Point / Counterpoint: Allowing hostile activists into Israel

Counterpoint to:

A reckoning in Gaza
"I now know what made Hurndall step forward to save those children, and wonder if that's why an IDF sniper shot him for it - because, in the sniper's eyes, rescuing Palestinian children from Israeli gunfire was an act of unacceptable defiance."

Simon Block
The Guardian (London)
October 8, 2008

In April 2003, a 22 year-old British photography student, Tom Hurndall, a member of the pro-Palestinian International Solidarity Movement (ISM), was shot in Gaza by a soldier of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and subsequently died. Simon Block has made a two-hour feature television film about Hurndall, whom he describes as a peace activist. It tells a sad story.

But it is also tells a controversial story, because it exposes the hostile political activism of foreign nationals who come to Israel. 

What would happen if you flew to London and chained yourself to the railings in Downing Street to protest police inaction against rising antisemitism in Britain? Or if you flew to Washington and joined a sit-in protest in the Capitol rotunda to protest US treatment of prisoners in Guantanamo. You would likely be deported and prevented from entering the country again for many years.

Sovereign countries do not look kindly on foreign political activists who come posing as tourists. 

Yet the likelihood of a foreign activist being deported from Israel is close to zero. Israel has very liberal entry requirements and most citizens of more than 70 countries can simply walk through passport control at Ben Gurion airport with no visa other than the one stamped in their passports upon entry.

Israel has never prevented Chris Davies, John Mearsheimer, or Stephen Walt from visiting the country (though it has deported Norman Finkelstein). This open door policy reinforces Israel's image as an open society - there is, after all, no better antidote to biased reporting than to invite people to come and see for themselves. Some will return to their home country with a more balanced view of Israel, and inevitably some will return with the same opinions with which they came. 

It is a good policy, provided visitors keep within the law. But some don't.

A brief glimpse into Tom Hurndall's organization, ISM, this is their goal:

The International Solidarity Movement (ISM) is a Palestinian-led movement committed to resisting the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land using nonviolent, direct-action methods and principles. Founded by a small group of activists in August 2001, ISM aims to support and strengthen the Palestinian popular resistance by providing the Palestinian people with two resources, international protection and a voice with which to nonviolently resist an overwhelming military occupation force.

Thus, it would be difficult to justify referring to ISM members as "peace activists".  The organization supports Palestinian armed struggle, and their members participate in violent demonstrations and attempt to disrupt IDF operations by placing themselves in the midst of Israeli military activities.

This is how ISM guides their members to behave when entering Israel:

Visitors coming in solidarity with the Palestinian people and/or to support Palestinian non-violent resistance face a difficult situation. If they admit the goals of their visit to Israeli border staff, and admit any association with ISM, they will most likely be denied entry. If they state other reasons for their visit, they can also be accused of lying to Israeli authorities and denied entry for this reason. Faced with this dilemma, some activists choose not to talk about their activist goals and instead explain other reasons for their visit, such as visiting the Holy Land, visiting an Israeli friend, tourism, etc. These activists generally articulate a clear plan for their visit, including places they will stay within Israel and the names, addresses and phone numbers of people they will be visiting (not mentioning visits to Palestinians).

So this was Tom Hurndall's organization, and as its member he came to Israel in 2003. How did he die?

There are many versions of the events leading to the death of Hurndall, and people tend to choose the one that best suits their position on the Israel-Palestinian conflict. This one is as good as any.

In April 2003, the IDF were on a mission in the Gaza border town of Rafah. Hurndall and a group of activists were in the area, having planned to set up a peace tent on one of the nearby roads to blockade IDF tank patrols. At an IDF checkpoint on April 11, the IDF states that it came under fire from Palestinian militants and returned fire, causing Hurndall's group of nine activists to abandon their protest and seek cover. Hurndall then ran out into the street and was shot in the head by an IDF soldier.

ISM and Palestinian witnesses claimed that Hurndall had rushed to save a group of children who were in the line of fire.

The soldier who fired at Hurndall, Sergeant Taysir al-Heib, said he had fired a shot near an unarmed civilian as a deterrent, but ended up hitting him unintentionally. He was court-martialed, and in August 2005, al-Heib was sentenced to eight years in prison for manslaughter and other related offenses.

Simon Block's version of events, as presented in his film, uncritically offers the humanitarian version of Hurndall's death and almost completely ignores the credentials of the organization within which he was acting. According to Block, Hurndall had been participating in a "Palestinian demonstration against IDF violence" when he was shot. He quotes ISM sources saying that Hurndall had died a martyr.

Block concludes his discussion of what he had learned while filming his movie, with these words:

I now know what made Hurndall step forward to save those children, and wonder if that's why an IDF sniper shot him for it - because, in the sniper's eyes, rescuing Palestinian children from Israeli gunfire was an act of unacceptable defiance.”

As propaganda goes, Block's statement is as good as it gets. 

Yet, while his account of the Hurndall affair is richly embellished and considerably skewed it is nonetheless structured around an intolerable incident. There can be no justification for shooting live ammunition at unarmed activists who do not pose an immediate threat to the lives of Israeli soldiers. And though the path to justice was unnecessarily tedious for the Hurndall family, it is important that justice did prevail.

As difficult as the conflict is for IDF soldiers, it is imperative that they do not forfeit the moral high ground in order to make their mission easier. And this means, among other things, that Israeli soldiers do not use their weapons frivolously.

The solution to situations, such as the one that brought Tom Hurndall's life to an end, should not be at courts-martial, but rather at Ben Gurion airport. And those who slip through need to be apprehended, tried, and deported, before they get themselves killed.  Many of these young activists are naïve, and have little real understanding of the combat dangers in which they place themselves.