Some Palestinians question morality of suicide attacks

When a suicide bomber killed nine people in an attack at Israel's Hebrew University last month, thousands of Palestinians celebrated in a "march of joy". Militants tossed sweets to the crowd that flooded into Gaza's streets after the attack.

If slogans alone gauge public discourse in a society, then the voice of revenge won the argument that day on how to respond to the July 23 Israeli air raid on Gaza that killed 16 people, including two militants.

But some Palestinians say the rage on the streets drowns out other voices, which ask how their nearly two-year-old uprising should be waged and what it has brought as they weigh the prospects for nationhood against the cycle of bloodshed.

"We have competing public discourses," said political scientist Ali Jarbawi. "This is why you see some people cheering attacks and others putting ads in newspapers to stop them."

The moderate Palestinians have largely avoided debate on moral grounds alone, without also referring to the Israeli Army's occupation of Palestinian cities and killing of Palestinians.

"How can we convince Palestinians we should debate intellectually and morally when they live under such conditions as occupation?" Jarbawi asked.

Those taking part in the debate about attacks try to avoid being seen as traitors to national aspirations and what Palestinians call their resistance movement. "The mood of the public is anger, hate and revenge. This is why you find these voices easily," Jarbawi said. More moderate voices are "either shy or they want to put their argument in a context which is not out of touch with the people".

Often they argue on political and tactical grounds, such as the need to avoid attacks on civilians because they are bad for Palestinians' image internationally, or because they give Israel a pretext to strike back.

Palestinian society is close-knit andduring the uprising that society seems to have become even closer. Death is a very public affair, marked in tents filled with neighbours offering condolences. Palestinians are banding together as families who have lost homes move in together, or rely on shared food as the economy deteriorates.

This is the context in which any discourse circulates. In some cases it is not receptive to moderate or minority voices.

"Unfortunately people are not allowed even to talk about evaluating the Intifada [uprising] because then the Palestinian Authority will say that your views and your opinions are serving the enemy interests," said human rights activist Bassam Eid.

"Everybody thinks the Israelis sent you to talk about such topics."

Many Palestinians see Israeli soldiers and Jewish settlers in lands occupied in the 1967 Middle East War as targets. However, militant groups such as Hamas, which carried out the Hebrew University attack, have widened the conflict by striking inside Israel itself. Hamas sees all Israelis as soldiers because of the national requirement to serve on active or reserve Army duty.

Commentators try to negotiate these murky distinctions when addressing the moral questions of who is a civilian without appearing to be traitors to the resistance.

"There is pressure on commentators not to come out against militant groups," Jarbawi said.

After the Hebrew University bombing, Ghazi al-Khalili, a Palestinian peace activist, wrote in the Palestinian newspaper al-Ayyam that the attack was a "great mistake" and said it was "impossible to understand or excuse".

He urged Palestinian "universities and educational establishments to arm themselves with courage, break their silence and raise their voices high against stooping to this level of violence, which will be a catastrophe for our people".

As for the Government, Palestinian Authority statements after bombings have often said they condemn attacks against civilians, both Israeli and Palestinian.

After the university bombing, the authority said it absolutely condemned the attack on civilians. It also accused Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's "Army [of] continuing its policy of destruction, killing and collective punishment".

Palestinians have had ample opportunity to debate the violence in which about 1500 Palestinians and 600 Israelis have been killed since the revolt began in September 2000 after peace talks stalled.

In June, Palestinian legislators and intellectuals published a statement in al-Quds newspaper urging militants to halt attacks inside Israel because they deepened hatred and harmed progress on Palestinian interests. There was no mention of attacks on settlers in occupied lands and soldiers.

"We urge those behind military attacks against civilians inside Israel to reconsider ... these attacks do not achieve progress towards achieving our ... freedom and independence," the statement said.

The more than 50 signatories were later urged to make a statement supporting resistance. They did.

Many Palestinians ask why they should be measured by the same standards as Israel, which is not under military occupation, has a formal Army and has used helicopter gunships to kill militants.

"Most of them [Israelis] justify assassinations, which is just as immoral except it is adopted by a government instead of by groups," Hanan Ashrawi, one of the signatories of the al-Quds statement, said.

"There have been several Palestinian statements on moral grounds and it has always been the targeting of civilians as being unacceptable. But Palestinian discourse doesn't get much [media] coverage unless it is melodramatic."

Ashrawi wrote in an article this month that public discourse needed to be reformulated because of the "corrupt" national regime on one hand and "extremist" Islamists on the other.

Asked why more moderate voices are not heard, she said: "We are trying very hard but the problem also is that we are under siege here. We cannot move. We cannot communicate."

Sometimes Palestinian discourse falls flat in the streets.

"There are internal forces undermining the voice of the moderates," said Zoughbi Zoughbi, who runs the Palestinian Conflict Resolution Centre in Bethlehem.

But he also said that he could see from his window the Israeli tanks, rather than Palestinian traffic police, occupying his city's streets. "Palestinian violence is a reaction to the Israeli violence," he said.

At a checkpoint near Jerusalem, Israeli soldiers stopped Palestinian academic Sari Nusseibeh after he signed the al-Quds statement.

"The Palestinians standing in the queue at the checkpoint said to him, 'Look, your appeal didn't help,"' said Zakaria al-Qaq, chairman of the Israel/Palestine Centre for Research and Information, who was with Nusseibeh at the crossing.

"People will look at the other side [Israel] and it doesn't reciprocate. So everybody keeps his mouth shut fearing criticism and says the occupation is to blame."

- REUTERS

Feature: Middle East

Related links