Violence in Eye of Beholder (5/28/02)
by Dean Hartwell
After a Palestinian
man recently killed himself and two Israelis and wounded several others,
President Bush condemned the suicide bombing. "All of us involved in the
process…must do everything we can to stop terrorist action."
Relatives said the man acted out of revenge on behalf of a cousin killed by
Israel a week before. Israel responded to his attack by invading the West Bank
town of Jenin, where they arrested a leader of the militant group Hamas.
Is there an end to this cycle of violence?
One problem is the lack of control Palestinian Authority leader Yasser Arafat
has over the attackers. Indeed, a spokesperson for the Palestinian Authority
condemned the attack because "it gives the Israeli army reasons to
continue their aggression and occupation."
For their part, Israel, heeding the complaints of its citizens, has no other
immediate choice but to round up people they suspect as assisting the
attackers, even if it means going into Palestinian space. With both sides
lacking the power to stop violence, it is hard for them to make any progress in
creating peace.
Another problem is that the families of many of the suicide attackers support
their actions. The mother of the recent one told her departing son, "Oh,
son, I hope your operation will succeed."
Are these the words of immoral people? Or, are they words of people whose
territory is so occupied that they believe they have no other choice but to use
their strongest weapon? Though some in Israel might feel comfortable with the
former notion (because it makes getting Israeli support for the use of force
easier), we could look to United States history to understand the rationale of
the occupied.
In the late 18th century, people in the colonies more and more saw themselves
as the occupied and the British as the occupiers. The colonialists, as the
occupied were known, began to rebel against British rule, staging protests
against laws such as those that allowed British soldiers to occupy their
houses.
After a number of incidents, including the misnamed "Boston Massacre"
(where colonialist students provoked troops to fire by throwing rocks at close
range), this group of occupied people signed a "suicide pact,"
otherwise known as the Declaration of Independence. The signers became targets
and most were either killed by the British in war, had their houses burned
down, or faced similar calamity.
History, some say, is a lie agreed upon, something the winners get to write.
Since the colonialists won the war, we call it the "United States
Revolution" and forget the acts of violence needed to win it. Before it
helps write the history of the conflict in the Middle East, the Bush
Administration and its successors need to understand the players.