Dyab Abou Jahjah official website
  • Home
  • Verlichting Onder Vuur
  • "Unchained Inclusion" Training
  • Contact & Bookings
  • Books
  • Dyab's TV
  • Articles & Columns
  • Poetry
  • Mailing list

Ten points on the truck attack in Jerusalem

9/1/2017

22 Comments

 
Picture
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.
22 Comments
Michel
9/1/2017 08:05:05

Do not forget brother, that an IS linked group attacked Hamas in Gaza with a mortar bomb. It's very unlikely that IS did this.

http://m.jpost.com/Middle-East/ISIS-linked-group-claims-responsibility-for-mortar-attack-on-Hamas-base-in-Gaza-402504#article=6021RTdFOTYyRjE3MjExNDIxMzI0QUVFOEQ5MDM2REQyRkU=

Reply
Henk peter
9/1/2017 09:18:58

Thanks,

Reply
Johannes
9/1/2017 13:44:51

Free Belgium from Abou JahJah.
BY ALL MEANS

Reply
Mich
10/1/2017 22:16:03

Hadden we inderdtijd de betogingen van Jahjah van de voornamelijk Marrokaanse jongeren in Antwerpen een betere plaats gegeven, dan was Daesh er misschien niet. Militairen helpen niet in dergelijke zaken. Redlijkheid en liefde! Respect voor Jahjah.

Reply
Ifti
9/1/2017 14:01:33

I totally agree with this person. If I was in that persons situation I could understand were he is coming from. The Israelis are killing the Palestinian people day by day bit by bit and the world just gives them a slap on the hand. Y has is isreal never had any sanctions why r they getting away with genocide. Is it because God chose them to do this?!!!!!

Reply
Raja Chemayel link
9/1/2017 15:12:48

All "victims" were soldiers,
soldiers in uniform,
soldiers in uniform and wearing their arms !!

Cheers
Raja

Reply
rik connaerdt
9/1/2017 15:22:37

Shame on you. Why don't you go back to Lebanon en join your friends of Hezbollah? We don't need this kind of war-speeches over here.

Reply
SMF
9/1/2017 16:28:00

Sluitend, me dunkt.

Reply
willem smith
9/1/2017 16:35:37

10 x agree!
in WWII there were no "terror groups" in the netherlands, only the resistance. (and a lot of colloborators and people who saw nothing, heard nothing and kept their mouth). the whole world should attack this modern NaZionism.

Reply
Hélène Passtoors
9/1/2017 18:12:22

You are right on the principle. The reference in international law is the first protocol of the Geneva Convention of 1977 by which "armed conflicts in which peoples are fighting against colonial domination, alien occupation or racist regimes" are to be considered international conflicts." This means the rules for warfare apply in which, among others, legitimate enemy targets are the enemy/occupier's armed forces. Under the Geneva Convention and its protocols civilians are not legitimate targets. Targeting civilians is the basic definition of terrorism.
Unfortunately people here are very confused nowadays and do not see the link to the liberation struggles, including the armed resistance to the Nazi occupier and against colonial and apartheid rule. To them any asymmetric armed conflict is 'terrorism' on the part of the militarily weak party - the colonised or oppressed - while terror by standing armies is deemed to be 'legitimate' almost by definition...
However, while I agree with your point which is clearly argued, I wonder if it would not be better to have the usual 'experts' and 'analysts' making this point that they all know very well. Because it will unfortunately need quite a bit of psychology and explaining to make these issues clear to a public opinion that has been misled for very long, at least since colonial times which means it is part of deeply ingrained confusions. (Think also e.g. of the issue of Lumumba still not being an 'acceptable' figure in much of Belgian public opinion and he was not even ever involved in armed resistance...)
Therefore, I do think in the first place that you might have been more clear about this not being a specific issue for Israel and perhaps refer to the Resistance during WWII, colonial liberation struggles etc. But in fact I wonder if it would not be far better to leave such issues to others altogether (in the first place Palestinians...) in order to safeguard the space to let your voice be heard on less polarising or controversial subjects in which advances can be made.
(This is a point of strategy, not of cowardice on my part as you might know.)

