My new column is up at The American Prospect:
The counterman at the snack-food shack called A Blast of a Kiosk spotted the ownerless valise next to the busy bus stop and called the police to report a suspicious object. While he was talking on the phone and simultaneously trying to shoo people away from the bag, the bomb went off, spraying the metal pellets that had been packed with the explosives.
The kiosk got its name after it was destroyed in an-early 1990s suicide bombing at the same spot, in front of the Jerusalem Convention Center, and then was rebuilt and defiantly reopened. That time, the owner was luckily late for work. This time, his brother-in-law, the vigilant counterman, sustained shrapnel wounds.
The blast on the grimy street was heard clearly more than two miles away by pedestrians in the gentrified German Colony. It took a moment to register what the sound meant. A Border Police jeep racing past the cafés helped jog memories. The bad old days were back, like malaria resurfacing after years of dormancy. For a second you don’t recognize the fever; then you realize you’ve been waiting for it, that you can’t actually believe it was ever gone.
This disbelief in a cure for the conflict is the achievement of the terrorists. It is also what makes them the unintentional allies of Israeli hard-liners, who likewise fear paying the necessary price to end the disease. Yet the one certain meaning of a bombing is that the infection will not go away by itself, that it must be treated immediately, that peacemaking is acutely needed.
On the radio, the reporters spoke in a familiar adrenaline staccato. The number of wounded rose from 20 to 24 to 31. Then it dropped by one, because the woman who’d been listed as critically injured was moved to the “dead” column. The reporters talked about good luck: The bomb weighed two kilos or less. It was outside, rather than inside the closed space of a bus. It only killed one person.
My daughter called from her army base to see if we were OK. The unspoken message was that in a season of terror, soldiers are safer than civilians. Her voice was strained. “I don’t want it to be fifth grade again,” she said. When she was in fifth grade, at the height of the Second Intifada, Palestinian suicide bombers were shredding themselves and Israeli civilians with unnerving frequency in Jerusalem buses, restaurants, and streets. The funny thing is that she never said anything about being scared when she was in fifth grade, or after. It took the fever’s return to crack her stoicism. …
Read the rest at The American Prospect; comment there or return to SoJo.
Good article. Does the PA really want a political solution, though? People say – I have no idea whether they’re right- that the only thing preventing a Hamas takeover of Judea and Samaria is the presence of Israeli troops. If that’s true, then a political solution with Israel would be suicide for Fatah.
Also, it’s important to keep in mind the consequences of statements like “terror attacks against civilians are immoral and inexcusable.” Terrorism is the only means the Palestinians have of waging war against Israel. If you condemn terrorism then you’re in effect condemning any realistic armed struggle for Palestinian independence. If Palestinians were to renounce terrorism, what incentive would Israel have to dismantle settlements or to withdraw, say, from east Jerusalem? That would be fixing a leaky roof when the rain has stopped forever!
Terrorism appears to be “the only means of waging war against Israel” because Israel has largely refused to recognize nonviolence when it appears. If nonviolence was allowed some success, a wedge could begin within (more) of the Palestinian community. Terrorism must be fought by Palestinians. They will need social weapons to do so.
If we frame all events in “us or them” we enable terrorism. Sustained terrorism, rather than the isolate event of a single or handful, requires a social network. When the IDF blunt steps on that network (or what it thinks is that network) it tends to create more nodes. Palestinians must find a way to socially police–and offer alternatives. Israel could alter the mix by responding differently to nonviolent acts of resistence. Aid your lesser enemy to curtail the greater threat. IDF command and control does not have to covert to Gandhism to get there.
Gandhi-like nonviolence is as much of a fantasy as an end to terrorism, but you do have a point. I said that telling the Palestinians to renounce terrorism is tantamount to telling them to surrender, but calling for nonviolent struggle is a moral alternative. So I take back what I said.
The next question is, what if nonviolence fails? Then do you tell them just to accept the occupation?
