The loud virtual battle over the so-called
"Disengagement Plan" muffles, for most Israelis, the
sounds of another very real war that is taking place
near our towns and villages. Three years have passed
since the olive groves behind the Green Line became
battlefields during the autumn olive-picking season.
It is a quiet war, although the quiet is disrupted now
and then by gunshots. But war it is, for life and
death.
Some history
The Olive Wars (thus named by the Israeli media)
started in 2002. After Operation Defensive Shield,
Palestinian farmers encountered for the first time
massive losses inflicted by settlers, with the army
standing by. Open theft of olives took place - both
harvested ones, and directly from the trees. With the
beginning of the construction of the separation fence,
ancient fertile olive trees, sources of livelihood of
whole Palestinian families, found their way to
ornamental gardens of villas of rich Israelis, in the
capacity of exotic plants. At that time those events
still constituted news, and copious condemnations of
the settlers and the "hear no evil - see no evil"
military appeared in the media. The knowledgeable
military correspondent of Haaretz, Zeev Schiff, wrote:
"The private army of the settlers took the law into
their own hands, in contempt of the IDF." ("The army
should stop the robbers", Haaretz Oct. 30, 2002).
Yedioth Aharonot devoted an entire supplement to this
topic after sending one of its correspondents posing
as a day labourer picking olives for settlements. He
described the whole process in detail: how farmers are
denied access to their plots and how the settlers do
the picking themselves, using for that purpose Israeli
and Thai labourers; how oil is extracted from the
stolen olives and sold in Israel; how Palestinian
trees are burnt or cut down in the vicinity of the
settlements. Another journalist investigated the route
of olive trees uprooted under the pretext of
construction of the separation fence: enterprising
owners of nurseries pointed to the trees they wanted
(many of which were planted in the Roman times) and
left with the "merchandise" to be sold to clients. It
may not be an exaggeration to say that these reports
shocked Israeli readers more than the reports of
killing or wounding, or of the suffering inflicted by
the fence. In the minds of ordinary citizens,
everything associated with military activities and the
separation fence falls into the category of "State
Security", which is not open to criticism. But when
people are robbed of the fruits of their labours under
cover of night - robbed, essentially, of their food;
when innocent trees are mangled; when thousand-year
old grandfather olive-trees are uprooted beside
lamenting farmers whose livelihood of many generations
is thus destroyed - that is hard to justify for
"security reasons". These images can only elicit
disgust and anger.
In time, everything is forgotten; that shock was
forgotten, too. From one harvest to another a year
passed; other events and sensations replaced the
"Olive Wars" in the minds of those who had not
participated in them. During the fall seasons of 2003
and 2004, only apathetic messages could be found in
the media on the olive harvests in the "Territories".
The 2002 media campaign did not change anything, and
not only has the situation not improved, it has become
even more difficult and messy.
Allies and enemies: enemies
For a farmer in our Mediterranean country the culture
of olive growing is a basis of life. For ages, whole
families derived sustenance for themselves and others
from their olive plots. Olive picking was a
month-and-a-half-long festival: a family would
practically move to their plot for this period;
children would run there after school;
otherwise-employed adults would go there after work. A
good olive harvest heralded a year of plenty and
supplied whole industries: olives were salted and
pickled, or pressed for oil. The oil was used further
for preparation of cosmetics, soap, and foodstuffs.
The wood obtained from pruning was also put to good
use: religious objects from olive wood, grown in the
Holy Land, are considered symbolic, and are highly
prized by Christians far away from Palestine. Rich
families, often owning hundreds of dunams of olive
groves, hired labourers to do the picking, and the
landless village poor and the refugees awaited the
season to earn some money. One could also get an
olive-picking job on the other side of the Green Line,
from Israeli Arabs and from Jewish moshavim and
kibbutzim. Olive picking has acquired both practical
and symbolic meaning in the Palestinian national
conscience. The brutal interference with the rhythm
and meaning of life and disruption of life`s order
established for generations is seen as a national
catastrophe, as death of the culture. Palestinian
farmers found themselves deprived of a large fraction
of their income and pleasures of life. Why does it
happen, and who profits?
Apart from military occupation, the Palestinian farmer
has two enemies: the separation fence (and the
secondary barriers and fences) and Israeli settlers.
