerking die zeker aan bod moet komen bij het bespreken van de afschaffing van het belastingvoordeel, is de finaliteit van deze afschaffing. Wilt de afschaffing thuisblijvende ouders aanzetten tot werken (en dus emancipatie – volgens de definitie van Open Vld), of tot het volgend van een opleiding? Je kan mensen aan het werk zetten, mits je oog hebt voor het ownership over het eigen leven van de persoon in kwestie: welk werk wilt hij / zij doen en waartoe is zij naar eigen kunnen en in een tijdsgebonden context in staat? De randvoorwaarde van het respecteren van agentschap en eigenheid van individuen moet indien mogelijk nog meer worden benadrukt en in acht genomen wanneer je het volgen van opleidingen en het halen van diploma’s gaat institutionaliseren als maatschappelijke verplichting. Leven is leren, zoveel is zeker. Maar leren is niet beperkt tot het halen van diploma’s, certificaten, opleidingspunten en vormingsbewijzen. Daarbij komt nog dat er een verschil is tussen het bieden van opleidingskansen aan thuisblijvende ouders en het de facto ontnemen van de keuzemogelijkheid om een opleiding te volgen. Stel u voor dat er veel laaggeschoolde ouders zijn die inderdaad een opleiding zouden willen volgen. Gaan zij aangespoord zijn doordat een fiscaal voordeel aan zijn/haar gezin wordt ontnomen? En wat is de samenhang tussen opleiding en werk? Moeten geschoolde ouders per definitie op de conventionele manier aan het werk? En zijn er geen andere manieren om een maatschappelijk antwoord te bieden op het voor vaststaand doorgaande feit dat je als kind van een laaggeschoolde ouder minder kans hebt op het halen van een diploma? Zeggen we dat het de norm is dat je hooggeschoold moet zijn om volwaardig lid te zijn van deze maatschappij? Willen we als samenleving het pad opgaan van een regering die vaststaande en absolute keuzes maakt voor haar burgers in wat maatschappelijk waardevol is en wat niet?

Dit brengt ons tot een derde zeer prangende vraag: wat verstaan we onder “iets doen voor de gemeenschap“? Als de afschaffing van het belastingvoordeel er komt samen met een verplichte gemeenschapsdienst voor thuisblijvende ouders, dan impliceert dit dat er over thuisblijvende ouders wordt gedacht dat zij niets doen voor de gemeenschap. Meer nog dan de afschaffing van het belastingvoordeel – dat nog in een kromme redenering zou kunnen worden gezien als een zgn. ‘activeringsmaatregel’ om de liberale invulling van ‘emancipatie’ na te streven – geeft deze verplichte gemeenschapsdienst aan dat het werk van thuisblijvende ouders niet wordt gewaardeerd. De opvoeding van verantwoordelijke, goed functionerende en participerende leden van onze samenleving, het instaan voor het huishouden en alles wat daarbij komt kijken, het verzorgen van ouderen, inzet voor de buurt, inzet buiten het liberaal-conventionele gedachtegoed om van “bijdragen aan de samenleving”, zal dan op een absolute manier worden aangeduid als “onwaardig”. Waar politieke ideologieën op vele punten van elkaar verschillen, en ook moeten verschillen, om de diversiteit aan stromingen, opvattingen en theorieën onder de burgers te vertegenwoordigen op politiek vlak, moet er mijns inziens toch omzichtig worden omgesprongen met de radicale toepassing ervan op een samenleving.

Bijdragen aan de maatschappij is immers zoveel meer dan economisch. Kijk maar naar het onbetaalbare werk van duizenden vrijwilligers, individueel en in verenigingsverband. In een samenleving is het goed om te benadrukken dat werken waardevol is, en moet er de mogelijkheid en de ruimte zijn voor het volgen van opleidingen en het uitoefenen van jobs. Dit mag echter niet ten koste gaan van keuzevrijheid. Het reduceren van een ideologie tot een absolutistische radicale invulling van een gedachtegoed op een gehele maatschappij, doet ons denken aan de thematiek van ‘Brave New World’ van Aldous Huxley. Reeds in sciencefictionromans in 1932 was het duidelijk: ontneem keuzevrijheid van burgers, en wég is de emancipatie – en was het niet nét dit dat (mits een erg specifieke invulling van deze term) de finaliteit was van het afschaffen van het belastingvoordeel voor gehuwden?

Strategy outline on how to raise the issue of Israel’s forced internal displacement of Palestinian communities both in the oPt and in Israel

BRUSSELS, BELGIUM – MARCH 26: A Palestinian flag is seen on a flag pole outside the European Commission building before Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas meets President of the European Commission Jean-Claude Juncker in Brussels, Belgium on March 26, 2017. ( Dursun Aydemir – Anadolu Agency )

A strategic advocacy approach takes into accounts the root causes of non-compliance with IHL and IHRL. While the EU and its member states currently do provide humanitarian assistance to displaced Palestinians, it fails to consistently address the Israeli policies that create the ground cause of illegal displacement of Palestinians.

Rights based approach
When addressing Israel’s forced internal displacement of Palestinian communities, it is important to articulate and emphasize a rights based approach. In taking a stance on displacement of Palestinian communities, we want the international community to act upon the fact that Israel is the primary duty bearer for the welfare of Palestinian communities living under its control – both within Israel as in the oPt. In advocating compliance with international law we should encourage international decision-makers to act upon their duties under IHL and IHRL while applying these internationally agreed upon legal norms in their complementarity to each other.

Forced displacement in the oPt
To this end we call on the EU and the member states to comply with its duties of IHL under all four Geneva Conventions of 1949 wherein specific duties are conferred on third states to respect and to ensure respect for the Convention in all circumstances. We encourage the EU and its members states to enhance and strengthen diplomatic protest and collective measures to realize its policy statements regarding the forced internal displacement of Palestinian communities in the OPT. The international community should enact penal sanctions against acts of unlawful transfer of protected persons, search for the persons carrying out the orders to this practice and bring suspects for theirs courts since this are the legally agreed upon consequences of committing a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions – of which unlawful displacement of Palestinian communities in the oPt is a part.

We advocate for diplomatic protest and collective measures to be a response to evictions and land appropriation; military incursions; the expansion of settlements and related infrastructure; the construction of the West Bank Barrier; violence and harassment by settlers; the revocation of residency rights in East Jerusalem; discriminatory denial of building permits and house demolitions and the system of closures and restriction on the right of freedom of movement. These nine triggers which lead to the forcible transfer of Palestinians in the oPt – as formulated by the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967 – form the initial grounds for all advocacy actions towards the EU and its member states when addressing Israel’s forced internal displacement of Palestinian communities in the oPt.

