Slow Death in Gaza

rebornFixer

Byrnzie wrote:

Michael Neumann:
'It is sometimes supposed that the Palestinians should have adopted nonviolent resistance as their strategy; even that their "failure" to do so is some dark indication of their character. Such opinions are voiced in aparent ignorance of the fact that the Palestinians have always used a mixture of violent and nonviolent responses - petitions, strikes, marches. This means in part that many Palestinians have never resisted by any but nonviolent means. The results have been less than impressive. In addition, the entire first intifada, brutally suppressed, used forms of "violence" - so juvenile and tentative - kids throwing rocks - that they hardly deserve, in the face of the massive professional army thrown against them, that description.

Nonviolence has never "worked" in any politically relevant sense of the word, and there is no reason to suppose it ever will. It has never, largely on it's own strength, achieved the political objectives of those who employed it.
There are supposedly three major examples of successful nonviolence: Gandhi's independence movement, the U.S civil rights movement, and the South African campaigns against Apartheid. None of them performed as advertised.
Gandhi's nonviolence can't have been successful, because there was nothing he would have called a success. Gandhi's priorities may have shifted over time: he said that, if he changed his mind from one week to the next, it was because he had learned something in between. But it seems fair to say that he wanted independence from British rule, a united India, and nonviolence itself, and end to civil or ethnic strife on the Indian subcontinent. What he got was India 1947: partition, and one of the most horrifying outbursts of bloodshed and cruelty in the whole bloody, cruel history of the postwar world. These consequences alone would be sufficient to count his project as a tragic failure.
What of independence itself? Historians might argue about it's causes, but I doubt any of them would attribute it primarily to Gandhi's campaign. The British began contemplating - admittedly with avrying degrees of sincerity - some measure of autonomy for India before Gandhi did anything, as early as 1918. A.J.P Taylor says that after World War I, the British were beginning to find India a liability, because India was once again producing it's own cotton and buying cheap textiles from Japan. Later India's strategic importance, while valued by many, became questioned by some who saw the oil of the Middle East and the Suez canal as far more important. By the end of the second world war, Britain's will to hold onto it's empire had pretty well crumbled, for reasons having little or nothing to do with nonviolence.
But this is the least important of the reasons why Gandhi cannot be said to have won independence for India. It was not his saintliness or the disruption he caused that impressed the British. What impressed them was that the country seemed (and was) about to erupt. The colonial authorities could see no way to stop it. A big factor was the terrorism - and this need not be a term of condemnation - quite regularly employed against the British. It was not enough to do much harm, but more than enough to warn them that India was becoming more trouble than it was worth. All things considered, the well-founded fear of violence had far more effect on British resolve than Gandhi ever did. He may have been a brilliant and creative political thinker, but he was not a victor.

How about the U.S civil rights movement? It would be difficult and ungenerous to argue that it wa unsuccessful, outrageous to claim that it was anything but a long and dangerous struggle. But when that it is conceded, the fact remains that Martin Luther King's civil rights movement was practically a federal government project. It's roots may have run deep, but it's impetus came from the Supreme Court decision of 1954 and from the subsequent attempts to integrate Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas. The students who braved a hell to accomplish this goal are well remembered. Sometimes forgotten is the U.S government's almost spectacular determination to see that federal law was respected. Eisenhower sent, not the FBI, not a bunch of lawyers, but one of the best and proudest units of the U.S army, the 101st Airborne, to keep order in Little Rock and to see that the "federalized" Arkansas national guard stayed on the right side of the dispute. Though there was never any hint of an impending battle between federal and state military forces, the message couldn't have been clearer: we, the federal government, are prepared to do whatever it takes to enforce our will.
This message is an undercurrent throughout throughout the civil rights struggles of the 1950's and 1960's. Though Martin Luther King still had to overcome vicious, sometimes deadly resistance, he himself remarked that surprisingly few people were killed or seriously injured in the struggle. The surprise diminishes with the recollection that there was real federal muscle behind the nonviolent campaign. For a variety of motives, both virtuous and cynical, the U.S government wanted the South to be integrated and to recognize black civil rights. Nonviolence achieved it's ends largley because the violence of it's opponents was severely constrained. In 1962, Kennedy federalized the National Guard and sent in combat troops to quell segregationist rioting in Oxford, Mississippi. Johnson did the same thing in 1965, after anti-civil rights violence in Alabama. While any political movement has allies and benefits from available circumstances, having the might of the U.S goverment behind you goes far beyond the ordinary advantages accompanying political activity. The nonviolence of the U.S civil rights movement sets an example only for those who have the overwhelming armed force of a government on their side.

