Can a Palestinian Nonviolent Resistance Help?

[amalhope]

Originally Posted by Zayn

What's the difference? It is all passive resistance. The First Intifada also incorporated things other than throwing rocks, you know. Do some more research.

I have. I know about the Intifada. You might not have gotten what I meant. What I said is a bit different than what happened during the Intifada years.

Again: Perhaps if it's a larger-scale peaceful movement it might work in some cases and it would get media attention. Who knows!

I mean the majority of the citizens of a village go down to the streets and just sit peacefully in front of bulldozers ready to bring down homes or trees, etc. I am talking 2000 people or more. I don't know how plausible this is, it's just an idea (in response to the first message in this thread).

Again, I don't know. Israel is a beast.

As I said earlier, sometimes violence cannot be avoided. Israel practiced systematic violence against Palestinians. Palestinians had no other choice:
YouTube - Israeli Brutality - The Occupation, Human Rights Violations and War Crimes

...

[Zayn]

Originally Posted by amalhope

I have. I know about the Intifada. You might not have gotten what I meant. What I said is a bit different than what happened during the Intifada years.

Again: Perhaps if it's a larger-scale peaceful movement it might work in some cases and it would get media attention. Who knows!

I mean the majority of the citizens of a village go down to the streets and just sit peacefully in front of bulldozers ready to bring down homes or trees, etc. I am talking 2000 people or more. I don't know how plausible this is, it's just an idea (in response to the first message in this thread).

Again, I don't know. Israel is a beast.

As I said earlier, sometimes violence cannot be avoided. Israel practiced systematic violence against Palestinians. Palestinians had no other choice:
YouTube - Israeli Brutality - The Occupation, Human Rights Violations and War Crimes

...

I thought I just told you that the first intifada wasn't just about throwing rocks. "Sit-ins" as you've described them are done everyday. The protesters are dispersed with tear gas, rubber bullets (which are often deadly), live ammunition, and riot police. Western media, particularly American, does not cover these events because they are only interested in Israeli deaths and injuries.

Besides, what is the fundamental difference between throwing a rock and a "sit-in"? As I said, they are both non-violent forms of protest. What's the difference between throwing a rock at a tank and sitting in front of a bulldozer? Personally, I'd rather throw the rock.

[Salome]

Originally Posted by zoomzoom

Ahmed A. Khatib and Jody McIntyre



My name is Ahmed A. Khatib, I am 32 years old, and married with four children. I live in the village of Bil'in, where I work on our family's farm.

When Israel started building the wall here in 2005, I was working with the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades military, the armed wing of the Fatah party. But at first, the villagers went to our land not to "resist," but simply to see what the Israeli soldiers were doing. There was no planning, no such things as "demonstrations," and no organization. We were just curious as to why these strangers were stealing our olive groves. So, in effect, our popular struggle was initiated through ordinary people walking to their land.

However, as the Israelis' intentions became evident, the people of the village agreed that the formation of a local popular committee would be the best way forward.

After a couple of initial meetings, it was decided that we would embark on a campaign of nonviolent resistance, drawing inspiration from the struggle in Budrus village, where they had actually succeeded in moving the route of the wall. At first, I thought the suggestion was a joke - I had friends who had been killed, friends locked up in prison. I worked with guns to fight against the occupation, so it was difficult for me to believe that we could ever return to our land through nonviolent means.

But we are farmers from a small village, simple people, fighting against the fourth largest military in the world. If you think about it, Bilin is home to around 1,500 inhabitants; half of those are women, plus a few hundred children, and maybe 50 elderly men. You aren't left with many people to take up an armed struggle against the Israeli army.

At the first demonstration, the army really didn't have a clue how to deal with us! Because we came to them as unarmed citizens, they were left with no pretext to shoot at us. Instead, they started beating us with their weapons. Before, I didn't believe that Israeli and international activists would be able to help, but then I saw them becoming human shields, taking the soldiers' blows for us Palestinians. When we returned to the village, everyone had an injury to show. It was a great feeling to see that kind of solidarity, although I still remained skeptical about the concept of nonviolent resistance.

read on...
IMEU: Believing in the nonviolent struggle

Thanks for sharing your experience here.. you reminded me of the story of the Lemon tree..

