Who Retaliates against Whom in the Arab-Israeli Conflict? We have gotten accustomed in this country (US, in case you are wondering) to media references to all Israeli acts of violence and terrorism as "retaliation." That of course is not accidental, and is intended to give legitimacy to Israeli killing and bombings. Even the most offensive army in the world (Israel's) is called "Israeli Defense Forces." The Army of apartheid-era South Africa--which was very close to the Israeli army--was also called "South African Defense Forces." No irony there either. So when the word "retaliation" is used, the Palestinians become the culprits and murderers, and the Israelis the victims (victims who are "entitled" to use violence in "retaliation"--of course, according to this (il)logic. I thought about all that when I read this sad story. Here was this young Palestinian man from the Yarmuk refugee camp who wanted to avenge the death of his parents by Israeli bombings in 1982 in Lebanon, and he wanted to kidnap an Israeli soldier. HE was retaliating. So in that sense, Palestinian violence is retaliation for the original sin of Zionist violence. Was the creation of Israel--for the Palestinians--not a massive act of violence in itself?