Nonviolent intifada?

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by am7a
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.

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.

I don’t think Gandhi or King were patient, and if they believed they were acting in a state of justice they would not have felt the need to act at all.

Also, I don’t think non-violence is about forgiving wrong. It’s about correcting wrong while trying not to do wrong yourself.

Originally posted by am7a
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?

I don’t think any struggle has a guarantee of success; else it wouldn’t be a struggle. I do think that the chances of creating a positive result are at least as good as the violence that is the current strategy.

Agree or not with the sentiment, one could look at Sharons’ visit to the Al-Aqsa Mosque as itself a non-violent protest against the exclusively Arab nature of the holy site.

Originally posted by am7a
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.

At the same time, the civil rights protests of previous decades were because those who wanted change did not have enough power to enact it. The protests were to draw attention and gain power through a change in public opinion.

Gandhi certainly didn’t have the political power to enact change through voting either.

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
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.

Even if we were to agree that Sharon's acts were illegal (and that's another topic) then it's not so important how Sharon himself would react to it. If it undermined the support for Sharon, it would bring about a power change.

Overall, your thesis seems to be that it shouldn't be tried because it would not work fast enough. I don't think there is any solution that promises fast results.

 

[am7a]

originally posted by Mycroft

I don’t think Gandhi or King were patient, and if they believed they were acting in a state of justice they would not have felt the need to act at all.

I wasn't trying to compare the situation with Gandhis or King because their surcomestanses were completely different.
before Ghandi the indians didn't have an organized resistant structure against their occupiers, besides they didn't have to choose between leaving their land or being killed. however patience was indeed an important factor in gandhi's life becous pationce is attatched to the vertue of courage to help the patient person indure the difficulties he was facing without loosing his temper and steme the anger otherwise his anger would results with violence.
since you want to engage gandhi as an example, gandhi and his followers weren't just protesting peacefully, they have used many other strategies, maybe i can recall that since they were used as a human work force they used that as a retaliation method.
so what do you suggest palestinians would do other than peacful protests?

I don’t think any struggle has a guarantee of success; else it wouldn’t be a struggle. I do think that the chances of creating a positive result are at least as good as the violence that is the current strategy.

i don't think that was the case after the first intifada because the first intifada forced israel to think about trying a peace deal, but the peace process itself wasn't succesful at all.

Agree or not with the sentiment, one could look at Sharons’ visit to the Al-Aqsa Mosque as itself a non-violent protest against the exclusively Arab nature of the holy site.

ofcorse i don't agree, sharon's intentions were prety clear to declair that this place belongs to the jews and they will get it.

At the same time, the civil rights protests of previous decades were because those who wanted change did not have enough power to enact it. The protests were to draw attention and gain power through a change in public opinion.

thats true but in these situations their demands are not as significant in terms of how they impacted their lives

Gandhi certainly didn’t have the political power to enact change through voting either.

hi didn't have the political power but he did created other sources of power to make the british obay

 

[peptoabysmal]

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.

Looking at the photo very closely, I don't see that the boy is tied at all. It looks as though his left arm has been bandaged and possibly a tourniquet applied? It looks like there's even still a roll of first aid tape laying on the hood beside the boy.

er .. sorry off topic

 

[The Fool]

Looking at the photo very closely, I don't see that the boy is tied at all. It looks as though his left arm has been bandaged and possibly a tourniquet applied? It looks like there's even still a roll of first aid tape laying on the hood beside the boy.

er .. sorry off topic

Another possible explanation could be that IDF soldiers lake to give local children rides on the front of viehicles. I can just see the scenes now as the children giggle in glee as the kind IDF solders take them for joyrides....

Wake up gentlemen.... Reality is biting you on the arse.

 

[Luke T.]

Mycroft asked me to moderate this topic and split it from demon's post on. Unfortunately, I am extremely busy, and what little time I have for the forum is involved fixing a screwup that occurred with the Forum Spotlight topics and the way the forum software copies topics. Right now, I am so gunshy of what the forum software does in the way of screwing things up, I am afraid to split this topic because it involves the same software.

Anyway, let's get the topic back on track, please. Non-violent intifada, and all that. Don't you guys see the irony of uncontrollable emotional reactions in a topic about the Middle East?

 

[Outcast]

Mycroft asked me to moderate this topic and split it from demon's post on. Unfortunately, I am extremely busy, and what little time I have for the forum is involved fixing a screwup that occurred with the Forum Spotlight topics and the way the forum software copies topics. Right now, I am so gunshy of what the forum software does in the way of screwing things up, I am afraid to split this topic because it involves the same software.

Anyway, let's get the topic back on track, please. Non-violent intifada, and all that. Don't you guys see the irony of uncontrollable emotional reactions in a topic about the Middle East?

I started a new topic for the kid and jeep, if you want to move pp there.

 

[zenith-nadir]

If you are interested in non-violent protest try this experiment, go to Google and type in "palestinian peace organizations". See what comes up.

