Report finds Palestinians are ‘Normal’
February 25, 2008
Who would have thought? A team of researchers from Canada have found that Palestinian suicide bombers are not psychologically unstable. Their study showed that the bombers are often motivated by personal venegence over religious zeal and that the Israel Palestine conflict is therefore not a religious conflict at its core – its primarily a territorial dispute. Their findings act as further argument against Western States copying Israel’s “counter terror” methods as they discovered that Israeli security motivated State repression often is a driver for terrorism rather than the cure.
TORONTO – In an extensive study of Palestinian suicide bombings, three University of Toronto researchers have concluded that the bombers were not psychologically unstable and were often motivated by personal vengeance, not religious zeal.
The study was carried out by political sociologist Robert Brym, with the assistance of two Ph.d students, Palestinian Bader Araj and Israeli Yael Maoz-Shai.
Writing in the academic journal Social Forces, Brym noted, “The organizers of suicide attacks don’t want to jeopardize their missions by recruiting unreliable people. It may be that some psychologically unstable people want to become suicide bombers, but insurgent organizations strongly prefer their cannons fixed.”
He also found that the suicide bombers did not experience extraordinary high levels of economic deprivation.
Furthermore, in his study published in Contexts, Brym concluded that a majority of bombers, like Palestinian female lawyer, Hanadi Tayseer Jaradat, 29, who killed 21 civilians in a 2003 bombing at Maxim restaurant in Haifa, were “motivated by the desire for revenge and retaliation.”
Jaradat acted to avenge the killings of her brother, an Islamic Jihad militant, and cousin by Israeli security forces.
Brym concluded, “In its origins and at its core, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not religiously inspired, and suicide bombing, despite its frequent religious trappings, is fundamentally the expression of a territorial dispute.” Brym and Araj identified the organizational affiliation of 133 out of 138 suicide bombers between September 2000 and July 2005. Sixty-four per cent were affiliated with Islamic fundamentalists groups such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad, while the rest were aligned with secular groups such as Fatah.
In analyzing data pertaining to Israeli counterterrorist operations, Brym said “we do know that of the nearly 600 suicide missions launched in Israel and its occupied territories between 2000 and 2005, fewer than 25 percent succeeded in reaching their target. Israeli counterterrorist efforts thwarted three-quarters of them using violent means.”
However, his study found that harsh repression can intensify bombings and prompt bombers to devise more lethal methods to achieve their aims.
“In general, severe repression can work for a while, but a sufficiently determined mass opposition will always be able to design new tactics to surmount new obstacles. One kind of ‘success,’ usually breeds another kind of ‘failure’ if the motivation of insurgents is high.” In an interview, Brym said: “I’m no fan of Hamas, but I believe that Israel and Hamas at some point have to sit and negotiate.”
In a paper to be published in Studies in Conflict on Terrorism this year, Araj concludes that harsh state repression “should not be perceived only as a reaction to suicide bombing” but “often precedes and is a major cause of suicide bombing.”
This also explains the sudden suidcide bombing “explosion” in Pakistan. a relegious zealot wouldn’t go out and kill his co-relegious people and dream of paradize..these bombers are killing fellow citizens to avenge the killings of their families carried out by Pakistani military forces on the behest of their western bosses
At least the Palestinians bombers kill themselves in the process, presumably they wouldn’t be able to cope with the the blood of civilians on their conscience for the rest of their life.
Israelis on the other hand can drop one ton bombs on homes, schools, orphanages and walk away feeling like heroes. Maybe they are the ones who need to be psychologically evaluated.
Very true!
This research is a bit superfluous. It was always highly suspect to adopt a “they kill us, therefor they must be crazy” approach. What’s so great about you, that it requires a crazy person to do what he did?
You see the same reflexes of denial in the 9/11 approach.
“They killed 3000 of us, while we are the shining examples humanitarian behaviour IN THE WORLD … therefor the 9/11 bombers must be crazy”
Anyway, it’s nice to see this confirmed by actual research.
