12 apr 2002
Israel – A Suicide Bomber?
by Ran HaCohen
Palestinian suicide attacks have been singled out, overemphasised and isolated from their context in Israel's 35-year occupation of the Palestinian territories, the proper infrastructure of Palestinian terrorism.
Professional demonisers like Thomas Friedman work hard to persuade us of suicidal lies like the one claiming suicide bombers are "a whole new form of warfare" unique to Palestinians. I truly doubt whether the term "Kamikaze" is of Palestinian origin. There were no Palestinian suicide bombers around back in 1991, when Rajib Ghandi was assassinated by a suicide bomber; in fact, the person accused of launching more suicide attacks than anyone else is not Yassir Arafat (his direct involvement in such attacks may be an outright Israeli fabrication) but Velupillai Prabhakaran, who heads the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam.
The Talmud reminds us that people often accuse others of their own faults. Is this the case with Israel as well? Can Israel be seen as a suicide bomber? Well, the latter part of the term obviously holds true: reports of Israeli bulldozers digging mass graves in Jenin have not been confirmed yet, but the enormous scale of Israeli bombing in occupied territories hardly needs this evidence. During the British Mandate in Palestine (1917-1948), the Royal Army considered bombing Jenin from the air, but dropped the idea for humanitarian reasons; the Israeli army has now used F-16 jets, helicopters and airborne missiles against this city, while destroying dozens of houses as well as the entire water, sewage and electricity infrastructure by tanks and bulldozers.
But has Israel itself suicidal elements? We'll have to take a short survey of Palestinian suicide bombing to get to that.
Suicide Bombers Analysed
Demonisation successfully coats the suicide bombers with a satanic aura of ultimate evil, disabling any rational discussion of the subject. Suicide bombers are represented as a doomsday weapon, as a threat to world security, to civilisation itself (see, again, Thomas Friedman's column). It's high time to lift this aura.
In my previous column I argued that suicide itself is not considered a crime by most people. The major ideology of modern times, Nationalism, often praises sacrificing one's life for one's nation. Israel loves to praise itself for everything positive in Palestinian society ("we brought them prosperity" etc.) and to blame some "Arab spirit" for everything negative. But Palestinians' suicidal tendencies maybe have their roots not only in Islamic fundamentalism but also in Zionism. Israeli school children are raised on the myth of the Zionist officer Joseph Trumpeldor, whose last words were: "It is good to die for our country".
Similarly, the first association Israeli soldiers had in mind for the Palestinians fighting to death in Jenin was the Zionist Masada myth, where besieged ancient Jews swore to die rather than surrender to the Romans.
Suicide bombers, as I argued before, are not different from any other weapon. They can be used against three kinds of targets: soldiers, settlers, and civilians inside Israel. Let's consider each of these cases.
Bombing Occupation Soldiers is LAWFUL
When acting against soldiers, the suicide bomber has international law on his side. Yes: international legislation acknowledges the right of occupied people to use force against their oppressors, both inside the occupied territories and outside them. Based upon the principles of the Hague International Convention of 1907 and confirmed in the Nuremberg Tribunal after World War II, this determination was essential to forestall Nazi claims that partisans, Ghetto fighters, and other underground resistance forces in the territories occupied by Germany had allegedly been "terrorists". In the Nuremberg Tribunal it was unequivocally set down that resistance fighters, including those who had struggled within Germany itself, acted in accordance with the regulations of international law.
A fact actually unheard of in the media.
Bombing Settlers in the Occupied Territories
Bombing civilians, however, is a crime. If Palestinians do it inside the occupied territories, the great question is what those civilians, also known as settlers, are doing there. Their presence in the occupied territories may not justify killing them, but it raises serious doubts as for who is responsible for it. Is it the Palestinians legitimately fighting occupation – or is it rather Israel, that moves civilians into occupied territory contrary to international law, exposing them to Palestinian attacks? Israel now claims to be deporting Palestinian civilians from battle zones in order to protect them. Why does it let its own civilians live in these territories, which are one big battlefield?
In fact, extremist settlers like those in Hebron – 500 settlers among 120.000 Palestinians in the heart of the city – often refuse to be protected. When the army offers to install bullet-proof glass in their windows, they reject it, claiming the army should ensure their houses are not shot at instead of stopping the bullets at their windows. Is this not suicidal?