Forced displacement in Israel
The international community’s common response to forced internal displacement of Palestinian communities in Israel is based on the basic rules of IHL being peremptory norms from which no state is allowed to derogate. We therefore call upon the EU and its member states to not recognise as lawful the continuous practice of forcible displacement of Palestinian communities in Israel and to not render aid or assistance in maintaining this situation.
In all advocacy steps for raising the issue of Israel’s forced internal displacement of Palestinian communities in Israel, we urge the international community to respond to the ongoing discrimination in land allocation and planning and the discrimination in housing policies as being the Israeli policies that deprive Palestinian communities in Israel to enjoy their right to freedom to choose one’s residence (ICCPR, Art. 12), their right to freedom from arbitrary interference with one’s home (ICCPR Art. 17 (1)) and their right to adequate housing (ICESCR, Art. 12).

Advocacy Instruments
We opt to use the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement as a tool to call upon the EU and its member states to comply with their duties under international law. Referring to the Guiding Principles, the rights based approach is continuously being advocated through the frame of IHL and IHRL. This way the issue of forcible internal displacement of Palestinian communities in the oPt and Israel is raised through pointing out the duties of Israel and third states under international law.

Advocacy Aims
Advocacy following the above principles should aim at:

1) enhancing the leverage of the EU and its member states in bilateral relations with Israel

2) creating a forum on international level that includes Palestinian representatives so as to ensure recognition of the human rights violations of forcefully internally displaced Palestinians while realizing participation, dialogue and the right to self-determination

3) reaching decision-makers through policy briefs, providing a knowledge database, providing updated information, in-depth analysis, evaluations of international policy and continuous presence on the agenda of the international community

4) stregthening civil society organizations in their aim to realize a just peace by putting an end to unlawful forced internal displacement of Palestinian communities in the oPt and Israel, while specifically encouraging the taking into account of Israeli policies as the root causes of forced displacement

5) creating space, on a community level – both in Israel and in the EU and its member states – to question the Israeli occupation of the oPt as a means to counteract the ongoing normalization of the occupation

6) creating, enhancing and protecting a learning platform where civil actors find a safe place for dialogue, knowledge-sharing, cooperation and training so as to encourage interaction between civil society organizations in Israel, the oPt and the EU member states

 

Ondertussen is mevrouw Lamrabet ontslagen, en Unia niet meer geloofwaardig.

Reactie op: http://www.demorgen.be/opinie/de-boerka-is-het-equivalent-van-de-jodenster-bc3209b3/

Een opiniestuk dat overduidelijk is neergepend terwijl gevoelens van verongelijktheid en verontwaardiging de schrijver jammer genoeg doen neigen naar het verkondigen van misogyne en achterlijke standpunten – krasse appreciaties die net op mevrouw Lamrabet worden afgevuurd.

Ik ben er niet zeker van of lezers van De Morgen staan te wachten op de zoveelste paternalistische uitlating. Verhofstadt en Vander Taelen halen aan dat in Iran, Tunesië, Marokko, Afghanistan en Saoudi-Arabië (het opnemen van IS in dit rijtje is problematisch op zichzelf om alle voor de hand liggende redenen) vrouwen worden verkracht. Dit is verschrikkelijk en moet ab-so-luut veranderen. In hoeverre de zoveelste man die schrijft dat verkrachtingsproblematiek moet worden aangepakt via de kleding van vrouwen, hier het verschil gaat maken, is mij onduidelijk. Vrouwen die onbedekt rondlopen, mogen niet worden verkracht. Het probleem ligt bij de mannen. Temidden van de veelheid aan gevoerde discussies en debatten en opinies kan ik me niet inbeelden hoe het intellectueel verantwoord is om mee te gaan in deze grijsgedraaide en doorzichtige drog-argumentatie: “Vrouwen die zich bedekken zijn onderdrukt. We moeten ze bevrijden. Vrouwen kunnen helemaal niet zelf kiezen om zich te bedekken. Er is een verkrachtingsproblematiek. Laten we vooral niet focussen op de mannen, maar op de kledingstijl van zij die worden verkracht. Hoofddoek en hijab en boerka is hetzelfde en wij, mannen, hebben de waarheid in pacht over waarom vrouwen zich bedekken.”

Het enige aspect wat “middeleeuws” is aan dit gegeven, is de ongeïnformeerde redenering van de schrijvers.

De hoofddoek wegzetten als een salafistische of andere radicale uitspatting stigmatiseert alle sterke moslima’s die graag hun hoofddoek dragen en die gewone modale medeburgers zijn. Deze misinformatie is in feite de consequentie van de superioriteitsgedachte van de man tegenover de vrouw: mannen die geen kennis hebben over waarom vrouwen in veel landen – ook in België – zich bedekken, beledigen een versmaden een hele gemeenschap als zijnde vrouwonvriendelijk. Daarbij impliceert dit opiniestuk ook nog eens dat vrouwen met een hijab hun brein bedekken in plaats van hun haar.

Vrouwen staan niet te wachten om te worden bevrijd. Vrouwen bevrijden zichzelf. Of dit nu is om zich te mogen bedekken, dan wel om onbedekt te mogen rondlopen. Maar koren op de molen leggen van anti-hijab hardliners die uit een klaarblijkelijk panische angst voor enige uiting van religieus bewustzijn, geïrriteerde en bijna onbeleefde opinies publiceren, zal alleszins elke bevrijding van welke soort ook tegenwerken. Hoogstens verliest het moeizame en delicate integratieproces hierdoor een aantal zgn. “vliegende supporters”.

Een opiniestuk heeft natuurlijk ergens tot doel om de publieke opinie te prikkelen. Voor, tegen, of om tot nadenken aan te zetten. Maar ik denk dat ik in naam van vele bewuste, gesluierde, ingeburgerde en maatschappelijk actieve vrouwen spreek wanneer ik uiting geef aan de moeheid om steeds weer deze illusie te moeten aanhoren.

Beste Verhofstadt en Vander Taelen,
vrouwen die zich bedekken worden niet d’office onderdrukt. En ook en vooral: vrouwen bevrijden zichzelf. Dankuwel.

Internationaal misbruik Belgisch rechtssysteem : verlamming oppositie

Op vrijdag 24 februari 2017 organiseerde het Koerdisch Instituut samen met het Solidariteitscomité Rojava, Info-Turk en NavBel (Raad van Gemeenschappen uit Koerdistan) in Brussel een receptie om iedereen te bedanken die mee campagne voeren tegen de juridische vervolging van Koerdische verenigingen, media en politici.

