OccupationalHazard.org 01.05.03

The Occupation - 01/05/03

Humiliation is more than a sum of incidents

Danny Rubinstein - Ha'aretz

For half a decade, Harvard Professor Samuel Huntington's book, "The Clash of Civilizations," has been stirring debate. Since it was published in 1996, and especially since the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington, the book has been used to explain that it is Islamic zealotry's war on Western culture, not rational interests, that are driving global conflict. Osama bin Laden did not complain about the U.S. taking over Saudi Arabia's oil fields, but about uniformed American Army women driving jeeps during the Gulf War - "whores near the mosques," he called them.
One leading critic of Huntington's approach is Columbia professor Edward Said, the Palestinian-American literary doyen and academic, whose articles are frequently published in the Palestinian press. Last week the Jerusalem Times quoted him as saying he doesn't believe there is a clash of civilizations. Instead, said Said, there is a struggle between interests. "There's an impression in the U.S. that the conflict is between Americans and Islam, but truthfully, it is a conflict with a limited number of extremists, and that's the administration's view in Washington, as well."
These debates become particularly relevant both as war looms with Iraq, and regarding the Palestinian intifada. Nearly the entire Arab world believes the U.S. is getting ready to attack Baghdad only because of interests - Washington's ambitions to control the oil reserves of the region - and for no other reason.
On the Palestinian issue, the debate is more complex. What's the nature of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Is it a religious-cultural conflict in which the Palestinians and the Arab-Muslim East regard Israel as a foreign, cancerous element in the body of the Arab nation, inserting into the region customs and alien values from a decadent, decaying Western culture? Or is it a conflict over interests - control over land, water, economic and power interests?
The difference between these two views is clear - a conflict over interests can be solved relatively easily. Both sides eventually conclude that the conflict is causing more damage than good and seek compromises like dividing the land and water.
More dangerous
But when the conflict is even semi-cultural-religious, the situation is much more dangerous. It is very difficult to compromise on faith, symbols, cultural identities. Clearly, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has elements of both conflicts.
It's a conflict over interests with elements of a religious-cultural clash - or vice versa, a religious-cultural clash with elements of a conflict of interests. The question is which is more important. What would happen, for example, if the issues of the conflicting interests were resolved and there was an agreed partition of the country between the two sides - would that solve the conflict? The answers are not unequivocal. Various groups on both sides have different perspectives. In the ongoing discussions underway in Cairo between the Palestinian factions, there are clear differences between the Fatah officials, who emphasize interests, and Hamas, which regards the conflict as total and uncompromising.
Moreover, from time to time, the emphasis changes. There are times when the conflict over interests has a much higher profile and there are moments when the cultural conflict is more important. It's against this background that Hebrew University Professor Avishai Margalit's comments on the rise of the cultural elements in the conflict are so interesting.