Reply
Almanza
9/1/2017 18:31:48

I agree with the 10 points! with some difficulty I must say because of the way we used to look at the war in the middle-east! We analyse it from a 'white' point of view! Israel is supported by our 'friends' it must be a good cause! I hoop you are going to fight against the decision of the 'Standaard' to fire you!

Reply
Hugo Hermans
9/1/2017 18:34:17

Dyab Abbou heeft gelijk. Hoe je de kolonisatie in 1948 uit schuldgevoel ook bekijkt, is de uitbreiding op de westerse oever en Jeruzalem op zijn minst volkenkrechtelijk en brutaal mensen rechterlijk overdreven. Dat dat dan weerstand oproept is logisch en normaal. Vergelijk de doden langs beide kanten. Vergelijk de forbidden zones in beide landen... En bedenk voor je eigen of Joden (die ik acht als mens) niet toegelaten worden uit eigen EU-schuldbesef om zelf occupeerder te zijn...

Reply
ludwig
9/1/2017 18:47:50

Groot gelijk! Israel komt met alles weg maar owee de palestijnen.

Reply
bert anciaux
9/1/2017 18:54:44

Ik blijf je vriend.

Reply
winkler ulrich
9/1/2017 21:18:49

Je me permets d'apporter à votre message que j'approuve ceci: extrait du documentaire israélien the gatekeepers:
le directeur du Shin Bet Carmi Gillon (poste occupé de 1996 à1999 ) ....Nous rendons la vie de millions de gens insupportable.Leurs souffrances sont permanentes.....2012.Je crois que tout est dit ,et ces paroles restent d'actualité depuis 50 ans !

Reply
Frank Janssens
9/1/2017 22:51:54

Beste Abu,

Dat was nu niet verstandig die Tweet. Ik vond en vind u een goede columnist in De Standaard maar ik begrijp dat de krant u nu even niet kan houden als medewerker. Ook u boek over radicalisering was intersesant zij het niet altijd coherent. U hebt rechts Vlaanderen nu wel een makkelijke stok gegeven om u te slaan en uw werkgever De Standaard jammer genoeg in zijn blootje gezet want het was best dapper gezien de huidige atmosfeer in Vlaanderen dat ze u dat forum gaven.
Dus opnieuw een domme tweet.

Reply
Marianne BLUME
9/1/2017 23:16:12

Well said. At least you describe rightly the conditions of the Palestinians and you defend the right of resistance which is a right for all of us. Merci.

Reply
Peter te Riele link
10/1/2017 09:37:33

Excellent explanation, should be published in the media which write about the ending of your job as a columnist.
I hope to hear or read your point of view elsewhere.

Reply
Rik Van de Perre
10/1/2017 10:30:25

Je ontslag, is een grote fout van DE Standaard,
De kans om een ernstig debad te voeren met weldenkende
mensen, die wel verschillen van mening,is verkeken.
Je niet meer aan het woord laten is alweer een uiting van angst.

Reply
Martin Spaink
10/1/2017 15:55:45

This article takes a much needed stance against the un-ending provocation, detention, starvation and killing of Palestinians. How can Netty say this was an 'unprovoked terrorist' attack? Total bullshit from a bully.

Reply
H Demirel
10/1/2017 21:38:25

I fully agree with your arguments. When someone disagree with this, the reason is evident. I always say: imagine yourself in de same situation as the Palestine people, then you will think like a human with empathy. I hope that De Standaard will correct her false decision to end your interesting columns.

Reply
Luc Bonneux
11/1/2017 13:38:05

Apologie

Ik ben ooit een paar weken in Jeruzalem geweest, in de vroege jaren 1990. Ik herinner me een uitje in een club met veel jonge Joodse militairen, dienstplichtigen. Ik zie ze zo voor me, een dansend koppel in uniform, het machinegeweer op de swingende kont (zo heb ik het opgeschreven in mijn dagboek.). Leuke jonge mensen, de ogen glansden – daar ging later nog gedanst worden, horizontaal en zonder geweer. Ik hoop, bid dat er hen nooit iets is overkomen. De mensen die toen dansten: hun kinderen worden langzamerhand dienstplichtig in Israël. Ik ga niet licht om met de gevolgen van deze gruwelijke aanslag in Jeruzalem.

