[statecom-discuss] Attacks on Noncombatants

[Ron Francis]

Dear Statecom folks,
   
  In supproting the human rights of Palestinians, the question of attacks on noncombatants occasionally comes up. (Not as much as you might think...as many ordinary people realize that violence is more or less inevitable when there is systematic and ongoing oppression based on racism.
   
  three preliminaries before entering this discussion
   
  1) we should not echo the use of the term "suicide bombers" as this is just an attempt to demonize palestinians.  In battle people use various weapons including the human body.  It is often the choice of oppressed people that do not have conventional arms.   Let's stick with attacks on noncombatants which is a term that is actually defined an international law and doesn't have the baggage of the term "suicide".
   
  2) We should not legitimize the rampant and uncontrolled use of the term "terrorist" by calling anyone or any organization "terrorist".  Let's shift the terms of the debate to talking about human rights and the Geneva Conventions which are at least defined.   We fall into a trap when we just accept the labelling of any group as "terrorist" even organizations and governments who would be correctly called terrorist if there was some agreed to definition.   To call someone a terrorist is similar to red-baiting in my mind:  Just label someone a "terrorist" as the mainstream media does now, and suddenly they are "evil" people that can be attacked or whose human rights can be ignored.  (that's why Bush calls the detainees at guantanamo terrorists....)
   
  3) the Key Value of Nonviolence (of the Green Party USA)
  
NON-VIOLENCE
It is essential that we develop effective alternatives to society’s current patterns of violence. We will work to demilitarize, and eliminate weapons of mass destruction, without being naive about the intentions of other governments.  We recognize the need for self-defense and the defense of others who are in helpless situations. We promote non-violent methods to oppose practices and policies with which we disagree, and will guide our actions toward lasting personal, community and global peace. 
   
  Of course each of the Ten Key values is subject to interpretation.
   
  With that said, let me offer some thinking on this matter and then a set of points.
   
  First off we should note that in social justice circles it is basically understood that Israel's attacks on noncombatants far outnumber Palestinian attacks, and that Israel being the aggressor in denying human rights for Palestinians, must be not only opposed when it carries out attacks on noncombatants, but it must also be condemned (where the use of the word "condemn" implies an immoral action being taken); this is not controversial in social justice circles although it should be stated upfront, and I will argue below that it needs to be stated whenever addressing the public or other individuals who are lacking info about Israeli war crimes, and are involved in a discussion about attacks on noncombatants.
   
  Seven Points:
   
  Our social justice movement needs to assert, in the following order, that 
   
  1) 99% of Palestinian resistance is nonviolent and consists of the ordinary day-to-day struggle to live (passing through checkpoints, illegal detentions, attacks on schools ambulance, collective punichment, blocking of humanitarian aid, destructin of life sustaining olive trees to name only a small subset) and that this nonviolent resistance, which sometimes takes the form of marches and civil disobedience, is always met with harsh and violent response by Israel - reponses that are war crimes.
   
  2) the number of attacks on noncombatants by "Israel" far exceeds in number and severity of attacks made by Palestinians.
   
  3) violence in the Middle East is a symptom of the problem and not the problem itself.  The problem is Zionism (that is racism) which we oppose and condemn.  If Zionism were ended then the violence would likely stop.  We don't want to confuse debates about social change methodologies with the desired social change itself: Nat Turner killed sleeping white children to lead a slave revolt.  Regardless of whether you support or oppose that action (some people would and some would not), you must be clear in your opposition to slavery and state that first.
   
  4)  we do not "condemn" any Palestinian who chooses to attack noncombatants since, even if we OPPOSE the action of attacks on noncombatants (as stated later in this email), the choice made by a Palestinian to attack a noncombatant does not make the Palestinian an immoral person.  Rather it is a person who has made a judgement, right or wrong, that the most effective way to resist occupation and attacks that meet the international definition of genocide, and secure human rights for Palestinians, is to attack a noncombatant.  Such an action is not uncommon from human beings subject to relentless violent oppression, and the taking of the action does not make the person immoral... thus not "condemnable".  If you "condemn" Palestinians who attack noncombatants, you must also "condemn" Nat Turner.    
   
  5) Despite unequivocably not "condemning" Palestinans for attacking noncombatants, and also recognizing the right of Palestinians to resist as indicated in the Declaration of Human Rights, we should oppose attacks on noncombatants as a fundamental principle of human interaction as indicated in the Geneva Conventions.  We should not single out Palestinians in this way because such a singling out can be interpreted and taken out of context as lack of support for the right to resist, or even worse, condemnation of Palestinian resistors.
  
  
   
  6) we regret the deaths of all human beings as a result of the ideology of Zionism.
  
   
  7) we believe that every person has a right to comment on every issue but that each person should disclose her/his interests.  Therefore a North American Zionist must disclose his belief in Zionism if commenting on a tactical choice made by people under oppression.  It follows also that I support the right of non-zionist North Americans, including social justice workers, to comment.  I believe that the people under attack should be given more weight but not to the point of excluding the thoughts of others, including those working to end the oppression. 
   
  (Some people make an ethical argument that poeple in the USshould not even comment because "we" have no standing.  I disagree.  I feel that everyone should be allowed to comment and I also am uncomforatble making sweeping generalizations about people in the US.  What I do believe however, is that only the oppressed have the right to negotiate the terms of the relief of their oppression - a different matter than the choosing of a certain method of social change)
   
  finally,... on a point that is only tangential to this discussion and hypothetical, although useful to think about: if Palestinians could get access to conventional weapons and could defend themselves by not attacking noncombatants, then would probably do both.  This is of course an extreme hypothetical but it does help some people think more clearly about this matter.
   
  If we do choose to comment on attacks on noncombatants I would hope that we would consider the above 7 points
   
  ron francis