23 billion shekels ($5,251,141,552), according to The Marker (Hebrew). Direct costs 12 billion shekels.

In order not to desecrate the sabbath, Israel is delaying its cabinet discussion on the UN ceasefire resolution (with which Israel already says it is “satisfied”) until Sunday morning. Meanwhile thousands of troops continue on their march northward, facing and delivering death, thanks to the clause in Jewish religious law regarding “pikuah nefesh”, which allows the army to fight “when human life is in danger”. I suppose this is just another proof that divine law is more complex than human law.

Response to an article by a Lebanese journalist Posted by info.pr on August 4th, 2006

The article “The Most Hypocritical People on Earth” by Michael Béhé in Beirut was sent to me by a friend. The article is supportive of Israel’s bid to destroy the Hezbollah.

I have no idea how much the journalist’s view represents the spoken or unspoken thoughts of his community there. We all know where Lebanon has been before, and I don’t think anyone would like to see it travel down that route again. And this is what I find most distressing about the article. It is not helpful to call people “vermin”, whether they belong to the side of the Hezbollah, or to any other side. To do so is to open the doors to renewed sectarian violence.

My son Yotam recently attended a peace workshop for children in Geneva, where he met, among other people, a Jordanian Christian priest and professor, who is president of an ecumenical studies centre in Amman. The other day this same priest sent a letter to all the young participants which began: ” Dear Friends, Forwarding some info on the Israeli Nazis terrorism.”

Wars and violent conflicts, unsurprisingly, unleash the darkest emotions of which human beings are capable. Who can be surprised if the same soldier who in better days helps an old man or strokes a kitten, acts a little differently in times of war? The pilots who drop the bombs on apartment buildings that contain little children are not (for the most part) monsters. They are the nice, intelligent sons of our neighbours and uncles, who in normal times would not harm a fly. I am sure that similar photos exist of Hezbollah militants. I doubt that they are the inhuman monsters imagined by most Israelis.

It is two-thirty in the morning as I write this. The fighting is distant from Neve Shalom ~ Wahat al-Salam. No bombs or missiles are falling anywhere near. It is only the dismay that we are in the midst of yet another round of bloody conflict that is keeping me awake. It is a conflict that could have been avoided. It is happening only because men in positions of power, on both sides of the border, do not have the best interests of their people in their minds and their hearts.

It is happening because ordinary people teach their innocent children that war is unavoidable, that those who do not belong to one’s own beloved religious or ideological niche are “vermin”. The current round in the conflict, however successful from the point of view of Israel, will lead to others, and others, each time more deadly than the last.

We will only break this cycle if we are able to stop accepting the logic of warfare, as it is presented to us by its adherents. It is inacceptable to drop bombs on residences, even if we know that our enemies are using those areas from which to mount their deadly assaults. It is inacceptable to target ambulances, to attack hospitals, or risk the lives of children. These acts may be reasonable according to military logic, but they can never be reasonable if we are to remain as humane beings. If we can’t survive as such, our survival isn’t worth much anyway.

An article I read lately by Gideon Levi suggested that both sides in the current conflict should stop the war and claim victory. It was after the 1973 war, when Egypt and Israel both were able to claim victory, that peace was made.

Instead, it might be more appropriate for both sides to claim defeat. Israel has proved already in previous wars that it is unable to beat the Hezbullah – all it can do is beat them back for a while. In the present war, Israel has also proved that it is unable to protect its civilians from Hezbollah missiles, even when it has absolute freedom of movement in the airspace above Lebanon, the ability to destroy any target, civilian or military almost with impunity, the means to keep up a constant rain of lethal shells upon the villages and fields of South Lebanon, and all the time generously awarded it by its patrons in the international community.

