Nonviolent intifada?

[Mycroft]

I think its a great Idea, maybe Israel could think of trying a non violent land theft program? Possibly they could try driving the people off the land they need by flicking them on the buttocks with wet beach towels?

You know, for a liberal you sure are cynical.

 

[Mycroft]

Re: Re: Re: Nonviolent intifada?

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I don't get it. The violent destruction of Palestine is OK, but not Israel. And I still can't see how a bunch of untrained guys with home made rockets and small arms are going to destroy a country with nukes.

Time and time again you put all the onus on Israel for creating peace, patronizingly as though the Palestinian-Arabs were incapable of initiating any action on their own except violence.

Well, here is news for you. The Palestinian-Arabs are human beings, and as human beings they are just as capable as anyone else of turning away from violence and trying other tactics.

 

[am7a]

originalli posted by Giz:
Nice. Someone suggests that blowing up school buses may not be the most effective way of pursuing their national aspirations and you come up with a quip about beachtowels.

some others also suggest that assasinating leaders may not be a useful way of pursuing palestinians to change their mind about the good will of israel to make peace.

Why did you treat it with such contempt? I would have thought that you would have supported a thread that clearly showed that not all Palestinians are militant Hamas bombers...

thanks to israeli assasinations of shyikh yasin and rantisi, hamas has become the most popular organization among palestinians even more than fateh and yaser arafat which proof the point that changing leaders is not gonna change the palestinians mind about proceeding the peace process
now which is more pursuasive the news paper article or the aimless military invasions to palestinians villages everyday.

 

[BillyTK]

Even if you buy the propaganda that the current Israeli government is evil, there is still the matter Israeli public opinion. Israel is a democracy, and governments change.

I don't buy into this nonsense about "evil", but propaganda? So Sharon's apparent hawkishness is a matter of bias?

I do hope that Sharon will be dumped as soon as possible, but I have some doubts. Would you say there's any evidence of an attitudinal change amongst Israelis from the one which led to Sharon achieving power?

To paraphrase Dr Phil, how has the violent Intifada been working for them so far?

Certainly worse than the measurably less violent first one - but that one didn't actually achieve much, did it?

 

[am7a]

Certainly worse than the measurably less violent first one - but that one didn't actually achieve much, did it?

yes,i agree in the first intifada palestinians didn't achieve that much, the peace negotiations after was even worse because of the false promises they get about creating an independent palestinian country with jerulsalem as a capital. these fales promises were crowned with sharon visit to al aqsa mosque, and thats when they decided to start another intifada.

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

I agree wholeheartedly with the call for a non-violent intifada. Do you think that it would make Sharon obey the law?

 

[Hutch]

While I tend to agree that a non-violent movement would be a logical step, I am reminded of India and the US, two areas where non-violent protest had some success, and several things that I do not see in the Palestinian movement to date.

1. A known and charisimatic leader--A Ghandi or ML King, someone whose voice and/or face is known-and respected-not only by the people he represents but by those he opposes. Often associated with religion as a way of be able to express thenselves.

2. A triggering action--Like Ghandi's Salt March or the Montgomery Bus Boycott (IMHO, our holiday should be Rosa Parks day, not MLK). Something that lets a leader come to the forefront. Unfortunately, it appears the trigger here was made by the opposition (Sharon's visit to the Mount) rather than the Palestinians.

3. Mass peaceful protests that trigger violent and out-of- proportion action by the Israelis--For example, surrounding one of the disputed settlements in the West Bank with thousands of sit-in protesters, with more added as arrests are made. With any luck someone (one of the more wacko settlers?) will open fire and take out a bunch of peaceful protesters, presumably with the cameras rolling....ala Selma or Birmingham.

But where is the leadership to come from, that is my concern. It must (IMHO only) from someone in the ranks who has been violently opposed to Israel in the past, has committed violence and now renounces it and plans to pursue peaceful protests-I think this would be the only sort credible enough to do it. I haven't see him yet.

We shall see......

 

[Jocko]

3. Mass peaceful protests that trigger violent and out-of- proportion action by the Israelis--For example, surrounding one of the disputed settlements in the West Bank with thousands of sit-in protesters, with more added as arrests are made. With any luck someone (one of the more wacko settlers?) will open fire and take out a bunch of peaceful protesters, presumably with the cameras rolling....ala Selma or Birmingham.

