Palestine: Wailing At The Separation Wall
By Robert Shetterly
You have what you desire: the new Rome, the Sparta of
Technology and the ideology of madness. —Mahmoud Darwish
I returned a few days ago from Palestine, where I was part
of Lily Yeh’s Barefoot Artist team recruited to paint a mural in each of three
places—the Balata Refugee Camp, in the Old City of Nablus, and in Al Aqaba, a
small agricultural village in the Jordan Valley that has been resisting
demolition by Israel for 40 years. This was my first trip to Palestine and
although I had read extensively about the Occupation, the illegal settlements,
the apartheid, the check points, collective punishment, and the Wall, I was
little prepared to actually see and feel—to witness —the extent of them.
Even though these various means of ethnic cleansing are
parts of the same supremacist project, it’s the Wall I want to reflect on now.
I’m not referring to The Western Wall, commonly called the Wailing Wall, in
Jerusalem. More about that wall later. I’m talking about the other Wall, the
separation barrier that Israel has built to separate itself from the
Palestinian people while enabling itself to appropriate resources on
Palestinian land. I offer here some reflections from my attempts to comprehend
it. At times the Wall felt as big and incomprehensible as the cosmos, rolling
away beyond words, like a giant gray snake over the arid and rocky land.
We are told that for Zionists this is the Promised Land. A
promised land is a garden, a private garden, for the cultivation of one’s
unique character. We’ve all seen gardens whose perimeter is demarcated with tin
edging, like a miniature wall, that separates the rich garden top soil from the
weeds. The wall is like a mammoth, concrete version of that metal edge. The
Palestinians are the weeds.
Walls built to separate one country from another, rich from
poor, powerful from weak, ideology from ideology, represent failures of both
dialogue and humanity. They are anachronisms, medieval. In the US one of our
most replayed triumphal moments is Ronald Reagan’s crowing, “Mr. Gorbachev,
tear down that wall!” That triumph is framed both in Cold War victory and moral
imperative. Walls are abhorrent. And yet, the US government continues to build
an enormous wall on the Mexican border, and supports the building of Israel’s
Wall. If Israel’s Wall were simply a result of paranoia and fear, if it
strictly followed the Green Line, the border between the countries, it would
elicit one kind of response. But because this Wall is used as a weapon of
occupation, apartheid, land and resource appropriation, ethnic cleansing and
economic strangulation, it requires a different response.
If Islam and Christianity shared Zionism’s dogma that all
land in Palestine is deeded to the Jewish people by God, we would have no
problem. But, on the one hand, championing the right of Jews to celebrate their
own religion and, on the other, accepting their right to take another people’s
land by religious fiat are two very different things. The crime and tragedy of
the Holocaust and the sympathy it rightly provokes justify neither imperialism
nor fundamentalism. Rather, they cry out for their opposite. The Wall’s ominous
guard towers function the same way identical towers do in maximum security
prisons. They imply surveillance with impunity, and humiliation as daily
ration. Are Palestinians meant to accept these walls, to believe that they
deserve them, to perceive them as normal?
Might I assume that, as they do in the US, smiling, cheerful
teachers teach the kids in Israel’s elementary schools about the value of
fairness? Of course, this value hardly needs to be urged on young kids. Kids
seem acutely aware of what’s fair and what isn’t, who’s taking more than his
share, whose greediness of time or food or art supplies is compromising what’s
available for others. At what point do those same cheerful smiles make a
distinction between others—like themselves—and “others”—unlike themselves? Some
people deserve fairness and some people don’t. This problem is not unique to
Israel. Anywhere there is systemic inequality, the value of fairness is taught
and then qualified.
A Wall implies its negative. It implies what it hides and
what it makes impossible. Therefore the Wall implies a future; it implies a
horizon; it implies expectation and dreams; it implies a journey; it implies
possibility, hope, surprise, wonder and development because it denies them all.
Many people exist in conditions on this planet that deny the literal and
figurative idea of horizon, an horizon that recedes as they move towards it,
continually extending the sense of life as quest. But the implacable fact of
the Wall says that if you have any ideas about fair access to a shared future
and personal dreams, forget them. The Wall says that its builders have both the
right and the power to erase the notion of horizon from your experience and
that or your children. The Wall replaces horizon with concrete power, concrete
finality, the closure of expectation, prison, and death. The Wall says our God
instructs us to remove your horizon, and that you, the un-chosen, are squatters
on our Promise.
It’s ironic that the color of the Wall is gray. There is
nothing gray about it. It speaks in black and white, in absolutes, about good
and evil, yes and no, clean and unclean, yes and no, free and not free. It says
justice is a one way conversation. The Wall appears to crouch on the land in
monolithic silence. But it’s garrulous. It can’t help itself from prattling on
and on justifying its presence. It says beat your head on me and learn who you
are in relation to me. It says, when the sun is in the west, you can rest in my
shadow, be grateful for that. It says there shall be no other Facts before me.
