The horrifying murder of six members of a settlement family raises many complex issues. In the abstract, only the truly deranged would applaud any murder, much less plunging a knife into children, toddlers and even infants. But there is a long human history of carrying out similar attacks, even far worse, with the rosy glow of self-justification. (Israel itself has mastered the art of justifying its indiscriminate killing.) I have no difficulty condemning this particular attack, as I have done before for a similar, slightly less horrifying episode here and here. However, I do have trouble with the demands some make for unqualified condemnation with no allowances for any discussion of context.
To my mind, there is a reasonably analogous historical antecedent in Nat Turner’s Rebellion. In 1831, Turner and some fellow slaves killed scores of whites, mostly with knives, showing no mercy to any to age or gender. The slaves killed and decapitated ten children in one family alone. For sheer horror, this slave rebellion resembles the Itamar atrocity, and exceeds its numbers at least ten-fold.
One might protest that it is unfair to compare American slaves with West Bank Palestinians. Of course there are numerous differences, but like the slaves, Palestinians have lived their entire lives having to obey orders of others based solely upon difference in ethnicity and ancestry. They are unable to enjoy the resources of their ancestral land and the fruit of their labors without permission of those who consider themselves entitled to sovereignty and total control over them. Palestinians are subject to arbitrary acts of brutality motivated by racist contempt, with virtually no legal consequences for their tormentors. One would be hard-pressed to object to any comparison with slaves on the ground that the relationship between Palestinians and settlers, especially ones from settlements like Itamar, is not so egregious. The situations may not be identical, but they’re surely in the same ballpark.
Both Turner’s group and the perpetrators in Itamar (assuming they are Palestinian, which appears most probable) chose their victims randomly among members of the oppressor community, many of whom were too young and/or powerless to actually play any culpable role in the injustice. When the slave insurrection was quelled, nearly 60 slaves were executed and perhaps a couple hundred more killed. Retaliatory legislation was enacted as well. The full measure of Israeli retaliation — in settler violence, IDF violence and arrests, and government policy, all of which already have begun and are sure to get worse — is not yet known. It is, however, easily predictable that Israel will resort to its old standby of collective punishment, the kind it insists is manifestly unfair when applied to its own citizens.
In the immediate aftermath of the crime, revulsion over the Itamar murders is certainly widespread, though not universal. Among most Palestinians and their supporters, sentiments generally range from outright condemnation to condemnation with context, with refusal to condemn being the most extreme position. However, 180 years after the Nat Turner Rebellion, there is a wider spectrum of opinion. Despite the impossibility of approving of the wholesale slaughter of young innocents, Turner himself enjoys a rather cautiously mixed reputation. Just one recent example occurred last year, when a park in Newark, NJ was named after him.
The reason for this ambivalence is obvious. The evil nature of slavery is so universally accepted that there is some degree of deference given to anyone who fought against it and paid with his or her life. Moreover, is there anyone today who believes that the morality of the abolitionist cause was even slightly tarnished by this rebellion? Is there anyone of decency and common sense who would insist on deploring Nat Turner’s actions in isolation and refuse to acknowledge the role that slavery itself played in the horror?
I don’t think we need years, decades or even centuries to pass before we can recognize as outrageous the Israeli practice of moving its citizens onto others’ land where they are encouraged to exercise dominion and control, including a healthy dose of sadistic cruelty, over an indigenous population. I have no quarrel with those who condemn the killer(s) of this family, but I do resent anyone who has a record of endorsing or even excusing the settlement project, not to mention the slaughter of many more innocents in Lebanon, Gaza, etc., who demands condemnation of this heinous act without any qualification or context. Without the barbaric practice of slavery that brought immense misery to millions, no atrocity would have been committed by Nat Turner and his fellow slaves. Without the racist insanity of the occupation, there would have been tragedy in Itamar. This is not to excuse the perpetrators, but merely to acknowledge that the list of those directly responsible must include more than the individual(s) who wielded the knife.
