Do Not Lump Israel With Terrorists in 'Cycle of Violence'
Obama should choose his words carefully, as those of the Mideast murderers are painfully clear
Louis René Beres is professor of international law at Purdue University. Born in Switzerland at the end of World War II, he is the author of many books and articles dealing with world politics, law, literature and philosophy.
During the presidential election campaign, then Sen. Barack Obama made repeated reference to a "cycle of violence" in the Middle East. Although he no longer uses this precise term in describing ongoing conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, now President Obama continues to allege a basic symmetry between the still-warring parties. These allegations, whether explicit or couched in innuendo, are wrong and troubling. Before he can hope to make any real progress with his "Road Map to Peace in the Middle East," the president must first understand that there can never be any equivalence between the expressly criminal violence of terrorism, and the law-enforcing resort to counter-terrorism.
For whatever reason, Mr. Obama still accepts an erroneous symmetry between Arab terrorism and Israeli counterterrorism. This unfortunate acceptance belies his seeming intent to embrace a fair and honorable approach to the problem. More generally, it also has the effect of eroding crucial differences between crime and punishment, between murder and self-defense.
President Obama should now speak more plainly on this vital issue. Words matter! There is no cycle of violence in the Palestinian war against Israeli civilians. All Palestinian terror groups (Fatah, Hamas—there is no real difference) argue openly that their killings of noncombatants are in "retaliation" for Israel's so-called occupation. Indeed, even now, as Fatah holds its Sixth General Congress, the quasi-governmental organization explicitly refuses to renounce "armed struggle."
President Obama still presses Israel to make further and far-reaching territorial concessions. Yet, Fatah, in its latest "Internal Order Document," states at Article 17: "The armed popular revolution is the only inevitable way to the liberation of Palestine." And at Article 19: "The struggle will not end until the elimination of the Zionist entity and the liberation of Palestine." Of course, "Palestine" still includes all of Israel.
In essence, Fatah's present position calls officially for terrorism and genocide. From the unambiguous standpoint of international law, there is no reasonable way that such a stance could ever be judged comparable to Israel's own firm commitment to oppose terrorism and genocide. To argue otherwise—to suggest openly or even tacitly that there remains a "cycle of violence" in the Middle East—would be tantamount to accepting the following: (1) a duly constituted democratic state, and an outlawed terrorist gang, are of equivalent legal stature; and (2) terrorist leaders and defenseless civilians are equally permissible targets.
President Obama should thus make clear that he does not support such an argument. At a minimum, such clarification would greatly enhance his steadily eroding stature among Israelis. Mr. President, there are palpably vital differences between criminality and law enforcement. Why not say so?
Even if the incessant Palestinian refrain of an Israeli "occupation" were not concocted, and even if the ritualistic claims of "stolen Palestinian land" made any historical or legal sense, there could still never be any legal justification for the deliberate Fatah and Hamas policies of terror and genocide. Significantly, on these common and unhidden policies, there is not a shred of difference between the two groups.
Palestinian "suicide" bombers will soon re-emerge with new fervor. These fighters for their own personal immortality will again pack "operational" explosives with nails, screws, and razor blades dipped in rat poison. They are, therefore, not "militants." They are not revolutionaries. They are murderers.
There is no "cycle of violence" in the Middle East. Terror groups never have any right to "retaliate" under international law—no more so than does an individual criminal in domestic society have any such a right against municipal police authorities. Indisputably, on the basis of their own current statements and platforms, Fatah and Hamas are organizations that recognize absolutely no proper boundaries in the use of force. Such boundaries, however, are always a critical and binding component of humanitarian international law.
- 1
- 2
- Next Page >
Reader Comments
My thoughts
Israel has occupied land, period
Remember American Jews Against Zionism?
I remember well meeting and hosting Rabbi Elmer Berger, then head of American Jews Against Zionism, a busy organization that tried to avert the present course of events in the Holy Land. He saw the Zionist movement as headed for disaster just about from the start--the invasion of Palestine and establishment of Israel but the start of what has ended up being, 60 years later, unending conflict.
As long as Palestinians and their sympathizers--a sizable proportion of the population of the Middle East--think Israel the occupiers of Palestinian space there will be problems. As long as Israeli sovereignty is legitimized through American foreign aid and power, they will see us as part of their problem--perhaps even the cause of it, as in the eyes of Osama bin Laden's followers.
Beres obviously relies on the United Nations resolutions backing Israel's right to exist. Palestinians and others in the Middle East disagree. That's an impasse, not a transient squabble, and it requires much more than the condemnation of terrorism. Much more.
Am I anti-semitic? Not in the least. I am, however, growing weary of our willingness to exert American power and use a billion dollars a year in support of Israel when there is really no end in sight. Making sure Iran has no nuclear arms while Israel does can only exacerbate matters in the long haul.
How long must the U.S. continue on its present course in assisting Israel before we come to realize that a problem with no solution is a waste of power, money, and international credibility?
Cycle of Violence
It is unrealistic to deny that a Cycle of Violence exists! Terrorists attacks result in Israeli responses which result in terrorists attacks, etc. which by any definition is a cycle and is certainly violent.
The problem is that Israel may be “a duly constituted democratic state” in your view, but not in the view of many in the world. The creation of the state of Israel by the United Nations solved one problem (to find a homeland for the Jews), but created another.
One has to give the Israelis great credit for all they have accomplished since becoming a state and I certainly understand their position. On the other hand, the Palestinians have good reason to feel deprived of their homeland. The Israelis keep expanding their settlements in the occupied areas and the Palestinians continue their terrorist attacks. The Israelis won’t give back their country and the Palestinians have no viable options. Rather than do nothing, the Palestinians follow an endless path of violence that will never fulfill their desires.
It seems to be a situation that has no solution acceptable to all.
advertisement