The Hezbollah failed, even before the war because, despite its entry into Lebanese politics, it ceased to make the transition from being a guerrilla organization engaged in freeing Lebanon from the Israeli presence. Its case for this ended when Israel returned to the blue line. The remaining segment of Lebanese soil, and the remaining prisoners, could have been freed more effectively through negotiation. Any aspirations beyond these things, such as aiding the Palestinians in their struggle, or even “ridding the Middle East of the Zionist presence” are extraneous to, or outside the scope of, its existence as an autonomous militia in Lebanon.

In the current war, Hezbollah has failed by showing that, despite its weaponry, bravery, and efficiency, it is subject to the same limitations as any guerrilla militia. With its missiles, it has succeeded in doing little actual harm to Israel. The only real utility of these missiles is to strike fear into the enemy’s population. And the Israelis have shown that they are not deterred by that factor, but only maddened by it.

Both sides have betrayed the basic expectation of ordinary people that their warriors will protect their loved ones, mothers, children and grandparents from the enemy. Here, it is not a question of proportion. Even if Israel has had the upper hand in sowing death, doom and destruction, both sides have been subject to fear and injury, and have been forced either to live in shelters or to evacuate.

Both sides should claim defeat because they resorted to military means in order to accomplish goals that could only be resolved through negotiations. Issues such as the return of prisoners, the settlement of the outstanding border dispute, the surrender of landmine maps, required negotiations rather than further violence. Any agreement that may be reached upon these issues following a ceasefire could have been more easily and less painfully achieved without bloodshed.

“We can’t return to the status quo ante,”

No indeed, nor any kind of ante, after all this blood has flowed.

“A full investigation will be conducted.”

It is you, the leaders who should be the subject of the investigation: the Israeli leaders who led us into this imbroglio, the Hezbollah leaders who placed their missile launches and command centres in the houses and apartment buildings of ordinary people. Insanity is the only defense you will be able to claim for leading us to this brink, for wreaking such destruction upon innocent children. No other excuse will be accepted. The leaders are not the only ones responsible, it must be admitted. It is we, the people, who allow them to use us as pawns in this cruel game.

“Israel will take full responsibility…”

Does anybody remember what it means to take responsibility? Can anyone truly take responsibility for killing or not killing another human being, except before the bombs are dropped or the missiles fired?

The true victims of this war are not the ones who are dying today, but our children and grandchildren who will have to bear the consequences in future wars, the fruit of hateful seeds sown today.

I can bomb you if I want
Pour molten silver from the sky
Incinerate your heart
And never ask why

I can take this thing of steel
And twist it through your skin
Make it corkscrew through your heart
Never mind about the spin

I can turn your lights out
Make you lie there in the dark
Put trembling fear into your heart
While all your watchdogs bark

I can save you if I choose
Save my children from your children
Hear my heartbeat in your heart
Let others talk of what derives from heaven.

The assumption about peace organizations is that their purpose is to work for a world where there will one day be peace. In the Middle East, that eventuality seems less and less likely. Just as we seem to be moving in the direction of peace, some rookie politician or militia leader comes along and sets out to prove to his buddies or his constituency that he isn’t a wimp, and launches a new round in the conflict.

The cliché is that everyone except a few fanatics wants peace. But the fact is, people are very easily convinced of the necessity of war. Right now, in the middle of the latest Lebanese adventure, it is hard to find a single Israeli who is in favour of stopping the guns. Even northern residents whose houses have been struck by missiles sigh and say that, despite everything, Israel is doing the right thing: If she didn’t go after the Hizbullah now, she would have to do so at some time in the future, when the organization is even better-armed than today.

The same sense of inevitability prevails over the Israeli – Palestinian conflict, where both sides seem to have sufficient interest and motivation to continue sparring for another thousand years, if necessary.

Against this hard reality, grassroots peace organizations, with great effort, scrape together sufficient money to conduct a few encounter workshops or other activities that have limited effect. It is perfectly reasonable to ask what, if any, is the lasting influence of such activities. If their purpose is to create a wave of public opinion that will sway the leaders towards peace, that objective seems almost ludicrous today.