Anderszins heeft Abou Dyab Yahyah ook van de mooiste columns uit de geschiedenis van DS geschreven. Zijn “Je suis Ahmed” na de aanslagen tegen Charlie Hebdo heb ik lang gekoesterd. Het is zo belangrijk dat de andere stem ook aan bod komt. Een column van Abou Dyab Yahyah was het eerste wat ik las. Niet omdat ik het met hem eens was, maar omdat hij eloquent verwoordde waarom hij het oneens was met mij, blanke Vlaming uit een Jezuïetencollege. Abou Dyab Yahyah deed me altijd nadenken over mijn standpunten, en na dat nadenken was dat standpunt vaak bijgesteld. Dat kunnen heel weinig columnisten en opiniëerders zeggen. Ik ben nogal koppig en halsstarrig – maar ik heb dan ook steeds beide kanten van een medaille kunnen lezen. De kant van Abou Dyab Yahyah, een goed geïntegreerd en welsprekend moslim, is te zeldzaam om vaak te ontmoeten en geregeld over na te denken.

In DS schreef Jan Jambon, in functie als minister, over moslims die dansten in de straten na de aanslagen in Brussel. Dat je in het vuur van een interview iets onvertogen zegt: akkoord. Kan gebeuren: verontschuldigingen en zand erover. Er is momenteel een overschot van niet-bewijs. Met alomtegenwoordige camera’s is er nergens enige dansende beweging van meerdere personen gedocumenteerd. Maar ik heb nooit verontschuldigingen gehoord. Dat vind ik veel kwalijker, dat een minister in functie een aperte leugen vertelde over een kwetsbare minderheid die deel uit maakt van het volk waarvan hij minister is, en deze leugen niet herroept. Uiteindelijk is Abou Dyab Yahyah een activist, die soms met beide voeten vooruit chargeert. Hij toont hoe haat meesleept: haat van Joden voor de Palestijnen en Abou Dyab Yahyah, haat van de Palestijnen en Abou Dyab Yahyah voor de Joden in Israël.

Als ik Abou Dyab Yahyah lees, heb ik steeds de indruk een goed mens te lezen. Een feilbaar mens, een boos mens, een strijder voor de goede zaak die zich soms laat meeslepen in te kwade gedachten. Maar een goed mens, met een belangrijke mening.

Tot slot, ik had ADY's verdediging van zijn standpunt nog niet gelezen. Mijn vader was commandant van de weerstand tegen de nazi's, van het allereerste uur (straatarm jochie dat had carrière kunnen maken in het Belgische leger). Hij heeft heel veel mensen beschermd, waaronder veel joden. Hij wenste hier geen erkenning voor: het was zijn job als Belgisch officier, vond hij.

Hij wees wel geweld af, pragmatisch: ze waren geen partij voor het Duitse leger. Geweld kostte hen te veel slachtoffers. Hij verkoos geweldloos verzet, burgerlijke ongehoorzaamheid, administratieve sabotage. De aanslag in Jeruzalem brengt de Palestijnse zaak geen millimeter verder, wel integendeel. Je kan begrip opbrengen voor wanhoop, maar dat is wat anders dan dwaze acties, geboren uit die wanhoop, goedkeuren.

Gegroet, delen van deze brief heb ik naar DS gestuurd, in de hoop dat mijn favoriete columnist mag terugkomen. Ik zal hem anders te hard missen.

Reply

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply.

    RSS Feed

 Dyab Abou Jahjah @2022
  • Home
  • Verlichting Onder Vuur
  • "Unchained Inclusion" Training
  • Contact & Bookings
  • Books
  • Dyab's TV
  • Articles & Columns
  • Poetry
  • Mailing list