In the most recent edition of the New York Review of Books Avishai Margalit, who is Schulman Professor of Philosophy at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, writes a learned explanation, and seeming defense, of the suicide-bomber. He probes the Islamic mind and Palestinian society in order to claim that the suicide- bombers are motivated primarily by a desire for ?spectacular revenge? against Israelis who have killed or injured Palestinians. He finds that they do this in the hope of receiving communal recognition and glorification, as well. And that they also have the fierce religious motivation of a ?defensive Jihad? to liberate all of Palestine and restore it to the house of Islam. Margalit claims that for the suicide-bombers, their victims are not innocent civilians, but part of the Israeli war machine. He points out that suicide-bombers are exclusively Muslim and that there have been no Christian Palestinian suicide-bombers.
Margalit does not write of the victims of the suicide- bombers and shows no sympathy for them. He also makes no distinction whatsoever between the policy of deliberate murder of as many people as possible, which is the aim of the suicide-bomber and the Palestinian terrorist, in general, and the Israeli policy of avoiding, insofar as it is possible, civilian casualties. As a moral philosopher, he acts immorally in ignoring the distinction between those who aim to kill in the cruelest way possible (the Palestinians) and those who aim to pinpoint their targets (the Israeli military), and kill only those who are actively involved in terror.
In describing the suicide-bombers, Margalit writes with a morally neutral tone. His words of reprobation are reserved only for Israel, which he accuses of being ?irrational and evil? in its attempt to destroy the infrastructure of Palestinian society. He focuses on the ?olive grove incident?, deliberately fudging the difference between settler action and Israeli government policy. He does this so as to be able to make a blanket criticism of the Israeli government. At another point, he also finds an excuse for Yasser Arafat, who he claims wanted to put an end to the suicide-bombings in December 2001, but was prevented from doing so by Israel?s assassination of terrorist Raed Carmi. Arafat's incessant violations of his own promises to bring an end to the violence are conveniently brushed aside by Margalit. This is, of course, another small illustration of Margalit?s habit of mind, which is so in line with that of the New York Review of Books in always finding an excuse for the Palestinians and a reason to blame the Israelis.
What most disturbs Margalit is the possibility that Palestinian society has abandoned completely any prospect of accommodation with Israel, but has totally adopted the view that the ?end of the occupation means the end of Israel.? Thus, in spite of presenting Israel as a wholly unworthy and morally indefensible society, he does show some interest in its surviving. And his careful elaboration of the Islamic way of thinking about the conflict as a whole might even give a morally neutral observer a sense that something is not quite ?liberal and enlightened? in the Palestinian-Islamic view of the world. He does, in other words, willingly or not, provide a great deal of evidence of just how fanatic and inhumane Palestinian society, whose first value is jihad, has become.
However, on the whole, he does not have to worry about keeping his place in that world of academic and media Israel-bashers, who continue to cut off the limb they are sitting on while blaming the tree for being shaky.
--------------------------------------------------------
Shalom Freedman is a freelance writer in Jerusalem whose work has appeared in a wide variety of Jewish publications.
Margalit does not write of the victims of the suicide- bombers and shows no sympathy for them. He also makes no distinction whatsoever between the policy of deliberate murder of as many people as possible, which is the aim of the suicide-bomber and the Palestinian terrorist, in general, and the Israeli policy of avoiding, insofar as it is possible, civilian casualties. As a moral philosopher, he acts immorally in ignoring the distinction between those who aim to kill in the cruelest way possible (the Palestinians) and those who aim to pinpoint their targets (the Israeli military), and kill only those who are actively involved in terror.
In describing the suicide-bombers, Margalit writes with a morally neutral tone. His words of reprobation are reserved only for Israel, which he accuses of being ?irrational and evil? in its attempt to destroy the infrastructure of Palestinian society. He focuses on the ?olive grove incident?, deliberately fudging the difference between settler action and Israeli government policy. He does this so as to be able to make a blanket criticism of the Israeli government. At another point, he also finds an excuse for Yasser Arafat, who he claims wanted to put an end to the suicide-bombings in December 2001, but was prevented from doing so by Israel?s assassination of terrorist Raed Carmi. Arafat's incessant violations of his own promises to bring an end to the violence are conveniently brushed aside by Margalit. This is, of course, another small illustration of Margalit?s habit of mind, which is so in line with that of the New York Review of Books in always finding an excuse for the Palestinians and a reason to blame the Israelis.
What most disturbs Margalit is the possibility that Palestinian society has abandoned completely any prospect of accommodation with Israel, but has totally adopted the view that the ?end of the occupation means the end of Israel.? Thus, in spite of presenting Israel as a wholly unworthy and morally indefensible society, he does show some interest in its surviving. And his careful elaboration of the Islamic way of thinking about the conflict as a whole might even give a morally neutral observer a sense that something is not quite ?liberal and enlightened? in the Palestinian-Islamic view of the world. He does, in other words, willingly or not, provide a great deal of evidence of just how fanatic and inhumane Palestinian society, whose first value is jihad, has become.
However, on the whole, he does not have to worry about keeping his place in that world of academic and media Israel-bashers, who continue to cut off the limb they are sitting on while blaming the tree for being shaky.
--------------------------------------------------------
Shalom Freedman is a freelance writer in Jerusalem whose work has appeared in a wide variety of Jewish publications.