Weapons don’t choose sides. They serve the crazy in the head of the holder.

Some time ago I guided a Palestinian through Antwerp. Close to the Central Station his surprised face directed my attention to the armed military men wandering around in the quarter. More recently I showed Antwerp to an American. And again I was asked about the presence of the military.

If there are two peoples who are used to see heavy weapons on the street and on a daily basis – then these. I myself saw in Palestine the settlers who swing there automated guns over their shoulders with an air of nonchalance. I saw the very young Israeli soldiers with M16s that looked more solid than they boys and girls carrying them. With the American I conducted a conversation about the reason for the omnipresence of weapons among civilians. He explained to me that this goes back to the right of civilians to protect themselves against a regime that tends to get authoritarian. Along with that he explained the fact that the heavily armed policemen are being mistrusted by everybody, because of their brutal, racist and random use of violence. Deadly violence in too many cases.

And then there is you, mayor of Antwerp. You feel the need to say something (this is often the case). That the police in Antwerp needs to operate with war weapons. .300 Whisper to be precise. Bullets that are 7cm long. These are assault weapons. In a city. Full with civilians, with children. Of course there is no permission from the minister of interior. This permission is legally required before arming the police in this fashion (art. 10 Royal Decree on the Law on Extraordinary Armament). But you seem to hold the opinion that you are above the law. And you are right.

And you are right. You do not need rules, all you need is money: 80.000 euro for the weapons and 85.000 euro for ammunition (http://solidair.org/artikels/antwerpen-koopt-oorlogswapens-aan-zonder-machtiging-van-de-minister). So then you simply ask your city council to approve this extraordinary armament. And, now it comes, this city council agrees with you (three parties voted against). So you now ignore the balance of powers (maybe the reasoning goes like this: “Separation of powers? Nah. I speak loud and scatter around Latin clichés, that makes the legislative and executive power unite in me”). And nobody is able or willing to stop you. This is one clear example of how democracy is the least of bad state forms (Plato). Still bad though. Without attentive guards the whole democratic apparatus turns into the opposite of its purpose.

So, then. Antwerp is turning into the city where citizens have to mistrust their mayor and his council. So maybe we will follow the example of the American civilians then? Let’s arm ourselves in case the government turns authoritarian. And with the current display of annihilation of legal principles, this is not a far-from-my-bed scenario. It moreover looks like the government is one step ahead of the civilians – they already have war weapons now. For assault and killing, from a distance over 900 meter. So quickly let us now apprehend to take distance from and to disgust the police (yes, in a faraway past we handed over our right to use force to them, but never mind). Because really, in Antwerp, shooting with 7 cm bullets? How many terrorists are going to be killed by this? And how many children? How many women and men? Weapons don’t choose sides. They serve the crazy in the head of the holder.

Yesterday a girl of 17 years young was shot in Hebron. She was passing a checkpoint, and after being shot down she bled to death. I know her father.

Bart De Wever please open your eyes. See what happens when more weapons are present. I will help you: more weapons do not equal more peace. And also: “in what world are you living”? Please don’t infect our world with it.

Not my Belgium, not my Europe.

Fragments of the poem come from “The Celebration” from Ghayath Almadhoun, as translated by Catherine Cobham.

As I recently learned in a poem (for an excerpt of the poem on video: http://movingpoems.com/2014/06/the-celebration-by-ghayath-almadhoun/) by Ghayath Almadhoun, a Palestinian-Syrian refugee who lives in Sweden, “…the problem with war is not those who die, but those who remain alive after the war.” In the poem this sentence relates to a background of reflection on war, peace, immigration, international policies and political atmosphere, and the understanding of it calls upon the reader’s interpretation skills – as is not uncommon with poetry.

This phrase popped up in my mind when yesterday a Belgian right-wing politician declared (http://deredactie.be/cm/vrtnieuws/politiek/1.2424751) his solution to the European refugee crisis to be the strenghtening of the controll at the outer borders of the EU. In one sentence he thereby described migration of refugees as “migration of criminals and terrorrists”. And this indeed is nothing more than one of those gratuit populists hollow phrases, nothing that normally would draw my attention enough to consider it – were it not that this statement comes from the leader of a flemish majority political party (how the flemish people could ever have let this happen still startles me, but this is material for another post). His popular position and easy-listening statements are applauded by a considerable part of flemish voters. And this is what concerns me. That the poor man himself is not capable of making the distinction between refugees and criminals, and that he lacks the insight to actually take on his role in responsibly contributing to providing basic human rights to refugees, as is stipulated in the Convention of Genève, the EU regulations and in the Belgian Constitution, is one thing. This only indicates the man’s incapability as a politician. But the reach of his words is of concern.

What will be the effect on people who are positively minded towards this kind of politics? Those people might actually be infected with populist statements like these. As the major of the city of Antwerp for example, the poor politician mentioned that the fact that now 6 out of 10 babies that are born in the city do not have dutch language as their mother tongue will be problematic for the provision of education and employment. While this statement does say more about how this little man is (not) suited for the position of major of Antwerp – a city with the second biggest port of the EU, that was built on international trade and till today is a multicultural merging centre where the various languages one hears in the streets give it a blask of metropolity, an echo of the successful trade city it once was – I can immediately list up at least 10 friends of mine who will enthusiastically endorse his vision. And these are not bad people (that is why I consider them my friends). These are people who love populist phrases, who do not stumble upon a faulty construction from cause to effect. And when these persons are so easily captivated by speeches of the little politician, I fear the effect on more right-wing voters, on the flemish masses.
If Belgium turns into a country (or, when the poor man gets his foot down and we split into a tiny micro-state of “Flandria” or something alike) where recognised refugees are excempted from the social system (another idea of our poor man), a country of which the inhabitants close hearts and minds for people fleeing war and death, a country of which the minstries of education and employment perceive the fact of not speaking dutch as a mother tongue as a major difficulty, then I say that this is not my Belgium. And I know many Belgians will say the same (prove of this consists in the many reactions on social media and from political parties on the above discussed hollow phrases). And I hope this critical mass will grow, will influence closed minds and open them into contesting politicians who take very lightly human rights, Constitutions, and EU regulations. Because in the end we are the democracy. We are the people. We are the values that we want to rule our society. My believe in Belgians is not lowered to the point that I deem it impossinble to refrain poor little men like our politician in this case from closing our country and ripping it off from civilization and human rights.

As mrs. Claudia Bonamini, co-worker on policy and protection at Flanders Refugee Action (“Vluchtelingenwerk Vlaanderen”) earlier this year explained to me in an interview on the topic of European policy on the Syrian refugee crisis (Brussel, 1 april 2015): Belgium does play a role in determining EU policy on refugees. It is too easy to restrict this role by referring to the small scale and absorption rate. Our little country has to shake the conference tables at EU level and wake up representatives of all member states, to get some focus on the needed equally and proportional responsibility of member states concerning absorption of refugees. From all sides indicators show that there is some serious work to do.

This brings me to another concern, namely Hungary and its fence. Hungary building the fence between itself and Serbia is one sad example of how immigration policy can take a dark turn. A turn that totally must be contested and disapproved of when taking into account Hungary’s past. Some 60 years ago a revolution in this very country set the scene for a major refugee-outflux. As mentioned in “Refugees Magazine” (October 2006, Issue 144: “Where Are They Now? The Hungarian Refugees, 50 Years on”):

“Within days of the exodus starting, an extraordinary operation sprang up in Austria, not only to care for the refugees, but to move them out of the country almost as fast as they arrived. In the end, 180,000 were resettled from Austria and Yugoslavia to a total of 37 different countries – the first 100,000 of them in under ten weeks. The performance of the Austrians, the aid agencies and the resettlement countries was truly remarkable.”

