My Experience in Bil’in
July 11, 2005
A few more thoughts about my experience in Bil’in. Also, the Bil’in photo album is here. First, I searched Google News for articles that talked about the demonstration and came up with the following links:
- The Electronic Intifada: Article from a Boise State University Professor
- Ynetnews: This is the first article that I saw, the one that mentions the Molotov cocktail.
I don’t know if some of these reporters were there or not, because there are some things that are simply not true that were reported.
First of all, I don’t know how any of the Israeli soldiers could have been injured, unless they let off some shock bombs at their feet, or if they breathed in too much of their own tear gas…I just don’t know. They were all wearing extremely protective helmets and had riot shields. So I was a bit confused at that.
But the most grievous mistake in the article was the mentioning of the Molotov cocktail explosive. In the Ynetnews article, they said the following: “Meanwhile, army officials said a Molotov cocktail was hurled by one of the protesters, marking the first such attack during an anti-fence protest in Bil’in.” Now, I cannot tell you what happened on the frontlines after I ran back up to the top of the hill, but I can tell you what I saw seconds before the shock bombs exploded at my feet and the tear gas began to enter my lungs. Just mere seconds before that, I looked up and saw a medium-sized rock over the Israeli army; that was the very last thing that I saw. Two of my other friends who were in the very front saw it actually hit the soldier’s helmet. And that was it. Then came the explosions, the tear gas and later, the rubber bullets. Again, I don’t know if later in the skirmish, maybe an explosive was thrown at the army. But that is besides the point; the articles states that the violence began because an explosive (a Molotov cocktail) was thrown into the Israeli army – and that is simply false; it did not happen. It’s pretty interesting to be present at an event, and then read news that is completely contrary to what you witnessed. I find that all very interesting.
For a quick summary of the information on the International Court of Justice’s ruling about the illegality of the Wall, go here. The demonstration was to celebrate the one-year anniversary of that ICJ decision. They marched down to the area close to the Wall (where the IDF soldiers were waiting with riot shields) and chanted very things in Arabic. When they got down there, there was a conversation that took place, and then the Muslims prayed for the land that was being confiscated by the Wall being built on the land of Bil’in. If the Wall is completed around Bil’in, it will take over about 60% of the land of the small village. That is what the demonstration was about.
After about 45 minutes, there began some stone-throwing by Palestinian youth, and there were a few moments when we thought the demonstration would be over, and the Israeli army would begin the tear gas, but it wasn’t until the final rock hit the soldier that the tear-gas and shock bombs (or shock grenades, as some people are calling them). After that, it was mainly running…and more running from me. Here is one video that I was able to grab after running up to the top of the hill (video will be up soon). I will also be writing some more thoughts about the transition from the non-violent to violent demonstration that took place, and what I’m thinking about the stone throwing…
Tags: Bil'in, Palestine, Protests, Travel
Posted in Politics
Adam Walker Cleaveland: 
July 11th, 2005 at 10:38 am
For the exact wording of the ICJ’s ruling, you can go here:
http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idocket/imwp/imwpframe.htm
Go to this address for the American judge’s dissenting opinion concerning the ICJ’s rulilng:
http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idocket/imwp/imwpframe.htm
I think it better not to read court decisions based on how other have interpreted them, if at all possible.
July 11th, 2005 at 12:45 pm
Adam,
Welcome to the harsh reality. It is ironic that the increased possibility for communications also brings about the increased possibility for communicating false information. Ironically, the more communications increase, the more personal relationships by which we can validate data will matter.
July 11th, 2005 at 6:11 pm
As I read the article, I don’t see where it says that the army responded because of a Molotov cocktail. It says, “The army refrained from responding to the attacks at first, the IDF said, but later dispersed the protesters.” That seems to say that they held off after the first rock-throwing, but then decided to act. The next sentence says, “Meanwhile, army officials said a Molotov cocktail was hurled by one of the protesters, marking the first such attack during an anti-fence protest in Bil’in.” That just says that it happened–not that it caused the response. “Meanwhile”, in fact, seems to indicate at the same time as the response–which suggests the the Cocktail was in response to the Israeli’s response. That’s how I read it anyway. I don’t see where it says it was the cause of it.
I don’t see this story being a flat-out lie as much as unclearly written. As you say, maybe it was thrown later while you were getting out of there.
As for the rocks meriting a response, I guess it depends on the size of the rock!
July 11th, 2005 at 9:16 pm
just wanted to tell you that we’re praying for you, and that i so appreciate your story -
July 12th, 2005 at 8:30 am
Keith, sorry, yes, as I’m paying a lot more attention to language now, I should have read that more carefully…and while there is still a possibility, the more people I talk to who were there at the protest, and who stayed down at the frontlines longer, no one saw a Molotov cocktail.
