Gilberte Finkel, born in Paris in 1948, settled in Israel after May 1968. A feminist, Gilberte Finkel has militated for more than 30 years in the women’s movements in Israel, for women’s rights, the right to control one’s own body, to choose one’s sexual orientation, and also for dialogue and peace with the Palestinian neighbor. In Tel Aviv, working in tourism — a sector particularly sensitive to the vagaries of economic and political life — she has been directly and personally confronted, in recent years, with the deterioration of working conditions and social protections. She is a member of the board of directors of ADVA, an association that conducts research on social inequalities in Israeli society and does “lobbying” for the disadvantaged sectors of the population. A member of the Meretz party, she militates within it during election periods. Active in women’s groups for peace, she refused to join the protests that declined to condemn Hezbollah during the Lebanon war of the summer of 2006.
PLURIELLES — In the speech he delivered in memory of Yitzhak Rabin, on November 7, 2006, the writer David Grossman said: “…we have discovered that Israel faces a profound crisis, far more profound than we imagined, in almost every aspect of our collective existence… How is it that we continue today not to react and to remain hypnotized, while madness and vulgarity, violence and racism invade our home? /…/ [Yet] even when many things in the reality of our lives exasperate and depress me, even when the miracle disintegrates into the tiny fragments of routine and misery, of corruption and cynicism, even when the country resembles a bad parody of that miracle, I always remember that it is the product of a miracle.”
GILBERTE FINKEL — Israel is a country of contrasts and of extremes, that is its characteristic. Often, I have the impression of living through a surrealist situation. On the one hand, there has been governmental negligence since the assassination of Rabin, with a rise of the extremes. We criticize Hamas, but here at home people accept the idea of living only by the sword. It looks like a banana republic, with laxity in many domains. I am also worried about what is happening inside the army; it is no longer the same army as before. To be sure, the wars have changed; the victims are more and more often civilians, since the Second Intifada.
On the other hand, there is here a creativity, an effervescence, extraordinary human riches. Here, one lives. In Israel, one has the impression of living history, not of watching it from afar. Israel remains an astonishing “melting pot”: there are enough musicians since the immigration from the republics of the former USSR for a symphony orchestra to be born in every municipality. But the problems are there. The government passed a law preventing a non-Israeli from joining his Israeli spouse; a law intended, in fact, to prevent Israeli Arabs from bringing in Palestinians from the occupied territories!
PL. — And yet, despite these disillusionments and these criticisms, you stay here, you continue to be a stakeholder in Israeli society. What forms do your struggles take today, and what makes you think that these actions can influence society?
GF — Until the last Lebanon war, I thought that the socio-economic problems were more serious than the Palestinian conflict, for we are faced with a society sucked along by an irrepressible movement toward the model of the rich, the white, the male, rejecting minorities, the sick, the disabled, the poor, single-parent families, new immigrants, the elderly. This encourages crime and violence. It seemed to me that the priority was to fight against this development; internal politics depends on us.
But the last war drove me to despair. One senses the threat of something difficult to define hovering, a great insecurity, and a backsliding with respect to the Palestinians. The government does not do enough to make peace. Tzipi Livni [minister of Foreign Affairs] talks with Abu Mazen in the United States but Olmert struggles to meet him here. When Hamas came to power we should have let it express itself, whereas we immediately said: No! The same precipitation in the response to the kidnapping of the soldiers. Shulamit Aloni wanted us to give Hezbollah a 72-hour ultimatum to return the soldiers. Sharon did indeed free prisoners in exchange for a shady businessman, implicated in drug trafficking, who was of his own free will in Lebanon when he was kidnapped. We should have exchanged prisoners for the soldier Shalit.
My natural place is with the women’s groups that militate for peace. But since the Second Intifada, I can’t find my way there, for one cannot constantly criticize Israel and not criticize the suicide attacks. I am still active in a coalition of associations and trade-union organizations which, in my opinion, carries more weight than the Labor Party.
PL. — The women’s groups claim to play an important role for peace and coexistence with the Palestinians. Is this true?
GF — They caused a stir, during the Second Lebanon War. It was they who organized the first demonstration against the war, while Shalom Arshav [Peace Now] remained mute. But I find that the mute protest of the women in black serves no purpose today. At this moment, one must speak to the Israelis, explain to them tirelessly why the occupation of the Palestinian territories is not a good thing for us. The women, who were initially excluded from Shalom Arshav, created by officers, must do this. If the mixed movements do not make room for them, then they create women’s movements where they express themselves.
PL. — How do you see the future?
GF — I don’t see it, for the first time. On the one hand, there is talk of a third intifada. On the other hand, the Israelis are very good at maintaining a normal life in difficult circumstances, unlike the European countries. Under the rockets, they were getting married in the North last summer, even if it had to be done in bomb shelters.
Resentment, bitterness — I feel them today toward many people. Toward this right that introduced money-as-king and corruption, toward the false left that preaches peace and makes war, toward those who want to lead boycott campaigns in Europe against Israel. It is not good to boycott a country because one does not like its policy. Come see up close what happens here, the people who protest, who struggle. People live here and do not spend their time fighting, or praying. And besides, we Israelis have the right not to be perfect. There is such an imbalance in the criticisms directed at us and at our neighbors; it does not contribute to improving the situation.
(Interview conducted by Monique Halpern)