And we need not to forget that still now bitterness is felt by Hungarians who lived the exodus, for European countries not sending any help against Soviet tanks, however urgent the radio transfers asked for this. A truth of which I became aware from listening to my grandparents during scarce moments of information sharing on this topic.
The latter even more begs the question how, and why, Hungarians now vote so nationalistically. How is it possible that in the EU individual member states are able to pursue a policiy that so blatantly negates every EU-regulation, every lesson that could have been learned about walls and fences? Do we really explicitly have to refresh our collective memories when it comes to the Berlin wall, the South African separation wall, the Australian “rabbit proof” fence, the Israeli apartheid wall? Yes, I do feel obliged to write down what every educated mind takes for general knowledge. Since I am startled, blown away by the reality of the world in which we live. Apparently people do not learn from the past or even the ongoing problems (like in the case of the Israeli wall), and if this is not the right deduction, then at least it is true to state that people who attain governing posts tend to be uneducated. At least in Hungary (and other countries as well, since right-wing nationalists are progressing everywhere in Europe, as described in one of my older posts). And when European values do only live behind closed doors of EU tops in fancy buildings, and become meaningless and void in the policy of individual member states, then I reassure you that this is not my Europe.

And with me critical EU-citizens are of the same conviction. Proof can be found in grassroot initiatives like the numerous calls on social media for support (food, clothes, medicine) for refugees in Calais, in the call of Caritas and the Belgian bishops for making available more housing for immigrants (http://deredactie.be/cm/vrtnieuws/binnenland/1.2419671), in successful private initiatives (the flemish organization Refugee Action made this handy list of possibilities for individuals to take part in actively contributing to solve the crisis: http://www.vluchtelingenwerk.be/nieuws/welke-hulp-kan-ik-bieden). And these are only the stories that make the news – numerous other acts of people taking on responsibility in the light of human right conventions, constiutions and EU regulations (despite being governed by louzy governments) are dignifying the European civilization. This clearly shows that together with me, masses of people say no to a Europe where thousands of refugees find death in the Mediterranian Sea, where fences are built to stop people from coming in, where your mother tongue determines your chances in education and employment, and where people suffocate in trucks on the side of the road (http://nos.nl/artikel/2054307-tientallen-vluchtelingen-dood-in-vrachtwagen-oostenrijk.html).

This indicates that now is not the time for dispair or silent bitterness. When political figures start to dish out hollow phrases that are not based on any evidence, concerning such important matters like human rights and treatment of refugees, the task rests upon the people – on you and me to stand up for our values. To prevent Belgium and Europe to turn into something unrecognasible, some giant filled up with air rambling about Conventions, Genève, humans and rights, Constitutions, membership, coordination and unity, laughing in the face of those who call upon those core values.
It is on the people to disobey the call of poor small politicians like this Belgian one, who urge for people to become close minded, nationally-oriented, anti-European. It rests upon us to prevent a scene as described in Ghayath Almadhoun’s poem to become the not-lyrical and not poetical truth.

“(…) leave behind Rumi, Averroes and Hegel, and bring along Machiavelli and Huntington and Fukuyama, for we need them now,
leave behind you’re your laughter, your blue shirt and warm bed, and bring your teeth and nails and hunting knife, and come.
Throw away the Renaissance and bring on the inquisition,
Throw away European civilization and bring on the Kristallnacht,
Throw away socialism and bring on Joseph Stalin,
Throw away Rimbaud’s poems and bring on the slave trade,
Throw away Michel Foucault and bring on the Aids virus,
Throw away Heidegger’s philosophy and bring on the purity of the Aryan race,
Thow away Heminway’s sun that also rises and bring on the bullet in the head,
Throw away Van Gogh’s starry sky and bring on the severed ear,
Throw away Picasso’s Guernica and bring on the real Guernica with its smell of fresh blood,
We need these things now, we need them to begin the celebration.”

Future du monde arabe à point, avec des dimplomats prudents en une sauce libérale et démocrate.

Tuesday the 30th of June a public debate took place in Brussels, on the topic of the Arab Spring / Revolution and visions on the future of Arab countries. The panel members were Mahmoud Jibril, former Libyan prime minister of the transition government, and now president of the national forces alliance; Awn Khasawneh, former Jordanian prime minister; Naguib Sawiris, Egyptian businessman and leader of the Free Egyptians Party; Ahmad Hariri, Lebanese president of the Future Movement; Fawaz Tello, prominent Syrian opposition member against the Syrian regime; Guy Vehofstadt, former Belgian prime minister and president of the alliance of liberals and democrats for Europe; and Johannes Cornelis Van Baalen, politician in the Netherlands and part of the ALDE. Koert Debeuf (political analyst on the Arab world and former representative of ALDE to the Arab world) introduced the speakers, and Isabelle Durant was the mediator.

Yassine Brahim, Tunisian minister and leader of Afek Tounes was excused from his foreseen participation in the debate, and Guy Verhofstadt arrived only in the second half due to traffic jam or obligations at the EU level (both explanations were provided).

The event took the form of Durant introducing topics and inviting panel members to share their vision, and during the debate the public posted life questions on the tweet wall (#askarableaders). Some of those question then posed by Durant. Apart from that, four times in the total of two hours of debating, the public was allowed to ask direct questions via a microphone.

http://www.spinelligroup.eu/tweets-raw

The format thus was one of structured participation, which worked well – thanks also to the skills of the mediator (who firmly silenced a shouting man in the public with the words “you can disagree of course sir, but keep quite, shhhh”) and thanks to the friendly (somewhat mellow?) atmosphere of the debate itself.

Debeuf opened the evening with his (I refer to his lecture at Ghent University earlier this academic year) comparison of the Arab revolution with the French Revolution. Stating that the similarity lays in the fact that in both revolutions social changes happened on the ground, he concluded his intro with the famous Churchill quote about beginnings and endings.

In what follows I display some of the more remarkable quotes of the panel members, in the hope to transmit those aspects of the evening that make it into the long term memory.

Talking on the nature of the Arab Revolution (“spring is a season and we know it is due to come again and again”) Khasawneh stressed the importance of not focusing on single causes for what is happening, but to “take into account that the Islamic World has been hurt and wounded and humiliated since 1918” and “that material modernization cannot deal with this wound in the human soul.” He concluded with making clear that he is not a supporter of interference from the international community in what is happening now.

Jibril centered his thoughts mainly around the irreversible alliance between technology and capital which effects in money making more money (instead of food).

Tello shortly talked about the new Syrian generation and Daesh (specific questions Durant asked him), but then took the time to speak on a point of importance to him, namely “that the whole world should ask itself a question whether it applied the right approach to what was happening in the Arab World”. He exemplified his rhetorical question with the current Syrian refugee crisis and even compared Syria to Christ on the cross, paying the price for the past and the future all at once. In his expose one almost could feel the bitterness of him residing in prison for 8 years, just for opposing the regime.

Hariri posited that any solution will only come through dialogue and that Lebanon can learn from European history (referring to re-organization after World War II).

Then a man took the word, doubtfully introduced as “Van Baalen” or a name that resembled this (his name was neither in the announcement mail). From what he said one could make up that he was representing the EU or the UN, but it was not clear which one. He made general remarks on the fact that “we” are neighbors and that what happens in the Arab region also influences “us” (this made me think he was from the EU).

His next topic was that some countries are doing well to reasonably well, like Egypt, Jordan and Morocco, and that “we” should work with these states. About countries in deeper trouble, like Syria and Libya, the man said that “we” and Putin (somewhat shouting the name) did not do enough. Partly out of annoyance of not knowing who exactly was speaking, his vision made a slightly populist and hollow impression on me – as if he was speaking in slogans or newspaper titles in order to stay very general and at the same time to be liked by the public. And with what he continued to say he did not change this perception at all.