 

[a_unique_person]

If you are interested in non-violent protest try this experiment, go to Google and type in "palestinian peace organizations". See what comes up.

I have found that anything to do with the Palestinian point of view is hard to find. It could have something to do with

a) Poverty
b) Poor Infrastructure

There aren't server farms spread throughout what is left of the place, with Universities pumping out numerous graduates and Hi Tech development centres dotted. The sites seem to be hastily put together, they come and go. I am sorry if this is not what you require for your research purposes. I can assure you, however, there are Palestinians out there who want a reasonable, peaceful outcome, just as there are people in Israel.

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by Mycroft
Even if we were to agree that Sharon's acts were illegal (and that's another topic) then it's not so important how Sharon himself would react to it. If it undermined the support for Sharon, it would bring about a power change.

Overall, your thesis seems to be that it shouldn't be tried because it would not work fast enough. I don't think there is any solution that promises fast results..

Assassinating untried people and stealing land is basically illegal in my county, the USA and most decent democratic nations around the world. Hopefully the actions of the courageous pilots and commandos will be reflected in the wider population in the not too distant future.

My thesis has nothing to do with speed. It has everything to do with respect for the law.

The starting point for the resolution of most conflicts of this nature is for the major power to start behaving fairly to all sides under the law. I wish everyone on all sides the best in achieving a non-violent and fair settlement. Unfortunately I do not have much hope of that happening

 

[Skeptic]

I have found that anything to do with the Palestinian point of view is hard to find.

Indeed so. I just entered "Palestine" into google.com and got back a mere 4,660,000 web pages. Making the rather conservative estimate that only 10% are pro-palestinian, that's a mere half a million web pages or so.

It could have something to do with

a) Poverty
b) Poor Infrastructure

Oh, I see. The fact that there are no palestinian peace organizations are israel's fault, of course.

I can assure you, however, there are Palestinians out there who want a reasonable, peaceful outcome,

You can, eh? That's a relief. Why don't you post a few of those web pages so we can look at what exactly they mean by a "reasonable, peaceful outcome"?

 

[Mycroft]

Indeed so. I just entered "Palestine" into google.com and got back a mere 4,660,000 web pages. Making the rather conservative estimate that only 10% are pro-palestinian, that's a mere half a million web pages or so.

Don't exagerate. I found only 2,670,000 hits.

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by Skeptic
Indeed so. I just entered "Palestine" into google.com and got back a mere 4,660,000 web pages. Making the rather conservative estimate that only 10% are pro-palestinian, that's a mere half a million web pages or so.

Is that how skeptical thinking works?

Perhaps this is one of those websites? It states that 'Settlers injure five people in attack on olive-pickers
By Arnon Regular, Ha'aretz Correspondent, Ha'aretz Service and Agencies

Five people were injured Sunday, when settlers from Itamar attacked peace activists and Palestinian olive-pickers from the nearby village of Yinon.'
http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/p...ontrassID=1&subContrassID=0&sbSubContrassID=0

Or perhaps it is just unvarnished news about settler violence towards peaceful Palestinians simply trying to make a living. I wonder which it is? Perhaps you can help by making another rather conservative assumption?

 

[Thunder]

I am bringing back this thread.

What would happen if today, right now, the Palestinian people, along with Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the PFLP, and all the other groups, chose to adopt non-violent protest and civil disobedience as their strategy against Israel?

I say they would have their own state in a year.

Israel would be forced to leave the West Bank. Their only excuse for not leaving has been Palestinian violence. Take away Palestinian violence, and Israel has lost.

 

[funk de fino]

"NEWS FLASH!".

Arabs still pissed at creation of Israel. Now tell me something I didn't know. There are plenty of southerners still pissed that the North won, Slavs, Serbs and Bosnians who are pissed at everything that happened over the past 500 years, and still want to kill each other, Irish who hate each other, Scots who hate the English, Aboriginals and Indians who hate whitey. The list goes on and on. That's the problem with starting one of these things, it can take thousands of years for the hatred to die out.

Some people hate the English, but I don't. They're just wankers. We, on the other hand, are colonized by wankers. We can't even pick a decent culture to be colonized by. We are ruled by effete arseholes. It's a ***** state of affairs and all the fresh air in the world will not make any ****ing difference.

Had to be done.

 

[WildCat]

I am bringing back this thread.

What would happen if today, right now, the Palestinian people, along with Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the PFLP, and all the other groups, chose to adopt non-violent protest and civil disobedience as their strategy against Israel?

I say they would have their own state in a year.

Israel would be forced to leave the West Bank. Their only excuse for not leaving has been Palestinian violence. Take away Palestinian violence, and Israel has lost.

Define "their own state" and then find a definition that agrees with that from the groups that you listed.

 

[Thunder]

A Palestinian State as envisioned in the Geneva Accords. Which is basically the West Bank with maybe a 3% land exchange. The Arab sections of East Jerusalem become the Palestinian capital. The Old City is shared under a special regime.

IMHO, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the PFLP, etc..are going to have to compromise their extremist demands for the sake of the future of their people.