Bombing Civilians Inside Israel
Okay, this of course is totally illegal and immoral. But have you ever wondered how suicide bombers get into Israel? Not in a satanic rain like the frogs in Magnolia. In fact, they walk into Israel.
Walk??? – Yes. They cross the imaginary Green Line between Israel and the occupied West Bank simply on foot, and then they take a lift, or a bus, or a taxi, to wherever they want to explode.
This may sound incredible, but it is true. There is no visible border between Israel and the West Bank.
Now the problem of intruders has been bothering humanity for quite a few millennia, from China to Berlin; the usual solution is expressed by the English term "fence". If Israel had wanted to stop suicide bombers, all it had to do is put a fence. This is Israel's weak spot the Palestinians have found. It's a very revealing weak spot.
Why does Israel not put up a fence? The construction itself is not a problem. There are quite sophisticated hi-tech fences nowadays. The Gaza Strip is surrounded by one, reducing intrusions to a zero level. A few weeks after the Israeli withdrawal from South Lebanon, a fence along the border was completed there too. So why not in the West Bank?
There are three reasons why Israel does not put a fence along the Green Line:
(A) First and foremost, as even Israeli politicians admit, it's "a political problem". A fence might be interpreted as a border. Israel is unwilling to give up the West Bank. Therefore, it rather lets its citizens die in suicide attacks. It's as simple as that.
(B) More specifically, the numerous Israeli settlements spread throughout the entire West Bank are a problem for such a fence. If the settlements are taken in, you have to take the surrounding Palestinian population too, and then what's the point. If you leave the settlements out, you solve only part of the problem.
The smaller part of the problem, actually. Israel cares much more about its 200.000 settlers in the West Bank than about its 6 million citizens inside the Green Line (indeed, most settlements are surrounded by a fence). Take this financial evidence: in the 1990s, the Israeli Government spent on every settler an average of 5,428 NIS a year. The national average per citizen was just 3,807 NIS. Israeli Arab citizens were worth much less: 2,402 NIS. The cheaper the citizen, the cheaper his life.
(C) One cannot ignore the propaganda profits. Israel uses terror attack on its citizens, especially on civilians inside the Green Line, to justify its ever more violent occupation and to endlessly expand its illegal settlements. Why build a simple fence, if you can occasionally sacrifice a few civilians in return for a huge propaganda benefit for the occupation and the settlements?
Looking in the Mirror
So Thomas Friedman is right to argue that by using suicide bombers the Palestinians have found Israel's weak spot. This weak spot is the policy of occupation and settlements. Had Israel agreed to end occupation and dismantle the settlements, as international decisions demand, it could simply put a fence along the Green Line and stop suicide bombers. But a fence would harm Israel's settlements policy, and this is why Israel does not build one. This behaviour, on a national level, is suicidal: the State of Israel knowingly sacrifices its own civilians for the Molech called settlements. The Palestinian suicide bombers are thus but a mirror image of the Israeli policy, a policy which is both "suicidal" (sacrificing one's own civilians) and murderously bombing.
Text-only printable version of this article
Ran HaCohen was born in the Netherlands in 1964 and grew up in Israel. He has a B.A. in Computer Science, an M.A. in Comparative Literature and is currently working on his PhD thesis. He teaches in the Tel-Aviv University's Department of Comparative Literature. He also works as a literary translator (from German, English and Dutch), and as a literary critic for the Israeli daily Yedioth Achronoth. Mr. HaCohen's work has been published widely in Israel. "Letter from Israel" appears occasionally at Antiwar.com
Palestinian suicide attacks have been singled out, overemphasised and isolated from their context in Israel's 35-year occupation of the Palestinian territories, the proper infrastructure of Palestinian terrorism.
Professional demonisers like Thomas Friedman work hard to persuade us of suicidal lies like the one claiming suicide bombers are "a whole new form of warfare" unique to Palestinians. I truly doubt whether the term "Kamikaze" is of Palestinian origin. There were no Palestinian suicide bombers around back in 1991, when Rajib Ghandi was assassinated by a suicide bomber; in fact, the person accused of launching more suicide attacks than anyone else is not Yassir Arafat (his direct involvement in such attacks may be an outright Israeli fabrication) but Velupillai Prabhakaran, who heads the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam.