July 12th, 2005 at 12:49 pm
Who knows. I wouldn’t be surprised if the cocktail story is Israeli spin, to justify their actions. Responding to rocks with that kind of force seems a bit unwarranted–or would be perceived that way by most people.
July 14th, 2005 at 4:55 am
http://cleave.blogs.com/summer/2005/06/peace_propagand.html
http://cleave.blogs.com/summer/2005/06/from_inside_the.html
http://cleave.blogs.com/summer/2005/06/what_would_you_.html
http://cleave.blogs.com/summer/2005/07/bilin_demonstra.html
Adam/Reno–
Your rhetoric (both of you) seems at times to be excessive, though I have more sympathy for Adam - not for the rhetoric he uses, but the reasons why it might be excessive, namely, living among people in a difficult situation.
Adam, those that responded to the use of “Apartheid wall” do so because we primarily associate that with the history of South Africa, a history which has significant differences to the Palestine-Israel conflict - not because the situation is better/worse, but different.
Further, Reno called you on preferencing “Occupation” language over other language. [We should all stop at this point and read Richard Rorty...the vocabulary of vocabularies...but anyway...] I’m not sure, however, whether this is in fact the case. I’d submit that Adam has come from the US which generally tells a particular story about the conflict in the area and now finds himself in a situation where he’s like, “wow, there are competing accounts; why wasn’t I told?…are you aware that…? and…? and…?” If you read him in the light of this reaction (which is a fairly common one for anyone who has spent time in the region), then he doesn’t sound one-sided, rather trying to grapple with his surrounding and the way it upsets previously conceived notions. This is why I always have links to Al Jazeera on my blog and sympathy for Adam’s rhetorical excesses (such as):
“The primary purpose for the Wall is simply for Israel to continue encroaching upon more and more of the Palestinian land, until there is no more.”
Reno, you sound (and I’m saying this tongue in cheek) like a Israeli programmed answer android. I’m aware that “Security Fence/Wall” is a competing description for the internationally questioned barrier which the government of Israel is building. I know they’ve been attacked in multiple wars. I know the people of Israel live in fear. But it seems somewhat unimaginative to think that Israeli policy need be defined solely by the events of such a history. Historically, the people who moved to Israel were jumping out of the burning buildings of Europe. The difficulty is that when they jumped, they landed upon people who already lived there. [I'm not saying that the Palestinians have a greater claim to the land because of being there in the first half of the 20th century...to do so just gets into a game of who was where first. If we were to play that game, we'd have to be willing to cede control of the US to the American Indian Nations. I do think the situation between native Americans and the US government provides an interesting parallel. What does justice for the American Indians look like? Treaties broken, forced onto land that hardly provides the means to thrive...but I digress...] However, this does create a difficult situation. Israel has vastly more resources than the Palestinians: economic (including natural resources like water), political, military, aid, etc. Some Israeli policies exacerbate these inequalities. I dealt with this problem all the time in Durham, namely, those who didn’t want to help out poorer neighborhoods next to their affluent neighborhood. It just seemed short-sighted to think that the problems of one area will be so easily contained. So I think there are grounds to question not only the policy but also how the relative inequality changes the discussion of defense/violence/oppression. For example, you quip, “i didn’t realize defense was ‘oppression’ . . .” You don’t seem to consider that defense can be inappropriate in its proportion and intention – this has a long standing in Christian just-war theory. This doesn’t mean that it becomes oppression, but it may be unjust/violent in a way that can only be oppressive (both to those who suffer the consequences of inappropriate defense and those that are involved in doing injustice). I appreciate your point of view as a counterpoint to Adam’s excesses, but I do think that there are things Israel does which make things worse rather than better. I think you could agree with that.
Peace.
-DRM-
…oh, and Adam, I don’t agree that “it is Christ-like to continually side with the oppressed” unless one recognizes that the oppressor is oppressed by oppression.
July 14th, 2005 at 3:10 pm
drm,
lots of good stuff so I will only comment on one thing. you said, “You don’t seem to consider that defense can be inappropriate in its proportion and intention – this has a long standing in Christian just-war theory. This doesn’t mean that it becomes oppression, but it may be unjust/violent in a way that can only be oppressive (both to those who suffer the consequences of inappropriate defense and those that are involved in doing injustice).”
