Quantification of Suffering

Tonight was the first night that I chose to watch the horrifying images on the news of the elementary school in Russia that was taken over by terrorists. I had avoided watching them over the past few days. I didn't want to see. But now that I have seen them, I've been thinking about a principle. That principle is about suffering and basically what I've come to understand is that all who suffer do not suffer equally. I believe that suffering can be quantified.

Terrorism is so complicated and yet so simple. It is an act which is completely morally deplorable. At the same time, it is entirely predictable. It arises in similar circumstances everywhere and if you create the situations where terrorism seems to prosper, you can provoke it. As morally reprehensible as terrorism is, it is a natural human response to oppression. It's tears the soul apart to think about terrorism because we so justifiably hate what terrorists do, but if we have any humanity at all we must also sympathize with the circumstances that caused them to resort to terrorism in the first place.

But back to the quantification of suffering. I believe that the type of terrorism that occurred in Russia, the hostage taking at an elementary school and the hundreds of killings that followed, is worse than the type of terrorism that occurred in the United States on Sept. 11, 2001. Whether I like it or not, intent matters. This incident made that clear to me. The intent to kill civilians is worse to me than the knowledge that actions will kill civilians. The intent to kill children is worse to me than the intent to kill adults (even civilians). I can't explain exactly why I believe that, but I believe it to be true.

I'm also having somewhat of a shift in the winds about how I think about the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians. Specifically, how the power differential manifests itself. Israel clearly has far superior firepower. The Israeli army can (and does) invade the occupied territories at will to demolish homes and kill "militants" (among others). This is a certain kind of power. I'm not sure if I believe any longer that either side is equally likely to have the power to end the conflict. The ideal of a single-state constitutional democracy is a long way off, and I don't think that the Israelis are the most likely to take actions that will end the conflict.

They could certainly take actions, but those actions might not necessarily lead to the end of violent resistance. Obviously, corruption is rampant in the Palestinian leadership and the Palestinian people are suffering for it. As a result, the Israeli people suffer as well.

Israel should do whatever is necessary to protect its citizens defensively and no more. However, I know that it is unlikely to cease illegal settlement expansion and it will not cease targeted killings and it will not cease the many forms of collective punishment. They have a great fear of losing face and appearing weak, and while none of their aggressive settlement expansions or military incursions are justified, we mustn't forget that they have real enemies in the world.

So what can the Palestinians do? Israel has a legitimate interest in appearing strong. For all of his excuse-making, Robert MacNamera had a good point in "The Fog of War" when he explained how the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. got out of the Cuban missile crisis -- they found a way in which everyone could save face and look like a winner.

So what about massive, aggressive non-violent resistance. If a leader could adequately organize that (and a recent story in alJazeera seems to indicate that there is widespread support for it) might it work? The protesters would appear strong and the initial IDF response would undoubtedly be too strong. People would likely be killed. But I think that an innocent martyr is more useful than a criminal one. In this way, I think that both sides could look and feel strong, and the Palestinians could get the things they need, and the Israeli army could back off displaying the mercy of a wise and strong nation.

The problem, of course, is the high-level corruption. Arafat has no self-interest in creating peace. Neither do the leaders of the terrorist brigades, they don't really want the things they use as rhetoric to enrage crowds -- they want personal power. Same with Sharon. And as it is wherever terrorism occurs, the people who pay the price will not be the ones responsible.

It's easy to sit here and be academic about these sorts of situtions. To be "evenhanded" in the obscene way that the U.S. media is "evenhanded" -- where every Palestinian suffers equally to every Israeli and nothing is really anyone's fault. I'm through with that. I'd rather be wrong and have someone teach me something new by way of correcting me than sit here comfortably in the middle.