Palestinians weigh the non-violent option

[Darranar]

If Palestinians had adopted a non-violent struggle against Israeli occupation, their conflict would have been over by now, says Mahatma Gandhi's 70-year-old grandson Arun Gandhi.

The director of the Institute for Non-violence in Tennessee and naturalised American citizen visited thousands of people in the occupied territories last week with a simple message: Throwing a brick at a Merkava tank is just a waste of time and energy.

"I don't think Palestine has the economic and military capacity to confront a huge state like Israel, which has not only a powerful military arsenal but powerful friends," he told the crowd at Abu Dis, next to the illegal separation barrier.

But during a visit to the Holocaust Museum in Jerusalem, Gandhi also criticised the Israeli Government for continuing to promote anti-Palestinian sentiment.

Aljazeera

[Fatima]

1. I have often mulled this over myself,

but since neither Mr. Gandhi nor myself live in occupied Palestine, I can only say that this will ultimately be up to the people who live there.

India had the benefit of huge numbers of people and a different geographical and political situation...Indians still did the daily labor of the nation and they occupied positions in government, military and business at the lower levels...making national strikes and civil disobedience much more effective.

Whereas the Palestinians are basically corralled into heavily controlled areas and the Israelis do not depend on them for the daily functioning of the country.

I understand completely where Mr. Gandhi is coming from but the situation, the setup is different from mid-20th century India...what will really have to happen is for the world, especially the US, to stop the unconditional military and financial support for Israel until and unless they stop the violence and come to the table with a real interest in peaceful problem-solving.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jim Sagle]

3. Warmongering rubbish.

[idontwantaname]

17. agreed.

For non violent methods to work requires that the oppressors have a conscience.
The unstated conclusion should be this: ISRAEL needs allies who are willing to do whatever it takes to defeat TERRORISM.

no offense intended to shadu.

[laura888]

36. You mean "Israel needs allies....to defeat the Palestinians"

Even if Palestinians commit NO acts of terror, they are in the way of aggressive Israeli settlement-making.

Palestinians need allies who will do whatever it takes to ensure that Israelis don't take over their land.

BTW, I think the use of the term "terrorists" in these discussions regarding Palestinians is cheap and inaccurate. 2 peoples are at war - they are BOTH terrorists.

[OhioStateProgressive]

50. no they both aren't terrorists

therefore both sides are NOT EQUAL

hamas, the PLO and hezbollah are terrorists, and the Israeli army is a sanctioned army, a legitimate army

they are not equal

[Lithos]

65. I challenge your definition.

Terrorism is the use of violence or the threat of violence to intimidate a civilian group or population into acceding to your wishes. This can be accomplished by both general thugs, para-militaries, or even a government willing to violate International Conventions.

Many "sanctioned, legitimate" armies throughout history have engaged in terrorism in order to control or cow a civilian population. Soldiers, contrary to the marketing message of the recruiter, do not acquire some sort of sanctity through the donning of a uniform in the service of a government. If there was such honor, there would never have been either WWI or a WWII.

Some specific examples off the top of my head where a national army conducted operations which specifically targeted civilians for the express purpose of control and intimidation include: the Serbian Army in Kossovo; the Turkish Army operating against the Armenians in the 1920's and against the Kurds in the 1990's; the US Air Force against Dresden in 1945, the whole of Nazi occupation of Europe, the occupation of Eastern Europe by the Soviets, the use of ordnance hidden in dolls by the Soviets in Afghanistan which was designed to maim children, etc.

I am not going to get into a discussion about the use of cluster bombs and AP mines as this is tangential to the discussion.

As for the right/wrong of the matter. The same legitimacy which the Yeshiva used in the 1930's and 40's to conduct attacks first against the British mandate constabulary and military units and later against the para-militaries of the Palestinian Arab groups is also the same legitimacy that the Palestinian militants can use to attack the constabulary and military units of Israeli units, particularly those in the OT.

What is not acceptable are operations targeted against purely civilian operations, especially those done outside of accepted rules and conventions are illegal.

Suicide bombers and snipers targeting civilians are pure terrorism operations just as are extra-judicial destruction of homes (which occurs not only today, but has been a frequent tool of Israeli military operations back to the 1950's - especially when overseen by Sharon to the point of it becoming a trademark). This destruction, such as evinced by a fairly recent operation in Gaza, has included over-zealous use of the bulldozer to destroy hundreds of homes - a number far beyond that necessary to either establish military lines of transporation, los or even loc.

While I support a Jewish homeland and state in Israel, I do NOT support the enthrallment or exile of the Palestinian people from their homeland as well. The point is that both sides have dipped deep into the immoral well of terrorism and illegal tactics.

So perhaps Shakespeare's play concerning a famous pair of star crossed lovers also applies to Israel and Palestine. Because of many petty and mean differences between the two families, two innocent lives who also represent the hopes of a peaceful future are fated to die in a warped comedy of errors. The outsider's comment, "A Pox on Both of Your Houses" seems highly appropriate.

[OhioStateProgressive]

66. blech

if i hear another post-modern philosophical thought about how each side is equal in this conflict I think my head will explode

I find it very sad that the world still insists that jews have to hold themselves to a double standard...but since the rules of this forum don't allow a person to call this what it really is, i guess i will elave it there

[bemildred]

67. Rhetorical, I suppose.

Still, worth a try:

My post-modern philosophy is that both sides are
equal in this conflict and jews have to hold themselves to a
double standard.

(raises splatter shield and waits attentively).

[newyorican]

80. Where's the ka-boom?

There's supposed to be an earth-shattering ka-boom...

[The Crystal Method]

92. Then why bring it up?

Where do you extrapolate Jews when we are referring to Israel. 1/5 of Israel's population are not Jews. It would have given argument a better position (albeit still weak) if you would have said Israels. If you follow the dynamics of the birth of Israel all the way to the current conflict, you will note that there is little difference between the two sides when it comes to national aspirations and the means to acheive them. To me, Israel, has gotten via a far better propaganda campaign to see themselves as the victims, although they are the occupying army. Quite a feat if I do say so myself.