About refugees he said that “we” can provide money, infrastructure and doctors in the region, that “we” cannot provide the solution but that “we” can work closely together. And then his concluding remark closed the door of intellectual sympathy completely, when he out of the blue stated that “we should work with the moderate muslims”. Till this moment every panel member, when involving aspects of religion into ones speech, dealth with in an adult manner – framing in time and context or giving way to personal beliefs because of adhering to a certain religion.

Was I happy that I found out afterwards, that the “us” and “we” he was referring to, did not represent me. Van Baalen being a politician from the Netherlands and part of the Alliance for Liberals and Democrats in the EU, only geographically represents me (as being part of the EU), but his liberalist conviction excludes me from his fans both intellectually and ideologically. In hindsight then also his statements (the contradiction between “we” and “them”, the unwillingness to work on the refugee crisis by working out a viable strategy in the EU itself, the paternalistic style of shortly and general mentioning the flaws in EU practice and then spending a lot more time explaining how “we” can help the poor countries in crisis, and the innate fear of any kind of religion) made sense – knowing where he comes from.

Sawiris started with saying that the Arab Spring changed the dogma that you cannot get rid of a leader. Now every leader knows what could happen to him if the people are not happy with his way of governing. Then he went on – possibly instigated by the talk of Van Baalen earlier – stating that the West made the mess in Libya and Iraq so that they have to clean it up now. “You cannot say that since interfering the first time was a mistake, you now do not interfere at all when it comes to cleaning it up.”

The first question from the public was about the role of women. Jibril, Tello and Khasawneh quickly admitted that women play a very important role and that they suffer a lot from the chaos in the Arab World. Hariri came with a somewhat unexpected plea for civil marriage, saying that only with this institution women’s equality will be created from within the family context. Unexpected as this turn in argumentation was, it might not surprise us that it comes from a representative of Lebanon, where a tradition exists of each religious authority administering civil services to its own religious group.

Another public question was “pourquoi parler du futur du monde arabe sans parler d’histoire? Pourquoi pas parler d’Israel, qui a causé des problèmes majeures?” The public reacted by applauding this.

Then a Lebanese citizen took the word and asked about the elections in Lebanon that were supposed to take place two years ago, adding that in his opinion the whole Arab world puts everything on hold for security concern: democracy, the rule of law, an independent judiciary, human rights and so on.

As the debate went on, every panel member included a statement that Israel was a problem and that it should be addressed. Only Jibril talked about it in little more detail, explaining that a new strategic balance of power has been formed in the region. The United States shifted their attention from Israel into Asia since their two objectives are met (security if Israel and access to oil), and the power in the region now shifted to Israel.
The rest of the members just generally made a statement on the Israel issue as if to make a statement of loyalty.

When asked about the rule of law, it was Khasawneh who put things into some perspective when saying that “it is entirely possible to have rule of law without civil society” and that “rule of law is not the objective, it is a means to obtain the objective.” After that he reiterated his saddening remark that the Middle East since 1919 had knew the loss and death of tradition.

The questions from within the public that followed, were of the kind that might have brought some sparkle into the calm and steady debate (and it was in fact when reacting to these that a man in the public felt the need to shout out loudly his disagreement). There was a question about the roles of the EU and Saoudi Arabia feeding extremism; one direct question being “Why are Turkey, Saoudi Arabia and Qatar helping Daesh?“; and another one about new frames and tools for the future, regional cooperation, radicalization and the fight against terrorism.

Tello took off with stating that it is not true that Turkey, Saoudi Arabia and Qatar are supporting Daesh, and that this is just plain stereotyping. He went on saying that Daesh is part of the failure of the international community in Iraq and Syria, as well as a reaction on the history of discrimination between Sunni and Shia Muslims. He continued stating that the Iranian project in the area must be treated as roots of the problem.
This gave birth to some shouting in the public, one man needed to be hushed down by Durant.

Directly engaging with what Tello said (finally some dynamic in this whole evening), Sawiris did not agree. He stated that Saoudi Arabia did in fact finance all extremist groups and that one of them became Daesh. He went on sharply with saying that that Turkey – by watching people being slaughtered – does interfere, and that Yezidis and Kurds being murdered, is playing into the cards of this state.
Jibril led the debate back to the topic of the Arabs Spring by not engaging in the Daesh theme and instead posing that the Arab Spring was not the result of some conspiracy theory, but that it was an Arab made event. He says the resolutions of the people who actually started the Revolution are being stolen in front of their eyes, and he hopes the people will claim the revolution back.

Verhofstadt then built upon what Jibril was referring to, and said that we have to remember that Bouazizi’s body was covered in the red flag of Tunisia, and not in the green flag of Islam. He spurred the public not to forget what the Arab Spring is about: young, independent, angry people fighting to free their country. For the EU he mentioned three agenda points:
1) to be involved in Arab policy
2) to develop a genuine neighborhood policy and a plan with tools and funds
3) to take stock of what we did not do in the past
He added some playful self-critique saying that “we in the West are incredible: when people ask us not to interfere – like in Iran – we interfere; when people ask us to interfere – like in Syria and Libya – we do not interfere.” And he concluded his speech with the advice to support democrats and liberals.

On the concluding question about visions on building new leadership in the countries, Hariri stressed that election is the main way to new leadership. He also added that a war on modern Islam is going on and that Daesh people are not part of the religion. Jibril centered his answer around his opinion that Libya and North Africa will be very crucial in realizing peace in the Near East and that investing in Libya is just an investment in your own national security: “You intervene now, or everybody is gonna pay a heavy price.” Sawiris added that the youth needs to be empowered. Khasawneh said that Jordan has been spared of the worst effects of the Arab Spring and also that he thinks changes are taking place more on paper than in reality. In order to prevent the outbreak of a new Arab Spring he says the youth must be acknowledged in the important role it has to play, and that the means therefore is changing the election law.
Tello concluded the evening by saying that Syria used to have an unstable democracy, what was replaced by a stable dictatorship thanks to the help of the West and the United States. He is of the opinion that the EU should be a real partner, should fight with the Syrian army against Daesh and then also afterward can sit at the table to discuss the installment of a new leadership.

All in all the debate fulfilled my expectations in that it was rather diplomatic, without much though position taking going on, or dynamic reactions between the speakers – after all the speakers are / were holders of governmental posts. On the other hand some of the remarks made will surely serve as an inspiration to further engage in critically analyzing news that reaches us about Daesh, the role of Turkey, the role of the EU, the roots of the Arab Spring and the different viable visions on the future for Libya, Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon and Syria.

On a more practical note this event was a confirmation on how reality is shaped by our knowledge: both Van Baalen and Verhofstadt represent the same political ideology. It is only the fact that one of them was unknown to me, and I was not sure whether his discours did fit in any of my prepared grids of expected political opinions, that his lecture did undergo another perception than that of his colleague Verhofstadt.

Normalization as the outsourcing of the occupation – BDS as meaningful acts of contestation.

Main source: lecture of Omar Barghouti (co-founder of the BDS Campaign) at Birzeit University, April 2015.

Recently the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (‘BDS’) movement increasingly reaches the news and social platforms. The call for this campaign started back in 2005, from within the Palestinian civil society that asks (international) companies, organizations, states and citizens to boycott divest and sanction Israel until it complies with international law and Palestinian rights (http://www.bdsmovement.net/).

The BDS movement does not take a position on the political outcome of the conflict (one state – two state solution), but advocates a reaction of the international community that is equal to what happened back in time in reaction to apartheid in South Africa: international pressure effecting in isolation of the apartheid state in all fields. In maintaining this position BDS opposes any form of racism and anti-semitism. Sources of inspiration content Martin Luther King and Palestinian non-violent resistance; the bottom line sounds “self-determination is the basis for all other rights”. To this end, three principal rights are focal points: 1) to reverse the 1967 occupation, 2) to work against the Israeli system of racial discrimination, and 3) to advocate the return of refugees and to mediate reparation. The most important operational principle of the BDS campaign is context sensitivity.

