Kafr Qaddum

For over 2 years now, every Friday, a small group of people gather to protest in the small village of Kafr Qaddum. One of the ways that settlements impact on Palestinians is that they often divide and isolate small communities. In Kafr Qaddum's case, the direct road from the village to the city of Nablus was restricted to settler use only, meaning that the locals had to drive an extra 14km around the settlement every time they wanted to go to Nablus. This is not only impractical for locals, but perilous should an ambulance be urgently needed in the village. And so, locals gather to protest every Friday after mosque.

Early stages of the protest, in which tires are burnt to, hmmm, produce dark smoke?

Rock throwing has long been a classic image of Palestinian resistance. Many see it as an expression of resistance by a people who are being significantly out-muscled. It is a pastime that is particularly popular amongst the youth of Palestine. When I arrived at Kafr Qaddum, then, I was not surprised to find a small group of young children at the front burning tires and throwing rocks at soldiers close by. For a while I wondered if this was it - a small group of kids throwing rocks at soldiers who, most likely, had absolutely no desire to be there at all.  As the afternoon progressed, however, a large group of adult men emerged from the mosque down the road to participate in the protest. The strategy seemed simple; march up the road chanting slogans, get tear gassed once you get too close to the soldiers, and run back again coughing and spluttering. Repeat ten or twenty times. This was, of course, far too boring for the teenagers, who sought to sneak up the banks alongside the road to get a better shot at soldiers with their stones. I can only imagine this was quite a thrill for the teenage boys, who probably dreamed all week of throwing that perfect shot.

I do not really know where to begin in articulating the problems I had with this protest. Let me start with the stone throwing. I can understand how one might defend the action as a humble means of resistance in the face of overwhelming odds. My problem with it is threefold; number one, it is obviously largely ineffective. Most of the stones fell well short of the soldiers, and the very rare accurate shot would hardly inflict much damage. Number two, it legitimates any use of force by the IDF. It is much easier to defend the use of tear gas and aggression by the IDF if it is in response to violence and aggression. Third, and most importantly in my mind, it incites hatred and aggression in the minds of young Palestinian children. While understandable, such hatred is not helpful for creating a better future.

 

Then there is the risk of turning media attention into dubious propaganda. Before I attended the protest I was told that the IDF had injured innocent people at protests, going so far as to teargas a 2 year old girl. The reality was quite different. If you take a 2 year old girl into such a protest and stand next to a bunch of kids throwing rocks, of course your daughter is going to get hurt. Such a result says just as much about the organisation and tactics of the protest as it does the actions of the IDF. I felt myself quite sickened as I witnessed a bunch of press snapping close ups of a young boy balling his eyes out after tripping over while running away from tear gas. Such shots are simply being dishonest if they are used to emphasise the violence of the IDF and promote the innocence of the Palestinians. They therefore diminish the integrity of the argument for Palestine. Since getting here I've heard many things about the evils of Israel that I cannot help but be suspicious about. It's not that they are necessarily untrue; many are half-truths - events retold with significant bias. Of course, I've also read some incredible Israeli propaganda. In fact, it seems hard to trust anyone.

    

I could not help but think of Martin Luther King as I witnessed this farce. He rightly saw that moral argument was the black communities best weapon, and that only non-violence would sustain that weapon. Any retaliation or act of violence would make void any moral claim of injustice. The protests he organised had to be non-violent to be effective. They were also well-organised - people stuck together and had a specific goal, whether it be marching to a specific location or creating boycotts that would have a crippling effect. Here too, the moral argument is the best weapon the Palestinians have, far more powerful than rocks.

I can now see why Robert Fisk described the confrontation between armed Israeli soldiers and young Palestinian children as one of the more depressing scenes of his journalism career. The scene seemed hopelessly pointless to me, and rather than addressing injustice it merely encouraged hatred on both sides. I imagine the youth felt pretty tough after throwing stones and getting tear gassed. I also imagine their actions had more to do with feeling tough than they did confronting the injustice of being barred from using a main road so important for the community. In fact, the whole thing felt more like a macho fest on both sides than it did a legitimate protest. Again, King rightly saw that the mindset behind the protests was as important as the actions of the protests themselves. If the actions inspire hatred or a feeling of superiority amidst the protesters, all hope was lost. Non-violence is not just refraining from the desire to be violent, but having no desire to be violent in the first place.

Just to the left of the protest this little farce was taking place. God knows what those teenagers were trying to achieve other than a delusional feeling of courage. 

I believe it is not right that the people of Kafr Qaddum may not use the main road to Nablus. I also know that similar cases of injustice happen all over the West Bank, and that each symbolises the unjust nature of the occupation. But until protests become well-organised, purposeful and non-violent I have no desire to participate. Encouraging females to join wouldn't hurt either.