I had been pushed as far as I could stand to be pushed and decided that I would have to know once and for all what rights I had as a human being and a citizen. --Rosa Parks
Like Rosa Parks and the leaders of the civil rights movement in the United States, Palestinians have adopted nonviolent resistance as a strategy for securing their freedom and prodding their oppressors to accept responsibility. This choice to engage nonviolently is deliberate and pragmatic.
Palestinian and Israeli advocates for a just peace to end the conflict in Israel/Palestine seek to end Israel's occupation and discrimination of Palestinians under Israeli law through tactics that bring attention to the grave situation, build international solidarity and put pressure on Israelis and their government to abandon discriminatory practices. This strategy does not put hope in the United States government or the governing elites of either people to bring about this right ordering of society. Secretary Clinton's speech today will be received with little enthusiasm on either side. Instead, the popular movement is a grassroots effort that puts the power in the hands of individuals.
This is the best hope Palestinians have for securing their freedom.
Those committed to ending injustice do not put emphasis on the political outcomes (the endless debates over one state versus two states are a side-show in my opinion; no one can predict the future, but we can dream of a better one), but bring human rights and equity to the center of the discussion. This starting point has allowed progressives on both sides to work together to build relationships in activism and community-building.
This is not a feel-good coexistence project. As a Palestinian whose people's existence and identity are being wiped out of my country, I'm not interested in making anyone feel "safe" or better about themselves for supporting the actions of the state of Israel.
And I refuse to accept the argument that the conflict between Palestinians and Israeli Jews is simply a battle over "conflicting narratives." It is about occupation and denial of human rights and dignity by the Israeli regime against the Palestinians both on their land and in exile.
In Palestine, the popular struggle in the villages is the focus of this movement. Coming to conscientiousness as a political activist in Palestine during the first intifada, this village popular struggle looks very familiar to me. Like during the first intifada, Palestinians are utilizing civil disobedience and nonviolent direct action--at great physical risk--to protest the Israeli occupation. Even though Israel's reaction to these nonviolent protests has been aggressively violent and extreme, there is great hope among Palestinians because the movement is democratic, non-sectarian and is garnering international solidarity.
Look at the case of the village of Beit Ummar:
Beit Ommar is a large village in the southern West Bank with a population of approximately 17,000 persons, most of whom make their living as farmers. Five Israeli settlements are built on Beit Ommar's land, and the main road leading in to the village has a permanent watchtower guarded by the Israeli military. Several hundred residents from Beit Ommar are currently political prisoners in Israeli prisons, and the village is subjected to late-night raids by Israeli forces almost every night. Despite the oppressive presence of an occupying army, Beit Ommar villagers have a strong history of popular resistance, with active participation from the area during both the first and second intifadas.
In early 2010, Palestinian organizers in the village united to form the National Committee Against the Wall and Settlements. The idea behind this committee is hardly new; rather, the activists are seeking to return to models of organizing used in the first intifada which transcend political party affiliation and combine political struggle with social programs and support.
Additionally, these organizers are seeking to link popular resistance in surrounding villages, and strengthen communication and cooperation...
And look how Beit Ummar will not affiliate with the Palestinian Authority and its interests:
Additionally, the National Committee in Beit Ommar has remained committed to operating outside of the influence of the Palestinian Authority. Organizers have declined offers of resources and delegations of politicians, regardless of their party affiliation. As the Palestinian Authority continues to crack down on other political parties or initiatives outside of its control, organizers in Beit Ommar seek a return to a participatory, grassroots and nonsectarian organizational model that increasingly seems at odds with the PA agenda.
The village movement was documented in the excellent film Budrus that showed in my city a couple of weeks ago. The film drew a large crowd. The story offers grassroots alternatives to the status quo and showed Palestinians and Israelis taking to the front lines to confront the Israeli occupation army. The most interesting part of the film for me was that it documented the important role of the local Palestinian leadership. This leadership crosses economic, gender, class and political party barriers.
The discussion after the film showed that many already understand that the U.S. and Israel are not committed to a real negotiated two-state solution. A comment about support for the Palestinian call for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions against Israel was met with loud applause.
The thing about BDS is that it keeps the conversation honest. When I'm asked to participate in a "dialogue" program with members of the pro-Israel camp, I refuse unless the conversation is based on a basic understanding of the nature of the conflict, namely that there on two very unequal parties. Israel is the aggressor with its occupation and discriminatory policies. This position is in keeping with the guidelines set out by the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI):
Events and projects that bring Palestinians and/or Arabs and Israelis together, unless framed within the explicit context of opposition to occupation and other forms of Israeli oppression of the Palestinians, are strong candidates for boycott.
Engagement for engagement's sake is futile. Dialogue must be based on recognition of basic truths and respect for human rights.
How does BDS keep the conversation honest? DKos' excellent contributor, Heathlander, wrote about just this issue:
I have found this to be the case with liberal Zionists generally: it is possible to have a productive discussion with them, and to reach broad areas of common agreement, as long as any real criticism of Israel’s policies, and in particular any serious effort to change them, is avoided. They will, for example, agree that Israel sometimes makes mistakes, or that the settlements should be strongly criticised, but will tend to reject any criticism of those policies that goes beyond very narrow boundaries (for instance, criticism of the Israeli political class as a whole rather than just the Right) and will recoil from any attempt to use boycott or other concrete means to bring those injustices to an end.
BDS demands that individuals take a stand to end the occupation. When Naomi Klein wrote in the Guardian in January 2009 supporting the BDS movement she confronted the accusation that boycotts sever communication by citing an example of how the cultural boycott opens up more conversation:
For eight years, my books have been published in Israel by a commercial house called Babel. But when I published The Shock Doctrine, I wanted to respect the boycott. On the advice of BDS activists, including the wonderful writer John Berger, I contacted a small publisher called Andalus. Andalus is an activist press, deeply involved in the anti-occupation movement and the only Israeli publisher devoted exclusively to translating Arabic writing into Hebrew. We drafted a contract that guarantees that all proceeds go to Andalus's work, and none to me. I am boycotting the Israeli economy but not Israelis. Our modest publishing plan required dozens of phone calls, emails and instant messages, stretching between Tel Aviv, Ramallah, Paris, Toronto and Gaza City. My point is this: as soon as you start a boycott strategy, dialogue grows dramatically. The argument that boycotts will cut us off from one another is particularly specious given the array of cheap information technologies at our fingertips. We are drowning in ways to rant at each other across national boundaries. No boycott can stop us.
So let's not get distracted by those here or in the U.S. administration who support oppression. Let's spend our time upholding the Rosa Parks of this movement.