People sometimes say: "Why didn't the Palestinians pursue nonviolent resistance ala Gandhi and Mandela, just think what they might have achieved!"
The truth is that many Palestinians have pursued nonviolent resistance, but they operate in an administrative atmosphere that can be totalitarian, and the world doesn't open its eyes to their persecution. The case of Shareef Khaled, a farmer and community leader who has the misfortune of owning orchards on the wrong side of Israel's security fence, serves my point. His son Ghassan Khaled, a 41-year-old lecturer in law, has been in "administrative detention" in Israel since last spring for allegedly helping a Hamas students group at his school.
David Bloom reports: "Ghassan Khaled is from the northern West Bank village of Jayyous, where a popular movement against the separation wall began in '02, led by Khaled's father, Shareef Omar Khaled. This is the second time a son of his has been put in administrative detention, which means detained without due process. The point is, Israel is using the courts to persecute non-violent activists, and to steal land (in this case for the purpose of expanding Lev Leviev's settlement Zufim)."
Here's a report last week from Khaled's Kafkalike trial, now adjourned till October as he molders in detention. Please register the fact that this report was written by Anat Matar, a distinguished lecturer in philosophy at Tel-Aviv University whose work as a scholar and mother opposing the occupation is nothing short of noble.
You will see that the Israeli police, the Shin Bet, or Shabak (a name for Shin Bet, sounds like Savak) have flimsy evidence. Matar reports on the testimony of Abed Kharaz, a former student of the accused:
An investigator called “Doron” reported that supposedly Kharaz incriminated Ghassan Khaled in channelling a specified funding to student members of the Kutla-Islamia [Hamas group]: well, strange enough there was no mention of this in the original interrogation report, although this “fact” constituted the pedestal of the prosecution’s claims. The witness now clearly stated that he had never uttered anything of the sort in his Shabak interrogation nor elsewhere!… It was quite clear to anyone in his right mind that the prosecution possessed nothing of substance in its hands. The witnesses due to appear at the next hearing will be primarily police officers and the above mentioned Shabak interrogator.
Matar's report is the only news I could find on this event, which speaks to the totalitarian aspect of this process. Investigator "Doron" appears again in this report in June on Khaled's case and the use of administrative detention:
Administrative detention serves as a
convenient tool of harassment by the Israeli regime to use against
political activists and members of parliament, peace activists leading
non-violent resistance to the occupation, students and other people who
cannot be put to trial because of the lack of evidence against them.
In recent years, 8% of the political prisoners in Israeli jails have
been administrative detainees. At present there are about 730
administrative detainees in Israeli prisons…
Khaled… is a senior
lecturer at the law faculty of Al Najjah University, in Nablus,
specializing in international commercial law. He is married and a
father of five: his oldest son is 8 years old, his youngest is 6
months. Dr. Khaled does not engage in politics. Rather, his dedication
is to his work and to his family.
Dr. Khaled's father, Sharif Omar Khaled (Abu Azzam), has developed many
liaisons with international and Israeli peace activists, being one of
the popular leaders of the peace demonstrations against the Apartheid
wall built on the land of Jayyous. His own fields – like most, in that
area – are located in the western side of the wall, and he is required
to present a permit in order to cultivate them. In October 2007 his
permit was denied for unspecified "security reasons", and was renewed
only after a strong public campaign at the beginning of 2008….
Dr. Khaled was first arrested on the night of 16th January, 2008. For three weeks he was denied contact with his lawyer. He was interrogated under duress, and eventually was accused of "giving a service to an unauthorized body". The accusation is based on two allegations: it is claimed, first, that Dr. Khaled used to give financial aid to members of the Kutla Isslamiya, Hamas' student movement; and secondly, that he gave permission to publish an academic article written by him in the journal "Mushkat al'Adalah", issued by law students at his university belonging to the Kutla Islamiya….
