Palestinian-Israeli Peace NGO Forum representatives at the first "bilateral conference," which took place in Jordan in July 2006
We
have become a sexy conflict. Perhaps we always were. Maybe it is the Americans
and their 9/11-Bin Laden complex, or the awareness of human rights that rises
with the increasing number of violations throughout the world and which disconnects
human rights from politics and culture. And perhaps it is, as claimed by Fadi
Abu Younis, the Chairperson of the Arab Students Union in Israel, the erotic
attraction-rejection of the occupier to the occupied and the voyeurism of the
world. For ten years already, the peace industry and its agents have flourished
throughout the world, while here, the occupation, racism and demands for the
deportation of Palestinians have only deepened. In this article I will examine
the activities of myself and my friends, and particularly those who were my
friends and are now my enemies, hello-goodbye to the professional Left.
Cutting
Coupons
Since
Oslo, both its supporters and detractors have developed the peace industry:
small kiosks, large salons with fancy brochures, true life work. A grand documentation
industry. This process was led by Peace Now, which transformed itself into a
complete production agency with its enlistment of public poll decoders,
publicists and an emphasis on professional staff, which slowly but surely eradicated
the voices of volunteers and activists, until they almost completely
disappeared.
There
is no end to projects of dialogue, education for peace, seeds of peace, making
films for peace, film festivals for peace, photographers for peace, chefs for
peace, various forums for peace. They speak and fly first class and write
articles while the occupation deepens, the despair becomes worse and the separation
becomes sharper. And now this must come to an end, for the peace industry of
the professional Left prevented and prevents a real change in consciousness and
cooperation in the circles of action.
Some
will contend that the problem is one of messages and the lack of alternatives.
I will not go into this discussion, as here I wish to speak about the means of
action that cut off the Left, via the professional Left, from the public.
However,
we can find positive elements in the organizing of groups on the Left, in
Israel and Palestine, who retrieve for themselves their imprisoned and
embittered voice from the grips of the ratings, through the politics of love.
I
write this criticism from a perspective of partnership and respect for many of
the actions in the minefield of the occupation and social change. Those working
hard to build Israeli-Palestinian partnerships. Political action, especially
grassroots, is always unappreciated and exposed to daily and never-ending
criticism. I wish to separate between these political activists and the
professionals who cut coupons, even if they are doing important work while
putting money in their pockets or into their projects. My contention is that
the use of experts and professionals who determine and lead the political discussion,
dispossesses the Left from its ability to turn to a wider audience and bring
about substantial change.
Social
Publicists—YNET Instead of Life
In
Jerusalem’s 1998 municipal elections, Ornan Yekutieli resigned from Meretz
and established Jerusalem Now. At the time, I was 22 years old and
worked in Meretz. I had a disagreement with Lir Horev, who was the chief
campaigner of Yekutieli. The disagreement was not about tensions between Meretz
and Jerusalem Now, nor about what I discerned in Jerusalem Now as
a rightwing economic world view and racism against ultra-orthodox Jews. The
disagreement was about the relationship toward activists.
Horev
contended that the one who must determine the slogans are those who understand,
and that only Ornan Yekutieli and his professional staff can lead the secular
Jewish population of Jerusalem to victory, because of (amongst other things)
their superiority in media. I thought that the activists are the ones who
should decide, as they are the ones standing with the signs and handing out the
stickers. In the meantime Lior Horev won, at least politically, along with his
primary client Ariel Sharon. The Left lost both its ideology and the means of
action.
The
utilization of advertisers and media advisors was promoted by the political
parties and afterwards by the social organizations. The analysis of reality
became a matter of expertise. And not just any expertise, but that which analyzes
the media. In short, Ynet instead of life. The activists had no space left for
making decisions about content, no space for discussion with people on the
ground, with families, neighbors and work colleagues. With so many polls, there
was no space for activists, although they are still asked to do the dirty,
anonymous and exhausting work. This is not appropriate to the Middle East, to leftwing
women, or to Israelis or Palestinians. The activists abandoned ship, and those
who remained very quickly began demanding a salary.
With
the development of non-governmental organizations, around the world and by us
locally, the phenomenon of social media advisors also developed. The particularly
witty and committed leftwing activists went to work for public relations firms,
which developed departments for social advertising or business for the community.
These activists became creative writers, and went from thinking about how to
change political awareness and create a wider community of supporters and
activists on the Left, to those who devote their time solely to creating a
message, meeting with focus groups, promoting the political brand and creating
media ships.
