martyrs

The first time I remember being really affected by the amount of death I have to deal with on a daily basis at my job was the day that a soldier was stabbed to death at a checkpoint, another soldier was crushed from the waist up in an APV accident at a base in the north, some 35 Iraqis were killed in a suicide bombing and another dozen people suffered the same fate when a Bangladeshi cyclist rode into a group of people gawking at a defused bomb. I was supposed to keep writing.

Later that day, on the bus to Jerusalem, I overheard the guy sitting next to me talking to his brother on the phone, and heard that the soldier at the checkpoint was his friend.

It's impossible not to take all these deaths personally. But getting stuck in fear is a bad idea if you work in news. I started working at Haaretz during the disengagement from Gaza and the northern West Bank, an excessively prepared-for circus that could have been a thousand times worse than it was. And then: three Israeli teenagers shot to death at a Gush Etzion hitchhike post, five more dead in a bombing at the entrance to a Netanya shopping mall that had been hit three times before, a whole slew of Qassam rockets and IAF missiles tossed back and forth over Gaza and the western Negev, 1,000 killed in a stampede in Iraq, another hundreds then hundreds then hundreds in suicide bombings in Baghdad, dozens killed by riots over a cartoon, a string of Palestinian kids killed by falling shells, another string of militants killed by more shells, a haredi father killing his son, an Ethiopian man killing his wife and then himself - all human and destroyed and faceless.

When the falafel stand in Tel Aviv was bombed a couple of weeks ago, I tried to stay detached. It had been hit before, I wouldn't go there, and 10 blocks could be really far if I let it. I heard there was an American teen wounded in the attack, and I tried to stay removed, even as every aspect of this attack kept hitting closer and closer to home.

But I couldn't stay detached, and I am not detached. Every fatality and every causalty, even when numbering among so many others, is an individual who within seconds had his or her life changed without any warning. This American teen, who has an Israeli parent, and looks like such a good, nice guy, a kid, is now going to wake up every morning - if he makes it - and after a split-second remember that he was the victim in a suicide bombing a couple days into a week-long trip visiting relatives in Israel and now everything is different. His story is everywhere on the internet, even though his parents have tried to keep the information among friends. He's not faceless. He is the wounded hero, whether he wants it or not.

Nine people were killed in that attack aside from the suicide bomber and eight more are still hospitalized, one other in serious condition. Newspapers showing images of the attack show the destroyed falafel stand, and then slip in a bunch of photos of the bomber - one that looks like a school photo, another of him dressed in black with a yellow headband, pointing a gun directly at the camera. There are images of his family crying, his mother's face wrecked and wrinkled, passing out photos of their martyr. Their hero.

The bomber chose to be this martyr, this hero, out of frustration and complete pessimism that anything better could come of his life. Out of occupation. Out of brainwash. This American teenager chose a shwarma, and ended up critically wounded, representing all Israelis, all Jews. The bomber was targeting Israelis, his oppressors - he wasn't out for this kid in particular, or for any of the nine particular people who died because of him - but that's who he got.

It didn't matter that neither this American Jew, nor any of the people who died, were his particular oppressors - to the bomber, all Jews in this land are oppressors, and it was up to him to fight. War is war. Innocent or guilty, fatalities and casualties are part of war. War is not supposed to be personal. But it is - every Israeli kid, every Palestinian kid, every American tourist, every soldier, every European peaceworker, everybody, everybody who is struck in war is an individual, a person. Each life worth an immense value, impossible to express. They become the hero, the individual who suffers on behalf of everyone else. There's the hero or martyr who chooses this fate out of frustration, desperation, or hate, and there's the hero who never wanted to be a hero or a martyr in the first place. They were just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Who's the victim? Who's the hero? Who's the martyr? It's a lose-lose situation.

independence or catastrophe?

Eliyahu McLean sent out this invitation for a joint Arab-Jewish commermoration/celebration of Naqba Day (the Palestinian 'catastrophe' day) and Israeli Independence Day. I've never seen anything quite like that, considering how impossibly contradictory the one day is for two peoples. Jews consider the day a celebration of 58 years of sovereignty in Israel, while Palestinians mark it as 58 years of displacement from their towns and villages.

