I think one of the reasons (and perhaps the main one) for which non-violent action does not seem to gain the same attention and even response as violent action is the sheer nature of the conflict. The Israeli military consistently uses violence against the Palestinians, and is so adept at overpowering any sort of rebellion that the Palestinians have no choice but to resort to violent means. The tactics used in the Civil Rights Movement or under the British Occupation of India can not be replicated in this scenario because of the structure of the conflict.
Armed resistance groups such as Hezbollah, Hamas and Fatah are the only forms of defense Palestinians can use to fight back against oppression. Moreover, the reason nonviolent does not get as much attention is perhaps because the narrative of the conflict portrays Palestinians as violent and terrorists and Israelis as victims and simply wanting to defend their home. The irony is that the reality is quite the contrary. In this particular instance, I don't necessarily disagree with the use of violent means, simply because it seems P,estonians have two options: two fight or to surrender. They are lacking in basic needs such as food, water and medical care, so they do not have the luxury of boycotting or protesting. They do not have the means or resources to fight back without force, which is why the conflict has turned to violent.
Armed resistance groups such as Hezbollah, Hamas and Fatah are the only forms of defense Palestinians can use to fight back against oppression. Moreover, the reason nonviolent does not get as much attention is perhaps because the narrative of the conflict portrays Palestinians as violent and terrorists and Israelis as victims and simply wanting to defend their home. The irony is that the reality is quite the contrary. In this particular instance, I don't necessarily disagree with the use of violent means, simply because it seems P,estonians have two options: two fight or to surrender. They are lacking in basic needs such as food, water and medical care, so they do not have the luxury of boycotting or protesting. They do not have the means or resources to fight back without force, which is why the conflict has turned to violent.
I like the arguments that you make; you have an interesting take on the issue. I agree with the idea that, because of how established the conflict is and the oppressive nature of Israel, Palestinians have little choice in the present and future on how to act, forcing them to resort to violent means. I found it interesting that you think that the violence is defendable, and I definitely understand your argument. I also like how you referred to other prevalent movements in order to show how Palestinians are unable to replicate the action found in these past movements.
ReplyDeleteThats an valid argument that you made. Like Shazabe stated, I also agree that Palestine have little choice on what will happen to them in the present and future when it comes to going about the changes they feel the need to be done. Violence/ looking crazy is the option groups feel that they need to do in order to have some sort of change in their circumstances.
ReplyDelete