Creating more martyrs is not the answer
Published on March 23, 2004 By O G San In International
Bold Robert Emmet,
the darling of Eireann.
Bold Robert Emmet,
he died with a smile.
Farewell companions,
both loyal and daring.
He lay down his life,
for the Emerald Isle.


So goes the chorus of “Bold Robert Emmet” a tribute to the leader of the 1803 Irish rebellion against British rule. “Rebellion” is perhaps the wrong word in this context since Emmet’s uprising was little more than a riot. However, it’s not for his ineptitude that Emmet is remembered. The decision of the British to execute him ensured that he would always be venerated in Irish folklore as a noble martyr. By killing him, the British gave him a position in history which he didn’t otherwise merit.

Somewhere in the slums of Gaza there may be some budding songwriter composing a tribute to Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, the spiritual leader of Hamas, who was killed by Israeli missiles yesterday. Now that he has become a martyr, the differences which many Palestinians had with his methods will be forgotten. Yesterday Yassin was a living human being with all the weaknesses of human existence. Today and forever more, he is a symbol of resistance.

Israel is yet to learn the lesson that creating more Palestinian martyrs only makes their country less secure. Walk the streets of any Palestinian city and you will see poster after poster celebrating the sacrifice of the shaheed, those who gave their lives in this intifada. Staring out from the posters are men and women, boys and girls, often with al-Aksa mosque serving as a backdrop.

Some gave their lives while taking those of others, blowing themselves up on Israeli buses or attacking military bases. Others died with stones in their hand. Many perished simply because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Regardless of how they died though, these 3 000 martyrs give strength to the Palestinian people. Their deaths validate the Palestinian cause and stiffen the resolve of those left behind to fight on.

Yassin now takes his place at the head of these martyrs. Killing him will not bring greater security to Israelis. Indeed, listening to Israeli government ministers yesterday, it is clear that, at least in the short-term, they have accepted this obvious fact. Hamas will unfortunately re-double their efforts to spill Israeli blood in the wake of yesterday’s murder.

“Just wait though”, the Israeli government promises, “in the long-term, the killing of Yassin will increase Israeli security”. Yet I can’t see how this will happen. At an ideological level, right-wing Israelis can’t bring themselves to admit that yesterday’s missile strike, and all the other “counter-terror” measures address the symptom rather than the cause. Killing this person or that person, closing down this city or that city will not bring Israel long-term security because it doesn’t deal with the underlying problem.

Israel must accept the reality that Palestinians are fighting this grossly unequal war not because they’re evil, not because they’re genetically violent, not because they’re led by psychopaths but because they’re living under a brutal occupation. The closures, the curfews, the checkpoints, the killing, the land seizure, the countless daily acts of humiliation; this is the fuel of Palestinian violence.

Yet many Israelis seem incapable of taking on the blindingly obvious tenet, present in conflicts everywhere, that oppressed people will resist their oppressors. Instead they thrash around for excuses, looking for demons to crush in the hope that this will bring the Palestinians to heel. All it brings is more martyrs, more pain, more killing, more blood.


Comments
on Mar 23, 2004
You make some good points, although I do not agree completely.

O G San, the greatest problem that I have with current Israeli tactics is that they don't work. The terrorist attacks are able to completely disrupt any peace initiatives, which is their goal. Strapping two bomb belts on to teenagers and sending them to Ashdod costs Hamas little, yet can completely sidetrack the peace process. Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmed Qureia were supposed to have started discussions almost two weeks ago.

Sharon understands the concept of the "big stick," but fails to offer the Palestinians any carrot.

I can't imagine the situation getting any better without international intervention.

And so the cycle continues.
on Mar 23, 2004
You are absolutely right OG San. The only result Israel got was some satisfaction from revenge and a lot of extra enemies with extra resolve. I saw a Israeli spokesman react to that with "Well, it couldn't get any worse anyway". Yes it can. There could be two or three times as many suicidebombers targetting bigger objects with more people.

It's a lesson America should pay attention to.
on Mar 23, 2004
First, I have never heard of Robert Emmet and I imagine that most have not. So his place in history is questionable. Did this Robert guy rebel against the British forces or did he attack British citizens as well? I would wager he was a bit more civilized than the terrorists.

Second, it has been discussed many times the creation of a Palestinian state. I think it would be a great idea. But would it stop the violence? I think it is pretty clear that Hamas and the PLO want the complete removal of jews in the area.

Isreal seems to clearly realize that the violence will escalate as a result of their action. Just as the Palestinians should realize that the suicide bomber method does not work as well.