On 1st May, after an appeal to the military court was denied, Dr. Khaled appealed to the High Court of Justice. During the hearing, on 22nd May, his lawyer, Adv. Muhammad Abed, claimed that the intelligence reports, incriminating Dr. Khaled, were unfounded. He told the judges that during his interrogation by the GSS, Khaled's investigators attempted to convince him to admit that he belonged to the Hamas party. In return, they promised to omit any charges of military activity. One GSS investigator, "Arad", said that "had he admitted he belonged to Hamas, we might believe him; but since he denies everything, we cannot believe a word he's saying and therefore suspect he is involved in military activity". Another investigator, "Doron", threatened to "ruin his life" in case he does not cooperate.
Related posts:
- Where is the Palestinian Gandhi? In Israeli prison, of course!
- Tell the US Consulate in Jerusalem about Mohammad Othman
- Mohammad Othman’s administrative detention is a sign BDS is working
- Chomsky on Self-Hatred (and Why I Can’t Adopt a Chomskyian Stance)
- The Gandhi of the Middle East Will Likely Be an Arab Rising from an American Institution
{ 30 comments }
I don't want to talk about this! Why do you keep talking about unpleasant things like this?! I want to talk about something else. I want to talk about, umm, … respect. Yeah, RESPECT, that's the ticket.
Neither Gandhi nor Mandela had to deal with an enemy for whom constant ethnic cleansing and expulsion was the signature method.
Mandela was the leader of the ANC that engaged in violent opposition to Apartheid. The fact that he was in prison during most of this time time does not change the fact that his movement was not non-violent. That is why the US declared him a terrorist and didn't rescind this disignation until last year. It is a political fact of life — terrorist do win. Ask Arafat, Begin, Shamir, Ben Bella, Kenyata, Tito and many others.
It is rather hypocritical for the USA or Americans (especially American Jews) to tell the Palestinians to engage in non-violent protest while the USA supplies Israel with the best of weaponry as well as tremendous amounts of cash and loan guarantees.
Phil's whole pose, that "as a Jew" he has something special to say about things, is phony.
I thought that meme (the Palestinians have no Mandela/Gandhi) had been put out to pasture. It does the Zionists no good at all, if you think about it.
A few years ago some woman called Hannah wrote to the Sydney Morning Herald letters page that Archbishop Desmond Tutu (who had been quoted a few days earlier having a pop at Israel) 'sadly' did not seem to realise that the Palestinians' failure to produce a Mandela or Gandhi was at the root of their problems.
I wrote a reply (not published) which pointed out that if you posit such an argument, you therefore accept that Palestinian oppression by Israel is analogous to the racist system the black South Africans suffered under, or the imperial occupation of India by the Brits.. a rather unusual tack for Zionists to take. Any argument that bemoans the Palestinian lack of a world-historical giant is implicitly accepts their plight, and supports their demands for justice.
The other thing that makes this argument counterproductive for those that propound it is that both Mandela and Gandhi consistently and publicly opposed Israeli occupation of Palestinian land. Gandhi said in 1946 'why should they (the Jews) resort to terrorism to make good their forcible landing in Palestine?'
The Kafkaesque reference in relation to Khaled's trial provides more irony. How would old Franz have reacted to the news that if a Joseph K were to be invented today he would have to be a Muslim, probably a Palestinian, and his faceless oppressors would be Jews?
This man and his father deserves help. Is there no Human Right group involved so far? Very interesting case, considering Richard's larger argument, I have to admit.
Law and Power.
************************************
David Horowitz, I am assuming a guru of our dear Bill/SOG, in his new Islamofacism Awareness Week, part III, "has the primary objective of defunding the Muslim Student Association (MSA)."
I highly recommend the Al-Jazeera interview of madman Horowitz that caught Jim Lobe's attention, especially the second tape.
Yeah, RESPECT, that's the ticket…Thanks Mr. Mitty and if that doesn't work talk about West Bank Jewish values. 1. Thou shall not kill…LOL, 2.Thou shall not steal…LOL, 3.Thou shall not offer false witness LOL…and so forth and so on.
