Palestinian freedom
On the New York Times Op-Ed page Thursday, Mustafa Barghouthi, a member of the Palestinian Legislative Council, cleverly shifts the linguistic terms of the Palestinian national struggle, casting it as a battle for freedom (as opposed to "statehood," which freedom implies), invoking the legacy of the Rev. Martin Luther King and Gandhi. He writes:
When, precisely, is a good time for Palestinian freedom? I call on Mr. Solana’s replacement, Catherine Ashton, to take concrete actions to press for Palestinian freedom rather than postpone it.
If Israel insists on hewing to antiquated notions of determining the date of another people’s freedom then it is incumbent on Palestinians to organize ourselves and highlight the moral repugnance of such an outlook.
Through decades of occupation and dispossession, 90 percent of the Palestinian struggle has been nonviolent, with the vast majority of Palestinians supporting this method of struggle. Today, growing numbers of Palestinians are participating in organized nonviolent resistance.
In the face of European and American inaction, it is crucial that we continue to revive our culture of collective activism by vigorously and nonviolently resisting Israel’s domination over us...
A new generation of Palestinian leaders is attempting to speak to the world in the language of a nonviolent campaign of boycott, divestment and sanctions, precisely as Martin Luther King Jr. and thousands of African-Americans did with the Montgomery bus boycott in the mid-1950s.
We are equally right to use the tactic to advance our rights. The same world that rejects all use of Palestinian violence, even clear self-defense, surely ought not begrudge us the nonviolence employed by men such as King and Gandhi.
I'm not sure how Barghouthi settled upon his 90 percent figure, but the omission of what the other "10 percent" has been about -- airplane hihackings, suicide bombings, rocket fire from Gaza at civilians, stabbings, bulldozer rampages, etc. -- omits more than half the story, and the reasons for Israel's restrictions of certain Palestinian liberties.
Share
9 Comments
Comments RSS Feed Reader Comments
>>> Through decades of occupation and dispossession, 90 percent of the Palestinian struggle has been nonviolent, with the vast majority of Palestinians supporting this method of struggle. Today, growing numbers of Palestinians are participating in organized nonviolent resistance.
90 percent struggle non-violent?? Really? I wish some concrete examples were given. Oh wait… There are none! I’ve never heard of peaceful protests in West Bank or Gaza. The least it comes down to is throwing stones. Some non-violence!
I think the definition of a Palestinian moderate is someone who phones in a warning before the bomb detonates. However, that never happens. Bargoofy has his figures reversed.
Besides, most of the Palestinian purgatory is self-made. Every new act of terrorism reinforces the walls around them. They are denied the “freedom” to murder Jews. If they renounce that freedom, many other freedoms would follow. Since they never had their own country, I don’t even know what distinguishes them from any other indigenous people living in a country. How is their claim any different than, say, Native Americans saying they want their own country? Actually, Native Americans would have a more legitimate grievance, since they were here first. The Palestinians were there well after the Jews, contrary to their revisionist propagandist history.
I do not recall (and I was alive at the time) either Ghandi or Martin Luther King advocating violence and threatening to kill people to obtain justice for their people. Both were killed by violent people. The Arabs, who call themselves Palestinians, have been actively killing Jews in the area since the early 1900’s
Palestinians have the right to resist genocide by all lawful means, including violence. On occasion they have used unlawful violence, in the context of massive Israeli terrorism and a more-or-less complete foreclosure of nonviolent options by Israel and the international community.
So now that occasional lapse into unlawful violence is the justification for “Israel’s restrictions of certain Palestinian liberties”? What about the extraordinary, and completely illegal, restriction of Palestinian liberties in the decades preceding unlawful Palestinian violence? What kind of moral idiot takes an op-ed advocating nonviolence and turns it around into a racist attack on the colonized?
@Yosef - the last time there was a comprehensive deal being negotiated was at Taba, when Palestinians showed every sign of being willing to accept a deal based on the Oslo principles. It was Israel that walked out on those negotiations. Israel has rejected *every* peace offer based on the idea of two states along the 1967 borders. Those who pretend otherwise rely on a fantasyland story of what happened behind closed doors at Camp David.
Why anyone would ever take seriously anything any “Palestinian” spokesman would propose or offer an interpretation of past events is difficult to comprehend?
If a state is what these Arabs want (in addition to the 22, 29, etc.), why didn’t they declare it at so many opportunities in the last sixty years?
Do you know why not?
That’s not what they want.
It’s Jews dead they want.
Yes, Ira, that what they want.
Those like Ira Schwartz who parrot the official Pali line are nothing but the “useful idiots” that Vladinir Lenin so appreciated.
They will, indeed, be willing to buy rope for their own hanging.
Have a good day!
Gaza Freedom March, December 31, 2009: “The International Coalition to End the Illegal Siege of Gaza formed after Israel’s 22-day assault on Gaza in winter 2008-09. We are a diverse coalition that represents all faiths (and no faith) and is focused on human rights in conformance with international law.
To mark the fact that is has been one year since the Israeli attack, the coalition is mobilizing an international contingent for a nonviolent march alongside the people of Gaza on Dec. 31, to end the illegal blockade.
The coalition conceives this march as part of a broader strategy to end the Israeli occupation by targeting nonviolently its flagrant violations of international law from the house demolitions and settlements to the curfews and torture.”
Ira: You must’ve gotten a “D” in history class. Get your facts straight and look up the definition of “genocide” in a dictionary. Darfur is genocide. Rawanda was genocide. Israel is self defense (with a tiny fraction of the civilian casualties found in actual genocidal attacks).
Michael: The “Illegal siege of Gaza?” Are you kidding me? Have someone fire thousands of terror missiles at your home and see what you propose. Operation Cast Lead was a long overdue defensive action designed to stop the terror. You know what? It succeeded. So go and organize your march if you must, but you better pray a Kassam doesn’t hit a Sderot kindergarten the day before. Your turnout would be seriously reduced.
As far as the blockade is concerned, I’m sure you lock your door to your house to keep out bad guys. Without the blockade, Tel-Aviv would be Baghdad, circa 2005. A car bomb around every corner. A suicide bomber in every crowd. Personally, I’d prefer the blockade.
Leave a Comment
To leave a comment, you must first be logged in to JTA. If you are not registered, please click here.
Already a JTA member?
Need to know? Get JTA's free e-newsletters!
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
- Jonathan on Is Tel Aviv or Jerusalem the real Israel?
- Don on Time cover mashup: Suckling Bibi
- Terry N. Gardner on Israeli para-Athlete Moran Samuel wins gold, saves the day with her own rendition of 'Hatikvah'
- Michael Poppers on Israeli para-Athlete Moran Samuel wins gold, saves the day with her own rendition of 'Hatikvah'
- Ed Greenberg on Israeli para-Athlete Moran Samuel wins gold, saves the day with her own rendition of 'Hatikvah'
Yosef Hartuv
12/16/09 05:42 PM
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gave an interview to al-Jazira television, December 10, which reminds us of something exceptionally important for any discussion of the Israel-Palestinian conflict: what her husband offered the Palestinians—the last time a comprehensive deal was proffered—and was turned down almost exactly nine years ago. (B. Rubin)
http://calevbenyefuneh.blogspot.com/2009/12/why-cant-h-clinton-bring-israel.html