The Talmud reminds us that people often accuse others of their own faults. Is this the case with Israel as well? Can Israel be seen as a suicide bomber? Well, the latter part of the term obviously holds true: reports of Israeli bulldozers digging mass graves in Jenin have not been confirmed yet, but the enormous scale of Israeli bombing in occupied territories hardly needs this evidence. During the British Mandate in Palestine (1917-1948), the Royal Army considered bombing Jenin from the air, but dropped the idea for humanitarian reasons; the Israeli army has now used F-16 jets, helicopters and airborne missiles against this city, while destroying dozens of houses as well as the entire water, sewage and electricity infrastructure by tanks and bulldozers.
But has Israel itself suicidal elements? We'll have to take a short survey of Palestinian suicide bombing to get to that.
Suicide Bombers Analysed
Demonisation successfully coats the suicide bombers with a satanic aura of ultimate evil, disabling any rational discussion of the subject. Suicide bombers are represented as a doomsday weapon, as a threat to world security, to civilisation itself (see, again, Thomas Friedman's column). It's high time to lift this aura.
In my previous column I argued that suicide itself is not considered a crime by most people. The major ideology of modern times, Nationalism, often praises sacrificing one's life for one's nation. Israel loves to praise itself for everything positive in Palestinian society ("we brought them prosperity" etc.) and to blame some "Arab spirit" for everything negative. But Palestinians' suicidal tendencies maybe have their roots not only in Islamic fundamentalism but also in Zionism. Israeli school children are raised on the myth of the Zionist officer Joseph Trumpeldor, whose last words were: "It is good to die for our country".
Similarly, the first association Israeli soldiers had in mind for the Palestinians fighting to death in Jenin was the Zionist Masada myth, where besieged ancient Jews swore to die rather than surrender to the Romans.
Suicide bombers, as I argued before, are not different from any other weapon. They can be used against three kinds of targets: soldiers, settlers, and civilians inside Israel. Let's consider each of these cases.
Bombing Occupation Soldiers is LAWFUL
When acting against soldiers, the suicide bomber has international law on his side. Yes: international legislation acknowledges the right of occupied people to use force against their oppressors, both inside the occupied territories and outside them. Based upon the principles of the Hague International Convention of 1907 and confirmed in the Nuremberg Tribunal after World War II, this determination was essential to forestall Nazi claims that partisans, Ghetto fighters, and other underground resistance forces in the territories occupied by Germany had allegedly been "terrorists". In the Nuremberg Tribunal it was unequivocally set down that resistance fighters, including those who had struggled within Germany itself, acted in accordance with the regulations of international law.
A fact actually unheard of in the media.
Bombing Settlers in the Occupied Territories
Bombing civilians, however, is a crime. If Palestinians do it inside the occupied territories, the great question is what those civilians, also known as settlers, are doing there. Their presence in the occupied territories may not justify killing them, but it raises serious doubts as for who is responsible for it. Is it the Palestinians legitimately fighting occupation – or is it rather Israel, that moves civilians into occupied territory contrary to international law, exposing them to Palestinian attacks? Israel now claims to be deporting Palestinian civilians from battle zones in order to protect them. Why does it let its own civilians live in these territories, which are one big battlefield?
In fact, extremist settlers like those in Hebron – 500 settlers among 120.000 Palestinians in the heart of the city – often refuse to be protected. When the army offers to install bullet-proof glass in their windows, they reject it, claiming the army should ensure their houses are not shot at instead of stopping the bullets at their windows. Is this not suicidal?
Bombing Civilians Inside Israel
Okay, this of course is totally illegal and immoral. But have you ever wondered how suicide bombers get into Israel? Not in a satanic rain like the frogs in Magnolia. In fact, they walk into Israel.
Walk??? – Yes. They cross the imaginary Green Line between Israel and the occupied West Bank simply on foot, and then they take a lift, or a bus, or a taxi, to wherever they want to explode.
This may sound incredible, but it is true. There is no visible border between Israel and the West Bank.
Now the problem of intruders has been bothering humanity for quite a few millennia, from China to Berlin; the usual solution is expressed by the English term "fence". If Israel had wanted to stop suicide bombers, all it had to do is put a fence. This is Israel's weak spot the Palestinians have found. It's a very revealing weak spot.
