TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Palestinians and Nonviolence

Palestinians and Nonviolence

Palestinians and Nonviolence - Muzher
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thursday, February 26 2004 @ 01:41 PM EST

"Until violence visited Israelis on their own doorsteps, there was little concern about their suffering neighbors next door .."

By SHERRI MUZHER

If the Palestinians would just halt their attacks, the Israelis will finally end the occupation, I am told often.

That assumes that Palestinians have never tried nonviolence tactics. But the reality is that Satyagraha, or the movement of nonviolence resistance inaugurated by Mahatma Gandhi in 1919 to gain social and political reforms, has been used and continues to be used by Palestinians.

In fact, satyagraha has been used in the occupied territories in the form of school and commercial strikes, protest advertisements and condemnations in the daily papers, and boycotts of Israeli goods throughout much of the 36 years of Israeli occupation.

Passive resistance has continued throughout this uprising for freedom. Consider recent nonviolent demonstrations by Palestinians and international supporters, including Israelis, to protest the new Israeli wall that is cutting far into the West Bank and causing undue hardship for Palestinian families.

There are also groups like the International Solidarity Movement (ISM), consisting of Palestinian and international activists, who have raised awareness of the Palestinian struggle to end Israeli occupation through nonviolent means. ISM activists have defied the Israeli army by helping ambulances get through to sick Palestinians and they tried to bring food to the besieged in the Church of the Nativity a few years back.

There is Mustapha Barghouti, director of the Health Development, Information and Policy Institute in Ramallah. A community leader and advocate of nonviolence, Dr Barghouti once wrote: �The existence of this movement demonstrates the Palestinians commitment to real peace and democratic values.�

Just this past week, hundreds of Palestinian workers blocked access to the Erez industrial zone to protest lengthy security controls which cost the life of one of their colleagues who was crushed to death the previous day.

Nonviolence has, in fact, been used throughout Palestinian and Arab history. The famous strike of 1936 against the British, as well as the Arab world's boycott of Israel, are two prominent examples.

Sadly, the Israeli government hasn't appreciated nonviolence measures. During the demonstrations against the wall, live gunfire was used by the Israeli army, resulting in the killing of an Israeli activist. American Rachel Corrie was crushed to death by an Israeli bulldozer for trying to prevent home demolitions. British Tom Hurndall was shot and killed by an Israeli soldier while shepherding young Palestinian children out of the line of fire. Barghouti was brutally beaten during a visit to Jerusalem a couple years ago.

And while the media have reported about months of �quiet� for Israelis, the Palestinians have continued to be killed or have had their homes demolished.

The definition of �quiet� has raised valid questions about the value of Palestinian humanity in our own media. But assuming that �quiet� is defined by tranquility for Israelis, a question needs to be asked. The Israeli occupation is in its 36th year, and 27 of these years have been marked by nonviolent uprising. Why didn't the Israelis withdraw during the 27 years of relative �peace�?

The reality is that until violence visited Israelis on their own doorsteps, there was little concern about their suffering neighbors next door. The Israelis unwittingly rewarded Palestinian violence by only acknowledging that a withdrawal is necessary when Israelis have become victims. Even the sudden announcement by Israeli Premier Ariel Sharon that he will evacuate Israeli settlements in Gaza is viewed as a victory for Hamas, because it was their military operations that drove this announcement. These facts obviously make it difficult for nonviolence advocates.

Still, Palestinians should consider building on a long history of nonviolence by adopting it on a more massive scale.

---

Among the many reasons that Palestinian advocates of nonviolence continue their work:

� Nonviolence would secure more international support

� It would demonstrate that Palestinians will not play into the dehumanized stereotype made popular by pro-Israeli spokespersons. Palestinian society has withstood brutality and daily humiliation. Most have overcome amazing odds to be contributing members in the world. This is the true face of the Palestinians.

� The average Palestinian can comfortably take part in such a movement. Right now, action is conducted by a few, but repercussions are felt by all.

� It would save the lives of this and future generations. Each suicide bombing has become an invitation to kill more Palestinians.

Undoubtedly, legitimate armed struggle as sanctioned under international law will continue to be supported by the overwhelming majority of Palestinians. But there is also a long history of satyagraha that needs to be acknowledged.

