From the earliest beginning, below is a document about the ideological motivations of Ta’ayush.

Taayush – Seen from the Inside

Ariel Sharon’s visit to the Temple Mount accompanied by 1000 policemen in September 2000, and the murder of Palestinian demonstrators in Jerusalem, signaled the outbreak of the second Intifada. Palestinian citizens of Israel demonstrated in the Galilee, in the ‘Triangle’ district and in the Negev, and the Israeli police force shot and killed 13 demonstrating Israeli citizens.

Everything churned in those October-November days. Most of the Jewish Leftists became confused and ‘rhinocerized’, and retreated to the old stiff and patronizing Zionist positions. Palestinian citizens of Israel, for their part, used to varying degrees of harassment by the authorities ever since the state was founded, felt more alienated than ever. This time alienation was paired by real, tangible fear. It was an historical moment in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but there was one flicker of light: at the October 2000 watershed, the Israeli Left was delineated once again, and the goals of its struggles clearer than ever. Taayush was founded following these events, as a partnership of Arabs and Jews.

Taayush was started by people who, though not lacking in political experience, were no longer willing to act within their former frameworks. People new to this type of activity joined them. In November 2000, a busload of activists from Tel Aviv and Kufr Qassem went on a solidarity visit to Umm el-Fahm – the town that had become a symbol in those days – to hear about the goings-on directly from parents of the detainees, to break the isolation and total boycott that the Jewish public placed on its Arab neighbors; to hear about shortages in fuel, baby food and commodities in general. The suggestion was made to enter the Occupied Territories in food convoys. “One hundred” private cars, someone said, and provoked bitter snickers. “Where would we get a hundred cars?” The food convoy was meant to be a kind of motorized demonstration to the public – no fanfares. Food, aid – these would be the signs of solidarity.

From its earliest days, Taayush has produced action only, neither manifestos nor ideological debates. The group that consolidated wanted to reverse the usual scale of priorities: after realizing that declarations do not always stand the test of ‘moments of truth’, action was chosen as the way to demonstrate a refusal to accept the repetition of incursions, and to be present where things took place. Direct, non-violent action was the path chosen, as well as decision-making by consensus. Taayush formulated a position paper by the end of December 2000, but its fine-points took up too much time and energy. It was decided to put off this task, and gain the participation of everyone who identified with the actions that were planned to express clear positions. Protest by actual doing, by outspoken negation of the separation between Arabs and Jews in Israel in every realm of life, and of the Occupation itself, of starvation, closure, movement limitations and military incursions that Israel practices in the Occupied Territories.

True, upon entering the Territories, one has to express a solid political stance vis-a-vis the Palestinians. The pluralistic pose is not too acceptable for people living under the Occupation. Thus, Taayush held on to several principles that did not give any activists second thoughts about joining: full civil equality within the borders of Israel, an end to Occupation, evacuation of the settlements, return to the 1967 borders and a just solution to the refugee problem.

At this point, demonstrations were out. Perhaps this was the effect of creative activism abroad, all those guys who had been fighting logging companies, water polluters, corporations, advertisers and racists galore, and whose imagination, humor and daring had resounded even here. Protest for its own sake did not seem effective. Solidarity actions with a humanitarian tone were the mobilizing force: they enabled various participants to interpret the action at their convenience. The food-laden trucks were also the convoys’ laissez-passer in the eyes of the police and army who had a difficult time explaining why they would wish to prevent aid from getting through. During these actions in the territories, many activists could see for themselves some of the Occupation’s visible signs: arbitrariness, roadblocks, apartheid highways, intimidation and arrogance.

Willingly or not, Taayush became central in the mobilization of activists for the struggle against the Occupation and for civil equality in Israel. Its inner makeup kept it alive. These are not people who devote their lives entirely to political struggle, or willing to risk showcase actions. From the start, Taayush acted moderately and with long-term intent, in an attempt (that eventually failed) not to be pulled by reality and to consider its steps in advance. Taayush’s makeup, having been created as an Arab-Jewish movement, demanded a bilateral perspective in the planning of every action, taking in consideration the perspective of both peoples living here. It is not easy to create an egalitarian Arab-Jewish group, no easier than creating an egalitarian heterosexual partnership, even if both partners are willing. The patterns of mastery and ownership are strong, and like them, patterns of passiveness and surrender. It needed trying hard, and everyone tried hard.