As for South Africa, it is a minor miracle of wishful thinking that anyone could suppose nonviolence played a major role in the collapse of Apartheid.
In the first place, the ANC was never a nonviolent movement but a movement that decided, on occasion and for practical reasons, to use nonviolent tactics...
Secondly, violence was used extensively throughout the course of the Anti-Apartheid struggle. It can be argued that the violence was essentially defensive, but that's not the point: nonviolence as a doctrine rejects the use of of violence in self-defense. To say that blacks used violence in self-defense or as resistance to oppression is to say, I think, that they were justified. It is certainly not to say that they were nonviolent.
Third, violence played a major role in causing both the boycott of South Africa and the demise of Apartheid....the boycott only aquired some teeth strating in 1977, after the Soweto riots in 1976, nd again in 1985-1986, after the township riots of 184-1985...

In short, it is a myth that nonviolence brought all the victories it is supposed to have in it's ledger. In fact, it brought about none of them.
How does this bear on the Israel-Palestine conflict? In that situation, success is far less likely than in the cases we have examined. Unlike Martin Luther King, the Palestinians are working against a state, not with one. Their opponents are far more ruthless than the British were in the twilight of the empire. Unlike the Indians and South Africans, they do not vastly outnumber their oppressors. And neither the Boers nor the English ever had anything like the moral authority Israel enjoys in the hearts and minds of Americans, much less it's enormous support network. Nonviolent protest might overcome Israel's prestige in ten or twenty years, but the Palestinians might well suppose they do not have that long.'

I've read this before, and its apologist BS, quite frankly. Its worth reading once, though, for those who feel the need.
He totally dodges the issue of whether or not violence actually works in the Middle East, and focuses instead on making excuses.

Byrnzie

reborncareerist wrote:

I've read this before, and its apologist BS, quite frankly. Its worth reading once, though, for those who feel the need.
He totally dodges the issue of whether or not violence actually works in the Middle East, and focuses instead on making excuses.

Apologist BS? Apologist BS for who? Apologist BS for every resistance movement that has ever existed?

And as far as you having read this before; that's BS. Because this is only available in book form. It's not available online. I typed it out myself. Are you saying that you've read the book? I know you haven't, so you're either a liar or you're just slightly confused.

And as far as him dodging the issue of 'whether or not violence actually works in the Middle East', your question is redundant.

rebornFixer

Byrnzie wrote:

Apologist BS? Apologist BS for who? Apologist BS for every resistance movement that has ever existed?

And as far as you having read this before; that's BS. Because this is only available in book form. It's not available online. I typed it out myself. Are you saying that you've read the book? I know you haven't, so you're either a liar or you're just slightly confused.

And as far as him dodging the issue of 'whether or not violence actually works in the Middle East', your question is redundant.

Nope, you've typed this stuff out before. I read it the last time you posted it.
And no, my question is not redundent.

rebornFixer

And BTW, how would you know if I had read the book or not? Psychic powers?

Byrnzie

reborncareerist wrote:

Nope, you've typed this stuff out before. I read it the last time you posted it.
And no, my question is not redundent.

I posted a link to a book review before which just mentioned the key points re: nonviolence, but without going into any detail.

