Michael Riordon

Child’s play in Israel.

This is the startling image that opens Making Militarism Visible, the English-language version of New Profile’s touring educational exhibit, Neither shall they learn war anymore (a biblical quote.)

Ruth Hiller reports from Israel that Making Militarism Visible is now available online.  It’s a slide show, 34 images, with text.

For more about Ruth Hiller and New Profile, see Civil-izing Israel, chapter 11 in Our Way to Fight.  But for now, a quick introduction:

New Profile is a registered non-profit Israeli organization devoted to changing Israel “from a militarized to a civil society.”  Though small, volunteer, feminist and rigorously non-violent, it has drawn the fury of the most powerful military state in the Middle East, one of the dozen or so most powerful on the planet.  New Profile members have been arrested and interrogated, and high-level attempts are ongoing to shut down the organization, or at least to make its members shut up.  Why?

Here is a clue:

“New Profile has made its aim to work towards changing Israeli society  –

• from a militarized to a civil society
• from a discriminating and oppressive society to an egalitarian one
• from an occupying nation to a respectful neighbor.”  (from the New Profile statement.)

New Profile defines itself  as a ‘movement for the civil-ization of Israeli society.’   I asked Ruth Hiller what that means.

She replied, “What you see on your travels here, guns and soldiers everywhere, we don’t see at all.  I have to retrain myself to see these things.  That’s how a militarized society works – it’s so regular, so normal, we no longer see it.  Civil society isn’t just about having schools, a fire brigade and such things, it’s also about how we behave as neighbours, it’s about respectful coexistence, and no obvious hierarchy between the military and civil spheres.  Do you want a country with a military or a military with a country?  Who makes a better prime minister, a general or a civilian?  How does military training prepare you for a civilian job?  Creating a civil society means creating something egalitarian, rather than having a male elite run everything as it does here, with qualifications entirely defined by your military background.  But we don’t ask such questions here in Israel, we’re too afraid – we’re people of the book who don’t know how to question.”

New Profile definitely does ask these questions.  So does Making Militarism Visible.

Introducing it, Ruth Hiller says:  “Please take a look.  We invite you to share the exhibit widely, and to use the visuals to explain how Israeli society perceives and justifies our deep and ever present military mindsets.  These images hopefully will provide a better understanding of the mechanisms that keep an entire country mobilized, fearful for its existence, and in a state of emergency for over 63 years.

You are invited to share the complete version or to use those images which you feel are relevant to your audience.”

To my way of thinking, the questions that New Profile insists on asking become more relevant by the day, not just in Israel but also in the United States, and increasingly in Canada, Britain and other countries where the elites are doing their best — or worst — to militarize civil society.

After bowing to public pressure and reversing their ban of the Our Way to Fight video, apparently Shaw TV executives are now in face-saving mode.

Linda Taffs of Pasifik.ca sent this update:   “They have suddenly decided that we can no longer have our regular Saturday prime time of 8:30 pm, but have instead given us times that are not so good:  Tue 1:30am, Tue 7am, Tue 2:30pm, and Sat 12:30pm.  We think losing our Saturday evening show is unfair, and we are asking the CRTC [Canadian Radio-Television Telecommunications Commission] for direction.  Thanks once again for your support.”

If they can’t silence us, at least they can push us deeper into the margins.

I see the change as corporate face-saving, and a sharp reminder to know our place: They are the gatekeepers, we are the sheep.  On the other hand, I also see it as proof of impact.  The sheep are getting uppity.  These days, forces that count on us seeing them as omnipotent are feeling threatened.  It’s hard to believe, given all the weapons of mass destruction/distraction at their disposal.  But the 1% want, demand, need total control.  Total control is hard to maintain at the best of times, and for the 1% these are not the best of times:  on all sides they see challenges and threats.  To them, any perceived loss of control is intolerable, and the violence of their reaction is directly proportional to how vulnerable they feel.

So far in our little skirmish with a branch of the Canadian megalo-media, judging by their reaction it would appear that the people who run Shaw TV are only feeling a little threatened.