A/ The British were not so brutal, they were not interested in anything other than spices and goods.
B/ When the first zionists arrived, the palestinians were probably Ghandi like.
C/ Just as Hizbollah were prior to Israel's 82 Lebanon invasion, a peaceful group of Shia farmers.
D/ The hypothesis is insulting. Due to the sheer brutality being dished out.
Zionism will militarize everyone, till everyone becomes a militant. That sounds absurd, until we consider what is going on, INTERNATIONALY.
"How would old Franz have reacted to the news that if a Joseph K were to be invented today he would have to be a Muslim, probably a Palestinian, and his faceless oppressors would be Jews?"
We've got the best commentors on the web.
When people say, Why didn't the Palestinians pursue nonviolent resistance ala Gandhi and Mandela, nine times out of ten they mean, I want to steal an arab's land.
It is a political fact of life — terrorist do win. Ask Arafat, Begin, Shamir, Ben Bella, Kenyata, Tito and many others.
Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Paine et al. seen through British eyes were "terrorists", "insurgents", rebels, revolutionaries, guerillas…
"Terrorism" no longer means what it once did.
Thomas Jefferson described it thus:
"The act of terrorizing, or state of being terrorized; a mode of government by terror or intimidation."
Government by intimidation, hmm.
Today, when used by politicians or in the legacy media it means people who have significantly less military and political power than their opponents, and who are fighting back with whatever they have .
Creating a categorical distinction between killing innocent people by dropping bombs on them from planes and killing innocent people by planting or wearing bombs at ground level is an act of propaganda, not truth.
Suicide bombers can't afford jets.
War is terrifying. Always.
Others identify that violent resistance alienates and militarizes the opponent.
If the goal is to convince and not to force, then only non-threatening dissent is appropriate.
Rationalizations about how violent dissent is "necessary", are that, rationalizations.
Examples of less than full moral courage and less than effective strategy.
Almost a desire to fail.
Mandela was a terrorist. Washington was not. Nor was he a guerrilla. He was trained in the British army and led a uniformed continental army which used conventional tactics, formed in lines and met the British face to face in battle. Even the colonial militia were not guerrillas. More on that here.
Richard Witty:Others identify that violent resistance alienates and militarizes the opponent.
LeaNder: In this case there seems to be "only" peaceful resistance towards dispossession. No matter how hard to believe. The question is: Did the peaceful resistance and activism of the father trigger the arrest of his son under the guise of "administrative detention"? Theoretically that space of exemption from legal rights would even give authorities time to trump up evidence, which seems to be happening.
You should be very interested in this case, as you often point out the framework of law. …? If not even the legal expert has any chance under this system, as long as he is Palestinian, what does that tell us about its about legality?
Thus the most import issue is the legal tool of "administrative detention" And the larger double standards Anat Matar alludes to by citing: Walid Daka Yes he is a murderer. But one seem to be far better of by being an Israeli murderer on the extreme right.
Thanks to Phil for introducing us to Anat Mater:
So those were the basics of the plot. The court hearing was overstretched; the judge had difficulty in restraining his a-priory bias towards the prosecution – which was ill prepared – and his impatience with the defense. On the other hand, it was quite clear to anyone in his right mind that the prosecution possessed nothing of substance in its hands. The witnesses due to appear at the next hearing will be primarily police officers and the above mentioned Shabak interrogator .
The following session is scheduled to mid-October, since, as it is well known, there is no rush “because the defendant in this case is not formally detained ”, and the fact that he is currently imprisoned under an “administrative detention” decree is entirely irrelevant… The administrative detention is due to phase out by October 2nd, however nothing is known for now about the Shabak’s intentions to extend it.
Strange I did not notice the use of a priori in these contexts before. A priori = preconception/prejudice. My mistake. Learning.