As for a solution, that is hard to say. I would rush to the creation of a unified Palestinian state even if it meant expensive relocations of homes and businesses. This would at least satisfy the majority of the Palestinians I would think. Then, once they have their house in order any future suicide bombers would then be viewed as a attack against Isreal by a sovergn state. Isreal should show restraint at first to let Palestine realize that they must control their people or they would face international action from the UN as well as from Isreal. Just a possibility.
on Mar 23, 2004
Larry,

I'm always surprised how positive you are about my Palestine blogs coz you and I don't exactly sing from the same hymn sheet on this issue.

I wish you were right about negotiations but I dont think you are. As far as I can see, there are very few Israelis prepared to pull out from the West Bank entirely. For me this is the price of peace. I think most Israelis, with the exception of Meretz and their like, want peace on the cheap. They want the attacks to stop but they're not prepared to end the occupation.
on Mar 23, 2004
sgsmitty64,

In answer to your question, Emmet planned a large uprising but only 80 people turned up. They marched on Dublin Castle (British HQ in Ireland). I think some people died (not sure). The whole thing was a mess, Emmet was caught, tried and executed. The inportant thing in Ireland is not to succeed but to fail gloriously.

I'm using the song as an example of how martyrs are remembered long after their death. Sometimes they didn't achieve much in life but, as long as they die heroically, then they'll be fondly remembered.
on Mar 23, 2004
They marched on Dublin Castle (British HQ in Ireland). I think some people died (not sure).
The difference is that the target was not the peasants in the street.

I'm using the song as an example of how martyrs are remembered long after their death. Sometimes they didn't achieve much in life but, as long as they die heroically, then they'll be fondly remembered.
True, but Yassin did not die heroically for his cause, he enlisted youth and disfunctionals to do his "work" for him.
on Mar 23, 2004
I understand that Ted Turner owns like 3/4ths of Montana, I wonder if we got the Arab countries to by that land from Ted, and then pay for the wholesale removal of every Palestinian to that land, and then rename the state Palestine, if that would help ?
Maybe if it were the Israeli's that were moved ?
It's comparible in climate, resourses, and a much larger area ( only would miss the beaches )

This idea has about as much chance of being accepted as any other type of peace accord.
Thousands of years of hate, distrust, and cultural differences will not be defused by a fence, or withdrawals, or negotiations, none of these peoples will rest until the other is vanquished, conquered, or extinct.

Problem with the Montana deal is either side would argue over which one had to move, and then the one who moved would be accused of getting the better deal................
on Mar 23, 2004
Dynosaur, it sounds complicated but its not. Divide the area between Jews and Palestinians. Create secure borders. Then put each group in their own area. Two nations, side by side. Compare the attacks with those between Israel and Syria. Some but not nearly as many. Violence begets more violence. The problem is that Israel refuses this solution.
on Mar 23, 2004
IMO, killing Yissin is a way of sending the extremists even further.

Violence will grow further and he will be used as a martyr. The guy had blood on his hands since the creation of the Hamas, but it is hard to argue that he was currently more than a symbol of 67 year old, tetraplegic and ill. The people that take the real decision are still out there with even more hopeless young palestinians ready to wear the bomb belt. What Sharon did was not cut the head of hamas, but to be sure that violence will increase. As Larry point, every terrorists act send the peace further away.

sgsmitty64: yes HAMAS want the removal of Isreal but the Likud just want the same with the palestinians. If a real war would occur between isreal and the authority palestinian, there would be no doubt about the side of the victory. Likud probably see war as a way to achieve greater Israel.
on Mar 23, 2004
If making religious martyrs out of people who threaten the security of your republic worked, we'd all be worshipping Apollo, Bachus, and the Emperor Caesar. Terrorism works, martyrdom works, and the sooner we can get our stubborn asses to realize it the sooner we'll stop the bloodshed.
on Mar 24, 2004
I see the point, but I have a couple of stories, if someone can confirm if true or not, one from a Jewish Friend and one from an Islamic Friend.

The Jewish argument is that occupation is justified as per relegious texts stating that the lands belong to the jews.

The Muslem argument is that Jewish are wanting to occupy the land, invarably to tear down a mosque, and in the same location the Jews want to build a temple in a hope the Mesiah will decend from Heaven.

As crazy as it sounds, my Jewish friend refuses to deny the Muslem argument. Could anyone advise?
on Mar 24, 2004
Some people in Israel want to tear down al-Aqsa to build a new temple but they're a small minority. In Avi Shlaim's book "Iron Wall" he records that the IDF's chief rabbi in 1967, Gen. Shlomo Goren, wished to blow up the mosque after it fell to the Israelis. Wiser heads prevailed.
on Mar 26, 2004
As long as there are people wanting to tear down the mosque, this situation will never be solved (It gives an excuse for the Bombers)