The Israeli regime is another matter altogether.  Who knows whether or not it believes the image of constant, overwhelming paranoia that it markets to its own population and, via the always helpful mainstream western media, to everyone else.  What really matters is the devastation it causes, and justifies, and gets away with, in the name of this image.

Two current examples follow.  Each includes a plea for action.

1.  Khader Adnan, dying of Israeli ‘administrative detention.’

Now in the 57^th day of a hunger strike since the army invaded his home on December 17, Khader Adnan is protesting his violent arrest, multiple interrogations and continuing detention without charge or trial.  A standard weapon of the Israeli and other military occupations, administrative detention violates the right to a fair trial as guaranteed by Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.  At age 33, this is the seventh time Khader Adnan has been detained.

According to information provided to his Israeli and Palestinians lawyers by the Israeli Security Agency, Adnan was interrogated almost every day from January 18 until January 29, and on some days twice.

Alleged to be a leader of Islamic Jihad, he has not been charged with any crime.  One of his Israeli lawyers, Tamar Peleg-Sryck, comments:  “It should be made clear that he is alleged of political opinions and political activities – without a hint of any sort of violence.  However, the army accepted the Shabak [the Israeli secret police] claim that he ‘endangers the security’ and should remain in detention.’

On January 10 an Israeli military court sentenced him to four months of administrative detention, due to end May 8, but Amnesty International said that it could be renewed indefinitely, which is the usual practice.

Physicians for Human Rights – Israel concluded its public appeal with this demand:  “Based on the fact that Israel uses it [administrative detention] in a sweeping manner toward Palestinians, and its vast violation of human rights – including preventing fair trial, it should be rejected and Khader Adnan should be released.”

In a recent statement, Amnesty International reports that Khader Adnan’s life is now in imminent danger.

People around the world are joining a hunger strike in solidarity with Adnan.  It can be followed on Twitter, using the hashtag #9febHungerStrike.

Several petitions are also circulating, desperate attempts to save his life.  The latest is directed to the International Committee of the Red Cross:

“We are writing to express our frustration at your slow acting in regards to the Palestinian detainee, Mr. Khader Adnan, who has been on hunger strike since 17 December 2011.  Mr. Adnan is protesting his being held under administrative detention by the Israeli occupation forces.  Adnan’s detention is based on military order with secret evidence that he and his attorney are not allowed to review.  According to the order, he was sentenced to jail for a six month period that may be renewed without limitation.  His detention is continuing without trial or charges.  According to International Humanitarian Law, it is the responsibility of the ICRC to take active steps to save his life by applying pressure on the Israeli government to release him.”

Please click here to sign the petition.

2.  Terri Ginsberg, fired for criticizing Israel.

From Muzzlewatch comes this story of another kind of assault, in this case on freedom of speech at a US university.  Muzzlewatch is a project of Jewish Voice for Peace, ‘tracking efforts to stifle open debate about US-Israeli foreign policy.’

“A visiting film studies professor at North Carolina State University, Terri Ginsberg was dismissed after sharing views critical of Zionism and the state of Israel.  (You can read prior coverage of her case in Muzzlewatch, the Electronic Intifada and Ha’aretz).  She filed a grievance with the university, which denied her a hearing – three times. So she took her case to the courts. Two lower courts have decided against her, and she is now appealing to the Supreme Court of North Carolina.

“This case has implications on multiple levels: it is an issue of academic freedom, in which the university dismissed an instructor because they disliked their politics.  It is also a case of employee protections, or lack thereof, because it was Ginsberg’s politics, and not her performance, that led to her dismissal.

“The news here is that Ginsberg is NOT giving up.  The university has admitted that they objected to her views on Israel and Palestine.  Ginsberg has lost her job and countless other job opportunities because of this experience, and young people in North Carolina and at other schools are missing the opportunity to study with this courageous scholar.  But Terri Ginsberg is fighting back.

You can support her.  Please sign this petition.”

This just arrived from Pasifik.ca, which produced the Our Way to Fight video that Shaw TV banned as “too unbalanced and controversial”:

“Hello friends and supporters of Pasifik.ca,

The general manager of Shaw TV Vancouver just called us to say that Shaw TV will be playing “Our Way To Fight” this coming weekend.

