Does Israel Have A Right To Assassinate Leaders Of The Palestinian Intifadeh?

YES

By Amos Oz

In wars throughout history armies do kill enemy soldiers. This is an unfortunate but universal fact of life. Was Abu Ali Mustafa an enemy soldier or just a political or an ideological figure? I don't know. I think that in this horrible battle Israel is entitled to defend itself, though not by hurting or killing innocent civilians, not by killing politicians, ideologists or even dreadful inciters and agitators. With a heavy heart, I justify the killing of Palestinian fighters, uniformed or not, but of no one else. The term assassination is a very misleading one. Killing unarmed civilians is assassination; killing fighting Palestinians or active terrorists is self-defense, and I justify it.

The criticism of what Israel is doing is too comprehensive and undiscriminating, as criticism often is. Israel deserves very serious criticism when it kills civilians. Israel does not deserve criticism when in a state of war it kills fighting enemies. In principle, when a country is attacked, it can choose among three ways: it can indiscriminately kill the "others," it can turn its other cheek to its enemies, or it can fight back against those who carry weapons. I prefer not to fight at all, but if there is a war I definitely prefer the last way.

I have always emphasized that I am a peacenik, not a pacifist. I never suggested that if Palestinians seriously want to kill the Jews, we should let them do it. I always suggested that the Palestinians deserve an independent state of Palestine in the West Bank and Gaza. As things stand now, I have the impression that they want more than that. I do not accept the idea that the universal right of self-defense does not apply to Israel. If the Palestinians only want an independent state in the West Bank and Gaza, I would grant them such a state tomorrow. Last summer at Camp David, Israel and Palestine were just a few inches away from a two-state solution. I think a two-state solution is going to materialize sooner or later. That's why I regard this war as insane: everybody knows what the result will be.

I disagree with my closest friends on where to draw the line, and sometimes I disagree with myself. But you can't get two Israelis to agree with each other; it's difficult to get one to agree with himself. The conflict is not a black-and-white issue. Americans may be educated to conceive of black-and-white conflicts; they demand to know right away who are the good guys and who are the bad guys. The clash between Israeli Jew and Palestinian Arab is essentially a tragic clash between right and right, between one very powerful, convincing cause and another no less genuine, no less powerful cause. Hence the need to resolve it in a compromise. I know the word compromise has a dreadful reputation in many circles in America. It's a euphemism for dishonesty or opportunism. Not so in my vocabulary. For me, the word is synonymous with the word life, and the opposite of compromise is fanaticism and death.

Novelist Amos Oz is a prominent figure in the country's peace movement. He is the author of a collection of essays, Israel, Palestine and Peace, and of novels, including The Same Sea

NO

By David Grossman