Nonviolent intifada?

[am7a]

i used to see a lot of non-violent protests by palestinians in the past but anymore. the one that i mostly remember is when arafat was traped in a building and many palestinians were protesting infront of that builing to show their support, but know sharon has declaired officially that arafat is next on the list of assasinations. this is another proof that palestinians will is not accepted wheather they try to express it in a violent act or a peacful demontration.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3654231.stm

 

[Skeptic]

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?

Whether Mycroft does or not, the leaders of the jewish community at the time (the "Yishuv"), above all Ben Gurion, certainly DID abhor Stern and the Irgun, and in fact considered them counterproductive and even, some suspect, had a hand in turning them over to the British. In any case, Stern and the Irgun put together were a tiny minority--compromising no more than about 200-300 people at the most (out of 600,000).

Compare that to the way every suicide bomber is glorified and emulated by the Palestinians, and how Arafat calls on "millions of martyrs"; compare that to the huge number of Palestinians that join those groups; and you'll see the real difference between jewish and Palestinian acts of terror.

If you want to look for a group that IS similar, in its relationship with the Palestinian leadership, to the relation that the Irgun or Stern had with the leaders of the jewish community, you should look at Palestinian peace activists who advocate coexistence. Yes, they DO exist, but their lives are in constant danger as "traitors", and killing them is a duty for every "real" Palestinian, according to Arafat&co.

See the difference? It's like a photograph and its negative. On the israeli side, terror groups are tiny and hounded by the leadership; on the Palestinian side, peace groups are tiny and hounded by the leadership. So saying that "terrorism exist on both side" is like saying that hunger exists in both the USA and in North Korea, or that political persecution exists both in Sweden and in Hussein's Iraq.

Both are technically true--SOME people are hungry in the USA, and SOME people (like the tiny number of neo-nazis) are not allowed full political participation in Sweden. But it's not exactly the same thing, is it?

 

[Jocko]

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

Yeah, yeah... opinions and a**holes.... But you have a point there at least in that you haven't crawled into the PC treehouse and started screaming "bigot" from the top of your lungs.

Not much time to post, on my way home now. Well, the short version is that I still disagree that the success of nonviolent protest is defined and dependent upon disproportionate violence by the other side.

I see nonviolence as a means to alter the perceptions of the other side, and therefore elevate your own side in their eyes - and thereby make mutual respect possible.

What you see as causal, I see as incidental. I don't understand why you see a need for Israel to step down a notch when I think it would make more sense for the Paletinians to step up. Do you think Israeli brutality is necessary for a lasting peace? If so, why haven't they achieved peace a thousand times over already?

 

[am7a]

See the difference? It's like a photograph and its negative. On the israeli side, terror groups are tiny and hounded by the leadership; on the Palestinian side, peace groups are tiny and hounded by the leadership. So saying that "terrorism exist on both side" is like saying that hunger exists in both the USA and in North Korea, or that political persecution exists both in Sweden and in Hussein's Iraq.

this is a nice example, assuming that the israeli side and thier hunger for terror is the same as rich americans hunger for food but 50% of them are overweight so they can't get enough.

 

[Mycroft]

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?

Whether Mycroft does or not, the leaders of the jewish community at the time (the "Yishuv"), above all Ben Gurion, certainly DID abhor Stern and the Irgun, and in fact considered them counterproductive and even, some suspect, had a hand in turning them over to the British. ...[/B]

Skeptic,

Thank you very much for your historical observations that expose the flaws in E.J.Armstrong’s innuendo. I was, however, hoping that he would be ignored so as not to derail this thread. I know that’s hypocritical coming from me who is normally guilty of feeding scavengers enough that they keep coming back, but I do have faith that sometimes rational discussion is possible on this discussion, and would like to give it a chance.

E.J.Armstrong,

There is a topic to this thread, and it is not the Stern Gang nor the Irgun. Please contribute your thoughts and observations that relate to non-violent resistance and its potential use by the Palestinian-Arabs, and save other topics for other threads.

Am7a,

I know you and I are not likely to agree on very much, but I bid you welcome to these forums anyway. I hope you find it an opportunity to both educate and be educated. To get you into the conversation, let me ask you a few questions:

Are you familiar with the writings and works of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., and Mahatma Gandhi?

What is your opinion of non-violent versus violent protest?

 

[am7a]

know you and I are not likely to agree on very much, but I bid you welcome to these forums anyway. I hope you find it an opportunity to both educate and be educated. To get you into the conversation, let me ask you a few questions:

Are you familiar with the writings and works of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., and Mahatma Gandhi?

well we agree on one thing that we are here to educate ourselfs in exchange.
to be honest i don't know much about Dr.luther king, but i know mahatma ghandi story.