Seen from afar, the separation fence looks like a
fairly harmless object that can be easily moved or
removed as needed. According to the IDF, this is a
temporary arrangement, which can be removed following
the renewal of the peace process. However, the Fence
does not follow the Green Line but is constructed on
Palestinian land, removed 5-10 km, and sometimes as
much as 25 km from the Green Line (This is on the west
side of the West Bank. The Israeli government never
issued an official map of the eastern fence; however,
according to media sources and sites of land
confiscation orders, the eastern fence will not even
come close to the Jordanian border). The agricultural
plots destroyed as a result of the fence construction
cannot easily be resurrected. This is
particularly true for tree groves, especially olive
trees, many of which were planted hundreds of years
ago.
Why are these trees uprooted?
The point is that the Fence does not simply constitute
a row of poles spanned by a wire mesh. Along the
Fence, on both sides, an asphalt road
is constructed for the army, and a security sand strip
is established beyond the road. The total width
amounts to sixty meters. Sixty meters of "ironed"
land, from which all vegetation has been removed - it
amounts to tens of uprooted trees per kilometre. But
this is not all. The protection of the fence itself
provides the army with a pretext to uproot still more
trees in the surrounding area "for security reasons".
It should be noted that the army does not burn or cut
the trees on the fence route; after being carefully
uprooted, the trees end up in Israeli nurseries, whose
owners sell them at a succulent profit (Yediot
Aharonot). An old olive tree, confiscated from a
Palestinian farmer "for security reasons", brings tens
or even hundreds of thousands of shekels on the
Israeli market. And during the last three years
300,000 trees have been uprooted.
Fence-related damage extends still further. An equally
serious problem is the fact that the fence, which cuts
deep into the Occupied Territories, does not separate
Israelis from Palestinians (as Israeli supporters of
the fence would like to think); rather, it separates
Palestinians from their property and source of income
- their land. Often families that find themselves on
the eastern side of the fence own land on the western
side or vice versa. In order to reach his land, a
farmer has to obtain a permit from the army (and such
a permit is by no means assured). Then the farmer must
coordinate with the army the length of his stay on his
own land, and often take a lengthy roundabout route,
which may be tens of kilometres long, to pass the
checkpoint or the so-called "agricultural gate". In
the evening this route must be retraced to return
home. The army does not allow overnight stays on the
plot; and often the army prohibits the use of vehicles
such as cars, or tractors to bring home the picked
olives. One has to risk leaving the harvest in the
field until it can be removed. Under the cover of
night and in the absence of the owners, the olive
sacks are easy pickings for the settlers, who, in
contrast to Palestinians, are not deprived of freedom
of movement in the "Territories".
Settlers are the chief enemy of Palestinians in
general and of Palestinian farmers in particular. One
has to marvel at the settlers` stamina and the amount
of time they devote to harassing Palestinian farmers.
It is clear that their interest is not only in
immediate gain from the sale of stolen property. They
also inflict wanton damage: they cut off branches,
burn trees, etc. Thus, a year ago, 6000 trees were
destroyed in the Huwarra village south of Nablus. On
September 29 of this year, 400 dunams of olive groves
in the Beit Furik area were burnt. The fire raged for
two nights in a row. Other settler tactics include
spreading sharp objects on the ground to puncture
wheels of Palestinian cars and tractors. Or settler
thugs simply attack olive pickers and Israeli and
international activists who come to help. Stone
throwing, beatings, and sometimes gunshots are
inflicted on people, who (in the settlers` judgement)
approach too close to the settlements, "their" roads,
or their persons. Palestinians get bullets in their
backs when harvesting their own olives! The army, as a
rule, remains passive or arrives too late to help. And
a result of that arrival is often a collective
punishment - NOT of the settler thugs, but of the
Palestinians. Here is the amazing army logic: "If you
are on the path of grief, we better lock you up in
your homes, for your own safety". Some time ago the
press reported that the army "reached an agreement"
with Palestinians concerning days when olives could be
picked under military protection. Great, you might
think. But the media "forgot" to mention that only
three (!) days were assigned to olive picking in the
so called "friction zones". Thus, in Beit Furik
village (10,000 inhabitants), 3 days (Oct. 10, 17 and
19) were designated for the harvest of 11,000 dunams
of groves in the "friction zone", which the villagers
cannot approach without army permission, and which is
dangerous to approach without army cover.
