SARTRE and terrorism - A philosophical question?

Question

"Following the Munich massacre in which eleven Israeli Olympians were killed by the Palestinian organization Black September in Munich 1972, Sartre said terrorism "is a terrible weapon but the oppressed poor have no others." Sartre also found it "perfectly scandalous that the Munich attack should be judged by the French press and a section of public opinion as an intolerable scandal."

Keep in mind that Palestinians have no rights to enter the Olympic Games, Soccer tournaments, film/art festivals etc. since their country is not on the map.

Agree or disagree? Why?

As always, be fair, show some proof, have a logical argument, and be nice.
;-)

So far everyone makes such good points; it's going to be difficult picking a best answer...

I see the conflict as a political one - one side wants the land back, while the other is afraid to give it back. One side wants to be back on the map (as it was before 1948) and the rest of the world is deaf to this request. I am aware of the 3 monotheistic religions, but I think people use them as a pretext. It troubles me that in mainstream media no one mentions that some Palestinians are Christians (Orthodox, like the Greeks). If we took that into consideration, we'd have to admit that certain individuals who claim to blow things up in the name of Islam (which is a pretext since the Koran does not condone suicide, for instance) do not represent all Palestinians. Of course, my goal is to see peace, not war. In addition, anyone who uses religion to reason any bad action - to me - shows ignorance.

From a psychological perspective, I think the individuals who do these horrible things are ill - mentally. In order to stop people from blowing themselves up, I think, one must treat them - as children. After reading various Doctors Without Borders articles I realized that Palestinian children grow up in terrible conditions. Those dire conditions are what make angry grown ups who seek revenge. Of course, I do not agree with violent actions, but I am beginning to understand why they do this. The same principle as with any abuser applies. When one is abused as a child, he has high risk to turn into an abuser. If only they had the proper medical care, we may have a chance at peace.

If they could attain that peace both Israelis and Palestinians could thrive and become quite rich as countries as their number one source of income could be tourism (holy sites for all 3 religions!!!). I'm thinking, of course, of the Vatican as an example.

That's just my view on it, of course.

Answer 1

Conflict in Palestina is a very complicated issue, because beliefs (religions) and race also play important roles in that prolonged conflict. And up to now, there is no sign that both sides will come to an agreement. It is difficult to see who is right and who is wrong.

However, terrorism is never a desired way to achieve our goal, how noble our goal is. Violence creates other violence, and it will become a chain reaction. All sides, USA, Israel, and Palestina, should show good intention to live in peace for common welfare.

Answer 2

I agree with what Sartre said about the oppressed having no other option. How can a people, without a state, hope to fight a traditional war against the opposition? Guerilla tactics may, but they would take time, and the area you are fighting for would become more devastated. (EX: Vietnam). Or....you might lose anyway and get crushed even worse (EX: Jews vs Rome). So I can understand how terrorism acta as a force multiplier. And in today's world, political repercussions of conflict, more than the battles themselves, are the decisive force in determining the outcome.... again, Vietnam, win the battle lose the war. Terrorists strike at civilians, because they are easier targets and because it is the best way to push a politcal agenda. A civilian only wants safety, terrorists want the civilianto give in to their demands in exchange for safety, and this is likely an effective tool.

As for the right or wrong.... I say that terrorism is horrible and shows a complete lack of respect on the part of the perpetrator. In my opinion, terrorism seems like it should backfire every time, and sometimes it does. It enrages me that people would attack civilians. How can they expect to be granted rights of their own, and to be seen as a fair and legitimate player on the world stage using such tactics? It is ruthless, knowing they will sink to that extreme, a country formed by terrorism could never be trusted in any dealing. And furhtermore, after a success, it seems more likely to use it again just because it is easier and more effective than other methods.

Answer 3

If they oppressed poor are ready to accepted the consequences of their action, then i have nothing against whatever weapons they might use.

But a majority is paying for actions of a minority, then it is not terrorism but dictatorship and i believe Sartre was against imposing the consequences of you're action to others.

Answer 4

Do not forget that we may not remember who came first in 100 meter sprint or won the marathon. But we will always remember that so and so created panic and havoc during the Olympics. That was , exactly , the intention of the perpetrators of that crime.

The West conveniently wants to seggregate Politics and Fun ( games). The oppressed cannot think like them. They have to show their strength. There is no right or wrong in any of these. Both sides will claim their action to be right .

Answer 5

"Sartre said terrorism "is a terrible weapon but the oppressed poor have no others."

The oppressed poor should be directing their 'terrorism' towards their oppesssors, not innocent people.

Answer 6

thats how our world works, i dont really understand how the kurds and palestinians govern themselves yet we still dont apporve of their country, its also the fact that no one is willing to give them land... but the palestinians cant enter the olympic games because we wont give them a country... hmm, i say they should be able to enter themselves in, but thats has to do with the olympic rules and what not. they should be able to do things of that sort until they start agreeing that the word "israel" exists, and obviously, the step afterwards