Apartheid policies in the West Bank are expressed through different roads for Palestinian and Israeli citizens, different car plates, different ID’s, unequal access to water and unequal access to resources in general. Gaza on the other hand is an example of ultimate separation. And although not in the headlights of the campaign, also apartheid in Israel itself is taken into account. The more than 50 laws that discriminate against non-jewish Israeli’s, together with the fact that 93% of the land can only be accessed by jews, exemplify the systematic legal discrimination that takes place inside Israel.

Among supporters of the BDS campaign one finds Israeli partners as well, constituting the voice of conscientious Israeli’s. Most of the activists engage in so called ‘silent boycotts’ – which are equally crucial as the media-shown resignations of artists or divestments of big companies. In this regard we can list several banks, SodaStream, Veolia, G4S, and HP (providing the biometric systems in the checkpoints) as big entities that change future investment in order to lower their level of complicity, due to international pressure. SodaStream retreating from operating in occupied territory, and G4S (one of the most complicit companies in the occupation) not operating in prisons anymore starting 2017, are sings of success of the BDS campaign. Along with these big cases, equally important but maybe less heard of divestments take place, like for example the fact that recently Norway’s largest pension fund excluded Heidelberg Cement and Cemex (leading global suppliers of building materials) “on the grounds of their exploitation of natural resources in occupied territory on the West Bank” (https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/news/europe/19186-norwegian-pension-fund-divests-from-israeli-occupation).

The BDS strategy consists out of three consecutive steps. First of all, the focus is on the most complicit companies. Second, a cross-movements BDS coalition is built. Thirdly the possibility of success is being evaluated. This means that only campaigns that have a reasonable chance of success are being pursued – and a big part of a campaign’s success hides in its timing.

It is clear that the BDS campaign is having an economic impact. And that Israel starts to get seriously alarmed by this is not surprising. The increased state of alarm is amongst other things shown by the fact that the Israeli war against BDS is now no longer located within the ministry of foreign affairs, but is now seated in the ministry of strategic affairs. And the future is bound to increasingly expand support for the BDS campaign, since through academic awareness the new generation all over the world will be pro-BDS (even jewish students).

An argument that can be heard from the opposition to BDS, is that “they don’t support BDS because it can hurt Palestinians”. This one statement bears with it the monster load of colonialism that the Western world (un)consciously still allows to creep up its worldview. As in fact there is absolutely no need whatsoever for a grassroots Palestinian organization to listen to what a white European thinks is in their interest. Although broadly acknowledged that BDS speaks loud and clearly on the behalf of the Palestinian civil society – it are remarks like these that uncover the international communities’ logic of reasoning.

Looking into the international scene more attentively one can see that the United States can be perceived as the only empire nowadays, and it is this link with the empire makes Israel’s power. Any tension between the empire and Israel makes the last one very vulnerable. This shows the importance of BDS: imagine what would happen if the empire starts supporting BDS.

Other countries’ reaction to and involvement in BDS vary according to their political history. Holocaust countries are the most difficult to convince to BDS (Germany, France, Italy) because of their feelings of guilt, and because of the reparation payments. From all European states, Britain is the biggest supporter of BDS, while France is the most oppressive against it. Eastern European countries are not yet detectably involved in BDS – and this might have something to do with the fact that Eastern European civil societies are still in a developing phase. BDS needs civil society in order to be able to conquer public awareness. This is also why the campaign does not really work in authoritarian regimes like China or Russia.

If we leave Europe behind us, we see that South Africa (not surprisingly) is the absolute strongest base for BDS worldwide. And Evo Morales (Bolivia) is the first head of state that endorsed BDS (although it must be noted that Fidel Castro – Cuba – also signed a BDS declaration). This is a sign of how in Latin America support for BDS is increasing.

Apart from different reactions from country to country, we see stratification along the generational lines: younger people are in general more pro-BDS.

Now that the inspiration, strategies and international reaction regarding the BDS campaign have been briefly explained , I turn to a phenomenon that in my opinion spurred the BDS campaign from its early beginning. I am referring to an amalgam of policies and practices that give way to ‘normalization’ of the occupation. Ibrahim Nassar in 2013 (http://alternativenews.org/archive/index.php/blogs/other-comentators/7381-what-is-normalization) accurately described ‘normalization’ as follows:

“Normalization can be understood as a process by which normal relations are manufactured in a context of abnormal circumstances – thereby divorcing Israel from its own acts of aggression, occupation and racism, and treating it as a political entity that is somehow independent of its political actions.”

By portraying the status quo with all issues of use of force, occupation, settlement expansion and human right violations as a vague background that needs not to be taken into consideration when it comes to politics and economics (and is even totally disconnected from it), Palestinian rejection of Israeli practices of building normal relations are made to look like the sole factor responsible for the failure of the peace process.

Normalization allows Israel to continue the occupation while continuing to create normalised political and economic relations, as if those are totally disconnected to any context. The ‘business as usual’ approach supports the continuation of the occupation (by not contesting it) and gives any Palestinian struggle the label of being disruptive and not relevant.

Here Palestinian companies come into sight. At his lecture about BDS, Barghouti mentioned that one of the biggest problems consists out of the Palestinian Authority opening the door to Israel for Palestinian companies. This way, Palestinian companies till a certain degree normalize the relationship between occupied and occupant – since maintaining and increasing trade relations with the occupying force is in fact a normalizing practice.

In my own analysis of this reality I tend to make a clear distinction between ‘normalization’ as a descriptive tool and ‘normalization’ as a strategic tool. However true the remark that entering the Israeli trade market does contribute to accepting the status quo, I use ‘normalization’ on the Palestinian side in a purely descriptive manner. As various policies from both occupying force and weak Palestinian state leave no space but for coping strategies – that in the majority of cases stand for taking every chance to reach whatever market there is (Israel’s market having the most advantages economically speaking) – I understand this normalization as an aspect of dispossession.

The politically moulded dynamics, in which Palestinian entrepreneurs are almost compelled to commit acts of normalization, are aspects of the dispossession that the political economy of occupation pursues. In this way, strategic normalization coming from the occupying side is translated into normalizing practices on the occupied side. One could in this perspective define normalization as ‘Israel outsourcing the occupation’.

In this setting, BDS is the only campaign that can function to create awareness locally, regionally and internationally. With numerous examples of stopped investments and cancelled art performances, international cross-movement linkages, media attention and Israel’s growing concern about it, there is proof that BDS works. I am convinced that academic, consumer and cultural boycott, divestment and sanctions contribute effectively to not taking the status quo for granted and to critically engage in the transformation of theoretical objections into meaningful acts of contestation.

Why we need more immigration

Sources:

– Wimmer, A. & Glick Schiller, N. “Methodological Nationalism, the Social Sciences, and the Study of Migration: An Essay in Historical Epistemology”, IMR Volume 37 Number 3 (Fall 2003): 576-610.
– Anne Bartlett “The City and the Self. The Emergence of New Political Subjects in London.” Routledge, 2007, 221-241.

Recently one academic concept asked my attention – I have to admit that this took place in the setting of studying for an exam, so no enlightening autonomous discovery can be ascribed to my person. I am aiming at the concept of ‘methodological nationalism‘. This refers to the naturalization of the global regime of nation-states by the social sciences (A. Wimmer & N. Glick Schiller, 2003). In their essay Wimmer and Glick Schiller stress that researchers from the social science department over the past years – and especially since about World War I – have been unconsciously limiting their research by taking the national geographical order for granted. To say even more: researchers have been thinking of the configuration of people, society and state as the only right frame from where to start any inquiry, the only natural formation also at which to aim when setting the end goals of research and studies.

