This particular article on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict basically says that the only course available to peace is to try to “burn out,” by war, the urge to martyrdom among the latter party. The brutal analogy the author holds up is the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s.
By late 1987, the carnage of the Iran-Iraq war had burned out the martyrdom syndrome among young Iranian men. Boys who’d once believed with seemingly invincible conviction jang jang ta piruzi (“War! War until Victory!”) were left lost and shell-shocked. Within a short time, they loathed the leaders who’d once so inspired them.
The author, Reuel Marc Gerecht, holds out little hope that even a full-blown Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza will bring an end to the bloody conflict.
And with such a success, again, why would the Palestinian suicide bombers stop? If they blew their way into East Jerusalem, why not West? What is it that the Bush administration sees in the pro-martyr Palestinians that makes them more reasonable than Hezbollah, which has eagerly continued its war against the Jewish state after Israel’s withdraw from Lebanon in May 2000? Can the Middle East hands in Foggy Bottom name one nation in the Middle East born of such radical, revolutionary violence that has become pro-American, peace-loving and opposed to terrorism?
While I am not sure I fully agree with the socio-political assertions that Gerecht makes elsewhere, I would feel much better if I could think of some cogent arguments against his conclusions.
My thoughts:
‘burn-out’ only works for 16-20 year cycles… sons will always believe their fathers lack faith… esp. when the fathers tell them they are walking the wrong path… of course, it cycles quicker in societies where the fathers are *allowed* to speak against the suicidal behavior…
The Palestinian families of suicide murderers are fully supportive of them and the Total War ethos. Women? Children? Total war means everybody. The Israelis would be justified if they responded in kind, by killing the families of the bombers. Maybe their mullahs too.
They wouldn’t even have to subject their regular soldiers to the horror of pulling the trigger on women and children. Let Shin Bet do it, it’s right up their alley.
25 grand wouldn’t look so good then, would it?
I can’t say I’m actually for it (weak stomach) — but if I’d had a friend or relative blown up and then watched the bomber’s family going on about what a hero the bastard was, I would be.
I sometimes wonder how supportive those families are when the cameras aren’t running and the neighbors aren’t looking on.
Being personally involved can definitely drive (or skew, or firm up) your motivations. We’ve an older British friend who was in Egypt in the 30s, and who had family friends (military?) killed by Zionist bombers.
Yeah, heavy irony there, terrorist bombings being part of the Israeli struggle for independence. Though I don’t recall that Begin & Co. targeted massed civilians. I believe there was some terrorism in our origins too, a certain amount of burning out of royalists and such.
My recollection, regarding the Zionists, was that it was primarily British military personnel who were targetted. There was certainly civilian-centered violence associated with the American Revolution, though internal rebellions are rarely bloodless that way, and I don’t recall any random killings taking place.