Een aantal belangrijke Koerdische verenigingen, media en politici werden immers in België vervolgd voor ‘terrorisme’ – een zaak waarbij de Turkse staat zich burgerlijke partij stelde. Onder de 33 aangeklaagden bevonden zich natuurlijke personen zowel als rechtspersonen (verenigingen, organisaties, bewegingen). Opmerkelijk is dat de aangeklaagden in dit proces geen daders maar slachtoffers zijn – slachtoffers van strafbare feiten die tegen hen zijn gepleegd, zoals o.a. de recentelijke aanval op het Koerdisch Instituut in Brussel van 18 november 2016.

De Brusselse Raadkamer besliste op 3 november 2016 dat het Turks-Koerdische conflict een ‘gewapend conflict’ betreft, wat concreet wilt zeggen dat deze zaak niet kan worden berecht in het kader van antiterrorisme-wetgeving.
Zubeyir Aydar, Koerdisch diplomaat, spreekt voor alle betrokkenen wanneer hij stelt dat dit een enorme opluchting was. Het politiek steunen van buitenlands verzet kan immers niet als ‘terrorisme’ worden gezien, temeer wanneer dit inhoudelijk gaat om diplomatieke betrekkingen, lobby- en campagnewerk, educatieve en informatieve activiteiten en politiek activisme.
In dit 60.000 bladzijden tellende dossier, dat een onderzoek omvat dat al 10 jaar bezig is en waarbij tientallen mensen met vermeende terroristische banden uit hun bed werden gelicht en gearresteerd, wiens huizen werden doorzocht en die verdacht werden gemaakt, leek dus op 3 november de bevestiging te zijn gevonden dat anti-terrorisme wetgeving met dit proces niets van doen heeft.

Het Federaal Parket ging echter niet veel later – en op instigatie van belanghebbenden in de VS – tegen dit vonnis in beroep. Op 9 mei wordt de uitspraak in beroep verwacht. Het is dus nu aan ons – om het met de woorden van Orhan Kilic (NavBel) te zeggen – om te doen wat ons toekomt, nl. de campagne steunen tegen deze juridische vervolging. Campagnevoering en sensibilisering hebben immers reeds eerder bewezen een krachtige stem te zijn tegen de uitholling van ons juridische systeem en ook nu dienen we in te gaan tegen het misbruik van het Belgische rechtssysteem als internationaal drukmiddel om opposanten van eender welke regimes het zwijgen op te leggen.

Antiterreurwetgeving is een dankbaar instrument om politieke oppositie te verlammen. Dit werd door Ludo De Brabander (Vrede vzw) nog eens in herinnering gebracht toen hij o.a. sprak over de Sahrawi’s t.a.v. Marokko en de Palestijnen t.a.v. Israel die ditzelfde wetgevingsmisbruik te beurt valt wanneer zij ingaan tegen een onderdrukkend regime.

De uitspraak in deze “terrorisme-zaak” wordt een doorslaggevend precedent dat bepalend zal zijn voor hoe het Belgische rechtssysteem zal worden ingezet in het internationale spel van onderdrukking van politieke oppositie. Mocht het beroep tegen de uitspraak van 3 november uitwijzen dat steunbetuiging voor onderdrukte volkeren buiten de Belgische grenzen – zonder enige strafbare feitelijkheden op Belgische bodem – als ‘terrorisme’ wordt beschouwd, dan krijgen alle Erdogans van deze wereld weer een beetje meer speelruimte. Ten koste van elke politieke vrijheid, democratische basisprincipes en internationale solidariteit wordt er dan gebouwd aan een wereld waarin onze kinderen de kans lopen om gearresteerd te worden voor het dragen van een t-shirt met een afbeelding van Che Guevara, het schijven van een kritisch artikel over het rechtse beleid van Orban of het bekijken van een youtube filmpje over de illegale uitbreiding van Israëlische nederzettingen.

Hou zeker volgende sites in het oog voor informatie over opkomende campagnes: http://www.navbel.be
http://www.kurdishinstitute.be
http://www.info-turk.be

An Israeli ‘norms bill’ : next step in further annexation of the West Bank

source: Legal Forum for Israel (2016). “Legal Forum Annual Conference 2016.” Available at: http://www.haforum.org/825-2/ [Accesed 18 May 2016].

On the first of May 2016 Ayelet Shaked, Israeli Justice Minister and member of Bayit Yehudi, announced her ambition to revive earlier attempts for assimilation of the legal status of colonizers in the West Bank to that of Israeli citizens. If this announcement materializes into the passing of a so called ‘norms bill’, this would constitute yet another step in Israel’s policy of apartheid in the occupied Palestinian territory, and de facto annexation to the state of Israel. The passing of a ‘norms bill’ further erodes international law as applicable to the occupying power in a situation of belligerent occupation.

Legal rule of a belligerent occupant

Article 43 of the Regulations Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, annexed to the Hague Convention (II) of 1899 and (IV) of 1907 regards legislative obligations of the occupying power during belligerent occupation.^[1]

“The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.”

The occupying power’s executive and judicial branch of the Military Government is obliged to restore and ensure, as far as possible, public order and life in the occupied territory. The occupier’s legislative branch is obliged to respect the laws in force in the occupied territory except in the case of “empêchement absolu”. When a necessity arises, Israel is allowed to enact new legislation, as well as to repeal, suspend, or modify pre-existing laws. The laws or amendments introduced are to be enforced by the military governor and remain in force as long as the occupation lasts and not longer than this stretch of time.

Article 64 of the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention displays the terms of Article 43 of the Hague Regulations more precisely. Israel can legally suspend or repeal existing law, as well as enact new legislation (1) when there is the need of the Occupying Power to remove any direct threat to its security and to maintain safe lines of communication; (2) when it touches upon the duty of the Occupying Power to discharge its duties under the Geneva Convention; and (3) in case of the necessity to ensure the “orderly government” of the occupied territory.