By doing so, the ontological fact that the global order and the European Union as we know today – with its division in different nation states, it’s “soft borders” between the member states and it’s hard borders on the edges –only came into being through intense migration, is completely ignored. Also, by taking the state as a starting point while referring to it as a container within which a society, a political system and a nationality are contained without interference with what is outside of the container, increasingly “migrants” have been problematized. They become to be seen as a threat to the imagined community of the “nation”, as they blow up the neatly ordered theoretical idea of “a person being part of humankind only by belonging to one nation state”.

To illustrate how the appreciation of migrants undergoes influences from the stage in which the building of the ‘nation-state’ was situated, Wimmer and Glick Schiller roughly go through history from 1870 till now. I here iterate their findings very briefly, as this context-driven illustration sheds a instructive light on the dynamics of the matter.

So in the period from 1870 till World War I we saw the beginning of nation-state building and an intense globalization that took place with colonialism and the competition between the European states and the United States of America for crude commodities. Labour migration took place on a global scale, without any restrictions, without any passports. Migrants moved to industrial developed regions while maintaining their link to home – and when a crisis occurred in the land of employment, they migrated further or returned back from where they came. In this era obtaining citizenship was easy: a “people” was defined by the fact that individuals belonging to it shared civil rights. Soon enough though, ethnic and racial concepts would replace the civil notion of citizenship. This turn should be understood in the context of ongoing colonialism, which was supported well by the stressing of national chauvinism and the national approach of ‘society’. From this moment on migrants started to be perceived as threats to the national sovereignty and security. ‘Sending states’ started to expect their emigrants to return at one point, and started to rely on the remittances that emigrants sent home. Within this dynamic, some emigrants also in fact became more nationalistic, seeming to confirm the picture of migrants being a threat to the national undertaking of receiving states. When the First World War was about to take place, ‘migrants’ carried the label of being politically dangerous as well as radically ‘different’. Other than that, also the fact that industrialization created huge class-differences did not help their case, as this carried the distrust towards ‘non-nationals’ to an even higher level.

Looking into the period from the interbellum till the beginning of the Cold War, we can see collapsed economies and the end of ‘free movement of labour’. The idea of a ‘national’ community became generally accepted as the natural way of organization. Territorial borders of states are being closed, controls are being installed and the difference between ‘legal’ and ‘illegal’ residents is being institutionalized. It is in this period that social sciences start to develop seriously as an independent department of sciences – and in doing so, it is accompanied by methodological nationalism from the start on. Migrants are perceived to be ‘marginal’ or ‘uprooted’. On the level of home politics, the concept of ‘policies of assimilation’ starts to take a stage: it is believed that making transnational relationships disappear is necessary for guaranteeing the success of the nation-state project.

Entering the Cold War, the transnational roots of the then current world order seem to be totally forgotten. No recognition at all can be found for the global economic development, the mobility of individuals and the flow of ideas that contributed to the building of the nation-state hierarchy. It is generally accepted that each person is linked to one nation-state, and that through this membership alone he is a member of the global society. The formation of the welfare state enhanced this idea, as from then on solidarity was aimed and searched for on a strictly national basis. As problematic as migrants might have been thought of in those days, there existed this paradox that in fact they were needed – needed for the building and reinforcing of the nation-state, as economies were growing and workforce was needed. A solution for this awkward condition was found in categorizing migrants into different sub-divisions, and the belonging to this or that sub-division would then be decisive whether yes or no and individual could gain the right to reside in a receiving country. Every country developed its own policies of integration, along the line of thought that reigned in the government concerning the meaning of ‘citizenship’.

From the 1990ies onward, a renewed interest of social sciences for ‘globalisation’ and ‘transnationalism’ can be noticed. Wimmer and Glick Schiller warn for the risk of this approach to return to the practice of reproducing the idea of the nation-state.

This excursion to the thoughts of Wimmer and Glick Schiller allows me to now explain my own thoughts on the matter. First of all I am of the opinion that methodological nationalism is not to be found only in the department of social sciences. It is for sure found in numerous fields of research and study, but one big point of concern for me, is that nationalism can be found in the subjective perception of the world of individuals. Not inquiring whether this is due to the methodological nationalism in the education, study or research environments, or what kind of ontological relationships might be constitutional to this phenomenon, I find it astonishing to realize that the idea of nationalism has penetrated our perception without us – individuals – being all that aware of it.

The appropriation of nationalism is illustrated by the lack of critique that people show when perceiving the national order of the world. We see the disasters that happen at the Mediterranean, we encounter the absurdity of having to label friends from outside the EU that would like to visit as tourist, worker, refugee,.., and on a personal level I hear friends telling me that “okay, you have an immigrant background, but you are a good one, we like you”. And all of this is approached with a tremendous account of resignation. I am not pointing my finger at any one in particular, and if so than in the first place at myself: as afterwards it became clear to me that I should have reacted to this friend of mine in a way that showed how strange a statement this reference to my background actually was.

When reading about the peoplehood once being defined as something that belongs to people that share the same set of civil rights (see up, in the period of 1870 to WWI), I realized that even when looking back into the past there was a system that was more enlightened than the now common categorization of people according to how long and for what purposes they would be allowed to reside on a territory. As with every realization that a certain situation, condition or modus vivendi in general in the past was more in line with one’s personal conviction as well as with the claims of equality, human rights and democracy, this revelation is a very sobering one.

It opens the box of Pandora of thoughts, questions and doubts about the whole (Western) capitalistic neo-liberal system, that produced a high rate of individuality through a passive revolution of dismantling collectivism – reducing its members to obsolete, isolated individuals. It would lead us too far from the topic to dive into this kind of critics of a system, but suffice it here to say that the normalization of the nationalistic idea that takes place within you and me does not colour my perception of humankind (especially youth, the future) any brighter.

Maybe we ran out of inspiration? Maybe we do not encounter enough different ideas, concepts and opinions in order to create and strengthen our own? Let us not forget what Bartlett put so nicely in her chapter on “The City and the Self” : “the political selves do not simply emerge in a vacuum; they emerge at the point of encounter with others”. Maybe we tend to not open up enough to people that have other ideas than ours and maybe that is the reason why we became so indifferent? And this thread of thought inevitably leads to the argument that nowadays more than ever we have access to information within reach. The world has become smaller as we can follow distance news on tv and through internet. But here the paradox of accessibility versus knowledge might come into play. As I described in an earlier piece (https://artemiskijktnaardewereld.wordpress.com/2014/08/15/hoofdzakelijk-onwetend/ ), having information within reach does not necessarily contribute to our knowledge about the world.

As we take into consideration that territorial borders are an outcome of an imaginary world order, as are concepts of ‘nation state’, ‘society’ and ‘security’, we have to ask ourselves: why not imagine a different society, a different order, different rules for human’s sake! In the end, rules and regulations, laws, and prohibitions, are there to serve the people. They are installed in order to make it possible to live together. Together – which is exactly the opposite of “apart”.

Approaching ‘immigrants’ as being absolutely different, politically dangerous, marginal or what more of these, is the expression of naturalization, appropriation and support of nationalism. And not that anybody is not entitled to his or her own opinion – but at least we should be conscious of what ideas determine our world view. And in this consciousness we can then become stronger persons, who take their place in society in an active way, thinking critically about what is decided in our names above our heads in the local government, at the national level, at European level and globally. In this consciousness we can re-imagine world order, like it was imagined time and again before us. Becoming aware of the possibilities, of the fact that things are not to stay like they are now forever, might just be the fresh flow that gives “living together” more prevalence than “living apart”.

