Palestinians should use violence, here's why

[Jay GW]

A Gandhi in Jerusalem
by Jonathan Cook
International Herald Tribune

JERUSALEM The arrival in the Middle East of Arun Gandhi, preaching his grandfather Mahatma Gandhi's message of love, brotherhood and nonviolence to conflict-weary Israelis and Palestinians, has raised tentative hopes that the bloody conflict may be entering a more reflective phase.

But few Palestinians are likely to embrace peaceful protest as a way of attaining statehood - not because Palestinians are hellbent on mindless retribution against Israelis, but because nonviolence is unlikely to be effective as a strategy.

At a rally in East Jerusalem on Friday, Gandhi led thousands of Palestinians, including Prime Minister Ahmed Qurei, and a handful of Israeli peace campaigners on a march in opposition to the wall being built across the West Bank.

But for most of the 37 years of Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, the Palestinians were nonviolent - and it did them little good. Israel simply entrenched the occupation, illegally moving hundreds of thousands of settlers on to Palestinian land.

Palestinians also now understand that violence is the surest way to get their struggle noticed. Bombing buses is immoral, but it makes the front pages, reminding the world that there is a conflict. When Palestinians alone are the victims, the world switches off.

Conversely, when Palestinians adopt peaceful strategies, the news media can barely stifle their yawns. The current hunger strike by Palestinian prisoners protesting the violation of their rights is a case in point. It has utterly failed to ignite international interest, except briefly when the Israeli authorities decided to sizzle kebabs outside cells.

Equally, the dozens of mostly nonviolent protests in the West Bank against the Israeli security wall rarely flicker on to the Western news media's radar. And once the wall is completed, most avenues for peaceful resistance to the occupation will be blocked for good.

The efficacy of nonviolence might look different to Palestinians were they receiving the steadfast support of leftist Israelis. But in reality it is the Israelis, not the Palestinians, who are the missing peace partners.

Neither the solidarity tents for the prisoners nor Gandhi's rallies have been graced by members of Israel's largest peace bloc, Peace Now.

Gandhi told his followers in East Jerusalem that what is needed in the region is more love and understanding. But what is required even more urgently is a little more anger and courage - from Israelis who can see the folly of the occupation.

http://www.iht.com/articles/536421.html

 

[CBL4]

Well at least someone understands the reason for the Palestinians plight. If Ghandi (or his grandson) was their leader instead of Arafat, they would have had peace long ago.

The slant of the article is simply false. It is certainly true that while Palestinian terrorist blow up buses (16 dead today), small peace marches and hunger strikes will not get attention. I wonder why? The article also fails to distinguish peaceful protest from peacefully doing nothing. The Palestinians have at times been non-violent. They have protested. But they have never had a period of significant non-violent protest.

If the Palestinians started a massive campaign of non-violent protest and ceased terrorism it would be front page news. But I am not holding my breath.

Also if Arafat had given Arum Ghandi support, it would have been front page news. The Palestinian PM has no power, so his attendance is almost meaningless but I do applaud his effort.

I find it amazing that after people such as Ghandi, Mandela and King have shown the sucessful (and of course moral) way to protest in a democracy, idiots still follow murderers such as Arafat. BTW, I find even more ironic that Kashmiris cannot follow this logic.

CBL

 

[zenith-nadir]

The article completely omits Islamic fundamentalism and terror groups from the equation. In essence the article is akin to blaming America for Al Queda's actions without divulging the Islamic fundamentalist aspect of Al Queda.

I give the article a two thumbs down. I give peace between Palestinian and Israelis two thumbs up.

 

[Skeptic]

But for most of the 37 years of Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, the Palestinians were nonviolent - and it did them little good.

...except numerous attempts at peace talks (which, until the 1990s, were rejected out of hand by the Palestinians), the Oslo peace process, and an offer of a state in 2000 over 97% of the west Bank and Gaza, with territory inside israel to compensate. Apparently the occupation wasn't that entrenched.

violence is the surest way to get their struggle noticed

Sure is. Blown up jewish babies make great headlines, don't you think?

 

[Mike B.]

Sure is. Blown up jewish babies make great headlines, don't you think?