Current dual legal system in the West Bank: different laws for ‘different people’

Since Israel took over the West Bank in 1967, it applied different legal frameworks on persons according to their ethnicity. Regarding the application of distinct legal frameworks on colonizers and Palestinian residents in the West Bank, justice Dorner of the Supreme Court of Israel in HCJ 548/04 Amana v. Commander of IDF Forces in the Judea and Samaria Area stated:

“The main thing to me is the different status in the areas of Judea and Samaria of Israeli citizens and the local population…Israeli legislation has distinguished between the status of Israeli citizens and the status of the local population by applying to the Israelis personally the laws of the state of Israel, except for legislation concerning land. Even the gap concerning land was narrowed down by the Military Commander, who granted the Israeli settlements in Judea and Samaria the powers of a local government…without giving the local [Palestinian] communities in the same area equivalent powers or making them part of the Israeli  Councils…under these circumstances, the different treatment of the two populations does not constitute discrimination, but a permissible distinction, based on the relevant difference between them“^[2]

By mouth of justice Dorner separation and segregation is justified by internalizing – on jurisprudential level – “differences” between the local population and colonizers living in the same area. Such a clear separation of law along racial lines is entirely compatible with the legal definition of apartheid.^[3] General Officer Commanding (GOC) decrees function as a proxy for giving effect to Israeli civil and criminal law to colonizers in the West Bank.^[4]

Applicability of Israeli Administrative Laws to colonizers in the West Bank amounts to assimilation of the legal status of colonizers to that of Israeli citizens – while Palestinian residents are governed by a mixture of military orders and Jordanian administrative laws. Israeli criminal and detention law as well as the right to due process follows the logic of personal application the occupied territory, while military law follows territorial application. This leads to colonizers enjoying more guaranteed rights than Palestinians. A case in point is the fact that colonizers are brought before civil courts, while Palestinians are – in suspicion of participation in the same conduct – brought before military courts. Differences in legal protection are further obvious in: the authority to arrest a suspect, the maximum period of detention prior to trial, the right to an attorney, minimum due process protections at trial, the maximum applicable punishment^[5] and release prior to completion of a sentence.^[6]

Inequality between colonizers and Palestinians is situated moreover in the domains of traffic law, freedom of expression and protest, planning and building, restrictions on freedom of movement, immigration policy and the freedom to choose a place of residence.^[7]

A norms bill: the same wine in new bottles..

At a conference in Jerusalem organized by the Legal Forum for the Land of Israel Israel’s Justice Minister, Ayelet Shaked, stated on the first of May 2016 that she sees it her duty to pass a bill that effects in every law being passed in the Knesset having direct application in the colonies in the West Bank. Shaked, member of the right-wing Bayit Yehudi, made it clear that she dedicates her staff to elaborating this assimilative bill within one year from now.  The idea was met with vehement opposition by senior ministry staff, including former attorney-general Yehuda Weinstein.^[8]

Shaked merely follows in the footsteps of her predecessors. Meir Shamgar, designer of the legal infrastructure in the West Bank in 1967 and president of the Supreme Court from 1983 until 1995 recommended this approach. Former military advocate general Maj. Gen. (res) Danny Efroni in 2014 urged the Israeli attorney general in a letter to apply this approach of extraterritorial application of Israeli law.^[9] During Netanyahu’s last term, a norms bill pursuing the extraterritorial application of Israeli law was brought before the Ministerial Committee for Legislation by MKs Orit Strook and Yariv Levin. Due to the objections of then-Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein, Netanyahu suspended the move, and it remained that way until its recent reintroduction.^[10]

Shaked did not discuss the bill with Israel’s Ministerial Committee for Legislation, but she disclosed that she has spoken to former Chief Justice Aharon Barak regarding the possibility of signing in a basic law that would allow the Knesset to circumvent rulings made by the High Court, adding that at present there is a disagreement over the size of the MK majority that should be needed in order to pass legislation that bypasses the High Court’s decisions.^[11]

It is not clear whether assimilation would take place by virtue of the legislation itself or by an order of the military rule.^[12]

… with a bitter aftertaste.

Besides the Zionist Union by person of MK Tzipi Livni being concerned about a scenario of a bi-national state with a possible Palestinian majority in the Knesset,^[13] the idea of official direct legal assimilation of colonizers with Israeli citizens raises some fundamental legal and political concerns.

The “necessity” exception of article 43 of the Hague Regulations allows Israeli legal interventions, through the military commander, in order to remove any direct threat to Israel’s security, to discharge Israel’s duties under the Geneva Convention, and in order to maintain “orderly government” in the occupied territory. None of these can be legally pursued by the installation of constitutionalized discrimination in the form of a dual legal system based on racial criteria.

A norms bill furthers a system that already threatens the future of a possible two-state solution. A final status agreement was supposed to be concluded years ago under the terms of the Oslo Accords, which gave temporary legitimacy to the colonies. The personal applicability of Israeli civil and criminal law by proxy of military orders in the West Bank signals the death of any of the 1995 agreed upon provisions. A norms bill transfers sovereignty directly to the Knesset – in direct contravention of international law provisions regarding belligerent occupation. This heralds the definitive burial of the proclaimed two-state solution.

Extraterritorial application of Israeli law, including land laws and planning and zoning laws serves Israel’s right wing expansionist ideology in trampling two constitutive aspects of legal belligerent occupation: temporality and the sovereignty not being transferred to the hostile power. Implementing the norms bill constitutes one more step in the crawling annexation of the occupied Palestinian territory.

Extending assimilation of illegal colonizers with the legal status of Israeli citizens does strengthen colonizers’ impunity in the West Bank, widens the gap between legal status of colonizers and Palestinian residents, and intensifies the culture of fear. This results in pushing the already harsh living conditions of the communities in the West Bank to its limits, threatening many more lives.

As to the legal effects of the statement of Shaked, members of the Joint List expressed their fear that the bill would be passed regardless of any opposition. Even if the government is not in support of the bill, there would be enough members of the opposition to grant support of the bill in order for it to pass.^[14]

The norms bill would affect particularly building and planning in the occupied territory. Today Israeli land laws and planning and zoning laws are not applicable in the West Bank. Although the Israeli Supreme Court fills in some gaps in illegal extraterritorial application of Israeli legislation, the bill would afford for direct general application of land, zoning and planning laws passed in the Knesset.

What it comes down to

The passing of the norms bill as proposed by Shaked, is in direct breach of international law.

1. Direct assimilation of the legal status of colonizers in the occupied Palestinian territory with that of Israeli citizens further averts from the proclaimed two-state solution. This political change of direction cannot be decided upon unilaterally.
2. Conveying legal sovereignty over the occupied Palestinian territory directly to the Knesset breaches the fundamental principles of belligerent occupation: temporality and the prohibition of transfer of sovereignty to the hostile power.
3. Extension and elaboration of the dual legal system in the West Bank, based on racial criteria does amount to apartheid.
4. The passing of the norms bill accelerates de facto annexation as is already taking place today.

It is therefore recommended for third state parties, non-governmental organizations and other stakeholders to apply pressure on the State of Israel to renounce any norms bill.

[1] For a more detailed discussion, see: Dinstein, Y. (2004). Legislation Under Article 43 of the Hague Regulations:Belligerent Occupation and Peacebuilding. Program on Humanitarian Policy and Conflict Research, Harvard University, Occasional Paper Series, p. 1-8.

