I'm going to go into a few of the things that have noticed lately, but first a few words, some on topic, some off. For one thing, there has been quite a bit of discussion here on Dkos regarding the recent meeting between Obama and Netanyahu, as well as discussion elsewhere. Juan Cole has a very good run down, and Mondoweiss has also been covering it, and quite a bit more as well. I may drop in a few words or such on it in the course of this diary or the next, but I think others have been quite thorough in their treatment. And at this point, what we really need to start seeing is action, not just words regarding the settlements, and the occupation as a whole. My guess is that it will be more of the same;
An Israeli soldier stands by as a Caterpillar bulldozer clears the ground next to the settlement Carmel, south of the West Bank city of Hebron.(Mamoun Wazwaz, Maan Images)
But before I get to that, I want to throw out some thoughts on... Terminator Salvation. Seriously, I feel like I've seen the movie already with all the clips, trailers and other web-based promos out there. But I was inadvertently listening to the trailer the other day, and I started thinking about the premise and the appeal that it has on people. First, the film puts you in the place of listening to the radio broadcasts of John Connor, who eloquently states that "If you're listening, then you are the resistance," or some such thing (I apologize now for less than perfect paraphrasing/quotations). So, in a sense, we, in the audience, are identifying with the brave resistance, fighting against the robots out to kill us all. I'm kind of curious what people eat in this future resistance-existance, among other things.
Now, I see a few big budget crapola movies; not all, but a few. I refuse to go and see the Transformers, as Bay and Bruckheimer are two of my least favorite people/filmmakers, but I enjoyed Star Trek, if you must know. And for all my reluctance, I probably will go see the Terminator film, but I need to vent on a few things about it. As I was saying, the film puts the viewers squarely in the camp of the resistance, and why not? Don't we, as Americans, always like to see ourselves as underdogs, as the righteous ones fighting tyranny and such? From The Bad News Bears to Star Wars to Seabiscuit, we are the underdog, the rebels, the brave few fighting some sort of overwhelming tyranny and evil. I often think back to the days when Star Wars came out, of how much it influenced me as a child, and of how I unquestioningly saw myself in the role of the rebels fighting the evil empire. As much as my family was part of the anti-Vietnam War 60's generation, I find it interesting that these assumptions were never discussed; I mean, 1977 is only a few years after 1975, which was the conclusion to our involvement in aggression towards Vietnam, which started back in the early 1950's. In fact, we were, and still are for that matter, the 'empire,' while the Vietanemese were the true rebels.
And what do we have now? We are engaged in direct occupations of two countries, we support countless tyrants and other such regimes, as well as supporting Israel's occupation of Syrian and Palestinian lands. And as we all know, we torture, and not just since the days of Bush. If that isn't empire, I'm not sure what is. And in contrast to this, there are many people in the world resisting this application of force and violence; they are not perfect of course, but that is not the point. The point is, that they are the 'resistance,' and not us.
But in just a few days, I will go to see a film where this is magically transformed. Why worry about the actual situation, when I can go to the movies, and pretend to be the resistance, if for only an hour or two. Why think about what is real, when we can just project our desire for righteousness into the imagined (but totally fictitious) future, and with the magic of effects, reasonable acting and attractive post-apocalyptic warriors with great teeth, I can join the resistance too.
So, onwards. As the title of the diary suggests, other than my musings on the Terminator, I've had the banality of evil in my mind also, ever since last week when I watched a video from Al Jazeera. But first, a very concise run down of the concept;
The concept of the banality of evil came into prominence following the publication of Hannah Arendt's 1963 book Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil, which was based on the trial of Adolph Eichmann in Jerusalem. Arendt's thesis was that people who carry out unspeakable crimes, like Eichmann, a top administrator in the machinery of the Nazi death camps, may not be crazy fanatics at all, but rather ordinary individuals who simply accept the premises of their state and participate in any ongoing enterprise with the energy of good bureaucrats.
and on to the video;
I watched this, and it hit me, harder than many other videos and pictures have. It was the scream of the mother, and the grief of the father, as he prepared his dead child for burial that really did it. I remember months ago, I was having a discussion on Palestine with someone I hadn't spoken to in some time, and she actually doubted whether Palestinians love their children; I watch this video and hear the screams, and I do hope that someday she sees and hears it too; maybe I'll send it to her, who knows.
All of that pain and suffering, the condemning of this child to death for a condition that is treatable, is a perfect expression of this banality of evil. Some bureaucrat/soldier in the occupation, probably quite a few of them, handle the mass of requests, the pleas, and the cold formal complaints made every day by occupied Palestinians. All of this, just for the bare basics of what we consider to be our rights; clean water, medical care, food, access to jobs; I mean, I know many will often tune out such ideas, if you can't go to Palestine, try imagining yourself in this situation.