Not only that...

But the more terrorism used against you, the more sympathy the terrorists get because after all they wouldn't be doing it if there was not a good reason.

I mean the really informed people think this. I don't mean the unwashed masses that don't know the "truth."

 

[epepke]

Violence sure worked out peachy for Palestinians in 1967.

 

[demon]

CBL4:
"Well at least someone understands the reason for the Palestinians plight. If Ghandi (or his grandson) was their leader instead of Arafat, they would have had peace long ago."

Total bulls**t to compare the Israel/USA/Palestine conflict with Gandhi and India.
The occupation of India involved a small, near bankrupt post war nation ie. Britain, trying to maintain a huge country of hundreds of millions. Violent or non-violent, any resistance would eventually have worked as British rule in India was falling apart anyway and the empire was unable to maintain itself in a viable condition.

Imagine Gandhi trying to do his thang a hundred years earlier before the Brits had extracted all the juice from the fruits they went there to plunder? Fat chance.
If a real Gandhi had emerged in Palestine, you can say there would be a good chance some Likud fanatics in Mossad would have snuffed him out for the same reason that they keep Arafat in power. Just look at how they refuse to accept even Sharon's land grab...give us more they say.
You think they are going to let the murder of Israelis or a genuine Palestnian peace movement get in they way of that? Get real.

In Palestine, the situation is totally different. The murder and ethnic cleansing of unarmed civilian Palestinians has occurred before and may occur again if the Likudniks have their way and the endemic ignorance of people who can compare Palestine and India will help insure the Western powers won`t bat an eyelid.

No wonder the Palestinians have not emulated Gandhi's tactics anyway when the Israeli security forces habitually use violence against non-violent protests. The intifida began following Ehud Barak's order to send tanks and IDF units against the unarmed protesters demonstrating against Sharon's visit to the holy sites of Jerusalem on Sept 28 2000. Over the three days following Sharon's visit 30 Palestinians and 2 Israelis had been killed.
The first Palestinian suicide bombing against an Israeli civilian target did not occur until Nov 2 2000. Right from the beginning of the intifada the full weight of Israeli military might was used against the Palestinians. On Oct 5, LAW reported:
'Israel has used all means to suppress the protests, including the use of internationally banned arms against civilians such as: live bullets, high velocity bullets, dum-dum, rubber-coated metal bullets, automatic guns, combat helicoptors, tanks and armoured vehicles, missiles, tear gas and rash gas, and rifles equipped with silencers used by snipers.'
www.law-society.org/Reports/reports/2000/UNHCHR.htm.

Let`s be clear. The eventual aim is for a "Greater Isreal" and peaceful or violent actions by the Palestinians are immaterial to those fanatics who are striving for this. The Palestinians, unfortunately, have no future in the Zionists plans or stolen lands.

 

[Mycroft]

Total bulls**t to compare the Israel/USA/Palestine conflict with Gandhi and India.
The occupation of India involved a small, near bankrupt post war nation ie. Britain, trying to maintain a huge country of hundreds of millions. Violent or non-violent, any resistance would eventually have worked as British rule in India was falling apart anyway and the empire was unable to maintain itself in a viable condition.

It's fascinating to see these logical constructs used to support violence.

1) Arun Gandhi is quoted supporting violence.

2) We listen to him because his grandfather is famous for successfully using non-violence to achieve his ends.

3) The moment somebody suggests following the grandfathers example instead, the grandfather is discredited. Mahatma Gandhi is no big deal, British rule was falling apart anyway, any resistance would have worked!

It's beautiful. You logically eliminate our reason for listening to Arun in the first place, yet somehow the rationalization for violence remains.

In the meantime, if the USA or Israel use violence for any reason, it's condemned merely because it is violence and people get hurt or killed by it. It's only when the “correct” people use violence that we're allowed to consider what they're supposedly trying to accomplish with it, even when the evidence suggests otherwise.

 

[zenith-nadir]

Lying at JREF should be frowned upon by all members. It is an insult to every poster here when one knowingly posts lies.

The first Palestinian suicide bombing against an Israeli civilian target did not occur until Nov 2 2000.