Why does Israel not put up a fence? The construction itself is not a problem. There are quite sophisticated hi-tech fences nowadays. The Gaza Strip is surrounded by one, reducing intrusions to a zero level. A few weeks after the Israeli withdrawal from South Lebanon, a fence along the border was completed there too. So why not in the West Bank?
There are three reasons why Israel does not put a fence along the Green Line:
(A) First and foremost, as even Israeli politicians admit, it's "a political problem". A fence might be interpreted as a border. Israel is unwilling to give up the West Bank. Therefore, it rather lets its citizens die in suicide attacks. It's as simple as that.
(B) More specifically, the numerous Israeli settlements spread throughout the entire West Bank are a problem for such a fence. If the settlements are taken in, you have to take the surrounding Palestinian population too, and then what's the point. If you leave the settlements out, you solve only part of the problem.
The smaller part of the problem, actually. Israel cares much more about its 200.000 settlers in the West Bank than about its 6 million citizens inside the Green Line (indeed, most settlements are surrounded by a fence). Take this financial evidence: in the 1990s, the Israeli Government spent on every settler an average of 5,428 NIS a year. The national average per citizen was just 3,807 NIS. Israeli Arab citizens were worth much less: 2,402 NIS. The cheaper the citizen, the cheaper his life.
(C) One cannot ignore the propaganda profits. Israel uses terror attack on its citizens, especially on civilians inside the Green Line, to justify its ever more violent occupation and to endlessly expand its illegal settlements. Why build a simple fence, if you can occasionally sacrifice a few civilians in return for a huge propaganda benefit for the occupation and the settlements?
Looking in the Mirror
So Thomas Friedman is right to argue that by using suicide bombers the Palestinians have found Israel's weak spot. This weak spot is the policy of occupation and settlements. Had Israel agreed to end occupation and dismantle the settlements, as international decisions demand, it could simply put a fence along the Green Line and stop suicide bombers. But a fence would harm Israel's settlements policy, and this is why Israel does not build one. This behaviour, on a national level, is suicidal: the State of Israel knowingly sacrifices its own civilians for the Molech called settlements. The Palestinian suicide bombers are thus but a mirror image of the Israeli policy, a policy which is both "suicidal" (sacrificing one's own civilians) and murderously bombing.
Text-only printable version of this article
Ran HaCohen was born in the Netherlands in 1964 and grew up in Israel. He has a B.A. in Computer Science, an M.A. in Comparative Literature and is currently working on his PhD thesis. He teaches in the Tel-Aviv University's Department of Comparative Literature. He also works as a literary translator (from German, English and Dutch), and as a literary critic for the Israeli daily Yedioth Achronoth. Mr. HaCohen's work has been published widely in Israel. "Letter from Israel" appears occasionally at Antiwar.com
5 apr 2002
Suicidal Truths
Under the especially revealing title "Suicidal Lies" (31.3), Thomas Friedman of the New York Times gives his distorted version of Middle East realities. Friedman's short essay is full of flaws, but since he shouldn't be taken all too seriously, I won't bother to address his endlessly recycled legend about the so-called "generous offer" rejected by the Palestinians (refuted long ago by President Clinton's special assistant Robert Malley, see New York Review of Books, 9.8.2001), nor his smug futile fantasy about a "non-violent Palestinian struggle a la Ghandi": anyone who has been following the Palestinian struggle closely knows that every Palestinian nonviolent demonstration is automatically answered by ruthless Israeli fire.
What I do wish to address is the crux of Friedman's manipulation, which consists of focusing on the Palestinian suicide attacks. Friedman writes: "The Palestinians are so blinded by their narcissistic rage that they have lost sight of the basic truth civilisation is built on: the sacredness of every human life, starting with your own."
Now this is vicious demagoguery. The "sacredness of every human life" may start with many things, by it definitely does NOT start with your own life. It is not the "Palestinian narcissistic rage" exposed here, but the blind narcissism of Friedman himself, who seems to selfishly care about himself more than anything. This may be nice for him, but such a person has no right to preach morality to anybody.