What is a "friction zone"? It is a new euphemism
invented by the army during the harvest season to
designate regions settler attacks are likely. In
addition to "friction zones" there are "security
zones" around settlements. Before, Palestinians were
not allowed to approach within 250 metres of
settlements; often at this distance a fence has been
constructed. Now the forbidden zone has been increased
to 400 meters, and new fences are being established at
its borders. Palestinian trees within the enlarged
forbidden (practically annexed) zone are no longer
within the reach of Palestinian owners. Thus after the
forbidden zone was enlarged around the Israeli
settlement of Hermesh, it "swallowed" 800 trees
belonging to the Arab village of Kaffin. Most of them
are ancient olive trees. And the Hanani family of Beit
Furik, for example, owned 10,000 trees on terraces,
which yielded yearly 23,000 to 30,000 litres of oil
(today, a litre of olive oil brings 8-12 NIS /$2-3 on
the market, so the reader can estimate the damage).
That was the main livelihood of a clan consisting of
35 people. Now, nearly all these olives are included
in the "security zone" of settlement of Itamar, and
the family has been deprived of income. But the
"friction zone" can be significantly larger than the
enlarged "security zone". The settlements are being
continuously expanded. New "outposts" are being
established, with their own "security zones" and
"friction zones", and the living space of Palestinian
farmers shrinks continuously.
Two objectives are thus pursued by the settlers. The
first is ideological, or, if you wish, ?demographic":
to ruin Palestinians` lives as much as possible, in
the hope that they will give up and leave. In the
routine language of Israeli politics this is called
"voluntary transfer": People are not, God forbid, put
on trucks and unloaded at the border; they are leaving
"of their own free will". In 2002 the village of Yanun
was thus vacated. This village, isolated but spread
over quite an extensive area, had been terrorized by
settlers for many months. The settlers carried out
night raids on all-terrain vehicles, shooting into the
air and into the water tanks and trampled on roofs
above terrified residents. The settlers damaged crops,
attacked the villagers, urinated in full view of all
into the village well and burnt the generator, leaving
the village without electricity. On Saturdays groups
of settlers toured the village streets fully armed,
forcing terrified villagers indoors. The children of
Yanun did not sleep any more; even on quiet nights
they suffered from nightmares. Gradually, family after
family left ? not abroad, where nobody was expecting
them, but to the nearest large village, Aqabe. Only as
a result of the efforts of the Israeli Arab-Jewish
partnership organization Taayush and the International
Solidarity Movement was the creeping transfer halted.
The activists moved into the village in two night
shifts, and under this "cover", the inhabitants
started returning home. Today the village is inhabited
again, but for "their own safety" many villagers are
forbidden to harvest at a distance beyond one
kilometre from their homes.
While denying Palestinians access to their land, the
settlers pursue a second very practical goal of
acquiring real estate. An old Ottoman law applies in
Israel: land not farmed for 3 years ("miri"), becomes
"no man`s land", and thus state property. And the
authorities gladly grant this land to settlers - what
else can be done with land lots outside "Israel
proper". Thus, acquisition of new land is easy - all
you have to do is to "disappear" its owners for 3
years, and the real estate is yours!
These two objectives - acquisition of land and
expulsion of its rightful owners as "undesirables"
solely because they had bad luck to be born
Arab, were expressed openly by the media officer of
the settlement Itzhar, Yossi Peli. In an interview to
the British "Guardian" he admitted willingly that not
only fear of Palestinians (which is not baseless)
motivates settlers to deny Palestinians access to
settlement borders and to inflict damage on trees of
the neighbouring village Einabus. "The branches will
grow again", he said, "and we hope that in time we
shall be harvesting them instead of the `undesirable`
inhabitants of these villages".
It is easy to understand why the army is in no hurry
to protect Palestinians. The military chain of command
is carrying out the will of the government, and the
present government has never resisted a temptation to
appropriate Arab land. Contrary to the settlers`
demagogic complaints about oppression by the military,
the government and the settlers act in unison. They
have the same agenda.
Enemies and allies: allies
If the army actually worried about the safety of
Palestinians and about their ability to harvest on
time (and according to the Geneva Convention this is a
duty of an occupying army), the least it could do
would be not to interfere with the efforts of human
rights organizations willing to help Palestinian
farmers and trying to protect them from "contact" with
settlers. But one should not forget that the army, as
well as the police, were assigned to carry out another
major principle of Israeli politics: segregation, and
prevention of joint activities of Jews and Arabs. In
the Supreme Court, the army declared that they do not
have sufficient manpower and resources to protect the
farmers. They have, however, sufficient resources to
set "closed military zones" and checkpoints on the
routes of the activists on their way to Palestinian
groves. And there is sufficient military "manpower" to
visit the villagers and warn them off from contacts
with left wing Israeli friends. "It will only bring
trouble, we know them all and we know all the phone
numbers too".
