|
by Maria J. Stephan, MALD '02 I did not intend to write a follow-up to my "Gandhi in the Holy Land" piece from the last Ledger edition but Deborah Sontag convinced me otherwise. Sontag’s front page New York Times article of March 11, 2001 entitled "Palestinians Delicately Begin Debate on Circle of Violence" confirmed that a serious dialogue has begun in Palestine about transforming the violent intifada into a nonviolent one. Palestinian leaders, including clerics, academics, residents of areas frequently targeted by Israeli gunfire, and government officials are beginning to openly question the PLO’s strategy of encouraging (implicitly and explicitly) violent reprisals against Israeli troops in support of the Palestinian nationalist cause. A picture of 9-year-old Palestinian Odai Darraj, recently killed by an errant Israeli bullet in Al Bireh, West Bank symbolized the combined grief and frustration that Arabs are now feeling about the largely PLO-orchestrated violent response to Israeli occupation. Sontag’s article was hardly a cause for celebration. It could not possibly be when innocent civilians - Palestinian and Israeli - continue to be daily victims of senseless cross-fire shootings and terrorist attacks. But the idea that a nonviolent alternative response to the injustices endured by the Palestinian people under Israeli occupation is being talked about within the upper echelons of Palestinian society did offer some hope. In earlier writings I have proposed a nonviolent movement led by the very active and highly-communicative youth members of the Seeds of Peace initiative, a project designed to promote mutual understanding and tolerance by bringing together Israeli and Palestinian youths over the course of a summer and providing them with the means to remain in close contact. When you talk with these young adults and hear their commitment to ending the violence and working towards peaceful coexistence, you only wish that a larger audience could hear their message - and that they had the means and resources to pursue their goals. Compared to rock-throwing activities and militants’ use of residential Palestinian neighborhoods as a base for their violent reprisals against Israeli troops, which have proven to be suicidal, a peaceful, planned uprising led by these youths and others committed to overturning injustices would seem to be a superior response. It might be utopian to assume that PLO leader Yassir Arafat will be won over to the cause of nonviolence any time soon. That would take nothing short of a miracle. Violence and threats of violence have been the Palestinian Authority’s dominant bargaining chip in the context of negotiations with the Israeli government for years. But realistically speaking, any PLO strategy that relies on violence is doomed to fail given the change of governments in Israel. Ariel Sharon’s security obsession is arguably stronger than that of Ehud Barak. His tolerance for Force 17 and Hamas activities will be nil. From a purely strategic perspective, therefore, it makes sense for Arafat to embrace a nonviolent intifada (the original intention of the Palestinian uprising). Ahmed Qurei, known as Abu Ala, a very senior Palestinian official who is pressing for renewed dialogue with the new Israeli government, is openly advocating a non-militant Palestinian uprising. He is joined by Dr. Eyad Sarraj, a prominent human rights advocate who insists that Palestinians consider abandoning "proclamations of vengeance and bullets" and embrace a genuine movement of peaceful resistance to Israeli occupation. (NYT, 3-11-01) It is difficult to abandon violence once you have grown used to living in a culture of violence. But a return to the 70’s and 80’s rhetoric in the Arab world has gotten the Palestinian people nowhere. The result has been more than three hundred seventy five Palestinian deaths and thousands wounded during the last five months, a Palestinian economy that is losing $11 million a day, closed internal and international border crossings, and an even deeper sense of frustration amongst the Palestinian people. Both Israelis and Palestinians are today living in a shell-shocked society where little trust or sympathy exists between the two sides. Given these realities, I would argue that a major strategic transformation on the Palestinian side is needed to end the violence. A carefully orchestrated, nonviolent movement designed to target specific discriminatory Israeli government policies might be the only viable alternative to the prevailing scenario of attack and counter-attack. Such a movement will take creative leadership and a mass number committed to nonviolent tactics to change the course of events. Are these criteria unachievable in the Holy Land? Perhaps, but influential voices from a war-weary society are at least beginning to rise up in condemnation of violence. This is an important first step. The seeds of peaceful discourse have been sown in the Palestinian territories - it now remains to be seen if the leadership is wise enough to give nonviolence a chance. Comments? Write us at letter@fletcherledger.com |