-Sherri Muzher, JD is Media Analyst and Writer on MidEast Affairs from Mason, MI

good article, unfortunately most people would rather see a monk burnt alive or soccer hooligans to non violent protests, violence sells

that and the inertia violence propels, with every year of war and occupation both sides will continue to become more extreme

nice article

Palestinians and nonviolence... isn't that what they call an oxymoron?

quote:

Originally posted by dj_ilan_yosef Palestinians and nonviolence... isn't that what they call an oxymoron?

nope.

quote:

Originally posted by dj_ilan_yosef Palestinians and nonviolence... isn't that what they call an oxymoron?

nope you're thinking about Honest Reporting

quote:

Originally posted by tathi nope you're thinking about Honest Reporting

quote:

Originally posted by tathi nope you're thinking about Honest Reporting

...and i always thought that Jewish conmediens were the funniest; you guys obviously prove me wrong.

How about this for an oxymoron: Nobel peace prize winner Yassir Arafat

how about barak's generous offer for an oxymoron

quote:

Originally posted by Palestinian how about barak's generous offer for an oxymoron

Now there's a real oxymoron

amm i have been reading those fight msgs for a while
and i wanna tell you , you full of bs those palestinians are mess killers i can't think of how cruel their parents can be in teaching them killing their self in busses.

quote:

Originally posted by Dj FederalBI amm i have been reading those fight msgs for a while and i wanna tell you , you full of bs those palestinians are mess killers i can't think of how cruel their parents can be in teaching them killing their self in busses.

You're talking to terrorist sympathizers... their just as bad as the shit that walks on buses to kill children. I shit on you and your holy allah for such false unwarrented hate against the world, in particular, against the Jew.

Whats that allah, you wanna lick my salty nuts!?

quote:

Originally posted by Dj FederalBI amm i have been reading those fight msgs for a while and i wanna tell you , you full of bs those palestinians are mess killers i can't think of how cruel their parents can be in teaching them killing their self in busses.

yet the israelis have killed more in the conflict

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew yet the israelis have killed more in the conflict

seriously, why do you guys always bring that up? I mean do you guys want us to bring up our point again that casualties has no effect on the morality of the parties?.. We've only made it at least 3 dozen times already... does it really not sink in?

Or do you just want to go whine and whine about it regarldess.. I mean I know you guys get the point, and I know you guys accept the point (for instance if more Israelis were killed, I doubt this would change your sympathies), so why do you go on and on about a point that has no bearing?

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus seriously, why do you guys always bring that up? I mean do you guys want us to bring up our point again that casualties has no effect on the morality of the parties?.. We've only made it at least 3 dozen times already... does it really not sink in? Or do you just want to go whine and whine about it regarldess.. I mean I know you guys get the point, and I know you guys accept the point (for instance if more Israelis were killed, I doubt this would change your sympathies), so why do you go on and on about a point that has no bearing?

First of all, he called Palestinians mass murderers, that doesn't do much sense when "his side" has killed more than the ones he calls mass murderers.

Secoundly, i can seriously not say that the moralities of the palestinians' are worse, nor better than the Israeli's. But because israel is the civilized part of the two, i tend to criticize them most.

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew First of all, he called Palestinians mass murderers, that doesn't do much sense when "his side" has killed more than the ones he calls mass murderers.

well then, do you believe Israel does commit mass-murders?

quote:

Secoundly, i can seriously not say that the moralities of the palestinians' are worse, nor better than the Israeli's. But because israel is the civilized part of the two, i tend to criticize them most.

Excalty, if you agree it has no distinction in the morality of the conflict, why try and portray it as it does?

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus well then, do you believe Israel does commit mass-murders?

yes. or that depend on your definition of murder really.

v. mur�dered, mur�der�ing, mur�ders
v. tr.
To kill (another human) unlawfully.
1. To kill brutally or inhumanly.
2. To put an end to; destroy: murdered their chances.
3.
So what's the israelis doing, if not murdering? and they are murdering many --> mass murder. or what am i missing?

quote:

Excalty, if you agree it has no distinction in the morality of the conflict, why try and portray it as it does?

have i? what i tried to say is that booth sides are assholes, but i think that israel are the ones that can solve this conflict, so i critizize them more because they are the ones that can do something about it.

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew yes. or that depend on your definition of murder really. v. mur�dered, mur�der�ing, mur�ders v. tr. To kill (another human) unlawfully. 1. To kill brutally or inhumanly. 2. To put an end to; destroy: murdered their chances. 3. So what's the israelis doing, if not murdering? and they are murdering many --> mass murder. or what am i missing?

you forgot this part:
mur�der n. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

and this part:
mass n. A large but nonspecific amount or number

I mean you can definetely chose to call this mass murder if you like, but then you simply water down the defition of murder from its established norm in society (from "to kill someone unlawfully on purpose" to simply "to kill someone"). After all every single war is then mass murder, Haiti is a mass murderer, Texas is a mass murderer, the war on Iraq was a mass murder, attacking the Serbs was a mass murder, defeating the Germans was a mass murder, a cop is a mass-murder, a soldier is a mass murder, a doctor is a mass murder, etc..

