Highly civilised people

Every morning's newsletter from the New York Times contains a note at the bottom about events that took place on this day in history. On December 29th, the third day of the Gaza bombing campaign, it read "On Dec. 29, 1940, during World War II, Germany began dropping incendiary bombs on London." For the people of London, if they had time to reflect on the irony, this must have seemed like the perversion of New Years Eve. Fireworks raining down in destruction, rather than celebration. "As I write", wrote George Orwell in an article published two months after the firebombing started, "highly civilized human beings are flying overhead, trying to kill me."

George Orwell

As of yesterday, at least 437 people have died in Gaza and 2,250 have been injured by highly civilised human beings since Israel's bombing campaign began. Many of them were civilians. Women. Children. 1.5 million people live on the Gaza strip, and half of them are under 14. It is the most densely populated area in the world, and all the doors are locked. How do you think the people there are feeling?

Let's not use names that do not fit the reality of events. The bombing of Gaza is a crime against humanity and a mass murder of civilians. There is nothing proportional or proper about this. There is nothing here that conforms to the laws of war. The people who ordered it are war criminals who should be tried in the International Criminal Court and spend the rest of their natural lives in jail.

On December 29th, I participated in a protest that drew several hundred people out against the bombings. We started at Parliament and then moved up the hill to the area outside the Israeli embassy. The mood was aggressive and unpleasant, dominated by Palestinian and other Arab teenagers and young men. Several people, mainly male refugees in their 40s, as far as I could tell, were waving signs saying "[Star of David] = [Swastika]". As we ascended the hill next to the royal palace, I saw young men running off into flowerbeds to pick up rocks. As we neared the embassy, I had already realised that things were going to go wrong, and I decided to make myself scarce. I detached myself from the protest, cut through the park, came out 50 meters in front of the column of people and passed just in front of the police barricade before making my way out of the protester's paths.

As the protesters reached the barricades, I saw rocks flying and fireworks arcing out and exploding under the streetlamps. I watched the protest for a little while, until I got too cold, and then skulked off home. On the evening news, I saw that the conflict had escalated and the police had used tear gas, and we saw kids in Palestinian headscarves lighting things on fire and overturning barricades and being driven away by police.

And so, another chance of creating the image of a respectable peace movement was wasted. In the minds of television viewers across the country, supporting the cause of solidarity with the oppressed Palestinian people is something that angry kids with masks across their face and rocks in their hands do.

Am I angry with the kids who threw rocks? Of course I am. What they did was wrong and counterproductive. Do I understand why they feel the way they feel? Of course I do. I feel much the same way. But I'm using that feeling differently.

Protests, though not neccessarily the most effective form of political action, are acts of political speech. They are meant to cause action to be taken. They are meant to change minds, to articulate grievances and differences, to show disgust and to be humane in the face of barbarism. They are rhetorical acts. Rhetoric is language which is instrumental: it is measured by how much it gets things done.

Throwing rocks accomplishes nothing. It creates a quick fix of gratification, an outlet for rage. Then the tear gas clears and nothing has changed. We aren't in this for our own gratification. We are in this to create political solidarity with the suffering people of Gaza. We want to end the violence and the oppression. More violence does not help. We are trying to build and articulate political consensus that will force the Israeli to end the violence in Gaza, and the unlawful occupation and oppression of the Palestine people.

Said more generally, though, I think that the actions of the protesters are going against the grain of what the peace movement has to be. It has to do with how I see what we're up against. Consider for a moment what the term "crimes against humanity" mean. According to the Rome Charter, it means:
[P]articularly odious offences in that they constitute a serious attack on human dignity or grave humiliation or a degradation of one or more human beings. They are not isolated or sporadic events, but are part either of a government policy (although the perpetrators need not identify themselves with this policy) or of a wide practice of atrocities tolerated or condoned by a government or a de facto authority. However, murder, extermination, torture, rape, political, racial, or religious persecution and other inhumane acts reach the threshold of crimes against humanity only if they are part of a widespread or systematic practice. Isolated inhumane acts of this nature may constitute grave infringements of human rights, or depending on the circumstances, war crimes, but may fall short of falling into the category of crimes under discussion [emphasis mine]
That the bombing campaign on Gaza is a war crime is so obvious one must be criminally negligent to think otherwise. That it also constitutes a crime against humanity is now something that we, as activists, must keep in constant focus. The people directing this atrocity should never set foot outside of Israel again unless it is to see the inside of the International Criminal Court.

When I began this post with the note on the incendiary bombing of London, I was drawing an obvious paralell. But the paralell does not appear to be as obvious to everyone as it should be (think, for instance, of the banners I saw in the protest. The idea that this has anything to do with Jewishness is stupid and must be beaten back at all costs. Norwegians can think, for instance, of Trond Andresen's unbelievably stupid article in this Saturday's Klassekampen). So to clarify: my point is that the Israeli government and military are, like the highly civilisaed beings of Orwell's time, comitting crimes against humanity from the air. Raining fire and brimstone on the innocent and the guilty alike. Burning children alive. Killing pregnant women. Killing people who had nothing to do with anything; who were just living their lives. Highly civilised people.