If the peace process is, as Amr Moussa said this week, “dead”, and the goal of a future peace is unrealistic, does such work have any purpose at all? Is there any justification for a community like Neve Shalom ~ Wahat al-Salam, with its aspiration to show that Arabs and Jews can live together peacefully?

In the absence of hope for a blessed future peace, peace work will need to demonstrate immediate value for it to remain relevant. It will need to offer a useful approach to conflict in the here and the now.

The conflict is a real and present danger, and we are not able to resolve it. Therefore, how do we deal with it? The military response to the same situation will be something like “maintaining a strategic advantage”. The narcissistic approach will be to look after number one, seek greener pastures, or contrive ways of pretending the conflict does not exist. Peace work will avoid false solutions like these, in order to keep the potential for peace alive in ourselves and our society – just as the gene pool keeps alive the possibility of adaptation of the species to a radical change in climate.

It may be that the questions being posed here are more important than the answers. For me, peace work is activity where the means and the end are intimately joined. It’s about preserving a humane view towards people on both sides of the conflict where there is subtle incitement to do the contrary. It implies the building of bridges rather than fences. It means remaining vulnerable, in order to be strong.

Went with Dorit to the evening arranged by Machsom Watch at the Van Leer Institute in Jerusalem and, though we arrived late and left early, we couldn’t help but leave with the conclusion that the system of machsomim (checkpoints / roadblocks scattered throughout the West Bank) is intended to make life as difficult as possible for Palestinians. That point is indisputable – everything else is philosophy. You can ask why this is so, what purpose it serves, whether it benefits Israel in the short or the long term, whether it is effective in preventing terrrorism, improving the lives of Israelis or settlers, etc. What cannot be questioned are the consequences for Palestinians, who are most directly affected by the system.

To the Palestinians, one of these consequences is that virtually every journey they make from one area to another area within the West Bank (not to speak of traveling to Israel) requires a permit. Obtaining a permit is an ordeal, and the journey that follows the receipt of the permit is also an ordeal. Many of the main roads are blocked to all Palestinian traffic and only Israelis can travel these roads. Other roads are open but require passage through checkpoints. Going through a checkpoint requires a long, sometimes agonizing wait, and at some checkpoints transferring from one vehicle to another, since cars are not allowed through. Sometimes there is also a five hundred meter walk from one vehicle to the next. Other journeys require ridiculously circuitous routes, off-road travel, etc.

In addition to the permanent checkpoints, there are also temporary ones which are sprung by surprise by the military. At these checkpoints too, there are lengthy waits, and many cases of people being turned back. Often, decisions are made by individual army units or individual soldiers, acting according to their own initiative. Such decisions particularly affect the sick, pregnant women, and elderly people, who may need to reach a hospital quickly, with or without a permit, or who are physically unable to wait for long hours in the hot sun.

It does not always help that a sick person is being transported in an ambulance, since these are equally regarded with suspicion and often delayed. Dr. Salach Hajihia (Physicians for Human Rights) gave a fresh example from a few days ago, of a man who was being transported in an ambulance following a heart attack. After being delayed for twenty-five minutes at a checkpoint, he died before reaching hospital.

Permanent and surprise checkpoints themselves are not the only kind of obstacle encountered by the population – there are many others, including earth mounds, trenches and concrete blocks that often close off villages. There is also Israel’s security barrier, that is currently being built. The barrier, which cuts deeply into the West Bank, often divides farmers from their lands. In urban areas such as east Jerusalem, it divides children from their schools, and the rest of the population from municipal services, hospitals and work places. The barrier follows a seemingly arbitrary path, with the needs of the Arab population being a minor consideration.

