Mubarak Awad’s Offense Lies in Rebutting the Equation ‘Palestinian = Terrorist’

Israel’s Supreme Court has begun considering the case of Mubarak Awad: whether a Palestinian who was born in Jerusalem, lived 32 of his 44 years here and was “incorporated” into Israel first by virtue of a war and then by a special resolution of the Knesset, has a statutory right to remain in the country.

Awad’s Jewish friends, myself among them, are convinced that his expulsion would be a tragic setback to the cause of reconciliation and ending the violence that has accompanied the Israeli-Palestinian conflict from the start. We may all have misjudged him, of course, but the unanimous feeling among dozens of Awad’s Israeli friends is that he is a sincere, patriotic and moderate Palestinian. As he himself said on May 6, in the first message issued from the cell in which he was being held pending his deportation: “A moderate person in any country must be willing to take the responsibilities that go with his position. For me as a moderate, I stand by my faith that it is possible to have two states, an Israeli and a Palestinian state in the land. I also believe that Palestinians can get their rights through nonviolence and a campaign of civil disobedience.” To claim that there is no room for a man of such convictions in this “City of Peace” is tantamount to dooming its inhabitants to endless strife and bloodshed.

If Awad believes in these tenets, why is he being deported? The immediate reasons may be related to the fact that many of the principles of nonviolent resistance that he advocates were included in the program of the intifada , or Palestinian uprising in the West Bank and Gaza, alongside prescriptions for the violence that he rejects. Yet, rather than regard him as a positive influence with the potential to lead the Palestinians away from terrorism, certain quarters in the Israeli government, together with the settlers in the occupied territories, perceive Awad as a grave threat precisely because he has the potential to demolish the equation: “Palestinian = terrorist.”

Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir has been challenged in court (in his alternate capacity as interior minister) by both the settlers and the members of the ultra-nationalist Tehiya (Renaissance) movement to explain why he did not exercise his prerogative to deport Awad. Elections are coming up in Israel, and Shamir may have hoped to score points with his rivals to the right by showing himself to be no less zealous than the petitioners--hence the orders for Awad’s expulsion earlier this month.

In the long run, if the opinion of many Israelis holds true and Awad is indeed one of the most moderate elements in the West Bank, it poses a problem for an uncompromising leader like Shamir, for Awad is prepared to accept a territorial compromise--an anathema to Shamir regardless of whether the means to achieve it are violent or not. Thus, irrespective of the particulars of Awad’s case before the court, the questions that should be addressed to Shamir seem fairly obvious.

First, if even a champion of nonviolence and political compromise like Mubarak Awad is not a suitable candidate for dialogue with the Israeli government, can the prime minister identify any other Palestinian who is? The claim that “there is no one to talk to” seems a self-fulfilling prophecy when the government goes out of its way to deport moderate Palestinians.

It has been claimed that Awad’s advocacy of civil disobedience and nonviolent sanctions is merely a cover for his active support of terrorism--that his Gandhi demeanor is only a pose. So the second question that naturally presents itself is: Would Shamir deport a genuine Gandhi? The point is important for the edification not only of the Israeli electorate but also of the Palestinians, so that they can get a clear-cut answer on what the present Israeli government, at least, sees as the limits of their legitimate political expression.

This leads us to a third question, which Awad himself asked in a letter to Shamir last Dec. 5: What are the acceptable means by which Palestinians can express their dissatisfaction with the occupation? He never received a reply.

A further question that I, as a Jerusalemite, would ask the prime minister is: Given that the reunified city of Jerusalem is an integral part of the democratic state of Israel, how can you distinguish between the rights of Jews to express their political opinions and the rights of the Arab residents of the city to express theirs? We Jews are allowed to demonstrate peacefully against the occupation; are the Arabs to be denied the same privilege?

A final question is in order, I believe, to Defense Minister Yitzhak Rabin, who has generally been responsible for the repressive policies that have now swept Awad into the net of detention. Talking to a group of American Jews, Rabin compared Awad, who is also a U.S. citizen, with an Israeli who comes to the United States and stays to preach revolt to the Latinos of New York and California even after his visa has expired. To describe as a tourist a Palestinian who has lived 30 of his 44 years in his native city opens up the prospect of “transferring” Palestinians out of the West Bank by simply not allowing those who travel out of the country to return. Rabin ignores the fact that Awad “entered” Israel not as a visitor but as a result of the 1967 war, when he was first “annexed” and then “reunified” along with all other residents of East Jerusalem. If he is deported as an outsider, what does that bode for the 100,000 other Arab residents of the city?

These and other prickly questions show that the case of Mubarak Awad has opened a Pandora’s box for the forces intent on destroying all prospects of compromise as the solution to the Israeli-Palestinian imbroglio.