As for the life of others, things cannot be clearer. No moral system allows murder. It is not up to you to end someone else's life. This is one of several reasons why only very few backward countries still practice death penalty: Iran, Saudi Arabia, the United States. Except for such few exceptions, all other countries have integrated the "sacredness of every human life" into their legal system and forbid taking the life of any person by another person.
On Suicide
But who is the master of one's own life? Unlike the absolute ban on murder, the question of suicide is morally and philosophically controversial. The three monotheistic religions usually forbid suicide – but remember the biblical suicide-bomber Samson, adored as hero in Christianity and Judaism, opening a long tradition of martyrs.
It was the great English philosopher David Hume (1711-1776) whose defence of suicide became most famous. In his essay "On Suicide" (1757) he proves that suicide violates no duty to God, self or others. His argument goes roughly like that: God has given humans the liberty to alter nature for their own happiness; Suicide is an instance of altering the course of nature for our own happiness; Therefore, suicide does not violate God's plan. (Click here for details.)
Do Palestinians possess a special inclination towards suicide? Probably not more than the English. Here is what the French philosopher Montesquieu wrote in 1748: "the English are apt to commit suicide most unaccountably; they destroy themselves even in the bosom of happiness (…) among the English it is the consequence of a distemper, being connected with the physical state of the machine, and independent of every other cause..."
Anyway, almost all liberal people nowadays would agree that suicide is not a crime. Though some legal systems still formally forbid it, I've never heard of someone punished for a suicide attempt. In fact, a burning issue in modern legislation is euthanasia for terminally ill people, where the question is not their right to commit suicide (which is usually acknowledged), but rather the right to be assisted in it by medical staff.
Sixteen centuries before Hume, philosopher Epictetus (60-120 CE) also endorsed suicide, showing deep understanding for its causes. There may be limits to what we can endure in this life, he argued, and so, when things get too intolerable, we may wish to end our lives. "Is there smoke in the room? If it is slight, I remain. If it is grievous, I quit it. For you must remember this and hold it fast, that the door stands open." This may not be the case with the bombers of September 11th, but it is precisely the case of the Palestinian desperation. Palestinian rooms are now filled with smoke, and tear gas, and tears, and blood. May Thomas Friedman never experience even a tiny fraction of the Palestinian desperation, which he so heartlessly puts between hyphens.
On Bombing
Once we agree that suicide in itself is irreproachable, that the life of every Palestinian belongs to him- or herself (not to Thomas Friedman), and that people are allowed to do with their life whatever they wish, including ending it, what's left of Friedman's argument? Not much. If you re-read his column bearing this in mind, you see how Friedman's balloon is shrinking to trivialities. Suicide bombing is just another weapon, not better and not worse than any other. Friedman is right: Palestinians have found Israel's weak spot. But finding the enemy's weak spots is what fighting is all about; not quite a New York Times scoop.
Once we drop the flawed "accusation" of suicide, the moral fault of suicide bombers becomes obvious: killing innocent people. This is morally reprehensible under any circumstances. Not all suicide bombers kill innocent people, though: many of them explode next to Israeli occupation soldiers. Others target settlers, whose innocence is questionable. But true: many suicide bombers have killed and injured innocent civilians, and this is unforgivable.
Unforgivable – yes, just like the American bombing of Hiroshima (but compare the numbers). Just like the American bombing of the shelter in Baghdad in 1991, killing 400 Iraqi civilians. Just like the Israeli bombing of Kafr Kana in 1996, killing 100 Lebanese civilians. Unforgivable just like so many of the present Israeli actions in the occupied territories, in which innocent civilians are killed. Just like so many of the American actions in Afghanistan and Iraq (and elsewhere), in which countless innocent civilians are killed and injured. The question of intention is a poor refuge: if you enter Ramallah with 150 tanks, cutting water supply and medical aid, if you drop tons of bombs on Afghanistan or Iraq, don't tell me you never intended to harm civilians.
On Dehumanisation
Friedman's bias is now clear. He could have reproached Palestinians for targeting innocent people. This would have been a sound accusation, though it applies just the same to Palestinian hit-and-run snipers. But he didn't. He preferred picking the suicide bombers, who are morally not different from any other who kills innocent. Why?