That is a lie. The first suicide bombing was in April 1994 by Hamas in Hadera. There were 4 suicide bombings in 1994, 3 in 1995, 4 in 1996, etc, etc. They have never stopped. Source

You also posted another huge lie Demon;

Originally posted by demon - 08-30-2004 12:24 AM
I think we should also remain aware that Arafat is a deliberate "creation" of the US and Israel.

I think anything you say or will say regarding the Middle East should be dismissed in it's entirety as I have shown twice now that you will go so far as to lie on JREF to support your arguments.

Have a nice day.

Sincerely

Zenith-Nadir

 

[a_unique_person]

ZNs link leads to

The American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise (AICE) was established in 1993 as a nonprofit 501(c)(3), nonpartisan organization to strengthen the U.S.-Israel relationship by emphasizing the fundamentals of the alliance — the values our nations share. Tangibly, this means developing social and educational programs in the U.S. based on innovative, successful Israeli models that address similar domestic problems, and bringing novel U.S. programs to Israel.

a non-partisan partisan organisation. I thought you didn't like lying, ZN.

 

[zenith-nadir]

ZNs link leads to...a non-partisan partisan organisation. I thought you didn't like lying, ZN.

Either you have evidence that suicide bombings began in 1994 or you have evidence that they did not. If you have such evidence then provide it, otherwise your attempt to impeach a source which lists every suicide bombing is grasping at straws to defend Demon's lie.


{edited to add}

USA Today - 3/22/2004

April 13, 1994: First Hamas suicide bombing kills five in Israeli city of Hadera.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE 1995 APRIL: PATTERNS OF GLOBAL TERRORISM, 1994

There were numerous deadly attacks by the Islamic extremist group HAMAS against Israelis. In April a bomb in Fula that exploded near a commuter bus killed eight persons and wounded 50, mostly children who were waiting to ride the bus back from school. In October a suicide bomber detonated a device inside a public bus in the heart of Tel Aviv's business and shopping district, killing 22 Israeli passengers plus the perpetrator and wounding at least 48.

BBC - Tuesday, 2 March, 2004

The first Palestinian suicide attack in Israel killed eight people in April 1994...

What's Demon's and your next trick a_u_p? Rewriting the history for Vietnam? WW2? Desert Storm?

 

[Skeptic]

Congratulations, Jay GW!

It's been a while since I've read such an eloquent, well-thought-out defense of that well-known ethical thesis, that the end justifies the mean. That it's OK to blow up jewish babies, as long as it's done in the noble cause of Palestine.

Yes, usually, "the end justifies the mean" is considered by the very same people who write such "Palestinians should use violence" articles to be the very epitome of immoral and unethical behavior, of barbarism and savagry, but the contradiction is only an apparrant one.

"The end justifies the means" is only bad when the means are used by people the "peace-loving progressive" doesn't like--like those who bomb abortion clinics, or Republicans, or the western democracies in general.

But it is justifiable--in fact, as in this article, positively recommended--when done by those who the "peace-loving progressive" does like: the "opressed group" du jour (the Palestinians, Arabs/Muslims in general, whatever the currently fashionable judean-people-front-esque "marxist liberation army" from south America is, etc.), or--in the past--the "progressive peace camp" of the Communist dictatorships.

It is this which made Orwell say that the "peace camp is objectively pro-fascist". Contrary to popular belief, he didn't mean that it's a "if you're not for us, you're against us" situation, e.g., that if you are neutral in the war between Hitler and Churchill you are supporting Hitler. What he said, instead, was that while the "peace camp" claims to be neutral due to general ethical principles (chief among them, "the end does not justify the means"), in reality it only uses these principles to bash the democracies, while they ignore or even excuse the violation of the very same principles by the fascists.

As this article shows, the Orwellian "peace camp" is still with us--for the mass muderer, Arafat, and against his victims. Go ahead, kill a few more jews, they say. It's good for you.

 

[CBL4]

As greater Serbia got smaller and smaller, The Economist once described Milosevic as the least effective nationalist ever because each time he took an action, his country got smaller.