Consider again what crimes against humanity means. It isn't just blowing children up and saying that there is no crisis here. It is doing so as part of a systematic policy of atrocity. The children die because there is a plan in which their lives are not valued. A crime against humanity is using the power of the human intellect and rationality to destroy the civilisation which raised it. It is a crime which destroys our very humanity by using our humanity against ourselves. It is the perversion of thought.

The bombings are a nightmare, but it a nightmare of human invention - a crime against humanity. Crimes have perpetrators. Perpetrators can be tried and they can be punished. Don't throw rocks. All rocks that we throw hit ourselves. We will get through this by being calm but full of rage. Keep the rage alive and use it productively.

The opposite of a crime against humanity is civilisation. It is to use the same highly civilised gifts and powers and institutions that the crimes against humanity pervert in order to create peace, security and freedom.

I want people to talk about what is happening. Write about it, protest about it, demand action from your government, not just words. Demans Security Council intervention. Demand a peacekeeping force. Demans a boycott (if you think that will help - I'm unconvinced). But: Spread the information around. Sooner or later, something has to give. But for that to happen the peace movement has to be serious, it has to be massive, it has to be across the entire cross-section of humanity and most of all, it has got to be peaceful. We have to channel our rage through civilisation, not out of it, or towards it. We have to be even more highly civilised than our barbaric adversaries.

It sticks with me that the kids at the protest were throwing fireworks. I think this had to with available weapons at the time (later, they supposedly tried siphoning gas from nearby cars). Their rage was greater than the weapons available, but even with better weapons, they couldn't have won the war. It struck me, then, that this is a metaphor for what I am trying to argue here. We win when we stop trying to do the same as our opponents with weaker weapons. That's what being civilised is all about. Fireworks should be the highly civilised opposite of a barbarically civilised aerial bombardment, not an impotent attempt to replicate that bombardment on the ground. So save the fireworks people, please. We'll have plenty of use for them when we win.

Labels: , , , , , , ,


Blogger Markus Gaupås Johansen said...

Takk for et varmt og godt innlegg! Alle, ALLE må bry seg nå. Jeg sitter her foran nyhetskanalene og rister av sinne hver dag.

Jeg skulle så gjerne ønske at det var sånn som du sier, at de mest siviliserte vant. At bare informasjonen nådde hele verden, ville lidelsene i Palestina ta slutt. Det er dessverre økonomisk- og militærmakt som gjør at Israel kan begå forbrytelser mot menneskeheten igjen og igjen. Det har lite med det sterkeste argument å gjøre.

Det er nesten umulig å vise mitt avsky og mitt raseri mot Israel på en sivilisert måte. Hadde det vært 100 000 i den demonstrasjonen, som hadde vist det samme sinnet de palestinske kidsa viste, hadde kanskje Stoltenberg vært tvunget til å bli enda skarpere mot Israel. Jeg tror det.

Jeg ble nettopp bergtatt av Naomi Kleins dokumentar om hvordan arbeidsfolk i Argentina eksproprierte bedrifter og slåss for å beholde dem. Der møttes politi og arbeidsfolk til gatekamp om bedriftene. Til slutt måtte politikerne gi etter, av redsel for hva arbeiderne kunne finne på. Det KAN funke. I noen sammenhenger er det også nødvendig.

En slik demonstrasjon bør jo også være en demostrasjon av følelser, ikke bare slagord. Men kan hende du har rett, at det finnes andre og mer effektive virkemidler. Jeg vet rett og slett ikke hva som funker i denne konflikten når USA og Israel er så overlegne militært.

Men på punktet ditt om at dette ikke har noe med jødiskhet å gjøre, har jeg mer å innvende. For det første, er det israelerne som har blandet det jødiske inn ved å opprette en apartheidstat basert på etnisitet. For det andre er jøder i Norge og israelske embedsmenn raskt på banen straks noen kritiserer Israels politikk, med beskyldninger om anti-semittisme. Norge er visttnok det mest anti-semittiske landet i Europa, i følge flere. Hvis DET er anti-semittisme, ja, da er jeg anti-semitt. For det tredje så jeg intervju med forstanderen i det jødiske trossamfunnet i Norge på søndagsrevyen. Hun sa at hun hadde god oversikt over alle meninger blant norske jøder. Hun hevdet det var uenigheter om framgangsmåten, noen mente det gikk for fort, noen for sakte, noen var bekymret for sivilie osv, men alle støttet den militære kampen mot Hamas.

Det HAR noe med jødiskhet å gjøre. Det er ikke sånn at alle soldatene og hærførerne som slakter palestinere tilfeldigvis er jøder, og at de blir støttet av personer i USA som tilfeldigvis er jøder eller konservative kristne. Det har noe med jødenes ide om å være guds utvalgte folk å gjøre. Som nevnte Naomi Klein (canadisk jøde) har påpekt, kan ofte folk som har gjennomgått store lidelser selv bli til de som påfører andre store lidelser når de blir gitt sjansen. For hvis det ikke har med jødiskhet å gjøre, hva er det da? Hvordan forklarer man da de rabiate nybgyggernes oppførsel?

Ellers er jeg med deg å gå i demonstrasjonstog i Oslo neste gang, og når jeg tenker meg om vil jeg, under tvil, nok la være å kaste stein eller fyrverkeri.

January 05, 2009 3:43 am  

Post a Comment

<< Home