Since the term mass murder has also recently been established in societal norms to mean genoicide, the way you chose to use the term is misleading and against current understanding.

Typifying Israel as a mass murder, you must then concede that:
There is no war between Israel and terrorism.
Israel has no right to defend itself.
Israel is indiscriminately murdering.

Afterall, in both the cases of 'war' and 'self-defense' killing is not murder but legal.

The term 'mass' also implies "unified body of matter" from which you would then understand the context of mass murder as it relates to genoicide, when you 'mass murder, as opposed to 'murder many' you are indiscriminate in your murdering. If you don't understand this principle, lets test it in a sentance:

1. Israel mass-murdered Palestinian terrorist today.
2. Israel murdered many Palestinian terrorist today.

The second option, although subtle, tells us discrimination was used in the murders. The first option tells us they simply rounded up a bunch of terrorist and murdered them as unfied mass.

...
bah

I won't waste my time on this any further.. you know very well in your own mind the distinction between killing and murdering, but chose to deny this instict in an attempt to equate both sides.

And if you don't, if your mind is so infintial as to not have understood the subtle differences between murder and killing in the some odd years you have been living on this earth, I don't think I will be able to change this preception for you even if I write a whole book for you to read.

Since I don't think you are infintial, I won't continue to go down and patronize you in teaching what a word or two actually mean in todays world.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus bla bla, yelling at erik's bad language knowledges, bla bla...

The only point i am missing here, is, what makes the Palestinians killings mass murder, but not Israelis? There is as you said, war going on, which in that case also should justify the palestinian killings as killings, not mass murder.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus you forgot this part: mur�der n. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice. and this part: mass n. A large but nonspecific amount or number I mean you can definetely chose to call this mass murder if you like, but then you simply water down the defition of murder from its established norm in society (from "to kill someone unlawfully on purpose" to simply "to kill someone"). After all every single war is then mass murder, Haiti is a mass murderer, Texas is a mass murderer, the war on Iraq was a mass murder, attacking the Serbs was a mass murder, defeating the Germans was a mass murder, a cop is a mass-murder, a soldier is a mass murder, a doctor is a mass murder, etc.. Since the term mass murder has also recently been established in societal norms to mean genoicide, the way you chose to use the term is misleading and against current understanding. Typifying Israel as a mass murder, you must then concede that: There is no war between Israel and terrorism. Israel has no right to defend itself. Israel is indiscriminately murdering. Afterall, in both the cases of 'war' and 'self-defense' killing is not murder but legal. The term 'mass' also implies "unified body of matter" from which you would then understand the context of mass murder as it relates to genoicide, when you 'mass murder, as opposed to 'murder many' you are indiscriminate in your murdering. If you don't understand this principle, lets test it in a sentance: 1. Israel mass-murdered Palestinian terrorist today. 2. Israel murdered many Palestinian terrorist today. The second option, although subtle, tells us discrimination was used in the murders. The first option tells us they simply rounded up a bunch of terrorist and murdered them as unfied mass. ... bah I won't waste my time on this any further.. you know very well in your own mind the distinction between killing and murdering, but chose to deny this instict in an attempt to equate both sides. And if you don't, if your mind is so infintial as to not have understood the subtle differences between murder and killing in the some odd years you have been living on this earth, I don't think I will be able to change this preception for you even if I write a whole book for you to read. Since I don't think you are infintial, I won't continue to go down and patronize you in teaching what a word or two actually mean in todays world.

NASTY! You just got shat on... and its the evil zionist brand too!

ah Yoepus i should post some of my own dictionary meanings so we can get into one of our oldschool battles of epic proportions.

Alas i'm getting to old for it :/

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew The only point i am missing here, is, what makes the Palestinians killings mass murder, but not Israelis? There is as you said, war going on, which in that case also should justify the palestinian killings as killings, not mass murder.

Honestly, I don't think they are mass murders, and I haven't heard many Israelis who have used mass murders to term the Palestinians. The closest I recall is homicide bombers. The Palestinains do murder many of themselves, but even that they don't do enmass.

For this reaons, if the Palestinians are in a state of war, and have forefitted all laws of war, then from their prespective all killings are legit. If you still believe in the laws of war, then you would term the Palestinians mass murder as they employ suicide bombers who kill enmass, innocent civilians as a policy.

Now, that's a war crime, killing innocent civilians on purpose, especially enmass is a war crime, clean and simple. I know what your going to say, "But Israel is a war criminal too!". Yes lets say they are, but they don't war criminally kill Palestinians. They might do collective punishment, they might shoot at ambulances, and they might be occupying land they shouldn't be - and even if those are violations of the Laws of War, they aren't killing anyone in the process of these violations, hence they can't be murdering anyone.

