There is no cycle of violence

[Leon]

Abbas and the 'cycle of violence' in the Middle East
http://www.lafayettejc.com/news20050...06285305.shtml

By Louis Rene Beres, For the Journal and Courier

The new Palestinian Authority "president" hadn't even been sworn in before he attacked the "cycle of violence" in the Middle East. An inaccuracy, to be sure, Mahmoud Abbas still knew exactly what he was saying. Creating a contrived symmetry between Arab terrorism and Israeli counter-terrorism, the expression conveniently erodes all differences between crime and punishment.

There is no "cycle of violence" in this conflict, only ritualistic murders of Jewish civilians followed by essential Israeli measures of self-defense. Imitating past practice, Hamas and its sister terror organizations always argue that they are merely "retaliating" for Israel's prior assassinations of lead terrorists, as if to say that: 1. a constituted democratic state and an outlawed terrorist gang are of equivalent legal stature; and, 2. terrorist leaders and defenseless civilians are equally permissible targets. Yet, even in the shadow world of Arab/Islamic terror, there are palpably meaningful differences between criminality and law enforcement.

There is no more egregious form of criminality than the premeditated murder of children. Under all existing standards of international law and morality, there is no cause -- no matter how just -- that can ever justify such killing. None. Ever. Even if the incessant Palestinian refrain of an Israeli "occupation" were not fabricated, and even if the persistent claims of "Palestinian land" made any historical or legal sense, there could never be any justification for intentionally blowing up Jewish children. The so-called "suicide bombers" who pack their explosives with nails, screws and razor blades dipped in rat poison are not "militants." They are monsters.

Terror groups have no right to "retaliate" under international law -- no more than does an individual criminal have such a right against police authorities under domestic law. These groups are illegal organizations that recognize no proper boundaries in the use of force. This should now be especially evident to President Bush, whose mistaken endorsement of a Palestinian state will only push Israel into conditions of existential insecurity and our own country into more terrorism. Palestinian terror groups are increasingly aligned with al-Qaida.

Following American and European endorsements of a Palestinian state, we have witnessed absolutely no identifiable Arab/Islamic movement toward peace with Israel. Instead, we observe an unambiguous escalation of threats to the Jewish state. Now there are even explicit Arab threats to unleash biological terrorism upon Israeli civilians. Recently the Lebanon-based Palestinian weekly, Al-Manar, published an article claiming that Palestinian "fighters" plan to deploy such "death-carrying devices near Israeli water resources; the Israeli beaches ... the markets and the residential centers." The plain objective, says the article, is "... to create a balance of horror in the equation of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict."

A "balance of horror." Is this the sort of peace that Israel can expect? The new Palestinian "president" will not use decisive force against Hamas and its kindred terror groups. All of these groups recognize only a "One State Solution." And the one state they have in mind is certainly not Israel. In size, by the way, Israel is less than half as big as Lake Michigan.

The Palestinian leadership displays a barely concealed delight in the mass murder of Jewish noncombatants. For these leaders, the issue is not about territory, but about religion. The conflict between Israelis and Palestinians is only superficially about land. Much more profoundly, it is about God, and about Arab unwillingness to allow a Jewish state, any Jewish state, in an Islamic region. Under no circumstances are the Palestinians willing to allow Jewish sovereignty over Muslims. It -- the state of Israel, not just the "occupied territories" -- is a "cancer" on the World of Islam. Doctrinally, it must be excised.

What is Israel to do? There is no cycle of violence in the region, only a continuous and faith-driven murder of Jews on their own land. Left unrecognized and unchallenged, the jihad or holy war against Israel will also leave America unprepared for carefully planned attacks by waves of suicide bombers. Far better that we should all immediately understand the differences between terrorists and "militants," the deeply religious basis of Arab/Islamic terrorism against Israel and the United States, and the foolishness of endless appeasement.

[Luke90]

"Cycle of violence" doesn't imply that both sides are equally in the wrong.
It may sometimes be used in that way but it doesn't have to mean that.

[Toga]

"Cycle of violence" doesn't imply that both sides are equally in the wrong.
It may sometimes be used in that way but it doesn't have to mean that.

Wrong! It means exactly that!

[Luke90]

People use the same term "cycle of violence" when referring to domestic violence and abuse. Are they implying that it's just as much the fault of the person who's being abused? No, of course not.

[Toga]

People use the same term "cycle of violence" when referring to domestic violence and abuse. Are they implying that it's just as much the fault of the person who's being abused? No, of course not.

The terminology implies the moral equivalency or terrorism in response to "occupation".

The facts like:

-Arab states don't recognize Israel within any borders/lines,
-the Palestinian Arab doctrine to desroy the Jewish state and replace with an Arab entity
-120 years of terror against the Jews
-vilication of Israel in the Arab textbooks
-5 military campaigns against Israel
-economic blackmail of Israel
-cross-border terrorist actions

etc. etc.

are not relevant.

[Luke90]

The terminology implies the moral equivalency or terrorism in response to "occupation".