[The Crystal Method]

91. The PLO now the PA and Fatah, Tanzim, and the DFLP

Are not terrorist groups by any reasonable definition. Even that so called bastian of terror lists the US uses do not include the above mentioned factions.

Hamas, the PFLP, Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, and Islamic Jihad employ the use of suicide bombings and target civilians. They would and should be categorized as terrorists.

The IDF has also targeted civilians so by that very standard, they are equally as guilty of terrorism. It makes no difference if they are a "legitimate army" or not. You may also note, that prior to the birth of the State of Israel, the IDF (Haganah and its various factions used terror tactics to defeat their enemies).

[Darranar]

4. There is indeed an assumption of a conscience at the heart of...

non-violent resistance. That is rather clear; if the enemy has no care whatsoever for how many it kills, all resisting it non-violently does is make it easier for them.

I do think that there is a reasonable case for the success and preferability of non-violence in the Palestinian case specifically, for two reasons: one, Israel has some degree of democracy and a population not entirely lost to humanity, and a renunciation of violence on the part of the Palestinians would result in much sympathy for them (which would prevent any sort of mass repression by the military of the non-violent resistance), and two, as long as Israel has the tremendous military superiority it has, violence, legitimate or illegitimate, will result in reprisals that will worsen Palestinian suffering.

There are certainly problems. Effective non-violent resistance - non-violent resistance that Israel wouldn't just ignore - has to be direct. Israel doesn't care if Palestinians demonstrate in the streets of Gaza City against Israeli occupation. Israel does care when non-violent protesters block the construction of the Land Grab Wall or the demolition of houses. However, such resistance is also the easiest to excuse action against: "Those so-called 'non-violent' Palestinians are harming our security. Therefore we have the right to brutally disperse them."

Because of this, any successful non-violent campaign on the part of the Palestinians has to consist of a complete or mostly complete cessation of violence. That would be extremely difficult to achieve, especially if, as has occurred so far, those instances of non-violent resistance which do exist are repressed by Israel.

[The Crystal Method]

93. A healthy point to be sure.

However, history tells us that Israel understands far better the language of force than it does any non-violent efforts. 1973 and Lebanon come to mind.

The Palestinian worker's strike (also known as Intifadah I) was brutally crackdown on upon and yet 17 years later, it would seem that the the situation for the Palestinians has gotten substantially worse. Remember also that the first suicide bombing (which we can all agree is an illegitimate act of violence) didn't occur until 1994 by Hamas (which I'm sure everyone knows has no links with the official governing Palestinian Governing party, the Palestinian Authority).

It would seem to me, that it's a damned if you do and damned if you don't situation. Especially, when you have calls from one side (in the Knesset) for the land of Eretz Yisrael to be redeemed via ethnic cleansing. The call itself shouldn't be of any consequence, but the history tells us something entirely different. In the case of Israel's land grab, actions do really speak louder than words.

[number6]

5. highly unlikely, but never say never .......

"..non violence will never work"

under the present conditions, not likely

not Zionism. "whatever it takes to defeat Zionism. "

but a racist - apartheid state, Israel must change government

Palestinians must give up Hamas and Hezbollah ...

[Lithos]

7. To use your example

Even though I feel it does not fully apply in the sense you are implying. What worked in South Africa was not the violence, but the realization that the Afrikaan government could no longer afford to maintain Apartheid as a legal and economic system and in order to save what they could of their lives and power, plus prevent utter and destructive chaos to South Africa elected to start the transition to a full representative government.

The ANC was not very effective against the SA military. Also of note is that the boycotts were also not effective as it drove the SA to establish an arms and chemical industry where it had none to begin with. It also made them a nuclear power, albeit temporarily.

Note, it is this latter example of paranoic self-sufficiency I think will happen should the violent and isolationist policy continue against Israel. Other examples are Cuba and N. Korea where isolationism and military threats have only served to entrench the existing regime.

L-

[bemildred]

8. One must distinguish between short and long term effects.

Repressive political regimens never just say: "Oh, everybody
is against us! I guess we should reform immediately." There are
always defensive maneuvers and propaganda offensives and attempts
at violent repression, and the underdogs do not always win, and
when they do, the win is not clear and instantaneous. Often the
initial movement is towards increased rigidity, away from any
eventual accomodation. Descent into chaos happens all the time
these days. Social peace and order are precious and are thrown
away all too thoughtlessly.

One may compare S. Africa with the US Civil War, the US Civil
Rights Movement, Israel, and a number of anti-colonial efforts
to get some idea of what has effect and what does not. Often
change takes place on a generational scale, one must think and
work in terms of decades. Often these regimes are so disfunctional
that they collapse almost on their own eventually. Much depends
on the demographics of the populations involved, too.

[bemildred]

9. Restraint works against matching restraint.

A good deal of the disagreement one sees about this conflict
hinges on the question as to whether Israel is dealing with the
Palestinians in a "restrained" way. I will not get into that
except to point out it is a hinge issue; for example, most of
the condemnations one sees of Palestinian violence hinges for
coherence on the notion that Israel uses "better" methods than
the Palestinians do, that it targets more "precisely", that Israel
respects law and so on whereas the Palestinians' government does
not. Palestinian attacks on Israel use similar rhetoric.

I personally find these arguments empty. Unless the Palestinians
in their millions are given something better to do with their lives,
jobs, housing, education, food, health care, meaning and purpose,
and somewhere to go in life, things will not get any better for them
or for Israel. Unless Israelis once again feel secure in their
persons and lives, there is little chance they will develop a more
measured and sensible attitude towards the Palestinians, as well.

There is a sort of chicken-or-egg-first problem at this point,
and what one would like is for government(s) to step in and prime the
pump by addressing BOTH of those issues simultaneously and hunting
down anyone that does not go along. Attempting to address either
separately is futile.

[The Magistrate]

22. Excellent Points, My Friend

Though much of my view regarding the regretable violence in this matter falls broadly within your description, you are certainly right to say there is a real perspective from which such arguments are empty quibbles. It makes no difference to the dead and maimed, and those near and dear to them, if they were deliberately targeted or unfortunate bystanders; it does not alter the suffering endured by them one whit.