For more information call
Ibitsam Mahmid, 054-7433974 or Michal Talya, 04-9531935

יהודים וערבים מציינים יחד את יום הזיכרון, יום הנכבה ויום העצמאות

פרויקט "מקום לשלום"
ועמותת "שביל זהב"
בתמיכת המרכז למפגש ודיאלוג בנס עמים
מזמינים אתכם למפגש דו-לאומי ייחודי
בימים שלישי-רביעי, 2-3 במאי, בנס עמים (סמוך לנהריה)

ביום העצמאות הישראלי מציינים פלשתינאים בישראל ומחוצה לה את יום ה"נכבה",
שפירושו 'יום האסון'.


במשך שנים הורגלו היהודים להתייחד עם כאבם ביום הזיכרון ולחגוג את שמחתם ביום העצמאות – כבאירועים בלעדיים של הציבור היהודי בישראל.

מנגד, הורגלו הערבים בישראל להסתיר ולהצניע את כאבם על האובדן הכבד שעברו עם הקמתה של מדינת ישראל.


חג העצמאות הישראלי, מעצם טבעו, מציע חגיגות נוסטלגיה למנצחים ומתעלם מהמנוצחים.

ביום חג זה מתגברות אצל בני שני העמים בישראל תחושות הפירוד, הזרות והניכור האחד כלפי סמליו של השני.



לנוכח פער חריף זה בתחושות בני שני העמים אזרחי המדינה, אנחנו, יהודים וערבים, נקראים לחשוף את המשותף לנו ברמות עמוקות יותר מן המקובל, ובאופן אחר מן המקובל בימים טעונים אלה.

נבטא את מה שמייחד כל צד בתרבותו, בסיפורו, במקורות לכאבו, נתחבר בכאב ובסבל האנושי עצמם ובשאיפה המשותפת לתיקון ולהשלמה, ונוכל לחגוג את נקודות המפגש המעשירות את חיינו, החיצוניים והפנימיים.

במפגש נחווה התבוננות פנימית ביקורתית; ביטוי אותנטי של חוויות ורגשות; היכרות והבנה עמוקה את רגשותיו של הזולת; תרגול של קבלה וחמלה כלפי עצמי וכלפי הזולת; הרחבת יחידת ה'עצמי' הקולקטיבי ('אנחנו'); הפנמת ערך האחריות האישית לגורל האישי והקולקטיבי; מודעות ליחס בין שינויים אישיים פנימיים ובין שינויים במציאות החיצונית.
אלה יהיו חלק מתהליכי המפגש שיאפשרו לנו לזרוע זרעים של
גילוי, ריפוי ושינוי מציאות.
בסדנה, המתקיימת זה השנה הרביעית, יילמדו וינחו אנשי מקצוע בתחומים שונים ופעילי שלום בהנחייתן של מיכל טל-יה ואיבתיסם מחמיד, "המקום"/"שביל זהב".
§ היומיים בנויים כתהליך אחד שלם, הכולל אירוח, לינה וארוחות בבית הארחה במקום.
שעת ההתחלה ביום ג': 14:00 שעת הסיום ביום ד': 19:00
§ מחיר: אדם בחדר של 3 אנשים 220 ₪ (חדר זוגי 250 ₪). נא להירשם עד יום ג', 18 באפריל.
במהלך פעילות הסדנה תתקיים הפעלה מודרכת לילדים בגילאים 4-14, מותנה בהרשמה מראש.
בואו בהמוניכם, נשים, גברים וטף!
לפרטים נוספים: מיכל טל-יה: 04-9531935 , איבתיסם מחמיד: 054-7433974
להרשמה: שירי בר 04-9831843


عرب ويهود يحيون معا ذكرى يوم النكبة ويوم الأستقلال



مشروع " مكوم لشلوم" وجمعية " شبيل زهب " بدعم مركز الحوار بين الأمم

فى "نس عميم" (قرب نهريا)

