Collective, civil, non-violent action is the only way the Palestinians can neutralize the mighty Israeli army. There was an example of that kind of action in Gaza today, when hundreds of Palestinians gathered at a house that was about to be hit by an Israeli airstrike. The Israelis called the strikes off and are of course using that to show how they avoid civilian casualties. Yes, so far the Israelis won't fire a missile into a crowd of 100, especially with cameras rolling, but they would into a crowd of 10. They have their standards, you know.
This tactic is not new. The women in Beit Hanoun used it a couple of weeks ago to lift the siege from a mosque. More importantly it was used on a daily basis by women in the first intifada: they would surround the young man who was about to be arrested in the street by soldiers and would yell and elbow and do all they can to secure his release. No body used the militaristic term "human shields" then.
I don't like the term "human shields" to describe what's going on. The Israelis are using it to argue that the Palestinians don't respect human life and endanger the lives of their civilians. The Palestinians are trying to redefine it and use it as a term of civil resistance to occupation, but usually the weaker side loses the war of definitions. Moreover, I'm concerned that civil, non-violent resistance can be obscured by the continued use of militaristic terms and metaphors. One other such term is the word "hudna" that Hamas insists on using: they don't want to use the sissy word "peace agreement" because that is now synonymous with "Oslo"--a dirty word--so they adopt a militarisitc term to ask for "peace," giving the wrong impression that the Palestinians too are an army that can cease hostilities.
Not to sound too pessimistic, but the Israelis will try to neutralize this tactic. In other words, they will continue to fire their missiles without giving advanced notice, which is the rule anyway (everytime a missile or tank shell is fired in Gaza it is potentially fired into a crowd, let's not forget that). Therefore, what I hope will emerge from this is a realization that collective, non-violent action has an incredible potential to bring about change and that it will be adopted as a "strategy" of resitance and not as a marginal tactic that we use along side militaristic means. The Qassams and the suicide bombers are ultimately the antithesis of this kind of resistance.
I always believed that civil resistance is the way to go. It's better for Palestinian society in the short and long run, whether we end up with one state, two states, or no state.
This belief hasn't earned me many friends over the years. In fact, every time I express it I lose a few. This time, I'm sure, will be no different.
16 comments:
Hi Amal
This is a very difficult issue.
Its clear that an armed popular resistance is simply not going to work in the West bank and Gaza. The Suicide bombings were a catastrophe for all. And I agree that popular non-armed resistance is the way to go in the West Bank and Gaza as well as the 1948 Palestinians.
However, I'm not willing to fully concede that the Palestinians should halt all armed resistance and forever. Popular resistance should not be armed in the WB and Gaza and 1948 Palestinians, for now and perhaps the foreseeable future.
It all depends on what works to get us out of the horror that we find ourselves in.
Also half the Palestinians are not living in Palestine.
There is no hard and fast rule for our predicament.
you meant beit hanoun, right
Hi Rabee,
thanks for the correction; I changed it.
I agree with you that we need to consider what works, but we never really do. We have certain taboos we don't talk about and one of them is armed resistance. It occupies such a central place in the Palestinian imaginary that all a group needs to do to get legitimacy is to fire some shots (they could be in the air, they could be at an non-reachable target, ...doesn't matter). And no criticism is allowed. Of course, I realize that blogs are probably not the best places to engage in such discussions.
Hi Amal,
I think that the most destructive thing in Palestinian resistance history is the competition for spectacular armed operations. The more spectacular the activity the more fame the group gets.
Spectacular operations proved useless and counter productive. They simply gave the groups that committed the atrocities fame and cost the Palestinians a lot.
(see you still have one Palestinian friend even if you dared to broach this sensitive topic:-))
I think that the most destructive thing in Palestinian resistance history is the competition for spectacular armed operations.
It depends on how you look at a thing. I speak as someone who's primary ancestry, African-American, was in a situation, in my parent's time, similar to the Palestinians one of today. And it's interesting that I'm reading this the day after I spent some time reading some of Martin Luther King's writings.
As in India, as in South Africa, as in America -- violence might, indeed, get you your goals, yet it leaves behind a trail of blood and tears that embeds itself in your culture, your moral fabric, your souls. It rarely succeeds, and even more rarely creates a truly stable society. Even America, when founded in a pool of blood, put off the question of slavery, leaving a simmering pot that boiled over into the most devastating war on our soil.
Violent resistance wins you the fair-weather friendship of a few states. Non-violent resistance wins you the good wishes -- and political pressure on Israeli -- of the world. Violent resistance drives the IDF back for a few days, at most. Continued non-violent resistance, the kind that cannot be hidden as a one-off gesture, drive the Israeli political forces to explain, and then to shame. Violent resistance has earned a good people the scorn of much of the world; non-violent resistance reclaims their honor and dignity.