And your question is redundant. Violence will have proven to have 'worked' if and when Israel withdraws from the occupied territories to the 67 borders. In the meantime, they have no other options. Could violence have been considered to have 'worked' in South Africa before the end of the Apartheid regime? Maybe, maybe not. It's not relevant.

Byrnzie

Wednesday, 11 June 2008 12:10 UK

Israeli fire kills girl in Gaza

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7447799.stm
'Palestinian medical workers say a young girl has been killed by Israeli tank fire in the Gaza Strip.

They say the girl's body was recovered from a house that was hit by a tank shell near Khan Younis.

A spokesman for the Israeli military said a ground force had attacked militants in the area attempting to fire rockets into Israel.

Israel's security cabinet said it would support Egyptian-brokered efforts to reach a truce with Gaza's Hamas rulers.

The meeting of senior Israeli officials with security responsibilities was expected to discuss a possible invasion of Gaza to prevent militant attacks on southern Israel.

Palestinian medical officials said six-year-old Hadeel Smari was decapitated by the tank shell explosion while she was in the back yard of her house.

Two adult relatives were wounded in the attack, doctors said. Israeli officials said they were unaware of any civilian casualties.

Hamas said one of its gunmen was killed during the Israeli operation in the area.

A mortar shell later hit an Israeli paint factory near Gaza, slightly injuring two people.

On Tuesday Hamas said three of its members were killed by Israeli fire after launching rockets.

Correspondents say there has been public pressure on Israel's leaders to counter militant fire with more than the pinpoint tactics currently in use.

"The security cabinet decided this morning to support Egyptian efforts to achieve calm in the south and to end the daily targeting of Israeli civilians by the terrorists in Gaza," said Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's spokesman Mark Regev.

"In parallel, the security cabinet has instructed the military to continue its preparations in the unfortunate event that the Egyptian track should prove unsuccessful," he added.

Four Israeli civilians have been killed by Palestinian rockets or mortars this year.

About 500 people, nearly all of them Palestinians killed in Israeli raids and more than half of those armed militants, have died in violence since the troubled Israeli-Palestinian peace process was revived in November 2007.

Israel has sealed off the Gaza Strip and blocks all but essential humanitarian supplies, while launching regular raids in an attempt to counter militant fire.

rebornFixer

Byrnzie wrote:

I posted a link to a book review before which just mentioned the key points re: nonviolence, but without going into any detail.

And your question is redundant. Violence will have proven to have 'worked' if and when Israel withdraws from the occupied to the 67 borders. In the meantime, they have no other options. Could violence have been considered to have 'worked' in South Africa before the end of the Apartheid regime? Maybe, maybe not. It's not relevant.

Do you honestly believe that violence is "not relevent", in a moral sense? Even putting morals aside, it IS relevent, because violence directly increases Israeli attacks, thereby getting more Palestinians killed. Violence gives Israel power ... It gives them a false sense of moral superiority ... It provides them with a justification for killing little kids ("collateral damage"). It HAS NOT produced a peaceful settlement, over DECADES. It is not effective, it is part of the problem, and your dismissing of it as irrelevent is both morally repulsive and factually incorrect.

Byrnzie

reborncareerist wrote:

Do you honestly believe that violence is "not relevent", in a moral sense? Even putting morals aside, it IS relevent, because violence directly increases Israeli attacks, thereby getting more Palestinians killed. Violence gives Israel power ... It gives them a false sense of moral superiority ... It provides them with a justification for killing little kids ("collateral damage"). It HAS NOT produced a peaceful settlement, over DECADES. It is not effective, it is part of the problem, and your dismissing of it as irrelevent is both morally repulsive and factually incorrect.

