I've always felt that if the Palestinians had adopted Gandhi's non-violent path, they would have their homeland by now. Would have been ineffectual in the short run, but over time, with the whole world watching, Israel would have been forced to relent. A tragedy for the Palestinians that they got folks like Arafat..

BTW, non-violence has its limits -- wouldn't work against Osama or Hitler.

BTW, non-violence has its limits -- wouldn't work against Osama or Hitler.

It's interesting that Gandhi thought differently. In 1938 he wrote the following :

"If I were a Jew and were born in Germany and earned my livelihood there, I would claim Germany as my home even as the tallest gentile German may and challenge him to shoot me or cast me in the dungeon. I would refuse to be expelled or to submit to discriminating treatment. And for doing this, I should not wait for the fellow Jews to join me in civil resistance but would have confidence that in the end the rest are bound to follow my example. if one Jew or all the Jews were to accept the prescription here offered, he or they cannot be worse off than now."

(via Aron's Blog.)

Personally, I'm not so sure though...

I agree with Prashant to some extent... I don't know if Palestinians would have their homeland by now, but if the PLO had nonviolent demonstrations, it would be easier for the world to see the injustices of Zionism. It really is hard to sympathize with people who kill the innocent.

the big diff, of course, is that Indians merely wanted the Brits out rather than wishing to "invade" the UK, kill every last one of them, and casting their heathen bodies into the sea....

Nonviolence will get the Palestinians statehood, no question. But too many of 'em instead want Israel wiped off the map.

"Nonviolence will get the Palestinians statehood, no question. But too many of 'em instead want Israel wiped off the map."

I disagree Vinod. Much of the Palestinian rhetoric is just that. It is easy to talk hatefully about your oppressor when he collectively punishes your people and destroys your infrastructure so you can't take care of yourselves. It is quite another thing to carry out your threats once you are given the little bit of freedom that is rightly yours. For a thousand years Arab culture has been about saving face in front of your enemy. Hateful rhetoric, as reprehensible as it is, must be viewed in the light that the Palestinains have been oppressed for so long and need to save face. Are there die-hard militants who want Isreal wiped off the face of the Earth? Absolutely. It is wrong to imply the way you have that this opinion somehow constitutes the majority (i.e. "too many"). There are equally as many orthodox jews on the other side that nobody seems to mention.

Isn't this the reason we got into a bar fight last week?

Please undo whatever BJP bast***s have done (good or bad) - Communists slam Israel, its relations with BJP

It is wrong to imply the way you have that this opinion somehow constitutes the majority (i.e. "too many"). There are equally as many orthodox jews on the other side that nobody seems to mention.

It is NOT a majority - don't mean to imply it - it's perhaps 20% rather than 51%. I fully believe, for ex., that most Palestinians just want to resume life, claw their way back up to pre-Intifada poverty levels, etc. (That's why Abu Mazen won the election, for ex.)

The problem is that there are ENOUGH who do want to wipe Israel off the map AND that the rest don't do enough to restrain them. Folks like Hamas, Al Aqsa, Islamic Jihad, etc. are a far bigger factor in Palestinian politics & "activities" than ultra-orthodox zionists are in Israel.

Sharon (an orthodox Israeli/Zionist?), for ex., recently authorized force AGAINST ISRAELI'S in Gaza to forcibly "de-settle" them (if/when it comes to that). Noone thinks that Sharon is going to touch off an Israeli civil war by doing this the way folks fear Abu Mazen starting a Palestinian one if he makes big moves against Hamas et. al.

Of course, we're far from desi blogging at this point....

I am an ardent admirer of Gandhi, but I have no idea whether the tactics of civil disobedience would work in today's world. Do you think, if there were thousands holding the candles in Iraq, Bush wouldn't have invaded Iraq? How about the millions who marched non-violently all over the world to stop this war? And definitely there are peace movements in Palestine but they get very little media attention. We hardly hear about thousands marching non-violently, kids flying kites, and farmers planting crops to defy curfew and expansion of land. I wish they did more, but Israelis always responded with massive force - how else would you explain thousands of kids killed by Israelis. How about Rachel Kori, the american woman who stood in front of a house that was being demolished. They razed over her, but I still think peace has his chance and appeal.