If we grow conscious of ideas that quietly creep up and take over the way how we perceive the world, we can free ourselves from these (or contrarily – embrace them if they are appealing to us). It is my believe that more immigration – more migration in general – will help us on an individual level to build stronger identities, to activate ourselves and to dare to contest the status quo on a more direct manner. On a national level migration will enhance politics in that it comes with a flow of new ideas, perceptions and ways of organization, that will benefit the process of striving to govern a country in a good way (as having the choice between more ideas automatically enlarges the chance of finding a fit one). On the European level as well as globally migration enlarges the connections between people, a practice that can never ever be over-valued since it is on this level that decisions are made that impact on the widest range of lives (eg.: World Bank policies, UN resolutions, donor-decisions, conditional international trade).

In order to conclude on a positive note this stream of thoughts that circled my head after reading about “methodological nationalism” as Wimmer and Glick Schiller described it, I share a link to a web page (and I urge everyone to go check it out) of a project started by young people who dare to imagine a different European Union and who in the process of advocating better treatment of migrants also play a potential role in raising awareness about the problematic status quo: http://migrants-matter.blogspot.be/ .

Egypt: Arab Winter?

Among analysts, criticists and journalist who consider the recent upheavals in the Middle East, now and then a sound can be heard that circumscribes the Arab Spring as being changed into an “Arab Winter”.
If someone would ask me whether this pessimistic conclusion of an Arab Winter applies to Egypt, I would answer that no, I do not think this conclusion is accurate when it comes to this state.
To begin with: it took Europe from the 15th till the 19th century to develop democratic states. To say that Egypt has lost the possibility of building a democracy, just because things do not go as fast as we expected, would be a bit short sighted.
Secondly, and as Koert Debeuf posited (in a guest lecture for students of the Conflict and Development programme at the University of Ghent), people may be okay with living in poverty – but they will never agree with brutal police force of the sort that killed Khaled Said back in 2010.

A third argument why I consider the Egyptian Revolution not to be a “Winter”, is that the protestors are young, frustrated people who smelled the perfume of freedom (to put in in the words of Maher Hamoud). They will not give in to have their newly obtained freedom taken away from them. Annexed to this is the power of social media (that, unlike in Belgium, do not so much play a social role, but a political one): people everywhere around the world know what is going on in a particular place, which augments the chances for effective mobilization and reaction.
A point of concern however, consists out of the role of the army. With the Tamarod Uprising in 2013 and the making of president of former commander-in-chief el-Sisi, the generals now rule by democratic proxy. The army turned a popular revolution from below, into a revolution from above (like already the Security Council for Armed Forces did back in 2011, and which can even be compared to the move of the Free Officers back in 1952). The army did so by demobilization, repression of dangerous dissent and co-optation of possible allies.

This turning point might give a reason to talk about a “Winter” – especially when one does not believe that the army now (in contrast to the Free Officers in 1952) wants to reach the same goal as the civilians do.
However, I estimate chances are high that the people are fed up with police brutalities and oppression and have enough persistence and courage to re-capture their revolution, so that in the end not the army (with its own agenda that is not necessarily in line with that of the people) but the people rise as a mass political agency. This way, if even for a short moment the idea of an Arab Winter occurred, we are reminded of the fact that after every winter, spring comes again.

Zionism is not simply an idea.

“Zionism is not simply an idea, one with a history and a political economy, but also a practice.” – Edward Said

Zionism has a lot of theoretical interpretations (Herzl’s Labour Zionism, Jabotinsky’s Revisionist version, Rabbi Cook’s National-Religious form, as well as spiritual and political views on it) but no matter which particular political or economic idea lays on the root of it, it comes with the logic of elimination. This logic of elimination consists out of a structural practice that focuses on land, and on people.

Let us first take a look on the element of land acquisition. Numerous examples of this practice can be given, of which two classical ones stand out:  the land acquisition of 1948 and that of 1967.This practice is further implemented in the policy of building settlements in occupied territories and in building infrastructure for Jewish use only. We find an example of the settlement policy in the retaliations that Shamir (back then leader of the right wing Likud party) put on the peace negotiations of the Madrid Round (1991) by stressing that “as long as we are talking we have not yet made any agreement” so Israel can continue creating “facts on the ground” (building settlements on occupied territories).

The second practice is linked to the first one (land), and consists out of a focus on people (also called the “demographic war”). Acquired land needs to be cleansed from its people. This is the ongoing Naqba that started in 1948. This Naqba takes place by destroying Palestinian villages, making thousands of people flee to UNRWA camps in the West Bank and Jordan. Other examples are the aliyah (meaning “ascent”), this is the immigration influx of Jews from all over the world – facilitated by granting them all a right to “return” to Israel. Also in the decentralization of Israeli government power to the Jewish Agency we see an example of the demographic war. Decentralization makes sure that beneficial (birth) policies do only affect Jews – no other Israeli inhabitants. Another example consists out of the rupture disjunction between nationality and citizenship. There only exists Jewish nationality – no Israeli one.

As the list of examples can go on and on, one effect of it is clear above all. Where in 1948 non-jewish inhabitants of historic Palestine added up to 90% – 93%, now their number has shrunk to 20%. The other side of the coin is that a 65% majority of people living in Jordan is from Palestinian descent – with 43% having the UNRWA refugee status.
These trends show that – more than being a theory – Zionism consists of a structural practice. One with a tremendous impact.

DONALD TUSK VOLGT HERMAN VAN ROMPUY OP ALS VOORZITTER VAN DE EUROPESE RAAD

De Poolse premier Donald Tusk wordt de nieuwe voorzitter van de Europese Raad. Dat is gisteren, 30 augustus, beslist op een Europese top in Brussel. Vanaf 1 december vervangt Tusk Van Rompuy als vaste voorzitter, en dit mandaat loopt tot en met 31 mei 2017.

Eerste enkele woorden over de Europese Raad. Deze periodieke raad van regeringsleiders en staatshoofden van de lidstaten moet worden onderscheiden van de Raad van Europa, ze functioneert onder vast voorzitterschap van – in de nabije toekomst dus – Tusk, de voorzitter van de Commissie (Jean-Claude Juncker) is tevens lid, en ze vertegenwoordigt het belang van de lidstaten.

Donald Tusk is voorzitter van de politieke partij “Het Burgerplatform” (Platforma Obywatelska), waarvan hij een van de oprichters is. Deze partij staat voor conservatief liberalisme en is de tegenpool van het rechts-katholieke “Recht en Rechtvaardigheid” (Prawo i Sprawiedliwosc). Sinds 2007 is hij tevens premier van Polen. Hij heeft geschiedenis gestudeerd en was in de jaren ’80 actief lid van de bekende Poolse vakbond Solidarnosc.

In nieuwsberichten in Belgische media wordt vrij beknopt en algemeen gesteld dat Polen blij is dat een Pool de prestigieuze post van voorzitter van de Europese Raad mag bekleden. Uit Poolse nieuwsgeving kan een genuanceerder beeld worden opgemaakt. De Poolse nationale politiek is immers al jarenlang gegijzeld door de strijd tussen twee politieke stromingen: conservatief liberalisme en de rechts-katholieke stroming. Concreet vertaalt zich dit in het over en weer geslinger van verwijten tussen het Burgerplatform en Recht en Rechtvaardigheid. Voor elke mistoestand die er in het land bestaat (povere sociale zekerheid, emigratie van jongeren, hoge graad van werkloosheid,..) haast de ene partij zich om met een beschuldigende vinger naar de andere te wijzen. Geen gelegenheid wordt onbenut gelaten om de andere partij in een slecht daglicht te plaatsen.