I didn't say that violence wasn't relevant. I said your question wasn't relevant.
And as far as a peaceful settlement goes, what, or who, exactly has prevented any peaceful settlement? Are you not aware of the numerous attempts by the International community to foster a two-state settlement along the 1967 borders? Take a look at the historical record. Take a look at which countries have casted a 'no' vote to this settlement and at which country has continually used it's power of automatic veto to de-rail any chance of peace in the region.

rebornFixer

Byrnzie wrote:

I didn't say that violence wasn't relevant. I said your question wasn't relevant.
And as far as a peaceful settlement goes, what, or who, exactly has prevented any peaceful settlement? Are you not aware of the numerous attempts by the International community to foster a two-state settlement along the 1967 borders? Take a look at the historical record. Take a look at which countries have casted a 'no' vote to this settlement and at which country has continually used it's power of automatic veto to de-rail any chance of peace in the region.

Oh, its definitely Israel in the driver's seat regarding that issue, and yeah, they could decide to unilaterally make a new state happen. My belief is that they should ... Why don't they? You think nefarious motives are work (e.g., land-grabbing), and maybe you're right. I lean more towards a phobia of terrorists, which is why I harp on Palestian violence as being relevent. My belief is that Israel will not cede the territory until Hamas and related groups are dismantled. It'd be nice if I was wrong, because I think this thing COULD work in the other direction. Israel should take the first step and withdraw to pre-1967 borders, and they should help realize a Palestinian state. If they did this, the terrorism MIGHT cease as well. I view this whole thing as bi-directional. If one side would take a step forward, the other would follow suit. Unfortunately, no one trusts enough to take the first step!

RolandTD20Kdrummer

http://www.alternet.org/audits/84883/

"The world is witnessing a terrible human rights crime in Gaza, where a million and a half human beings are being imprisoned with almost no access to the outside world. An entire population is being brutally punished.

This gross mistreatment of the Palestinians in Gaza was escalated dramatically by Israel, with United States backing, after political candidates representing Hamas won a majority of seats in the Palestinian Authority parliament in 2006. The election was unanimously judged to be honest and fair by all international observers.

Israel and the US refused to accept the right of Palestinians to form a unity government with Hamas and Fatah and now, after internal strife, Hamas alone controls Gaza. Forty-one of the 43 victorious Hamas candidates who lived in the West Bank have been imprisoned by Israel, plus an additional 10 who assumed positions in the short-lived coalition cabinet.

Regardless of one's choice in the partisan struggle between Fatah and Hamas within occupied Palestine, we must remember that economic sanctions and restrictions on the supply of water, food, electricity and fuel are causing extreme hardship among the innocent people in Gaza, about one million of whom are refugees.

Israeli bombs and missiles periodically strike the area, causing high casualties among both militants and innocent women and children. Prior to the highly publicised killing of a woman and her four children last week, this pattern had been illustrated by a report from B'Tselem, the leading Israeli human rights organisation, which stated that 106 Palestinians were killed between February 27 and March 3. Fifty-four of them were civilians, and 25 were under 18 years of age.

On a recent trip through the Middle East, I attempted to gain a better understanding of the crisis. One of my visits was to Sderot, a community of about 20,000 in southern Israel that is frequently struck by rockets fired from nearby Gaza. I condemned these attacks as abominable acts of terrorism, since most of the 13 victims during the past seven years have been non-combatants.

Subsequently, I met with leaders of Hamas -- a delegation from Gaza and the top officials in Damascus. I made the same condemnation to them, and urged that they declare a unilateral ceasefire or orchestrate with Israel a mutual agreement to terminate all military action in and around Gaza for an extended period.

They responded that such action by them in the past had not been reciprocated, and they reminded me that Hamas had previously insisted on a ceasefire throughout Palestine, including Gaza and the West Bank, which Israel had refused. Hamas then made a public proposal of a mutual ceasefire restricted to Gaza, which the Israelis also rejected.

There are fervent arguments heard on both sides concerning blame for a lack of peace in the Holy Land. Israel has occupied and colonised the Palestinian West Bank, which is approximately a quarter the size of the nation of Israel as recognised by the international community. Some Israeli religious factions claim a right to the land on both sides of the Jordan river, others that their 205 settlements of some 500,000 people are necessary for "security".