يدعونكم الى لقاء خاص ثنائى القومية
أيام الثلاثاء والاربعاء 3-2 من أيار
فى يوم الأستقلال الأسرائيلى يحيى الفلسطينيون فى أسرائيل وخارجها ذكرى يوم النكبة .
على مر السنين تعود اليهود فى أسرائيل على الأنفراد فى التعبير عن آلامهم فى يوم الذكرى وأفراحهم فى يوم الأستقلال كمناسبات خاصة بالجمهور اليهودى فى أسرائيل. وبالمقابل تعود العرب فى أسرائيل على اخفاء آلامهم على الخسارة التى ألمت بهم مع أقامة دولة أسرائيل.
بطبيعة الحال يدعو يوم الأستقلال لأحتفال المنتصرين. فى هذا اليوم تتزايد وتتعمق مشاعر الفرقة والغربة بين الشعبين مواطنى دولة أسرائيل. نحن اليهود والعرب ندعوكم للمشاركة فى الكشف عن المشترك بيننا بشكل أعمق من المعتاد فى مثل هذه الأيام المشحونة. وندعوكم للتعبير عن مشاعرنا بشكل صادق كى نتواصل معا من أجل هدف مشترك, الأصلاح والتسامح.
فى هذا اللقاء نعيش تأملا داخليا, نعبر بشكل صادق عن مشاعرنا, نتفهم بعمق مشاعر الأخر, نتمرن على التقبل والتعاطف مع النفس والأخر.

يدير هذا اللقاء الذى يعقد هذه السنة للمرة الرابعة ميخال طال-ية وأبتسام محاميد (همكوم/شبيل زهب).
برنامج اليومين متواصل ومتكامل ويشمل أستضافة, وجبات فى بيت الضيافة المحلى, ومنام.هنالك ترتيب فعاليات للاطفال –جيل 4-14 فى ساعات الورشة. هلم بجماهيركم نساءا ,رجالا ،وأطفالا.
يبدأ البرنامج يوم الثلاثاء الساعة 14:00 وينتهى يوم اللأربعاء الساعة 19:00.
الثمن للشخص فى غرفة لثلاثة أشخاص: 220 شاقل، وللشخص فى غرفة لشخصين:250 شاقل.
الرجاء التسجيل حتى يوم الثلاثاء 18.4 للتسجيل: شيرى بار 04-9831843
للتفاصيل: ميخال طال-ية 04-9531935 , أبتسام محاميد 054-7433974

surprised visit

Donald Rumsfeld surprised everyone, including maybe himself, by showing up unannounced for a visit in Baghdad on Wednesday. Bright eyed and charming, the U.S. Secretary of Defense who is currently targeted for resignation came to 'congratulate' the new prime minister on his smooth appointment and cabinet selection. And also to assure the war-stricken country that American troops would not be sticking around forever.

Later in the day, just when everyone must have been glowing from the surprise, Rumsfeld's friend Condoleeza Rice showed up, also announced - perhaps just as surprised to find herself in Baghdad as Rumsfeld, and hell, the rest of the world.

Why did two of the most senior members of the Bush administration show up on the same day for 'unannounced' visits in Iraq just as the same administration is standing to completely unravel precisely due to the confusion the whole world is feeling about what America is doing in Iraq in the first place?

(I'm not suggesting conspiracy, just wondering what the hell they are trying to achieve? These unannounced visits seem about as pure as a cab driver driving purposefully off a cliff and then offering to drive the victims to the hospital, congratulating them along the way for how well they are holding up.)

effective signage

An Egyptian demonstration in Dahab denouncing an attack earlier in the week that killed 24 people. photo by Nir Kafri, Haaretz

oh, the mysteries

My concept of reality has shifted since I moved to Florentine in south Tel Aviv last month.

First, there's my sleep patterns. Never very reliable, they've only become more sporadic since the move. I'm actually closer to work than before, which logically should mean I get more sleep, but I'm only getting less. I never get to sleep before either the wee or not so wee hours of the morning, if at all.

I blame the construction workers. And Ya'akov.

