Actually, the Palestinians DID try non-violence (relatively speaking) in the First Intifadah between 1987-1988.
Well, we seem to be working on different definitions of 'non-violent' here. To me, 500 youths converging on checkpoint hurling stones is not non-violent. I have a simple definition of non-violence: if the soldiers being attacks do not respond violently, will they come out of the encounter alive and uninjured? In the first intifada, the answer to that was 'no'. It was brilliant politically, as it morphed the image of the conflict from 4 million Jews against 250 million Arabs into a Palestinian kid with a rock against an Israeli tank. But it was not non-violent, let's not kid ourselves on that score. Real non-violent protests win their victories by making their opponents use violence just in order to not give way and allow the protest, not to protect their own lives. This wasn't at all the method of the first intifada.
If Israel TRULY wanted peace, why in 35 years of occupation to this day, have they never ONCE halted settlement building...full-well knowing that settlements are a major obstacle to peace?
I will turn the question back at you...WHY are settlements "a major obstacle to peace"? This is one of those lines that are repeated ad nauseum until everybody takes them as gospel. But let's think about it. What are settlements? Jewish towns built either right near the Green Line (those are the largest), or in the Jordan valley (for security), or between Arab towns in the West Bank and Gaza. First question for you: Why is it okay for Israel to have a million Arab citizens but impossible for Palestine to accept ANY Jewish citizens? In other words, why is it axiomatic that Jewish towns will never be allowed in Palestine? Second question for you: Settlements were not such an obstacle to peace as to prevent Barak from offering to dismantle 80% of them. If settlements are the real issue, why was this offer not even good enough to draw a counter offer?
You see, I don't happen to think settlement are the main issue at all. Sure, they are AN issue, and one that goes over well in liberal circles in Europe and America, but they are not at all the main issue. To me, Barak's offer at Taba, the one that offered to dismantled 80% of the settlements, proved that pretty clearly. The real issue is a Palestinian leadership that can accept a deal that a) gives the refugees right of return to Palestine, not Israel, and b) leaves Israel standing, yet says 'end of conflict'. Those are the real issues, the issues that the last talks fell apart over. Land, borders, even Jerusalem, were minor compared to these central issues. |
