Fences and Walls
Press Action
Sunday, July 11, 2004
http://www.pressaction.com/news/weblog/full_article/cummings07112004/
By Jordy Cummings
How many times have I heard it? A liberal, Jewish or otherwise, opposed to the occupation, even who cheers on the Israeli supreme court and Shimon Peres in the call to move the wall off of expropriated Palestinian property, still endorses the wall in principle. In the last few days, after the world court labeled by CNN and other U.S. media “UN court” as if Black Helicopters were about to fly above Lou Dobbs’ house, and its decision marking the illegality of Sharon’s mad plan, the wheel has started to turn. We again hear the same similar refrain, including from the liberal establishment (though interestingly not Bill Clinton, who proposed the internationalization of Jerusalem in an interview with Christianne Ammampour.)
The points often made earnestly, and even somewhat believably by advocates of a “moved wall,” are often contradictory. The first, most defensible point made is that if the wall is in “Israel proper,” then hell’s bells, they can do what they want. Fair enough, but this would still be a precedent worth examining for its implications in just about any border zone—including for those nativists who want to build a wall to keep out Mexican migrant workers. The other point of view is actually entirely believable, and should actually be responded to in a counterintuitive manner. This point is that “the wall prevents terrorism.”
Let us assume, simply for the sake of argument, that all of the propaganda put forth by the state of Israel is indeed the case, and that the wall actually has prevented attacks on Israeli civilians. It should be added before we proceed that this is being said in response to the very fishy minor attack that took place in Tel Aviv on Sunday morning—and if this were the case then it takes a large leap in logic to both claim that a weapon (in this case the wall) makes you safer and that the fact that you actually got attacked proved the reliability of your weapon. Though I don’t want to insinuate that the attack was necessarily staged, the fact that it was immediately attributed to Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade does seem a little convenient. I am no fan of Arafat, but he is too smart for this.
Back to the issue at hand, the wall and its relative effectiveness as a security measure for Israelis. The fact is, even if all of that were true and then some, it would still be entirely (and this is where counterintuition comes in) besides the point! The fact remains that the case against the wall goes far beyond whether or not it brings security to the state of Israel. This is not the time to argue whether or not Israel itself is the author of this insecurity, though I do believe that is the case. Be that as it may, the wall, even if it does not separate neighborhoods, families and properties, even if Palestine could theoretically survive and thrive on the other side, is fundamentally against all that is secular and religious—specifically Jewish (we were walled in many times, hence the expression “beyond the pale”—Jews were walled into the pale of settlement in Russia, and to move beyond was tricky and illegal) values, and uses aesthetics, visuality, the gaze itself, against human nature.
Just as the Berlin Wall, built within a context that it made perfect sense (capital and labour flight, CIA penetration,) actually was the nail in the coffin for any hope that East Germany would become the true, humane and socialist Germany, the wall built by Israel is a defeat not just of Zionism, but of the secular Jewish values that have animated progressive and creative thought worldwide, including Israel.
While there may be some truth in Slavoj Zizek’s recently stated position that the alleged “AntiSemitism” of AntiZionists is actually a somewhat crude Philo-Semitism (You of all people!), the Anti-Zionism of the Jewish radical is, as best animated in the Refusenik movement, the most true statement of the unbending Jewish law. The very radicalism of Jewish theology is the orthodoxy with which a position is espoused, and the most orthodox of the secular Jews are those of us who dialectically have come to identify with Israel since Israel insists on identifying with us.
That being said, one should say to a supporter of the wall within the above context, “sure, it may make Israel safer, but it is a surrender to the old Ghetto mentality of pre-enlightenment Judaism, walling oneself in from the world and re-asserting the orthodoxy of Rabbi and Merchant of Scholar and Worker.” Or, in another context, a king may be safe in his castle because of the wall and moats (which Israel is building, perhaps they will call Scotland for a dragon) but that only prolongs the inevitable.
It is as if, for the internal and suppressed knowledge of the defeat of the Likudnik dream, Israel wants to create a situation that will guarantee its own existential danger. The wall may protect Israel from suicide bombings, but not from more dangerous forces to its existence, such as the loyalty of many of its own citizens, Jewish and Arab. With the onset of economic practices that go specifically against half a century of (for Jewish citizens) relative socialism, with the raising of the retirement age and the austerity economics of Netanyahu, Israel is spending its treasure on something it either knows it will have to take down, or, in a disavowed way, wants others to remove by force. They may be crazy, they may be deluded, but they aren’t stupid.
One should not “misunderestimate” how powerful inter-imperialist rivalries could very well bubble to the surface. The world court decision is wonderful. The sudden pro-Palestinian stance of many European leaders is good, but as cynical in a certain manner as was Saddam Hussein’s. And as noted, it seems that Clinton is trying to push Kerry from the statements he has made recently to having the Democrats be more “evenhanded” in the manner that Howard Dean espouses, in other words, to continue to be pro-Israel in a more cynical manner. Neither Israelis nor Palestinians, nor their supporters, should allow this to take place. The first step is for prominent Israelis to come out and openly accept and cheer on the world court decision, to make like Chalabi and cover the world court with roses. Others should point out that if one is against this sort of decision, then one has to—ipso facto—be against the trial of Pinochet, let alone Nuremberg.
I am confident that even the mainstream Israeli peace movement, if Gush Shalom and others give it a push, will be able to explain to the Israeli public why the wall is wrong. The real issue now is the Diaspora. Recently, as reported in the Montreal Gazette, community leaders actually complained that with the policy changes by Israel (the “Gaza Pullout” and the court decision—considered radical in the Jewish community) that they were having trouble explaining to their constituents what to believe anymore. I would suggest to the North American Jewish community leaders (though I doubt I will be heeded) that now is a unique opportunity, following the ADL filing a brief against the notion of “enemy combatants” to actually reflect the silent majority of Jewish North Americans, and join the world in telling Mr. Sharon to tear down that wall.
Jordy Cummings, editor of Pure Polemics, lives in Toronto and can be reached at yorgos33ca@yahoo.ca.