They do kill Palestinians, don't get me wrong - but 'targeted assinations' etc, are all legitimate according to the Laws of War. A civilian gets killed in the cross fire, its a legitimate killing according the rule book of War. You target civilians, not legitimate.

I understand why you might have trouble distinguishing in these legitimacies, as the Palestinians have thrown the rule book out, making it very hard to let you know what action is legitimate, what isn't. If your combatants don't wear uniforms, was that 'freedom fighter' you just killed a terrorist or a civilian. If the body has a gun near it, its a terrorist, remove the gun, its a civilian.

Understandably, if you were a soldier and were attacked by a group of 20 'civilians' (afterall, why wouldn't they be civilians, they aren't uniformed?) would you restrain yourself and risk your own life and the lives of your commrades, because they look like civilians, ignoring the part of the brain that is telling you "no you idiot they are not civilians! they are shooting at you! shoot back!" or would you, as your brain intelligently distinguished realize that these aren't civilians, and shoot back?

Well, unless you've recently converted to Buddiasm, I will be so bold and assume you would chose to shoot back. So lets assume the civilians in this example are the Palestinians, and the soldiers are the Israelis (I know, I know your saying to yourself, "but yoepus by-goly that could never happen", but hang with me )
In this example are the Israelis violating the laws of war? No they aren't. Why? The Palestinians have violated the clause that grants civilians protection in the Rule Book of War, so the Israelis needn't honor the clause any longer and hence it doesn't violate the Law. Neat how that works out huh? Laws actually reflect morality, go figure.

skip the below bit till the "---" if u want the guts:
-- I'll add also a bit of off track here, in this instance the Palestinians violated just one clause of the laws of war, the traditional school of thought made it then acceptable for the other party, the Israelis in this case to throw out the entire rulebook (again because just one small claus was violated). However, this traditional school of thought were the fathers of the Laws Of War, laws designed for combat between the militaries of European states. At that time it was therefore more necessary to honor every single claus at the intimidation of all others to prevent abuses such as torture and illtreatment of captives or civilians. In another note, the initial laws of war were more formally treaties, arranged by diplomats before a conflict on what rules would govern the war. So it was an agreed upon treaty between two warring parties, therefore any abuse from a party was a great insult as both parties had come to negotiated agreement to honor the treaty.

Today there are two schools of thoughts.. one which I like to call the peacnik-Euro-pedophilic-UN-treehugers-make love and od- school of thought, and the realist school. The peacnik-Euro-pedophilic-UN-treehugers-make love and od- school of thought basically follows the line that all laws of war must be enforced regardless of the violations of the other party. They hold the Laws of War as an absolute, instead of as an agreement between warring parties as they traditionally held. So if a 'civilian' shoots at you, don't shoot back. The realist school of thought still takes the Laws of War as an absolute, but a prefect absolute (in the Platoian sense). This means they use it for reference, as there is no such thing as a perfect absolute. Prefection is only in the mind, not in reality. So what they do, they strive for prefection, but don't do so blindy as the the peacnik-Euro-pedophilic-UN-treehugers-make love and od- school of thought does. Instead they take a claus by claus, instance by instance approach. If civilians shot at you, shot back. If civilians shot at you all the time in a specific city, have at em. If they use their ambulances to smuggle arms through a specific checkpoint, shot them at that checkpoint, if they do it everywhere, and most the time, shot them everywhere, most of the time. ... etc
back to our regular scheduled broadcasting:
---

Now, lets take the example of a homicide bomber shall we? Is that a violation of the Laws of War?

Yes. Why? Because he is delibaretly killing civilians. AND Israel has not violated the claus of civilian neutrality, HENCE it is still illegal.

See how nice and simple that works out?
The same emotion that told you in your hearts of hearts that Israelis aren't the moral equivalant 'mass-murders' of the Palestinians, in less then a nanosecond, can be explained in a nice long post by Yoepus through the laws man has decided it wants to make for War in lets say five minutes. Interesting how that works huh? Guess its a pity though for the brain to accept only after five minutes what the heart knew in less then a second.

quote:

Originally posted by dj_ilan_yosef NASTY! You just got shat on... and its the evil zionist brand too!

Rest assured, I use only the 100% purest form of evil too!

quote:

Originally posted by tathi ah Yoepus i should post some of my own dictionary meanings so we can get into one of our oldschool battles of epic proportions. Alas i'm getting to old for it :/

Yes! I win!

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.