What is your opinion of non-violent versus violent protest?

when comparing non-violent reaction to a bad situation in favour of a violent act i think its couragious and preudent. courage and prudence are vertues and the greatest vertue is patience. however prodence can only be reached in a state of justice.
in other words its great to forgive wrong doing and act patiently when you know that you have the power to change it, or you know that you can achieve your purpose by being patient.
now when it comes to the palestinian and israelis do you think that if palestinians choose to be patient and demonstrate peacfuly against sharon visits to their holly mosque then sharon will generously stay away from it?
in a civilized society like america where presumebly justic is above everything, people demonstrated against the war in iraq, they chose a peaceful non-violent way to express thir openion because they know that they have the power of voting the next elections if bosh went against their will.

 

[demon]

A peaceful intifada? A lovely idea but impractical in the circumstances.

The idea is that if Palestinians will show an ethical example by refusing to retaliate to the violence offered to them daily by the IDF, the nice Israeli government will see the error of their ways, return the lands taken since 1948 and make Arafat the new leader of a united country and there will be butterflies and birdsong and the rivers of milk and honey will flow once more.

Instead, what would happen is pretty much the same that happened to the Jews in WW2. The pacifism (especially in the early days) and the passivity of the European Jews contributed to a genocide. We could do the experiment to see if a Palestinian laying-down-of-arms would benefit them, but there wouldn't be many left by the end of it, and then it's too late.

 

[demon]

The IDF using kids to shield their vehicles?

This photo also appeared in the Daily Mail today. It reports that the photo was released by Rabbis for Human Rights.
The story was also covered by the Sydney Morning Herald.

quote:
Israel to investigate claims officer used boy to shield vehicle
By Ed O'Loughlin
April 24, 2004

Jersualem: The Israeli authorities are investigating allegations a paramilitary border officer tied a 12-year-old Palestinian boy to the bonnet of his four-wheel drive to protect it against stone-throwing protesters.

A picture of boy tied to a vehicle was taken last week by an Italian journalist from the Alternative Information Centre and released on the internet.

Rabbi Arik Ascherman, leader of an Israeli group called Rabbis for Human Rights, claims he saw the incident, and said that when he attempted to intervene he was beaten and arrested.

He said the child, Mohammed Badwan, was tied to the police car's windshield by one arm and was shivering with cold or fear.

The alleged incident occurred on April 15, when protesters were attempting to prevent Israeli contractors from building a controversial separation barrier through the lands of the Palestinian village of Biddu.

Five Palestinians have died during protests at Biddu, including four stone-throwers who were shot dead and an elderly man who had a heart attack after being tear-gassed. Israel says the barrier is needed to prevent terrorism.

Rabbi Ascherman said he had gone to intervene on the child's behalf after villagers told him they had seen the border officers beating him.

He said that after the officers arrested him he was forced to stand in front of another police car for more than two hours. "They repeatedly replied with orders to shut up, or verbal threats of violence, or derision," he said.

A spokesman for Israeli police said that as soon as complaints were received the incident had been referred to the Ministry of Justice for investigation. It is now up to the ministry to decide whether further action should be taken against those involved.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/04/23/1082616331713.html

 

[Jocko]

The IDF using kids to shield their vehicles?

At the risk of sounding horribly jaded, if one wants to AVOID drawing the attention of Hamas or the other jihads du jour, I think the last thing you'd put in front of your APC is a civilian - particularly a kid. That's like trying to keep flies away by coating yourself in honey.

 

[The Fool]

At the risk of sounding horribly jaded, if one wants to AVOID drawing the attention of Hamas or the other jihads du jour, I think the last thing you'd put in front of your APC is a civilian - particularly a kid. That's like trying to keep flies away by coating yourself in honey.

Do you support or condemn the tying of children to viehicles? What should happen to the person that did it?

 

[Mycroft]

Demon, Jocko, the Fool,

There is a topic to this thread and it is not Palestinian-Arab kids being tied to Israeli Jeeps. I'm sure you're all dying to discuss this hot new topic, so I've asked that this thread be split so that the new topic can get the attention it craves, and that the remaining thread stay on-topic.

 

[Ziggurat]

The IDF using kids to shield their vehicles?