Israel will have to want nonviolence to succeed. That is, it will have to decide that some losses are better than the alternatives. This is not a wholesale pulling out, but a response to confrontation as introduced by the nonviolent Palestinian side; nor does it entail complete capitulation to demands. And Palestinian confrontation with its own violent side would be part of the calculus. Both sides must risk. The strategy will not work if, say, a greater Isreal religious view controls the Knesset.
I don’t think one can tell the Palestinians anything. When a nonviolent protest appears, say at Bil’in, there is opportunity to engage another bit of Palestinian social structure–more, even shape that structure through engagement. If nonviolent overtures fail to appear, Isreal can do little. As Defense Minister Barak has said, if he were a Palestinian he would be a terrorist. Every time Israel quashes an overture that statement expands in coverage.
As to terrorism proper, it will happen, to some extent, under all strategies of Israel. Terrorists can act as much against their fellow Palestinians, encouraging an Israeli hard response to show their fellows “what Israel really is.” I think this is happening in Gaza at the moment. Some violence will have to be absorbed. And Palestinians will have to protest their compatriots beyond “condemning” acts. There must be creativity and courage among Palestinians wanting a way out of this history; and Israel must find a way to aid that, in risk. I do not think this fantastic belief in the success of nonviolence, for there are many musts here.
There is a social economy of resistence within Palestine. Generations have lived it. Accepting the occupation will never be. Make occupation a core definition of Israel, or find a new way to risk.
“Terrorism appears to be “the only means of waging war against Israel” because Israel has largely refused to recognize nonviolence when it appears.”
Indeed! And terrorism is how Israel fought against the much more friendly British mandate., not w/ civil disobedience a la India. So, the Israeli stance is totally hypocritical. And since the situation for the Pals has only become worse over all the relatively peaceful last years, the motivation to hit back w/ terror has grown. That doesn’t say it’s justified, only that it can’t be prevented if there are no improvements at all!
I see both Aaron and Gregory are repeating the myth that Israel has never offerred anything to the Palestinians so their only option is to blow up people. You seem to have forgotten that the biggest waves of terror occurred during the biggest PROGRESS in the ‘peace process’. At Camp David Barak offered a state to the Palestinians. Yes, I know the Palestinian-apologists say “it wasn’t enough” but their response, instead of making a counter offer, was to slaughter a lot of people. Similarly, after Israel withdrew its troops from the Palestinian cities in late 1995 (after Rabin’s murder and the ascendency of ‘peace process prophet’ Shimon Peres to the leadership of the country, there was another massive wave of suicide bombings). So we see that the so-called “peace process” is WHAT IGNITES THE TERRORISM. Times when there was NO PROGRESS in negotiations are the quietest. Why? Because the Arabs see Israeli concessions as weakness, and they figure killing more men, women and children will bring even more concessions. Israeli firmness shows the terrorists that terror doesn’t work.
There is some truth in Ben-David’s remarks. I do believe that peace overtures will induce bombings. But this is so not because the Palestinians are all of one kind; rather because there is group competition within the “community,” leading some to act to impale such overtures. The mistake in Ben-David’s anaysis is in assuming any nation or people are of single attitude. Israelis contend among each other as well, and try to subvert one another. This is not to condone bombings (or Israeli air strikes), but to acknowledge the awful reality that violence will continue, perhaps flare, when real peace overtures are in play. Rabin knew this, or thought so too; so he refused to abandon Oslo in the face of bombings.
I think it very important to acknowledge what Ben-David sees here, although not his single color approach. When violence ocurrs, we gain nothing by pretending, before hand, that this was impossible. The question always is what we do upon violence’s onslaught. Peace, if that word has meaning, is not about the absence of violence, but its confrontation.
Gershom:
It would be helpful to me, in understanding your point of view, if you could clarify why an attack would occur in Jerusalem versus in the vicinity of an Israeli West Bank settlement. If the West Bank settlements are an issue for the Palestinians, as you write in your article, then why are there not terrorist attacks against them?