The name Taayush, too, expressed the desire to upend conventional categories. The word Taayush usually translates the term “co-existence”, but its real meaning is “living together”, “sharing life with one another”. The difference between living together and co-existence is perhaps not very significant for those who are not familiar with the dialogue groups, peace encounters, peace tents and creativity workshops that characterized the dialogue style of the nineties, but the difference is enormous. It means living together, struggling together against alienation, against the separation wall, discrimination and racism, mastery and patronism, humiliation and boycott, exploitation and occupation. At first it even provoked frowns among Palestinians, who could barely say it out loud: a warm, familial term that seemed totally out of place these days. “Tamawut (dying together)”, someone said, “what taayush are you talking about?” Taayush indeed upended categories: vis-à-vis Palestinian contacts in the Occupied Territories, mobilizing people for action in Israel, or when the police or army had to take a stand. In all of these cases, Taayush was a challenge. Whoever faced the activists had to create a new strategy: How does one relate to an Israeli group that is Arab-Jewish in its conception, language and political culture? The combination “Arab-Jewish Movement” was not easily naturalized, and is confusing to this day.

Work in Taayush also stressed the territories occupied in 1967 as just one part of the problem: the most suppressed narrative in Zionist history, briefly called 1948, or the Naqba, became a part of Taayush’s Jewish activists’ own flesh and blood.

Taayush worked for over a year without any special storms: planning the convoys became more and more complicated because of the growing inaccessibility of roads, and the deteriorating political situation. However, they became highly visible all around the Salfeet area and later in Bethlehem and as apart of the struggle against the expulsion of the South Hebron Hills residents. Inside Israel, a volunteer work camp (at an unrecognized Arab village) revived a tradition of the Arab Left in Israel, creating a constructive encounter of Arabs and Jews; there were demonstrations on Earth Day, condolence visits at the homes of Arab families bereaved in October 2000, visits of Arab school children at Tel Aviv University, visits to unrecognized Bedouin villages in the Negev. New Taayush groups sprouted in Jerusalem and in the North based on the Arab-Jewish Partnership model.

In February 2002, 300 activists entered Ramallah for a visit at the offices of Arafat, besieged in the Muqata’a. Although Taayush as a movement does not support a particular regime and although this is not characteristic of the movement, a decision was taken to conduct a visit as an explicit objection to the personal manhunt against Arafat and the elected Palestinian leadership, and the attempt to break the spirit of the entire Palestinian people. The visit was modest but did resound among the Palestinians, as well as in the Israeli media.

Last winter saw constant bloodshed. Bombings inside Israel became a horrific routine. Fear reigned everywhere, streets emptied. A never-ending cycle of assassinations leading to suicide bombings leading to revenge actions that had only accelerated. Taayush continued its activity inside this fear.

Every meeting became a small project of generating optimism, a small demonstration against the walls of hatred and despair rising all around. Lengthy discussions of some action against the suicide-bombings did not yield concrete results, but the ongoing actions in the Occupied Territories and in Israel related to them on all levels were seen as an attempt to tackle the root of the problem and point to the connection – gone from public discourse in Israel – between the Occupation and the suicide-bombings.

Then came Operation Defensive Shield, completely changed conditions on the ground and required reassessment of Taayush strategy.

The demonstration at A-Ram checkpoint, held on 1 April at the initiative of women’s groups active against the Occupation, was the first event since the outbreak of the Intifada that united most of the public that opposes the Occupation. For the first time, the Arab public with all its different factions, movements and parties, came out to demonstrate with Jewish Leftist movements, in an organized manner and impressive numbers. About 3000 people came and marched to A-Ram checkpoint in the pouring rain.

