Israel's "Security Wall" a Tool of Oppression

Athens for Justice in Palestine’s mock wall demonstration at Tate Plaza was intended to inform the University community about the impact the wall has on the people living in the Palestinian territories.

Although Sam Steinberg tried to convince you in his Wednesday column, “Security barrier is Israel’s right,” that the barrier is merely a small fence, he failed to mention that it towers more than 26 feet high – twice the height of the Berlin Wall – and that it is not yet complete. It’s path is ever-changing as the Israeli government decides how much Palestinian territory it should annex.

Steinberg also failed to recognize Bethlehem, Qalqiliya, Tulkerem and Jerusalem – cities in which neighborhoods have been completely cut off by this wall.

He also failed to recognize the barrier’s buffer zone, which stretches between 100 and 330 feet out from the wall in certain locations, and which has led to large-scale demolitions and expulsions of nearby residents. And all of this is being built on Palestinian land, not inside the borders formally recognized by the U.N. in 1967.

The wall is isolating Palestinians completely from their schools, workplaces, land, medical facilities and each other.

The completion of the wall around Jerusalem will isolate Palestinians there from the rest of the West Bank, creating ghettos where people live under the harshest conditions.

What many Americans don’t know is that Israel dictates Palestinians’ everyday lives. Palestinians must get special permission to travel between cities or to holy sites, to farm their land and to build houses on their property.

When they are allowed to travel, they are restricted to roads that cross mountainous terrains and humiliating road blocks that can make a trip that should take a few minutes take hours. And Palestinians are forbidden from travelling on many highways.

This can make it difficult for Palestinian teachers and students to make it to school, and sometimes entire semesters are cancelled.

Recognizing this isn’t anti-Semitism as Steinberg may lead you to believe.

There are many Jewish and Israeli organizations (Gush Shalom, B’Tselem, Jews for a Just Peace,

Not in my Name and others) that believe the Israeli occupation is an obstacle to peace.

The occupation is the reason Palestinians are resisting Israeli military rule, violently and non-violently (we don’t hear as much about these efforts in the media).

Violence is wrong no matter who is the victimizer, and although Israel has the right to defend itself from attackers within Palestinian territories, the wall isn’t the solution.

Collectively punishing the Palestinians is turning many desperate youths toward violence as a solution rather than toward negotiating.

The idea of separation implies disengagement from cooperation and encourages each party to seek solutions without consideration for one another, resulting in no peace for either side.

The mock wall demonstration attempted to expose the University to the racist, oppressive and illegal actions the Israeli government and military practice daily.

The occupation of Palestine has become a harsh symbol of Israel and its main supporter, the United States, not Judaism. We cannot be intimidated into silence by those who pull out the anti-Semitism card every time someone attempts to reveal the true consequences of Israel’s occupation of Palestinian areas.

Sure, the Holocaust was horrible, as Mr. Steinberg pointed out yesterday. But the Israeli Wall also is horrible.

And unlike the Holocaust, it’s affecting people in 2005.

Israeli Wall Denies Palestinian Rights

In the occupied territories of the West Bank, the Israeli government is constructing a wall which will stretch to more than 400 miles long.

Although Israel and its supporters refer to the Wall as a “security fence,” it is an attempt to permanently occupy Palestinian land and to prevent future possibility of a Palestinian state.

The wall doesn’t follow the internationally recognized Green Line border of 1967; it cuts into Palestinian territory and, while it is still in construction, the proposal intends to incorporate 98 percent of the Jew only settlements throughout the West Bank, leaving the Palestinians trapped inside the Wall on only 12 percent of historic Palestine.

Another 16 percent of Palestinians living in the West Bank will find themselves located outside the wall due to its path and will be living amongst the same Jew-only settlements which the wall was intended to “separate” them from.

As Americans whose tax dollars go to Israel by the billions yearly to support military occupation of Palestine, we should be aware of the human rights violations practiced by the Israeli policies.

Palestinians are denied many things:

The freedom of religion (the wall makes the Holy City and Rachael’s Tomb, sites sacred to both Jews and Palestinians, inaccessible to Palestinians)

The right to work (the wall and Israeli closures of cities prevent residents from traveling for employment — in 2000 Palestinian unemployment was 18 percent, in 2004 it is 80 percent)

The right to education (the wall is keeping many students who don’t live in the same town as their school from going to class)

The right to healthcare (UNWRA hospital has been made inaccessible to refugees camps in the Northern West Bank)

The right to property (farmers and families near the wall are deprived of their land which is being isolated or razed)

The freedom of movement (Israeli soldiers determine who and when someone is permitted to cross the gate of the wall).

