החרם של האקדמיה הבריטית הוא ככל הנראה סנונית ראשונה בחרם עולמי שעלול לצבור תאוצה. מתוך מכתבים שקראתי (ראו התיחסות מלאה יותר אצל יונית), עולה הרושם שבעולם הצליחו לעשות לנו דמוניזציה. אני מניח שהדמוניזציה הצליחה כיוון שהערבים הרבה יותר חכמים ממה שנראה לנו, והם פועלים במשך תקופהבצורהננכונה עם אירגונים עולמיים והתקשורת העולמית. מצד שני נראה שגם אנו תרמנו לדמוניזציה בכך שאיננו פועלים נכון בתקשורת העולמית. אם אני מבין נכון, נראה שהסיבה לכך היא בילבול שקיים אצלנו לגבי הכיבוש/חזרה-לנחלת-אבות, וחוסר יכולת להציג תמונה ברורה של צדק או אי צדק של העניין. אני חייב לומר שגם אצלי הבילבול הזה שורר, ואינני מצליח להגיע להחלטה. לכן כדי לנסות להבהיר לעצמי את עמדתי בנושא, השתדלתי להתעמת עם אחד מגדולי מבקרנו – ג'ון פילר. ג'ון פילגר הוא ככל הנראה עיתונאי בעל שם, הידוע בעמדות האנטי ישראליות שלו, וביכולת שלנו לצייר תמונה חד-צדדית וריגשית (מעין גדעון לוי עולמי). בחודש שעבר הוא כתב מכתב שזכה לתפוצה לא רעה באינטרנט. בתגובה, אני מבקש לכתוב לעצמי ואחר כך לאנשים אחרים בעולם, מכתב שיסביר לי היכן אנו נמצאים והיכן הצדק נמצא.

אשמח אם תוכלו להגיב ולהעיר (המכתב נכתב באנגלית לצורך תפוצה בפורומים המתאימים).

תודה,

טל

On 22 of May this year, John Pilger wrote an article which bears the title "Imprisoning a whole nation". In this article Pilger pictured Israel as imprisoning the Palestinians, starving them, killing their children, causing them to kill each other. I could, as many of the Israelis probably would have done if they read Pilger's article, to dismiss it as anti-Israeli, anti-Semitic, or just pro-Palestinian propaganda. I could, as other did, say that it is a pilgerian writing (a very emotional one sided presentation of the situation, aimed at getting tears and attention. This style of writing was named after John Pilger himself).  But I choose to try to use Pilger's harsh critique to try to mirror to myself the and to my friends, the situation on which we Israelis had come in to during the last forty years, since we occupied Samaria, Judea and the Gaza strip. I believe that every individual that see himself as a wise and intelligent man or woman, must view Pilger's critique in a much border perspective than that Pilger gave us. Nevertheless we must confront some truths which Pilger rose in his most incommode way.

The first good question that Pilger's arguments raise is: Do an occupied people under international law have the right to use arms against the occupier's forces (see paragraph three)? Well, I checked with an expert in international law, and such a law does not exist. Basically it can not exist because the international laws were created under mutual agreement between governments around the world. It is clear that in order to make such law like Pilger's law, the occupied people had to sign an agreement with the oppressor, and we know that such an agreement was never signed, and probably can never be signed. Although the international laws of war are valid only to governments that signed the mutual agreement, today these laws become an international standard, and so we can say that they must be obeyed by Israel and the Palestinians. These laws were meant to regulate wars between states and not between states and a guerilla or terror organizations. This problem may most clear if we examine the demand of the war laws that both sides will distinguish between the fighting forces and the civilians in very clear signs. When a state is fighting a guerilla or terrorist it is obvious that its fighting forces are distinguished by clear signs, but it is also clear that guerilla and terrorists fighters do not distinguish themselves.  This disobedience to the international law, of course breaks the obligation of the state to fight according to the international law. But this means that according to the international law, no occupied people can fight their occupier, without breaking this law.

I think that the "international law" which  Pilger speaks of, is not a written international law, but common idea that oppressed people may fight their oppressor to get their liberty. The question that must be raised is what are the legitimate means that the oppressed may take in order to gain their liberty, and what may the legitimate force the oppressor may use, in order to oppress disobeying groups inside the state? In a pure democratic regime, the answer may be clear: no violence may be needed, if the separation was conducted under fair democratic voting, as the case in Quebec, in which a voting prevented the separation of Quebec from Canada. If no such democratic procedure was conducted, other ways of persuasion may be taken from the side of the oppressed. There are basically no limits to the means the oppressed may take, but it is obvious that the state may also react in the same means to defend itself. The harsher the violent from the oppressed, the harsher the reaction of the state may take.

When the oppressed try to make their best root to liberty they may look at some lessons from the past and the present. In the Imperialist age, when the West controlled vast lands and inhabitants far from it's original countries, terror and guerilla fighting was a good mean to drive the imperialist countries out of the land. But this procedure may not be so useful when guerilla and terrorists attack the states in their homeland. This we can see from many cases, where the Basque didn't gain independence from Spain, despite years of terror. Northern Ireland, did not gain it's independence on terrorist grounds, but it may gain it's independence on democratic agreement, according to Belfast agreement. In Israel, the Palestinians were very close to gaining their freedom after five years of legitimate democratic protest (in the Intifada of the Stones, 1987 – 1992). They started to lose the Israeli support   to a Palestinian state, when they returned to terrorist activities in the year 1994 and until today.

As Pilger said, the oppressed may have the right to fight their oppressor, but in a democratic regime, the states also have the moral right to defense their selves from terror attacks, in the same means that the oppressed initiated on the state's peoples. Though, for the oppressed, it is most advisable to choose legitimate democratic means, in order to get the best results.  If a democratic state, like Israel, had engaged in a terrorist rebellion, it may have the right to react in violence, but I think it would not be the wisest choice. In the modern world, where the electronic media has so much power, and pictures of poor and miserable people have much more power the an intelligent debate, we may harm ourselves in reacting violently to the terrorist violence, although way may have a good moral cause for doing so. And even if the electronic media was not present, reacting in large scale violence is not recommended, because, it only causes more oppressed people to try to retaliate to unjust violence of the state, and so strengthen the terrorist groups. Also, we must try to separate between the terrorists and the nonfighting population, by treating the nonfighting population with much respect and enabling them to live a prosperous and safe life.

Israel, I believe, must try to act with much more wisdom and grace, then she acts today, in order to reduce the violence of the Palestinians extremists, and to bring the majority of the Palestinians to negotiate democratically on a Palestinian state.