The result of these intimidation tactics was the
famous "3-day agreement". To pick as many olives as
possible during such short period, much help was
required. However on Saturday October 16, the army
denied access to a bus of Israeli volunteers near the
Oranit checkpoint! The leaders who left the buses to
negotiate were immediately arrested, and the buses
were turned back. The incident reached the media, and
concurrently, an appeal was submitted to the High
Court of Justice concerning the impossibility of
completing the harvest in "friction zones" during the
mere 3 days allotted. As a result, joint harvesting
was carried out during the ensuing Saturdays.
Human rights organizations and the so-called "radical
left" organizations had initiated a campaign of
support for the Palestinian olive harvest already in
2002. That year they organized the "Olive Harvest
Coalition", with the aim of dividing efforts more
efficiently. The members include such organizations
and movements as "Taayush", "Gush-Shalom", "Rabbis for
Human Rights", "Coalition of Women for a Just Peace",
and others. Later, Shalom Achshav (Peace Now) joined
the olive picking.
To prepare and execute a joint activity such as mass
joint olive picking with Palestinians is a challenging
enterprise. The organizers have to take into account
all the nuances and complexities, otherwise one can
easily do more harm than good. For example, there is
the problematic issue of requesting permits from the
army. Some think that these requests are quite
legitimate: in army-approved zones one can harvest
faster and more effectively. But it is not that
simple. Palestinians prefer help in places to which
they are denied access by the army. Finally,
excessively close contacts with the army might leave
an aftertaste of collaboration with the occupation
forces and of "laundering" the occupation in the eyes
of public opinion. Another problem: the landless Arab
day labourers need employment, and volunteers should
not deprive them of their livelihood.
"We should avoid creating the impression that the
occupation and denial of freedom of movement is not
that bad, because, in the end, the lefties will do the
work for the Palestinians", say Taayush activists. "It
is in fact an abnormal situation. Humans are entitled
to work and to enjoy fruits of their labours; there
should not be fences and soldiers separating farmers
from their land. Therefore, we consider our activities
not only as humanitarian help, but also as acts of
protest against the occupation. We try to work in the
area of the separation fence, but it does not mean in
any way that the fence problem is solved. We protest
against the fence and against colonial policies under
which a farmer is not a master of his time and
property."
And in fact the activists could not possibly carry out
"all the work" on behalf of Palestinian farmers even
if they wanted to. The number of volunteers is
insufficient, as are their skills in agricultural
work. And they simply do not have time - these are
working people, most of whom can participate in
harvesting activities only on weekends. Rabbis for
Human Rights, who cannot work on Saturdays because of
religious constraints, organize groups of volunteers
for weekday harvesting. They split into small groups
and accompany farmers to groves in "friction zones",
trying to cover maximal areas. But due to their small
numbers these groups are particularly vulnerable to
attacks by settlers. The army and police are usually
present in the "friction zones", or at least show up
from time to time. Sometimes they manage to prevent
friction or drive away settlers attacking the farmers
and their helpers. But one gets a clear impression
that the level of the army and police support depends
mostly on the good will of individual soldiers and
commanders and is not a result of instructions "from
above".
The achievements of Rabbis for Human Rights are often
nullified by the laxity of the army and the police.
Here is one recent example: On Monday November 8, a
group of volunteers accompanied Fargata farmers to
their groves, near which the new settlement of Havat
Gilead settlement had been established. As a result,
the farmers have not been able to tend their groves
for nearly three years. Despite the fact that a large
number of the trees were damaged, people were grateful
finally to have the opportunity to harvest their
olives. However, the entire harvest of that day was
stolen during the night. On Tuesday settlers wielding
iron poles interfered with the picking. Luckily,
soldiers who happened to be driving nearby prevented
an escalation. On Wednesday, Havat Gilead settlers
attacked one of the farmers. The police intervened and
arrested the farmer and the two settlers. The settlers were
questioned and released, but the farmer spent 8 hours
under arrest, on suspicion of "pushing the settler
first", according to the testimony of the latter. One
of the volunteer pickers was also arrested.