Construction starts every day at the crack of dawn and doesn't stop until the builders' voices are dry from yelling at each other, or until they are sure everyone in the neighborhood is wide awake. They really are nice guys, but they drill right into my wall every day and drop heavy objects (I'm talking cinder blocks and metal beams) onto my rooftop (right above my head) from the top of their work site in the adjacent building at least every half an hour. The sound shakes the building and leaves me cowering, certain whatever is being thrown up there is going to come crashing straight through the roof and onto my head. It has scared me right out of sleep on countless occasions (I work midnight shifts at least a few times a week, and am usually trying to get to sleep right when they start work). At first I thought they were just using the roof as a storage spot. Then I went up to the roof and saw them dropping a block of cement from their rooftop to mine. They told me they hadn't thought it would bother me. They also told me a month ago that they would be finished in two weeks.

Ya'akov is my landlord. He is in his late 80s and is very interested in us and our apartment. He calls early in the morning, often, to chat and is surprised when I am not always in the mood. He doesn't understand that I don't always work at midnight, and am sometimes trying to sleep. He also likes to collect rent checks and fix things not before and not after 6:30 am, and hasn't caught on that it's not necessarily everybody's best hour.

Then, there are the mysteries.

Mystery # 1: The feces in front of my apartment door

When my roommate came in the other day and told me someone had taken a shit outside the door, (actually, what she said was, 'aliyana! why do you always gotta shit right in front of the door!'), I thought she meant downstairs, actually outside the building. But no, there it was, right in front of our door in a building with a closed entrance and only one other apartment besides our own.

Naturally, we assumed the feces belonged to our neighbors' dog, so we wrote a nice note asking them to please clean it up, and assured ourselves that the dog must have done the deed while his human friends were calling his name from downstairs - our neighbors probably hadn't even realized it had happened, we told ourselves. Poor, shitting dog.

Note securely taped to the neighbors' door, we went out. When we came back, the shit was still there, and the note had been relocated to our door, folded inside out, and stamped with a new message: 'Not our shit. We sold the dog last week.'

This of course brought on many questions, not the least of which: whose shit was it? And, of course: who was supposed to clean it?

Mystery # 2: The artichoke, leek and potatoes rotting on top of my refrigerator

When I came home last week from Jerusalem, there was a bunch of vegetables sitting in and above the fridge rotting. I didn't think much of it, except for a bit of surprise at my roommate's choice of decaying artichoke. When I pointed out to him a few days later that the vegetables were still there and rotting, and maybe he wanted to eat the artichoke, he told me that they weren't his. My other roommate said she hadn't bought them either.

A true mystery.


Mystery # 3: The burning garbage dumpster

Without fail, every day since I have moved in, the garbage dumpster on the corner of my street has been set on fire, and police and fire trucks cheerfully visit the neighborhood. I don't take it personally - I think it started before I moved in. At first we assumed it was a vandal throwing kerosene and a match into the dumpster, but every day? Another unsolved mystery. Perhaps there is something flammable inseparably attached to the dumpster that ignites from daily friction? Or perhaps it is a criminal, underworld conspiracy (and perhaps these are the same folk that shat in front of my door and left a bag of rotting vegetables in my kitchen).

(I'm looking for a roommate, by the way, if you know anybody)

rude awakening

I woke up today at around 4 pm to the sound of the phone ringing. By the time I was conscious enough to realize that it wasn't part of my dream or the usual construction noises that plague my building every day, all day, the phone had stopped ringing. I saw that I had 6 missed calls and five voice mail messages, one from each of my parents and the rest from friends, all making sure I was alive and sleeping and hadn't been down around the old central bus station. It took me a few minutes to understand what was going on. Most of the messages started with something fairly standard like 'chag sameach' and ended with, 'because there was a bomb attack in Tel Aviv.'

What a way to start the day. I'd gone to bed at around 10 am that morning after working a midnight shift, so I hadn't had a chance to check the news again. I called my mom and asked her what happened. She told me at least eight dead and 30 wounded. She also told me it happened at the same falafel stand that had been hit twice before. The last time, three months ago, I remember the owner of the restaurant talking exctitably, saying how lucky everyone was, what a miracle it was that the only person who had died was the suicide bomber.

