The evolving definition of 'peace activist' Chicago Tribune, April 3, 2002 According to press reports, about 40 "international peace activists" recently crossed Israeli lines in order to visit the besieged Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat in his Ramallah compound. Another five "Western peace activists," in the company of a Palestinian cameraman, were slightly injured in the village of Beit Jala, under circumstances that still are unclear. Here is my question: What makes these people peace activists? Wouldn't it be more accurate to call them pro-Palestinian or activists or maybe Arafat supporters? Whatever you think of the Europeans and Americans who have rushed to the towns of the West Bank, you have to admit that they showed no similar activism in defense of the Israelis who were being blown up on buses, in cafes and at a Passover seder. Wouldn't peace activists be equally concerned about ending the suicide bombings that led to Israel's current military operations? But of course, these people have not really come to the Middle East as peace activists . In fact, they are partisan supporters of the Palestinian cause. That is certainly their right. Indeed, it is even a bit admirable that they have been willing to enter the danger zone--although only in the presence of klieg lights and television cameras. Then again, that tactic would be consistent with the objective of creating anti-Israel publicity, rather than the nobler goal of bringing a mutual end to hostilities. Here is a simple test for the sincerity of self-proclaimed peace activists. In addition to visiting Arafat and confronting Israeli troops, how about spending some time in cafes, movie theaters and shopping malls in Israel? A few hundred European peace activists, spread throughout markets, bus stops and hotels might actually discourage further suicide bombings. The surest way to encourage negotiations would be to bring about the sustained period of quiet that Ariel Sharon has insisted upon. And the only way for outsiders to do that would be to put their bodies on the line, along with ordinary Israelis, so that normal life could be restored. Of course, simply sitting in a Jerusalem, Haifa or Tel Aviv restaurant isn't as glamorous as wearing a flak jacket in the West Bank, and it won't draw the attention of CNN or Al Jazeera. It would also be a whole lot more dangerous than standing toe to toe with Israeli troops. Alas, Hamas and Islamic jihad just aren't very squeamish when it comes to taking the lives of innocent civilians. Meanwhile, in the West Bank city of Tulkarem, it is reported that "Palestinian militants shot and killed at least seven Palestinians suspected of collaborating with Israel." The "militants" apparently burst into a Palestinian security office and shot seven men being held for questioning. Now, is it possible that the seven accused "collaborators" might actually have been, well, peace activists, working with the Israelis to put an end to suicide bombings? I guess we'll never know, since they were murdered in cold blood without trial, without headlines and without any European cameramen to record their fate. By Steven Lubet. Steven Lubet is a law professor at Northwestern University © Chicago Tribune, April 3, 2002 |
|