On November 1, 2004, the Israel`s supreme court
ordered the army to establish methods to protect
Palestinians from settler attacks. It worked,
partially: for example, the army stopped attempting to
prevent Israeli peace organizations from helping
Palestinian olive pickers. In several cases the army
response time to requests for help was shorter. But
the problems were by no means solved: for example, on
the morning of December 9, 117 trees were uprooted by
settlers in broad daylight. The owners requested help
from the Civil Administration, but the help arrived
`conveniently` late in the afternoon, too late to
prevent irreversible damage.
"The Olive Wars" are not confined by the Green Line,
and extend beyond lands "from the sea to the Jordan
River". Volunteers to help Palestinians in the olive
harvest are organized both by solidarity organizations
and by Christian groups. These volunteers usually live
in Palestinian villages and either join the Israeli
activists or act independently. They are also subject
to harassment by the settlers, the army and the
police. They convey their impressions far from the
borders of our country.
Obviously, in the eyes of Israeli right wing and their
allies, the international and Israeli helpers of
Palestinians are considered enemies, interfering with
the achievement of three main goals. By making
Palestinian life a bit more bearable, they interfere
with "voluntary transfer". By helping Palestinians
reach their groves, they interfere with the land grab.
And finally, cooperation of Israelis with Palestinians
contradicts the segregation policy. All these are
important achievements of the solidarity activists,
but unfortunately they cannot stop the pauperization
of Palestinian society. This article focuses on
olives, however similar things can be said about all
other branches of Palestinian agriculture. Fruits and
vegetables either perish unharvested, or rot in
storage due to inability to sell the merchandise:
sales in Israel are forbidden, and in the West Bank
the purchasing power of the population is too limited
and the number of checkpoints and fences too large to
allow for effective internal trade.
Villages in regions adjacent to Israel, which were
flourishing until recently, now present a sorry sight.
Near handsome houses and garages with cars rusting
from disuse, one sees empty hothouses and decaying
poultry-pens. The inability to sell has resulted in
drastic reduction of productivity. Several years ago,
the population of these villages consisted of
well-to-do homeowners who did not imagine they ever
would have to live on handouts. They had enough income
to hire labourers to release family members to seek
employment in Israel, and to educate the young
generation, which could then look for better jobs in
towns on both sides of the Green Line. The policies of
collective punishment and deprivation of freedom of
movement brought unemployment. In Palestinian villages
there have been always families living solely off
agriculture, especially olive growing. Now for many
more families the olives have become a main source of
potential income, rather than a sideline. But
additional hardships have been encountered: the fence,
the checkpoints, and the settlers. It is estimated
that, once the construction of the fence is completed,
1 million trees will be inaccessible or access to them
will be restricted (OCHA). As a result, the farmers
cannot support themselves. Village storerooms have
been established: French lentils, German flour,
American rice and sunflower oil are distributed via
European organizations to the needy, who in return are
obliged to carry out four hours of public works: e.g.
sweeping streets or fixing fences. Others work for
pennies wherever they can.
Who is interested in reducing Palestinian farmers from
gainfully employed people minding their own business
to destitute beggars living on handouts, without hope
for the future? Settlers and their allies crazed with
greed for land and visions of "voluntary transfer" do
not take into consideration that this situation will
necessarily bring hopelessness, hatred and violence to
Palestinian society. And if the settlers think about
it at all, they do not worry too much: after all,
settlements are protected by the army, surrounded by
fences and provided with segregated `sterile` settler
roads. This cannot be said about the Jewish towns and
villages inside Israel, which are much more vulnerable
to terror. On the other hand the army needs pretexts
for its actions against the Palestinian population,
and is looking for justifications based on "security
tensions" and the "fight against terrorists". The
result is a closed circle of escalation of oppression
and collective punishment that bring in turn
hopelessness and violence. The olive branch, no longer
a symbol of peace, became a symbol of injustice,
deprivation and oppression.
Author`s postscript:
While using the term "Jewish settlers", the author is
aware of the fact that far from all inhabitants of the
settlements participate in these kinds of violent
activities. She is aware of the fact that Israeli
governments, both right wing and so-called "left
wing", bear most of the responsibility for the
settlement policy and for the situation in the Israeli
housing market, which brings many people to the
settlements. However settlement inhabitants should
understand with whom are they associated in Israel and
abroad. Especially since, knowing the activities of
some of their likes, they are silent. And silence, as
we all know, is a sign of consent.