This time, he told reporters 'There is no second miracle.'

Finding out about an attack is a weird sensation. A million thoughts fly through your head at once, until all that's left is mindless and numb recognition. You call everyone you know to either tell them you're okay, or find out if they are, and then you go about the rest of your day. Today, I got my internet cable installed. Life goes on, we keep doing the same things, even when not 15 minutes away at least eight people are dead from an attack that could just as easily and arbitrarily have targeted you. Did target you, me, in that abstract way. We were just sleeping at the time.

combatants for peace

The amazing Ashraf, another Sulha friend, is co-organizing this event at Al Quds University in Abu Dis.
********

Al Kuds University Piazza, Abu Dis, Monday, April 10th, 2006, 3:00 PM

We are honored to invite you to the “Combatants for Peace” Israeli-Palestine Liberation Gathering. On the occasions of Passover and Palestinian Prisoner Day, we will gather around one table and describe how all of us, who were warriors in the past, put our weapons aside and replaced them with a non violent joint battle against the occupation and for peace between the two peoples.

“Combatants for Peace” is a unique non profit organization comprising a group of Israeli and Palestinian individuals who were actively involved in the cycle of violence in our area. The Israelis served as combat soldiers in the Israeli army and the Palestinians were involved in acts of violence in the name of Palestinian liberation. It is us, who in the past used weapons against one another, who saw each other only through eye-sights, it is us who cooperate today. The Liberation Gathering marks the hope and longing for freedom and independence of both peoples. The liberation gathering is the first public event of “Combatants for Peace” following a year of activity.

Schedule of event:
Gathering
Presenting the organization and its activities
Personal testimonials – the stories of two group members
Artistic show
Speeches
Summary and future plans

We will be honored to host you in the Liberation Gathering
For more details: www.combatantsforpeace.org
Elik Elchanan: 054-2015159
ashraf khader:0599778374

To be (colonialism) or not to be

I.

Whenever I get on a bus or hitch a ride, I mumble silently to god not to let anything blow up. I also make sure to ask god not to let the driver I'm riding with crash into anything, because statistically speaking, Israelis are more likely to be killed in a traffic accident than a terrorist attack.

After a little self-assuring prayer, I stop worrying. Why bother? I can't pass every ride with stiff nerves, scared that something is going to happen to me along the way. If it happens - and hey, it could - then it happens. Nothing I can really do.

A couple days after elections a Palestinian dressed as an Orthodox Jew blew himself up inside a car driven by a couple from the settlement of Kedumim who picked him, a teengager and a 20-year-old woman up from a hitching post along the highway.

The first time I was on that highway was when I was hitchiking myself, with three of my best friends, to the settlement of Shiloh for the weekend (don't be scared/pissed, mom, I won't do it again). It was my first time in the West Bank aside from a wedding I went to in Gush Etzion and a Shabbat spent in Ma'ale Adumim eight years ago. Both the Gush and Ma'aleh Adumim are verbally tossed around as non-settlement settlements, likely to be annexed to Jerusalem should Israel disengage from the West Bank. I've never been to a Palestinian city in the West Bank, the official reason being because I am an Israeli citizen and it is illegal for me to cross into PA territory. For the last many years I also refused to go into the Jewish settlements in the West Bank.

The first thing to strike me, when standing on the West Bank highway with three friends, with the strange feeling of having been suddenly transported, together, from Jerusalem to the shtachim, was that Israelis and Palestinians drove on the same highway.

Putting the separation wall and the IDF treatment of Palestinians aside for a minute as important but separate issues, what I noticed then was that the Palestinians villages and Jewish settlements are literally within a stone's throw of each other throughout the West Bank. Shiloh is less than a ten minute walk from its nearest Arab neighbor (and apparently heavily guarded, though it didn't look like it to me). Waiting alongside the highway, I saw two white Palestinian license plates for every one yellow Israeli plate driving along the same road.

This shocked me. Granted, I couldn't see the wall from where I was standing, nor did I take one step into a Palestinian village. But I was completely surprised to learn that Jews and Palestinians drive on the same road. And that Jews hitchhike, without worry (except me, mom) on that very same highway. For some reason I thought it would be completely separate.

