In a lesser-known portion of his August 28, 1963 speech, Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. beseeched civil rights supporters: "In the process of gaining our rightful place, we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred. We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline."
Some of you, sensing the gist of this text, are searching for ways to attack the relevancy of this statement. For instance, one could call this view simplistic by saying that "most movements of national liberation resorted quite heavily on an armed struggle that utilized guerrilla or terrorist tactics," as Mohamad Bydon '02 said in his April 5 column, "Israel, Palestine and Terror."
"One could say that the struggle against Israeli oppression (that this is the subject should be clear to you now -- if not, cease reading) is akin to the American struggle for independence from the United Kingdom," and is "no more sinister than the struggle of the American minutemen against the British redcoats." These words were voiced at the Arab League summit and recorded by James Bennet in the March 29 issue of the New York Times.
Or, one could try to excuse violence as a necessary response to the situation, as did Palestinian medical doctor Eyad Sarraj in an article in the April 8 Time magazine entitled "Why We Blow Ourselves Up." Here, Dr. Sarraj stated: "what propels people into such action is a long history of humiliation and a desire for revenge that every Arab harbors Shame is the most painful emotion in the Arab culture, producing the feeling that one is unworthy to live. The honorable Arab is the one who refuses to suffer shame and dies in dignity." Finally, you could make statements calling the terrorism "a direct result of Sharon's policies" (Palestinian cabinet minister Yasser Abed Rabbo to CNN) and blame it solely on Israel, as did Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa in stating, "If this is the Israeli response to our initiative, then it is for you and the world to know who is on the side of peace, and who is on the side of aggression" (again, to CNN).
In fairness to these speakers, I set the context in which these statements are being discussed here; however, all were made in contexts similar to this one. With that in mind, let's look at what all these people have said, vis--vis the simple idea that the struggle should take place "on the high plane of dignity and discipline."
The first statement was made by Mohamad Bydon in response to an April 4 column in The Dartmouth by Ana Bonnheim '03 entitled "Why Israel is Important." Ms. Bonnheim says a great many things in her column about why suicide bombers should not be given political leverage in settling the conflict in the Middle East. Among these is the statement that historically, such conflicts are never won by terrorism. It is for this reason that Mr. Bydon interjects, deriding Ms. Bonnheim's assessment as simplistic. Although Mr. Bydon says, "I deplore the terrorism unleashed onto innocent Israelis by Palestinian bombers and gunmen," he also makes the statement "nor can we ignore the possibility that Israel's lack of security may very well be proportional to Palestinians' lack of freedom." The second statement gives a wink to the suicide bombers by stating, implicitly, that it can be considered a legitimate response of the Palestinians to the Israeli occupation. The Palestinian terrorization of Israeli civilians is wrong, regardless of Israel's provocations. It should not be allowed the quid- pro-quo status Mr. Bydon gives it.
It is far easier to dismiss the claim recorded by Mr. Bennet -- the suicide bombings are in no way similar to the American struggle for independence from the British. That fact is belied by the very phrasing of the statement quoted by Bennet; the Americans attacked redcoats, so known because they were soldiers wearing red coats " not civilians. However, according to Syrian President Assad, as quoted in Bennet's article, Israeli citizens should most definitely be considered as armed and legitimate targets. Sure, to the same extent that Americans working in the World Trade Center, as taxpayers, gave fiscal support to the enforcement of American policy and are thus also legitimate targets. Perhaps a better question is why there is no war with Syria, if its government explicitly condones terrorist groups.
Next, I will address Dr. Sarraj's claim that Palestinians blow themselves up because of a hatred of humiliation unique to Arabs. Frankly, I wonder how Arabs do not consider that idea dreadfully offensive. Maybe the next issue of Time will have some letters indicating that they are in fact insulted. In the meantime, it is as easy to brush this legitimization aside as it is to brush aside the Hamas statement that Jews are more afraid of death than any other group of people, or to spurn that famously derided text, "The Bell Curve."
Is suicide bombing a direct result of Sharon's policy? Not unless Sharon's policy was a rule reading "Palestinians should strap nail-laden explosives to their waists and blow themselves up in places where Israeli civilians number no less than three." Furthermore, three of the four major terrorist groups participating in action against Israel -- Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah -- have as their aims the destruction of Israel and the reclamation for Islam of the land it occupies. I see no way in which those objectives are contingent on Sharon's actions. As for Moussa's remark, it ignores the fact that the Israeli incursion into the West Bank was not a response to the Arab peace proposal, but rather to a bombing initiated by a Palestinian after the proposal was on the table.
As should be clear, there can be no legitimization of the terrorism perpetrated by the Palestinians against the Israelis. Regardless of the oppression and terror Palestinians may suffer at the hands of the Israeli Defense Forces, terrorizing innocent Israelis is not an option. Should the Palestinians, like the colonial Americans, mount a military campaign against the IDF? They would be crushed; the only solution for the Palestinians is to adopt a strategy of peaceful resistance -- unfortunately, a very difficult position to adopt.
Furthermore, it is not a fair position -- why should a people that have been oppressed for decades continue to suffer stoically? Shouldn't an objective Justice automatically fall on the side of the oppressed? News flash: Justice has never been an easy woman (maybe that's why John Ashcroft had her covered up -- he was sick of seeing her reputation sullied). As perverse as it may seem, blowing oneself to smithereens is a far easier solution than waiting for vindication. To overcome extreme adversity, the Palestinian people must face the more extreme hardship of absorbing injustice and standing firm until it is apparent to everyone, including the majority of Israelis, that they unjustly suffer.
Later in his Time article, Dr. Sarraj says: "In the holy book, God promised Muslims who sacrificed themselves for the sake of Islam that they would not die." Perhaps this should be taken as self-sacrifice in the endurance of hardship, without descent into violent reprisal, for the sake of upholding the nobility of a religion with so rich and valuable a history as Islam.