Ah, but I do take that into consideration . . . I would argue that neither of you do! that is why i annoyingly insist on the historical record. the pal’s and libs, like dear Adam, want to compare rock throwers to tanks . . . that is an inaccurate hyper-reality which takes no consideration of the greater geo-political situation and historical record. It’s “newspeak”. It is a copy without an original.
the context of the Pal’s struggle is forever lodged in the history of the region in totus. the repeated Arab hope to destroy Israel and the Jewish people which is documented in 4 wars, suicide bombings and Arab rhetoric (Which incidentally is absent from Israel. There is no talk of destroying the Arabs only coexistence.).
You are right that Adam has “discovered a new world” as his rhetoric reflects that. Those of us who have followed this history for a while now only ask for balance and intellectual honesty.
Adam, once again I have never stopped applauding your passion baby.
DRM, thank you again for sound insight and good words.
Peace,
r
July 14th, 2005 at 5:23 pm
Rhetoric and action do not always align. There is always the question of whether Israel’s policies can be considered just, such that the “talk of…coexistence” isn’t simply that and no more. The sad irony is that by remembering their (recent)history in the way you promote the Israeli people may doom themselves to repeat it. Memory and historical situatedness are important, clearly, but there are different kinds of remembering and different determinations based upon memory.
July 14th, 2005 at 6:38 pm
once again, your insistance on putting the burden of change and action on Israel is a political stance which has no connection to reality (when the whole of the historical record in taken into consideration) . . . only ideology.
July 15th, 2005 at 2:39 am
Nope. Both side must change in small and significant ways to be just. My talking about Israel was based upon your audience, Reno.
July 15th, 2005 at 8:09 am
Dear Reno,
I would like to make a few comments about your views.
First you say:
“once again, your insistence on putting the burden of change and action on Israel is a political stance which has no connection to reality (when the whole of the historical record in taken into consideration) . . . only ideology.”
You appear to know what the reality is historically and currently on the ground. Everything you have written so far is so biased and pro-Israeli I am not certain where to even begin. I have been living, traveling, and studying in the region in total for a year and a half. I have been to Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Turkey, Palestine, and Israel. I have read a great deal and seen a more. Your comments do not reflect the political reality in the region never mind here in Israel and Palestine. I am not certain what history books you have been reading but it sounds to me like you have been reading too much Bernard Lewis. Your ideologies, historical account, and world views embrace and justify classic colonialist Orientalism. I am confused with what you mean by the, “historical record.” Maybe you could clarify what historical record you are using.
I would also like to comment on:
“The context of the Pal’s struggle is forever lodged in the history of the region in totus. the repeated Arab hope to destroy Israel and the Jewish people which is documented in 4 wars, suicide bombings and Arab rhetoric (Which incidentally is absent from Israel. There is no talk of destroying the Arabs only coexistence.).”
Where to begin… First let me comment that currently when you walk around Israel you can see many settlers and people who support them because they wear orange ribbons displaying their opposition to the Gaza re-deployment. The issue that settlers exist and that they have support disproves your perspective that Israel only speaks and wants co-existence. If Israel wants to co-exist peacefully one simple thing needs to happen. The illegal and immoral military occupation needs to end. Let me also add that the vast majority of Palestinians and Arabs want to co-exist with Jews and Israel. I am sure the settler I saw in Jerusalem yesterday with an orange ribbon wrapped around his machine gun is only interested in “co-existence” (read sarcasm here).
Let me also point out that when you travel around the region you will find empty synagogues all over the Middle East. Prior to the creation of the current Nation State of Israel Jews lived in relative peace in the Middle East with their Muslim and Christian neighbors. The largest population of Jews in the region prior to the creation of the current Nation of Israel were for example in cities like Alexandria in Egypt, and Iraq, and Morocco. Palestinians currently live in relative peace with their Jewish neighbors in cities like Haifa in Israel. This despite the fact that Palestinians are second class citizens in Israel.
Let me also bring up a few historical incidents that some how are missing from your reality. You imply that only Palestinians practice terrorism and bombings. What about the bombing of the Kind David hotel in 1946 by the Jewish underground militia [militants]. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombing Or the fire bombing and cluster bombing of Beirut when Israel invaded and occupied Lebanon. Or when Israeli agents firebombed American and British cultural centers in Egypt in 1954. Or when Baruch Goldstein gunned down 29 Palestinian Muslim worshippers in Hebron. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baruch_Goldstein Or when Israel attacked the U.S.S. Liberty in 1967.
Your view of history and what you imagine to be reality here is so one sided it surprised me that a person who probably has studied hermeneutics cant understand the need for more than one lens to view the situation here. The only lens you have been given and choose to view the region through is Israel. I ask that you try to find some additional perspectives and include other lenses. Maybe come to Israel and Palestine and stay with a Palestinian family for a few weeks. Listen to how the Palestinian Christians in Beit Sahour resisted the Israeli military occupation non-violently during the first Intifada. Come visit Hebron and then try to justify and explain to me your view of the region and its conflict. Come to a protest in Bilin and see Muslims using non-violence to resist the Israeli occupation, the building of the wall, and the illegal and immoral confiscation of their land. Come see the Israeli peace movement. Once you do all this we can have a conversation about whose political stances and theology are grounded in reality and who has a “history of the region in totus.”
