December 14, 2005

The Absurdity of the “Cycle of Violence” Argument

We are all familiar with the famous "cycle of violence" argument, which says that Israel is wrong to take military action against terrorists, as that leads to a "cycle of violence." The absurdity of these arguments is that nobody uses them to criticize the terrorists.

It would be far more reasonable to say that the "cycle of violence" would end if the terrorists would stop killing women and children via homicide bombing.

This week we have the President of Iran publicly calling for Israel to be nuked, and for the first time, a prominent Iranian cleric is calling for the same thing:

Ruling Iranian cleric Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani declared Friday that the Muslim world could survive a nuclear exchange with Israel - while accomplishing the goal of obliterating the Jewish state.

"[The] application of an atomic bomb would not leave anything in Israel - but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world," Hashemi-Rafsanjani said, in quotes picked up by the Iran Press Service.

"If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in possession, the strategy of colonialism would face a stalemate," he posited.

Analysts told IPS that Mr. Hashemi-Rafsanjani’s speech, delivered at a Tehran prayer service, was the first time that a prominent Islamic leader openly suggested a nuclear attack against the Israel.

Meanwhile, the U.N. says that Iran is very close to having nukes:

Last week, United Nations nuclear watchdog Mohammed ElBaradei said Iran would be able to produce nuclear weapons in a matter of months.

It's odd that the "cycle of violence" argument is never used on terrorists or on people such as the President of Iran who calls, in this case, for a genocidal destruction of a nation.

In my opinion the real meaning of the "cycle of violence" argument is that Israel is to be criticized for responding in such a relatively mild manner, that the violence is permitted to continue.