Of Arabs and Women

Activists organizing the Israeli part of the demonstrations in Sheikh Jarrah recently published a call to their friends in this important battle to come to the demos in modest clothing. The activists, well aware of how problematic this request is, not only clarified right away that “nobody is asking women to don a hijab”, but even proposed this as important for the promotion of the feminist struggle: “many of our female Palestinian partners, as well as our male Palestinian partners, expressed discomfort at revealing clothing. Some women are explicitly avoiding the demos because of this issue [...] the presence of Palestinian women activists in the demos is something we are not willing to give up.” I.e., the demand is coming from the Palestinian women (and, therefore, does not constitute oppression of women), and the goal is to promote the political participation of Palestinian women, so it justifies the limitations placed on the freedoms of Jewish women.

This is common enough in left-wing struggles: it’s hard to fight for all the just causes at the same time, and it’s hard to promote equality for all at the same time. The result got the nickname “left-wing cannibalism” – the struggle for one left-wing goal is carried out at the expense of another, at times downright humiliating another group. The most extreme example is PETA, the animal-rights organization whose sole means of getting attention is the objectification of women and the use of soft pornography. The “ethical” and green American Apparel often uses similar tactics. But the feminists aren’t always on the losing side: feminism itself was often accused of similar behaviour. Thus, for example, the liberal feminism of the second wave was accused of caring only for the rights of white upper-middle class women, whose freedom was won at the expense of non-white, lower class women. The feud between different branches of feminist in recent decades often revolves around this very question of how women’s equality can be promoted when there is no agreement among them of what such an equality means, since what some see as humiliation and oppression (or “false consciousness”), others see as part of the core of their beliefs, their culture or their self-definition as women.

Now the activists of Sheikh Jarrah are at this very fault-line, trying to navigate their way safely, but I’ll be very surprised if they’ll emerge unscathed from this. The question is whether it is possible not to choose – is it possible to act both to promote the interests of the Palestinians (some of whom do not accept the liberal demand for full freedom for women) as well as for the promotion and preservation of women’s rights? Or must we choose? And if we must choose, how?

Currently, the activists chose to limit (if only partially) the freedom of Jewish women coming to demonstrate for the shared goal. The original message, meticulously phrased, didn’t say it outright, but it didn’t take long for the comments threat to arrive at the basic argument that you can’t possibly compare the substantial oppression of the Palestinians with the seemingly superficial and insignificant oppression of women implicit in this demand. “The right of Jerusalem’s Arabs to equality before the law, and to not be evacuated from their homes, seems far more important to me than my right to wear shorts,” wrote Shira, for example. But while Shira presents it as if the harm is only to herself (and therefore it is her right to waive her rights in this instance), Menny hit on the critical point: “we have to choose the important struggle now. And the struggle against the settlement in Sheikh Jarrah is higher on the agenda in my view  than the concern for the rights of women within Palestinian society.” Menny is correct – the capitulation here means giving up on the struggle for women’s equality within Palestinian society, not just a momentary inconvenience for Jewish women. And he’s willing to give that up too. And how can we not bring in the C word? “the perception that we came to help or that our dress or behaviour is more enlightened or more right is wholly colonialist. I am not here to educate,” wrote Alona. The very idea that feminist notions can be made part of the struggle is “colonialist”, because women’s equality is a Western principle, one that is foreign to the local population. And since we live in a relativist world, we presumably no longer see western liberal principles as superior to traditional ones. And here you have the whole logical progression: there is no harm done to feminism; feminism can wait; feminism should butt the fuck out.

But why shouldn’t we be there to educate? The left tries to educate everyone all the time – why should the Palestinians be exempt? After all, these traditionalist Palestinians are now in the best possible position to recognize the justice in left-wing ideals. If we wait until the goal is achieved and only then turn around to lecture the Palestinians on gender equality, it will be too late – the freedom attained through the struggle will flow wholesale to the arms of the men, and the women will remain voiceless to fight for their own rights. It is exactly situations like the current one that create rare opportunities to equalize rights of men and women. Throughout history, times of struggle were times when women were allowed to obtain power that was denied them in more peaceful times. If they let those moments slip by without cementing their new place in society, they soon lost it. So it was that the first World War allowed women, who were called to aid in the war effort in the factories, to obtain political and social rights in many places, rights that stayed with them after the war ended (maybe it shouldn’t surprise us that the last democracy to enfranchise women was Switzerland…).

Now is a time that we can come to the Palestinians with a clear message: We are here, at your side, because we wish to end your oppression. We believe it is an evil that must cease. But we will not agree for you to maintain an oppressed minority within a minority. If you wish to grab the current opportunity to obtain your freedom, you must extend such freedom to your women as well. One cannot truly fight one oppression by the strengthening of another. The left’s opposition to oppression comes from a complete world-view, in which everything is tied to everything else. One cannot use liberal language to condemn the oppression of the Palestinian people, but avoid it when describing the oppression of the Palestinian woman (or the Jewish one, for that matter – let us no pretend the feminist struggle among Israel’s Jews has already been concluded).

How some people, like the above-cited Alona, can so strongly oppose the oppression of the Palestinian people on the one hand, but fail to see the problem in the continued oppression of women in one society or another, I can never fathom. I cannot understand what coherent worldview can generate such an odd combination. The only thought process I can conceive of that might lead to this, is political activism aimed solely at keeping one’s conscience clear, by those who have managed to convince themselves that the occupation is the source of all evil, and no other evil exists.

But spit-shining one’s conscience is not an ideology. The fight against occupation and oppression must be derived from an analysis of reality combined with a coherent worldview. As things stand, and despite the truly important work the Sheikh Jarrah activists are carrying out at no small personal cost, their decision to require modest dress from their fellow activists implies both these factors are faulty in their operation.

Originally published on my Hebrew Blog, July 22, 2010.