mobiustrip44 writes:

"Should Anarchists Support Suicide Bombers?"

"I am an exceptionally active Jewish anarchist who once resided in Israel and currently has many relatives living there. Lately I've been getting really fed up with some of my anarchist friends when we're discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict because often, like Rachel Corrie, you can hear the restrained hero-worship of Palestinian suicide bombers beneath the subtext of their arguments. They wear kaffiyehs in solidarity, and scrawl "Israel out of Palestine" on bathroom walls, purportedly identifying with the Palestinian independence struggle, like this clown at the WTO demo in Cancun doing his best impression of a rock-tossing Palestinian teenager."Sure," they'll say, "I regret the loss of life." But to me, that sounds like, "Hey, some of my best friends are Jewish." Because, by the rationalle oft expressed by these individuals, the actions of suicide bombers are well-substantiated and justifiable, particularly in the revolutionary atmosphere of the radical anti-Israel movement. "Israel kills civillians too," they'll say, giving creedence to Reuter's use of "revenge bombers" as opposed to Fox's "homicide bombers." My contention, of course, is that the difference between Israel and Palestine is that Israel attacks military targets, regretably accepting collateral damage as a result. To Palestinian militants, however, there is no such thing as collateral damage: All Israeli civillians are valid targets.*

While my pro-Palestinian somehow find this understandable and acceptable (and yet somehow condemn Israel's collateral damage), I'd like to point to a precedent forged against this rationalle by one of the greatest anarchist thinkers of the 19th & 20th century—the father of anarcho-syndicalism—Rudolf Rocker.

The following is an excerpt from An Anarchist "Rabbi" - The Life and Teachings of Rudlof Rocker , by Mina Graur.

[O]n December 9, [1893, French anarchist] Auguste Vaillante hurled a bomb from the gallery into the full Chamber of Deputies.

Vaillant's case was ideal for the anarchists, since in many respects it supported their previous contentions regarding the roots of violence. His was the perfect example of the despairing man taking revenge for the unbearable living conditions inflicted upon him by the social order. Bred in poverty, and frequently changing jobs, Vaillant managed to acquire some education, slowly drifting towards anarchist circles. He emigrated to Argentina seeking his fortune, but failed and returned to Paris, where he tried in vain to find work with which to support his family. Deeply distressed by their misery and hopelessness, he decided to commit a symbolic act which would become "the cry of a whole class which demands its rights and will soon add acts to words." With this aim in mind, Vaillant manufactured a bomb out of a saucepan filled with nails and explosives. The bomb proved quite ineffective; several deputies were wounded, but none was killed. The effect of Vaillant's act however, went beyond a mere body count. His was an attack upon a symbol of authority, the core of the bourgeois governing system, and as such, the act itself became a symbol of defiance. As a consequence, Vaillant's act could not be ignored by the state. Nor could it be hoped that it would soon be forgotten. So, despite the fact that no one was killed, Vaillant was sentenced to death, the first time since the beginning of the nineteenth century that such a penalty was imposed on a person who did not actually kill anyone. Petitions for clemency were ignored, and at the highest instance, President Sadi Carnot refused to commute the sentence. Vaillant was beheaded on February 5, 1894, uttering what subsequently became the standard cry of anarchists on the gallows: "Long live Anarchy! My death shall be avenged!" Interestingly, Rudolf Rocker attended Vaillant's execution. Many years later, he confessed that it was still not very clear to him why he went. He blamed his young age, and rationalized in retrospect that this act might have been motivated by the fact that, "we, the young, were engulfed with a martyr's cult."