I wish ever more people would believe in non-violent resistance, and that the media covers it on front page

Originally Posted by shreek

stop the propaganda.
Your Arabo-Islamic brothers don't even care one iota for your 'Palestinian cause' and you want the West to care?

Stop hijacking the thread, this is the wrong one to joke around...you don't know your limits do you?

[zoomzoom]

Originally Posted by amalhope

Thanks for sharing this.

A non-violent resistance wouldn't have worked in the past. Perhaps now it could work in some cases.

Today, Israel enjoys a relatively "good" image in the West. Israel is a state recognized by Western countries, and it is viewed by ill-informed or biased people as a lone democracy in a sea of sharks like Iran, Sudan, etc., when in reality it is a shark swimming amongst other sharks. Who has devoured more little fish today is not the question because they've all devoured exorbitant amounts of little fish throughout their lives. The tyrant regimes are tyrant regimes who oppress their people. Israel, on the other hand, is a tyrant occupation that treats "its" Jews well and oppresses Palestinians.

The Holocaust still haunts the West with feelings of guilt towards Jews and for that reason, coupled with their own self-interests, the Western countries fully support Israel as long as its actions don't get too openly embarrassing for them. What happened in Gaza, as ugly as it was, was blamed on Hamas' extremism and allegedly using civilians as human shields.

The large-scale massacres that Israel committed pre-1948 cannot be committed against un-armed Palestinian civilians again today with minimal ramifications. There would be no pretext for it and the media today is more vigilant than it was in the past. Today's Israel would not want to jeopardize its present image gains for the sake of unilaterally mass-massacring civilian Palestinians, unless they start posing a threat to its existence.

The nonviolent resistance was appearant during the first Intifada. Infact the images of Israeli soliders in the world press trying to break the hands of the children who wear stoning them made good image throughout the world. The first intifada was killed by Arafat and his company who signed the Oslow accord. Arafat who led us from one defeat to another, was masterfully outmanovered by the Israeli government which wanted a way out. So they brought in Arafat and his 30,000 men carrying Klashinkoffs and thus justfying Israeli massacre of civilans. Arafat, Abbass and company have harmed Palestinians more than anyone else in the world. I hope they all end up in hell

[shreek]

Originally Posted by zoomzoom

Arafat who led us from one defeat to another, was masterfully outmanovered by the Israeli government which wanted a way out. So they brought in Arafat and his 30,000 men carrying Klashinkoffs and thus justfying Israeli massacre of civilans. Arafat, Abbass and company have harmed Palestinians more than anyone else in the world. I hope they all end up in hell

la2 ya zoomzoom, hala2 byiji zayn and will tell you how dare you say this......

[moughtarib]

Originally Posted by shreek

la2 ya zoomzoom, hala2 byiji zayn and will tell you how dare you say this......

stick to the topic or don't post shreek.

thanks to the forumers who initiated the discussion and added relevant points of view. Its a very interesting subject. I think we're at a point where there are too many stigmas to the Palestinian issue that even if 100% comply with a non-violent movement it would be hard not to stigmatize them as people asking for what is not theirs and so on and so on.

Ghandi's movement against the British Empire was that of a a people with rights against an occupier with 'some values'. Here we're talking about a people with rights in Palestine but an occupier who 'protects war criminals'. And that makes for a big difference in what kind of benefit would come out of non-violence.

In some tactical situations it may work (the wall for example, or the story of the Lemon Tree), but as a strategic choice against the occupation such as that of Israel's, i don't think it would work.

[Salome]

Originally Posted by moughtarib

stick to the topic or don't post shreek.

thanks to the forumers who initiated the discussion and added relevant points of view. Its a very interesting subject. I think we're at a point where there are too many stigmas to the Palestinian issue that even if 100% comply with a non-violent movement it would be hard not to stigmatize them as people asking for what is not theirs and so on and so on.