An
airlift of American consultants has descended to assist organizations, most of
them from the fields of media and social marketing and not from the fields of
community organizing and local mobilization, areas in which part of the
American Left excels. Public relations offices were created for which the
majority of their work is the branding and movement of peace and social change
organizations. With blinding speed the importance of content, national distribution
and local leadership was broken. The important things are now the website and
the logo.
The
visibility of the Left in the press was attained through well directed,
designed and budgeted campaigns. The one who determines our “alternative” to
the conflict, i.e., the Geneva Initiative, is Dror Sternshus, who managed the
campaign. One wishing to join calls the S. Karmon public relations firm.
Throughout the world people believe that the Geneva Initiative is accepted by people,
but public relations firms don’t know that we must speak with people about
education and housing and employment and the environment. Perhaps they know,
but that would be too complex and hurt the message and the product. “Look where
we have gotten with your leftwing ideologies. The important thing is to beat
Sharon.” So say the firms. They are also convinced that they are acting in the
best interests of the Left, and perhaps that they are even doing us a favor by
remaining in politics and are not earning money directly from companies, a
syndrome faced also by staff members of the World Bank.
In
public relations firms such as McCaan Erickson, there are departments for
social marketing which specialize in planning the message and creating a
creative community. They provide spokesperson services to organizations—the
spokesperson tells the press, over the sound of the air conditioner, what is
happening in the Occupied Palestinian Territories as he knows the press and
they love him. The sole problem is, there exists no connection between the
process that occurs with the activists, who face the oppressive systems that
the state employs with full force against every anti-racist or solidarity
activity, and what is reported. And the larger this gap, the larger the disbelief—between
the activists and the press, the public and the activists, and even amongst
activists themselves.
It
seems that no one starts a social struggle without a public relations office,
but if you notice, the best struggles lack professional media consultants. The
struggle of the Metrodan bus drivers, of activists of the Coalition Against the
Wall in Budrus, the struggles of the Democratic Rainbow and several local
struggles of Mahapach. What works is what has real people, living, breathing
and committed, who must also think about messages and means of action. What
works long term is personal commitment to the community, partnership that
crosses class and generations, learning from working and failing. From an
educational and logistical perspective, a fine and delicate dance of building
and breaking belief, and, more than anything, the modesty that comes
when you look out at the power of women and men working within their community,
who choose each day to create systems of solidarity, to break traditions and
believe in the possibility of inter-class and inter-cultural partnership. The
same love that slowly develops when activists, despite everything, choose to
pay attention to the small details of their lives and attempt to change them.
The same love for women who must be awarded the Israel Prize or Palestine Prize
for raising children. What builds power on the Left is when a woman comes with
her heart, head, the little time she has and her dreams, and decides to be a
partner in taking decisions. This is the mystical dimension of politics.
This
does not mean there is no room for experiments, even experiments in the press.
This does not mean it is unimportant or unnecessary to use the contacts of
activists with the press. However, this should be done in a conscious manner,
in a way that does not create control over the organization, not by the one
having contacts with the press or the one with relationships to donors.
Everything
that dispossesses people from being direct partners in taking decisions over
their lives and their paths will fail in the long-term, as it copies the model
of a for show society. The same occurs when the social publicist dispossesses
the activists from creating their own voice and by doubting their ability to
learn and tell their life stories on their own. The publicist thus stops the
alternative and a building of the Left.
The
Language of Donors
The
peace industry is a white one, whether it wants to be or not. It is ruled by
the need to complete grant applications to the European Union and Scandinavian
countries and, for those who are sufficiently moderate, to the Americans. The
Palestinians and Israelis leading these actions are those who learned the EU
language and how to be precise in grant applications. The meaning of this, with
its accompanying cultural demand, is the creation of a huge gap between those
leading the actions in the organization or campaign and grassroots activists
and residents. The Israeli-Palestinian case is not a private case of the grant-providing
governments and the white supporters in a struggle focusing on blacks, but as
the conflict is sexy and ongoing, the adjustments of the persons involved
radically transform this system of relations into a cynical one.
