Ten points on the truck attack in Jerusalem

By Dyab Abou Jahjah​
​
Yesterday, a truck ran over Israeli occupation soldiers in occupied Jerusalem, killing four soldiers and injuring several others. The driver was a Palestinian father of three. If one were to read Western newspapers and news outlets, the prevailing narrative is that this was a “terrorist” attack targeting Israelis.
Fake news is not confined to social media; it is frequently propagated through the bias of mainstream media. This version of the story does not merely obscure the reality of the occupation—it actively defends it by equating Palestinian resistance with terrorism.
In response, I stated that the Palestinian people have the right to liberate their occupied land by any means they deem necessary. This was immediately seized upon by pro-Israel forces within the Flemish nationalist right wing, who distorted my words into an endorsement of terrorism. Even Theo Francken, a Secretary of State in the federal government, reacted hysterically on Twitter, accusing me of glorifying ISIS terrorism and calling for my dismissal as a newspaper columnist.
People who liked my Facebook post were also subjected to threats and intimidation.
Therefore, I want to clarify the following ten points, hoping they will be helpful to those confronted with similar accusations and distortions.

Do I stand by my statement?
Yes, I fully stand by my initial statement, which I consider legitimate, measured, and justified.
Is this an ISIS attack?
All available evidence indicates that the attack was carried out by a member of the Palestinian resistance.
Does it make a difference who executed the attack?
One thing is certain: the driver of the truck was a Palestinian citizen living under occupation who targeted uniformed occupation soldiers. Regardless of his ideological affiliation or membership in any organization, every Palestinian—just like any citizen anywhere in the world living under illegal military occupation—has the right to resist that occupation. This right is enshrined in international law and the Geneva Conventions regulating warfare.
What if it is revealed that ISIS executed this attack?
That would be unfortunate—not because the act itself would be any less legitimate from the perspective of the Palestinian driver, but because ISIS would be hijacking the Palestinian struggle and tarnishing it. ISIS is a fascist terrorist group notorious for exploiting the struggles of oppressed peoples (in Iraq, Syria, and elsewhere) to further its own extremist agenda. I would not want to see that happening in Palestine. Israel, which is facing increasing international pressure, would welcome such a development as it would allow it to regain sympathy and justify its colonial occupation policies. However, so far, ISIS has not attacked Israel; it has been preoccupied with killing innocent people in Syria, Iraq, and across the Arab and Muslim world—occasionally extending its violence to the West.
Why is the attack legitimate?
Because it took place in occupied territory and targeted the occupying army. There is no ethical or legal argument to claim that such an act is illegitimate. If the right to resistance is no longer recognized, then all those who resisted occupation throughout history would have to be considered criminals. Should occupied peoples simply accept their fate and wait for the occupier to voluntarily withdraw?
Does resistance have to be violent?
Not necessarily. Resistance can take many forms, but armed struggle is one of them.
Is violence a good thing?
Violence is never desirable, but violence in self-defense is sometimes inevitable—especially when all peaceful avenues have been systematically blocked by the aggressor, the oppressor, or the occupier. At times, violence becomes the only remaining option. Moreover, it is important to recognize that occupation itself is the root violence—a structural, organized, and daily act of aggression against the Palestinian people since 1948. The failure of the international community to hold Israel accountable and force it to comply with international law has left the Palestinian people with no alternative. It is hypocritical to speak of violence as if it were an equal exchange between both sides. It is akin to suggesting that a woman resisting her rapist with force is "just as violent" as the rapist himself. Such a position is morally bankrupt and constitutes nothing less than blatant support for the aggressor.
Is using a truck in such an attack not a reason to consider it terrorism?
This argument is flawed. It is like saying that a woman being raped and using her nails against her attacker is not resisting "in an honorable manner." Furthermore, if the world expects Palestinians to engage in "classical warfare," perhaps it should consider arming them adequately. Then they would not have to resort to unconventional methods. Another option would be to deploy UN forces to protect them. But leaving them largely defenseless against the Israeli military machine while lecturing them on "acceptable methods" is outrageous and only further exposes the bias in favor of the occupation.
Is the strategy of resistance effective?
This is a question for the Palestinians to answer. They are the ones living under occupation, and they understand their reality better than anyone else. Our duty is to stand in solidarity with them. The Palestinian people and leadership have made every possible concession since the infamous Oslo process began in an effort to achieve peace. And what have they received in return? More colonization, an apartheid wall, more violence, more prison camps, more abductions, and more killings. How successful was that strategy?
Should we rejoice in the deaths of the soldiers?
Personally, I never rejoice in the death of any human being—not even an occupation soldier or a murderer. I would not have even celebrated the deaths of Nazi soldiers in the 1940s. However, if the inhabitants of the Warsaw Ghetto had rejoiced at the death of Nazi soldiers back then, who would I be to judge? The same applies to any people suffering under oppression or occupation. We should not dictate how the oppressed should feel. War is always a tragedy for all sides, and no sane person prefers war over peace. But when people fight back against oppression, it is because they feel they have no other choice.
I am certain that the Palestinian people want nothing more than to live in peace and dignity in a free country. We must show them that we stand with them and support their right to resist in ways they deem necessary—within the boundaries of ethics and humanity.
To my pacifist friends, let me quote Mahatma Gandhi 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 statement rings even truer today than when it was first written. Because when the path of peace leads only to betrayal and deceit, the only road left is that of relentless struggle—by any means necessary. That is the reality in Palestine today.