What stops those Palestinians that are committed to carrying out an attack in Israel from pulling that same attack along the highway, next to one of the settlements? Not all Palestinians want to attack Israelis, but for those who do, isn't this the easiest place?

Apparently.

I've mentioned before how easy it is to hitchhike in Israel, and how, especially in the territories, it seems as though every Jew is eager as anything to pick up another Jew, maybe to avoid a situation similar to last week's events in Kedumim.

When I was standing on the highway, waiting for my own ride into Shiloh, I was scared. I knew that the chances of something happening to me then were as likely as something happening to me on the bus I take approximately four times a week back and forth from Jerusalem to Tel Aviv, but I was scared anyway.

Plenty of cars stopped for us, so many more than when I hitch in the rest of Israel. Most of the drivers were healthy looking, well-fed and suntanned hippie teens who invited us to jump in and catch a ride to the spring with them, or who suggested that rather than hitch, we hike through the wadi. Through Arab villages, of course, but a really nice hike nontheless.

II.

I started thinking recently about the idea tossed around of Israel as a colonialist enterprise. What got me thinking was the depth of the culture in Israel in terms of linguistic, religious and geographical pride - the quintessential terms for nationalism, but not necessarily congruent with the experience of so many colonialist movements. Aside from the Afrikaaners, I couldn't think of a single example of colonialism whereby occupiers had a language and culture unique to that place alone, where the occupiers considered themselves a nation, and not just a representative of a larger occupying power.

So is Israel an example of colonialism? What's the definition of colonialism? Is it necessarily a byproduct of occupation? Are these two synonymous? According to Wikipedia,

Colonialism is the extension of a nation's sovereignty over territory beyond its borders by the establishment of either settler colonies or administrative dependencies in which indigenous populations are directly ruled or displaced. Colonizers generally dominate the resources, labor, and markets of the colonial territory and may also impose socio-cultural, religious and linguistic structures on the conquered population. The term also refers to a set of beliefs used to legitimize or promote this system, especially the belief that the mores of the colonizer are superior to those of the colonized. Though colonialism is often used interchangeably with imperialism, the latter is broader as it covers control exercised informally (via influence) as well as formally.

Incidentally, Wikipedia also uses Israel's occupied territories as an example of colonialism as referenced above. Theirs is obviously not the deciding definition of colonialism, but it seems as good as any place to start.

1. Extension of a nation's sovereignty over territory beyond its borders by the establishment of either settler colonies or administrative dependencies in which indigenous populations are directly ruled or displaced.

In the case of Israel, the nation in question comprises Jews and Arabs (though with a government intent on Jewish character.) First problem here is definition of nation. Considering that this is the first sovereign nation state to be established in a land which has been occupied by one imperial group or another throughout its history, it's difficult to say exactly who the nation is here. I guess it refers to the Jews, but there are Israeli Arabs and Christians, and hey, we're already into the deeper question of whether nation here means religious, linguistic or otherwise. 'Beyond its borders' is another problematic designation, considering that Israel does not exactly have definitive borders. Some of its land was given in by international agreement, while the rest was won in war. Then of course there's the problem of whose borders we are going by, those described in the bible, those designated by the UN, or those declared following wars which Israel militarily won.

Next we come to the issue of 'settler colonies' and 'administrative dependencies.' In terms of settler colonies, this whole not having an official border thing really makes it difficult to determine what exactly a settler colony is. Colonies on illegal land? Should there be a difference in consideration between settlements deemed legal and illegal by Israel? Where does the bible fit in? What about administrative dependencies? Let's say by settler colonies we are referring only to land conquered through modern war and internationally recognized as illegal (meaning 1967 borders and on). In that case, the whole separation wall, deemed as apartheid by many opponents, is indeed a sort of ethnic separation, but also by default removes Israeli administrative sovereignty from all land and cities within the Palestinian Authority - a step away from colonialism. If we are to refer to all of Israel and its uncertain borders (not just those in post-1967 borders) as settler colonies, then this whole question gets a little more complicated.

