What suits Paris may not necessarily suit Ramallah.
By Ahmed Safi
Firstly, I hope to convey my message to you correctly, and I hope that what I will present will be thought-provoking for a civilized discussion, far from any bias or attack.
We have become accustomed, over the past centuries, since the emergence of superficial concepts such as “the Third World” or “the Global South,” to receive descriptions of solutions to our political, social, and economic problems from the circles of the Global North. These ready-made solutions come from those who believe that they, behind computer screens, are capable of providing effective solutions to these problems. At the same time, they believe that these solutions rely on Orientalist stereotypes, depicting the East as nothing more than deserts, palm trees, animals, noise, internal violence, and oppression of the weak.
Unfortunately, some individuals in the East also engage with these solutions parachuted into the region. This is due to their lack of confidence in their ability to perform well and find solutions to their problems by themselves, in a way that aligns with their environment and specificity.
The uniqueness of societies, with their systems, laws, and beliefs, must be taken into account in every process of change. Successful change may occur when it is well-thought-out and gradual, even if it is slow. Elements of successful change also include its leadership by individuals within the society who have the vision and knowledge of the places where this change can occur. They understand better than others the factors for the success of change and their relationship with those who possess the power, capability, and influence on public opinion in their societies.
Is historical colonial responsibility or another form of knowledge transfer?
Is it a matter of the guilt of the Orientalists and heirs of colonial thought who believe that extending a helping hand to the most needy peoples may be a way to make amends?
Or is it the conviction of some, in light of the historical experience of colonialism, who have always believed in their ability to bring about change in countries under colonization in the best way possible, given their material, cultural, or logistical capabilities that enable them to easily move between these countries?
In this context, we must ask: Can this knowledge or experience of this individual be easily transferred and implemented? Let’s take the topic of animal welfare and environmentalism as an example.
The Role of the Other, Specifically the West:
Awareness of animal welfare and environmental issues has existed in the global South, including the Middle East, for many years. However, modernity introduced many new terms, ideas, and explanations associated with the philosophy behind these issues, ideas that were written about and researched extensively.
The same actions existed in the East but were not framed within a research context. Now, we find many terms such as “Animal Rights,” “Animal Welfare,” or “Animal Liberation,” and activists are divided in their support for these concepts and the mechanisms they adopt to implement them.
I used to think that this activist environment for animal rights and environmentalism was the most peaceful and sincere compared to other human activities. However, I discovered that it is not so different from any other field, as it is filled with conflicts of interest and ideas. I also observed elements of exclusion and rejection of the other and resistance to any new direction.
As a result, we in the South found ourselves naturally divided into more than one camp. We were forced to determine where we stand, which group we belong to, and which group we must be accountable to.
Herein lie the questions, not just for the Western proponents of these ideas but for us as activists. Among these questions, one arises about the nature of the idea itself. Is our idea the best, and therefore, should we propagate it as a form of immortality or self-esteem that we seek?
What is the difference between imposing our ideas on our own people and presenting these ideas as the optimal solution to contemporary human problems, and what colonialism used to do by promoting ideas claimed to be the best solutions for the people under its control?
I believe that there are some universal principles and ethical concepts agreed upon between the North and the South, the East and the West. However, the disagreement may lie in how we express our rejection of violations, which can vary from place to place.
Motivations for Seeking Change in Other Societies:
In the international context, it’s worth mentioning Che Guevara’s idea to illustrate the concept of international revolutions and spreading the resistance ideology among oppressed peoples. However, I don’t believe there is a similarity in thinking when it comes to what the white man claims, that his presence aims to bring about internal change that we are more capable of and knowledgeable about. At the same time, I see that the justifications for the need to provide assistance in this context are linked to the mentality of superiority, where some believe they possess the knowledge and ability to bring about change, and they believe that owning this knowledge gives them the right to control others.
In our own experience, we lost significant funding for our sterilization and vaccination program due to the lack of alignment with the model used by the funder in Palestine. Additionally, we faced limitations in terms of resources and tools. The protocol developed in the funding country was based on the available resources and capacities there.
This mindset, driven by the illusion of knowledge superiority, did not consider what was available to us or what was possible due to the occupation, which imposes restrictions on movement. It also did not consider the level of public acceptance of such new initiatives. As the funder believed they had the upper hand in determining our direction, we were forced to halt the project.