Een voorbeeld van het lage niveau van wederzijdse vingerwijzingen, is het gerucht dat Jacek Kurski, lid van Recht en Rechtvaardigheid, verspreidde als zou de grootvader van Tusk tijdens WOII als vrijwilliger in het Duitse leger hebben gevochten. Hoewel deze roddel niet grondde in enige waarheid, bezorgde het Tusk wel een nadelige verkiezingsuitslag in de Poolse presidentsverkiezingen van 2005.

Tel bij deze onprofessionele wederzijdse bejegening de politieke moeheid van een groot deel van de Poolse bevolking op (slechts 48% stemopkomst bij nationale verkiezingen), en je komt uit bij een politiek systeem dat niet veel ruimte heeft ter realisatie van politiek inzicht – laat staan tot het zetten van grote politieke stappen.

Nu Tusk Van Rompuy opvolgt in Brussel, zou dit wel eens een verschuiving kunnen betekenen op de Poolse politieke scène.
Het Burgerplatform is hoofdzakelijk opgehangen rond de persoonlijkheid van Donald Tusk. Wie weet of deze partij op hetzelfde hoge niveau voort kan zonder haar boegbeeld? Daarnaast: het stokpaardje van Recht en Rechtvaardigheid is het beschimpen van de politieke handelingen van Tusk en diens partij. Nu Tusk wegvalt uit de nationale politiek, zal ook Recht en Rechtvaardigheid haar politieke discours moeten heroriënteren (een ander zwart schaap zoeken? nieuwe inhoudelijke punten op de agenda plaatsen?). De herschikking van de politieke schaakstukken op het Poolse politieke schaakbord, kan zorgen voor een adempauze, een mogelijkheid voor een frisse wind door het politieke landschap. Wie weet grijpt een derde partij de kans om ook te wegen op de besturing van het land (SLD – Alliantie Van Democratisch Links?, TR – Jouw Beweging?, PSL – Poolse Volkspartij?). Het zou het einde kunnen inluiden van een houdgreep op de Poolse politiek van het echtpaar Burgerplatform – Recht en Rechtvaardigheid, en de ingang van een gezondere, veelzijdigere politiek waarin uitdagingen leiden tot politieke inventiviteit.

Polen is dus inderdaad blij met het feit dat Tusk president van de Europese Unie wordt, zij het niet onverdeeld om dezelfde redenen. Recht en Rechtvaardigheid en diens aanhangers zijn blij dat Tusk uit de Poolse nationale politiek stapt (bewijze de toespraak die Kaczynski voor het parlement hield, eindigend met “dat ze hem daar alstublieft houden bij die raad!”). Het Burgerplatform is blij om de prestige maar niet zeker over de gevolgen voor de partij. Andere politieke partijen en burgers die nog in nationale politiek geloven, zijn blij omdat de vastgeroeste politieke verhoudingen nu mogelijk zullen worden doorbroken.

Wat betreft de gevolgen voor de Europese Unie, ben ik er vrij gerust in dat met de keuze van Donald Tusk als voorzitter van de Europese Raad geen misstap is begaan. Het is opmerkelijk dat de post wordt bekleedt door een premier van een relatief jong lid van de EU, maar dit is positief voor het Europese integratieproject. Deze keuze drukt immers de opvatting als zou de EU een tweesporenproject zijn, de kop in – in ieder geval op vlak van politieke participatie tussen oudere en jongere lidstaten. Daarnaast blijft het zo dat het premierschap dat Tusk sinds 2007 aanhoudt, blijk geeft van het feit dat hij het vertrouwen geniet van een groot deel van Polen (ok, dit wordt wel gerelativeerd door de lage opkomst bij de verkiezingen natuurlijk – maar toch). Onder zijn beleid heeft Polen de economische crisis goed doorstaan in vergelijking met andere lidstaten en hij is voor meer toenadering tussen de lidstaten. Last but not least zal Tusk Polen vertegenwoordigen en meer in de kijker zetten. En zoals hij zelf in zijn toespraak na de bekendmaking van de nieuwe voorzitter zei, staat hij klaar met veel goede wil en het geloof dat er geen verstandig alternatief naast de EU bestaat. Hij meent dat inventiviteit moet samengaan met discipline, en is ervan overtuigd dat de EU zo het hoofd zal kunnen bieden aan alle bestaande (economische crisis, Rusland) en toekomstige obstakels.

De goede wil wordt al in daden omgezet wanneer hij zijn eerstvolgende toespraak in het Engels zal houden – tegen dan zou hij klaar zijn om ook in deze taal zijn redenering helder en duidelijk te verwoorden, aldus Tusk.

Al bij al past de keuze voor Tusk dus binnen het beleid van de EU, en kan het een interessante evolutie betekenen op niveau van de Poolse nationale politiek.

Hoofdzakelijk onwetend.

Personen die onderlegd zijn in de problematiek van de ebola-epidemie, het sektarische geweld van het voormalige ISIS, de Israëlische kolonisatie van Palestina en het Russische imperialisme in Oost Oekraïne, ventileren hun standpunten en inzichten in geschreven of gesproken woord. Aan deze actualiteit waag ik mij als leek niet. Op het gladde ijs van deze onderwerpen ken ik mijn plaats als lezer en luisteraar van experts die tekst en uitleg geven bij de spijtige actualiteit. Waar ik me wel over wil uitspreken, is een iets persoonlijker doch ook universeel thema van deze tijd: het geheugen.

Tijdens het lezen van “Het Geheugen Paleis. De Vergeten Kunst Van Het Onthouden.” van Joshua Foer, ervoer ik een aanhoudende aha-erlebnis. Na vijf jaar rechten-studie heb ik niet het gevoel kennis te hebben opgedaan of wijzer te zijn geworden. Eerder lijkt het alsof ons in plaats van inhoudelijke kennis, truken zijn aangeleerd. Er is ons geleerd waar we welke informatie kunnen vinden. Welke wetboeken we dienen te raadplegen, welke auteurs toonaangevend zijn, welke websites valide informatie bevatten, en welk boekje de juiste regels omtrent het afkorten en verwijzen naar bronnen bevat.

Al deze (praktische en handige) informatie zorgt ervoor dat we ons kunnen handhaven binnen een enorm collectief van opgeslagen informatie. Maar we hebben zelf geen informatie opgeslagen. Dat we geen codex van buiten leren, is begrijpelijk. En ook de zeer snel veranderende verwijzings- en afkortingsregels zijn niet meteen nuttig om van buiten te kennen. Ik heb ook geen pasklaar antwoord op de vraag hoe het anders zou moeten. Maar feit blijft dat me soms een gevoel van luiheid besluipt. Je leert doorheen het academiejaar welke handvaten er bestaan voor bepaalde informatie: waar je ze vindt. Voor een examen leer je op korte tijd intensief een beetje van die informatie van buiten (een klein deel, want je codex neem je mee en van rechtspraak reconstrueer je slechts de structuur en de redenering die er achter zit). Eens het examen voorbij is, wordt het merendeel van wat je geblokt hebt weer vergeten. En mocht je het toch nog nodig hebben, dan zoek je het op.

Op academisch vlak kan ik eventueel nog wel zeggen “à la bonheur, dan internaliseer je de kennis niet maar zoek je het op”. Luiheid van het geheugen op persoonlijk vlak vind ik daarentegen prangender. Zoals ook Foer verzucht in zijn boek: hoeveel boeken heb wel niet gelezen waarvan ik me de inhoud niet meer voor de geest kan halen. Hoeveel filmen zie ik niet met plezier een tweede keer, omdat ik tóch niet meer weet waarover ze juist gaan. Ik ken de telefoonnummers van mijn vrienden noch familie. Hetzelfde voor (e-mail) adressen. Deze zijn ergens opgeslagen. Ook de datum van verjaardagen van veel mensen die me dierbaar zijn, ken ik enkel omdat ik weet waar ik ze heb opgeschreven / omdat facebook me er aan herinnert.