But someone killed this child; someone who probably never saw it as more than a number, just another one of 'them,' and that they should be glad they get what little we give them. Who knows really what this person or people thought. But in the end, a child is dead, and its parents are immersed in grief; they know that their child died because it was Palestinian, and by the very nature of the system which governs their lives, it has been deemed that a Palestinian life is less important than other lives.
I will end with one article, and then some more information on the Nakba from the IMEU. First, a great article on Zochrot;
Israelis shown a glimpse of the Nakba
The tour was organised by Zochrot, an Israeli non-governmental organisation whose mission is to teach Israeli Jews about the Palestinian Nakba, or catastrophe, when about 800,000 Palestinians fled or were forced to flee their homes and lands in 1948, never to be allowed to return. Organisers take Israelis the length and breadth of the country, mapping Palestinian villages destroyed by Israeli paramilitary units in the aftermath of 1948, planting signs in the appropriate places and advocating the right of return of Palestinian refugees. Zochrot has even, according to its director and founder, Aytan Bronstein, produced a full educational package on the Nakba to be taught in schools, although the NGO is not trying to persuade any ministry to include it on the national curriculum.
But to most Israelis, only one version of 1948 is known, that of a nation-state in the making beating back surrounding Arab armies before declaring victory and independence. "Israelis know quite a lot about 1948, but only from a Zionist perspective," Mr Bronstein said. "From any other perspective, of the tragedy, of the expulsions and the refugees, they actually know very little." Mr Bronstein said there are two layers of ignorance about the Nakba in Israel. "At a certain level, many thousands of Israelis know a lot because they were there, they saw the refugees leaving, maybe they even participated in the expulsions. Mr Bronstein said the proposal and the general unwillingness of Israelis to learn about the Nakba proves that "there is something there to know". "In a way [the Yisrael Beiteinu proposal] is very good. It really puts very clearly on the agenda what we are talking about. It is not about two states; it is not the 1967 occupation. It’s the Nakba: it’s the refugee issue."
"A few years ago nobody cared," he said. Mr Bronstein said taking the issue of Palestinian refugees seriously was a necessary first step, even if the initial reaction might be "very dangerous and very violent". Ultimately, he said, without a proper understanding of the Nakba, there could be no peace. "It’s crucial that Israelis understand the Nakba. Without addressing it, we will never have a chance to change anything and we will have to be colonisers forever. Understanding that we are colonisers of this country, in a very violent way, is the only way to secure dramatic change."
and today's Nakba material (used with full permssion from the IMEU) revolves around Plan Dalet. I'll also include a video of a talk by Ilan Pappe at the end.
1. What is Plan Dalet?
On March 10, 1948, Zionist political and military leaders met at the "Red House" in Tel Aviv and agreed to Plan Dalet, which called for the systematic expulsion of Palestinians from areas sought for the soon-to-be-founded state of Israel. The plan led to what Palestinians refer to as the Nakba.
At that time, Jews owned only about seven percent of the land in Palestine and constituted about 33 percent of the population. The Palestinians' presence and predominant ownership of the land were obstacles to the creation of a Jewish state. Moshe Sharett, Israel's second prime minister, said "We have forgotten that we have not come to an empty land to inherit it, but we have come to conquer a country from people inhabiting it."
2. Who devised Plan Dalet?
Top leaders of the Haganah, the leading Zionist underground militia in Palestine at the time, formulated Plan Dalet. One of the key instigators was David Ben-Gurion, who became Israel's first prime minister. A long-time proponent of expelling the Palestinians, 10 years earlier he stated to the Jewish Agency Executive, "I am for compulsory transfer; I do not see anything immoral in it."
3. When was Plan Dalet implemented?
Israel has since claimed that it was attacked by surrounding Arab states immediately after its founding on May 14, 1948, and that refugees fled due to the ensuing conflict. In fact, Plan Dalet predated the entrance of the Arab states into war with Israel. Some 250,000 Palestinians were expelled in the two months between the March 10 adoption of Plan Dalet and the establishment of Israel in mid-May. The stream of refugees into the Arab states created pressure on them to intervene to stanch the flow. It is more accurate to say that the refugee flight caused Arab intervention than the other way around.
4. What resulted from Plan Dalet?
Plan Dalet led to the depopulation of at least 450 Palestinian towns and villages, most of which were demolished to prevent the return of the refugees. By the end of 1948, more than 700,000 Palestinians - two-thirds of the Palestinian population - were exiled. It is estimated that more than 50 percent fled under direct military assault. Others fled in panic as news of massacres spread - for example, more than 100 civilians killed in the village of Deir Yassin on April 9 and 200 in Tantura between May 22nd and 23rd.
5. Why is Plan Dalet relevant today?
Israel will commemorate its 60th anniversary this May without acknowledging the ethnic cleansing and dispossession of Palestinians it perpetrated. At the same time, Palestinians will mark their dispossession and remind the world of their right to return to their homeland. An overwhelming majority of Palestinians believes that refugee rights must be remedied for peace between Palestinians and Israelis to endure.
and so forth...