Naturally, Friedman is frustrated by the fact that American-Israeli might still has some limits. The world would be so much better if might could altogether abolish right! Alas, the smartest bombs cannot defeat the human spirit. The weapons of the poor may not be as clean and photogenic as ours, but they can still hurt. Capitalism isn't perfect. Destruction profits are sometimes independent of the investment: if you're run over by a cheap scooter or by an expensive limousine, you won't always live to tell the difference. A sad fact for a globalisation fan like Friedman.
But it's more than that. Friedman's focus on suicide bombers is intended to dehumanise the Palestinians. By blaming Palestinians of carelessness towards "the sacredness of every human life, starting with your own", Friedman is claiming that they do not care about their own life. He is then patronizingly pretending that he does care about their life (more than they do!), and now, having assumed responsibility for the Palestinians, Friedman has a suggestion: "First, Israel needs to deliver a military blow". Bravo. Look how easily the great moralist Friedman is translating "the sacredness of every human life" into "a military blow". All in the name of "the basic truth civilisation is built on" – what else?
So hit those non-humans, says the enlightened humanist. And what then? Obviously: then, "Israel must tell the Palestinian people that it is ready to resume talks". I devoted an entire column, Against Negotiations, precisely to this false consciousness: both to the dangerous idea that bloodshed may lead to peace, and to "talks" as a code-word for perpetuating the occupation. I won't repeat it here.
To Sum Up
Suicide bombing is on the same moral level as any other bombing. Harming innocent people is morally intolerable; but suicide in itself cannot be condemned. The Palestinian struggle is morally justified, even though some of its manifestations are unjustifiable. Reducing this struggle to the issue of suicide bombing is just another way of dehumanising and thus legitimising the killing of Palestinians, instead of removing the reasons for their horrifying desperation (remember Epictetus). Dehumanising an entire people in the name of the "sacredness of every human life", as Thomas Friedman has done, is an especially repulsive example of demagoguery.
What I do wish to address is the crux of Friedman's manipulation, which consists of focusing on the Palestinian suicide attacks. Friedman writes: "The Palestinians are so blinded by their narcissistic rage that they have lost sight of the basic truth civilisation is built on: the sacredness of every human life, starting with your own."
Now this is vicious demagoguery. The "sacredness of every human life" may start with many things, by it definitely does NOT start with your own life. It is not the "Palestinian narcissistic rage" exposed here, but the blind narcissism of Friedman himself, who seems to selfishly care about himself more than anything. This may be nice for him, but such a person has no right to preach morality to anybody.
As for the life of others, things cannot be clearer. No moral system allows murder. It is not up to you to end someone else's life. This is one of several reasons why only very few backward countries still practice death penalty: Iran, Saudi Arabia, the United States. Except for such few exceptions, all other countries have integrated the "sacredness of every human life" into their legal system and forbid taking the life of any person by another person.
On Suicide
But who is the master of one's own life? Unlike the absolute ban on murder, the question of suicide is morally and philosophically controversial. The three monotheistic religions usually forbid suicide – but remember the biblical suicide-bomber Samson, adored as hero in Christianity and Judaism, opening a long tradition of martyrs.
It was the great English philosopher David Hume (1711-1776) whose defence of suicide became most famous. In his essay "On Suicide" (1757) he proves that suicide violates no duty to God, self or others. His argument goes roughly like that: God has given humans the liberty to alter nature for their own happiness; Suicide is an instance of altering the course of nature for our own happiness; Therefore, suicide does not violate God's plan. (Click here for details.)
Do Palestinians possess a special inclination towards suicide? Probably not more than the English. Here is what the French philosopher Montesquieu wrote in 1748: "the English are apt to commit suicide most unaccountably; they destroy themselves even in the bosom of happiness (…) among the English it is the consequence of a distemper, being connected with the physical state of the machine, and independent of every other cause..."
Anyway, almost all liberal people nowadays would agree that suicide is not a crime. Though some legal systems still formally forbid it, I've never heard of someone punished for a suicide attempt. In fact, a burning issue in modern legislation is euthanasia for terminally ill people, where the question is not their right to commit suicide (which is usually acknowledged), but rather the right to be assisted in it by medical staff.
