Are Israelis Now Appropriating the Nakba?

[freepalestine]

Are Israelis Now Appropriating the Nakba?
May 14 2013 / 5:29 pm


By Susan abu al-Hawa


Al Jazeera Stream contacted me a few days ago asking if I would participate on a show commemorating the Nakbe. I would be the only Palestinian, the producer said, “to balance things out” amidst various Israeli voices. Here’s the exact excerpt of the email:
“We are looking for a unique angle with which to cover this and one we were thinking of was looking at the Nakba through Israeli eyes and competing Israeli perspectives. We would also like to have a Palestinian guest join us on set however, to balance things out. As you noted, it would be 3-4 Israelis and just the one Palestinian – but as I said, the Israeli’s will include those very critical of Israeli society on this issue. We certainly wont have anyone in the discussion who flat out denies the Nakba.”

After thoughtful consideration and rumination on my initial impulse to refuse, I responded as follows:
“I have considered your invitation and it frankly pains me that you would conceive of such a forum. However, I suspect that others may consider going the same route in the future and I am willing to come on merely to repudiate and discourage such a conversation from taking place again. As such, I would appear only under the following circumstances:
1. I do not agree to any form of “conversation” with Israelis about the Nakba, and that must be made clear.

2. Per the above, the show must be split somehow whereby I would follow whatever discussion you had with them. I do not agree to any exchange with them; but i will agree to a discussion with the interviewer afterward about whatever is said.”
The producer went and found “another Palestinian who was willing to come on the show”. He didn’t care to know why I objected. But I care to make it clear to AJStream and to anyone who cares to know, why I find such a show appalling.
Since we must perpetually put our pain in the form of analogies in order to facilitate empathy, let me do that to start off.

Imagine Germany never acknowledged the Jewish holocaust. Imagine, we are living in an era where Jews are still fighting for basic recognition of their pain. Then imagine that on the day in which Jews engage in solemn remembrance of their greatest collective wound, television shows choose to feature German sons and daughters of Nazis in a discussion expressing differing views on whether or not and/or how Germany should deal with the memory of the genocide their country committed. And imagine, of course, there is a token Jew “to balance out” such an ill-timed and inappropriate public conversation.
Unfortunately, what AJStream is doing is not without precedent. After the Sabra and Shatila massacres in 1982, under the watch of, and encouragement by, the Israeli army under Ariel Sharon, in which their Phalange proxy butchered over 3,000 unarmed Palestinian men, women and children, Newsweek featured an article entitled “Israel in Torment.” In other words, although Palestinians were again on the receiving end of the most savage violence to emerge from this “conflict”, Newsweek, like AJStream now, thought the most newsworthy topic pertained to so-called “dissenting Israeli voices.” They thought it was more interesting to examine ineffable Palestinian pain through Israeli eyes!

One can cite endless examples of Israeli appropriation of everything Palestinian – land and home, heritage and culture, hummus and couscous, narrative and history. Now, we see an example of appropriation even of our deepest collective wound. When and how did the Nakba become the purview of Israelis?
Israelis have no place inside our pain, the anguish of our society that they themselves created and perpetuate still. Why does AJ Stream think it’s appropriate, on this solemn remembrance day for Palestinians, to hold a discussion among Israelis about whether and how their country should acknowledge the savagery they perpetuated against the indigenous people of the land they now occupy? And why, most importantly, would any Palestinian lend legitimacy to such an offense?

The vexing and unforgivable part of this is that some of us facilitate this kind of imperialism. Should we call it ‘emotional imperialism’? colonization of our pain? Palestinian organizations invite Israeli speakers to mark Nakba commemoration events. Why? Is there nothing sacred? Is there a shortage of Nakba survivors? Of Palestinian historians, activists, or intellectuals? Can we expect that the Nakba will now be colonized by Israeli voices? Is it simply that the Nakba commemoration only becomes real when Israelis say so, just as our history only became real when Israeli historians copied our books and published what we had said for decades?