As a result of this situation, where the donor claims their superiority and views it as a collective example of backwardness and an inability to follow correct instructions, something we categorically reject. This awareness of the value of knowledge and capability has taken on a different aspect among individuals, whether with good intentions or without them. They judge individuals who previously embraced this mindset correctly and do not impose it on us through logical standards that we must follow. Instead, they “understand” our limitations and shortcomings in performance. Therefore, we should feel grateful for their understanding of our limitations and open the door for them to lead the way towards a less brutal future.
The Superiority Complex and Conceptual Superiority:
Exploring the concepts used in this field has made the self-proclaimed “superiors” messengers who carried their interpretations and applications in an abstract manner.
“Animal Rights” means the right of animals “in law and justice and with the certainty that they have control over their destiny.” Do we have the right to sterilize or neuter animals and prevent them from reproducing? Do we have the right to switch dogs to a vegetarian diet? Is simply stopping the consumption of meat enough to give animals their rights? Perhaps here we need to stop claiming that what we do is inherently positive and admit that it is entirely for our benefit as humans.
One day, an animal rights activist asked me when we would become an “Animal Liberation Organization.” I didn’t understand the strange meaning of the word until I asked and researched to find out that it means liberating animals, for example, stopping the use of horses for plowing. I asked a friend about the mutual benefit of using animals in plowing, and he replied that animals have no choice here.
In a rugged mountainous environment like Palestine, machinery cannot access certain areas because it may break branches or harm the environment through fuel consumption. Also, leaving these lands uncultivated could lead to their confiscation. How will we liberate others and ourselves, and are these ideas feasible to implement?
“Animal Welfare” means being kind to and caring for animals. One day, we applied for the “Youth for Change” project, which aims to train volunteers to work with children to guide them on the needs of animals, such as showing kindness and providing healthy vegetarian nutrition, as well as any other initiatives that children find important in their environment. We were surprised to receive a response from someone with knowledge and influence in funding, saying, “This is an animal welfare project; we only fund animal rights.”
To be honest, I didn’t know the difference between them until I sought help from friends, and until now, my confusion about how to apply the concept continues. However, my response was, “I don’t care at all about philosophical terms; there is a need for intervention, and I believe in gradual intervention.”
Here lies the question: should we, as working groups in the same field or domain, belong to any of the commonly used definitions? Does belonging give us an intellectual identity that gives us the influence and power to defend this term, or does it focus on changing the reality itself?
We consider this program an open space for the younger generation to lead the change themselves in any area they deem necessary, whether it’s setting up a library in a health center, spending a day with the elderly, running a cafeteria by chance, introducing a vegetarian day at school, or promoting the idea of reusable cotton bags.
“All of this does not matter to some people who have adopted their thinking, committed to a specific term or direction, whether from the West or those who have adopted their direction from our society.” We found ourselves compelled to change the approach developed over four years.
Has the experiment succeeded in your country, and are you now seeking to spread it?
Let’s discuss the term “Veganism.” Do you need to have a visible tattoo on your body to highlight your dietary identity? Do you have to present yourself in this way?
The term “Vegan” was coined recently by an Arab colleague with whom I disagreed on the nature of the activity and how to promote it, but I agreed with the idea. A brief review of statistics reveals that the change is fluctuating; sometimes it increases, and at other times it decreases. Despite the efforts to persuade people to adopt veganism and the widespread popularity of the idea, we observe that the wealthiest countries in the world are the biggest consumers of meat, while veganism is also spreading in these same countries. Therefore, perhaps it’s time to think about changing the form of our work and the message, not the cause itself.
The effort compared to the results is minimal, so perhaps we should look at the root of the problem. The development of animal production and leather industry is taking a very negative trend in the northern countries or advanced continents, which is the source of production exported to other countries.
When we started, and until now, we do not impose vegetarianism on volunteers in the organization – it is true that we asked them to give up any animal products while representing us, or being at the association’s headquarters. We have no choice but to deal with all segments of society, and we believe that ideas cannot be imposed but must be adopted by independent decision-makers.
Many times we find those who attack us for our different approach compared to theirs and criticize what we do instead of what they are doing and building, and changing in the appropriate way, allowing for their capabilities, which is the case with some volunteers from the northern countries. This can be described as an alienating style surrounded by bullying from a logic of claiming to possess the knowledge, “which is believed to be the only binding knowledge” regardless of the reality imposed on us and without any consideration for the differences in the local environment.
For example, in this controversial issue with the owners of the common cause, we also differ in naming the animals killed as “martyrs” and comparing them to Palestinian martyrs who fell victim to Israeli occupation, which has a negative impact on our organization’s message.
Every term carries a form of reality and is associated with a number of actions. But the question is, does this term align with the reality of other societies?!
