I was somehow anticipating an event like this to occur: someone setting themselves on fire, following the deep-rooted and extreme tradition of self-sacrifice for political protest.
It is conceivable that, with things deteriorating every day and facing a lack of options against the fierce and united world powers, someone may reach a point where they can no longer bear witness to the ongoing genocide against what remains of the two-and-a-half million Gazans.
This form of protest is not new in the face of injustice, even if the direct impact may not be on the protesters.
On June 11, 1963, during the Buddhist crisis in Vietnam, the monk Thich Quang Duc silently and courageously set himself ablaze in protest against the persecution of Buddhists by the government. The iconic image and video recording of this historical moment eventually led to reforms in favour of the Buddhists.
This might be one of the earliest (if not the very first) recorded instances in contemporary history of self-sacrifice for political protest.
Both Buddhism and Christianity have traditions that value sacrifices. A well-known example is the Hindu widows joining the funeral pyres of their husbands as a sign of loyalty.
While self-sacrifice in combat, such as in suicide missions, aims (or is intended to aim) for a military victory, political protest through self-immolation does not inherently lead to a victory but rather seeks to provoke a response; whether for immediate change or a more gradual impact.
However, it is also a risky gamble, as it may not result in any change at all, and in some cases, the identities of those who have self-immolated remain unknown, with their motives only speculated through the location of the act.
This demonstrates that self-sacrifice as a form of protest differs from demonstrations aimed at exerting pressure on authorities, serving primarily as a declaration of a resolute stance not easily reversed.
The documentary film 'Tell Me Lies' (1968) captures reactions to the Vietnam War, following the publishing of a photograph in a magazine showing a child disfigured by napalm shells.
The film also recounts the story of American anti-war activist Norman R Morrison, who set himself on fire in front of the Pentagon in protest against the American war in Vietnam in November 1965.
American Air Force pilot Aaron Bushnell, who set himself on fire in front of the Israeli Embassy in the US capital, was not the first to protest this way since the start of the war on Gaza. An unidentified individual did the same in front of the Israeli consulate in Atlanta last December.
Bushnell communicated his protest over the phone, stating his reasons to prevent becoming a victim of the ongoing genocide, with his final words being "Free Palestine." The police's intervention to extinguish the fire and point a gun at the victim seemed more like a lack of empathy in following police protocols than anything else.
During my research, I came across other cases of people protesting in a similar manner. For example, a man in Congo self-immolated last November to draw attention to the genocide in his country.
The news cannot move on without us recalling the legacy of Bouazizi and around 50 others who also self-immolated during the Arab Spring.
The revolution sparked by Bouazizi makes it clear that such extreme forms of protest and ultimate sacrifices call for impactful actions in return, such as igniting a revolution. The term "ignite" here exceeds its symbolic meaning, as it becomes literal, with the body of the oppressed serving as the spark that can no longer endure injustice.
There are threatening actions where someone may threaten to capture or kill others to achieve a goal, whether justified or not.
However, the act of self-sacrifice respects others' lives and primarily directs violence towards oneself, posing no direct threat to others. The sacrificer relies on how others will react to the act, knowing that many may reach a breaking point and contemplate self-immolation as a form of protest.
They hope to set an example and kickstart a series of self-directed violence until their voices are heard and the situation is addressed.
There is a puzzling question we cannot answer despite our analytical tools: why does one form of such extreme protest incite or motivate reform, while a similar act goes unnoticed without triggering a reaction that matches or surpasses the impact of the initial protest.
Translated by Badr bin Khamis Al Dhafri
(The original article was published in Arabic in Oman newspaper on February 29)
...
Oman Observer is now on the WhatsApp channel. Click here