In addressing the Gahndi heir's comments, it seems to me he makes them from a deep historical perspective, and there is little doubt in my mind that had such a policy been adopted by the Arab Nationalists of Palestine at about the same time the Mahatma essayed it in India, the result would have been incomperably better for the people of Arab Palestine, and their lot in the present day would be much different, and much better, than it has become.

At the root of much difficulty in the present day is that it is the struggle itself that a great many Arab Palestinians look to to give meaning and purpose to their lives. This is a thing that does incomperable and inexorable psychic violence to persons who fall into the trap of living for the fight itself, a mental and moral equivalent of what befalls those who, as the phrase goes, live to eat instead of eating to live.

The chicken or egg nature of the situation you correctly point out is why it seems to me that in the final analysis, a solution that is imposed from without on both parties to the conflict is the only thing that has any real hope of peace, and that failing that, whatever anyone's preferences might be, a peace of victory, in which peace is defined as a great dimunition in the rate of killing, and no more, is the only likely end to this matter. As a "peace" of this latter form is almost certain to be one imposed by Israel, and constitute a situation greatly disadvantageous to the people to Arab Palestine, it does seem to me that, even at this late date, and with a greatly diminished hope of success in the endeavor, it would still be the wisest, and the best available policy, for that people to relenquish violence, which has gained them nothing, after all, in all the decades it has been employed in hope of furthering their cause.

[bemildred]

28. I mostly agree.

It seems to me that either side could have played its' cards better.
It also seems to me that what we have now is an imposed solution, as
are most in politics when the parties cannot agree. What Israel needs
is a durable solution, and there is nothing of the sort in sight.

Edit: I should make clear that I agree that the resort to violence
has not served the Palestinians well, on the whole, but failing the
necessary level of social organization and cohesion, neither would
non-violence likely have served them well. Still, less damage might
have been done, and in the long run that may well have been the
better choice.

[bemildred]

29. The problem is this, Sir:

It seems to me that both sides, at least as they are
displayed in the news, are far more interested in retribution
than resolution, and that is why we see this folly. The
Kassams serve the purposes of those that fire them perfectly,
as do the little military parades of the IDF through Gaza,
and that is why we can expect to see these demonstrations
and counter-demonstrations continue indefinitely. One can
watch the same thing in any sixth grade classroom. The question
is: "Where is the teacher?"

[laura888]

75. Could the "teacher" be the UN?

Who else might serve in this role?

[bemildred]

76. The US and EU seem best placed in terms of leverage.

It would be a messy business in the best of cases, but
so is the present situation. This is not to say that the UN
could not help in certain ways, but it has not the native
means or clout to be the driver.

The US, before everyone else, is responsible for the present
situation, and the fact that it has persisted so long, because
we prop the whole mess up in pursuit of our own agenda.

[The Crystal Method]

96. I disagree.

In addressing the Gahndi heir's comments, it seems to me he makes them from a deep historical perspective, and there is little doubt in my mind that had such a policy been adopted by the Arab Nationalists of Palestine at about the same time the Mahatma essayed it in India, the result would have been incomperably better for the people of Arab Palestine, and their lot in the present day would be much different, and much better, than it has become.

I don't agree. The time you speak of saw much chaos and disorder not only for immigrating Zionists but from the British as well. The call for non-violence is easy in hindsight, however, violence was in the air so to speak. Zionist militias were destroying villages, and so Arab militias responded in kind. The atmosphere at the time could not lay fruit to any non-violent movement, in my opinion, though there were some on both sides that did try peaceful means of co-existing inasmuch as calling for both peoples to share the land. Of course, Ben-Gurion's faction won out and with it came decades of conflict.

The chicken and the egg argument is irrelevant especially when the Zionist faction calling for all of mandate Palestine to be the Israeli state, immigrated behind the point of a sword. The laws of nature as for action/re-action is most apt in this context.

[The Crystal Method]

94. Excellent point.

It would behoove Israel to help the Palestinians in order to help itself. One can only assume that if your neighbor is happy, he won't have much inclination to kill you. I believe there's some logic to that.

[bemildred]

95. You would be amazed at how often people assert violence begets peace. nt

[The Crystal Method]

97. I'm not surprised at all.

Look at our own government. We've spent the last 50+ years meddling in other people's business and then we are surprised when they don't like us very much. I guess they just hate us for our "freedoms" right?

I'm not interested in such obvious and superficial propaganda. I would like to get down to the meat of the issue and support legitimate and appropriate methods to resolve such conflicts (any conflict).

[bemildred]

98. It was a rhetorical point.

I wish you luck in your effort to get to the bottom of things,
my own impression is that the major lack is political will.
Political ambition is (unfortunately) not well served in a
peaceful and well-run democratic state.

[The Crystal Method]

105. I understood it to be rhetorical but felt inclined to answer.

Your point regarding political ambition is a good one.

:thumbsup:

[IA_Seth]

106. Well said.

I agree with you, the US has spent entirely too much time meddling and not enough time mending since the end of WWII, and even more so during and since the end of the Cold War.

I recommend "Blowback" by Chalmers Johnson for a good idea of what is brewing in Asia right now, especially in the allied countries (Japan and South Korea).

And, I haven't seen you down here before - Welcome if you are new!

[The Crystal Method]

107. Thank you very kindly.

Blowback is on my list of books that am intending on getting.

Thanks for the suggestion.


Thanks also, for the welcome. I came from another "bi-partisan" forum and felt the need to come here!

[Nadav]

6. Or you don't want it to work?

BTW - just curious, what is your definition of "Zionism"?

[OhioStateProgressive]

31. so basically you just said you support terrorism, nice(nt)

[Darranar]

32. Violence is not necessarily terrorism. n/t

[OhioStateProgressive]

33. violence by Palestinians and Arabs against Israel IS terrorism(nt)

[Darranar]

34. So is violence by Israel against Palestinians and Arabs terrorism? n/t

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Darranar]

37. So what is your definition of terrorism? n/t

[OhioStateProgressive]

38. what the palestinians and arabs and chechyns do(nt)

[Darranar]

39. You have to be a bit more specific than that...

unless eating, drinking, thinking, and living are all examples of terrorism?