Nobody commits suicide for interests, says Margalit. "Even when the suicide bomber's family receives money, it doesn't help the youth who died. The fact is that many are ready to commit suicide even if the family home will be destroyed. It's also impossible to portray suicide bombing as some new weapon discovered by the Palestinians. Suicide is not a rifle or smart bomb, that the Palestinians chose to use because they rationally chose its effectiveness. The main motive for the suicide bombers is revenge, says Margalit, and much of the research on the subject proves that. Vengeance is a matter of culture, a search for justice, a value. The suicide bomber pays with his most supreme interest, his life, so the other will suffer.
Margalit also points to humiliation in the territories as an important element making the conflict more about symbols than interests. Humiliation has become a key element in Palestinian complaints. Margalit, author of "The Decent Society" - meaning a society that does not humiliate its members - says Israeli humiliation of the Palestinians in the territories is not only harming their lives, property and livelihood, meaning their interests, but also their human dignity.
Not Arab dignity
"Sometimes we discuss the issue of Arab or Oriental honor or dignity, like in the case of the attempted lynch of the Arab couple from Tira who took part in the pornographic movie," says Margalit. "But the many complaints about humiliation that come from the territories are not about harm to their Arab dignity, but to their human dignity."
That's backed up by the hundreds of anecdotal cases of humiliation suffered by the residents of the territories. Last week the story was about the soldiers who cut off the hair of some youths who violated curfew, and about a youth was told by a soldier to pick which bones would be broken - his arm, leg, ribs. According to the complaint, the youth's nose was broken.
It is difficult to tell how justified the complaints are. Since the start of the intifada, there have been 281 Military Police investigations against soldiers and officers for offenses committed during their service in the territories. Some of those complaints are in regard to deliberate humiliation of Palestinians. But only 37 indictments were served. The Palestinians usually avoid helping the Israeli investigators trying to examine the complaints.
But to find out how influential the issue of humiliation has become in relations between Israel and the Palestinians, one need not verify each complaint. It's enough to take a look at the photographs that appear all the time in the Palestinian press. Many are devoted to the issue of humiliation. One sees elderly people making their way across muddy hills because of checkpoints, pregnant women trying to get past barbed wire fences and children wearing book bags climbing over boulders or through driving rain to go to school or get home from school. Many photos show soldiers aiming their weapons threateningly at women and babies.
Daily, there are photographs showing Palestinian youths, their hands raised, or standing in line facing a wall, as soldiers aim rifles at them. There are photographs of youths pulling up their shirts and dropping their trousers, to prove they aren't carrying hidden devices, as Israeli soldiers watch. The Palestinian press photographers shoot pictures of the suffering faces of mothers who lost their children and old people mourning in the ruble of their house or orchard just demolished by the army.
In East Jerusalem, too, the daily conversations are about the issue of humiliation, like the terrible conditions at the Interior Ministry in East Jerusalem. Dozens of articles have been written about it, but the picture of the crowds pressing up to get into the ministry offices continues to be part of the daily routine of the Arabs of united Jerusalem.
The importance of humiliation in Palestinian public consciousness is an indication of the importance of symbolism in the conflict, which is taking over the role of the material interests, further evidence of worsening relations between Israel and the Palestinians, since the intifada began.
© Copyright 2003 Ha`aretz. All rights reserved

