Monday, April 17, 2017
Non-violent Movements and the Israel-Palestine Conflict
As you may have already known, non-violent action in the Israel-Palestine conflict does not get even a fraction of the attention violent action does. Why do you think that is? In light of the readings, what do you think needs to happen for a peaceful future in Israel and Palestine?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The violent actions get more attention because the Israel-Palestine conflict is based on identity politics. The violent actions could perhaps be percieved as an attack on one's self which is why they are broadcast more frequently in media. The media wants to broadcast news that the population will have a connection with, and although non-violent action make more progress than violent ones, they are not seen as a direct attack on a population. The conflict is also unique because in the countries around Israel and Palestine, there is an anti-Israel notion, but in the west, the notion is much more pro-Israel. This creates a disconnect in the way the conflict is portrayed because there are two very distinct storylines that are constantly playing out. The two narratives hardly ever meet in the middle, making it difficult for non-violent action to have a place to be praised. The narrative favors including violent action as the main focus of the news, rather than non-violent. For there to be peace, there must be some recognition of validity on both sides for any type of progress to happen. If they both deny eachothers existance, there is no way for talks or peace to occur.
ReplyDeleteI think it's a very interesting point that you raise when you mentioned that most countries around Israel and Palestine support Palestine but western countries are often pro-Israel. I didn't really take this point into consideration when thinking about this issue, but I will admit that it makes a lot of sense. Of course violence at the hands of the Palestinians would receive more media coverage than their non-violent actions, especially in places where the majority is pro-Israel.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI believe that violent action gets more attention than nonviolent action in the Israel-Palestine conflict simply because of the differences between the nature of violence and the nature of nonviolence. Violent action gets the headlines because it strikes the emotions of the majority of people and is considered to be more acute and dramatic than nonviolent action, but nonviolent action doesn't get a proportionate amount of attention because it is passive and less dramatic. An attack that causes injuries or deaths is a more urgent and severe situation than an instance of nonviolent action, and this effects how the conflict is both handled by the international system and covered by the media.
ReplyDeletePalestine achieved increased success during the intifada through its implementation of nonviolent action (Zunes), but in order to ensure a peaceful future in Israel and Palestine, there needs to be a continuation of nonviolent practices such as boycotts, strikes, and protests. One thing that can be done is for the Palestinian population to mobilize, unify, and promote democratic ideas. In a situation where they are oppressed and denied liberty by Israel, it is important for Palestinians to become more aware of the injustices that they suffer and become conscious of the need to break barriers to their independence (Dajani). Because violent action will only escalate the conflict, in order to achieve a peaceful future in Israel and Palestine, Palestinians need to advocate for their independence through nonviolent means.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhile non-violent resistance did not lead to a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it was not entirely a failure. Violent action has brought attention to the Palestinians to the world, and helped them gain more international attention and support from the international community.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, because Palestine still is less militarily powerful than Israel, they were able to do this without a military confrontation. As we can see from the wars between the two in recent years, Palestine will not win through force. The non-violent tactics used in the intifada forced Israel to change some of its policies and actions, and non-violent demonstrations in Budrus, Bil'in, and other Palestinian villages have been successful in the years following the intifada.
In Palestine, the non-violent tactics of the intifada allowed women to become more involved and, in some cases, leaders and integral participants. Unfortunately, divisions within the Palestinian community regarding their ultimate goals and the tactics they believed would help them achieve these goals lead to the intifada not achieving its aims. While the intifada strengthened the community and resolve among Palestinians, it also lead to some feeling jaded and hopeless. This hopelessness fostered violence.
In Israel, the intifada forced some to accept that "occupying another people would neither guarantee peace nor security", and that the occupation of Palestine was not sustainable. However, the actions of the Israeli government did not reflect this, and an occupation remains present to this day.
To be completely honest, I think it’s very obvious that violent action will always receive more attention in the media than non-violent action. I mean, people are obsessed with violence; when was the last time you were watching the news and there wasn’t a report about a murder, or a shooting, or, more recently, a bombing or an attack? Anyway, in the case of Israel-Palestine, and particularly during the Intifada, Palestinians utilized mainly non-violent tactics. However, the non-violence was rarely reported on and people in the media seemed to sensationalize the violence. The Palestinians achieved a lot of success through non-violent action during the Intifada, although they were not really able to sustain it because of the strength and size of the Israeli population. The Palestinians need to continue to sustain the momentum of nonviolent action through acts such as boycotts, strikes, and protests. The Intifada erupted in the last 1980s and clearly the Palestinians have been able to hold onto what little they have since then. Palestinians need to unite against the Israelis and continue to demonstrate their unity through non-violent actions. Especially today in the age of social media, the Palestinians need to not only unite together but also with the rest of the world. As many MENA states did in the Arab Spring, the Palestinians should unite together and show the world through social media the oppression they face. However, if they turn to violent action against the Israelis, their cause will lose all legitimacy, as they will be seen as terrorists and will only escalate the conflict.
ReplyDeleteI agree that non-violent means of action will preserve Palestinian legitimacy going forward in the conflict. However, how does the style of media (i.e. news reports, social media, etc.) affect the audience's perception of the conflict itself? For example, Professor Hardig has stated that Middle Eastern news agencies are much more prone to show uncensored scenes of violence than the Western media. Could it be that the west, particularly the United States, has differing views than the rest of the world pertaining to the conflict because they are being shown differing and more depersonalized images of it?
Delete