Many thanks for all the letters of support for justice and peace in this latest struggle between this Pasifik.ca program and the community channel management.

Thanking you for your expression of solidarity,
Linda
for Pasifik.ca volunteers”

I add my thanks to theirs.   I have no illusions about how small this victory was on the scale of things, nor how many more battles like this we’ll have to fight.

On the other hand, I have an doubts as to how crucial each of these small victories is in the big picture.

Also, I have to say:  Shaw TV’s foolishness generated more publicity for the book than the small publishers who put it out could ever have bought!  But that too was entirely due to the quick response of many good people in several countries.  Shukran, toda, thank you.

This is what I call Our Way to Fight.

A Jewish woman (self-identified) who attended the talk in Victoria wrote an eloquent protest to Shaw TV, the company that banned the video of it (see previous post, Our Way to Fight, banned in BC!).

She also sent a note to me, which included this: “I noted your use of the word apartheid in your comments on the Shaw decision, something you have not stressed in the past…. I do not think the application of this term will open hearts and minds…  Better a different nomenclature in my view….one of mutual regard, justice, and human rights, equality… terms Jews recognize and relate to.”

I understand her point.  It got me thinking about the naming of things, and the uses of language – both important to me.  After all, these are my tools.

I am angrier as a person than as a writer.  As a writer I take it as a responsibility to filter my own reactions in order to do the best job I can in conveying the stories and contexts of people I write about.  Sometimes that means holding, even biting my tongue.

However, as situations evolve, for better or worse, the naming of them should also evolve.  It seems irresponsible not to write as clearly as possible what I see, hear and believe.  We are inundated with endlessly repeated images and language that blur meaning and distort reality, and too often we are led to believe what should be patently unbelievable.  How else, given all that we know by now about the monstrous wars of aggression on Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, how else could we now be led sheep-like towards a monstrous war of aggression on Iran?

In the past I held back from using the phrase Israeli apartheid, not because it’s provocative, nor because I really doubted it, but because I didn’t understand its application to Israel-Palestine well enough to confidently absorb this borrowed term into my own language.

In using borrowed words like ‘apartheid,’ I tend to learn from people I trust who are more deeply immersed in and affected by situations that the words try to describe.  Here that means Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank, and Israeli and North American Jewish activists.  All of whom use descriptive language far more emphatic and forceful than mine.  It is from them that I learned to say Israeli apartheid.  Also I learned it from South Africans, Jewish and not, who know apartheid when they see it, as it’s defined by the United Nations, and confirm that what they see in Palestine-Israel is without any doubt apartheid.

From everything I read, see and hear from people and sources I trust, conditions in Israel-Palestine are deteriorating rapidly, most horrifically of course for Palestinians, but also more insidiously for many Israelis.  Under the circumstances, sometimes I feel ashamed for being too cautious in my language, when honesty seems to cry out for much stronger words.

This comment came to the blog yesterday from Kevin Neish:  “I’m an ISM [International Solidarity Movement] connected activist who’s been to Palestine as a human shield and was on board the Mavi Marmara when it was attacked by the IDF.  I attended Mr. Riordon’s Victoria event and I felt it was an extremely balanced presentation, to the point that I was actually upset that he was leaning too far towards accommodating the Zionist Israeli positions.  If peaceful, moderate discussions are not permitted on issues like this then it will sadly only encourage violent responses and solutions to happen.”

I understand his point about the danger of leaning too far.  It makes me squirm, as it should.  And I can’t take the easy line of many smug politicians, ‘Well, if both sides are critical of what I do, then I must be doing something right!’  Hiding behind such glib nonsense, they seek to absolve themselves of responsibility for their own thoughts, words and actions.

This struggle with language, with naming things, is one of the primary reasons why I write the blog.  I see it as a kind of ‘open book,’ which lets me follow stories that might otherwise seem to end where the book does.  Obviously life and history don’t work like that, so the blog is a useful vehicle for transcending the finite entity that is a book.

It also lets my language to evolve as it should, in parallel to reality, so that I can name things as I see them.