Arafat seems to deserve the title of least effective freedom fighter ever. Each time he endorses violence, the Palestinian land get smaller. He never learns.

If a real Gandhi had emerged in Palestine, you can say there would be a good chance some Likud fanatics in Mossad would have snuffed him out for the same reason that they keep Arafat in power.

You almost made a good point. If a Ghandi had appeared, it is very likely that Arafat or Hamas or the PDLF or Hizbullah ... would have killed him. Just look what is happening now.

The reality is that when Israel has taken clearly inappropriate actions causing death and hardships to civilians, their courts and populace have condemn them. But when the action appear to be related to Palestinian violence, the populace has cheered them.

Ghandi, MLK Jr and Mandela all understand the beauty of civil disobediance against a democracy. People do not like to see their soldiers beating/killing clearly unarmed civilians. However, people love to see terrorists die even when it harms civilians.

CBL

 

[CapelDodger]

from Mycroft:

It's fascinating to see these logical constructs used to support violence.

1) Arun Gandhi is quoted supporting violence.

2) We listen to him because his grandfather is famous for successfully using non-violence to achieve his ends.

3) The moment somebody suggests following the grandfathers example instead, the grandfather is discredited. Mahatma Gandhi is no big deal, British rule was falling apart anyway, any resistance would have worked!

These are actually statements, not logical constructs. Presumably in the first you meant "non-violence", and the statement is uncontentious. The second is only true depending on the definition of "we"; I don't listen to people because of what their grandfather did. I listen to see if they have something interesting to say.

On point 3, Gandhi has not been definitively discredited, but we surely none of us think the myth is the man (even if we haven't actually hit the books on the subject). His role, and the role of non-violent protest generally, in Indian independence has been enormously exaggerated - not least by the British, who are understably reluctant to admit that they were physically incapable of maintaining rule over India. The writing was on the wall when General Dyer's men opened fire in 1920(?). The war with Japan put the tin-lid on it. Only when the British promised independence did India throw itself into the fight, and it contributed far more to defeat of Japan than the British did. (The Brits had a more pressing problem at the time.) Not just Indian troops, but Indian industry and Indian finance. There was no going back.

 

[CapelDodger]

from Demon:

The eventual aim is for a "Greater Isreal" and peaceful or violent actions by the Palestinians are immaterial to those fanatics who are striving for this.

Do any zionists think Israel's situation would have been any easier if their opponents had been Hindu, not Muslim and Christian? Or Buddhists? (Can't ... help ... myself ... if zionism had been up against anyone but Arabs, they'd never have got as far as they have.) Non-violence and assimilation is what the vast majority of Palestinians resorted to after 1948 and 1967, and all it brought them was (if they were lucky) second-class citizenship or non-citizenship. Along with dispossession and harrassment. And the world didn't even notice. The only time that anybody payed any attention to the Palestinians was when they did something violent. That's something that has changed. The first Intifada wasn't non-violent, but kids throwing stones and catching bullets rather blew away the mantle of Israeli victimisation.

Israel has never accepted any limits to its borders and has never engaged honestly in peace-talks. The "disengagement" that leaves the Palestinians of the West Bank penned into a few enclaves, and those of East Jerusalem bussed out to join them, will not be stable. At some point an Israeli government will be elected that lays claim to more - the East Bank, Southern Lebanon, getting Gaza back, getting shot of Israel's Arabs - and it'll all go off again. There's a couple of generations' worth of ambitions out there. Violence or non-violence from the Palestinians won't make any difference to that.

That said, Palestinian violence is startlingly self-defeating. By acting from vicious hatred the perpetrators confirm themselves as vicious and hateful. You could lose sympathy for them if you forgot that the great majority of Palestinians don't act like this. Given the chance, they'd be ordinary decent folk. But they've never had that chance, since Palestine is where the Jewish State was ordained to be by a bunch of European Jews.

 

[CapelDodger]

from CBL4:

As greater Serbia got smaller and smaller, The Economist once described Milosevic as the least effective nationalist ever because each time he took an action, his country got smaller.

