Dissident Voice
by Kim Petersen / October 23rd, 2010

First a given: there can be no resistance unless there is something to resist against. There can be no anti-occupation resistance if there is no occupation, and there can be no resistance against oppression if there is no oppression. It is a simple logic that eludes many people. That it eludes many people (and almost all of the corporate media) is demonstrable by noting the outcry whenever a resistance uses violence: Those evil, soulless terrorists harming other people — and they do it without reason. Well, there is a reason, although the corporate media refuses to divulge it. Occupation/ oppression is violent, and it gives rise to resistance. There would be no violence were it not for the violence of occupation and oppression. There is no chicken and egg here. It ls obvious that the sole target of vehemence should be the occupation/oppression that induces the resistance, for without the occupation/oppression and the violence that perpetuates it, there would be no violent resistance. Ergo, resistance (whether non-violent or violent) seeks to end violence by defeating an occupation/oppression.

Imagine that a serial rapist breaks into a home and a woman is violently attacked. She responds by pulling out a Smith and Wesson from her dresser and shooting the intruder. Is she now a terrorist? Was her violent resistance wrong? Evil? Illegitimate? Or should she have organized a non-violent resistance against her would-be rapist, such as a boycott of any stores that serve the rapist? Are there many people who would even contemplate such questions?

So why does this simple scenario get turned on its head when it comes to Palestinians and the Zionist Jews who serially violate the Palestinian people?

Read the rest of this article at Dissident Voice