Najeeb,
I don't think your argument holds relevance in the case of Iraq. I was not a supporter of the war in Iraq (according to the original intentions) but I certainly don't think it is a war being waged against Iraqi people. It was a war waged against their brutal dictator and his regime. If a 1000 people had held candles in Iraq before Bush invaded, it would have been because Saddam was holding their family members hostage UNTIL they protested with candles. I agree with you that it is hard to reconcile a philosophy of non-violence with the brutalities of the modern world BUT...just last week I listend to a radio debate between Malcolm X and one of Dr. King's people. Non-violence never seems like it will work (even to many in the thick of the American civil rights movement). But, sometimes...it does.

When was the last time a country waged war against people? Often always it is against the rulers - it is for geo-political power, resources, etc.. It is naive to think that resources (oil) have no part in Iraq war - that is where the colonial intentions of this war comes in. I am a supporter of civil disobedience, and often it works when used against governments by THEIR OWN people. Your example of civil rights movements is right on.

vinod=>"the big diff, of course, is that Indians merely wanted the Brits out rather than wishing to "invade" the UK, kill every last one of them, and casting their heathen bodies into the sea...."

Even if it wasn't as dramatic as you pointed out, Subhash C. Bose also envisioned joining hands with Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany to wipe out British, and we don't think of him as as terrorist - do we?

"... And definitely there are peace movements in Palestine but they get very little media attention. We hardly hear about thousands marching non-violently, kids flying kites, and farmers planting crops to defy curfew and expansion of land. I wish they did more, but Israelis always responded with massive force - how else would you explain thousands of kids killed by Israelis."

Yes, this is true and so, what's the argument or rather, Vinod, what's the difference between people who declare they want to wipe someone off the face of the earth and those who are actually doing it?

Israel has the right to exist, of course. Funny, however, that when discussing Palestinians, everyone seems to forget that after years of persecution, Jews finally armed themselves and formed a state.

As usual, it sounds like I'm picking a fight, but I'm not. Just give me the logic.

Non-violent movements succeed under the pain of perceived villainy by outsiders, or eventual guilt. The process is, by nature, gradual, and much slower than the immediacy of an airstrike.

The keyword here is gradual.

It took almost 30 years after Gandhi's return to India for the independence movement to reach its goal...it takes a long time to change perceptions, to transform, in the eyes of the oppressor and the world, the seditious or evil to the righteous, to see humanity in who was the villain.

Imagine how many years now it will take Palestinians to break the terrorist image they have cultivated over the years, at least in the US.

In this case, if the Palestinians had taken this course years ago, rather than resorting to hijackings and suicide bombings, the world would have chosen a side and even the greasiest-palmed US congressman could no longer deny their cause or continue to postpone it.

It looks like this process is drawing to a close. It's 2005, and Gaza is being left behind and the largest West Bank settlements are being bolstered in preparation for the inevitable resolution, just or not. Even if Palestinians began non-violence now, there is no way it will ever replace their at least 30-year perceived history of terrorism, not before the Israelis cut themselves loose of the problem.

Once the borders are drawn, what little the Palestinians are awarded that day will be what they keep, and that'll be that, because the world is sick of this already.

vinod=>"the big diff, of course, is that Indians merely wanted the Brits out rather than wishing to "invade" the UK, kill every last one of them, and casting their heathen bodies into the sea...."

Umm, in this conflict, the Palestinians are an indigenous people, even to the lands that fall within Israel today. It wouldn't be anything like Indians taking over British land 2 oceans away. No matter how either side is villified, they are fighting for what they see as their own land vis-a-vis the Israelis, not as colonial conquestors.

Dumb analogy, Vinod. Even with your racism, perpetuating the image of irrational, comic-book villain terrorists, you shouldn't see the Palestinian cause as punitive. And I mean cause, ie statehood, not the attitude of a stereotype.

I would say the Israelis won this one, at least in the eyes of the only superpower left.

By now, as an observer who's neither Jewish or Muslim nor emotionally/ideologically attached to either, I suggest that it would be useful now to see this conflict, (at least on a moral scale) as an internal civil war, as the violent squabblings of two peoples who have now occupied the same land for over 50 years. Were it contained that way politically in the past perhaps there would have been equal pressure on these two parties to solve their problems, and would not have turned into the world-polarizing mess it is now.

I wonder if a non-violent struggle (meant to change world attitudes and create ideological allies through sympathy and respect) could even be possible today, with the corporate, competitive, for-profit media organizations of the information age.

Whichever side was better funded would win our hearts and sympathy. But I'm getting way too abstract now and babbling.

This repeat some other posters ideas, but I thought some concrete things might help.