Plenty of Palestinian claims of IDF abuses have turned out to be complete hogwash (such as the supposed giant massacre in Jenin, or AUP's claim of the use of nerve gas against Palestinians). Given that history, I'm pretty damned sceptical when they complain about abuses. Anectodal testimony given to reporters is simply not reliable. So what evidence is there? Is this picture the extent of it? All I see is a kid tied to a vehicle. Nothing about that photo indicates why he was tied there. Nothing in the photo indicates how long he was tied up there. And since there are possible legitimate reasons to tie him there (they may simply have needed to restrain him for a period of time and couldn't spare a soldier to exclusively guard him, for example), I simply cannot conclude that any abuse was going on based on the photo. And there sure as hell isn't any evidence in the photo that the kid was actually being used to shield the vehicle.

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by Skeptic
Whether Mycroft does or not, the leaders of the jewish community at the time (the "Yishuv"), above all Ben Gurion, certainly DID abhor Stern and the Irgun, and in fact considered them counterproductive and even, some suspect, had a hand in turning them over to the British. In any case, Stern and the Irgun put together were a tiny minority--compromising no more than about 200-300 people at the most (out of 600,000).

Ben Gurion was indeed a great man and I think he would be horrified by the current appalling actions of Sharon as a leader of the country he helped found.

Compare that to the way every suicide bomber is glorified and emulated by the Palestinians, and how Arafat calls on "millions of martyrs"; compare that to the huge number of Palestinians that join those groups; and you'll see the real difference between jewish and Palestinian acts of terror

That is interesting. There is an Israeli website http://www.etzel.org.il/english/index.html which glorifies terrorists with impunity. Sharon openly flouts the law by murdering people without trial and chooses to assassinate them in ways that guarantee the deaths of innocent children. He collectively punishes groups of people in a way that amounts to terrorism. He was elected to do these things.

If you want to look for a group that IS similar, in its relationship with the Palestinian leadership, to the relation that the Irgun or Stern had with the leaders of the jewish community, you should look at Palestinian peace activists who advocate coexistence. Yes, they DO exist, but their lives are in constant danger as "traitors", and killing them is a duty for every "real" Palestinian, according to Arafat&co.

Once again, unfortunately, this attitude and terrorism is not one sided. Yitzhak Rabin was killed for his peaceful views by an Israeli. I note that Ben Gurion in 1967 was of the following opinion. 'After the 1967 Middle East war, Ben Gurion argued against holding on to Arab territory beyond Jerusalem.' From http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/events/israel_at_50/profiles/81279.stm

See the difference?

It's like a photograph and its negative. On the israeli side, terror groups are tiny and hounded by the leadership; on the Palestinian side, peace groups are tiny and hounded by the leadership. So saying that "terrorism exist on both side" is like saying that hunger exists in both the USA and in North Korea, or that political persecution exists both in Sweden and in Hussein's Iraq.

I am against all terror believe that unfortunately your analogue is once again flawed. Sharon is engaged in acts that amount to a state policy of terrorism of innocent people as we speak and he has threatened yet more murder, against international law. His acts prompted members of the elite Israeli airforce to rebel against the inhumanity of of his orders when they stated 'We shall not continue to fight beyond the 1967 borders in order to dominate, expel, starve and humiliate an entire people.' A number of commandos have also refused to serve in certain circumstances. All those people recognise the true nature of Sharon's behaviour. He was elected, as was Arafat.

Both are technically true--SOME people are hungry in the USA, and SOME people (like the tiny number of neo-nazis) are not allowed full political participation in Sweden. But it's not exactly the same thing, is it?

I don't believe this is a valid analogy. Sharon is carrying out regular collective punishment and assassinations as a head of state. He is also engaged in building an apartheid wall and treating ordinary Palestinians in a way that is a disgrace to decent democratic norms and in ways that are unacceptable to some members of his own elite armed forces.

If Sharon will not obey the law, on wha basis does he ask others to do so? I call on Sharon and Arafat to obey the law and halt the terror.

 

[Hutch]

To try and get this back on topic:

After thinking on it for a bit, the difference between Jocko/Mycroft and myself is the topic of non-violence itself. I think (and I admit that I could be wrong) that the Jocko/Mycroft side sees non-violence as the Palestinians laying down their arms and getting on with building schools and infrastructure and good government, which will so impress the Israelis that negotiations for a permanent peace will soon be concluded.

If that is what you think, and I rather hope that I am wrong, I may have to deploy the "P" word into this debate.

The idea is that if Palestinians will show an ethical example by refusing to retaliate to the violence offered to them daily by the IDF, the nice Israeli government will see the error of their ways, return the lands taken since 1948 and make Arafat the new leader of a united country and there will be butterflies and birdsong and the rivers of milk and honey will flow once more.