It is no exaggeration to claim that tiny Taayush was the coordinating body and in a sense had prepared the ground in a year and a half of work in Israel and in the Territories. The demonstration was violently dispersed with teargas, clubs and concussion grenades, but made a lot of noise in Israel, Palestinian, Arab and European press. The medical aid shipment was allowed through the checkpoint to Ramallah, but at the expense of the demonstration. The humanitarian prop is a two-edged sword: it is hard to resist, but entails willingness to compromise with the armed forces in order to get the aid through.

Then Israel hammered the Jenin refugee camp. In view of rumors about hundreds of deaths – and may we remind our readers that Chief of Staff Shaul Mufaz was the first to speak of 600 dead – in view of people buried alive under their ruined houses and denied medical care, panic and helplessness reigned. Any action seemed too minor. Jenin was another landmark in the conflict. This burst of violence was a breach of any moral norm or political wisdom. Taayush, too, had its difficult days. The group underwent shocks and crises, and only thanks to the true kinship that had taken hold among its members, did Taayush finally overcome this crisis and emerged all the stronger for it.

The possibility of action in the Occupied Territories was also becoming doubtful. In view of the atrocities that the Occupation Army perpetrated in the Palestinian towns, Taayush was too small and sparse, and taken by surprise. The Palestinians who had so far been willing to work with Taayush realized the movement’s real size, its position against Israeli public-opinion united by the suicide-bombings, and the limited ability of civilians who have a lot to lose. Where are the Jews now, Palestinian Taayush members were asked by their counterparts in the Territories.

The demonstration at the Salem checkpoint saw 4000 participants who came from all over the country, and dozens of trucks bearing food and water. Fear of police and army brutality filled the air. Again, it was decided that getting the aid through was more important than the demonstrators’ passing the checkpoint, as everyone knew that the situation inside Jenin camp was unbearable. The army was tricky: it promised to let the aid in, earned its moral credits, and delayed the convoy for many days in storehouses next to the checkpoint.

Since Operation Defensive Shield, the situation in the Occupied Territories has been a humanitarian and economic disaster. Curfew is announced in most of the Palestinian towns at varying times. The Israeli government exercises a policy of collective punishment, liquidations, bombings, arrests, starvation, demolition of infrastructure and a total halt of life routines. As work, studies, trade and social life disappear, despair sets in and nurtures hatred and revenge. All this is done under the guise of fighting terrorism, and to the constantly repeated mantra that there is no partner for dialogue in Palestinian society. With no hope at hand, fanatics flourish on both sides, nourishing each other and leaving power in the hands of the Occupation government. The existing situation enables the Israeli government to enact draconic economic tactics against the needy, the unemployed and the elderly, and continue its racist campaign of intimidation and de-legitimization against Arab citizens.

It is within this entanglement that Taayush has been working both in the Occupied Territories and in Israel, trying to connect as many activists as possible in Israel and in the Territories to a new path of struggle against the Occupation. Taayush’s three last actions – in Salfeet, Bethlehem and Nablus – and the numerous meetings that preceded them, show that this is possible. Since the end of Operation Defensive Shield, Palestinian society has witnessed a deepening debate as to the nature of the struggle against the Occupation. Taayush is witnessing far-reaching changes in the conception of legitimate struggle. There are partners for dialogue. There are issues to be discussed. Lately Taayush has extended its contacts with Palestinians calling for a common Israeli-Palestinian non-violent struggle. The dialogue and trust constructed in the Salfeet area during almost two years of mutual work have begun to reach other areas in the Occupied Territories.

In early July, about 300 Taayush activists entered Salfeet in the A areas, bringing very valuable medical equipment their hosts had requested for the small local hospital that had become the main center of healthcare for residents of the region who can no longer reach Nablus because of closure and curfew. Much to the activists’ surprise, the army allowed them to enter the town by its main road, closed to local residents since the outbreak of the Intifada.