[2] HCJ 548/04 Amana v. Commander of IDF Forces in the Judea and Samaria Area, 58(3) PD 373, 380.

[3] Khalel, S. (2016). “Critics slam Israeli proposal for dual legal system“. Al Jazeera, 6 May 2016. Available at: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/05/critics-slam-israeli-proposal-dual-legal-system-160506113800584.html [Accessed 18 May 2016].

[4] Tsimuki, T. (2016). “Shaked Seeks to Apply Israeli Law on West Bank Jewish Settlers.” Ynet News, 2 May 2016. Available at: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4798296,00.html [Accessed 18 May 2016].

[5] See for example the petition in HCJ 4057/10 Association for Civil Rights in Israel v. Military Commander in Judea and Samaria, submitted on 25 May 2010.

[6] Adamczyk, S. (2013). Driven Out. The Continuing Forced Displacement of Palestinian Residents from Hebron’s Old City. p. 43. Norwegian Refugee Council. Available at: http://www.nrc.no/arch/_img/9208359.pdf [Accessed February 22, 2016].

[7] Association for Civil Rights in Israel (2014). “One Rule, Two Legal Systems: Israel’s Regime of Laws in the West Bank.” Available at: http://www.acri.org.il/en/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Two-Systems-of-Law-English-FINAL.pdf [Accessed 18 May 2016].

[8] Harkov, L. & Bob, Y. J. (2016). “Ayelet Shaked: Apply Israeli Law to the West Bank within 1 Year.” The Jerusalem Post, 2 May 2016. Available at: http://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/Justice-Minister-Shaked-Apply-Israeli-law-to-West-Bank-within-1-year-452847 [Accessed 18 May 2016].

[9] Lieber, D. (2016). “Plan to Apply Israeli Law in West Bank: Equal Roghts or Creeping Annexation?” Times of Israel, 2 May 2016. Available at: http://www.timesofisrael.com/plan-to-apply-israeli-law-in-west-bank-equal-rights-or-creeping-annexation/ [Accessed 18 May 2016].

[10] Tsimuki, T. (2016). “Shaked Seeks to Apply Israeli Law on West Bank Jewish Settlers.” Ynet News, 2 May 2016. Available at: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4798296,00.html [Accessed 18 May 2016].

[11] Tsimuki, T. (2016). “Shaked Seeks to Apply Israeli Law on West Bank Jewish Settlers.” Ynet News, 2 May 2016. Available at: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4798296,00.html [Accessed 18 May 2016].

[12] Legal Forum for Israel (2016). “Legal Forum Annual Conference 2016.” Available at: http://www.haforum.org/825-2/ [Accesed 18 May 2016].

[13] Harkov, L. & Bob, Y. J. (2016). “Ayelet Shaked: Apply Israeli Law to the West Bank within 1 Year.” The Jerusalem Post, 2 May 2016. Available at: http://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/Justice-Minister-Shaked-Apply-Israeli-law-to-West-Bank-within-1-year-452847 [Accessed 18 May 2016].

[14] Touma-Suleiman in Khalel, S. (2016). “Critics slam Israeli proposal for dual legal system“. Al Jazeera, 6 May 2016. Available at: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/05/critics-slam-israeli-proposal-dual-legal-system-160506113800584.html [Accessed 18 May 2016].

A train from Al-Khadr to Al-Quds

Today, 15 May 2016, marks the bitter 69^th anniversary of the Nakba, the catastrophe that befell Palestinians in 1948 and that Israel keeps pursuing on a day to day basis. Israel forcibly displaced Palestinians in 1948, in 1967, in between and up till now. The creation of coercive environment is a major means for forcible displacement. A coercive environment refers to an environment that is so intolerable in all its aspects that Palestinians are often left with little option but to leave their homes and communities.[1]

Ongoing Nakba since 1917

One of the Israeli policies that amount to the creation of a coercive environment consists out of suppression of resistance. The right to resist is guaranteed in international law as a derived right fro, the “right to peaceful assembly” (article 20 UDHR, article 21 ICCPR)[2] and “the right of freedom of expression” (article 19 UDHR, article 19 ICCPR). In international customary law the right to resist is based on an amalgam of UN General Assembly Resolutions. Resolution A/RES/3246 (XXIX) of 29 November 1974 confirms the right to resists as follows:

     “3. Reaffirms the legitimacy of the peoples’ struggle for liberation from colonial and      foreign domination and alien subjugation by all available means, including armed struggle; (…)

7. Strongly condemns all Governments which do not recognize the right to self-determination and independence of peoples under colonial and foreign domination and alien subjugation, notably the peoples of Africa and the Palestinian people;” (emphasis added)

International law is clear: Israel is ‘strongly condemned’ by the international community. This however does not refrain it from maintaining suppressive actions whenever Palestinians exercise their right to resist.

The power of resistance is its celebration, not of what is but of what could be. It is the space in which the logic and force of domination is contested by the power of subjective agency to subvert the process of socialization.[3] Today we celebrate what could be: the right of return for displaced Palestinians – internally and over the borders of the occupied territory and historic Palestine. We celebrate what legally speaking should have been accomplished already long time ago: the Palestinian right of self-determination, the Palestinian independence of Israeli colonial domination, the Palestinian right to peaceful assembly, the Palestinian right to freedom of expression. We celebrate these unfulfilled rights that put a shame on the whole international community and that make hollow the whole international and human rights framework.

In the whole occupied territory as well as internationally different actions remember the ongoing Nakba. In Bethlehem a train travelled the road from Dheisheh Camp to Aida Camp. This train pulled wagons that carried the names of the villages from where Palestinians now living in the camps were expelled. Lots of pedestrians accompanied the vehicle, chanting, singing, waving flags. The train stopped at Bab Zkak, a main crossroad in Bethlehem, where the Nakba statement was proclaimed. People greeted each other, national and international media covered the event, journalists and reporters witnessed how peaceful Palestinian gathering and expression of opinion was exercised. The train, the people, the chanting and singing, the flags and the banners amount to subvert the process of socialization of occupation.

Then on it went, towards Aida Camp. When just halfway the straight road to Aida Camp, we heard the first ‘plops’ of gas canisters being fired from the Israeli tower that oversees Aida Camp and its surroundings. People started running back because of the gas. The train kept its track.

A little fire broke out in the garden of the building next to the intercontinental hotel, and an Israeli sniper was located in one of the restaurants on the other side of the street. The Bethlehem fire brigade came and extinguished the fire.

The train managed to return from the Israeli tower and pursued its trajectory into Aida Camp, where it was greeted with more Israeli gas.