First, remember that in South Asia there were Muslim non-violence movements as well (e.g. Abdul Gjaffar Khan). Also, there are vigorous non-violent movements in Palestine and there have been for years and years
.do a google search!! Note that these groups are Jewish, Christian and Muslim working against the Israeli occupation. It is not about tribes or religions or ethnic groups
.it is about human rights.

http://www.holylandtrust.org/
http://www.womenforpalestine.com/020403v2/pp_vfp_pwanv.htm
http://www.batshalom.org/

that is just a starter, check out the non-violence leader Mustapha (not Marwan) Barghouti as well (you can’t say he doesn’t have support, I don’t recall the final tallies, but he was polling at well over 20% before the elections).

This “wipe the off the map” business is silly too as both sides have spewed this bile (see Golda Meir or the recent PBS “Frontline” show about Jewish extremists). And really, who is more capable of it, the side with stones and homemade rockets or the side with apache attack helicopters and an A-bomb?

If you want a critique of the disengagement plan, read any BBC report fully or go to: http://electronicintifada.net/new.shtml

some much more to say, but this is already too long


Not a Desi -- Yes, you're right, the Israelis are much more capable of wiping the Palestinians off the map. BUT, they haven't done that, have they? And that's the proof right there -- if the Palestinian militant groups had nuclear or biological weapons, I have no hesitation in saying they would use them to kill innocent Israelis in as large a number as they could.

Of course, not all Palestinians want violence or to kill all Israelis. And there are plenty who would seek or are seeking a nonviolent solution. But Vinod is absolutely right that there are a significant number who do want that and who cannot be controlled by the ones who want peace. Until Palestinians cleans their own house on this point, what choice do the Israelis have but to strike back at these groups?

The ones to really blame are the other Arab nations. Those countries expelled millions of Jews from within their borders, forcing them to leave with nothing but the clothes they could carry, depriving them of homes, businesses, etc. Yet no one talks about the Jews' "right of return" or a right for them to be compensated. The reason is because Israel actually integrated those displaced people into its society, gave them homes, jobs, and a new start. What have the Arabs done for Palestinians? Kept them in refugee camps while the US and UN feed and clothe them? These oil-rich countries talk about Arab and Muslim unity, yet they don't spend a dime to help their "brothers" out, that task falls to us and the europeans. Why don't the iranians try sending food and medicine instead of guns and rockets? because the rest of the middle east is happy with the palestians suffering -- it keeps their citizens focused on the "battle against the zionists" instead of realizing that their own governments are composed of a bunch of corrupt tyrants who happened to be named "al Saud."

Dumb analogy, Vinod. Even with your racism...

Mea culpa, I forgot that most holy of rules: if you say anything negative about an "oppressed minority" - even if it's just 20% of them - then you should be prepared to be accused of racism.

Why don't the iranians try sending food and medicine instead of guns and rockets? because the rest of the middle east is happy with the palestians suffering

No, it's because sending food & medicine would indicate an acceptance of the current situation which is, conversely, why the U.S. doesn't send Palestinians guns and rockets... Lumping Arab nations together as "brothers" is like calling all of Europe "one big happy family, not to mention that if Arab nations suddenly ran in and helped their "brothers," as soon as Intifada began/begins you'd have another Arab-Israeli war, but on a much larger scale...

Israelis have a choice, just like Palestinians and to say they don't simply ratifies the Palestinian argument that they too don't have the luxury of "choice." And where does that leave everyone.

Vinod: just 20% is an acceptable ratio? Would Israelis say that about Jews?

"Re Gandhi's views on non-violent defiance of Hitler" -- Yes, I've read Gandhi's letter and the subsequent exchange (in Satyagraha and another magazine, whose name I forget)..

Unfortunately, the Brits still did have some rules and morality -- not to mention, there were a few hundred million Indians. The Nazis did't care too much for niceties -- nor does OBL.

Re non-violence working today: In some situations, it can be even more effective today, what with the increasingly ubiquitous and instant channels of communication (big and small). However, non-violence does have its limits. As someone who was raised a Jain, I have a predilection for non-violence. However, ambivalent about the overarching importance granted to non-violence by our prophets -- not really practicable in real-life, where war's been the norm rather than the exception.

Lumping Arab nations together as "brothers" is like calling all of Europe "one big happy family

Except, of course, that it is the arabs themselves who claim this brotherhood with the palestinians. I'm saying that if you want to hold rallies decrying the "Zionist entity" for oppressing the poor Palestinians, then at least have the decency to fork over some of your oil revenues to make sure they have food and shelter. No, they'd rather leave that up to the Great Satan, whose sole goal is, of course, a crusade against islam.