All Arab nations have agreed to recognise Israel fully if it will comply with key United Nations resolutions. Hamas has agreed to accept any negotiated peace settlement between the president of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, and Israel's prime minister, Ehud Olmert, provided it is approved in a referendum of the Palestinian people.

This holds promise of progress, but despite the brief fanfare and positive statements at the peace conference last November in Annapolis, the process has gone backwards. Nine thousand new Israeli housing units have been announced in Palestine; the number of roadblocks within the West Bank has increased; and the stranglehold on Gaza has been tightened.

It is one thing for other leaders to defer to the US in the crucial peace negotiations, but the world must not stand idle while innocent people are treated cruelly. It is time for strong voices in Europe, the US, Israel and elsewhere to speak out and condemn the human rights tragedy that has befallen the Palestinian people."

Byrnzie

reborncareerist wrote:

Oh, its definitely Israel in the driver's seat regarding that issue, and yeah, they could decide to unilaterally make a new state happen. My belief is that they should ... Why don't they? You think nefarious motives are work (e.g., land-grabbing), and maybe you're right. I lean more towards a phobia of terrorists, which is why I harp on Palestian violence as being relevent. My belief is that Israel will not cede the territory until Hamas and related groups are dismantled. It'd be nice if I was wrong, because I think this thing COULD work in the other direction. Israel should take the first step and withdraw to pre-1967 borders, and they should help realize a Palestinian state. If they did this, the terrorism MIGHT cease as well. I view this whole thing as bi-directional. If one side would take a step forward, the other would follow suit. Unfortunately, no one trusts enough to take the first step!

But the issue here isn't one side's 'terrorism'. The issue here is the occupation. You're focusing soley on the response of the Palestinians to the occupation. As far as I'm concerned, as long as the occupation continues then Palestinian violence is perfectly understandable, and not particularly deserving of judgement.

he still stands

Just as an aside, a great book that outlines the "veil of ignorance" of the longstanding Arab-Jewish feud is a work by the great Tom Robbins, "Skinny Legs and All." It is funny to me that this work of fiction is more telling of the true nature of these problems than any critical thinking inspired "solution." It is also about art, sex, eschatology, and inanimate objects (Can o' Beans, Dirty Sock, Spoon, Painted Stick and Conch Shell).

rebornFixer

Byrnzie wrote:

But the issue here isn't one side's 'terrorism'. The issue here is the occupation. You're focusing soley on the response of the Palestinians to the occupation. As far as I'm concerned, as long as the occupation continues then Palestinian violence is perfectly understandable, and not particularly deserving of judgement.

Well, we're at an impasse then (which is fine), because what you think is not deserving of judgment I view as one of several causal factors.

rebornFixer

he still stands wrote:

Just as an aside, a great book that outlines the "veil of ignorance" of the longstanding Arab-Jewish feud is a work by the great Tom Robbins, "Skinny Legs and All." It is funny to me that this work of fiction is more telling of the true nature of these problems than any critical thinking inspired "solution." It is also about art, sex, eschatology, and inanimate objects (Can o' Beans, Dirty Sock, Spoon, Painted Stick and Conch Shell).

Interesting ...

he still stands

reborncareerist wrote:

Interesting ...

by your signature I see you're intrigued by the concept of "veils." Another important subject commonly referred to in "Skinny Legs and All."

Geez, Tom Robbins should pay me royalties.

Byrnzie

he still stands wrote:

Just as an aside, a great book that outlines the "veil of ignorance" of the longstanding Arab-Jewish feud is a work by the great Tom Robbins, "Skinny Legs and All." It is funny to me that this work of fiction is more telling of the true nature of these problems than any critical thinking inspired "solution." It is also about art, sex, eschatology, and inanimate objects (Can o' Beans, Dirty Sock, Spoon, Painted Stick and Conch Shell).

So you think that a work of fiction is more useful in understanding the Israel/Palestine conflict than any critical thinking? A book that purportedly focuses on the 'complexity' of the issue. A complexity which isn't actually there. A complexity which is a fabrication and a smokescreen created by those who would like to brush the simple facts of the conflict under the carpet, to the benefit of those in favour of the ongoing illegal occupation? O.k.