That segs into the next part of the definition, the part that refers to all of this illegal rule being imposed on an indigenous population directly ruled or displaced.

I knew there was a reason I hate politics.

First, I guess we have to try to unravel this whole business of the indigenous population in this here holy land. Some would argue that the indigenous population, by divine and historical designation, is the Jews. Of course, that ignores the fact that Abraham, the father of the Jews, came over from somewhere in today's Iraq, and the fact that his descendents inhabited the land with the godly permission and commandment to kill and conquer the other nations existing there at the time - including the Canaanites, the Moabites, the Philistines, and yes, even Amalek. It also ignores that god's land promise was intended for Abraham's seed - should that exclude Ishmael?

Is the land Israel because it belonged to an Israelite kingdom for so long? Because the Jewish religion and nation were solidified here (2,000 years of exile aside)? Because it is promised to Jews in the torah? Or is the land Islamic Arab because they were here for so many centuries? Or Christian Arab? Or perhaps Ottoman, because they occupied here for some five centuries? Or maybe Philistine or Moabite?

Okay, that part's giving me a headache. Let's move on to the directly ruled or displaced part. In the years prior to British colonization, the Jewish communities living in Ottoman Palestine were directly ruled in the sense that while they were given freedom to practice their own religion without fear of death, only Muslim were eligible to own land or be Ottoman citizens. Jews were sovereign from the Ottomans only inasmuch as they were not citizens of the empir.e Displaced? Yeah, Jews were displaced, no matter where you argue they originate from.

The Palestinians have also been displaced. Are now displaced. Those who spout the rhetoric of Palestinians really being Jordanians, or Syrians or Lebanese or Egyptians are missing that point. Whatever displaced the Palestinians, be it the establishment of the Jewish state, the Arab neighbors who today voice international disappointment for Israel and who even in those days launched war on Israel, did not accept the mass number of Palestinian refugees. Not in 1948 and not in 1967. And not today, really, either. Was this to prove the point that Palestinians must stay in Palestine at every cost? Whether a nation of Palestine as such existed prior to the establishment of the state of Israel is an irrelevant question; one exists now. As separate from the rest of Arabs as Iraqis are from Syrians. Arguments that its lack of sovereignty keep it from being a nation are moot and ridiculous - Israel, comprised of the Jewish nation, is a modern state that did not exist before. The previous Israel was completely different. Not to mention, throughout our displaced history, Jews considered (and consider) themselves a nation, having to do both with land and ancestral heritage. Palestinians, regardless of when they merged, now belong to a nation they connect directly to a land. Saying 'Palestinians don't exist' is as equally obtuse as saying 'Germans' or 'Italians' (two examples of nations that did not exist until two centuries ago) are not nations, that 'Germany' and 'Italy' are not countries. They are now. And both, incidentally, are composites of patchwork nations nationalized into one by political and military movements.

Back to the directly ruled part. Palestinians are not directly ruled by Israelis. They are ruled by the Palestinian Authority. Theirs is an indirect rule in that they are subject to Israeli military control, and thus to international aid because of their collapsing infrastructures. But there is a democratically elected Palestinian Authority that, try as it might, Israel could not prevent from exercising its political muscle, despite any economic or military control it employs.

Regarding the question of any overlap between the definitions of occupation and colonialism, the idea of an extension of a nation's sovereignty over territory beyond its borders onto another nation's land sounds like a pretty clear example of occupation - but does that necessarily mean that occupation is synonymous with colonialism?

Wikipedia gives a bunch of definition for occupation, including the periods of time following a nation's territory invasion by controlling enemy troops; the act of settling onto an uninhabited tract of land; A situation where a country or region is under the control of a foreign army. According to this definition, even those who argue that the land was uninhabited when Jews arrived (i.e. "a land without people for a people without a land") should recognize that Israel's conquest of the territories was occupation. The IDF presence in the West Bank, despite its position of defense, is still a foreign and thus occpying force in a region inhabited by people not under Israel's political jurisdiction. From this, it would seem that while the definition of colonialism encompasses the definition of occupation, occupation does not necessarily imply colonialism.

