There’s a long tradition of U.S. pundits wishing for the day Palestinians finally decide touse non-violent means to protest Israeli occupation. Time magazine’s Joe Klein weighs in on the subject this week:
Ever since Israel won control of the West Bank and Gaza in 1967, the Palestinian national movement has been defined by terrorism, intransigence and, until recently in the West Bank, corruption. It has never been known for dramatic acts of nonviolence. “If they’d been led by Gandhi rather than Yasser Arafat, they would have had a state 20 years ago,” Kenneth Pollack of the Saban Center at the Brookings Institution told me. Israeli officials acknowledge that the recent, peaceful economic and security reforms led by Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad have been the most effective tactics the Palestinians have ever used in trying to create a state.
Ofcourse what Palestinians are “known for” or how they are defined might not always resemble what they’re actually doing. There is a long tradition of Palestinian nonviolent resistance. There has rarely been, however, much U.S. media coverage of those acts–which means that, every so often, someone will urge Palestinians to consider behavior they’ve been practicing for years, or treat nonviolence as if it were a striking new development in the conflict–as the New York Times did last year.
Klein writes:
The young activists may be preoccupied by the chimera of Palestinian unity at the moment, but what happens if they turn their full attention to the Israeli occupation? What happens if they begin to organize marches to protest the near daily outrages perpetrated by Jewish settlers? What if they stage sit-down strikes to open roads that are used by settlers but closed to Palestinians? What if they march 10,000 strong against a settlement that is refusing Palestinians access to a traditional water supply? “If it is nonviolent, then that means, by definition, it is civilized,” an Israeli official said. “We have no problem with that.” But what if the Palestinians are nonviolent and the Jewish settlers are not? “I think about the dogs unleashed on Martin Luther King in Birmingham,” Quran says. “I think about the beatings. That’s what it took for Americans to see the justice of his cause. We will be risking our lives, but that is what it takes. I only hope that we’re not too well-educated to be courageous.”
It would be more helpful to point out that these things have happened regularly for many years.
> Israeli officials acknowledge that the recent, peaceful economic and security reforms led by Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad have been the most effective tactics the Palestinians have ever used in trying to create a state.
Since “peaceful economic and security reforms” are so effective, I am guessing we will soon be seeing Israel disarming itself and following such tactics in its relations with the Palestinians. Klein is also, I assume, calling Obama to stop assisting the Libyan rebels with military force and instead start giving them some lessons about the power of non-violence.
What a racist ass Joe Klein is. You’d think he might have researched the topic just even a couple of clicks before pontificating. I guess he’s not paid enough to do that. Much easier just to interview an Israeli. We can assume he’s paid enough to spout the Zionist propaganda that the ignorant Palestinians are all violent and always have been.
Here is a notion. Or two. Or a few. What if non-violent protest ACTUALLY WORKED to convince the occupying power that occupying the land and oppressing the people whose land it occupies were immoral (we already know these acts are illegal)? What does one do when it doesn’t work? And since when is it required of the victims of occupation and displacement that they should protest in a fashion that meets with the approval of their victimizers and the victimizer’s cheerleaders? Will the “reporting” change then? Klein’s seems not to.
The problem is obvious enough: the victims of occupation and displacement don’t have the luxury or the option to consider the sensibilities of those who safely receive their newsweeklies on-line or in the mailbox on the other side of the world (in a nation whose goverment underwrites the occupation and displacement) and they cannot count on accurate and honest journalism to be provided in those newsweeklies. They have fighter plane strafings to dodge, bodies to unearth from under bulldozed houses, demolished hospitals to pass by with injured relatives, tanks to dive out of the way of (and toss the occasional rock at).
While the use of violence to raise the cost of oppression is not the only option open to the Palestinians, I don’t blame them for resorting to it when non-violence seems to have little to show for it. I would be interested to learn if anyone reading this (yes, I so flatter myself) is aware of any journalism that cites the success of Palestinians’ non-violent activism. Did such activism gain any concessions from the Israelis? It is one thing for Klein and his ilk (and his Israeli spokepeople) to demand that Palestinians choose non-violent activism. It is quite another for this activism to pay off. It is worth noting that not only does American mainstream journalism seldom reference any such activism, never does it reference any success that such activism earns for the Palestinian people. It is also worth noting that Klein’s “Israeli official” has no problem with Palestinian non-violent activism. After all, what threat does it offer? What I don’t see in Klein’s article (unless I missed it) is whether or not this “Israeli official” thinks the Palestinians are justified in such activism. If so, what is this “official” doing to help the issues raised by the non-violent activism of the Palestinians reach the awareness of those in power in Israel who most need to be made aware of it?