Outside the little town of Bil’in we participated in a
demonstration against the Wall. It was hot, the sun intense, the dry land
rolling and rocky with sparse vegetation, a few olive trees. Just visible over
the top of the Wall were the red tiled roofs of an illegal Israeli settlement.
As the small group of protesters—men and women, Palestinian and Israeli, local
and international—approached the Wall, the confrontation, absurd in its
asymmetric power, seemed to strangely mix historical eras. The Wall is a like a
medieval fortress. The Israeli soldiers clustered on its ramparts were decked
out in the black paraphernalia of high tech storm troopers, as anonymous as
futuristic robots. The demonstrators, in t-shirts and jeans, bright bandanas
and a few gas masks, looked like a lost remnant of the 1960s. They chanted and
shouted at the soldiers. Some young boys in the black and white Palestinian
keffiyeh scarves, the symbol of resistance, used slings to fling stones. The
soldiers shot tear gas. The puffs of blue-gray gas blew down along the Wall
away from us. I noticed then that the ground was littered with spent teargas
canisters. Some were hung up like netted birds in the rolls of barbed wire. I
picked one up—hard black rubber, the shape and size of a pear, or maybe a
heart. Made in Pennsylvania. Not surprising to see there were Americans on both
sides of this issue, some profiting from it. I sat under an olive tree and held
the black heart in my left hand while I drew a picture of it in my journal.
We met Amer Amin, a handsome young Palestinian graphic
artist, in a coffee shop in Bethlehem. The shop was exhibiting a selection of
his political posters. One poster was dominated by a picture of the Wall with a
thin strip of blue sky above, the perspective of a person standing close to it.
In that strip of blue sky Amer had written a line from a song by the great
Lebanese singer Fairouz: “You see how big the sea is! That’s how much I love
you.” The sad irony is that Palestinians on the West Bank, exiled from their
homes near the sea after the 1948 Nakba, may never see the sea again. This
metaphor of love is denied to them by the Wall as is the experience of salt
water. As I read this quote, I imagine another, “You will never see how big the
sea is! That’s how much I _____ you.” I’m not sure what word to fill in there.
Think of Israel’s Wall in relation to art and imagination,
the ability of a massive human undertaking to inspire awe. The artist Christo’s
1976 art installation, Running Fence, was 26 miles of 18’ high white nylon,
bellying in the wind and making what many people thought was a beautiful
statement, a flowing white line on the golden contours of California hills.
Many other people objected to the even transitory existence of the Running
Fence because it blocked the free movement of animals. It was taken down after
14 days. Art can be controversial. Or, think that the Great Wall of China,
built for security concerns now irrelevant, is considered one of the wonders of
the world. Its architectural achievement, even more than the Great Pyramids,
raises it to the level of art. The Israel Wall, though, a relentlessly ugly,
relentlessly cruel solution to a relentlessly unjust condition could never be
considered as art. The Great Wall of China was defensive. This Wall is
aggressive. It is appetite. It is a relentless refusal to talk, to consider
peace, to consider an antagonist as human. It is a 400 mile long diatribe of
justification for supremacy.
As this Wall dehumanizes the Palestinians, it ultimately
questions the humanity of the author even more than the victim. The Wall
reduces Israelis to this one colossal concrete fact of national hatred. It says
the Israelis do, in fact, believe in a one-state solution: the state will be
theirs and the Palestinians will be gone.
What the Wall cannot do: It cannot suppress the vivacity of
the people, their love of life, their friendliness, their pride, their outrage
at injustice, their thoughtful means of creative resistance. The Wall was meant
to kill their spirit. It seems, rather, to have concentrated it. Rather than
teach Palestinians a lesson in inferiority, it teaches a much sadder lesson
about those compelled to build it.
The holiest Jewish site in Jerusalem is The Western Wall,
the remaining section of the Temple Mount destroyed by the Romans in 70 BCE. A
prayer uttered in this most sacred place is thought most likely to reach the
ear of God. It is often referred to as the Wailing Wall because of the nature
of the prayers — loud lamentations over the destruction of the temple and the
centuries of discrimination, pogroms and the Holocaust. It seems to me, though,
that the lamentations ought to be concentrated now at the other Wall, the Wall
that does not symbolize the theft of Jewish sacredness, but the Wall that
epitomizes its forfeiture.
Many Israeli citizens are distressed about the separation
Wall, the settlements, and apartheid. Just as there were many Americans opposed
to slavery. In both cases the numbers were small at first but inevitably grew.
I have read numerous times —hard to believe in such a small country — that a
large proportion of Israelis don’t even know about the extent of the wall and
the harm it does. I want to envision a day when Israel and Palestine jointly
establish the RPPA, the Reconciliation Peace Project Administration, which will
employ equal numbers of Palestinians and Israelis to disassemble the Wall and
reassemble the pieces into houses, schools and bridges of understanding. The
solution must be one state because a state of mutual and integrated respect is
the only state that makes survival possible. Without that respect, without
justice, survival may be possible, but it is an existence in which everyone’s
humanity is slowly extinguished.
popularresistance.org
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please leave a comment.