Should the Palestinians adopt non-violent resistance?

[Thunder]

Since 1949 and especially since 1967, the Palestinians have insisted on using violent means to achieve their legitimate political goals. These means have achieved nothing.

Since the suicide attacks on Israeli civilians began in the 1990s, the number of Israeli settlers in the West Bank has increased by 100,000, settlements have further expanded to almost totally surround Jerusalem, thousands of Palestinians have died in retaliatory attacks by Israel, and a huge wall now cuts off the West Bank from Israel.

What goals has violent resistance achieved? Nothing, unless you consider vengeance and the murder of innocent human beings to be a legitimate goal.

Is it possible for the Palestinian society to abruptly change course and adopt a strict policy of non-violent resistance? Is it too late? Would it make any difference now?

I say, its very unlikely..but if it did happen....the results would be phenomenal. Israel would have no more excuses for their violence.

And a Palestinian state would be created, with strong borders and East Jerusalem as its capital.

[Oliver]

You see, Parky, before the state of Palestine is created, the Israeli's are trying to get as much as they can out of the peace deal. But that's a paradox to many Palestinians since they feel that Israel already took too much in the first place. That fact actually fuels aggression since the beginning of the conflict and it may not go away until the Palestinians get an offer that would drastically change their minds about Israel - and thus would make terrorism and agression disappear almost instantly.

In other Words, for Israel to make sure that it's future will be a safe and a lasting one, they actually need a "happy" Palestine that has the same opportunities for their Palestinian State - because every inequality will fuel the Palestinian hate again.

[Oliver]

Related public opinion Poll from december 2002:

More than 7 in 10 Palestinians indicate a willingness to stop using violence as part of a settlement process that includes the establishment of a Palestinian state based on 1967 borders. Fewer than 1 in 5 Palestinians favor pursuing a violent struggle with the goal of gaining all of historic Palestine. However, because many in the majority lack faith that Israel would ever really make the necessary concessions, there is not a majority ready to renounce violence at this point.

It appears that more than 70% of Palestinians would be ready to stop the use of violence as part of a larger settlement process that includes the establishment of a Palestinian state based on 1967 borders. However, due to a lack of faith that Israel would ever make the necessary concessions, these feelings are not readily expressed and are only revealed through a two-part series of questions ... [full report (http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/dec02/Intifada2_Dec02_rpt.pdf)]

[The Atheist]

Since 1949 and especially since 1967, the Palestinians have insisted on using violent means to achieve their legitimate political goals. These means have achieved nothing.

Since the suicide attacks on Israeli civilians began in the 1990s, the number of Israeli settlers in the West Bank has increased by 100,000, settlements have further expanded to almost totally surround Jerusalem, thousands of Palestinians have died in retaliatory attacks by Israel, and a huge wall now cuts off the West Bank from Israel.

What goals has violent resistance achieved? Nothing, unless you consider vengeance and the murder of innocent human beings to be a legitimate goal.

Is it possible for the Palestinian society to abruptly change course and adopt a strict policy of non-violent resistance? Is it too late? Would it make any difference now?

I say, its very unlikely..but if it did happen....the results would be phenomenal. Israel would have no more excuses for their violence.

And a Palestinian state would be created, with strong borders and East Jerusalem as its capital.

This is why Jews don't like Jesus.

That whole, "He who casts the first stone..." has a darker side: "He who puts his stone down first..."

[webfusion]

Answer to the OP --- No.

They should continue with their jihad.

[Oliver]

Answer to the OP --- No.

They should continue with their jihad.


Your lack of understanding the conflict is astounding for someone who regulary appears in threads about the topic at hand. I hope it's not a matter of Antisemitism[M], because your last post indicates just that.

[gdnp]

Should they? Yes

Will they? No

Would the renunciation of violence lead the Israelis to offer a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as a capital?

I guess we will never know. I doubt it.

[webfusion]

Your lack of understanding the conflict is astounding for someone who regulary appears in threads about the topic at hand.

Yeah, right.

:rolleyes:

[gumboot]

Well to be fair to the Palestinians they did try it, and it failed. There were mass non-violent demonstrations when the Israelis started major settlements in the West Bank, including civil disobedience and protest rallies. While the majority of Palestinians claim to have taken part in these demonstrations, the majority of Israelis claim to know nothing about the demonstrations. And they didn't stop the settlements.

The many surveys on the issue tend to show the same general trend; both sides want peace, both sides are willing to give concessions for peace, but neither side trusts the other side to do the same.

The fundamental engine driving the Palestine/Israel conflict is ignorance of the other side.

[gdnp]

Well to be fair to the Palestinians they did try it, and it failed. There were mass non-violent demonstrations when the Israelis started major settlements in the West Bank, including civil disobedience and protest rallies. While the majority of Palestinians claim to have taken part in these demonstrations, the majority of Israelis claim to know nothing about the demonstrations. And they didn't stop the settlements.

The many surveys on the issue tend to show the same general trend; both sides want peace, both sides are willing to give concessions for peace, but neither side trusts the other side to do the same.

The fundamental engine driving the Palestine/Israel conflict is ignorance of the other side.

Or you could say that both sides pay lip service to wanting peace, neither side is willing to make the requisite concessions for peace, and the fundamental engine driving the Palestinian/Israeli conflict is that both sides understand this quite well.

Depending on how cynical a mood you are in.

I think I'll have another drink.

[Damien Evans]

Yes.

[portlandatheist]

Since 1949 and especially since 1967, the Palestinians have insisted on using violent means to achieve their legitimate political goals.
This is a gross over generalization. While you and I may disagree on what preciously are their legitimate political goals, clearly some of the palestinian violence is done for illegitimate political goals such as genocide and the complete destruction of the Israel. These illegitimate political goals are expressed pretty well by the likes of Hamas, Hezbollah, Al-aqsa brigade, etc. I don't think its fair to sum up Palestinian violence as a whole as as a means to "legitimate political goals" as some of these goals are arguably not very legitimate.

[a_unique_person]

Answer to the OP --- No.

They should continue with their jihad.

I have to ask, just exactly what did you mean by that response?

[Tsukasa Buddha]

This is a gross over generalization. While you and I may disagree on what preciously are their legitimate political goals, clearly some of the palestinian violence is done for illegitimate political goals such as genocide and the complete destruction of the Israel. These illegitimate political goals are expressed pretty well by the likes of Hamas, Hezbollah, Al-aqsa brigade, etc. I don't think its fair to sum up Palestinian violence as a whole as as a means to "legitimate political goals" as some of these goals are arguably not very legitimate.

I think you are misinterpreting. I read it that whenever they have a legitimate political goal, they use violence. Not that whenever they use violence, it is for a legitimate political goal.

[portlandatheist]

I think you are misinterpreting. I read it that whenever they have a legitimate political goal, they use violence. Not that whenever they use violence, it is for a legitimate political goal.

Understood.