Because the meeting at the Van Leer Institute was arranged by Machsom Watch, much attention was given to the matter of the checkpoints, but other areas where the occupation affects Palestinian life were considered too. Attorney Michael Sfard of “Yesh Din” (“there is justice”) spoke of the complete lack of recourse to legal protection for Palestinians. While Israeli settlers are policed by a special police division for Judea and Samaria, the civilian Palestinian population is policed only by the army, with no practical possibility even to submit a complaint at any police station. The police stations are usually in the settlements, and therefore out-of-bounds for them. If they do attempt to file a complaint (Yesh Din has tried to help with this), the police, according to Sfard, have no means or authority to conduct an investigation. Sfard pointed out that this is an apartheid system par excellence.

The system means that Palestinians are powerless when settlers steal or damage their crops, olive trees and property. Settlers have also frequently assaulted farmers, ordinary citizens, and even elderly people.

As evidence of a system of “ill will” towards the occupied people, Sfard gave a final example of the army taking an active interest in protecting the wild thyme that grows throughout Palestine. Every spring, Palestinians go out into the fields to harvest this herb. But since in Israel thyme is a protected plant, the army has decided to uphold law and order, and prevents the harvest. Sfard was making the point that the army suddenly finds that it has time to consider ecological needs, whereas it finds it impossible to consider the needs of the civilian population under its control.

As mentioned, the one indisputable fact of the occupation is its effect upon the lives of the Palestinians. Whether all of these measures are in some way justified, or in some way effective (and to what purpose), is another matter. Once, a foreign journalist told me he was unable to understand how Israelis could manage to live beside an oppressed and willfully antagonized population. The truth is that many Israelis do so by leaving these concerns to the politicians and trying to get on with their lives.

Trying to be 20 in Jerusalem

A photographer came in the office today, Dinu Mendrea – a Romanian born Israeli. He asked to see the article about Neve Shalom in Marie Claire magazine. He had worked with the photographer of that article in the past. The last such assignment he had done was a photo essay to be titled “Being 20 in Jerusalem, ” – part of a series of books about being twenty in various world capitals. The deal fell through at the last minute, but Mendrea’s work became an exhibition that has traveled around the world. He calls it “Trying to be 20 in Jerusalem”. In his own words, many of the subjects appear to be looking inside themselves. They do not succeed to be young and carefree in the same way as other people in the world perhaps can. The exhibition, and other work by Mendrea can be seen at http://www.photomendrea.com/. Mendrea says that, in his work, he avoids news stories. He thinks that reportage of the conflict helps to perpetuate it. But I wonder what he would have thought about the exhibition of photos portraying the checkpoints, which hung at the Van Leer Institute today. I believe such photos may have an important role in helping to remind Israelis what happens at the checkpoints, or on the other side of all the walls and barriers. And, for that matter, one of the movements represented at the event “Shovrim shtika” (Breaking the Silence) also started its life with a powerful photo exhibition.

Yesterday the film “Peace One Day” was showing at the Jerusalem cinematheque, as part of a festival of British films. Jeremy Gilley, the director, had sent an invitation, since a segment of the film had been made in the Village, and I’d had some contact with him at that time. So I gathered together Heide, who is working as a volunteer in our village, Jesse, who is doing some research for his BA degree, and Frank Cardelle, a psychologist, who had been staying in our guest house, and we went to see it. The audience at the cinematheque was not large, but I think everyone was impressed with the film, as became clear from responses during the Q & A session afterwards.

The Peace One Day effort is documented at its website. Jeremy, a film maker, worked for six years to convince the United Nations to adopt a day of global ceasefire and nonviolence on the 21st of September each year. His efforts eventually paid off, and the UN did adopt this as a resolution in 2001. The film inspires by its demonstration of what a single individual can do for peace in our cynical world. That Jeremy Gilley succeeded so well must have a lot to do with his personality, with its combination of intense commitment, and a fine balance between willingness to stick his neck out as far as it will go without seeming to be an aggressive self-serving egoist. He comes across, if anything, disarmingly modest. When I told him, at the reception after the screening, that I would certainly buy a copy of the film for the village, he not only said he would give us one, but literally ran the length of the cinematheque to go get it. “Just look at him,” I said to Jesse and Heide, shaking my head.