Als een mens wordt bepaald door wat hij weet, door de bundeling van herinneringen, dan ben ik slechts een verzameling aanwijzingen van waar ik welke informatie vind. Vroeger lazen de mensen minder of geen boeken, gingen ze af en toe (of niet) naar de film en wisten ze waarschijnlijk minder dan nu. Maar mensen kenden de Bijbel / de Thora / de Koran / andere toonaangevende (geloofs)bronnen. Geschiedkundige kennis werd mondeling van generatie op generatie doorgegeven. Poëzie kent zijn oorsprong in deze overlevering van informatie. In versvorm en met een bepaald metrum en ritme, zijn zinnen gemakkelijke te onthouden. Dit geldt ook wanneer ze worden gezongen. Mensen internaliseerden informatie.

We weten nu meer (we hebben toegang tot meer informatie), maar weten we tegelijkertijd ontzettend minder. Foer voert dit aan wanneer hij de vrees van Socrates weergeeft. Socrates meende dat het schrift ervoor zou zorgen dat de mensen meer kennis ter beschikking zouden hebben, maar dat ze op holle vaten zouden gaan lijken.

In een passage over een mythische oorsprong van het schrift (Plato, in zijn ‘Phaedrus’) heeft Foer het tevens over deze vrees. De Egyptische god Thot stelde aan de koning van Egypte voor om het Egyptische volk de prachtige uitvinding van het schrift te geven. Thot prees zijn uitvinding als een vondst die het geheugen verbetert en dus zowel het leren als de wijsheid ten goede zou komen. De koning was niet onverdeeld verheugd om dit cadeau. Hij meende dat het schrift verstrooidheid in de ziel van de mensen zou planten. Hij sprak tot de god Thot:

“Ze zullen ophouden hun geheugen te oefenen en vergeetachtig worden; ze zullen vertrouwen op wat er geschreven staat, en de dingen niet langer van binnenuit oproepen, maar met behulp van externe tekens. Jouw vondst is geen middel voor het geheugen, maar een middel om mensen ergens aan te herinneren. Bovendien is het geen ware wijsheid die je je leerlingen verleent, maar slechts de schijn ervan, want als ze van veel dingen kennisnemen zonder echt onderricht, zal het lijken of ze veel weten terwijl ze hoofdzakelijk onwetend zijn. En aangezien ze niet vervuld zijn van wijsheid maar van waanwijsheid, zullen ze hun medemens tot last zijn.”
(Het Geheugenpaleis, p. 158-159)

Hoofdzakelijk onwetend. Dat is zo ongeveer samengevat hoe ik me voel. Ik kan enorm veel informatie opzoeken. Maar daarbuiten ben ik hoofdzakelijk onwetend. En veel mensen met mij. Zijn we door de enorme opslagmogelijkheden van informatie een bepaald waarde kwijtgespeeld? Namelijk het op waarde schatten van eruditie? Échte kennis? Ik ben de laatste persoon om niet blij te zijn met het bestaan van boeken en films, maar moeten we niet enigszins bezorgd zijn om het feit dat we belangrijke informatie slechts extern opslaan? Verliezen we collectief een deel van onze persoonlijkheid? Worden we jaar na jaar kleurlozere personen dan onze voorouders? Die beschikten over informatie terwijl wij slechts beschikken over toegang tot informatie?

Ik kan slechts hopen dat we niet te afhankelijk worden van externe opslag van informatie. Dat we geen collectief van hoofdzakelijk onwetenden vormen. Teneinde eerst de balk uit mijn eigen oog te halen vooraleer ik begin over de splinter in het oog van een ander (Lc 6: 39-45), neem ik me alvast voor meer telefoonnummers en verjaardagen echt te kennen.

En ook nog dit. Onthoud: Het Geheugenpaleis van Joshua Foer. Een aanrader.

Palestijnse en Israëlische helden. Of hoe wrede daden de kiem van vrede niet kunnen smoren.

Israël en Hamas hebben de wapens weer tegen elkaar opgepakt. Langs alle kanten komen berichten van bombardementen op Palestijnse huizen en Israëlische angst voor extremistische aanslagen.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/07/08/powerful-raw-video-shows-israeli-airstrikes-on-gaza/

Temidden van al het leed dat ontstaat doordat de grootste roepers en oproerkraaiers het in twee elkaar vrezende gemeenschappen het voor het zeggen hebben, valt hier en daar toch een glimp van hoop op te vangen. Van menselijkheid, begrip, empathie.

Recent werden twee trieste incidenten van geweld en doodslag tegen kinderen in Israël-Palestina, opgepikt door de Belgische media.
Nadat eerst drie Israëlische tieners werden ontvoerd in een door Israël gecontroleerd gebied, en vervolgens vermoord (het onderzoek om de daders te ontmaskeren loopt nog steeds), werd Mohammad Abu Khdeir, een 16-jarige Palestijnse jongen, levend verbrand door Israëlische extremisten.

Gebeurtenissen die op sociale media, websites en internetfora (oh verrassing..) razendsnel uitgroeiden tot polariserende hatelijke argumenten van heethoofdige (leeghoofdige?) sympathisanten van beide bevolkingsgroepen.

Er is één gebeurtenis in dit perpetuum mobile van geweld, moord en algemene miserie, dat mijn geloof in de mensheid heeft opgekrikt: een kleine maar betekenisvolle overwinning van empathie op ontmenselijking. Palestijnse en Israëlische familieleden van de vermoorde Israëlische tieners en de vermoorde Palestijnse jongen, betuigen elkaar hun medeleven en steunen elkaar in de rouw om hun kinderen.

Afgelopen zondag, 6 juni, belde Yishai Frankel, (een oom van de vermoorde Naftali Frankel), Hussein Abu Khdeir op (de vader van de vermoorde Mohammad Abu Khdeir) om zijn medeleven te betuigen met de rouwende Palestijnse familie.

“Er is geen verschil tussen diegenen die Mohammad hebben vermoord, en diegenen die onze kinderen hebben vermoord. Dit zijn moordenaars en dat zijn moordenaars.”

Zou hij hebben gezegd volgens IsraelToday.

http://israeltoday.nl/headlines/9-nederlands/4459-israel-troost-familie-van-vermoorde-arabische-jongen

Vervolgens condoleerden Palestijnen uit Hebron, onder begeleiding van een rabbijn uit Goesh Etzion, de familie Frankel – aldus DeMorgen.

http://www.demorgen.be/dm/nl/2461/Opinie/article/detail/1938243/2014/07/08/Oog-om-oog-tand-om-tand-is-een-te-gemakkelijke-dooddoener.dhtml

De berichtgeving die ons hier bereikt is secundair en passeert langs vele intermediaire bronnen. We zijn dus nooit helemaal zeker wie hoeveel en welke kleur aan verslaggeving heeft toegevoegd. Maar kleine wondertjes van toenadering tussen beide bevolkingsgroepen, verdienen minstens even veel aandacht (liefst meer, méér, veel meer!) als een zoveelste moordpartij.

Zoals vaak wordt gezegd in referentie naar de Israëlisch-Palestijnse conflict: empathie is het eerste slachtoffer. Daarom dat ik hoop dat wederzijds begrip meer kenbaar wordt gemaakt, dat het een aanmoediging mag zijn voor in de toekomst. Daarom dat initiatieven zoals Parents’ Circle (http://www.theparentscircle.com/) en Breaking the Silence (http://www.breakingthesilence.org.il/) van onschatbare waarde zijn.

Dat het gebaar van deze dappere families mag zijn als de bodem, het water en de zon die de kiempjes van de vrede doen groeien.