The only contribution that Israelis should make to the Nakba discourse is an unqualified, unmitigated apology, followed by a conversation about restitution, repatriation, and compensation. That’s it! Inviting a public conversation with Israelis to discuss whether their country should recognize our humanity is offensive and hurtful as we gather to remember and grieve; and Palestinians and Palestinian supporters should not stand for it.
In the words of our beloved Mahmoud Darwish, “So leave…Our wheat, our salt, our wounds.” Leave our wound that you created. Just leave what so little remains.





- Susan Abulhawa is the author of the international bestselling novel, Mornings in Jenin, and the founder of Playgrounds for Palestine, a children’s NGO. Autographed copies of her book can be purchased here. She contributed this article to PalestineChronicle.com.
Related posts:
http://palestinechronicle.com/are-is.../#.UZdFpqK1Gs_

[Per Levy]

Imagine Germany never acknowledged the Jewish holocaust. Imagine, we are living in an era where Jews are still fighting for basic recognition of their pain. Then imagine that on the day in which Jews engage in solemn remembrance of their greatest collective wound, television shows choose to feature German sons and daughters of Nazis in a discussion expressing differing views on whether or not and/or how Germany should deal with the memory of the genocide their country committed.

first of all, germany did acknowledge the holocaust, still jews had to fight for "basic recognition of their pain". second of all earlier in the text it states that none of the israelis who would be in the discussion denie or not acknowledge the nakba. third of all, it is somewhat in poor taste to put the sons and daughters of survivors of the holocaust on the same level as the sons and daughters of former nazis, wich in itself is designed to make em both the same.

1. I do not agree to any form of “conversation” with Israelis about the Nakba, and that must be made clear.

even after reading the text i dont really get why, tbh. besides that israelis are bad and are all responsible for crimes their gouverments and army commit.

The vexing and unforgivable part of this is that some of us facilitate this kind of imperialism. Should we call it ‘emotional imperialism’? colonization of our pain? Palestinian organizations invite Israeli speakers to mark Nakba commemoration events. Why? Is there nothing sacred? Is there a shortage of Nakba survivors? Of Palestinian historians, activists, or intellectuals? Can we expect that the Nakba will now be colonized by Israeli voices? Is it simply that the Nakba commemoration only becomes real when Israelis say so, just as our history only became real when Israeli historians copied our books and published what we had said for decades?

The only contribution that Israelis should make to the Nakba discourse is an unqualified, unmitigated apology, followed by a conversation about restitution, repatriation, and compensation. That’s it! Inviting a public conversation with Israelis to discuss whether their country should recognize our humanity is offensive and hurtful as we gather to remember and grieve; and Palestinians and Palestinian supporters should not stand for it.

so possible allies that happen to be israelis should be shunned and should only appolgize for things they probally havnt even done themselfs. even though if you want "an unqualified, unmitigated apology, followed by a conversation about restitution, repatriation, and compensation" you need israelis and dont shunn them.

[Rurkel]

it is somewhat in poor taste to put the sons and daughters of survivors of the holocaust on the same level as the sons and daughters of former nazis, wich in itself is designed to make em both the same.

That's a bit of a mystification - not all Israelis are "sons and daughters of Holocaust survivors". Some are, yes.

so possible allies that happen to be israelis should be shunned and should only appolgize for things they probally havnt even done themselfs.

I assume by "Israelis" the author means "official and semi-official representatives of Israeli government", not George Galloway "I don't debate with Israelis"-style. After all, common Israelis-from-the-street are probably not really authorised to speak about "restitution, repatriation, and compensation".