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Darranar]

42. So it is "right" to bulldoze houses, and "wrong" to resist oppression?

Not only is your premise - that Israel is right and the Palestinians are wrong - false, but what you state after it doesn't logically follow. Just because the Palestinian cause is wrong - which it isn't - doesn't mean that everything the Palestinians do to advance it is terrorism, any more than campaigning for Bush is terrorism. Just because the Israeli cause is right - which depends on which particular Israeli cause one is talking about - doesn't mean that everything they do to supposedly advance that cause is right. US security is a worthy goal, that doesn't mean that the Iraq war was just.

[OhioStateProgressive]

44. first there is NO oppression, just a reaction to terror

and yes, i believe it is just for israel to bulldoze the houses

[Darranar]

45. Because "Israel is on the side of right"?

Israel is just because it is right, and it is right because it is just....

[OhioStateProgressive]

46. pretty much(nt)

[number6]

47. there IS oppression and its WRONG to bulldoze houses....

..

[OhioStateProgressive]

49. just a reaction to terror

if suicide bombers didn't blow up buses, the houses of the suicide bombers wouldn't be bulldozed...that simple

and no, the terror started before the occupation

[number6]

51. if suicide bombers didn't blow up buses

Israeli's would still bulldoze houses, its part of the land theft
and oppression,...

and no,.. bulldozing houses is NOT fighting terrorism ...;)

[OhioStateProgressive]

52. there is no land theft and oppression

the bulldozing is fair retribution for a family that raises a terrorist

[newyorican]

53. I've always thought any theory...

that could fit in a nutshell, belonged there. Now all doubt is removed.

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[newyorican]

55. I fear not...

in regards to your vision...

[OhioStateProgressive]

56. i meant in regards to your nutshell opinion

I don't need you to believe in my opinions, they are inherently correct, therefore it matters not who agrees or disagrees

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[number6]

60. "the palestinians are mostly jordanians"

I knew it was coming ;) :smoke: am I Psychic or what ....

[OhioStateProgressive]

61. funny how posts supporting israel get deleted

but posts supporting 'palestinians' don't

[newyorican]

62. An honest review...

of the thread proves that your opinions are inherently...

...only your opinions.

[number6]

63. it depends on how you support Israel, and plenty of posts

'supporting' Palestinians are here no more ...

and I myself would not have deleted any of your posts ..
I may have critized them but not deleted them
I never alerted on you either ....

so don't feel picked on, many of my posts are gone ;)

[Djinn]

74. LOL talk about "none so blind"

[The Crystal Method]

103. You might want to take a look at the nature of your posts.

To wonder why they are deleted is a little shameful to say the least. When you basically deny the Palestinians as a people, you shouldn't get to excited when your post gets deleted.

If I said there was no Holocaust, I would have my post deleted and rightfully so. To say that Palestinians are Jordanians is a bit ridiculous although not on the same scale as Holocaust denial, I'll have to admit.

[number6]

58. that a new law of dee land... man

"bulldozing is fair retribution for a family that raises a terrorist"

so what is fair retribution for a family that raises a bush
...........a drug dealer
...........a bank robber

how bout a list of these new laws,..enquiring minds want to know

[The Crystal Method]

102. Well of course then.

If you don't recognize that there is an occupation then there's nothing to talk about. Most of the world including Israel realizes that there is an occupation taking place.

To punish a family of a suspected terrorist or even a convicted terrorist does not solve the problem. Yours is an argument for revenge, not a solution.

[The Crystal Method]

101. Homes were being demolished well in advance of "terror".

The first suicide bombing occured in 1994 in response to Baruch Goldstein's terrorist actions at the Al Aqsa mosque (if memory serves it was a month to the day).

Well before that, Palestinians engaged in legitimate and not so legitimate acts of resistance (which is an internationally recognized right) as an occupied people. Yet more of their land was being expropriated for Jewish only settlements and more of their people were being killed for Israel's security.

Your argument rests on faulty foundations.

[The Crystal Method]

100. Why so? What gives Israel the "right" to demolish homes?

Beyond that, should reprisals for demolished homes be okay too? Yours is not an argument for solution. Yours is an argument for excuses.

[OhioStateProgressive]

69. Palestinians fighting against Israel is terrorism(nt)

[idontwantaname]

70. Americans fighting against Iraqis is terrorism...

what?

[OhioStateProgressive]

71. no, iraqis fighting against america is(nt)

[idontwantaname]

72. how about the "native american indians" VS "european pilgrims"

explain please.

[forgethell]

78. I'll give you mine:

it is violence targeted against unarmed civilians. Not just the killing of them in pursuit of other military objectives. It is targeting<\i> them. This is what the Palestinians and other Islamic 'activist' groups do. This is not what the Israelis do. One man's terrorist may be another man's freedom fighter. But he is still a terrorist if he does these acts.

[idontwantaname]

79. the act of skinning a cat is still skinning a cat.

no matter whether innocents(regardless of color, religion or nationality) die in a missile attack or suicide bomb... there are other ways of dealing with "military objectives"

[The Magistrate]

82. Sometimes Yes, Sir, And Sometimes No

It is often the case that a legitimate military objective can be achieved only by actions that entail great harm to non-combatants. This is particularly true in conflicts involving partisan irregulars, who operate among the civilian population, using it as a species of camouflage, and deriving great propagana benefit when innocents are involved in the conventional force's attacks against the partisan combatants, but it is also true in conventional war, where strikes are made against such legitimate military objects as the facilities which produce weapons, with a civilian work-force, and facilities that transport weapons and supplies. What the law of war prohibits absolutely are military operations that take as their object the killing of enemy civilians particularly. It is an unfortunate fact that many operations conducted by the various Arab Palestinian irregular forces are aimed at no other object than that. It is hard to find more than a few examples of Israeli military operations that do so, though there are some where a good argument could be made that the direct military benefit gained is insufficient, relative to the non-combatant casualties resulting, and some where the degree of care exercised to minimize non-combatant casualties is arguably insufficient.