Vaillant's death was indeed very quickly avenged. A week after his execution, a bomb was hurled into Café Terminus at La Gare St. Lazare, killing one and wounding twenty. The perpetrator, Émile Henry, subsequently confessed responsiblity also for the November 8, 1892 bomb which ultimately exploded inside a police station. He declared that the act at the Café was meant to revenge Vaillant's death, adding matter-of-factly that his purpose had been to kill as many bourgeois as possible. A son of a famous Communard, Émile Henry was the most educated and well-off among the French terrorists of the era. Yet, his cold-blooded logic and soulless reasoning did not endear him to his fellow anarchists, who almost unanimously denounced his acts. The anarchists, who had mixed feelings about Ravachol and Vaillant, were horrified by Henry's explainations as to why one should not discriminate between the innocents and the guilty and why anarchists should fight the ruling class as an indivisible entity. His was the worst kind of "Propaganda by Deed." It was no longer an attack directed at the symbols of authority and repression, nor was it an outcry of distress. His acts were deliberate and indiscriminate attacks on innocent people whose only guilt was belonging, or being thought to belong, to a certain class. Henry's acts were perfect examples of what later became known as "unmotivated terror."

Octave Mirbeau expressed the opinion of every anarchist when he wrote that a "mortal enemy of anarchy could have acted no better than this Émile Henry when he threw his inexplicable bomb into the midst of peaceful and anonymous people." Rudolf Rocker himself admitted that neither he nor anyone else he was acquainted with could support or even understand Henry's acts. But Rocker's objections to indiscriminate violence went beyond his disapproval of Henry's personality or the damage it inflicted on the anarchist movement. Rocker objected to all acts of "unmotivated terror" on fundamental grounds. Every act of "unmotivated terror," even that resulting from a just wrath, had to be rejected, he maintained, since it punishes the guilty together with the innocent. Moreover, justifying such an act would require one to presuppose the existence of collective guilt or collective responsiblity, a concept that Rocker deeply disliked and thought utterly wrong. It was not sufficient, he claimed, to belong to a certain class to lose one's right to live.

Rocker was consistent on the subject of collective guilt and responsibility even when dealing with extremely contentious examples. During World War II he declared that a nation should not be held collectively responsible for its leaders' attrocities. Thus, he concluded, Germany as a nation was not responsible for the crimes committed by the Nazis. Collective responsibility was, according to Rudolf Rocker, an element derived from Fascist ideology. If one assumes, as the fascists did, that the individual exists solely for the benefit of the community and through it, then one is logically compelled to admit that the notion of collective responsibility is a valid concept. On the other hand, for anarchists, collective responsibility would be a valid notion only in a nation in which all individuals share common interests regardless of class barriers. For the time being, concluded Rocker, the real situation was far removed from this ideal, and thus anarchists must vehemently reject the concept of collective responsibility.

Thus the contention stands that the forebears of modern anarchist thought would likely have been adamantly opposed to Palestinian suicide bombing, because it presupposes that all Jews are guilty of inflicting oppression on Palestinians simply for being residents of Israel. This is glaringly evident in the divestment and boycott campaigns against Israel which go to such extremes as to suggest that simply permitting an Israeli student into your PhD program contributes to the occupation of Palestinian territory. This, as Rocker demonstrates, is a fallacy.

What is it about the modern anarchist movement, then, that differs, and makes such indiscriminate killing acceptable in the context of Israel & Palestine?

Yet again, my only suggestion can be the infiltration of antisemtism into the agenda of the New Left. As Rocker contends, "collective responsibility would be a valid notion only in a nation in which all individuals share common interests regardless of class barriers." If one were to take this as a substantiation for violence against Israeli civillians, it is likely out of acceptance of the age-old stereotype that "all Jews stick together," and that they are somehow unified in their hatred of Palestinians. As any Jew can tell you, however, this is simply not the case. Like the old saying goes, "Two Jews, three opinions."

Thus I find myself more in agreeance with the great anarchist thinkers who have been down this road before and have themselves drawn wise conclusions from their experience, as opposed to youthful modern anarchists who romanticize violent revolution and bring themselves to condone even the most reprehensible actions and attrocities, such as suicide bombings.

Intentionally killing innocent civillians is wrong. Period. It was unjustifiable then, and it's unjustifiable now. Standing in solidarity with those who avow such an approach serves only to destroy the good name of anarchism, rather than embolden it.

*Please do not harp on this statement as a point of argument--it is not the focus of my remarks."