Where is your CVC code?
These are unusual times for nonviolence, with positive articles on the subject being published in the most unlikely places. For example, in an op-ed in the conservative Jerusalem Post, Gershon Baskin writes that Palestinians will eventually end the occupation of their lands through nonviolence, and that Israelis should be grateful for this.
The Egyptian Facebook, Twitter, SMS and satellite television revolution, which brought millions into the street, can also work in Palestine, except that it will not be against the Palestinian Authority, as some people would like to think, but against the occupation. If anyone questions the power of nonviolence, after the past weeks they should seriously reconsider what “a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can do to change the world,” as Margaret Mead used to say.
Yes, in Gaza the people’s revolution will be against the Hamas despots, but in the West Bank and Gaza as well, their just call for freedom and liberation will be directed at the occupiers. And just as the entire world was with those young people in Tahrir Square and celebrated their victory, so too will the world be with the Palestinian people in their nonviolent outpouring for freedom, liberation and democracy.
If the response is violent, the world will look at Israel just as it looks at Hosni Mubarak today.
When the Palestinians take to the streets, the squares and the checkpoints in mass nonviolent demonstrations, they will win. We will eventually sit with them and negotiate final borders, and we will find a way to share Jerusalem as the capital of two states, and we will find a common way to address the refugee issue.
And when it is all over, we will thank young Palestinians for leading us to our freedom and our liberation, because we Jews, we Israelis, do not want to occupy another people. We want to live in peace with all our neighbors. So in the name of Israel, in the name of Palestine and in the name of peace, I say to the people of Egypt – thank you!
It may be worth noting that the Palestinian people have been engaged in mass non-violent demonstrations for decades and it has done next to nothing for them. Indeed, according to the UK Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/23/palestine-papers-expose-peace-concession) secret document released by Wikileaks show that the Palestinian Authority conceded nearly all of the Israeli demands, and it was still not enough. As well, peaceful protests in the Occupied Territories are reported in Israel but almost never in the United States. The unstated premise of this Op-Ed is that occupation is the result of Palestinian violence (instead of their resort to peaceful protest). Israel could easily test that hypothesis by moving back to the 1967 borders as cited in United Nations resolutions and as required to do so under international law. The occupation is illegal, as are the Israeli settlements on Palestinian lands. Further, the Palestinians have lost far more lives in this decades long conflict that have the Israelis, and the vast majority of those Palestinians killed were civilians, and at the hands of the Israeli Defense Forces and right-wing Israeli settlers. The present Op-Ed places the burden of “good behavior” on the shoulders of an illegally occupied people and not upon their occupiers, with the promise of freedom as a consequence of such “good behavior”. Let us be clear: no behavior is good enough when the occupier wants your land. The “Palestine Papers” documents this fact.
You bring up some good points Donald. I was just putting up the piece to point to a positive story about nonviolence in a right-wing paper to show that nonviolence is getting attention from unusual places. I could have critiqued it better. Yes Palestinians have been using nonviolence for a long time. I think what the author was referring to was if there was a massive nonviolent uprising like what happened in Egypt they could win their independence.
Where I think you’re off the mark is in referring to nonviolence solely as “good behavior.” While it does entail not responding in kind to violence and hate, it is also about withdrawing obedience and cooperation to make governing untenable. So attaining your goals using nonviolence doesn’t necessarily require a change of heart in the opponent. It often means taking away their power through noncooperation which can lead to negotiation and accommodation. Don’t know if that helps or if I misread your comment.