“An underlying reason that years of U.S. diplomacy have failed and violence in the Middle East persists is that some Israeli leaders continue to create facts by building settlements in occupied territory.”
THE IRON WALL
Film showing followed by panel discussion with:
|
Stanley Heller
Producer of "The Struggle" TV news magazine www.thestruggle.org
Palestinian rights activist
|
Elizabeth Aaronsohn
Assoc. Prof. of Education, CCSU
Member of peace-activism
group “We Refuse to Be Enemies” |
About the film
In 1923 Vladimir Jabotinsky, leading intellectual of the Zionist movement and father of the right wing of that movement, wrote:
"Zionist colonization must either stop, or else proceed regardless of the native population. Which means that it can proceed and develop only under the protection of a power that is independent of the native population - behind an IRON WALL, which the native population cannot breach."
From that day these words became the official and unspoken policy of the Zionist movement and later the state of Israel. Settlements were used from the beginning to create a Zionist foothold in Palestine.
After 1967 and the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, the aim of the settlement movement became clear - create facts on the ground and make the creation of a Palestinian state impossible. Thirty nine years of occupation and the policy started showing results. There are now more than 200 settlements and outposts scattered throughout the West Bank blocking the geographic possibility of a contiguous Palestinian territory.
The Iron Wall documentary exposes this phenomenon and follows the timeline, size, population of the settlements, and its impact on the peace process. This film also touches on the latest project to make the settlements a permanent fact on the ground - the wall that Israel is building in the West Bank and its impact on the Palestinian's peoples.
Settlements and related infrastructures are impacting every aspect of life for all Palestinians from land confiscation, theft of natural resources, confiscation of the basic human rights, creation of an apartheid-like system, to the devastating impact in regards to the future of the region and the prospect of the peace process.
Palestinians and Israelis began the peace process based on a very simple principle: land for peace. Settlements destroy that principle and create a land with no peace.
Letters to the DC Editor
'Iron Wall' hopeful for unity in face of division
Posted: 2/27/09
On Tuesday, Feb. 24, there was a showing of the film "The Iron Wall," about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, in the Student Union Theater, presented by the Muslim Student Association. Although this film was biased in favor of the Palestinian perspective, the pro-Israeli students and teachers in attendance watched patiently and recognized that everyone is entitled to his or her opinion.
After the movie ended, the two guest speakers began a discussion with the room. When Hebrew teacher Sherry Shamash received the microphone and had the opportunity to address the room, she pointed out the biased nature of the film, and attempted to describe the Israeli perspective. After a moment of stating facts and the other side of the conflict, the microphone was physically ripped from her hand, she was essentially reprimanded by the guest speakers, and the entire room burst into applause.
I was appalled and offended by this action. I personally believe very strongly in the freedom of speech at the University of Connecticut, and this was a direct affront to this right. I have absolutely no problem with the showing of this film; while I may not agree with it, and while I feel that it should have been identified as biased, the sponsors of this event had every right to show it. However, it is completely unacceptable to not allow someone else to share their opinion.
In a university environment, there should be a scholarly discourse. Students at the university need to stand up for their right to have their ideas shared. Actions like taking the microphone away because you do not agree with the presented ideas should not be tolerated.
- Marissa Goldberg
6th-semester political science and judaic studies double major
As one of the presenters I want to thank you for your coverage of the film showing of "The Iron Wall." However, there was a mistake in one sentence of the report. I did not say that an "optimal solution to the conflict would be a two-state policy."
The solution to the deep racism in the U.S. was not to set up one state for whites and one for Blacks, but full integration. With two states in Israel/Palestine you still have the problems of the Palestinian refugees who have a right to go to their former homes in Israel, the Palestinians of Israel who are treated as 10th-class citizens, and the Gaza Strip, which is not contiguous to the West Bank.
The best solution, in my view, would be for Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs to live as equal citizens together in one country stretching from the Mediterranean to the Jordan.
- Stanley Heller
Chairman
Middle East Crisis Committee
As the DC correctly reported on 2/25, the MSA gave the 50-or-so people at the event the full opportunity to express their widely-varying views freely and openly, during the 1-hour Q&A session. More than 10 people asked their questions or made their statement regarding the “Iron Wall” film. At least three of them were Zionists who expressed absolute distaste for the entire event, as reported in the DC news report. None of them, including Ms. Shamash, was ever denied the opportunity to speak based on their views.
The dramatic conclusion of Ms. Shamash speech had nothing to do with her views but everything to do with her attitude. First of all, she spoke for four minutes, exceeding the reasonable time limit for comments or questions. Moreover, she was the only one who interrupted the guest speaker and wanted to turn the scene into a heated out-of-control argument. Finally, she ignored the plea to hand over the microphone when her opportunity to speak was over.