[Per Levy]

I assume by "Israelis" the author means "official and semi-official representatives of Israeli government", not George Galloway "I don't debate with Israelis"-style. After all, common Israelis-from-the-street are probably not really authorised to speak about "restitution, repatriation, and compensation".

maybe, but the author does talk about that she doesnt want to talk with any israeli about the nakba, no matter who it is. since i doubt that the 3-4 israelis in the discussion she didnt want to join were israelian officilas. so there is the "I don't debate with Israelis"-style too.

That's a bit of a mystification - not all Israelis are "sons and daughters of Holocaust survivors". Some are, yes.

thats true, still bringin up sons and daughters of nazis means to me she wanted to equate israelis with nazis, wich is still pretty shitty.

[Rurkel]

maybe, but the author does talk about that she doesnt want to talk with any israeli about the nakba,

It was in a context of a 3-4 on 1 TV show, though. She, as I see it, meant that she didn't agree to debate these 3-4 Israelis unless the Palestinians were given more participation then just one person, which is a reasonable request.

[freepalestine]

maybe, but the author does talk about that she doesnt want to talk with any israeli about the nakba, no matter who it is. since i doubt that the 3-4 israelis in the discussion she didnt want to join were israelian officilas. so there is the "I don't debate with Israelis"-style too.
.

by isrealis u can assume she meant zionists
http://angryarab.blogspot.gr/2013/05...palestine.html

[Per Levy]

It was in a context of a 3-4 on 1 TV show, though. She, as I see it, meant that she didn't agree to debate these 3-4 Israelis unless the Palestinians were given more participation then just one person, which is a reasonable request.

wich i would agree with, but still the author comlains that "Palestinian organizations invite Israeli speakers to mark Nakba commemoration events. Why? Is there nothing sacred?"

again, i agree with what you said, it whould've been better if Al Jazeera made 2 discussions instead of just that unique angle with the 3-4 israelis and one palastinian.

wow. great reply , did u read the same article.

i did thank you very much for asking, i mean i did quote several parts of to comment on it after all.

by isrealis u can assume she meant pro zionists ,idiot

can i asume that, since the article doesnt give that away, since "pro-zionism" doesnt even appear in the article, and since we dont really learn all that much about the isralis in the discussion. oh and thanks for the idiot, very much appreciated.

[Rurkel]

but still the author comlains that "Palestinian organizations invite Israeli speakers to mark Nakba commemoration events. Why? Is there nothing sacred?"

Probably just an overly hasty generalization from the Al-Jazeera incident. Better off rephrased, but I didn't get the impression that the author actually meant something sinister.

[Luís Henrique]

by isrealis u can assume she meant zionists
http://angryarab.blogspot.gr/2013/05...palestine.html

Because all Israelis are Zionist?

Luís Henrique

[blake 3:17]

People, read the very beginning, she quotes the email from the prducer:

As you noted, it would be 3-4 Israelis and just the one Palestinian – but as I said, the Israeli’s will include those very critical of Israeli society on this issue. We certainly wont have anyone in the discussion who flat out denies the Nakba.

Let's get away from the Nazis, and use Jim Crow http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws instead.

Many Southern Whites recognized slavery as having been unjust, were critical of elements of Jim Crow, and thought Blacks should be able to advance themselves. But they also didn't oppose segregation or racial inequality.

From a recent study published in Haaretz:

The majority of the Jewish public, 59 percent, wants preference for Jews over Arabs in admission to jobs in government ministries. Almost half the Jews, 49 percent, want the state to treat Jewish citizens better than Arab ones; 42 percent don't want to live in the same building with Arabs and 42 percent don't want their children in the same class with Arab children.

A third of the Jewish public wants a law barring Israeli Arabs from voting for the Knesset and a large majority of 69 percent objects to giving 2.5 million Palestinians the right to vote if Israel annexes the West Bank.

A sweeping 74 percent majority is in favor of separate roads for Israelis and Palestinians in the West Bank. A quarter - 24 percent - believe separate roads are "a good situation" and 50 percent believe they are "a necessary situation."

http://www.haaretz.com/news/national...emium-1.471644