Two Kinds of Assassinations

Tuesday’s assassination of Rehavam “Gandhi” Ze’evi, the minister of tourism in the Israeli parliament, by Palestinian gunmen might prompt an ambivalent response from those who care deeply about the violence in the Middle East. Over the past year, Israel has operated a policy of locating Palestinian leaders whom they have linked with terrorist activity within Israel and killing them with surgical missile strikes on their homes and cars. Dozens of Palestinian leaders, as well as some bystanders, have been killed in such strikes.

One possible response to the assassination of an Israeli political figure, then, might be “have a taste of your own medicine.” Indeed, supporters of the Palestinian authority have attached the word “terrorism” to Israeli military activity in the West Bank and Gaza strip. If it is legitimate to target the sources of terrorism, and Israeli leaders are deemed “terrorists,” then it could be argued that the Palestinian attack on Ze’evi was at least as justified as Israeli killings of Palestinians.

Such tit-for-tat arguments seem prevalent today. As the U.S. struggles with the question of how to combat terrorism at home and abroad, it has run into the sensitive task of defining terrorism and separating a “just military response” from terrorism. Only this kind of distinction enables the U.S. to justify the killing of hundreds in Afghanistan while decrying any attacks on American citizens.

However, many Americans are not as quick to make the distinction between Palestinian and Israeli violence. In the interest of remaining fair and equitable towards the plight of Palestinians living under admittedly terrible economic conditions, Americans have been too quick to equate Israeli aggression with Palestinian aggression and vaguely call for both sides to end the violence—a position that vilifies both sides and that obscures the distinction between individuals who craft plans to kill innocents and governments who seek to eradicate specific sources of terrorist activity.

Ze’evi was not a friend to Palestinians. He represented the far-right of the Israeli Knesset; he unabashedly suggested “voluntary transfer” of Palestinians out of the West bank and Gaza strip and of Yassir Arafat, the chairman of the Palestinian Authority, to Tunisia. He criticized Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon for being too soft on Palestinians after Sharon loosened control over two West Bank villages. In fact, in light of these grievances, Ze’evi resigned from the Israeli Parliament on Monday, a move that was scheduled to take effect Tuesday afternoon. If this extremist position is quite troubling to the Israeli political center and left, it must seem highly threatening to Palestinians. It would not be difficult, given the already vitriolic anti-Israel sentiments among Palestinians, to brand Ze’evi as an enemy, especially given that under its current policy Israel has killed a large number of innocent civilians in addition to Hamas leaders.

Yet despite his extremist political views, Ze’evi was not a terrorist. In a democratic parliamentary system like Israel’s, no individual, not even a cabinet minister, can act single-handedly. Although there exist right-wing parties in Israel that are quite skeptical of the Palestinian Authority as a potential partner in peace, there are also left-wingers who advocate the immediate creation of a Palestinian state. The debates between these two sides have been fierce, but they have been conducted within an organized, democratic body.

Terrorism, on the other hand, is marked by groups acting outside of the purview of law and targeting innocent civilians first and foremost. There is a clear difference between a man who voices anti-Palestinian sentiments and one who masterminds a suicide bombing that takes the lives of Israeli children waiting at a bus stop or eating in a pizzeria. This is not to say that the extreme right in Israel is justified in its views or that figures like Ze’evi are benign. Some of his statements are, in fact, deeply horrific. However, the clash of diverse, even extreme opinions is vital in a democratic state. Although one can question the validity or effectiveness of Israel’s assassination tactics in general (and I often do) it is dangerous to conflate all assassinations as equally justifiable.

The U.S. should be especially careful in its response to Israeli assassinations of suspected terrorists and the assassination of Ze’evi, especially as we have claimed as our purpose to search out and bring to justice the men who were individually responsible for the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. If we in the U.S. are to make the difficult distinction between the violence of terrorism and the violence of retaliation, we must be willing to apply these terms to Israeli and Palestinian violence as well. Just as it would be horrific to kill a member of the U.S. cabinet over anger about American foreign policy in the Middle East, it is unacceptable and shocking to kill Ze’evi over Israeli actions in the occupied territories.

If members of terrorist groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad voiced their concerns in a democratic government forum and engaged in debate with their opponents, they would no longer be terrorists. On that day, Israel would finally have a partner with whom to work out a lasting peace treaty.

Liora Russman Halperin ’05 lives in Canaday Hall.