Hmm..
From readers reviews:
'He's clearly no great fan of organized religion, and treats the middle east with the complexity and nuance it so surely deserves.'

'"Jerusalem is about... something else." It's a complicated city, with a complicated history...'

Those who support the occupation, as some on this message board clearly do, love to pretend that the issue is one involving a great deal of complexity, and one that involves two equal sides who are just as bad as each other. They love to pretend that the issue is one which is made up of, on one side, fanatical terrorists, and the other side, a fairly rational and civilised people who simply keep making the mistake of over-reacting to these fanatical terrorists. They love to pretend that the issue is so complex and so embroiled in historical and religious issues that we couldn't possibly hope to ever unravel all of it's mysteries. In fact, possibly our only hope of managing to get anywhere near an understanding of the deep mystery of the Israel/Palestine conflict is through the medium of fiction.

All of which are obvious lies. Obvious lies to anyone with any common sense. And obvious to anyone who simply looks at the facts.

he still stands

Byrnzie wrote:

So you think that a work of fiction is more useful in understanding the Israel/Palestine conflict than any critical thinking? A book that purportedly focuses on the 'complexity' of the issue. A complexity which isn't actually there. A complexity which is a fabrication and a smokescreen created by those who would like to brush the simple facts of the conflict under the carpet, to the benefit of those in favour of the ongoing illegal occupation? O.k.


Hmm..
From readers reviews:
'He's clearly no great fan of organized religion, and treats the middle east with the complexity and nuance it so surely deserves.'

'"Jerusalem is about... something else." It's a complicated city, with a complicated history...'

Those who support the occupation, as some on this message board clearly do, love to pretend that the issue is one involving a great deal of complexity, and one that involves two equal sides who are just as bad as each other. They love to pretend that the issue is one which is made up of, on one side, fanatical terrorists, and the other side, a fairly rational and civilised people who simply keep making the mistake of over-reacting to these fanatical terrorists. They love to pretend that the issue is so complex and so embroiled in historical and religious issues that we couldn't possibly hope to ever unravel all of it's mysteries. In fact, possibly our only hope of managing to get anywhere near an understanding of the deep mystery of the Israel/Palestine conflict is through the medium of fiction.

All of which are obvious lies. Obvious lies to anyone with any common sense. And obvious to anyone who simply looks at the facts.

So you haven't read the book... that's okay.

You are right when you say it isn't a complex problem. But nobody has addressed the true nature of the problem.

Your cynicism is lovely!

Byrnzie

he still stands wrote:

So you haven't read the book... that's okay.

You are right when you say it isn't a complex problem. But nobody has addressed the true nature of the problem.

Your cynicism is lovely!

You keep mentioning the 'true nature' of the problem.
So go ahead...enlighten us!

RolandTD20Kdrummer

he still stands wrote:

So you haven't read the book... that's okay.

You are right when you say it isn't a complex problem. But nobody has addressed the true nature of the problem.

Your cynicism is lovely!

Open your backyard up to a dozen homeless people in your neighborhood.

Let me know how you get along after a while when they decide your backyard is not big enough for "their land" which god has given them complete rights to over you because you are not one of them, They then decide to murder your kids because they are also not chosen by god to play in your backyard anymore (i.e. their backyard), and also decide take your house to live in as well. Then they invite all their friends from hundreds of miles around to live at your place, while you go live in a ditch across the street. Oh and one of your wealthy neighbors decides give them weapons and several thousands of dollars to help in case you get any bright ideas of getting angry or combative.

Whatever you you decide to do....don't be a terrorist.

rebornFixer

Can someone take a stab at explaining to me how the "God's Chosen" doctrine is somehow the problem? I mean, is there a group of people somewhere in the world that does NOT accord themselves at least some degree of special status? Muslims don't think their special? That would be news to me.