Some statements in this exchange, however, are obvious twaddle. By no means are all military operations conducted by Arab Palestinian irregulars, or by Iraqi resistance fighters or Chechins, for that matter, are crimes of war. Where Arab Palestinian irregulars attack Israeli military personnel, they are conducting legitimate acts of war. That a thing is carried out by surprise and ambush does not make it wrong in a war: all forces at war utilize ambush and surprise as leading tactical tools. Any definition which boils down to "what the side I support does is right, and what the side I oppose does is wrong!" cannot be taken seriously. The employment of such a definition is widespread, of course, and is one of the principal difficulties in this situation. It leads many into the support of, and even the commission of, vile atrocity, while maintaining the belief that such horror is the act of angels. It reflects, at bottom, a view of war as the struggle of moral absolutes, which almost never is the case.

"Kill them all! God will know His own!"

[idontwantaname]

84. legitimate acts of war?

hey magistrate
interesting post.

how do you feel about post #78
"This is not what the Israelis do."

definitely i do not support any acts of violence on either side.

however considering the present conditions of the occupied territories of palestine and the degree of influence and "control" which the IDF has... the state of israel has the power and means to apply alternatives to dealing with "wanted persons".

the present day solution-missile attacks it seems would be an assassination last resort... and an act which unquestioningly would escalate the cycle of violence.

[The Magistrate]

85. In My View, Sir

The two peoples of Israel and of Arab Palestine exist in a state of war, and have done for more than half a century. In a state of war, attacking officers and commanders of the other side is a perfectly legitimate act, and the use of the most accurate available munitions to do so represents a reasonable and usually sufficient attempt to minimize non-combatant casualties resulting from the act. A concentration of divisional artillery against the same point, just as feasible and certain to achieve the object of killing the target, would be much more widely lethal, and so constitute criminal behavior.

In a state of on-going war, it seems to me to be nonsense to speak of a cycle of violence: the violence is on-going, and each side is continually attempting to do harm to the other to the limit of its ability, and its leader's judgements of the efficacy of particular acts. That each side employs the rhetorical devices of justification by, and revenge for, the most recent act of the other should not be mistaken for real motivating facts: such statements are mere grandstanding, attempting to gain propaganda points with the various audeinces each must play to.

My own view of violence in general is that it is quite supportable in certain circumstances, and that though it ought certainly to be a last resort, in those instances where it is appropriate, it is the only thing that will serve. Its use must always be judicious, as it is often counter-productive, and most so when it is employed from emotional surge rather than cold calculation. But it is not a thing which strikes me as wrong or right in itself: it may be employed rightly or wrongly, and taken up in a cause that is right or wrong. Both peoples in this conflict have legitimate cause to fight, and throughout its long history, both have employed violence in legitimate and illegitimate ways.

Having the right to do something, of course, does not mean it is the right course to pursue, or that is pursued in a right manner. It does seem to me that violence has served the cause of Arab Palestine very poorly through the years. That people has gained nothing by it. The longer and more strenuously they have pursued a course of violence, the more straitened their circumstances, and the more closely circumscribed their future prospects, have become. That ought to weigh more heavily in their councils than the emotional satisfaction which seems predominant in them does, in assessing what ought to be done to attempt to secure the legitimate aspirations of that people. It is becoming harder for me to avoid concluding that it is too late for that, that far too much damage has already been done by the bankrupt policy so long employed,

[idontwantaname]

86. the chance for change...

do you believe the palestinians will peacefully be able to remove arafat or is he too entrenched in the infastructure?

and if so what alternate options do you see are avalible to an occupied population?

i would also like to address the policy the state of israel has toward its citzens of manadtory IDF service.

it would seem here the citizens of the state of israel are united and committed under this umbrella and seem steadfast in continuing a war they can win.

[OhioStateProgressive]

87. actually

there are reforms right now being debated in the knesset to change to voluntary service

and even with conscription, 20% of draftees are given discharges before their service...many with CO's, and many for other reasons

[idontwantaname]

88. thanks for the info...

so are you avalible to possibly meet up at all?

[OhioStateProgressive]

89. yeah, i will be moving back to Israel in march(nt)

[The Magistrate]

90. Interesting Questions, Mr. Name

In assessing the first two particularly, it is necessary to guard against hope in prediction, and also to engage a certain amount of hind-sight. Tomorrow generally looks pretty much like today when it arrives, and my best guess concerning Arafat is that he will die in harness, and nothing much will alter while he lives. His death will disrupt somewhat an intricately balanced system, but in what ways it would be most rash to predict.

Arafat's power is an odd mixture of illusion and fact. The polity of Arab Palestine is a form of warlordism en petite, where a variety of leaders possess, by virtue of the loyalty of a number of armed men, control of certain geographic and economic areas, and have as their first concern maintaining their own personal fiefs. They will do nothing to hazard that personal power, and will give allegiance or no, obey orders or defy them, on the basis of their calculation which course will be best for their personal interests. Arafat has emerged over time as a sort of consensus leader, in fact a figurehead, among these various factions. His power is not that of the Centurion of Scripture: he cannot say to one man go, and he goeth, and to another come, and he cometh; Arafat can only tell prople to do what they want to do already, after which they proclaim, "Father Arafat ordered me, and I must obey!" He maintains his position of power by excellence in calculation of what his subordinates want to do. His real power as a faction leader is based on a system of money patronage reminiscent of an old time Tammany boss, which secures him loyalty from those dependent on him for their livings, and on his heritage as a scion of the old al'Husseini clan, which family has long been prominent in Arab Palestine, and which secured the leading role in the Arab Nationalist movement there back in the days of the Mandate. He is too useful to be overthrown, serving as the keystone of an arch which would collapse into a rubble of strife were he removed, and just about every faction leader recognizes that he can himself gain more in the stability Arafat's "leadership" provides than he could count on maintaining were the thing to tumble to a free-for-all. It would doubtless be to the great benefit of the ordinary people of Arab Palestine were this corrupt structure removed, but the question cannot be considered in a vacuum, and there is neither reason to imagine it could be done without a civil war, or to suppose there is another and better structure waiting to be put in place. The group most likely to overthrow him are the various fundamentalist radicals, and their ascendence in the current circumstances would hardly be a good thing, though they may very well be more honest about money for a while.