The other parts of the research are too, very useful and new.
Besides, even the perfidious Fox TV glorified suicide bombers in an episode of “Battlestar Galactica”. Can’t go very wrong from there.
“Israelis on the other hand can drop one ton bombs on homes, schools, orphanages and walk away feeling like heroes. Maybe they are the ones who need to be psychologically evaluated.”
Yeah, I was wondering if readers might be able to direct me towards any research or literature that examines the pervasive Zionist psyche that still seems intrinsic to Israeli society. Does the general public debate or even contemplate a future Israel, post Zionism?
the Israeli “left” are in a constant state of ineffective collaspe because they simply cannot countenance anything that changes “the Jewish character of Israel” , which simply means they reject point blank the Right of Return , which then simply means they are beholden to a colonial supporting doctrine, which makes then , at heart , soft colonialists rather than social justice leftists.
Uri Avnery is the most striking example of a person with “sound” character on so many issues , running aground on the shipwrecked shores of preserving the “character” of Israel and trying to profer it as a sound leftist solution.
“the Israeli “left” are in a constant state of ineffective collaspe because they simply cannot countenance anything that changes “the Jewish character of Israel” , which simply means they reject point blank the Right of Return..”
I’m assuming that preserving the “Jewish character of Israel” encompasses more than just a Jewish demographic majority, because how likely is it that if the Palestinians were to renounce the right of return this would then prompt renewed negotiations for a settlement?
Presumably, leftists would not support colonial pursuits and Apartheid regimes elsewhere. In this instance, is it primarily because Jews are deemed a ‘special case’ and a vulnerable group?
Yes.
There are a lot of Israeli leftists who have a good track record on civil rights the world over ,BUT that concern stops at the very borders of Palestine.
Human Rights only work if they are Universally applied and there are no “nations” that slip through the net.
One has to remember that the history of the left has not been a particularly tidy one concerning colonies.From the views of H.G.Wells to Marx to Post war French leftism the attitude to colonies has been at best ambivalent and , at worst , imperialistic.the notion that the Left are anti-imperialist simply does not stand up.This is usually clouded over by labelling some of the great movements and leaders of South America and the Islamic world as “leftists” when the persons and leaders themselves would describe themselves as National self-deterministic liberation movements.
The problem with the demographics is that the Palestinians already in Israel will overtake the Jewish population in a few decades time , yet alone the Right of Return ones returning.This is why we have to be doubly opposed to the 2 state solution as it is now being offered up by the ultra right zionists that want to displace the “excess” population of Israeli Arabs into some west bank canton , effectively making the 2 state solution a legitimate cover for a second ethnic cleansing to add to 1948.
To their credit the Palestinians have not , and hopefully never will give up the unalienable right of return.
Which brings us finally to the original point which is , despite how they describe themselves , the Israeli left must be seen as “queasy” colonialists rather than torn-in two- bona fide Leftists.
“This is why we have to be doubly opposed to the 2 state solution as it is now being offered up by the ultra right zionists that want to displace the “excess” population of Israeli Arabs into some west bank canton, effectively making the 2 state solution a legitimate cover for a second ethnic cleansing to add to 1948.”
R.S, I wanted to ask you about this point because I find the one vs two state debate really confusing.
As I am sure you are aware, Normon Finkelstein has argued and I’m kinda paraphrasing here, that before there can be a single state in Palestine with equal rights for Arabs and Jews, Israel would have to undergo such radical changes that you are basically writing off the lives of this generation of Palestininans and the next.
What’s your thoughts about this, please?
At present the lives of several generations of Palestinians have already been wriiten off and the sacrifice continues.
The history of the 2 state solution has gone a siesmic shift in the last 40 years.At first it was proposed by the PLO as a solution from the early 70s until sept 2000.
