I feel, given the news, as though I should write something about the death of Yasser Arafat. The saga has been playing out all week. The thing is I never quite feel like I know enough about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to comment on it without leaving something out. Still I believe there's reason for Americans to think twice before simply dismissing Arafat as a "terrorist." I'm just not sure how to say why. Fortunately, someone else has already said it. And said it very well, I might add.
We would like to believe that no sane American would ever willingly pull the trigger against the skull of an innocent, but just one century ago lynchings were common in our country. The fruit of our prosperity was purchased by the toil of the ancestors of those black men and women who live amongst us. Children in Africa who live in crushing poverty mined the chalice we drink from at the communion rail. We awaken each morning enraged by the headlines, horrified by the bombings in Baghdad, and we rightly and loudly condemn those who engage in them. But the most peace loving among us speak of Napoleon and Caesar without a shudder. And we know and are taught that we did not win our independence by having a chat with George III. We raised armies and killed people. History objectifies death, but the scream of a single condemned person is unforgettable.We sleep well.
The questions that haunt us now are precisely those that we refuse to formulate: can terrorism be defeated by force of arms? Are terrorists simply sick and evil people who enjoy violence, who bathe in the anguish of others? Do those who oppose us use terrorism because they have no values, no religion, no point of view? Do terrorists hate democracy?
I wish more people asked themselves these questions.
Comments