What would seem to me the nearest thing to a proper practical course for the people of Arab Palestine would be dismissed as "surrender" by firebrands, not only in this forum but among that people themselves, and so it can really only be addressed as a hypothetical exercise. The first element of it is an absolute cessation of violence directed against Israel and Israelis. To me, this is no more than a recognition of the fact that the people of Arab Palestine have no real military option available to them. Their armed irregulars are utterly incapable of imposing their will on Israel by violence: they cannot interfere with Israeli military operations; they cannot drive out a garisson or prevent an incursion; they cannot force the government of Israel to alter its policies in any degree. The violence they engage in is purely symbolic, a ritual declaration of presence and unhappiness and rage. Such violence is always and forever futile, and does far more harm to the people who engage in it than to their targets.

The second element of it would be the formal declaration of Arab Palestinian sovereignty as extant in those portions of the '47 Partition's Arab Zone that remain outside the generally accepted boundaries of Israel. There is no legal impediment to this, and it would meet immediate recognition from a great number of states in the world. Interfering with it would pose tremendous political difficulties for an Israeli government. So long as the great preponderance of the people of Arab Palestine were willing to recognize its authority, it would be a viable entity, even under occupation by the Israeli military (which occupation would be, if there was also a resolute cessation of violence against Israel, very difficult for any but a firebrand supporter of Israel to continue to justify). In the present circumstance, it would have to function at the start in a manner reminiscent of Mr. Rugova's "shadow state" in the early nineties in Kossovo, but the thing could certainly be done. In fact, the utility of the stroke is so obvious as to invite speculation why it has not been done already, and the most likely answer, it seems to me, is that to do it would clearly imply a real recognition that Israel exists, and within its presently accepted borders, and that that is a thing the greatest proportion of the Arab Palestinian political leadership refusses to this day really to do, whatever lip service may have been rendered from time to time to the idea. The dream of Palestine from the river to the sea remains an animating feature of the leadership of that polity, just as the dream of Greater Israel continues to exert a fascination over important elements in the political leadership of that polity, and for both, the problem is the same: to recognize the other is to recognize a limit to oneself.

The near universal conscription of Jewish citizens practiced by Israel does not seem to me a particularly important feature of the situation. Israel has a very small population, and has throughout its history been faced by hostile powers that dwarfed it numerically. That it takes on the lineamints of a garrison state in such a circumstance is only natural. Remove the hostility, not just among governments, but among peoples, and the impulse for this will dissolve. It is this sense of being faced by many hostile millions that accounts for the basic cohesion of Israel today: without it, Israel would be a sorely fractured polity, split bitterly on a variety of axes, not only left and right but traditionalist and modernist, and religious and secular, with a variety of ethnic splits tossed in for good measure.

[The Crystal Method]

104. Your argument works great if:

The IDF and the government of Israel didn't strike at civilians either. There would be a moral high ground in that case, however, history tells us that that isn't the case. Officials have spoken about not leaving anyone alive during the various incursions.

The argument is faulty on its very premise.

[OhioStateProgressive]

68. violence by israel IS NOT TERRORISM(NT)

[The Crystal Method]

99. Not really.

You may want to find the appropriate deliniations prior to making such a remark.

It would serve your argument much better.

[Djinn]

10. debatable how much non violence has ever worked

the British were loosening their grip on India a long time before Ghandi did anything because it was becoming more costly than it was worth - it was also rife with religious hatred that was about to boil over and there were also plenty of people who did not share Ghandi's view that non violence was the go and terrorism against British forces and interests was a regular occurence.

In SA - international boycotts etc only happened AFTER the township riots got the situation into international consciences.

BTW - what happens when one DOES utilise non violent resistance in Palestine - you get run over by a bulldozer and slandered because you were too "stupid" to get out of the way

[Darranar]

11. And when one utilises violent resistance In Palestine...

the result is death, destruction, and suffering.

[Djinn]

12. and the same thing happens when they use other means

that's teh sad thing about humans - we really havn't evolved all that much - the fact is non violence has never really worked in isolation, it's a nice idea but it's not realistic

[geek tragedy]

20. Are you at all familiar with US history?

I know it's a long ways away, but you should google this name:

"Martin Luther King Jr."

[Djinn]

21. Going by that simplistic argument

I'd argue I'm more familiar with than yourself. Luther King was NOT the only person in the civil rights struggle - many didn't beleive in non violence or atleast did not beleive in "turning teh other cheek"

Do you honestly think MLK was responsible for entire movement???

BTW - I wonder why several Jewish groups pre-Israel's establishment ignored non violent options? I wonder without the terrorist activities of the Irgun, Stern Gang, Haganah etc whether Israel would have come to be?

[Violet_Crumble]

25. Two- word answer...

BTW - I wonder why several Jewish groups pre-Israel's establishment ignored non violent options? I wonder without the terrorist activities of the Irgun, Stern Gang, Haganah etc whether Israel would have come to be?

No way...

Violet...

[Lithos]

30. There was such a chance

The Morrison Committee was in 1944 set to propose the establishment of an Israeli state in the Mandate as a followup to the ending of hostilities in WWII as a reward to the Jewish people for their support by supplying volunteers. It also was in recognition to the efforts of Weizman and Ben Gurion.

This effort on the British government which would have completely overturned the much hated White Paper and would have likely allowed significantly easier migration of Post WWII refugees was rather decisively destroyed by the assassination by LEHI of Lord Moyne in Cairo. At that point even pro-Zionist members of the British cabinet under first Churchill and later Atlee were left without any leverage.