If you would like some places to get a perspective on the middle east. Check out http://middleeastwindow.com/ and http://www.palestinenet.org/english/
Peace,
-Keaney
July 15th, 2005 at 9:29 am
Well Keany, you’ve gone and made a lot of assumptions there . . . haven’t you?
Let’s just assume you know at least something about me. You know the books I’ve read, you know my family origins, you know my education, you know the company I keep.
You still have failed to do one thing . . . show that you have a balanced view of history.
All I’ve asked on this site is for a balanced view and the whole of the historical record to be, at the very least, taken into consideration . . .
Reno
PS . . . don’t mask your ridiculous attacks with a closing like “Peace” . . . you only seem the more disingenuous.
July 15th, 2005 at 9:44 am
Reno - you keep asking for a balanced view on this site, but you’re comments aren’t balanced at all. Why don’t you model what you’re looking for?
July 15th, 2005 at 10:16 am
>>>”I am not certain what history books you have been reading but it sounds to me like you have been reading too much Bernard Lewis.”
It sounds like you on the other hand have been reading too much Edward Said. Bernard Lewis is a historian of merit, while Said was a hopelessly biased political activist– a professor of mideast issues at Columbia (need I say more?).
But much better to debate the actual facts than to play the “my author can beat your author up” game, no?
And the fact is that the palestinian arabs do not have a history of non-violent protest– on the contrary, they have turned off people of good will for decades with their extreme tactics against an enemy has has showed restraint by not using the full forces at its disposal. Had Israel done so, we wouldn’t even be having this discussion.
You reliable attach the “immoral” and “illegal” to the occupation (you forgot “brutal”), but the only reason we have an occupation today is because the Arabs have repeatedly insisted on war. And when you lose a war you get occupied.
Prior to the war in 1948– initiated by the Arabs– there were no refugees. And prior to the war in 1967– also initiated by the Arabs– there was no occupation. There’s a pattern here, can you see it?
Yes, you have stayed with palestinian families, but that does not make you a historian nor an objective observer. It only adds to your myopia regarding the legitimate claims of both peoples.
July 15th, 2005 at 1:43 pm
and now the rub . . .
Sarah,
I see, liberal tolerance for only those who agree . . .
If i’m the one so unbalanced then why, pray tell, is this site and everyone who has commented pro-pal and anti-Israel? That is the kind of balance you want?
All i’ve ever asked for was a far and balanced treatment for the situation of the Jews in Israel.
If being pro-Israel on this blog is what it takes to give a balanced voice then I believe i’ve “practiced what i’ve preached”.
July 15th, 2005 at 2:43 pm
Reno,
You don’t know what I think, so I fail to see how you can say I only have liberal tolerance with those who I agree - what if I agree with you?
Further, I never said this site was balanced (I don’t know that this site ever claimed to be balanced), but I hear your calling for balance and not modeling it. Perhaps you are balancing the site by providing another view; but it seems to me you are only pissing people off by being antagonistic and not modeling the very balance you are calling for. Perhaps it is just me, but I am far more inclined to listen a perspective not my own when that person is able to acknowledge my position . . .
July 15th, 2005 at 3:15 pm
Reno,
this thread has apparently devolved into an argument about you, Reno– not the topic at hand. It’s easy to get sucked into that. I recommend you don’t.
July 15th, 2005 at 11:06 pm
Reno,
I just gotta say bro, you’ve been taking a lot of heat on here, and as I read through your comments (I keep up with only a couple of blogs and this is one) I respect your attempt at opening everyone’s eyes to how easy it is to side with the apparent victim(s). I was a poli-sci minor, but by NO means claim to fully understand the Israel-Palestine conflict. However, as a journalism major I DO understand the importance of remaininig unbiased in order to establish credibility. I get why everyone thinks you are pro-Isreal, at face value it may seem so… but I sat here discussing with Kellen how what I find amazing is that when I read your comments I don’t know WHOSE side you are on. In short– I get what you are saying, you aren’t “pro-Isreal” (or maybe you are); you are pro-think-about-the-wholistic-perspective. And I dig that.
Adam-I am praying for you and the invaluable experiences you are having…I also understand the need to just vent and discuss what you are going through and I thank you for being open, even when that means being opinionated.
Peace (and I mean that with utmost sincerity)
Jamie