Two colonists, Eitan and Naama Henkin, were murdered yesterday whilst traveling between the colonies of Itamar and Elon Moreh. Their children, thankfully, survived the attack. Hamas spokesman Husam Badran has reportedly praised the murders.
The “Israeli right” has condemned the attacks as terrorism, and a massive manhunt is now underway for those responsible. The “right” has also looked to the “left” for swift condemnation. I have to say, I’ve seen many within the pro-Palestinian camp mangling their response.
Yes, these people were colonists: They were participating in the Zionist colonisation of occupied Palestine. But they were also not taking active part in hostilities, and are protected as civilians under international humanitarian law. This is important, because it is the same protection that Palestinian civilians should also enjoy.
Having said that, it is instructive to view the differences in how people in general view different kinds of violence, and how we respond to it.
Supporters of the Zionist regime in Israel were quick to condemn the attack as terrorism, but typically fell silent when the marauding colonists and Zionist militants began attacking Nablus.
Supporters of Palestine were quick to condemn the burning to death of the Dawabsha family, but fall silent or choose to equivocate when colonists are murdered.
And an error made by the vast majority of people from all parts of the political compass – we are more accepting of killings perpetrated by those wearing uniforms or flying an F16 than by those not wearing such uniforms. The doctrinal systems tell us that for violence to be legitimate, it must be carried out by agents of state. In other words, state terror ceases to be terror simply by virtue of it having been perpetrated under the auspices of a government and its so-called armed forces. It’s important to note this – from a moral perspective, whether you kill a child’s parents at point blank range, or from a few thousand feet in the air, the acts are equivalent.
The slaughter of Eitan and Naama Henkin is terrorism in the same way that the slaughter of hundreds of innocent men, women and children in Gaza is terrorism. Either oppose both equally, or accept that you are led by primitive tribalism rather than principles.
Palestinians are suffering under a brutal military occupation, and the right to resist is essential to human dignity – but we shouldn’t fall into the trap of believing that targeting civilians is a mode of resistance deserving of support. Understanding the conditions and frustrations which lead to the attacks is one thing, but the attacks must be condemned nonetheless.
I’m also witnessing manipulation of the attack by the elite media, who claim that Prime Minister Netanyahu had just said (at the UN) that he was prepared to re-start negotiations “immediately” and “without pre-conditions”. Let’s make the obvious point – that’s what he said, it’s not what he means. He means he wants negotiations with extreme pre-conditions, such as the suspension of international law as a reference point. This is not strictly relevant to the issue of what to condemn, but it shouldn’t be allowed to pass.
International law almost forbids an occupying country to introduce its civilian citizens into occupied territory. Israel has long referred to its administrators in OTs as “military governors”. So it is almost correct to say that all Israelis in OTs could be regarded as soldiers, whether in uniforms or in mufti.
So when people living under occupation attack Israelis, whether soldiers or settlers, it is almost correct to say that they are attacking the Israeli military, surely not an act of terror but an act of war.
There was a point to the Fourth Geneva Convention’s forbidding settlement, and this confusion is part of that reason. BTW, settlers are often armed and sometimes attack Palestinians, adding to the “rightness” of my suggestion that all Israelis in OTs are “military”.
I know, I know, too many “almosts”. But you get my point.
“Colonists”
A rather inadequate term for shtetlers from this place – one of the virulently obnoxious ideological set-ups. Their women attack and destroy neighboring Palestinian crops, they sent their yeshiva students to *pray* on the “temple mount”during last year’s “kidnaping” fiasco, they didn’t want the land they stole for the shtetlment to be expropriated for “security purposes”, somehow that wouldn’t be ideologically correct.
This couple cannot be considered to have been living ordinary, mundane civilian lives. They were living and acting in enmity with their Palestinian neighbors, from whom the land they lived on was stolen.
Avram Meitner tells us nothing about this couple but their names and that they were traveling between these two places with their children. I think he expects we should react as we would if a similar incident occurred to a family travelling between two normal towns wherevever else any of us are in the world. Well sorry Mr Meitner, Israeli colonists bent on stealing and destroying Palestine, supported, enabled and defended by their government and army won’t provoke in me the reaction you want.
The male victim was an officer in the zahal commando unit sayaret matkal. I am not sure he qualifies as a civilian and wonder how many innocents he has murdered.
Btw, how does living on stolen land, thus preventing its owners from using it, *not* constitute ongoing hostility? In which this couple were engaged for however long they lived in their shtetlment. That seems like active ongoing hostility, aside from other constant anti-Palestinian acts being carried out by the people of this imposition in Palestine.
By the general war against the Palestinian population started officially in November 1947 and never called off, the Zionist government has knowingly put its entire civilian population on the entire mandate Palestine territory in harm’s way. Treaties or cease-fires with outside powers or the installation of puppet governments do not end this war.
The only responsible party to complain of is the Zionist government.
The paper does not indicate if the action was political or not, by the way. If it were not, again the Zionist government is responsible as the military occupier.