OK, I will shut up. For now.
Let’s not forget the activists for PEACE in Israel,
another group that doesn’t exist according to
mainstream media. They get beaten and arrested
for their dissent by the state of Israel (our Democratic
partner in the Middle East?). Let’s look at the expansion
of settlements from the pro /con perspective instead of
Jew/Muslim, Palestinian/Israeli – combine the forces of
peace under one Headline – “Thousands in Israel and
Palestine march for peace” – can’t do that, though, it
might alter the public perspective and result in PEACE…
It would indeed be nice if the Peace Marches could succeed. Israel would never let this happen. Israel is building those illegal settlements. Israel has no intention of letting Palestinians have their own country. Israel will be an eternal occupier because the United States allows it.
Palestinians already have a state. It is temporarily called Israel.
One country for all. Equality for all.
End Apartheid and racism in Israel!
The success of non-violent protest is, to a large degree, dependent on media coverage. Public pressure is greatly weakened by non-coverage of the actions. Gandhi’s and King’s messages would never have gotten out without a free press. Today the “whole world” is not watching, as the windows on the world are increasingly shuttered.
I’m 73. I was told in Mormon Sunday school that the church supported the establishment of the Jewish state of Israel. I heard (no télé) that Palestinians were killed and kicked off their land to establish this state. After years of suppression and humiliation, what else can we expect? Palestinians are human. If I were Palestinian, I’d be outraged. If I were Palestinian, I would feel angry about the settlements as if the knife were being twisted in my wound. And finally, I am angry that my taxes pay for the milityary equipment used to suppress and humiliate Palestinians. // Jean Clelland-Morin
Before israel gives one inch of land toward a Palestinian homeland i believe first all arab countries who now hold 80% of historic Palestinian land return their lands to the Palestinians. BEFORE Israel gives one inch. Simple right?So Palestinians should aim their wars at arab friends, and neighbors who hold the majority of their lands and have NEVER talked of returning any of it. When that is accomplished then Israel feeling the shame of being the only country to be living on (so called)Palestinian lands without returning them may…may i say feel more inclined.Till then why is Israel the main target?Because people have been fed a pile of shit and eaten hungrily from it.
Among, say, a zillion examples easily found on the web, try Googling the Palestinian village of Bilin.
This site amply illustrates the warm welcome, even aromatics, that Israel gives to weekly non-violent marches: http://www.bilin-village.org/english/ (March 18 is fairly typical.)
@michael e:
The Palistinians aren’t asking that they get back lands that are now part of Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, etc. Who are you to say what they should and shouldn’t be asking for? And further just feeling free to ignore their demands until they make some that are to your liking?
The larger point would seem that other Arab countries have some historically-Palistinian land. Maybe that’s wrong. But pointing out others’ flaws doesn’t make you flawless.
John Im simply saying that when 85% of your land is held by A B and c d e and F and 5% of your so called historical land is held by a wee little strip called Israel and all your efforts are against them.And all the world ignores ABCDE and F and centers all hatred on the Jews….yeah im suspect.
@michael e: Be suspect all you want, but it’s an arrogant and flawed position to take. It’s 5% of what they feel is their land. If they wanna make a big deal outta it, they can.
If I start living on your porch, which makes up 5% of your house let’s say, how would you feel after calling the police they told you: “Well, we’re not gonna do anything about this until you do something about the rest of the house you own. Clean the windows, paint the siding, maybe pick up the dog poop and we’ll see about getting this guy off your porch at some point in the future when we deem you ready.”? It’s only 5% of your house– what’s the big deal, Mr. Sensative?
If it’s just percentages of land that oughta be the determining factor, then that Ground Zero Mosque and all the other mosques in the US must make up an infintesimal percentage of US land. Can we stop making some sort of controversy over them as well then?