Suicide-Bombings

In certain respects, there is a symmetry between the position of Hamas and that of Israel. Both have committed, and are supporting, acts of violence against innocent civil population. Nevertheless, there are three essential differences between the two sides.

1. Israel can inflict much more damage on the Palestinians than the Palestinians can inflict on the Israelis.
2. From the point of view of the international public opinion, and for reasons whose expression here would take too much place, Israel can, and does, "get away with murder" while Hamas does not, and cannot.
3. From the point of view of the Israeli internal policy, the suicide-bombings committed and defended by Hamas have increased the cohesion of the Israelis around the rightists, have increased the fears Israelis perceive of the Palestinians. Thus, they have increased the distance between the Palestinian people and the Israeli people, a fact to which Hamas seems to give little importance, though it is the primordial factor in the Palestinian situation.

It is time for Hamas to take a clear position with respect to violence, a position which, while recognizing the sacred right of the Palestinian people to fight for its independence, does not unify the international community against it. Attacking the Israeli forces in the occupied territory conveys the clear message that Palestinians are against the occupation. The recourse to suicide-bombings on the Israeli territory conveys the message that Hamas hate Jews, is immoral and do not mind the killing of innocent civil population. For reasons which will be dealt elsewhere Israel can "get away with murder" in this respect.

It is why the policy of suicide-bombings is a losing card in the hands of Hamas. Hamas should disavow the suicide-bombings while not disavowing the suicide-bombers who are victims of the Israeli occupation, victims of the Israeli persecution. Instead, Hamas should remind that an occupied people has the right to resist to the occupation even violently, provided the violence is directed against the occupying forces.

And what about the victims' right to revenge?

No day is passing without bringing still more evidence of the barbarity of the Israeli occupation. We learn that more Palestinians of all age are killed. More obstructions are imposed on the normal productive activities of the Palestinian population More and more do the settlers act like the Hitler-youth. More and more do the Israelis inflict humiliating measures on the Palestinian young and adult population.

The claim for the blood of the killer is a primeval need that most parents of a murdered child would feel with an unbearable intensity. Few are the saints on earth who can ignore that gut's demand. Patients suffering unbearable pains are given morphine to alleviate their sufferings. Nobody dares criticize a person who has lost most of his skin in a fire when he asks for the strongest pain killers. Likewise, nobody should dare criticize parents asking for revenge. This is the only aspiration whose realization could somewhat calm the unbearable.

This demand for revenge must be treated with respect. And since the personal revenge is impossible, since in most cases one cannot get the name of the individual killer, since the killer can be as anonymous as the pilot of an apachi helicopter, the revenge is requested from anonymous entities. It is the whole Israeli people who is perceived as THE murderer, and must be made to pay for the crime. The Palestinian psyche is injured and is in need to have its dignity restored. The easiest way is to take revenge and inflict heavy casualties on the Israelis. It results in a short-term benefit, antidote to the humiliating feeling of powerlessness. It is a pale antidote to the loss of a child, at a time when no other antidote is available.

Those parents asking for revenge are carrying the martyrdom of their children. Is it fair to ask from martyrs to accept a second martyrdom in the form of renouncing their justified claim for revenge?

Here I must ask the victims to chose between two ways of revenge. One is to inflict misery on the Israelis even if it would result in more miseries on the Palestinians, even if it serves well the policy of the Israeli expansionist establishment. The other revenge is to counteract the policy of the Israeli expansionist establishment, contribute in reducing the distance between the two peoples, lead in a real policy of reconciliation, the progress of which will be paralleled with the satisfaction of more and more of the Palestinian aspirations.

Instead of blood revenge, I am suggesting a revenge which derives from a vision, the vision of victory, the victory of the Palestinian people in achieving, together with the Israeli people, peace against their common enemy, the Israeli expansionist establishment. This vision is not illusory. It can be substantiated by a proper strategy (contact the author cleibovi@shawbiz.ca).

In this perspective, the policy of supporting suicide-bombings is a failing one strengthening the Israeli policy of unilateralism and expansion,.

Non-Recognition of Israel

Hamas should proclaim what is its agenda. What comes above anything else? Here one can wonder. Is the satisfaction, of the Palestinian people's aspirations, to the maximum possible, is it Hamas' agenda? Or is Hamas' agenda the non-recognition of Israel? For Hamas, is the non-recognition of Israel a way to realize, to the maximum possible, Palestinian aspirations, or is it an agenda in itself, an aim which in principle they would not deviate from, even if it conflicts with the best interests of the Palestinian people? Hamas owes it to the Palestinian people to be clear on this subject.

It could be a matter of principles, or it could be a card to give away against some advantage, some gain, some diplomatic progress. If it is a matter of principle then it cannot be subject to conditions such as "Israel should first return behind the pre-1967 boundaries",. we will then see what we will do. This does not sound compatible with the statement many times repeated that "we will not abandon our principle, the one of non-recognition of Israel". Once more there is here a need for more clarity, for more candidness.

If Hamas envisage conditions under which they would recognize Israel, they should clarify what is gained by putting conditions. Does the expansionist Israel needs Hamas' recognition? The whole political history would convince us that Israel is delighted by the absence of recognition. It justifies internationally its unilateralism it isolates Hamas. On the contrary, an official and clear statement by Hamas that it recognizes Israel within its pre--1967 borders, can only reinforce the international position of Hamas. The fact is that the non-recognition of Israel is now a losing card in Hamas' hands and represents a winning card in the expansionist Israeli hands. A recognition of Israel within its pre-1967 borders would in fact force Israel to lose one of its winning cards.

The missing winning card

It is time for all Palestinian leaders to recognize that no serious progress can be made towards the satisfaction of the Palestinian aspirations without the toppling of the Israeli expansionist leadership. This must go hand in hand with the recognition that the only force that can topple that Israeli leadership is the Israeli people. A good strategy could show the role of the Palestinian leadership in helping the Israeli people to realize this important task. Here are the proofs that I am not rambling.

Following the massacres in Sabra and Shatila, 300,00 Israeli took to the streets of Tel-Aviv on September 1982 demonstrating against Sharon. At this demonstration, there was a virtual alliance between the two peoples. What is also remarkable about that demonstration is that the Israeli people was quite furious against the Palestinians after the Munich massacre of many of the Israeli olympic team in September 1972, just ten year before. This virtual alliance between the two people did not last. Under the Israeli street pressure, an Israeli commission concluded that Sharon had a personal responsibility in the massacres of Sabra And Shatila. It recommended that Sharon should never hold a public office.

The Israeli expansionist endeavored to increase the distance between the two people. This was rendered easy following the wave of suicide bombings. Often, the suicide-bombing was provoked by the Israeli authorities. Whenever Hamas would announce a truce in hostilities, Israel would proceed to targeted assassinations designed at provoking Hamas to resume its policy of suicide-bombings. And Hamas would fall in the trap. The fact is that, as a result of a lack of interest from the part of the Palestinian authority in influencing the Israeli public opinion, by following policies helping the Israeli government in increasing the distance between the two people, following serious mistakes of arab leaders (write to me at cleibovi@shawbiz.ca ), the distance between the two people has indeed increased to the point where the Israeli expansionists feel comfortable in pursuing their policies of expansion and of unilateralism.

I have shown in http://cleibovi.shawbiz.ca/justpeace/stumbl.html that a successful Palestinian Strategy has to pass through a reconciliation of the two peoples, the thought of it is the nightmare of the Israeli expansionists. Hamas who does not believe in it is ignoring the most important winning card it could have.