While I don't agree with demon on a lot of things, occassionally he will write something usable. There is no evidence to the best of my knowledge, that in pre-intafada times Israel stopped building settlements or entered negotiations in any serious way. Now I admit that I'm out on a limb here and don't have the proofs you'll want, so if some of the more rabid debaters can temper themselves and provide information (pro and con) regarding negotiations with a relatively peaceful Palestine, I (and I think others) would be interested.

Now, my view of non-violence is in the same mien as Ghandi and ML King, as I have said before. It may be non-violent, but it is still a struggle against what is seen as an 'oppressor'. And those peaceful protests, while non-violent, WERE provacative and WERE meant to draw a reaction...you don't march across a bridge in Selma, Alabama into the teeth of hundreds of cops (of which in the 60's all were white and many were probably racist) when you are breaking the law without an expectation of confrontation.

Now what I'd like to present to you and Jocko is a challenge of sorts. I have stated as my thesis that non-violent protest as a challege to the 'other side' often leads to violent action against the protesters, which in a moral society sets up a dichotomy between what the society believes is fair and what they see happening, which leads to a settlement that is seen as fair to the non-violent protesters. As evidence of my thesis I have presented the US Civil Rights Movement and the Indian Independence Movement, both non-violent, both met with violence, and both eventually reaching their goals (albeit not in the ways they expected, for such is History).

My challenge to you is to find instances where one side became non-violent while the other side retained the full spectrum of violent tools and that a firm and lasting (i.e., fair) peace was arrived at. I don't think you can find one, but I have learned a fair but here and am willing to learn more.

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by Mycroft
There is a topic to this thread, and it is not the Stern Gang nor the Irgun. Please contribute your thoughts and observations that relate to non-violent resistance and its potential use by the Palestinian-Arabs, and save other topics for other threads.

If you care to check the thread you will see that I did and you wouldn't answer.

Both my contributions were very much aimed at the topic you raised and I note that once again you won't answer a simple question related to a topic you started. This seems to be a trait of yours. I note that on a thread apparently about the palestinains you see fit to claim in relation to Sharon : -
'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.' Is the topic non-violent resistance and its potential use by the Palestinian-Arabs' as you claim or a forum for supporting Sharon? It seems it is actually the latter. Not exactly keeping to your own topic are you? It appears that you can talk about whatever you want on your topics but others can't. I am happy to highlight this hypocrisy as and when it occurs. Either you want to talk about violence or you don't. It seems you don't.

 

[Hutch]

Ziggy, EJ, I'm going to pre-empt Mycroft a bit and note that there are more than enough threads that discuss what #$%^&*% the terrorists and/or Sharon are. We're trying to keep this on-tract with the issue of non-violence and what it means.

If you want to do some digging for your side, see my above post and see what you can come up with on negotiation and efforts for peace when the Palestinians were not in violent opposition to Israel in say, the past 20 years. That would be a contribution to the intent of the thread.

Sorry Mycroft, if I overstepped, but it seemed in line with what you had posted earlier.

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by Hutch
Ziggy, EJ, I'm going to pre-empt Mycroft a bit and note that there are more than enough threads that discuss what #$%^&*% the terrorists and/or Sharon are. We're trying to keep this on-tract with the issue of non-violence and what it means.

I guess my main point is that the matter cannot be looked at in isolation, for a number of reasons, including some you have advanced yourself. Some Israelis historically saw terrorism as a means of achieving their political ends. While it is therefore difficult to ask others to do what the other side wouldn't, this should not stop the attempt.

I would welcome non-violent protest by the Palestinians but my thesis also is that the other side iscurrently lead by a man who's history suggests a non-violent approach would not be effective, in the sense of getting him to stop committing illegal acts and treat the Palestinians with due human decency.

In Northern Ireland, civil rights protestors, of essentially one religious group, on a peaceful march were set upon by another (essentially religious group) whose attack was witnessed and effectively sanctioned by the forces of law and order. It can be argued that, despite this, the Civil Rights movement subsequently succeeded at some levels but the incident was a large factor in spawning decades of violence, as it highlighted the bias and resistance to change to decent democratic norms, of those in power. Despite the attempts to remain non-violent, it quickly proved impossible to maintain that approach, even though British Forces were initially welcomed by the oppressed minority.

Unfortunately, I believe similar bias is already demonstrably the case with some of the rulers of Israel and their attitude to assassination, illegal settlements and collective punishment. I believe history demonstrates in many circumstances, such as Northern Ireland and probably South Africa, that the only way forwards in this sort of situation is for the dominant power to behave fairly and within the law to all sides, over an extended period of time, thus allowing moderates on the other side to exert what pacifiying influence they have, supported by positive feedback from the international community. An eye for an eye never works in the long term, as far as I can tell, in the political arena.