Once again we see Israeli suppression in action: gas and snipers in response of Palestinian peaceful assembly and expression of opinion.

Once again we see the importance of the celebration of what should be possible: a train from Al-Khadr to Al-Quds. In a liberated Palestine, in a time and place where existing international and human rights law are observed. Palestinians have had enough of the ongoing Nakba, the ongoing catastrophe of forced displacement and suppression.

#EnoughNakba

 

[1] http://www.badil.org/en/publication/press-releases/77-2016/4586-pr-en-120516-22.html

[2] UN General Assembly, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 10 December 1948, 217 A (III); UN General Assembly, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 16 December 1966, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 999, p. 171.

[3] Giroux, H.A. (1988). Teachers as intellectuals. South Hadley, p. 162, MA: Bergin Garvey; Giroux, H.A. (1983). Theory and Resistance in education. South Hadley, p. 142, MA: Bergin Garvey.

How (not) to speak on resistance and steadfastness – Palestine.

As Rangitsch (2007) reminds us of: the ongoing Palestinian struggle in resistance and steadfastness constitutes a foundational layer of Palestinian national identity – taking the place of the nation state, which propagates national identity in cases other than the Palestinian one.[1] In order to get a better understanding of the meaning of resistance and resilience, I explore the delineation of concepts.

Resistance (muqawama) can be defined with Giroux as a “personal ‘space’, in which the logic and force of domination is contested by the power of subjective agency to subvert the process of socialization.“[2] The power of resistance is its celebration, “not of what is but of what could be“,[3] and the energy it mobilizes for social change.[4]

“Resilience” or “steadfastness“[5] (sumud) is often directly linked to the Palestinian struggle of decolonization and de-occupation, as a main trait of it. Sometimes understood as creative actions of resisting suppression[6], sometimes referring to simply “being”, persevering, resisting by not fleeing the state, this concept is broadly understood to not contain armed violence. A concise attempted definition of steadfastness can be found in Jamal’s (2005) analysis of Palestinian steadfastness as a political strategy.[7] Jamal describes how steadfastness as a Palestinian political strategy for confronting Israeli policies in the occupied territory took a high flight as soon as in the Palestinian National Committee (thirteenth PNC session) the aim of establishing a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza crystalized. Aiming “to protect the main characteristics of Palestinian existence in the occupied homeland and its national identity in its political, economic, cultural, psychological and ideological forms“, the concept of steadfastness did not refer to mere passive retention of the land and continued presence on it.[8] Steadfastness thus encompasses “the protection of the Palestinian entity in all its aspects on the national soil” – which might refer to active policies of preserving the Palestinian identity in school curricula,[9] ensuring equal access to education,[10] contesting Israeli appropriation of traditional Palestinian food,[11] organizing social and business events from within the Palestinian community without non-Palestinian funding.[12]

Distinction between “resistance” and “resilience” as the former being something active and the latter having a passive character thus falls short of covering the content of these intertwined concepts.

The active – passive scale heralds how definition and delineation of “resistance” and “steadfastness” is a balancing act on the tightrope of substantive sincerity and terminological feasibility. Existing frameworks and definitions need to be critically scrutinized in order for them to keep up with the reality they refer too. In pursuing this however, it is important not to lose out of sight the practical realities that a rights-based approach brings with it in terms of current popular terminology and legally fixed definitions.

Speaking of “steadfastness” as an independent concept apart from “resistance” annihilates every analytical perspective. Positioning “steadfastness” as a form of “resistance” then again draws the ration skew and serves nothing but oversimplification. Working with existing legal frameworks, academic records, top down and bottom up analytics, makes it inevitable to cling to terminological restrictions of the kind of “armed” (or “violent”) versus “unarmed” (or “civil”) resistance. This by times defunct terminological classification however, should not affect a clear and informed substantive apprehension of “resistance” on the one hand and “steadfastness” on the other hand – as well as an understanding of the nature of the relation between the two. I therefor take a step back in order to create some necessary space for conspectus.

I discern “resistance” (muqawama), the contestation of domination by the power of subjective agency, as an instrument of politics of resistance – while “steadfastness” (sumud) is a means of politics of survival. Both resistance and steadfastness are thus instruments, means, by which goals of perseverance are pursued. It is safe to say that ultimately, politics of resistance are in function of politics of survival – in that resistance to dominant policies aims at the survival of a people, at the preservation of a nation.

 

Politics of resistance   Resistance – muqawama

Politics of survival   Steadfastness – sumud

 

This distinction on the level of politics allows to tell apart resistance from steadfastness as to their immediate goals, without losing out of sight the consistency of the concepts. This inclusive frame functions as a lens through which separate operations and activities can be understood – be they labeled as civil, armed, non-violent, violent, popular or institutional resistance – and regardless of who is carrying out the acts of de-adherence to colonial dominance.

With this conceptual framework being meaningful for the sake of substantive sincerity, terminological feasibility demands the utilization of current terminology in its broadest acceptable meaning. In prevailing literature a distinction is made between “civil resistance” (non-violent resistance) and “armed resistance” (violent resistance). Without adhering to this distinction, adaptation of this terminology is functional when exploring the existing legal framework regarding resistance and resilience / steadfastness.

[1] Rangitsch, S. (2007). Tracing Symbolic Discourses of Steadfastness and Resilience: Collective Memory, Social Practice and Palestinian (Trans)Nationalism. Thesis submitted to Central European University Nationalism Studies Program. Master of Arts. Advisor: Rabinowitz. Budapest, Hungary. p. 15.

[2]  Giroux, H. A. (1988). Teachers as intellectuals. South Hadley, p. 162, MA: Bergin Garvey.

[3] Giroux, H. A. (1983). Theory and resistance in education. South Hadley, p. 142, MA: Bergin Garvey.

[4] Sleeter, E. C. (1989). “Multicultural Education As A Form of Resistance to Oppression.” The Journal of Education, Vol. 171, No. 3, 59.

[5]  “Resilience” and “steadfastness” will be used redeemable.

[6] https://www.opendemocracy.net/civilresistance/katherine-hughesfraitekh/nonviolent-resistance-in-palestine-steadfastness-creativity-and-hope (Accessed March, 4, 2016).

[7] Jamal, A. (2005). The Palestinian National Movement: Politics of Contention, 1967-2005. Indiana: Indiana University Press. p. 62.

[8] Jamal, A. (2005). The Palestinian National Movement: Politics of Contention, 1967-2005. Indiana: Indiana University Press. p. 62.

