Ten points on the truck attack in Jerusalem

By Dyab Abou Jahjah​

​A truck ran over Israeli occupation soldiers in occupied Jerusalem yesterday. Four soldiers died and some others were wounded. The driver was a Palestinian father of three. If you would read western newspapers and news outlets, the general tone is that this was a “terrorist” attack that targeted Israelis. Fake news are obviously not something that is limited to social media, it is also often being vented through the bias of the dominant news. That version of the story is not just occulting the reality of the occupation, it is defending it by establishing a link between the resistance of the Palestinians and terrorism. I reacted to this by stating that the Palestinian people has the right to liberate its occupied land by any means that it deems necessary. This was immediately taken by forces who are supportive to Israel in the Flemish nationalist right wing and presented as an endorsement of terrorism. Even Theo Francken, a secretary of state in the federal government, was tweeting about it hysterically. According to him I was glorifying ISIS terrorism and I should be fired from my position as columnist in the newspaper I write for. People who liked my Facebook post were also being threatened and intimidated. Therefor I want to clarify the following 10 points and I hope that this will be helpful to all the people that are confronted with these questions.

1. Do I stand by my statement? Yes, I fully stand by my initial statement that I consider legitimate, reserved and warranted.
2. Is this an ISIS attack?  All elements that I have at this moment are pointing out that the attack was the work of the Palestinian resistance.
3. Does it make a difference who executed the attack? One thing is sure, the driver of the truck was a Palestinian citizen living under occupation who attacked a gathering of occupation soldiers in uniform. Regardless of his ideological affiliation, and regardless of his belonging to any organisation, every Palestinian citizen, just as any citizen anywhere in the world, living under illegal military occupation, has the right to resist that occupation, and that right is guaranteed under international law and the Geneva conventions regulating warfare.
4. What if it is revealed that ISIS executed this attack? That would be very unfortunate. Not because it would be any less legitimate from the perspective of the Palestinian driver, but because ISIS would then be hijacking the Palestinian struggle and besmearing it. ISIS is a fascist terrorist group that is notorious for hijacking the struggles of oppressed peoples (Iraq, Syria, etc...) and turning them into a platform for its own fascist project. I would not want to see that happening in Palestine. Israel, that is now coming under a lot of pressure internationally, is hoping that this would happen because that would enable it to garner support and once again generate sympathy for its colonial occupation policies. However, ISIS did not attack Israel so far, and is too busy killing innocent people mainly in Syria and Iraq and all across the Arab and Muslim world, and from time to time in the west.
5.  Why is the attack legitimate again? Because it took place in an occupied territory and targeted the occupation army. There is no argument whatsoever, ethically nor legally, to claim that it is illegitimate. If the right of resistance is no more recognised, then the people who resisted occupation all through history were criminals. People then should just undergo occupation and accept it and wait until the occupier changes his mind and leaves peacefully.
6. Does resistance have to be violent? Not necessary, resistance can take several forms but the armed struggle is one of them.
7. Is violence a good thing? Violence is not a good thing, but violence in self-defence is sometimes inevitable. Especially when all possible ways to find a solution have been thwarted by the aggressor, the oppressor or the occupier. Sometimes violence is the only remaining option. Moreover, it is important to note that occupation is the real violence. Occupation is the organised, structural and recurrent violence that the Palestinian people is subjugated to on daily basis since 1948. The failure of the international community in punishing Israel and forcing it to respect international law, is leaving the Palestinian people with no other option. It is hypocritical to speak of violence as something that comes from both sides the same way and equally. It is like claiming that a woman that is being raped and fighting her rapist is using violence the same way as the rapist. This position is morally bankrupt and is nothing short than blatant support for the rapist.
8. Is using a truck in such an attack not a reason to consider it terrorism? This argument is again flawed. It is like saying that a woman being raped and using her nails against the rapist is not fighting in an honourable manner.  Besides, if we really want the Palestinians to use classical means of warfare, maybe we should consider arming them adequately. Then they will not feel the necessity to use these unclassical methods. And how about sending UN troops to protect them? Wouldn’t that be another good alternative? But leaving them almost unarmed and at the mercy of the Israeli killing machine and then preaching to them about the methods used, is fully outrageous and shows again the bias in favour of the occupation.
9. Is the strategy of resistance a good strategy? This is something that the Palestinians themselves should determine. It is they who live under occupation, and they do know their circumstances. Our duty is  just to be in solidarity with them. Besides, the Palestinian people and leadership, offered every possible concession since the infamous Oslo process started, in order to reach peace, and what did they get for it? More colonisation, an apartheid wall, more violence, more prison camps and abductions, and more killing. How successful was that strategy?
10. Should we rejoice the death of the soldiers?  I personally never rejoice the death of a human being, even if it is an occupation soldier or a murderer. I wouldn’t even rejoice the deaths of Nazi soldiers if I was living in the 1940’s. However if people living in the Warsaw ghetto rejoiced the death of Nazi soldiers back then, who am I to judge? The same goes for any people living under oppression or occupation. We should not be judging the emotions of oppressed people. War is always a tragedy for all parties, and no human being in his right mind will choose war over peace. However, when people fight back against oppression, it is that they feel that they have no other options. I am sure that the Palestinian people would like nothing more than living in peace and dignity in a free country. We must show them that we stand by them, and that we support their resistance in the ways that they deem necessary within the boundaries of ethics and humanity. For my pacifist friends, Let me quote the position of Mahatma Ghandi on the matter: “…I am not defending the Arab excesses. I wish they had chosen the way of non-violence in resisting what they rightly regarded as an unwarrantable encroachment upon their country. But according to the accepted canons of right and wrong, nothing can be said against the Arab resistance in the face of overwhelming odds.” This is even truer today than when he has written it. Because when you walk the road of peace only to find betrayal and deceit, the only way remaining is that of relentless struggle, by any means necessary. This is the situation in Palestine today.