It is clear the wall is not a mechanism of defense; it is part of a racist policy which imprisons Palestinians on their own land in order for Jews from around the world to have a free place to live.

Attacks from both sides are still occurring, and with Palestinians claiming the occupation as the reason for their attacks and Israel claiming those attacks are the reasons for their occupation, it is clear to me the status quo is a path to more destruction.

We represent a country that embraces diversity and tolerance; how can we stay silent as billions of our dollars support a country that oppresses people because of their nationality?

How can we encourage tolerance and freedom of religion in Iraq and Iran when we support Israel, which discriminates against non-Jews under their rule?

It is time we reconsider our government’s unbalanced support of Israel and encourage it to be a more effective broker of peace in the region by helping and criticizing both sides equally.

No matter how bad politicians and zealots try to paint this picture of Jews vs. Muslims (there are Christian Palestinians) or Good vs. Evil, we need to realize this is a conflict between two people on one land, and there are rational reasons to why Palestinians are resisting the Israeli occupation.

Palestinians have a claim on the land of which they are the indigenous people. We can’t stand silently as the land is slowly cleansed of them so that some Israelis can have a Jew-only State.

Prophet Cartoons Insult All Muslims

Last September, the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten printed a series of cartoons that claimed to be a depiction of the Prophet Muhammad. More recently, numerous newspaper editors throughout Europe have republished the same cartoons. These cartoons mocked the Prophet and used symbols relating the Prophet to terrorism.

Since then, I haven’t stoned anyone, I haven’t attacked policemen, I haven’t set fire to media outlets, nor have I searched for the Danish embassy. But make no mistake – as a Muslim, I was offended beyond words. The media circus surrounding the reaction from the Muslim world has offered us a battle between freedom of speech and Islamic beliefs. And the American public has, to an extent, accepted this picture.

However, I believe we haven’t been exposed to enough in order to understand that this debate is deeper when considering the context.

The first issue with respect to religion is that Islam prohibits these images to protect the worship of the Oneness of God from idolatry, but another aspect that may shed light on this situation is the love that Muslims hold for their faith and Prophet. Through the Quran and teachings of Muhammad, Muslims are asked to love the Prophet more than their families and more than themselves.

Thus it would have been less offensive to personally insult every Muslim alive today than to insult the religion’s Prophet.

So is it wrong for certain issues held sacred by many to be respected by others?

It is important to remember that these published cartoons were not simple pictures, but they actually ridiculed the Prophet and Islam as a religion. The cartoons make the point that the Prophet was a terrorist, and thus so would all of those who follow his example. In this case, freedom of speech was used in a racist manner poking fun at a religion and inspiring doubt on the intentions of Muslims as good citizens by their fellow countrymen.

Muslims are not (at least should not be) intending to impose their beliefs to restrict freedom of speech, nor are they attempting to convince non-Muslims into believing what we believe.

The Quran covers this point numerous times with verses that encourage us, Muslims, to avoid abusing those who don’t follow Islam (ch6. v.108) and also advising Muslims that it is okay for the people of other faiths to keep their religions (ch.109). I think the underlying theme we understand from this is respect for one another.

With that said, I believe this conflict has resulted from the simple abuse of freedom of speech; using it as an outlet to insult, incite hatred and ridicule on the basis of racism.

Considering the Danish prime minister’s refusal to meet an Arab delegation protesting the newspaper’s printing back in September, and the fact that numerous European newspapers republished the offensive material later, I beg the question “why was this comic strip so popular in Europe?”

We should consider that Denmark’s government is currently strongly supported by an anti-immigration party, which stands strongly behind prohibiting Muslim immigrants from entering and integrating into Denmark. We also know there is a huge gap in social status between Muslim immigrants and natives throughout Western Europe, a region whose history with diversity has been more tumultuous than our own country’s.

And what about the hypocrisy behind the usage of this freedom? In 2003 the same Dutch newspaper refused to print cartoons depicting Jesus (peace be upon Him) because the editor, Jens Kaiser, declared, “I don’t think Jyllands-Posten’s readers will enjoy the drawings.”

Freedom of speech is great, is needed in society and is a sign of liberty, but we would be wrong to assume that freedom of speech in the West is, or should be, absolute. There are limitations that consider libel, hate and other factors.

I believe freedom of speech must be defended, and it must withstand the objections of an insulted audience, but the people who have access to the public must show good judgment and responsibility with respect to this freedom.

What the Dutch newspaper did, and the European newspapers that copied it, was purely a disrespectful and insensitive attack on the Muslim world. Their motives, I assure you, go beyond exercising their freedom of speech.