"With any luck"? "With cameras rolling"? Are you out of your freaking mind? Do you think that the objective of nonviolent protest is to INCITE VIOLENCE? That's asinine, completely nuts. What good can come of a BS scenario like that?

The point of nonviolence is to shame your opponent into treating you as an equal and negotiating in good faith. No civilized society can maintain violent action against nonviolent protestors for long. IMO, that's one sure test of a civilized society. It worked with the British, it worked in America and I believe it will work in Israel as well.

But what you describe is a means to embarrass Israel and probably ESCALATE tensions, rather than move the peace process along. Is that what you really think civil rights and nonviolence are all about?

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by BillyTK
I don't buy into this nonsense about "evil", but propaganda? So Sharon's apparent hawkishness is a matter of bias?

I don’t think calling him “hawkish” is biased, I’d describe him that way myself. That his being hawkish is a bad thing is a matter of opinion, and there is certainly enough vilification of the man and distortion of his actual actions to qualify as propaganda.

Originally posted by BillyTK
I do hope that Sharon will be dumped as soon as possible, but I have some doubts. Would you say there's any evidence of an attitudinal change amongst Israelis from the one which led to Sharon achieving power?

If there hasn’t, I think a genuine non-violent movement would be a strong stimulus for such a change in attitude, don’t you think?

It’s a long ways from 155 signatures on a piece of paper to a genuine movement, but it is a sign of hope.

Originally posted by BillyTK
Certainly worse than the measurably less violent first one - but that one didn't actually achieve much, did it?

Agreed!

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Jocko
"With any luck"? "With cameras rolling"? Are you out of your freaking mind? Do you think that the objective of nonviolent protest is to INCITE VIOLENCE? That's asinine, completely nuts. What good can come of a BS scenario like that?

I agree, that statement does sound outrageous, and does bring to question how non-violent his idea of non-violence really is.

At the same time, a true test of a non-violent movement would be its ability and willingness to maintain non-violence in the face of such an occurrence. While one should certainly hope such an event never happens, one needs to be prepared for it anyway.

 

[Mycroft]

While I tend to agree that a non-violent movement would be a logical step...

...But where is the leadership to come from, that is my concern. It must (IMHO only) from someone in the ranks who has been violently opposed to Israel in the past, has committed violence and now renounces it and plans to pursue peaceful protests-I think this would be the only sort credible enough to do it. I haven't see him yet.

We shall see......

One of the signatories of the document:

Yasser Abed Rabbo

 

[Hutch]

"With any luck"? "With cameras rolling"? Are you out of your freaking mind? Do you think that the objective of nonviolent protest is to INCITE VIOLENCE? That's asinine, completely nuts. What good can come of a BS scenario like that?

The point of nonviolence is to shame your opponent into treating you as an equal and negotiating in good faith. No civilized society can maintain violent action against nonviolent protestors for long. IMO, that's one sure test of a civilized society. It worked with the British, it worked in America and I believe it will work in Israel as well.

But what you describe is a means to embarrass Israel and probably ESCALATE tensions, rather than move the peace process along. Is that what you really think civil rights and nonviolence are all about?

Jocko, Jocko, Jocko...if I didn't know you were a straight-ahead, no-nonsense, forthright poster, I'd say you were pulling my leg.

Non-violent protest is only effective when you get an adverse reaction from those you are protesting against..especially a OUT OF PROPORTION reaction. The revulsion comes from within a society that sees non-violence met with violence--again, I refer you to Selma and Birmingham during the US Civil Rights movement--as much as the protests made the news, the beatings and dogs sic'ced upon the protesters and the bombing of Churches in Birmingham made the case of injustice most compellingly.

The times MLK did not succeed in his protests was when they were met by sheriffs enforcing the law in a no-nonsense but peaceful and orderly manner.