The Arabs want to steal the land of the Jews. The result is their own suffering.
It's been awhile since we've had a zio-troll. Welcome, Mafish.
Larry of Cyberia wonders why the question is never framed:
"Why Don't Zionists Adopt Gandhi's Methods?"
But even if we suspend our disbelief about Zionism's willingness to respond to Palestinian non-violence, and assume the very best about Israel's intentions, it still strikes me as a little odd that any Zionist would use the moral authority of Mahatma Gandhi as a line of attack against the Palestinians, seeing as Gandhi himself was very opposed to Zionism:
Thanks for that, Hubris. good stuff.
Here's something similar
Palestinians practising Ghandi's methods (mostly :) targeted by Army
'It takes a special kind of nerve to embark upon a project – Zionism – that can be fulfilled only through the violent destruction of another people, and then criticize the people you are destroying for their failure to adopt non-violence.'
Yes it does. Some call it chutzpah. Standing on the throat of the people they have disposessed and terrorised, the Zionists have the gall to demand 'how dare you be upset that we've taken your land?, with that signature mix of arrogance and affront.
And our governments, representing us, stand four-square behind this ongoing atrocity.
And doesn't a successful non-violent protest movement require a media to report it? If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it…
Hubris,
This is Gandhi's advice to the Jews right after Kristalnacht:
If I were a Jew and were born in Germany and earned my livelihood there, I would claim Germany as my home even as the tallest gentile German may, and challenge him to shoot me or cast me in the dungeon; I would refuse to be expelled or to submit to discriminating treatment. And for doing this, I should not wait for the fellow Jews to join me in civil resistance but would have confidence that in the end the rest are bound to follow my example.
If one Jew or all the Jews were to accept the prescription here offered, he or they cannot be worse off than now. And suffering voluntarily undergone will bring them an inner strength and joy which no number of resolutions of sympathy passed in the world outside Germany can.
Indeed, even if Britain, France and America were to declare hostilities against Germany, they can bring no inner joy, no inner strength. The calculated violence of Hitler may even result in a general massacre of the Jews by way of his first answer to the declaration of such hostilities. But if the Jewish mind could be prepared for voluntary suffering, even the massacre I have imagined could be turned into a day of thanksgiving and joy that Jehovah had wrought deliverance of the race even at the hands of the tyrant.
For to the godfearing, death has no terror. It is a joyful sleep to be followed by a waking that would be all the more refreshing for the long sleep.
http://www.al-bushra.org/israel/ghandi.htm
He was a dingleberry.
So, if we are to summarise what Ghandi thinks of Zionism it would be – 'German Jews should stay in Germany, Polish Jews in Poland, Russian Jews in Russia etc'
He definitely wasn't saying 'German, Polish and Russian Jews should come to get their racist rocks off by robbing and killing in Palestine'
Which explains why Zionists such as Mafish Falastin hate him so much
The problem is of course the Ghandi's methods only work against a foe with a heart. Zionists, blinded by their belief in their own absolute superiority, have long traded their hearts for state of the art weaponry.
There's nothing to "surmise" from him. It's clear: If Jews react to violence against them by Hitler with non-violence, then they will triumph, but fighting back against violence will only bring greater problems.
Moron.
Capitulating to fascist terror only makes things worse.
Fighting back against fascist violence is the only way to bring peace:
THE WAY WE LIVE NOW: ISRAEL PROVES THERE IS A MILITARY SOLUTION TO TERRORISM
…Anyone who visits Jerusalem today will not see the ghost town it was in 2002, when Israel was absorbing an average of one suicide bombing a week.
… How did things improve so dramatically, and so quickly, for Palestinians and Israelis alike? Begin by recalling Israel's assassination, in late March, of Hamas spiritual leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin. At the time, the action was all but universally condemned as reckless and counterproductive. "By granting Yassin the martyrdom he craved, the Israelis have provided a motive for new suicide attacks," went an editorial in the normally pro-Israel Daily Telegraph of London. "More young Palestinians will fall in love with death, and more Israeli civilians will die with them."
