A History of the Failure of Non-Violence in Palestine
The Crisis of occupied Palestine is characterized by the perceived reliance on violence by Palestinians, to the exclusion of diplomacy and other avenues of non-violence and the violent action of the zionist entity , purely responsive. Clichéd as it may be, nothing could be farther from the truth. The fact is that there are currently a massive non-violent movements in Palestine that uses only legal means to achieve their directives. However, the Israelis, Americans and even Arab collaborators ignore this and pretend it doesn’t exist, or at the very least, are ignorant of it. This is in part largely to the media corporatetocracy that seeks to preserve its pro-zionist base, this from O’Connor “Americans are largely unaware of the struggling but vibrant grassroots nonviolent movement in Palestine, because the US corporate media prefers a simple, flawed story of Palestinian terrorist attacks and Israeli retaliation” . Thus, ignored, the peace movement is ultimately doomed to failure. This is because peace movements are entirely based off of international perceptions of the crisis and the subsequent pressure, or lack thereof, on the repressor. The primary goal of non-violence is to bring a sense of morality to the conflict, to take the side that is “right”, to refrain from any “immoral” acts. But this fails when everyone else perceives you as being the villain despite your actions, when your oppressor is perceived as being a victim despite that they are the occupier. It as the suicide bomber, Hujayra Al’Arabi said in her farewell message “Justice is on our side. The law is on our side. Why then are we victims still? The fact is that the world has not listened to the voice of justice, nor to the voice of international law. It has not listened to the voice of compassion nor to any pleas for humanity. So finally we come to the voice that cannot be ignored: the voice of Immediate Death” . This has held true throughout the entire History of Palestine, from the days of the British Mandate, to the ‘60’s and up until today with the 1st and 2nd Intifada, the Palestinian uprisings, or literally, “shaking-off”
The Premise of Non-Violence in Palestine
To first determine whether non-violence has succeeded or failed in the Palestine crisis, from its earliest days in the British Mandate un until the current day with the zionist stranglehold on the Gaza strip and the ever-expanding settlements in the West Bank, we must define what exactly non-violence is. Under the following interpretation, non-violence includes both legal and illegal means that do not lead to death or injury of the opposition. These include but are not limited to strikes, boycotts, and protests. In addition to these practices, all violence but also be renounced. Non-Violence is entirely dependant on the “morality” of both the target country and the observer, in this case, the rest of the international community. It has been said that the greatest fear the zionist militia is if thousands of Palestinians suddenly marched non-violently upon the walls surrounding Gaza and the West Bank. This has been called the greatest fear because they would not know what to do, simply put, the militia has no plan in case of such a contingency. They would not know whether to shoot them, gas them or beat them. Connecting with this, in addition to morality, the target nation must be unwilling to use force to quell the uprisings. This is the case in the oft-cited case of India under Gandhi, Gandhi was only able to lead his famed ‘march to the sea’ because the British chose not to shoot them down, and they easily could have, simply killed them all and no one would have ever gave a second thought to the name ‘Gandhi’. This is also the case in the civil rights movement within the United States, the US government was unwilling or unable to muster the true force to suppress the civil rights community. Tibet is one of the greatest examples of this principle in action. The Dalai Lama espouses his principles and advocates ‘passive resistance’, but for decades has failed to impact the brutal Chinese occupation that does not care for the morality? Also, the other part of non-violence is its objective to gain the sympathy of the international community. In the immensely global world in which everything can be linked to each other within seconds and multi-national organizations such as the UN maintain, at least in theory, massive control over such important tools such as trade rights and economic sanctions. Also, the perceived advantage of gaining favor through international communities would allow a gain in bargaining position at the negotiation table. However this practice requires a modicum of fair reporting throughout the world in which everyone becomes aware of these crimes that are being committed among the oppressed peoples and the non-violent response. And this is of course, impossible in the current crisis. Alison Weir, founder and executive director of “If Americans Knew”, an organization devoted to exposing the secrets of the current Arab-Israeli crisis, wrote “The most monumental cover-up in media history may be the one I’m about to describe. In my entire experience with American journalism, I have never found anything as extreme, sustained, and omnipresent.”. She finds that the US media covers 150% of Israeli deaths, meaning they run more then one story about the same attack, while at the same time covering only 5% of Palestinian Deaths. The reality is that during this time, Palestinians were dying at a ratio of 5-to-1. Consequently, how can a fair peace be created, how can the Arabs be viewed as a non-violent movement when the only major power broker thinks of Israel, as the saying goes, “surrounded by a sea of angry Arabs”
The Mandate Years