Non-violent protest alone is not enough to change things...there must be a violent reaction to it (which is why I mention the settlers going off instead of the Israeli police, who may know enough of History to handle things) to show all the people, both Palestine AND ISRAELI (who are the target audience, after all) the fundamental injustice. At least that is my take and I think India and the 1960's US support my POV)

As an addendum heading off on another line, the problem with Non-violent protest is that if often spawns violence when it's goals are accomplished--for example, the massacres during Partition in 1948-49 and the transformation of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) from non-violence to violent revolution. Same thing could happen in the Middle East.

We never do anything the easy way on this planet, do we?

 

[Jocko]

I agree, that statement does sound outrageous, and does bring to question how non-violent his idea of non-violence really is.

At the same time, a true test of a non-violent movement would be its ability and willingness to maintain non-violence in the face of such an occurrence. While one should certainly hope such an event never happens, one needs to be prepared for it anyway.

My point exactly. I credit the Israelis enough to expect them to respond with as much respect as they are given. Like the British or Americans, I believe the Israelis are capable of being "shamed" into suspending violence when confronted with a nonviolent opposition.

Hutch, on the other hand, sees increased global hatred (cynically manipulated in his scenario) for Israel as somehow conducive to resolving the situation. Here's a guy who thinks the civil rights movement was dead in the water until MLK was assassinated... but never noticed what MLK did before that.

 

[Hutch]

I agree, that statement does sound outrageous, and does bring to question how non-violent his idea of non-violence really is.

Please see my further reply to Jocko. Examine the non-violent movements of the US Civil Rights movement. Making the distinction between peaceful protest and violent suppression is part and parcel of getting the message out. And some of the non-violent folks will die (Medgar Evers, the white lady who drove blacks to register, the three rights workers in Mississippi).

At the same time, a true test of a non-violent movement would be its ability and willingness to maintain non-violence in the face of such an occurrence. While one should certainly hope such an event never happens, one needs to be prepared for it anyway.

And in this we concur, Mycroft. That would be the acid test, could protests after something like that remain peaceful--given the temper of the land, I must needs fear it is unlikely.

 

[Jocko]

Jocko, Jocko, Jocko...if I didn't know you were a straight-ahead, no-nonsense, forthright poster, I'd say you were pulling my leg.

Ditto, chum.

Non-violent protest is only effective when you get an adverse reaction from those you are protesting against..especially a OUT OF PROPORTION reaction. The revulsion comes from within a society that sees non-violence met with violence--again, I refer you to Selma and Birmingham during the US Civil Rights movement--as much as the protests made the news, the beatings and dogs sic'ced upon the protesters and the bombing of Churches in Birmingham made the case of injustice most compellingly.

So nonviolence is useless someone gets a skull cracked, right? I don't suppose it ever had anything to do with projecting a different image of one's aggrieved group to the "oppressors," does it?

Has it ever occured to you that if the Palestinians began acting in good faith - and protesting without the compulsory massacre would be a good start - they could get the Israelis to lower their guard enough to begin a real dialogue?

Again, you seem to think that embarrassing one party is more important than elevating the other. I disagree.

The times MLK did not succeed in his protests was when they were met by sheriffs enforcing the law in a no-nonsense but peaceful and orderly manner.

Define failure, in this context, beyond the fact that no one was killed or maimed (an odd definition of failure, IMO)?

Non-violent protest alone is not enough to change things...there must be a violent reaction to it (which is why I mention the settlers going off instead of the Israeli police, who may know enough of History to handle things) to show all the people, both Palestine AND ISRAELI (who are the target audience, after all) the fundamental injustice. At least that is my take and I think India and the 1960's US support my POV)

While violent reaction usually accompanies nonviolent protest, I've seen nothing from you or anywhere else that leads me to believe that all progress proceeds from brutality. Your saying how "obvious" it is isn't proof to me.

As an addendum heading off on another line, the problem with Non-violent protest is that if often spawns violence when it's goals are accomplished--for example, the massacres during Partition in 1948-49 and the transformation of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) from non-violence to violent revolution. Same thing could happen in the Middle East.

We never do anything the easy way on this planet, do we?

Don't know much about that. Have any links?

 

[Hutch]

One of the signatories of the document:

Yasser Abed Rabbo

Hmmmm...quite possible, although his age and lack of recent "street creds" might rule against him...but someone like that, perhaps younger, perhaps someone we do not know at this time....