If Ms. Shamash can't express her view in 4 minutes, she has all the right to organize her own event and take all the time she needs to present her views. But it seems that misrepresenting facts and attempting to distort the image of the MSA are the only things Ms. Marissa can do to whitewash the Israeli illegal and immoral practices in occupied Palestine.
The MSA did a great job to bring to the table people from different walks of life: Jews, Christians, Muslims and others who agree that Israeli settlements in the occupied territories are immoral and illegal and render a two-state peace solution nonviable . Everyone at the event, except Zionists, agreed that the road to peace starts with justice for the Palestinian people. Both of the guest speakers promoted a democratic states in which Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs live together as equal citizens, to replace the current Israeli apartheid.
If Zionists like Ms. Marissa and Ms. Shamash want to challenge these views in an open debate forum, I whole-heartedly invite them to work with the MSA to bring such an event to UConn.
Thanks,
Saleh
DC News Coverage
'Iron Wall' documentary sparks debate
By: Parini Shah
Posted: 2/25/09
The Muslim Student Association's showing of "The Iron Wall" at the Student Union Theater Tuesday evening attracted about 30 people and a debate about whether the film was anti-Semitic or not followed.
The documentary about the Palestinian and Israeli conflict and rise of Israeli occupation settlements in the West Bank "exposes this phenomenon and follows the timeline, size, population of the settlements, and its impact on the peace process," according to the film's Web site. "This film also touches on the latest project to make the settlements a permanent fact on the ground - the wall that Israel is building in the West Bank and its impact on the Palestinian's peoples."
The first half of the documentary spoke about the policies of the various Israeli government leaders and their adverse affects on Palestine. It focused on the significant increase of the settlements on Palestinian land, which has displaced millions of people and contributed to the rising numbers of refugees and Palestinians living in ghettos. The second half focused on the building of what the International Court of Justice calls a wall (most American media refers to it as a fence, even though the 25-foot concrete wall is double the length of the fence). It also focused on the occupation of the city of Hebron by Israeli troops.
The film looked at the situation from a Palestinian perspective, so there was a definite bias there, but one that discussion leader Elizabeth Aaronsohn, an associate professor of education at Central Connecticut State University, said was counteracted by the American news media's heavy pro-Israel bias.
As a daughter of a Rabbi, she said that, the first time she viewed the film, she was "totally devastated and could not speak," and could not understand the actions of some of the Israelis. She said it is the obligation [of the Jewish community] to speak up.
After a brief overview of the film and director Mohammed Alatar, the floor was opened to the diverse crowd, which ranged from young American Jews to World War II veterans for discussion.
The atmosphere quickly turned tense when a student accused one of the panelists of being anti-Semitic, which turned into a long discussion of whether or not the film itself was anti-Semitic.
The panel member, Stanley Heller, a school teacher who serves as chairman of the Middle East Crisis Committee, is also the Web master for thestruggle.org. During the debate, a student pulled the site up on his phone and read aloud some of the article titles, including "They Murdered 450 Children and Now they Ceasefire" and "Finkelstein Examines Gaza Massacre."
Terrence Smith, an 8th semester business management major, spoke to ease the tension.
"This is a university; we should spend time talking about issues like these," he said. "It is up to the people of UConn to go out and find unbiased views. We should not be pointing fingers. That is not going to solve anything."
The majority of viewers seemed to agree that, although this film was biased in favor of the Palestinians, a fact acknowledged by even the discussion leaders, it gave a view different from that of the commercial media.
"I came to this because you don't hear about this side of things," said Melissa Touma, a 2nd semester anthropology major. "We don't get the same coverage of the Middle East's views, just America's."
As the discussion continued, various students spoke about their personal experiences.
"You have to go [to Hebron]," said Ameer Saleh, an 8th semester transfer student from the region. "Palestinians' doors are welded shut to prevent them from using the roads outside. They have to use their roofs to get somewhere."
A World War II veteran also voiced his belief that the U.S should not be involved in the conflict. This brought Heller to get everyone in the audience to call their representatives to show support for the House Resolution 66, which is supposed to help pull military aid to occupying countries.
As the discussion wined down, Aaronsohn responded to questions about her views toward Israel.
"Dissent is the essence of America," she said. "You are not anti-Israel or anti-Jew because you oppose the Israeli government. In the civil rights movement, we were not anti-American. When we opposed the war against Iraq, we were not anti-American."
Heller and Aaronsohn also agreed that their optimal solution to the conflict would be a two-state policy, and a withdrawal of U.S. aid from Israel.