In the years of the British Mandate (1920-1948), the first sparks of conflict began to smolder. It is also the first instance of Palestinian non-violent resistance to the zionists and their plot to change the demographics of Palestine, and as history would show, it was also the first failure. When Lord Balifour of Britain was first drawing up his plans for a new Palestine, a meeting was convened in The Paris Peace Conference, yet no Palestinian delegates were invited, it was, as Edward Said, prominent Palestinian philosopher, said “The Balfour Declaration, made in November 1917 by the British Government...was made a) by a European power, b) about a non-European territory, c) in flat disregard of both the presence and wishes of the native majority resident in that territory” The Palestinian response to this was an overwhelming display of solidarity. A large group of citizens attempted to board a ship at the seaport of Jaffa and head to Paris to represent their people. However the British responded with overwhelming force and prevented the ship from leaving the Harbor. The European conference however refused to recognize this act. In 1921, the first act of the Paris Peace Conference was to appoint a zionist as the governor of Palestine, Herbert Samuels . This resulted in an even more powerful display of both diplomatic and non-violent resistance, the New York Times wrote, “Organizations all over Palestine, as soon as the import of the text became known to them, began sending strongly worded protests to Premier Lloyd George, to the Council of the League of Nations at Geneva, and to the leading members of the British Parliament. The Arab delegation at present in London sent two of its members to Genoa to submit a protest to the delegates to the Genoa conference…” In addition to this, large numbers of government officials who would otherwise have been working for Samuels resigned in protest. In addition to this, there were mass incidences of worker strikes, protests, and diplomatic appeals as demonstrated above. For the following decade, in the following decade, Palestinians at every level of society entered into the economic and political life of the British Mandate and tried to influence its policies in many ways and mostly non-violently. All of this was for naught, for Samuels and the British response was to start the process of Apartheid through the facilitation of Jewish immigration and the transfer of Palestinian land to Jews, and the arming of these settlers.
Some cite the example of the “White Paper”, signed in 1939(not to be confused with the 1929 white paper), as proof that these tactics of non-violence can produce results. First off, the “white paper” is a proposal proposed by the British parliament reconsidering the idea of a single, Arab, Palestine. However what these proponents fail to miss is two things. First is that the much-lauded tactics of non-violence had been employed for ~15 years continuously without any incidence of violence, with one exception in 1920. And two, that in the years immediately preceding the signing of the White Paper, there were two of the bloodiest Arab uprisings since the Palestine question had first been proposed. The first of these two uprisings was in 1929 and the second in 1936. Both resulted in hundreds of deaths of Jews, Palestinians and to a lesser degree, British. Both were triggered by relatively minor events such as the building of a wall near the Temple Mount, but were larger responses to the continued influx of Jewish settlers. This only served to prove that the outside world would not be swayed by mass boycotts or diplomatic pressure, but was highly sensitive to violence. Unfortunately for the Palestinians, this measure was quickly overruled and failed to be passed, and the previous practice of forced population change continued unabated. The ineffectiveness of such tactics such as voluntary boycotts were unique in that it saw the first major Palestinian liberation organizations. The “Hiz Al- Istiqlal was the foremost of these groups, their name meaning “The Party of Independence” , was a radical organization that preached armed confrontations with the British forces. Because of the radical change in ’36 to a more violent framework for resistance the British response to this uprising was all the more severe. More then 5000 Palestinians were killed and entire sections of cities were demolished. However this would have happened inevitably. The Jewish mobs such as the Haganah led by Menchem Begin, would have forced the Palestinians out and confiscated their lands.
It was after this period (1940-1947) that Britain became drawn up in World War II and forgot, temporarily at least about the situation in Palestine. During this time, the Jewish immigration increased exponentially. There was little resistance of any kind during this period and as a result, no one was surprised when in 1947 the foremost leaders of Zionism unequivocally demanded a state of their own. The newly formed United Nations proposed a plan in which the Jewish minority with 32% of the population, and of that, most of it artificially inflated, would get 56% of the land, including most of the coastlines that offered valuable trade resources. Understandably, the Arabs were outraged and it was on December in 1947 that the civil war officially broke out. The Arab Liberation Army, an army composed of volunteers from Palestine and the surrounding Army took control of several major cities. The Jewish militia, the Haganah under control of a man who would later commit the worst crimes the world would see, David Ben-Gurion, fought back with bitter resistance, but eventually were effectively crushed. In response to this steadfast resistance to the partition plan, the United States, the primary backer and supporter withdrew its support. At this time, a single, Arab Palestine began to look like a viable option, unfortunately, the Haganah, in conjunction with other militias began to fight back with ruthless abandon, culminating in the declaration of Independence of The Zionist Entity on May 14th 1948. At this point, as they had been threatening to do if there was independence declared, the Arab states intervened, thus was launched the first Arab Israeli war. As with the previous conflict, the Arab armies had once and for all almost solved the problem of The Zionist Entity, not through talk, not through boycotts, but through force, through the muzzle of a rifle. However, at a critical time, the European countries such as Britain and Czechloslovakia, began resupplying The Zionist Entity, allowing them to force back the Arab armies and successfully declare their independence. In all, the destruction was massive, thousands dead, and over 50% of the indigenous population of Palestine were displaced. All based on the foundation of the failure to recognize the diplomatic efforts to institute a Palestinian state as per the natural demographics of the region.