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Hutch
And in this we concur, Mycroft. That would be the acid test, could protests after something like that remain peaceful--given the temper of the land, I must needs fear it is unlikely.

I actually think that’s a minor worry compared to mounting a realistic non-violent movement among a half-dozen or more terrorist organizations advancing violence. While I do see this as a sign of hope, I do not in any way see this as an easy path.

 

[Hutch]

Ditto, chum.

Thank you..I think

So nonviolence is useless someone gets a skull cracked, right? I don't suppose it ever had anything to do with projecting a different image of one's aggrieved group to the "oppressors," does it?

But that is assuming the "oppressors" will be any more likely to deal with you if you assume a non-confrontational non-violent role--Ghandi and MLK practiced non-violence, but did not shy or step awy from direct confrontation. Neither, I would think, would the Palestinians.

Has it ever occured to you that if the Palestinians began acting in good faith - and protesting without the compulsory massacre would be a good start - they could get the Israelis to lower their guard enough to begin a real dialogue?

Protesting without violence is a good thing. But without setting up a dichotomy with what is being protested against, how do you persuade people your cause is right and those "oppressors" are wrong?

Again, you seem to think that embarrassing one party is more important than elevating the other. I disagree.

I'm not sure I'd use the word embarrass,, but I accept it. But non-violent protest works (at least in the two instances I reference, the US Civil Rights and Indian Independence) when your opponent is (or believes themselves to be) morally upright and democratically just--which I do believe Israel and it's people
believe themselves to be. If you elevate one party (by means of non-violence) while showing the other that a violent reaction by them embarrasses themselves--embarrassment in their own eyes--then somewhere we hopefully meet in the middle.

Define failure, in this context, beyond the fact that no one was killed or maimed (an odd definition of failure, IMO)?

That nothing changed, that segregation continues on as always, that noone has to look too hard at the fundamental problems.

While violent reaction usually accompanies nonviolent protest, I've seen nothing from you or anywhere else that leads me to believe that all progress proceeds from brutality. Your saying how "obvious" it is isn't proof to me. )?

Don't think I used the word 'obvious', but did use the word 'must' so I'll read it as that. Also noted in my remarks that this was 'my take' and done without any references at hand.

And I do not believe I said "all progress proceeds from brutality". What I have have tried to say (perhaps not as well as I could) is that non-violent protests often lead to violent reactions from some of those being protested against and this sets up (again, I will note, in a society that sees itself as is basically "democratic and moral' ) an internal debate that can lead to changes. Again, for evidence I refer to the US Civil Rights protests and Ghandi's campaign for a Free India. Sorry I cannot provide references right now, will see what I can do later. The book "Eyes on the Prize" is a pretty fair reference.

Don't know much about that. Have any links?

Alas no, I am still reside in the Bookshelf Age, and need to return to my library. The partition of India and Pakistan and the slaughter attendant to it (Ghandi had conceived of one state, Muslim and Hindu, living peacefully together, but powerful religious/political figures had other ideas, IIRC) is fairly well documented, and the SNCC was associated with MLK but then broke away and became rather notorious in the 1970's under the leadership of H Rap Brown.

Now admit it, isn't this more fun that debating with The Fool and AUP? Even if I am mopping the floor with ya...

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by Mycroft
Well, here is news for you. The Palestinian-Arabs are human beings, and as human beings they are just as capable as anyone else of turning away from violence and trying other tactics.

Do you believe that the Stern Gang and Irgun achieved their aims through non-violence or their terrorist campaign?

Do you abhor their violence as much as Palestinian violence?

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Hutch
Protesting without violence is a good thing. But without setting up a dichotomy with what is being protested against, how do you persuade people your cause is right and those "oppressors" are wrong?

I don't think violence against protestors "proves" one side is right and the other wrong as much as it evokes sympathy and draws attention to the issue.

Non-violent protest itself draws attention to the issue, violence against the non-violent protestors would draw more attention, but I don't think I agree that violence against the protestors is required to enact change.

Also, I think the presumption that one side is "wrong" and the other is "right" needs to be questioned. In this issue, both sides have grievances and legitimate issues that need to be addressed. Removing the violence, in my opinion, would facilitate creating an environment where these issues could be addressed.