This assassination almost even destroyed the chance for the formation of the Jewish Brigade which in turn was a very critical element in the birth of Israel from it's crucial roles in the Aliyah Gimel and the importance as a seasoned cadre upon which the IDF could grew. This was probably the one thing that Weizman and Ben Gurion were able to salvage.

L-

[geek tragedy]

26. Please explain for me the role that violence by African-Americans

played in the civil rights achievements of the 50's and 60's.

Everything else was by defnition non-violence. And I have this sneaking suspicion that the other stuff outweighed the violent stuff by a factor of oh, maybe a million to one.

Sorry, but a plain and obvious truth sometimes really is that simple. Especially when contradicting an absurd, false, and simplistic statement like that nonviolence never achieved anything.

So, either I'd say you'd either have to concede the point or you have a rather blinkered and bizarre interpretation of recent US history.

[Djinn]

43. OK then

were it not for groups such as the Nation of Islam and the Black Panthers et al then MLK could have been ignored by the powers that be - the fear of "reds under the bed" was also a factor - a few small gains (lets face it - it didn't suddenly become a utopia for black men and women after the 50's and 60's) was better than a large section of the community turning "commo".

Also speaking of "simplistic" arguments - where did I say non violence never works? I beleive I said it's efficacy has been overstated and that in ISOLATION it hasn't been all that effective. What happens when Palestinians or their supporters stand in front of bulldozers??

Know much about Jewish terror? know anything about the effect it had on the establishment of Israel?

[geek tragedy]

64. That's an inaccurate reading of what happened.

The Black Panthers and NOI contributed virtually nothing to the civil rights struggle. If anything, they hurt it by playing into stereotypes of African-Americans being "dangerous" and "scary." The Black Panthers were founded in 1966--too late to give them any credit for making a contribution. And the NOI was militant, but they were NOT VIOLENT.

The real civil rights movement used a two-prong strategy: civil disobedience and civil litigation. The dam broke in 1954 with Brown vs. Board of Education. After that it was continued efforts in the courts and in the streets to achieve what was achieved.

The NOI and BP's did jack shit to make that happen. Violence by African-Americans played NO ROLE in the civil rights movement.

Your hypothesis that non-violence has never worked in isolation is FALSE as a matter of fact and history.

You only encourage further death, destruction, and despair by peddling such lies.

[Djinn]

73. Give me an instance

"Your hypothesis that non-violence has never worked in isolation is FALSE as a matter of fact and history."

the part of the civil rights movement that saw MLK as a leader had the full support of the federal government as you mentioned Brown v Board of Ed had been and gone and the Fed govt consistently (for altruitic or otherwise reasons) backed integration etc; Eisenhower sent the 101st Airborne, to Little Rock - hugely unpopular but sent a mssg to states that the views of the govt WOULD be enforced with ergard to civil rights, troops were sent in to suppress ANTI civil rights violence by Kennedy and Johnson.

The Palestinians do not have the luxury of a supportive federal govt or court system. From 1987 to 1993, during the first intifada, NON VIOLENT mass protests and strikes were met with brutal repression. The first bus attack occurred in 1994.

I'd like you to name one instance where non violence in isolation can categorically be attributed success it'd be impossible because it's a SUBJECTIVE (look it up) issue, there is no "fact" that will back either of us up - but very few historians actually believe that non violence BY ITSELF has ever changed anything, there have always been other pressures, political realities, economic realities etc. How is it that you alone can look back on history and categorically find EXACT cause and effect occurences, and deny all other circumstances.

PS - still waiting on your view as to whether Israel would have been established without the terrorism of groups such as the Stern gang, Irgun, Hagana etc. If you beleive this do you believe it would have happened at the same time - do you think the borders would have been the same??

It'd also be interesting to hear your take on Palestinians and their supporters who've been killed while protesting house demolition (how is standing in front of a bulldozer or staying inside your house and refusing to leave an act of violence)

[geek tragedy]

77. The Palestinians have allies as well.

And NOTHING happens in isolation or in a vacuum. It wasn't the Federal government that litigated Brown vs. Board of Education. It was African-Americans participating in the courts of the white man. They were able to use the institutions of the white power structure, and were able to form alliances with progressive members of the dominant white power group. They used their mistreatment to pressure white leaders to produce civil rights legislation. They had the support of the federal government BECAUSE of their civil disobedience and other nonviolent techniques. Before 1954 the Federal government had done nothing to end the Jim Crow south.

None of that happened because of violence. However, nonviolent means by African-Americans were the primary force behind the destruction of the Jim Crow south. It certainly wasn't because white people all of a sudden decided to do the right thing.

The Palestinians most certainly had that option way back when. But instead they pushed for the destruction of Israel in their bid for the entire enchilada (all of historic Palestine). Arafat only was willing to negotiate with Israel and discuss peace when he was in a position of obvious weakness.

As far as the Palestinians' nonviolent protest against demolitions is concerned--just because it is nonviolent doesn't mean it is effective. How many were there? How many TV cameras were present? One of the Palestinians' major problems is that they're piss poor at using the media.

Regarding the creation of Israel--to be quite honest, I have no idea. If Britain was getteing ready to let the crown jewel, India, go (as you have maintained) then I can see how they would also be willing to rid themselves of Palestine. Whether sympathy over the Holocaust would have been enough to support the creation of Israel is beyond my knowledge.

[Djinn]

81. India is a little bigger than the Israel/Palestine

"If Britain was getteing ready to let the crown jewel, India, go (as you have maintained) then I can see how they would also be willing to rid themselves of Palestine. Whether sympathy over the Holocaust would have been enough to support the creation of Israel is beyond my knowledge."

the two are compleetly unrelated - and the Indians had been fighting for their independence for over a century

"They had the support of the federal government BECAUSE of their civil disobedience and other nonviolent"

If you agree that nothing occurs in isolation then you can't seperate non violent civil rights protestors from the occur factors involved.

