Ana Bonnheim's April 4 column in The Dartmouth, "Why Israel is Important," is just another example of a one-dimensional view of ethnic conflicts that has found particular support in the United States since Sept. 11. This view places the American ideal of "every individual's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," as Ms. Bonnheim puts it --"the very fabric of global civilization" in opposition to some foe, so that, as President Bush has said, the allies of goodness and freedom can fight the "axis of evil." Ms. Bonnheim wants to add militant Palestinians to the axis.
This isn't helpful. To get through any ethnic conflict we have to see the struggles in shades of gray. This means resisting the desire to dismiss any group or action as meaningless, no matter how despicable.
Suicide bombing is wrong. But so is forcibly removing a people from their homes and not letting them return. That many Palestinians have become militant is both a sign that their religious and secular leaders have manipulated them and that their voices have been ignored in the face of injustice. Either justifying suicide bombers or condemning them misses the point: wrong as these people are, they are trying to say something. Ms. Bonnheim has no interest in this message.
Ms. Bonnheim implies that she would like the Palestinians to favor "rallies, sit-ins or other organized protests." That is easy for us to say, having been blessed with the economic and political power to be heard. I agree that non-violence is the answer, but tell that to the poor malnourished, frustrated Palestinian who has lived in a refugee camp for his entire life while the U.S. gave more aid to Israel than any other country. Do you think that we would hear about Israel every day and work to end the conflict if they were having sit-ins at a Tel Aviv diner? Do you think that they would have the time or the organization for a protest while they face poverty and poor education? I don't mean to justify the killing of innocent civilians, but Ms. Bonnheim's "do it like we did" attitude is shortsighted.
Ms. Bonnheim tries to differentiate between this second Intifada and "good" nationalist movements. She writes, "Every past nationalist political movement, no matter how desperate, has somehow managed to fulfill its aims without resorting to suicidal tactics." Beside the blatant invalidity of this statement, Ms. Bonnheim tries to draw a false line between types of warfare. The only reason the Palestinians are suicidal is that they have no militant alternative. Would Ms. Bonnheim prefer that we arm the Palestinians with weapons to face Israel conventionally (like the French armed the U.S. in 1778)? As a pacifist, I argue that violence is inherently despicable and should be saved for moments of desperation. There are not good kinds of violence (the Revolutionary War) and bad kinds (suicide bombers): in an ideal world we could solve all problems without violence. For now, let us judge both the violence and the issues behind it with the goal of ending the need for violence. Ms. Bonnheim argues that my attitude would encourage terrorism around the world -- it would. But that is because we waited too long. We let a justified cause go unattended so long that it took up an unjustifiable method. In 2002, all we can do is to be honest, dirty our hands and pick up the pieces.
So then Mr. Pacifist-anti-Israel-militancy-defender, what is the solution? Love the suicide bombers? The first step I have already laid out: fight the binary good-evil schema in the U.S. and abroad. Next, use this new schema for foreign policy decisions: (1) Quiet down about Iraq. (2) Recognize that Iran is not one unified anti-Christ but a fundamentalist religious leadership pitted against an ever-strengthening reformist secular government. (3) Be honest that we support democracy in some instances and not in others. (4) Work to decrease our, and the world's, dependence on petroleum products over the next 20 years so that we can face the conflicts in terms of values and not economic necessity. (5) In Israel, force the government to allow humanitarian aid, support French plans for a peacekeeping force and hope that the two lunatics in charge, Sharon and Arafat, somehow lose power, because there will be no final solution until that happens.
What is clear is that merely branding suicide bombers as the enemy of good and global democracy will only encourage more suicide bombers in Palestine and elsewhere and will let Israel continue its horrifying injustices.
Ms. Bonnheim is right in asserting that our goal should be "a mutual respect for human life every individual's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Her mistake is seeing the white of that goal against the black of the suicide bombers, missing the shades of gray that hold the only possible solutions to ethnic conflicts.