Best wishes,
Lloyd
The Left spins the facts and wants to hide from you Israel’s LEGITIMATE rights to Judea and Samaria (West Bank).
Read all about it here:
http://tinyurl.com/peacenow-lies
Lloyd-
I will attempt to answer your question. The reason is that all the Palestinian movements, both HAMAS and FATAH (i.e. the official Palestinian Authority) view the state of Israel within ANY borders as illegitimate. However, there is a dispute between HAMAS and FATAH on the best strategy to follow in order to eradicate Israel totally. HAMAS believes in a total confrontation which will work if and when the Muslim states of the Middle East will adopt Islamist positions. FATAH supports a step-by-step plan that FIRST calls for “Palestinian self-determination” in the West Bank (because that sounds more reasonable to Leftist Israelis and well-meaning Westerners than does the total eradication of Israel) in association with demands for the Palestinian refugees to Israel, something no Israeli government will ever agree to.
In other words the FATAH position is that of “armed struggle” accompanied by negotiations which is part of a long-sterm strategy of a “war of attrtion” (both armed and by means of diplomacy) against Israel. Since the Palestinians view Israel’s presence in west Jerusaelm (the location of the recent bombing) as being just as illegitimate as the settlements, it is a legitimate target, as is any place in Israel.
Toda Raba Y. for taking the time to write that up. I’m becoming increasingly incredulous and upset – the Israelis I know are sweetest people; they don’t deserve this treatment. Americans would not put up with this type of bullsh*t. Because national sovereignty is a big deal for Americans, we even sent an small army to take back a piece a crap Alaskan island from the Japanese during World War II.
If all Palestinians want the destruction of Israel or the erradication of Jews in Greater Palestine, then indeed the game is over. Somehow, thinking not all Palestinians are like this is impossible–or terrifying. White Apartheid South Africans did not see themselves as unsweet. It is the social engine which destroys, not we who constitute it. We are absolved before the acts come; only our enemies are responsible for their acts.
After I learned of Juliano Mer Khamis’ murder, I felt something died with me too. I’m pretty sure – his role in the Little Drummer Girl was a bit part, but that was one of the first Israeli-centric movies I saw when I was younger. Perhaps “died” is too strong a word – “closing of a chapter” is more like it.
I’m not buying any argument or beating around the bush argument (like I’m sort of reading above) that Israel is somehow or partially responsible for deliberate Arab attacks against Israeli civilians. Should such an insane argument extend to the idea that Israel should foot the bill for the explosives too? Give me a break.
-Lloyd
If, Lloyd, you “close a chapter,” you do the terrorist’s work for them. Admittedly a biased source, “Slippery Slope” reports (posted on April 4th, 2011) this shortly after Juliano Mer Khamis’ assasination:
“Almagor, the terror victims association, called upon Israel’s National Insurance and the government not to recognize the actor Juliano Mer, who was murdered today in Jenin, as a victim of terrorism, due to his political views.”
I believe the actor/director was violating Israeli law (as a Jew born of a woman recognized by the State as a Jew) by living in Jenin.
You are right in (implicitly?) saying Palestinians must face their own violence; you are wrong in saying Israel never plays a role in forming anger and hatred. It is a very hard thing to recognize, let alone admit, that we harm others; I would say the same to ardent supporters of Palestinians.
Statements such as “Israel should foot the bill for the explosives” are meant to close all recognition of the other, to force a single view of Jew and Israeli, to punish for merely wishing a bridge of commonality among some, only some, of those others could be formed. Instead we battle in guns and words for the great categories which let us be. I do not want to be subsumed by a great category. Nor will I force others into one, friend or foe.
“An eye for an eye leaves us all blind.” Perhaps we are already blind, so cannot read this, safe in our fortress of certitude. I prefer doubt, which can become hope.
–greg
Greg-thanks for keeping it civil. I’m not sure we even disagree. Chag Shameach.