2. Colonizers generally dominate the resources, labor, and markets of the colonial territory and may also impose socio-cultural, religious and linguistic structures on the conquered population.

There doesn't seem to be any question of whether Israel dominates the regional resources (i.e. water, food, aid) used by the Palestinian Authority. It does (though the issue of aid is a constantly changing battle these days). And considering the horrible state of the PA's infrastructure, it seems clear that Israel dominates the work and business sector of the region as well.

Does Israel impose socio-cultural, religious and linguistic structures on the conquered population? It doesn't seem so. Palestinians speak Arabic and are not forced to learn Hebrew (the majority doesn't speak it); Palestinians are Muslim or Christian, not Jewish; and I think any danger of Israel imposing socio-cultural structures on the Palestinians is probably the last thing anybody's worried about.

3. The term also refers to a set of beliefs used to legitimize or promote this system, especially the belief that the mores of the colonizer are superior to those of the colonized.

Terms or beliefs used to legitimize the system? I don't think Israel could talk itself out of anything here. Zionism as a system essentially embodies this part of the definition. It is the idea that Jews belong in the land, regardless of argument, because either a) god promised us such as the chosen people; or b) the more secular argument that leaves god out of the equation but fights for the right of Jews to have a homeland.

Jews do not have another country. Period. Using the argument that Palestinians are Arab and Muslim and thus could be recast into any Arab land is essentially an argument of ethnic transfer, and means nothing. Using any argument that one group is superior to another here is ridiculous and counterproductive. Here we are: two people in one land, neither of us going anywhere. The band Shotei Hanevua or Fools of the Prophecy, has a great song that comes to mind, with lyrics that go (in translation) "nobody is going to leave here... so start loving each other."

Or don't. But stop trying to prove you have more of a right to the land than the other. How could we even possibly begin to say who this land belongs to? It's like asking which came first, the chicken or the egg? Who cares? They both have the bird flu now!

4. Though colonialism is often used interchangeably with imperialism, the latter is broader as it covers control exercised informally (via influence) as well as formally.

The final part of the definition is actually the part which, if you're looking, most justifies the view that Israel is not an example of colonialism. This is not to make any comment on Israel military or humanitarian practices with regard to Palestinians - it is a comment on whether Israel is an example of colonialism.

When considering how Israel compares to standard colonial enterprises, quite a few differences come to mind. But none stands out to me as much as the truth that whereas in every other example of colonialism I can think of the colonizing group was a representative body of a major world economic or political power, Israel is not. Regardless of a posteriori arguments that Israel is a pawn of the U.S., there is no arguing with the fact that Israel was established not as a satellite of a thriving imperialist power, but as a haven for refugees.

Also, this need for a refugee haven demonstrates the other significant difference: Not only did the new immigrants not represent a major power looking for economic leverage, but they were all refugees who for reasons of personal danger could not go back to the countries they came from. They could have gone elsewhere, but not back to where they came from. This was not the case for the original Afrikaaners, whose ancestors were Dutch representatives looking to secure an economic trade route and, along the way, set up a European society. Afrikaaners would be hard-pressed to say they were Dutch, and would accuse you of insigating ethnic transfer if you suggested relocating them to Holland. But the colonial intention nevertheless makes a difference when considering whether or not it is an example of colonialism. The question of intention is also necessary in considering whether there is a difference between colonialist and colonist, referring to the distinction between settlement as a method of economic/military exploitation and settlement as a refugee solution.

Does any of this make a difference when considering when military rule/defense is necessary? Or when it is justified? Or if refugees turn to exploitative measures as a method of security? Or if the land is won in war? Or if the refugees turn to more expansive settlement through economic and political motivations once their greater state has already been established, and the refugees are no longer refugees, but citizens?

Every nation is entitled to its security. And every nation is entitled to live freely without being crushed or terrorized by its neighbor. Every nation.

The question of whether Israel is an example of colonialism is useless. The answer might temporarily satiate and satisfy, but it's not really going to get us anywhere. Israelis and Palestinians are both here. That's it. Get used to it.