PARALLELS BETWEEN GAZA AND KATRINA

The practice of diversity doesn’t just appear out of thin air. It requires willingness, commitment to work at the process, understanding, justice (adhering to universal human rights), fairness in dealing with others, and governmental protection of our universal human rights. It requires accountability to acknowledge the dignity of each human being.

Let’s think about this together for a moment: suppose that your home was partially destroyed by a terror attack or a natural disaster that forced you to evacuate to another city. During this evacuation time, you find that government agencies made the decision to destroy your home because they said it was chemically contaminated and had to be destroyed because it was a health hazard. But you were never consulted. The government simply decided to act. After this, government agencies such as FEMA and other agencies, make it hard for you to find a place to live that compares with your own home. You are finally provided a FEMA trailer, but several months after you move in, you discover that it is chemically contaminated and filled with mold, and you have to leave with your two small children. On and on the scenario goes.

The point of this scenario is show that diversity means including all of the important parties in the decision; it’s based on human respect and dignity, and mutual reciprocity, with the goal of using all the available resources to insure the welfare of all people involved.

Recent events brought to mind the parallels between Palestinian Human Rights abuses, and the neglected Human Rights of those dislocated by Hurricane Katrina in 2005. These parallels can be framed within the Human Right of the Right of Return. In 1998 the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement were presented to the Commission on Human Rights was adopted as a resolution by the UN. Although all of the Guiding Principles aren’t binding treaties on all nations, some of their content is found in other binding treaties.

In summary, these Guiding Principles obligate the states from which refugees or Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) have fled, providing for a safe return to their homes. The resolution specifically states that this dislocation may be due to natural disasters, as well as war and other conflicts and traumas.

In the case of the Palestinians, Israel has thwarted the Right of Return to Palestinians to return to cities and towns in the Gaza Strip. Palestinians have been treated in an unjust and inhumane way concerning the Right of Return. Many of their homes have been demolished, and Israeli settlers (in Gaza and West Bank) aren’t governed by the same oppressive laws as are Palestinians. In the recent uprising, as in the past, innocent civilians have been killed by the Israeli military forces. Israeli settlers are allowed to carry weapons, and vigilante actions are often ignored. Israel has not allowed the vital necessities to live like energy, food, water, and healthcare. Added to this, the systemic oppression and coercive measures perpetuate Institutional Racism on the part of Israel.

Terrorism and injustices have been perpetrated by both Palestinans and Israelis over the years. Clearly, it is always the responsibility of the dominant group, culture or government to insure the protection of the Human Rights of the less-dominant group. This is primarily due to the fact that they have the power in the relationship. It's also their responsibility to correct Human Rights' abuses and injustices. In short, the onus of corrective change needs to be initiated by Israel in this conflict. The Palestinians have their own behavior to examine, and also are accountable, but not in the same vein as Israel.

Institutional Racism is the policies, procedures, structures and norms of any institution that reinforce the superiority of one ethnic group over another. Racist patterns demonstrate themselves through the system’s laws, cultural norms, criminal justice system and the military system. Unless challenged, this form of racism perpetuates the underlying dynamic of the superiority of the governing class. In the case of Israel’s relationship with Palestinians we see an overlap with Cultural Racism. This form of racism targets a group as personas non grata. The dominant group is seen as the norm of what is right, good, and civilized. Stereotypes, laws, customs, religious beliefs and norms all serve to keep the power system in place, and the targeted group in an inferior position without power. It’s not hard to see that Institutional Racism attempts to nullify respect for difference, and this hinders a genuine sense of diversity in any culture or group.

The Right of Return is embodied in numerous human rights and international law documents. Article 13(2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) states, “Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.” The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 12(4) reads, “No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country.”

U.N. General Assembly Resolution 194 III (1948) provided that Palestinian “refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing to return (Article 11).” Resolution 194 has been reaffirmed more than one hundred times by the General Assembly in other resolutions including 513, 2452, 2936, and 3236.

Both the governments of Israel and the U.S. have chosen to blatantly neglect the moral imperatives as codified by the U.N. for IDPs. Instead they have substituted their own political aims for the super ordinate principles of Human Rights. Universal Human Rights are the culmination of history’s learning about what every human being needs to live, to be protected, and to safely exist in their own communities. What does this tell us about the United States and Israel’s view of Human Rights? It tells us that Cultural Racism has become a part of the integral framework of both these nations. In the Palestinian resistance, for example, the root issue is not immigration, but the rectification of an historical injustice towards Palestinians. These injustices are symptoms of systemic power and privilege.

Turning now to Katrina, in July, 2006, a US team composed of Monique Harden, Natalie Walker and the Rev. Lois Dejean traveled to Geneva to address the U.N. Human Rights Committee. Rev. Dejean noted in her presentation that it was the poor and African Americans who were primarily denied adequate housing in post-Katrina New Orleans. Sixty percent of the people in New Orleans were renters. Owners and landlords tripled the rents in many cases making it impossible to afford housing. HUD demolished many public housing units, wanting to switch to a different system of rental management that was supposed to include the poor and those with more income. There was no attempt of governmental authorities to pass legislation and ordinances to control rent increases, as has been done by New York City.

Some U.S. government officials have publicly stated the city of New Orleans (in the post-Katrina era) will have fewer African Americans; other writers have spoken or written about the desire on the part of some developers and investors to change the ethnic makeup of the city, creating a central, white demographic. With people of color being locked out of housing units, and unable to afford the rent, this is an almost certain reality.

The Federal Government and the State of Louisiana has a mandate to protect the Right of Return to IDPs from Katrina’s devastation. One example that I’m personally familiar with concerns a woman who evacuated from New Orleans; she had a home there, but because half of the home was rented out, she went through many hoops to approve her rebuilding. Her intent was to rebuild her part of the home where her family lived. She had to continue living in another city, and only occasionally would return to New Orleans to check on how the process was moving or not moving. Governments need to advocate for an efficient way (a non-political one) for residents to return to their homes and communities to rebuild.

In a debate or in a court of law, a plaintiff presents a case to prove her side of the story in order to demonstrate her claim under the law. If the case is a good one, it’s built on clear and substantive points of law; logical and analytical human reason is used to support the main point. The plaintiff’s attorney always returns to the foundational underpinnings of the law in question. Legal precedents are combined with well-reasoned arguments on behalf of her client.

The plights of IDPs, in Palestine and in New Orleans, have the legal precedents on their side; Universal Human Rights and other international conventioins form the basis of their legal stance. This is one of the institutional factors that must always be applied when human injustice arises. Governments can’t simply choose to not honor these conventions of Human Rights, reasoning they will not be held accountable, even if they argue that such principles aren’t binding. A state’s self-interest ought never to be allowed to be placed higher than universal Human Rights. The consequence of this kind of action will be separation, marginalization, and conflict.

Diversity among the human community needs to be taught well, and an understanding of diverse cultures, ethnos, languages, customs, religious beliefs, art, and laws should be honored. If parts of a state’s institutional framework perpetuates any kind of racism, the notion of diversity will only be a word, but never an action. Diversity among the planet’s nations is a verb. Both IDPs who come from Palestine or Louisiana deserve the Right of Return.

© Christopher Bear Beam, MA