Back to front

Humiliation is more than a sum of incidents
Danny Rubinstein - Ha'aretz





For half a decade, Harvard Professor Samuel Huntington's book, "The Clash of Civilizations," has been stirring debate. Since it was published in 1996, and especially since the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington, the book has been used to explain that it is Islamic zealotry's war on Western culture, not rational interests, that are driving global conflict. Osama bin Laden did not complain about the U.S. taking over Saudi Arabia's oil fields, but about uniformed American Army women driving jeeps during the Gulf War - "whores near the mosques," he called them. One leading critic of Huntington's approach is Columbia professor Edward Said, the Palestinian-American literary doyen and academic, whose articles are frequently published in the Palestinian press. Last week the Jerusalem Times quoted him as saying he doesn't believe there is a clash of civilizations. Instead, said Said, there is a struggle between interests. "There's an impression in the U.S. that the conflict is between Americans and Islam, but truthfully, it is a conflict with a limited number of extremists, and that's the administration's view in Washington, as well." These debates become particularly relevant both as war looms with Iraq, and regarding the Palestinian intifada. Nearly the entire Arab world believes the U.S. is getting ready to attack Baghdad only because of interests - Washington's ambitions to control the oil reserves of the region - and for no other reason. On the Palestinian issue, the debate is more complex. What's the nature of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Is it a religious-cultural conflict in which the Palestinians and the Arab-Muslim East regard Israel as a foreign, cancerous element in the body of the Arab nation, inserting into the region customs and alien values from a decadent, decaying Western culture? Or is it a conflict over interests - control over land, water, economic and power interests? The difference between these two views is clear - a conflict over interests can be solved relatively easily. Both sides eventually conclude that the conflict is causing more damage than good and seek compromises like dividing the land and water. More dangerous But when the conflict is even semi-cultural-religious, the situation is much more dangerous. It is very difficult to compromise on faith, symbols, cultural identities. Clearly, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has elements of both conflicts. It's a conflict over interests with elements of a religious-cultural clash - or vice versa, a religious-cultural clash with elements of a conflict of interests. The question is which is more important. What would happen, for example, if the issues of the conflicting interests were resolved and there was an agreed partition of the country between the two sides - would that solve the conflict? The answers are not unequivocal. Various groups on both sides have different perspectives. In the ongoing discussions underway in Cairo between the Palestinian factions, there are clear differences between the Fatah officials, who emphasize interests, and Hamas, which regards the conflict as total and uncompromising. Moreover, from time to time, the emphasis changes. There are times when the conflict over interests has a much higher profile and there are moments when the cultural conflict is more important. It's against this background that Hebrew University Professor Avishai Margalit's comments on the rise of the cultural elements in the conflict are so interesting. Nobody commits suicide for interests, says Margalit. "Even when the suicide bomber's family receives money, it doesn't help the youth who died. The fact is that many are ready to commit suicide even if the family home will be destroyed. It's also impossible to portray suicide bombing as some new weapon discovered by the Palestinians. Suicide is not a rifle or smart bomb, that the Palestinians chose to use because they rationally chose its effectiveness. The main motive for the suicide bombers is revenge, says Margalit, and much of the research on the subject proves that. Vengeance is a matter of culture, a search for justice, a value. The suicide bomber pays with his most supreme interest, his life, so the other will suffer. Margalit also points to humiliation in the territories as an important element making the conflict more about symbols than interests. Humiliation has become a key element in Palestinian complaints. Margalit, author of "The Decent Society" - meaning a society that does not humiliate its members - says Israeli humiliation of the Palestinians in the territories is not only harming their lives, property and livelihood, meaning their interests, but also their human dignity. Not Arab dignity "Sometimes we discuss the issue of Arab or Oriental honor or dignity, like in the case of the attempted lynch of the Arab couple from Tira who took part in the pornographic movie," says Margalit. "But the many complaints about humiliation that come from the territories are not about harm to their Arab dignity, but to their human dignity." That's backed up by the hundreds of anecdotal cases of humiliation suffered by the residents of the territories. Last week the story was about the soldiers who cut off the hair of some youths who violated curfew, and about a youth was told by a soldier to pick which bones would be broken - his arm, leg, ribs. According to the complaint, the youth's nose was broken. It is difficult to tell how justified the complaints are. Since the start of the intifada, there have been 281 Military Police investigations against soldiers and officers for offenses committed during their service in the territories. Some of those complaints are in regard to deliberate humiliation of Palestinians. But only 37 indictments were served. The Palestinians usually avoid helping the Israeli investigators trying to examine the complaints. But to find out how influential the issue of humiliation has become in relations between Israel and the Palestinians, one need not verify each complaint. It's enough to take a look at the photographs that appear all the time in the Palestinian press. Many are devoted to the issue of humiliation. One sees elderly people making their way across muddy hills because of checkpoints, pregnant women trying to get past barbed wire fences and children wearing book bags climbing over boulders or through driving rain to go to school or get home from school. Many photos show soldiers aiming their weapons threateningly at women and babies. Daily, there are photographs showing Palestinian youths, their hands raised, or standing in line facing a wall, as soldiers aim rifles at them. There are photographs of youths pulling up their shirts and dropping their trousers, to prove they aren't carrying hidden devices, as Israeli soldiers watch. The Palestinian press photographers shoot pictures of the suffering faces of mothers who lost their children and old people mourning in the ruble of their house or orchard just demolished by the army. In East Jerusalem, too, the daily conversations are about the issue of humiliation, like the terrible conditions at the Interior Ministry in East Jerusalem. Dozens of articles have been written about it, but the picture of the crowds pressing up to get into the ministry offices continues to be part of the daily routine of the Arabs of united Jerusalem. The importance of humiliation in Palestinian public consciousness is an indication of the importance of symbolism in the conflict, which is taking over the role of the material interests, further evidence of worsening relations between Israel and the Palestinians, since the intifada began. © Copyright 2003 Ha`aretz. All rights reserved
Back to front