Sending food and medicine is tacit acknowledgment that the situation has become the new status quo, huh? really? i guess we better stop those aid shipments to Darfur -- who knew we were sending the message that what the Sudanese government was doing was right? And in the Balkans before that -- all that humanitarian aid to the Bosnian Muslims was just our say of saying Slobodan was right all along.

Sorry Nik I really have to disagree, , but your historiography just does not hold up. Israel doesn’t wipe the Palestinians off the map for the same reason they stop their own terrorist groups from attacking Palestinians
they fear the global backlash and America withdrawing aid. As for Arab Jewish populations, I for one would love to see their important contributions to Arab culture return to their homelands in modern Arab countries. I have spent time with many of the populations that have remained and would like to see their communities grow. Like I said before, let’s work for the human rights of Jewish, Christian, atheist and Muslim Arabs.

Lastly it is well documented that Israel has done everything possible to keep the Palestinians from "cleaning up their own house".

The main original problem here rests with Britan, in that way the situation is similar to India. lol

sd addressed some of the other points really well.

"Unfortunately, the Brits still did have some rules and morality -- not to mention, there were a few hundred million Indians. The Nazis did't care too much for niceties -- nor does OBL. "

Oops.. wrong placement of "unfortunately".

Should have been, "The Brits still did have some rules and morality -- not to mention, there were a few hundred million Indians. Unfortunately, the Nazis did't care too much for niceties -- nor does OBL. "

Not a Desi -- Its admirable that you think displaced Jews who were forced from their homes should be allowed to return and be compensated. But, unfortunately, right-thinking people like yourself do not run the countries of the Middle East. My point was that it is utterly hypocritical for Arabs to claim the "right of return" without extending the same privilege to Jews and other minorities that they chased from their countries. Again, I'm glad that you would support that position but with all the activism on Palestinian issues in the US and Europe, you never hear about the fact that Jews were displaced too. Israel welcomed and helped those people, which arab countries have never welcomes palestinian or integrated them into their communities.

Also, even if you truly believe that Israel would wipe out the Palestinians in the absence of world opinion, we should be thankful that the Israel's care enough about world opinion to restrain. The entire world knows Pakistan trains terrorists to act against India, but Pakistan doesn't feel this pressure at all. All of the world's pressure on Iran barely makes a dent. This is the difference between a liberal democracy and a bunch of thuggish autocratric and theocratic states. I'll let you figure out which one the Israelis have and which one the rest of the arab states revel in.

Finally, I would, without a doubt, prefer to be an Arab living in Israel than a Jew living in Iran, Syria, etc. Again, the mark of democratic self-governance and liberal values as opposed to religious intolerance and oppression of minorites. (Before it comes up, I would completely agree that Israel does have some way to go to granting full rights to Israeli Arabs, but much less to go than Arab states).

Except, of course, that it is the arabs themselves who claim this brotherhood with the palestinians.

Well, it's good that you ignored my statement about *what* would happen if Arab nations started pouring aid into Palestine... Holy-promised-land, Nik, just because Arab states express empathy with a cause doesn't mean they can start dumping money into it and if they did:

really? Sending food and medicine is tacit acknowledgment that the situation has become the new status quo, huh?

Yes, which is why the U.S. began to engage the Darfur question and also aided in the pursuit and prosecution of Milosevic... So, if Iran sends food&medicine, they'll need to become involved in the political process surrounding the conflict and if they did, that would be the game, wouldn't it?

Israel welcomed and helped those people, which arab countries have never welcomes palestinian or integrated them into their communities.

Okay, well, before you say this again, I just want to point out that a) Arab countries do take in Palestinian refugees, b) the state of Israel is based on religion, the state of Palestinian is based on ethnicity and again, while you can lump a religion, you can't lump ethnicities, and c) Israel welcomed and accepted Jews because they were building a nation for Jews and without them there would be no "Israel."

And then, yes, it is hypocritical for Arab states to claim right-of-return, it's hypocritical for the U.S. to support Jewish right-of-return when they would never support a Native American right-of-return and it's hypocritical for Israel to denounce the violence of establishing a Palestinian state when they had to do the same to establish an Israeli state.

It's all hypocrisy and so, instead of declaring that one is morally-superior to the other, why not call the whole thing a dead-heat and try to find a way for everyone to coexist. Because, your approach to the conflict isn't going to make anything better, just keep things at their shitty status quo.

Rachel Kori was an idiot, hiding behind a wall she did not realize that the bulldozer operator COULD NOT SEE HER! I would award her a Darwin Prize