[9] Kestler-D’Amours, J. (2011). “Forced Israeli curriculum violates Palestinian’s education rights.” Electronic Intifada, 17 October 2011, available at: https://electronicintifada.net/content/forced-israeli-curriculum-violates-palestinians-education-rights/10497 [Accessed 5 April 2016]; Barghouti, S. (2009). “Palestinian History and Identity in Israeli Schools.” Available at: http://www.badil.org/en/component/k2/item/1265-palestinian-history-and-identity-in-israeli-schools.html [Accessed 5 April 2016].

[10] Kestler-D’Amours, J. (2011). “Forced Israeli curriculum violates Palestinian’s education rights.” Electronic Intifada, 17 October 2011, available at: https://electronicintifada.net/content/forced-israeli-curriculum-violates-palestinians-education-rights/10497 [Accessed 5 April 2016].

[11] White, B. (2015). “Israel’s obsession with hummus is about more than stealing Palestine’s food.” The National, 23 May 2015, available at: http://www.thenational.ae/opinion/comment/israels-obsession-with-hummus-is-about-more-than-stealing-palestines-food [Accessed 5 April 2016]; Abunimah, A. (2015). “Why Sahlab (and Hummus) still aren’t Israeli.” Electronic Intifada, 6 February 2015, available at: https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/why-sahlab-and-hummus-still-arent-israeli [Accessed 5 April 2015].

[12]  Conversation with Jawwad N. from Al-Khalil, on 27 March 2016.

Biblio

Giroux, H. A. (1988). Teachers as intellectuals. South Hadley, MA: Bergin Garvey.

Giroux, H. A. (1983). Theory and resistance in education. South Hadley, MA: Bergin Garvey.

Jamal, A. (2005). The Palestinian National Movement: Politics of Contention, 1967-2005. Indiana: Indiana University Press. p. 62-… .

Rangitsch, S. (2007). Tracing Symbolic Discourses of Steadfastness and Resilience: Collective Memory, Social Practice and Palestinian (Trans)Nationalism. Thesis submitted to Central European University Nationalism Studies Program. Master of Arts. Advisor: Rabinowitz. Budapest, Hungary.

Sleeter, E. C. (1989). “Multicultural Education As A Form of Resistance to Oppression.” The Journal of Education, Vol. 171, No. 3, 51-71.

تحياتي من فلسطين II

Friday, January 8, 2016.
I am sitting on my bed in my room in Aida Camp, listening to the ever-lasting sound of a generator downstairs in the hallway, and the howling of the wind outside. As I overthink this first week in Bethlehem, I smile when I realize how already after this short time I now am happy so much faster. When I obtained a bucket for mixing cold water from the tap with boiling water from the cooker in order to not shower with only cold, I was so excited! When I managed to find the source of the flood in my room and self-handedly stop the cause of it, I felt so grown-up. And when I for the first time felt warm water coming out of the tap I was so grateful. When electricity is out, and light comes only from candles, the cosy atmosphere adds to this mélange of gratitude, appreciation practical thinking (“what is the first thing I need to do when electricity is back – probably wash my hair quickly so I can use the hair dryer.. Or cooking water for some tea..”).

Minor practical challenges have the perk of confirming your self-estimation in coping with the surrounding reality. Friends and colleagues that are like family warm your heart and make you feel at home. Delicious food, chatting, watching movies, laughing and discussing important things in life make you whole as a social, interactive being. Reporting on daily adventures to the home people builds this bond that somehow takes more effort when hidden between washing, cooking, shopping, working back home. The slightly disappointing feeling that one does not yet master the language at a certain level, is compensated by the enthusiasm of people cheering you on by saying that quickly you will be speaking better than they do. And the call to prayer brings an elegant rhythm in the sequence of day and night.
Yet, when the two year old Omar points out the car window saying “dzjeesj, dzjeesj” (“soldiers, soldiers”) as we pass some youths in the street, when the little boy reaches for my bag and asks whether there is a gun in it, when a girl tells me about the arrest of her husband just two weeks after their marriage, and when a friend tells me how he is afraid every time he leaves the house to go to work, it opens my eyes. It opens my eyes for a reality that I cannot, by no means, never ever, relate to in a practical, confirmative, hands on manner.
When Abu Brahim, an inhabitant of Aida, explains that he has no work since 2013 because of Israel revoking his work permit, and his son needing an operation to fix his knee, the harsh reality breaks through the image of a happy family in a cosy, colourful little room. He tells me, and ask me a few times whether I understand this, that “bikaffi”, enough. That we have had enough. That people are fighting each other, are thinking only about money, about themselves. That people have phones, computers, and go to the moon. Everybody can nowadays go to the moon (here I think he might be a little faster than reality), and in Berlin, Germany they have a wall but they are breaking it down (on this account he is slightly later than history itself). But he conveys his point with the conviction and enthusiasm of someone talking on general, universal principles. The new generation, he says, needs a clean start. No war. Muslims, Christians and Jews, we are all people. No war. And the conversation goes on about the lack of thankfulness people express towards God. About how people forget to care for their relation with God. And about how strong the older generations were. His father for example eats bread and olive oil for breakfast and does not eat the unhealthy food from restaurants. If his dad would fall down from a height of 100 meters, he would just un-dust himself, stand up and walk away. Nothing like the kids today who live on chips and biscuits. When kids nowadays hurt their finger they need to go to the hospital. They are such crybabies. Abu Brahim’s thoughts about the future and past generation make me wonder what he thinks about his generation. And I do not have to wait long before I hear him say that “for me, it is too late – I do not want anything anymore.”
Then Em Brahim brings me more tea, popcorn and she switches the tv to a song program, explaining to me that when children as young as 7 or 8 years old participate in the program, she always gets tears in her eyes because she finds them so cute.

The rapid switch from one reality to an other, from talking about life in a giant cage (as Abu Brahim talks about the West Bank) to rejoicing over a tv program, illustrates how different layers of realities are lived at the same moment – as is ever the case, but here it always strikes me harder than anywhere else. There is this paradox between coping with small daily life calamities (as I tried to explain at the beginning of this post), and the bigger, harsher, deeply unjust reality of occupation. When at work I read about how Israel controls every aspect of the life here, I just want to cry. Every aspect. With whom you can marry, where you are allowed to live, whether your ill children can have medical treatment or not. Whether you can go to a wedding, a funeral, or simply visit friends. My heart trembles every time I realize how far reaching the occupation impacts on the lives here. Every time I close the door behind me and go out, I know that from their towers in the surrounding wall, soldiers look at my every step. And I am wearing colourful clothes (as always) – more than once I wish that I was as grey as the street on which I which I was walking.
Constantly having to deal with all layers of impressions at once – happiness, sadness, relief, uneasiness – tires me a lot. As if I go through every possible emotion, continuously, without filters, all the time. And this is only on a personal emotional level. I can only imagine how tired people here are from this whole occupation. Bikaffi. Challas. Enough. Ya rabb.