Intersectionality
The emergence of the term “Intersectionality” has been associated with the struggles of Black women for their rights in America. In this context, groups were formed that believed in living justly and shared common characteristics but had different orientations and forms that aligned with their needs.
The societal awareness of these groups sometimes conflicts with the individual awareness within them. Currently, there is a trend to fragment intersectional groups and seek to empower individuals with similar identities as separate individuals within these groups to express their individual orientations. This means promoting individual rights for these groups, which may isolate collective issues and transform them into individual freedom issues that can be dealt with, changing laws that have no impact on existing systems.
This trend can be very tempting for individuals to apply in societies that are more oppressive. It can be observed within the context of globalization, where the world envisions life in Europe, specifically the concept of individual freedoms, as vastly different from the reality experienced by individuals there. In Europe, there is a complete individualization that allows governments to control minds in a democratic guise, enabling citizens to vent their individual issues, which have become similar.
Working in the field of animal welfare in Palestine is by far the easiest and always welcomed compared to other issues. However, some people in the Western world view such an activity as a revolutionary model.
Turning intersectionality from a collective thought and action framework for general social rights into individual rights prompts us to think about what is better. There is no ideal state in the world, and obtaining a complete system that guarantees the acceptance of differences between individuals and groups is impossible. The current debate revolves around nationalism, which I believe is often rejected in some countries and very much cherished in others, as it is in Palestine.
This group of issues and the preceding terms form a very intriguing model for any Westerner who sees the desire to bear this burden. It is crucial when they find themselves advocating for a range of rights, a green female activist fighting for her rights under occupation, trying to enhance her image as a victim within a male-dominated society, and reinforcing her self-perception as a victim fighting for change. This is where the plot begins to evolve and grow, recognizing the importance of their role and their necessity as a civilized, modern, and enlightened white savior.
What do we want?!
The shape of the required activity, built on a set of goals and focused on them, carries a lot of risks. We took it upon ourselves to promote the idea of compassion for and protection of animals in Palestine, but we did not initially align with any of the terms. We thought it was good to join the animal rights movement, only to discover later many areas that require our intervention in various forms.
Our expansion in multiple directions led to fragmentation. From this perspective, what we need to do is what the society requires in terms of change. We should not expect quick results, as addressing the phenomena is good, but addressing the root cause of the issue is better. We have also realized the importance of focusing on needs rather than applying theories. Gaining the approval of the local public and rallying them behind the idea is better than winning over funders or the proponents of the idea themselves, as the activity’s form should be in harmony with the public’s acceptance.
Experiences have taught us a lot. We have faced many challenging experiences in Palestine, such as trying to standardize them to resemble other experiences, changing our approach, or even imposing ideas for them to adopt. These attempts often come from individuals who joined us because they were attracted to the idea but did not go through the same circumstances, and they will not understand the idea of being in a completely different environment.
Should we protest in Ramallah to stop the killing of animals? This is a very important question. There are protests for prisoners, there are protests and funerals for martyrs. Will the size of the protest be negative and expose us to ridicule? Will the small number justify others to overlook us and not care? Is this the only way?! Maybe not. Perhaps we should go to the youth and schools and build the idea from its roots so that they become advocates for it after several years.
Should we share pictures of naked protesters covered in red paint on social media to promote veganism? Such actions can generate a lot of controversy and divert you from achieving your goal. Respect traditions and customs, and being a different individual within the community you live in is necessary for the success of the idea.
The local community sometimes imposes significant responsibilities on us or tries to change or define our activities in a direction of rescuing injured animals in the streets, such as cats, dogs, or donkeys. The task here requires a lot of effort, work, resources, and equipment. I believe that this should be a primary mission of the organization. Spreading the idea and establishing groups with different tasks is an essential part of the organization’s mission to distribute roles and attract volunteers interested in various aspects.
I disagree with those who have shelters for dogs, cats, and green saviors. I agree with the necessity of their presence for the tasks they have dedicated their efforts to.
We must find alternatives and work on the ground, not just theorize on social media. Our presence on the ground is crucial.
We must be fully convinced of the importance of our independence. Our mission is sometimes exposed to errors, but this does not mean the end; it is an essential means to change the message and learn from the experience.
The ability of these terms to infiltrate and shake up the concept in other languages leads us to reconsider adopting their ability to bring about change in their original language. From here, we should think carefully: should we adhere to the text represented by the activity we are following?! Or is it more advisable to find another practical interpretation for these texts and terms?!