Actually, Greater Serbia is still what it was - an aspiration. It was subsumed within Yugoslavia after the Serbian coup against the Confederation of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes that created the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, under a Serbian King. This was Greater Serbia and more. Then came the Italian invasion of Greece and German invasion of Yugoslavia to rescue the Italians, after which Yugoslavia was split into puppet states and the Greater Serbia thing re-emerged. As did Greater Croatia - another aspiration, but with added Pope. The result was so horrid that Tito could keep the lid on things until memories had faded.

Greater Serbia has not gone away. Milosevic could lose wars away from home, but only when the war came to Serbia itself did he fall. In future there should be a "bomb Serbia first" policy if trouble crops up anywhere in the Balkans.

 

[corplinx]

I like how the Palestinians brought about change in Lebanon through nonviolence all those years ago.

 

[zenith-nadir]

Non-violence and assimilation is what the vast majority of Palestinians resorted to after 1948 and 1967, and all it brought them was (if they were lucky) second-class citizenship or non-citizenship.

Considering since 1948 palestinians who live in Israel ARE CITIZENS of Israel and from 1948 - 1967 Gaza was Egyptian territory and the West Bank was Jordanian territory. So who made the Palestinian "second-class citizens or non-citizens" again Capel? I think I misunderstood your distortion of history.

Along with dispossession and harrassment. And the world didn't even notice. The only time that anybody payed any attention to the Palestinians was when they did something violent.

Like when Arafat tried to take over Jordan and killed 3000+ people including the Jordanian Prime Minister? Or how about when Arafat tried to take over Lebanon and started a 10-year civil war that cost tens of thousands of lives. Are those examples of "The only time that anybody payed any attention to the Palestinians was when they did something violent"?

That's something that has changed. The first Intifada wasn't non-violent, but kids throwing stones and catching bullets rather blew away the mantle of Israeli victimisation.

After all there is nothing like "blowing away the mantle of Israeli victimisation" by sending teens and adults to attack Israelis with stones, axes, Molotov cocktails, hand grenades, and firearms....

Israel has never accepted any limits to its borders and has never engaged honestly in peace-talks.

Boy if that is not the pot calling the kettle black I don't know what is. Tell me Capel, when has Arafat and the PLO...er...Palestinian Authority engaged honestly in anything? Hell, Arafat won't even engage honestly in reform for his own people today Einstein, (see: Arafat Fends Off Challenge Over Reforms , Arafat was still balking , Arafat digs in heels). And you blame Israel...priceless.

That said, Palestinian violence is startlingly self-defeating. By acting from vicious hatred the perpetrators confirm themselves as vicious and hateful. You could lose sympathy for them if you forgot that the great majority of Palestinians don't act like this. Given the chance, they'd be ordinary decent folk. But they've never had that chance, since Palestine is where the Jewish State was ordained to be by a bunch of European Jews.

Ahhh, sorry to ruin your distortion of history again but it was ordained to be where it is by U.N. Resolution 181.

In favour: 33

Australia, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Byelorussian S.S.R., Canada, Costa Rica, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, France, Guatemala, Haiti, Iceland, Liberia, Luxemburg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Sweden, Ukrainian S.S.R., Union of South Africa, U.S.A., U.S.S.R., Uruguay, Venezuela.

Against: 13

Afghanistan, Cuba, Egypt, Greece, India, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, Yemen.

Abstained: 10

Argentina, Chile, China, Colombia, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Honduras, Mexico, United Kingdom, Yugoslavia.

 

[CapelDodger]

from zenith-nadir:

Ahhh, sorry to ruin your distortion of history again but it was ordained to be where it is by U.N. Resolution 181.

A real distortion of history is to pretend that the Jewish State of Israel was created de novo by the UN Resolution of 1947. To pretend that it had nothing to do with the Herzl's "The Jewish State", th First Zionist Congress, the Seventh Congress when any other location than Palestine was finally rejected, the Second Aliyah from 1905, the Balfour Declaration, the League of Nations mandates, the Jewish Agency, land purchases with money from the diaspora, organised immigration, the formation of the Hagganah, Irgun and Lehi, and all the rest of it. That really is a distortion. You really don't care what you accuse people of, do you?