The cycle of violence

December 20th, 2007 by yaman | Posted in Comment |

One of my favorite attitudes expressed in political discussions regarding Palestine is the moderately liberal approach that the central issue regarding Palestine is that the “cycle of violence” must be stopped. This argument is often invoked when somebody is approaching the issue with the intent of resolving it without knowing anything about it. Anybody who might list other political reasons is met with the accusation that they are “part of the problem” and that their priority should be “stopping the cycle.” Usually, these people are extremely frustrated that the “cycle” of “senseless” violence continues despite their noble efforts to end it, leaving them with a self-vindicating sense of helplessness and powerlessness.

It might appear here that the cycle of violence itself is what induces these serious psychological issues in the failed messiahs in question. Moderately liberal people with certain sensibilities about violence never fail to fall victim to this complex at some point. But what is often lost here is that it is not a “cycle of violence” on the ground that renders their efforts ineffectual. Instead, it is the anti-”cycle of violence” mentality itself which induces the psychological trauma of hopelessness. It is not the situation on the ground which produces this politically impotent agent, but rather the attitude itself. In that sense, opposing the cycle of violence is a fascinating strategy that guarantees defeat for itself.

There are at least three assumptions or implications related to the approach of those concerned with ending the “cycle of violence” and all of them are easily refutable and will expose why the approach is inevitably a failure.

The first assumption is that violence is irrational. A “cycle of violence” is frustrating precisely because it is thought to be senseless, pointless, unproductive, inexplicable, incomprehensible, etc. The truth is that violence in this type of confrontation is almost always rational in that it is calculated for a particular goal. It can either be geared towards terrorizing a population (a method which has history much earlier than the French Terror) by attacking indiscriminately, or towards achieving specific goals by targeting specific military or political structures or personnel. An assassination, for example, is not senseless. Neither is an attack on a military checkpoint. They make sense. That is not to say that they are right or justified, only that they make sense according to somebody’s political logic.

The second implication (and also assumption) is that there is nothing else to the thing-happening in Palestine but violence. That is, the task before us today is simply to put together a ceasefire, to bring parties to the table and to have them talk to one another. Because of this assumption, it is impossible to understand the political agendas and motivations of any of the actors in Palestine and Israel. People who adopt this view cannot recognize any political goals as legitimate. The fact that millions of Palestinians are either in the diaspora or living in refugee camps, even in Gaza and the West Bank, carries little weight. The aspirations of these people to leave the refugee camps is denied because they should “look forward” and do what they can to “stop the violence.” In other words, certain rights should be abandoned for the sake of taking the “moral high ground” and ending the violence. Rights, an operative innovation of the liberal tradition, ironically are not important here. Neither is the reality that violence is not actually that definitive of the situation in Palestine and Israel. Over the past century, there have been intense periods of violence, as well as prolonged periods of relative peace. It has rarely if ever been the case that all encounters during a specific time period between opposing actors have been violent.

The third implication is that the elimination of violence is the only legitimate political goal in the world or, at the very least, that it is the most important political goal in the world. It is impossible in this view to consider politics in light of violence–the fact that violence is a political tool is overlooked. With that, as well (and this is related to the first assumption), is ignored the obvious implication that if violence is a political tool, it must be a tool of something: that something is what defines the real political battle which should gather the attention of the well-intentioned observer-messiahs. The important thing about this understanding is that the context of the political battle is ignored in the fight to end the cycle of violence, but that references to that political battle are deemed to be offensive in and of themselves precisely because it is believed that the mere acknowledgment of that political battle is productive of violence. The reference rather than the referent is violent. This third implication should not be taken too seriously, however, because it is an implication which never resonates with the one who believes in the cycle of violence; after all, these people often justify violence in other scenarios while projecting their selectively pacifist views onto others inconsistently.

Those who believe in the “cycle of violence” are neither exclusively supporters of the Israeli apartheid framework, nor supporters of the Palestine 2-state framework. They are the moderately liberal elements of all of these groups, as well as other disinterested and unattached groups which are thought to be neutral. My point is that this approach, while it appears to be well-intentioned and noble, is at best fruitless and at worst dangerously neglectful. The dis-empowering effects that are engendered by the hopelessness that this approach produces do not stem from the realities of the world, but rather from the approach itself, which sets itself up to get wrapped up in itself. The goal of ending the cycle of violence can never be met because it treats violence as a cause of a problem, rather than an effect of one. In mocking this mission of ending the cycle of violence, however, I have actually suggested a more viable way to end the violence: to ignore it, and to focus instead on the political encounter.

Tags: israel, palestine, public discourse