I'm not Palestinians; not even Islamic, although a friend tries hard to convert me. :) I have a much bigger stake in both sides coming to terms, and learning to live together, than in one side or another "winning". For certain I am naive, yet it occurs to me that all the great men of non-violence -- Ghandi, MLJ, Mandala -- were called "naive" in their times. It is notable that those that called them such do not have roads and memorials named for them, do they?
I hope what I say makes sense, and might be of aid.
---Woodrow, known to some as asim
Hi Asim,
It does make sense. The problem is that Palestinians are very weak and have experience trauma from occupation for a number of generations.
This leads to a situation where some young men and women, who have known nothing but the violence of occupation and who were born into the occupation to favor a violent response.
It is difficult to convince them that perhaps non-violence will work better. But there are pockets where resistance is not violent. I think that a good idea would be for western countries to support such resistance and to show Palestinians that non-violent resistance pays off.
Hi Rabee,
I agree with you about the destructiveness on all fronts of the spectacular operations (which in my book includes more than just suicide bombingS).
As to what you say in response to Asim, I disagree. The men and women under occupation mostly and only until the second intifada used peaceful means to resist the occupation. They demonstrated, threw stones, held sit inns, organized vuluntary work to support farmers and and refugee camps, formed unions and women's organizations. This was the dominant mode of resistance. So to say that because they lived under occupation they accept only armed and violent resistance is not accurate in my experience. The first intifada was possible and successful (in its first year before it got militarized) because of 20 years of popular non violent resistance.
BTW, I'm glad we are still friends : )
Hi Asim,
I really appreciate what you said about the effect of violence on societies. Even "legitimate" violence used to resist injustice. It happened that I've re-read Fanon's article "On Violence" recently and I found myself uncomfortable with many of the things he says. I much prefered what he wrote about effect of violence on the psyche of the colonized and the colonizer. The militarization of Palestinian society has not empowered the people, but it has exacted a terrible price from them.
thanks for stopping by.
Amal A, I think an important difference is not only the non-violent/violent resistance distinction, but the type of non-violent resistance. Non-violent protests, or even non-violent "work-arounds," may be important but may also be insufficient.
This, as well as the women at the mosque, is instead non-violent defiance.
Imagine what would happen if the residents of a town defied curfew, for example. Not individually but as a group marched through the streets.
I am not in a moral, or any other, position to suggest what Palestinians should do. I know that actions like that would directly endanger their lives. But I also think that non-violent defiance of Israeli orders is the most powerful tool they have.
Hi Amal,
it's hard to talk.
bi7bisna 3amna sami :-)
musta7il niqash lmaudu3...hon w hek
mas,
I would also make a distinction between non-violent action that is grassroots and non-violent actioin that is top down and hierarchical. the example of the women at the mosque fits the top down one. I think all Palestinians groups would be wary of a grass root non-violent movement that can get out of their control.
Kharif,
khalas, ra7 a7ki bel foul we be hayfa wahbi : )
Amal A, I agree it should be coordinated, if that is what you mean.
khalini ajareb aktub ra'yi bil lugha lfalastiniyeh, mat'akhzinish
min ay no3 muqawami ray7in nistafid i7na aktar?
bijuz 7ata hada lsu'al inti mish mittif'i 3ala tar7u. bijuz inti 3am titra7i lmuqawami l-madaniyeh kamabda'.
ana mwafi' innu fil waqt al-7ader lmuqawami lmusala7a mish 3am tinfa3na fil daffi w ghazzi w lazem nshil lisla7. bas mish kamabda'. hada ra'i waqi3i
iza bukra lwade3 bitghayyar, lmuqawami lazem titghayar 7ata walaw btirja3 lal sila7.
w taniyan, min i7na
i7na mish bas ahl ldaffi ughazzi. i7na kaman laji'in fil shatat. 3indna 7aq fi kul arAdina, wil 7aq huwi lmabda' lwa7id.
bas ana mwafi', iza i7na miktfin fi dawli fil dafi w ghazi, lazem nshil lisla7 min kul lmuqawami fil dakhel wil kharej
bas hal ya tura ibin 7aifa raye7 yiktfi fi dawla fil-daffi w ghazi?
bijuz ahl ldafi w ghazi l'asliyeen ray7in yishba3u min hek 7al, bas ba'i lsha3eb mish raye7 yiktfi, wil muqawami ray7a tistamer
fasu'ali la'ilek amal, hal ra'yek waqi3i aw mabda'i?
Post a Comment