Ghandi's movement against the British Empire was that of a a people with rights against an occupier with 'some values'. Here we're talking about a people with rights in Palestine but an occupier who 'protects war criminals'. And that makes for a big difference in what kind of benefit would come out of non-violence.

In some tactical situations it may work (the wall for example, or the story of the Lemon Tree), but as a strategic choice against the occupation such as that of Israel's, i don't think it would work.

I know the Palestinian embassies has very little fund, but I saw some good initiatives so far...arranging Palestinian cultural events, music, folklore or even an exhibition showing the everyday life and sufferings in Palestine would have great effect...at least offering an other perspective to the mainstream media

Finding media means to pass the message: photo exhibitions, blogs, online magazines etc...are also good initiatives, see for ex. Electronic Intifada

Thanks to globalization the communication network has developed considerably... no regime gets away anymore with its crimes committed against its people...all will be covered live in the media and transmitted worldwide

[zoomzoom]

Originally Posted by moughtarib

stick to the topic or don't post shreek.

thanks to the forumers who initiated the discussion and added relevant points of view. Its a very interesting subject. I think we're at a point where there are too many stigmas to the Palestinian issue that even if 100% comply with a non-violent movement it would be hard not to stigmatize them as people asking for what is not theirs and so on and so on.

Ghandi's movement against the British Empire was that of a a people with rights against an occupier with 'some values'. Here we're talking about a people with rights in Palestine but an occupier who 'protects war criminals'. And that makes for a big difference in what kind of benefit would come out of non-violence.

In some tactical situations it may work (the wall for example, or the story of the Lemon Tree), but as a strategic choice against the occupation such as that of Israel's, i don't think it would work.

I understand the arm struggle against an occupation is the proper way to evict an occupier from your land. But the arm struggle would not work unless you have the proper leadership. Right now Palestinians don't have the right leadership who would lead us to an organized arm struggle. Hamas could have taken the lead in leading the arm struggle against Israel but its ideology does not allow for a good segment of population to be part of this struggle. As a Palestinian Christian, I would argue that Hamas does not and would not allow me to be part of this struggle since it believes that we are, the orginial people of that land, tabour khames. We Palestinian Christians were the first to form and participate in the arm struggle against the zionist entity but since Hamas came to power they alienated us thus it led to the mass migration of Palestinian Christians to the USA or Canada. A nationalist ideology must take the lead in leading us to the proper struggle, whether armed or civil. The way I see it, Palestinians should struggle for their civil liberities and protest the Israelis treatment and cruelty. If we become a citizen of one nation, eventually Palestinians will become the majority and become the leaders of Palestine from the Jordan River to the Sea. That area is too small for two states. One state solution is the only way in the long run.

[Salome]

Originally Posted by zoomzoom

If we become a citizen of one nation, eventually Palestinians will become the majority and become the leaders of Palestine from the Jordan River to the Sea. That area is too small for two states. One state solution is the only way in the long run.

Do you seriously believe that it is possible? How long would take just a reconciliation process? Or lets start with how long it takes till the Palestinians themselves are united?

And then what will be the status of Jerusalem, which is a multireligious city?

[zoomzoom]

Originally Posted by Salome

Do you seriously believe that it is possible? How long would take just a reconciliation process? Or lets start with how long it takes till the Palestinians themselves are united?

And then what will be the status of Jerusalem, which is a multireligious city?

Abbas should resign his post as the President of the PNA and dissolve the organisation, bringing the situation back to what it had been before the Oslo Accords. Israel, as the foreign occupier, will then have to assume direct charge of administering the Occupied Territories, much as before the signing of the accords that relieved Israel from the burden of a very taxing administrative task. Someone such as Mustafa Barghouti would take the lead in organizing Palestinians and resort to an effective, non-violent method to achieve the national goals by rallying the Palestinian in calling for a general civil disobedience in all the Occupied Palestinian Territories.The time is now ripe for the launching of a serious all-out resistance that would bring an end to the Israeli occupation and bring to realisation the independent sovereign Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital. This is the first step where in the long run it is just got to be two people in one state. I don't see anything else.