Contact was made with activists from Bethlehem where curfew is also enforced. After several meeting, a joint demonstration was decided upon, to be held in front of the Nativity Church, under the banners “Freedom for Both Peoples”, “Security for Both Peoples” and “Peace Between Both Peoples”. This demonstration, the Palestinians requested, would not be propped up with a humanitarian mission, but only a message of solidarity and certainty that partners for dialogue are there. About 500 activists came to demonstrate on that Saturday in August, but this time the army was prepared and determined – with water pressure hoses and police horses – not to allow the demonstration to enter, “by orders from the top brass”. The demonstration did not reach Bethlehem, but was well covered by the media and exposed that which the Occupation government has been trying to hide: that there could be a way even out of the current despair. In order to preserve the status quo, the army prevented a non-violent demonstration and meeting between Israelis and Palestinians, but the message would not be silenced.

In Bethlehem, about 700 demonstrators awaited Taayush activists, and when the encounter was denied, it took place via mobile phone and a simple loudspeaker…

Several days later, Taayush was contacted from Nablus, nearly two months under constant curfew. This time the emphasis would be on breaking the curfew – as agreed upon with activists from Nablus and its neighboring villages and refugee camps. In order to stress the consequences of prolonged curfew, aid was also agreed upon: baby food, flour and medication – rare commodities in Nablus. Prior to this action, Taayush was also approached by representatives from villages near Nablus, and especially Hawara (by the main checkpoint on the road to Nablus) and asked to join. About 400 Israeli activists arrived, hoping for a popular encounter, personal and direct, with Palestinian civilians in Nablus. The army waited at the Tapuach Junction. Negotiations ended with the army’s refusal to let the demonstration through. The demonstrators turned back, climbed the fields by the road and circumvented the roadblock. The army’s next attempts to stop the 5 km hike to Hawara were countered with non-violent and skillful determination that left the soldiers quite baffled. Residents of Hawara and neighboring villages gathered in the meantime at the assigned meeting place, but the army took out its fury on them, shooting teargas canisters, concussion grenades and rubber bullets. Curfew was placed on Hawara, although the demonstration there was as non-violent as Taayush’s action. Again, the army tried to prevent civilians from meeting and talking. But this time it did not succeed: the Taayush procession reached Hewara and residents of the neighboring villages blended into the demonstration and joined the emotional gathering that took place at the center of the village, in spite of – and under the army’s very nose.

Taayush works on the ground, and acts according to the situation on the ground: the various checkpoints and the ability to cross them, and the Palestinians’ willingness to work with Israeli activists. And the situation on the ground changes incessantly. The movement now faces a crossroads, and has to create new modes of operation in view of exacerbating oppression and the return of Israel’s direct military control of the Occupied Territories. Cooperation with the Palestinians is now subject to a clearer political statement, and humanitarian aid is sometimes seen as a weakening of the political message, a sort of evasive conscience cleansing. On the other hand, Taayush activists are no longer the same as they were two years ago: their consciousness has been raised, their political senses honed. Decision making in Taayush is a tedious process of telephone conversations, debates, meetings and analyses that enrich each other. Confronting the Occupation in its natural surroundings is an ever-growing experience, and the deep and intimate acquaintance among Jews and Arabs enhances the reading of any newspaper story. In other words: Taayush has become a school for activists.

What next? Two years ago, when the first ones to ‘wake up’ from Kufr Qassem and Tel Aviv got organized, their goal was far from clear. At present, a whole practice has grown – of real partnership and a united Arab-Jewish front in the struggle of Israelis against racism, separation and discrimination, and for full civil equality and the creation of a bridge of solidarity with similar forces within Palestinian society for an end to the Occupation and the founding of a sovereign Palestinian state. Taayush’s various contact lists already number about 1500 people, many of whom are willing to get up early on a Saturday and spend the day in one action or another. No celebrities, no politicians. Many are willing to devote their energy, time – at the expense of their home life – skills, and money for the sake of this continuing wonder: a movement of civil disobedience in the deeper sense of the term.

Azmi Bdeir and Yasmine Halevi, September 2002