The
peace industry represents the desires and possibilities for actions available
to those advancing peace in a manner that completely neutralizes the voices of
the occupied and oppressed. The sole ones making their voices heard are those
who trained for this. A Jewish Jerusalemite peace activist whose son was
injured in an attack has become the Israeli representative of an international
women’s organization. She recently spoke at a conference in India before 3,000
women. To my sorrow, there is no connection between her and leftwing activities
or leftwing political discourse in Israel. She is acting in the empty but
profitable space created by the peace industry. I was told recently of a Muslim
peace activist who has flown no less than 20 times to conferences throughout
the world in order to make “the Palestinian voice” heard. Even if this was also
a “community voice” (Palestinian citizen of Israel? 1948 Arab? 1967 Arab? Just
Arab?) it was completely worn out from the number of times she had to enter the
role of “the Palestinian.” Her Palestinian-ness is already EU-ness and is also
intended, perhaps primarily, so that she will be invited to the next
international conference. This is dangerous cooptation, for it transforms
voices that have real potential into signs, and dispossesses and disconnects
these voices from their ability to create physical change in their public space
and in their communities.
A
large number of the international conferences are important and their speakers
are men and women connected to the grassroots and who are inspirational in
their daily work. I do not intend an overall criticism of this necessary
activity. However, the danger is that at the end of the day, the voices of
activists are not heard and a true difficulty in creating international
solidarity is created. International solidarity is actually not lacking: it is
simply channeled to places that don’t always serve the public, to that
dangerous space that contends it is not political, that is just wants peace.
First
Class for Peace
The
sexiness of the conflict does not end with the power relations between occupier
and occupied. It continues to shine in the manner in which it is presented by
the professional peace forces, which are augmented by a documentary division
and champagne. The bridge between East and West, a combination of Palestinian
machisimo and Western intellectualism, military officials who morph into
representatives of partnerships and the poster children of peace, the United
Nations and conferences and the clink of glasses over dinner. Ah, and more than
anything, the flights.
The
cultural difference between activists involved in social and economic issues
and those who focus on human rights (“preferably” Zionists) who have friends
throughout the world who are willing to listen to them and invite them to San
Francisco. For the activist working on issues of housing and employment, there exists
a possibility to travel to Sderot to mobilize activists or (at best) to attend
a weekend seminar. Even though in an ideological struggle, the conditions are
not meant to make a difference, at the end of the day they substantially impact
the composition of activists, their willingness to volunteer and to take on the
establishment and the ability to create a vibrant and developing political
community.
First
class flights do nothing to build a Left political space. Neither do the well
funded seminars. Those building the alternatives are the activists in schools, neighborhoods,
worker committees, the media and the arts. Those building the possibility of
creating another language in which there is space to begin talking with equal
voices about how we want to live here are those who transformed politics into
their daily life, not into a profession. It is one who builds a joint life of
searching, opposing and making new choices. They are generally uncomfortable in
first class. It is too alienating.
The
Mysticism of Politics or the Politics of Love
The
past few months have been flooded with the murky waters of political theology.
Suddenly people understood that it is impossible to speak only in terms of
political institutions and legislation, suddenly it is impossible to make do
with political failures, suddenly they are paying attention to the sticker
“repentance—the weapon of the people.” Suddenly, as if they were pulled
out of their graves for a quick investigation, the concepts of human belief,
culture and feelings were brought back to life as dancers in the political
arena. However, this is a mutation intended to serve the conservative Right
(which was also the Left) and allow it to find moral justification for the
horrors occurring here—the occupation and neoliberalism.
This
is an artificial change of the mystics of politics, a comprehensive name for
the community-political space in which people act primarily in order to feel
they belong, to feel secure and to find a place for them and the people they
love. Where the culture, memory and your knowledge of the small stories of the neighborhood,
city and state have a high political value as it permits us all to build a
common story, language and life we understand. The opposite of political
theology is the mysticism of politics, or perhaps the politics of love. This is
what the women and male activists of the new Left, in its entire spectrum, do.
They are searching to give voice and meaning, to work in a manner that empowers
and includes. Groups searching to build an inclusive and egalitarian lifestyle,
to search for daily actions that bridge between classes and cultures and
primarily to build solidarity between activists and to facilitate full
partnership in decision making.
The
politics of love proclaims the decline of the professional Left. It is worth
the concession, as the politics of love are something we can truly desire. The
peace industry is not really good employment. We need the real thing.
Yael
Berda is an Israeli attorney specializing in human rights, one of the founders
of Mahapach, a Jerusalemite and poet. This article originally appeared in
Mitsad Sheni (edition 14-15), a Hebrew language quarterly of the Alternative
Information Center. Translated to English by the AIC.
|