It was utterly rejected by expansionist Israel for the very reasons that even the PLO could never yield too , namely the rejection of the unalienable right of return.Whilst the Palestinians have no withdrawn the 2 state solution , now the Israeli right has made it alive again as the only viable medium to long term solution to the demographic “timebomb”.This solution involves the “forced” rather than “negiotiated” drawing of the borders of Palestine by Israel themselves ( no Jerusalem ; truncated dependent non-continious state) onto which Israel can expell any spare unwanted Palestinians.
Therefore , though it has the same name ( 2 state solution) the concept as invisioned by the early PLO , and as it is now blue eyed vision of the zionists could not be more different in purpose and goals.
This is why Finkelsteins and Avernys support for the 2 state solution as of today is them standing shoulder to shoulder with a brazen colonial project looking to justify a new round of legitimised ethnic cleansing , and as a monumental bonus , getting Abbas to forever sign away the inalienable Right of return to make the whole process permanent.
This is what the 2 state solution means today.And why it is galling for Finkelstein of all People to be proffering it as if it is a goer.And gaza is where the “growing” pains of the right to have a say in their future are being inacted.
therefore the choice is not really whether ones prefers the 1 or 2 state solution , but rather that the 1 state solution is the only show in town , the rest are differing hues of colonialism.
The only light of hope is that only Israelis seem to complain that things will take a generation or two.The Palestinians have suffered for many generations and still make sacrifices to get their rights with great spirit.
R.S, I’m truly sorry to burden you with my ignorance. Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions so thoroughly, particularly when my replies seem childish in return. I just want to ask you about one last thing and it seems equally juvenile but I still feel compelled to ask in an effort to resolve any lingering doubt that I might have.
Noam Chomsky has argued that despite the desirability of a one state, it is “unrealistic” because there has been no significant proposal for it from any Israeli or Palestinian group, opposition to it within Israel is virtually universal and there’s no meaningful support for it from the International community.
Since Israel (and the US) are unwilling to negotiate a viable two state settlement, the possibility of a one state settlement seems even more remote. Given the general apathy towards the Palestinians by the International community and Israel’s willingness to continue with their genocidal policies.. how do you personally envisage a one state solution being realised given Israel’s obvious militaristic superiority.
Again, thank you for sharing your knowledge with me.
All the best.
The mandate for the one state solution was given by the Palestinian People when they overwhelmingly voted for Hamas.Therefore to destroy the one state solution Israel must either destroy Hamas as an entity or the Palestinians as a People.( Namely a military final solution to a political problem).
The 2006 defeat to Hizbollah was the first time zionism failed to deliver a military victory , which was a more serious defeat than one can imagine because a successful war for the zionists would have given a second wind to the neo-con dream , but , instead resulted in a back-tracking of the belligerent dream of an invasion of upto 40 countries one after the other.
The Palestinians , not for the first time , are going to have to face down another final solution from the zionists like they have done many times before whilst the rest of Humanity catches up to their spiritual and physical fortitude.
As their spokesmen have suggested simply to be around the next day and prove they cant be occupied forever is tantamount as a victory to them.
On the margins , all we can do is to give the Palestinians and their unalienable aspirations full support and solidarity and not the “qualified” support that the Left have been giving since they realised that an athiestic weimar style utopia is not what the Palestinians envision for themselves.
I don’t know what you mean by a “weimar style utopia” but interpret it to mean a secular, liberal democracy.
Your analysis is extremely sobering in light of the current incursion into Gaza.
By Weimar style i mean that like the german state it would be an unviable entity from the outset in that it would not be allowed to develop internally and would be entirely dependent on the goodwill of surrounding states for its air;sea and land points of access , namely strangled to the point of unworkable and therefore lasting no more than a couple of decades like the fate of the Weimar republic.
Thank you for the clarification. If I have understood correctly then the only reason I can think that leftists would endorse this limited or faux decolonisation is essentially because they are either unable to dispel their own inherently racist fears or reconcile their colonial aspirations with the right of Palestinian self determination.
Yes.
You have just nailed it in one sentence.
You have graduated from your “where is the Israeli Left when you most need them , and how come they always fall into line at times of war” class with flying colours.
hehe.. I had a good teacher!
Thank you.