Sixteen centuries before Hume, philosopher Epictetus (60-120 CE) also endorsed suicide, showing deep understanding for its causes. There may be limits to what we can endure in this life, he argued, and so, when things get too intolerable, we may wish to end our lives. "Is there smoke in the room? If it is slight, I remain. If it is grievous, I quit it. For you must remember this and hold it fast, that the door stands open." This may not be the case with the bombers of September 11th, but it is precisely the case of the Palestinian desperation. Palestinian rooms are now filled with smoke, and tear gas, and tears, and blood. May Thomas Friedman never experience even a tiny fraction of the Palestinian desperation, which he so heartlessly puts between hyphens.
On Bombing
Once we agree that suicide in itself is irreproachable, that the life of every Palestinian belongs to him- or herself (not to Thomas Friedman), and that people are allowed to do with their life whatever they wish, including ending it, what's left of Friedman's argument? Not much. If you re-read his column bearing this in mind, you see how Friedman's balloon is shrinking to trivialities. Suicide bombing is just another weapon, not better and not worse than any other. Friedman is right: Palestinians have found Israel's weak spot. But finding the enemy's weak spots is what fighting is all about; not quite a New York Times scoop.
Once we drop the flawed "accusation" of suicide, the moral fault of suicide bombers becomes obvious: killing innocent people. This is morally reprehensible under any circumstances. Not all suicide bombers kill innocent people, though: many of them explode next to Israeli occupation soldiers. Others target settlers, whose innocence is questionable. But true: many suicide bombers have killed and injured innocent civilians, and this is unforgivable.
Unforgivable – yes, just like the American bombing of Hiroshima (but compare the numbers). Just like the American bombing of the shelter in Baghdad in 1991, killing 400 Iraqi civilians. Just like the Israeli bombing of Kafr Kana in 1996, killing 100 Lebanese civilians. Unforgivable just like so many of the present Israeli actions in the occupied territories, in which innocent civilians are killed. Just like so many of the American actions in Afghanistan and Iraq (and elsewhere), in which countless innocent civilians are killed and injured. The question of intention is a poor refuge: if you enter Ramallah with 150 tanks, cutting water supply and medical aid, if you drop tons of bombs on Afghanistan or Iraq, don't tell me you never intended to harm civilians.
On Dehumanisation
Friedman's bias is now clear. He could have reproached Palestinians for targeting innocent people. This would have been a sound accusation, though it applies just the same to Palestinian hit-and-run snipers. But he didn't. He preferred picking the suicide bombers, who are morally not different from any other who kills innocent. Why?
Naturally, Friedman is frustrated by the fact that American-Israeli might still has some limits. The world would be so much better if might could altogether abolish right! Alas, the smartest bombs cannot defeat the human spirit. The weapons of the poor may not be as clean and photogenic as ours, but they can still hurt. Capitalism isn't perfect. Destruction profits are sometimes independent of the investment: if you're run over by a cheap scooter or by an expensive limousine, you won't always live to tell the difference. A sad fact for a globalisation fan like Friedman.
But it's more than that. Friedman's focus on suicide bombers is intended to dehumanise the Palestinians. By blaming Palestinians of carelessness towards "the sacredness of every human life, starting with your own", Friedman is claiming that they do not care about their own life. He is then patronizingly pretending that he does care about their life (more than they do!), and now, having assumed responsibility for the Palestinians, Friedman has a suggestion: "First, Israel needs to deliver a military blow". Bravo. Look how easily the great moralist Friedman is translating "the sacredness of every human life" into "a military blow". All in the name of "the basic truth civilisation is built on" – what else?
So hit those non-humans, says the enlightened humanist. And what then? Obviously: then, "Israel must tell the Palestinian people that it is ready to resume talks". I devoted an entire column, Against Negotiations, precisely to this false consciousness: both to the dangerous idea that bloodshed may lead to peace, and to "talks" as a code-word for perpetuating the occupation. I won't repeat it here.
To Sum Up
Suicide bombing is on the same moral level as any other bombing. Harming innocent people is morally intolerable; but suicide in itself cannot be condemned. The Palestinian struggle is morally justified, even though some of its manifestations are unjustifiable. Reducing this struggle to the issue of suicide bombing is just another way of dehumanising and thus legitimising the killing of Palestinians, instead of removing the reasons for their horrifying desperation (remember Epictetus). Dehumanising an entire people in the name of the "sacredness of every human life", as Thomas Friedman has done, is an especially repulsive example of demagoguery.
Page: 2 - 1