Originally Posted by BANFAN
I don't think that's a practical assumption, we know American foreign policy is completely un democratic and only driven by self interest in the rest of the world. And when it comes to Israel, I don't need to repeat US position there since post WW-II- So assuming that a civil right movement kind of movement in Palestine would bring them better result, is very naive to say the least. A non violent Palestine would by now be completely non existent and engulfed by Israel. It's due to resistance that Palestine has a little bit of land and Jerusalem still left on their side.
Go back to my first post here and then follow my conversation with Zunaid to better understand the context under which I suggested non-violent resistance. I believe NVR can weaken AIPAC
and the hawks and warmongers who benefit from the status quo politically, negate the same old excuses that unfortunately work well for them amongst some otherwise liberal American Jews and Western powers, and therefore benefit the Palestinian lobby in the US advocating a 2 state solution more powerful.
foreign policy responds to American
, not the world's public opinion. This is called sovereignty
for any nation, let alone a superpower like the USA. American policy, both foreign and domestic, is also influenced by powerful and effective lobbies who manipulate public opinion and American
lawmakers whenever possible. Whining about "driven by self interest?" Whose isn't? And you have the indecency to call me naive?
American democracy is complex and not nearly as cut and dry as you make it sound to be. I doubt that anyone can truly understand that complexity without living there and taking an active interest in the political process that defines itself as a perpetually ongoing project to do better, even when one has been living in the paragon of democracy and freedom known as the UAE.
A non violent resistance movement in Palestine, similar to the one in the West Bank, would deplete AIPAC and the warmongers they represent of the excuses that actually work for them.That would create the opportunity to create a much more effective Palestinian lobby advocating a 2 state solution to effectively counter AIPAC.
This will also get many liberal American Jews, 70%+ according to many polls, to openly support the 2 state solution which will further strengthen the Palestinian lobby, and generate more American public opinion in its favor. The US will begin to do the right things with regards to Israeli aggression only when that happens.
If you want to see America effectively put pressure on Israel to do the right thing, there is no guarantee that it'll work as much as so many pathologically anti-American loudmouths ironically fantasize about, that is pretty much the only realistic option.
If someone says today, that a non-violent liberation movement in East Pakistan would have saved 3 million lives and could have benefitted Bangladesh in terms of wealth sharing etc and we could have avoided losing millions of lives in post war Bangladesh. I don't think it would be accepted by anyone who witnessed that political situation in pre war period.
Purely argumentative conflation and false analogy here from a military perspective. Our liberation movement had three major advantages which made a successful military campaign possible: 1) geographical distance from the enemy; 2) active and unmitigated military support from our neighbor who sheltered our refugees, and provided safe haven, arms, training and intel to our fighters while severely clogging up enemy reinforcements; and 3) our subtropical, mostly rural terrain with very little modern infrastructure that could enable the enemy, not used to our Monsoon, to effectively penetrate the interior and defeat our guerilla fighters with their mechanized infantry and short range artillery.
That is clearly not the case with the Palestinians, making them militarily vulnerable to a far superior enemy and subsequently their making admirable armed resistance pretty much futile in itself as a military campaign. However, sustained armed resistance focused on military targets, tough on both sides of the fence, can play an important part in bringing about a negotiated settlement with an adversary negotiating from a position of superior power and pretty much dictating terms.
Our armed resistance in self defense began at the onset of deliberate genocide, AFTER we had bent over backwards as citizens of Pakistan for a just peace and overwhelmingly won an election. Palestinians are not citizens of Israel, I'm not including Arab Israelis here (Bedouin, Non Bedouin, Circassians and Druze), and do not have the civil and political rights and recourse Israelis do. Their land has been conquered and they have become an occupied people. Israel, as the occupying force has certain obligations they do not give a damn about, and are hellbent on stealing land through illegal settlements. Different scenario. Different military options. Different possible outcome for armed engagement against an exponentially superior force.
We can preach peace and look great, but can only realize the truth when we are on the wrong side of a conflict. Like we understand our war in 71, they do theirs too. Nobody gets into a war by choice. And their loss and threat was much bigger than we had in 71. Sohel Bhai, that's a very unrealistic thing to say, I'm sure you understand that, as your other posts in this thread suggest.
I'm amused but not surprised that you're calling my assertion unrealistic when what you advocate has gotten the Palestinian people no closer to sustainable freedom. BTW, our loss in light of what the Pakistan Army and their Islamist buddies did in 9 months would've been far worse had they succeeded in their mission to preserve their national unity and that of the Ummah through genocide, brigandage and mass rape as the means of ethnic and spiritual cleansing. We won and the Palestinians haven't yet, I not only resent your bizarre comparison of the two, but find the underlined statement to be both anti-historical and morally repugnant.
I've been to Israel and the camps a few times as an Amnesty International observer and as a member of the California Democratic Party representing Senators Barbara Boxer and Diane Feinstein. I worked for the latter's senatorial campaign. I have some first hand knowledge as to what goes on there.
The reality of their ineffective armed struggle, while heroic in many cases when not directed at Israeli civilians, has created nothing but additional pain and suffering for their people, and didn't mitigate Israeli aggression in any way. As a matter of fact, such actions only provoke disproportionate response and outright aggression from the expansionist element just waiting for it. That's why Al Fatah and the PLO has abandoned that course of action. Hamas hasn't. Until and unless they do, their people in Gaza will continue to be victimized by far more severe
Israeli military aggression than their compatriots in the West Bank.
The US has persistently opposed the illegal settlements being built in the occupied West Bank, but will not be able to apply effective pressure without overwhelmingly favorable American public opinion in general, and the that of the Jewish American community in particular, driving an effective Palestinian lobby advocating a 2 state solution based on pre-1967 borders.
There would be NO sustainable peace there without that all important first step in a series of incremental steps that may eventually result in a single democratic state that protects the rights of every individual and community who elect people according to their merit alone, perhaps a century or two later.