تحياتي من فلسطين ١

Greetings from Palestine – part 1

Asalamou aleykoum!

Since my stay in Bethlehem took a start yesterday, January 1st of 2016, I use this page to update friends and family on what I experience here. The idea was to create a whole new blog separately from this one, but practically just making a series of “greetings from Palestine” is more obtainable (with internet on and off and creating a new page requires longer periods of Internet being ‘on’).

In this first part I just mention some impressions of my arrival – clinging to the classical style of “traveller’s blog”. I hope to lose this format quickly and to find a more inspired, creative way but for now.. Enjoy reading!

January 1, 2016

Following a smooth journey from Brussel to Rome and from Rome to Ben Gurion, obtaining a 3 months stay permit, and right away finding a service to Al Quds, it finally came to me that really, really, I was going to live in Bethlehem. For half a year. Having lived here for a shorter period before, I started recognizing streets, places, smells and sounds. However, all has a new filter on it – as if I am looking through a different lense.
Since my last visit I am now no longer a student, a lot has happened in my life in a very short time, and – alhamdullillah – my heart has changed.

The only factor that remained the same, is the amount of luggage I brought with me – meaning that I have only the very bare minimum of everything (if even..), which will be a challenge. First thing I noticed was that eliminating all warm things from my garderobe might not have been such a great decision: there was a hail storm earlier today (!) and the night is COLD.

The service driver offered to bring me all the way to Bethlehem checkpoint, which I gratefully accepted since I doubted whether on a Friday later than 7pm bus 21 to Bethlehem would still be going. So although the driver told me he had never been there, I kind of sympathized with him because of this nice gesture. I was sharing the service with a young American girl who was au-pairing an Americam family in West Jerusalem for five months, a kibutz family (we dropped them off there), and a young guy with a short beard and rusty coloured hair. He loudly talked with the driver in Hebrew most of the time, but sometimes we were invited to take part or to listen and then they switched to English. The bearded one explained that he needed to have a permit to carry a beard, since he was serving in the army. Then the two went on explaining to us that they are some kind of ‘competitors’ to each other, since they both serve in competing elite troops of the Israeli army. The driver is with the ‘Golani’, which is explained to us as military police, and the bearded one is with the ‘stormtroopers’. Proudly they explain that these are the best of the best of Israeli army and that the only difference is that the Golani have the order to first think and then shoot, and that the stormtroopers have to first shoot and then think.

The rest of their conversation can be summed up by the words drinking and partying. I felt a little bit sick of the mix of dark warm car + war + hollow talks.

We dropped the bearded off at a house full with soldiers, of which a group stood on the street before the door. It could have been the scene of a thriller movie: dark small alley, barely lightened by the lamp above the door, five or six dangerously looking men with shawls covering half of their faces and automatic guns loosely hanging over their shoulders, smoking cigarettes and having fun (but without jokes on their faces inspecting the inside of the car though).

Then on we went, to the Bethlehem checkpoint, because miss America agreed to dropping me off first – for which I was happy. The driver kept on rambling something about Rachel’s grave, comparing Bethlehem and Jerusalem, his vacation on Thailand, and some pills you supposedly have to take when taking an airplane which put you in a deep sleep.

When approaching the checkpoint I recognized the entrance where once – it seems so long ago although it is only 6 months earlier – I walked desorientated on my own in the middle of the night.
I unloaded my luggage (now happy for the weight restrictions) and attempted to walk towards the checkpoint. Quickly I heard the well known “taxi taxi”. I explained to the young men – searching deep in my tired mind for Arabic words and grammar – that I wanted to walk through the checkpoint, at the same time asking him whether this was possible. “La msakkar”, no, closed he replied. I doubt whether it was really closed, but I was so tired, and I was eager to discover how well I could do explaining things in Arabic. So after firmly telling him I would NOT pay 30 shekel for just going to Aida (which is very very close to the checkpoint), I took a seat. I was pleasantly surprised how easy it was to keep the conversation going – without English!

If we would bump into police I had to say that we are friends, not that he was a taxi (yes, I thought so already when seeing his car).

The directions I had was to go close to the door of Aida camp, and then call the person from whom I rent the room. It appeared however, that all streets are “gamb il-bab” (close to the entrance). And my watanya sim card was out of duty. And every number of friends that I had in my phone was out of order as well. And everything was closing since it was Friday late evening. The friendly young man drove and drove and drove me around, asking me whether I remember some places, asking in shops whether they know the place where I need to go, whether maybe I have a place to go to spend this night and then go looking for my address tomorrow. Between all this he explained how there were a lot of problems near Aida, and in Aida, and I was starting to feel so sick out of lack of sleep, long plain travel, lack of eating and drinking, the car going uphill and downhill in narrow dark streets. At a certain moment he stopped to buy me some water, asked whether we need to see a doctor. Whether I need food. Which made me even more helpless since I did not know who to call or where to go. I must have looked as miserable as I felt because he ensured me that there is no problem, that he will not just drop me off on the street, that he will drive me around until we find a place for me. Alhamdullillah. I asked him to go to bet salam, although I did not remember the name of the street, and also my friends there were not picking up their phone. After asking around and going in the right direction, I recongized the place called “Dreams” and I swear, “Wadi Ma’ali” is a street name I will never ever forget again.

I rang the door of Abu Samuel and Em Samuel like one who is sinking and clamps onto some wood driving in a stormy see. Abu Samuel opened the door. Yes he remembered me, yes I could stay. After paying for one night, the first thing he wanted me to do was posing with the Christmas tree to take a picture. I was beyond tired. During the whole day I had only had like 3 bites of a sandwich (the whole thing was only as big as three bites). In the rest of the airplane food there was simsim mentioned in the ingredients, and I did not want to take the risk chocking myself while my epi-pen was far away from me, in the separate luggage. Abu and Em Samuel welcomed me with tea and chocolate and rice and conversation. Of which I only consumed the tea because paradoxically I was too hungry to eat (never experienced this before). And the conversation was very poorly from my side – hardly being able to gather my thoughts while being immersed with a feeling of relief that I found somewhere to stay.

Tired, cold, grateful, I went to bed. After briefly informing my mom. From time to time I woke up because of feeling so cold. But I smiled in my sleep because of the dogs I heard barking in the streets, such a familiar sound, leading me back to so many memories lived here in this very place earlier. I smiled because of the friendly people I met. I smiled because of Em Samuel telling me “You love Bethlehem and Bethlehem loves you.” Ya rab. That is so true. I love Bethlehem.