Yet what followed for Israel were nearly six consecutive terror-free months. This wasn't because the Palestinian terror groups lacked for motivation to carry out attacks. It was because they lacked for means. The leaders of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Yasser Arafat's own al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades had to spend their time figuring out how to survive, not on planning fresh attacks. The Israeli army incarcerated terror suspects in record numbers–some 6,000 now sit in Israeli prisons–which in turn helped yield information for future arrests. Most importantly, the security fence has begun to make the Israeli heartland nearly impenetrable to Palestinian infiltrators. (August's double suicide bombing in Beersheba happened precisely because there is still no security fence separating that town from the Palestinian city of Hebron, from where the bombers were dispatched.)
Taken together, these measures prove what a legion of diplomats, pundits and reporters have striven to deny: that there is a military solution to the conflict.
There's nothing to "surmise" from him. It's clear: If Jews react to violence against them by Hitler with non-violence, then they will triumph, but fighting back against violence will only bring greater problems.
Moron.
Capitulating to fascist terror only makes things worse.
Fighting back against fascist violence is the only way to bring peace:
THE WAY WE LIVE NOW: ISRAEL PROVES THERE IS A MILITARY SOLUTION TO TERRORISM
…Anyone who visits Jerusalem today will not see the ghost town it was in 2002, when Israel was absorbing an average of one suicide bombing a week.
… How did things improve so dramatically, and so quickly, for Palestinians and Israelis alike? Begin by recalling Israel's assassination, in late March, of Hamas spiritual leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin. At the time, the action was all but universally condemned as reckless and counterproductive. "By granting Yassin the martyrdom he craved, the Israelis have provided a motive for new suicide attacks," went an editorial in the normally pro-Israel Daily Telegraph of London. "More young Palestinians will fall in love with death, and more Israeli civilians will die with them."
Yet what followed for Israel were nearly six consecutive terror-free months. This wasn't because the Palestinian terror groups lacked for motivation to carry out attacks. It was because they lacked for means. The leaders of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Yasser Arafat's own al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades had to spend their time figuring out how to survive, not on planning fresh attacks. The Israeli army incarcerated terror suspects in record numbers–some 6,000 now sit in Israeli prisons–which in turn helped yield information for future arrests. Most importantly, the security fence has begun to make the Israeli heartland nearly impenetrable to Palestinian infiltrators. (August's double suicide bombing in Beersheba happened precisely because there is still no security fence separating that town from the Palestinian city of Hebron, from where the bombers were dispatched.)
Taken together, these measures prove what a legion of diplomats, pundits and reporters have striven to deny: that there is a military solution to the conflict.
There's nothing to "surmise" from him. It's clear: If Jews react to violence against them by Hitler with non-violence, then they will triumph, but fighting back against violence will only bring greater problems.
Moron.
Capitulating to fascist terror only makes things worse.
Fighting back against fascist violence is the only way to bring peace:
THE WAY WE LIVE NOW: ISRAEL PROVES THERE IS A MILITARY SOLUTION TO TERRORISM
What Gandhi thought was that jews should go quietlky to the slaughter- that it was "noble", and that failure to do so would make it worse (besides being wrong).
Luckily, we know better than he did.
During the past five years the security forces, primarily the Shin Bet, have had impressive success. The number of Israelis killed as a result of Palestinian terrorism dropped from 426 in 2002 to only 13 last year. Whoever argues that it is not possible to win decisively in the asymmetric warfare against terrorism, will have to agree that in the West Bank Israel has achieved this to the maximum degree possible.
=========================
'TARGETED' STRIKES LOWER DEATHS
=========================
NIGHT LIFE SEES A REVIVAL AS CALM RETURNS TO ISRAEL
Fight For Peace!!
or so says Mafish Falastin
Comments on this entry are closed.