As I've said it is sometimes used by people who think that, but that isn't what the phrase itself always means.
It's a term which can be used to describe several very different views of the situation.

[KettleWhistle]

"Cycle of violence" doesn't imply that both sides are equally in the wrong.
It may sometimes be used in that way but it doesn't have to mean that.

First of all, that's how it is understood by many. The terminology is used to create a false sense of moral equivalency between terrorism and counter-terrorism. As the line in my signature puts it, it is akin to trying to equate the actions of an arsonist and a firefighter.

Futhermore, it creates a false impression that response to terrorism causes more terrorism. That is simply not true. There is no "cycle." There are consequtive terrorist actions, and there are reactions to those actions. Counterterrorism is not the cause of violence, but terrorism is.

[Luke90]

Cycle only implies that the violence is ongoing.
It can be and often is used in the way you're talking about, but I'm arguing that it doesn't have to be and can be used legitimately.

[Ariksan]

It means that action A leads to condition B leads to action C leads to condition D leads to action A leads to condition B leads to action C leads to condition D etc. A cycle of violence can be broken.

Therefore, using the term "cycle of violence" in the ME conflict implies that Israel - as one party in the alleged "cycle of violence" could end the cycle by not taking action C to create conditon D.

The error in using the term cylce of violence for the ME is that it is fundementaly wrong in this case. Israeli anti-terror meassures are in no way responsible for the condition or actions of the PA Arabs which exist because of well known influences like incitement, education to hate, brainwashing, plain anti-semitism, and personal power struggles.

Therefore, using the term "cycle of violence" in the ME conflict is an excuse for terror and a cover up for the real reason of the conflict and terrorism. Thus I wouldn't necesarily say it creates moral equivalency - I'd go even further and say that it is an attempt to justify murder and terror.

[KettleWhistle]

Cycle only implies that the violence is ongoing.
It can be and often is used in the way you're talking about, but I'm arguing that it doesn't have to be and can be used legitimately.

It doesn't have to be, but it is. And IMO cycle implies a mutual interrelation between the two opposing actions. That's the problem with the expression. Also, neither millitary or counter-terrorism operations anywhere else are reffered to as "violence."

[Luke90]

cycle implies a mutual interrelation between the two opposing actions.

So what about my example of the use of the term in domestic violence incidents?
If you google "cycle of violence" that's the main thing that comes up and it doesn't include any actions by the victim.

[Ariksan]

Luke, my girlfriend likes dogs a lot, she thinks they're beautiful animals. So if I tell her that I think she's a bitch how do you think would she react?

We can talk about semantics all day - fact is that "cycle of violence" in the context of international conflict implies that both parties respectively the stronger party involved in the "cycle of violence" are/is responsible and capabable to end the "cycle of violence". What it means in other contexts is absolutely irrelevant.

So back to my girlfriend - she would probably be offended. And it wouldn't matter if I explained that it was meant as a compliment because I thought she likes dogs...

[Leon]

So what about my example of the use of the term in domestic violence incidents?
If you google "cycle of violence" that's the main thing that comes up and it doesn't include any actions by the victim.

I dont know what the situation is with domestic voilence incidents. What I do know however is that in the context of the Middle East, the media at large constanty uses that to term to draw an equation between both sides - the Arab and Israel - asserting that the voilence between the two is one and the same and both are at fault.

That too however is misleading because as someone else pointed out, the Israeli side is almost always accussed of taking harsher measures and even "terrorism" or "state terrorism" and almost always blamed for the voilence - or starting/provoking/inflamming the "cycle of voilence"

[Sumud]

I can't say that I've seen where the media 'almost always' blames Israel for starting it. I had the impression it was closer to the opposite. Suicide bombings seem to get a lot of news coverage - negative coverage. Israeli actions seem to be frequently cast as responses to Palestinian terrorism or threats of it.

The cycle of violence thing doesn't cast blame. If you want to beleive that it does, well then you obviously will. I think it's mostly used to describe a situation that is no longer linked to an initial precipitating event. My impression is that it's used for precisly this reason - that journalists want to avoid being seen to be suggesting 'who started it'.

[Leon]

Suicide bombings seem to get a lot of news coverage - negative coverage.

Negative coverage would be a very good thing, but if it was truly negative than the very term "suicide" bombing wouldnt even be used to describe this act of mass murder. murderers who commit these acts of mass murder would not be called "commandos" "militants" or even worse "martyrs."

Israeli actions seem to be frequently cast as responses to Palestinian terrorism or threats of it.
The cycle of violence thing doesn't cast blame. If you want to beleive that it does, well then you obviously will. I think it's mostly used to describe a situation that is no longer linked to an initial precipitating event. My impression is that it's used for precisly this reason - that journalists want to avoid being seen to be suggesting 'who started it'.

From my perspective western journalists usually tend to give the impression that Israeli counter-terror actions are worse- because they "inflamme"
the situation and are apparently a direct cause for terrorism.