"As far as the Palestinians' nonviolent protest against demolitions is concerned--just because it is nonviolent doesn't mean it is effective. How many were there? How many TV cameras were present?"

not all that easy to get into Palestine as a journalist - but as I recall their was a fair bit of media attention surrounding the Rachel Corrie murder, yet instead of being called a non violent protestor, and the Palestinians she was supporting congratulaed for utilising these means she was pilloried and made the butt of "pancake" jokes.

[The Crystal Method]

108. Incorrect.

The Palestinians most certainly had that option way back when. But instead they pushed for the destruction of Israel in their bid for the entire enchilada (all of historic Palestine). Arafat only was willing to negotiate with Israel and discuss peace when he was in a position of obvious weakness.

The PLO pushed for a two state settlement as far back as 1976. This was dismissed by Israel and the US not surprisingly.

[The Magistrate]

23. In My View, Ma'am

You are correct in asserting the efficacy of Gahndi's non-violence in freeing India from the English is greatly over-rated. The real authors of Indian independence were the Imperial Japanese Army and the millions of anonymous Congress Party rioters in India who executed the tremendous outbreaks following the arrest of Gahndi and the Congress Party leadership shortly after the Japanese attacks began World War Two in the Pacific. The events of that war proved to England's political class, and the English people, that the Raj could not be held against a determined foe without the assistance of other powers, and the huge and bloody but leaderless outbreaks after the decapitation of the Congress Party constituted a frightening preview of what would certainly occur in future among the Indian populace, and likely would succeed amid great massacre if led by determined and ruthless fellows.

Nonetheless, Gahndi's efforts accomplished a great deal. Most important, they were extremely well suited for organizing a population to resistance against an occupying power. They offered no legitimate cause for the occupying power to indulge itself in violence against the growing movement, and so checked its use of a most important tool against the ever growing strength of his organization. As there were competing tendencies among the independence agitation that were committed to violence, it made him the figure even the occupying authorities had to prefer, and act even against their will at times to strengthen, lest the vast movement slip into the hands of men who would eagerly turn it to violence. It certainly gained great respect, and a great degree of political support, for Gahndi and his followers throughout the world. It forced people to look at the simple claims of fairness and justice at the heart of the independence struggle, without distraction by cries of "How can we give in to bloody murderers!"

[Lithos]

24. Timing did have a lot to do with it

However, it was the best tool for the job at the time. Given the competing resources of the Japanese and the German Armies, the British much rather preferred a political solution.

And to bring this back to I/P, in a similar way, the British were doing pretty much the same thing with the Morrison Committee (Commission?) which was unfortunately unraveled by the death of Lord Moyne.

L-

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lithos]

14. DU respects copyright

Your comment not only lacks a link to the original article, it exceeds fair use guidelines which is generally proscribed to 3-4 paragraphs.

Please observe this in future citations...

Lithos
FA/NS Moderator
Democratic Underground

[Lithos]

15. Deleted at request of poster...

Lithos
FA/NS Moderator
Democratic Underground

[idontwantaname]

16. How Are You, Non-Violence? by Uri Avnery

How Are You, Non-Violence?
Uri Avnery
4.9.04

At the mass meeting with Arun Gandhi, the grandson of the Mahatma, in Abu-Dis, I observed the faces of the participants. While Gandhi was preaching non-violence, I imagined a debate between two young Palestinians in the audience.

<snip>

Yussuf: “For half a year there were no suicide attacks in Israel, and look what we have achieved!”
Hassan: “We have achieved nothing. On the contrary, the Israeli generals boast that they have defeated us with their targeted assassinations, incursions into our territories and all the other acts of oppression. And all this time they have been enlarging the settlements, putting up new ‘outposts’ and continuing to build the racist wall.”
Yussuf: “You forget that the International Court has declared the wall illegal and the UN General Assembly has confirmed this with a huge majority. All of Europe voted in our favor. We are winning in the arena of world public opinion.”

<snip>

Yussuf: “We have to win international public opinion. We can do this only by non-violence. I admire the martyrs who are ready to die for our people. I am proud that we have such heroes. But they don’t get us anywhere. They only provide Sharon with pretexts to oppress us even more.”

<snip>

Hassan: Don’t kid yourself. If Arun Gandhi and the Israelis hadn’t been there, the soldiers would have shot and killed them. Later they would have announced that they were wanted terrorists. You remember the beginning of the al-Aksa intifada, when there were unarmed mass demonstrations? The Israeli army brought in snipers and killed the leaders. Please, this is not India, and the Israelis are not Englishmen. They understand only the language of force.”
Yussuf: “But that is exactly what they say about us!”

<snip>

http://avnery-news.co.il/english/


ps- thanks lithos.

[Lithos]

18. Not a problem

And thanks for reposting...

L-

[idontwantaname]

19. bump! for nonviolence.

lets hope it catches on!

[Liberal Classic]

27. Interesting article

I'd be interested to read this in another source, partly to corroborate the story, partly to get a different slant on it.

That's a brave thing Arun Gandhi did. Not only considering the Kasmir conflict, but the history of the jihad in the Indian sub-continent also stand between Muslims and Hindus. It's of note that Arun's grandfather fasted to protest violence between Muslims and Hindus. Mohandas Gandhi dealt not only with the British but with hostile elements of his own faith, culminating of course with his assassination. Many moderate Muslim leaders face simiar persecution today at the hands of violent extremists.

Though this article asks "Can passive resistance succeed
in the face of Israeli bulldozers?" I would ask can passive resistance succeed in the face of jihadists?

[laura888]

40. We would not even know the meaning of the word "Jihadists"

If not for the West's history of invasion, colonization and repression.

[The Magistrate]

83. It Would Exist Nonetheless, Ma'am

It appeared within the political development of the Islamic world long before the influence of the West was signifigant. Crusades by fundamentalists against backsliders within Islam have been a regular feature, and most conflicts between Muslim polities centuries ago were couched in such terms.

[number6]

48. a racist statement IMHO ....

"what the palestinians and arabs and chechyns do(nt): terrorism "

oh and don't furget Muslims tooo
plus other darkee fur-en people <sarcasm>

[The Crystal Method]

109. Very interesting thread.

To say the least.