 

[zenith-nadir]

I for one would encourage nonviolent protest. I hope to see the day when palestinians march for peace without firing AK-47s in the air in "celebration".

After Ahmed Yassin was "retired" Many Palestinian Intellectuals called for peaceful resistance to the Israelis in a half-page ad in the PLO's Al-Ayyam newspaper. Thier call was rejected by Hamas and other extremist groups who pledged to continue their attacks against Israel. So on one hand you do have some palestinians who would prefer nonviolent protest, on the other hand you have the likes of Hamas, Fateh, Al-Aksa and Islamic Jihad who are bent on the total destruction of Israel and totally reject pleas for calm. Unfortuantely Arafat is in bed with these groups, for he was the Bin Laden during the 20th century.

It has become so bad that Hamas now assasinates palestinian police chiefs and causes running gun battles between palestinians rather than follow the rule of palestinian law, you have the al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigade beating up the govenor of Jenin, Arafat is hiding known militants in his offices, you have "gunmen" killing Arafat's advisors and Palestinian Police trying to kill each other, you have West Bank mayors quitting in protest over the Palestinian Authority, you have Fateh members quitting in droves.


And somehow out of all this chaos and killing/in fighting between palestinians people expect nonviolent protests? With regret I just don't see it happening. Between Arafat and the corrupt Palestinian Authority, the Islamic fundamentalists of Hamas, Al Aksa and Islamic Jihad who's left in the West Bank or Gaza to protest nonviolently? They are to busy killing each other and of course, the zionist occupiers...

 

[zenith-nadir]

A peaceful intifada? A lovely idea but impractical in the circumstances. The idea is that if Palestinians will show an ethical example by refusing to retaliate to the violence offered to them daily by the IDF, the nice Israeli government will see the error of their ways, return the lands taken since 1948 and make Arafat the new leader of a united country and there will be butterflies and birdsong and the rivers of milk and honey will flow once more.

I love this propoganda, it makes me laugh. From 1948 to 1967 Jordan controlled most of Jerusalem and all of the West Bank and Egypt controlled Gaza. Just an F.Y.I demon incase you forgot that Israel did not control those areas for 20 years.

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Hutch
To try and get this back on topic:

After thinking on it for a bit, the difference between Jocko/Mycroft and myself is the topic of non-violence itself. I think (and I admit that I could be wrong) that the Jocko/Mycroft side sees non-violence as the Palestinians laying down their arms and getting on with building schools and infrastructure and good government, which will so impress the Israelis that negotiations for a permanent peace will soon be concluded.

I assume that non-violent protest is still protest. Building schools, infrastructure and good government are very positive steps that need to be taken, but they are not protest. They would be valuable parts of a larger movement.

Originally posted by Hutch
While I don't agree with demon on a lot of things, occassionally he will write something usable. There is no evidence to the best of my knowledge, that in pre-intafada times Israel stopped building settlements or entered negotiations in any serious way. Now I admit that I'm out on a limb here and don't have the proofs you'll want, so if some of the more rabid debaters can temper themselves and provide information (pro and con) regarding negotiations with a relatively peaceful Palestine, I (and I think others) would be interested.

There have been many negotiations. A good history can be found here:

http://www.mideastweb.org/history.htm

Perhaps Zenith-Nadir can provide more; he’s good at finding links.

Originally posted by Hutch
Now, my view of non-violence is in the same mien as Ghandi and ML King, as I have said before. It may be non-violent, but it is still a struggle against what is seen as an 'oppressor'. And those peaceful protests, while non-violent, WERE provacative and WERE meant to draw a reaction...you don't march across a bridge in Selma, Alabama into the teeth of hundreds of cops (of which in the 60's all were white and many were probably racist) when you are breaking the law without an expectation of confrontation.

My problem is the difference between expecting violence and requiring it. Once you say the violence is required, then you place the protestors in the position of needing to provoke it, which undermines whatever moral high-ground they are trying to build.

One cannot doubt the courage of those protestors who marched across that bridge in Selma, Alabama, but wouldn’t the story have been just as amazing if they had marched across the bridge into the teeth of hundreds of white racist cops…and there was no violence? Wouldn’t that have sent a powerful message too?

Originally posted by Hutch My challenge to you is to find instances where one side became non-violent while the other side retained the full spectrum of violent tools and that a firm and lasting (i.e., fair) peace was arrived at. I don't think you can find one, but I have learned a fair but here and am willing to learn more.

I think there are plenty of examples of non-violent protest that stayed non-violent. Remember South Africa? Certainly protests in South Africa were violent, but their non-violent counterparts in the States that increased public awareness and prompted such pressure moves as divesture and boycotts were also effective.