Nothing against Israel but they should listen to Gandhi

[Quixote1818]

I have remained neutral on this conflict since it began trying to grasp it with as much knowledge and thought as possible before coming to any conclusions. Tonight I finaly made a decision on where I stand.

I have finally come to a conclusion as to what I believe is the best plan for Israel to protect themselves. I am not blaming Israel because I think Hezbollah is more at fault here, I have just come to the conclusion that the "eye for an eye" reaction is leaving everyone blind and will cause the anger and violence to become worse down the road even if Hezbollah is mostly wiped out for the short term. It's interesting how I find myself agreeing with Pat Buchanan on what is happening in Israel and how their reaction is probably creating more terrorists who will continue the violence against Israel for many, many, many years to come.

In my opinion the only answer is for Israel to stop the "eye for an eye" mentality and apply the teachings of Gandhi. In my opinion Israel should pull back and refuse to be involved with any of the violence. I do believe Israel should continue to keep an eye on potential threats and try to take care of them with law enforcement. If they do this here is what I believe would happen. Hezbollah might continue to attack Israel and Israel may take casualties for a while but eventually world pressure will mount heavily against Hezbollah to stop the attacks. The key is to not retaliate at all. With the mounting pressure to end the violence, Hezbollah's cause would become less and less effective and I believe recruits would start to dry up. Israel could continue to reach out for peace along with the entire world and for the first time we might see a glimpse of the beginning of long term peace between Israel and many hostile Arab factions.

I simply have a hard time believing that this hard line stance, no matter how effective at killing the enemy will lead to anything more than increased violence for many years to come. Does this make Israel worse than Hezbollah? No, I actually think Hezbollah is worse as they want Israel gone from the region or the world for that matter.

It may be very difficult for Israel to follow through and to continue to take casualties without retaliation but if they can stay strong and resist acting in violence I believe they will prevail. True non-violence takes more courage than acting in violence. As Gandhi said:

"Non-violence and cowardice go ill together. I can imagine a fully armed man to be at heart a coward. Possession of arms implies an element of fear, if not cowardice. But true non-violence is an impossibility without the possession of unadulterated fearlessness."

[izzie]

1. I tend to think of Ireland and the English

It was some where in the time of Henry to William and Mary that they made up mind to change Ireland and moving power to English and giving them the land was some part of that.All the crazy church 'business' of Henry I would say. Been years since I read all this, If I recall about 2 years ago the Irish put down their arms. It took a lot of killing and really un-holy fighting to get to that point. No. Ireland is still No. Ireland and both the Prot. and Cat. are still there. My guess that is about 1550 to 2000. Gives us time to think I guess. And I am sure England had all the military power but for some odd reason they could not win. Maybe Gandhi knew his way was better all the time when it came to India. He did seem to have a way about him that works better than a Am.fighter plane being seen every 2 min. on TV for all of the Middle East to see. Who cares who is in the plane it is Am. arms. Called winning hearts and mind s I think.

[CuteNFuzzy]

2. We would all do well to listen to Gandhi

Bombing away at civilian neighbhorhoods is beyond atrocious.

It is evil.

[PCIntern]

3. Your considerations are predicated upon the belief that

the Arab population would have regrets after a reasonable percentage of the genocide which would ensue following the establishment of the non-violent protocol. Do you believe that 20% dead, 30%, 50%...when would they stop the riotous killing? In my opinion, for these particular brand of fundies, in the name of Allah, they would slaughter every Jew...and then start of the Christians, who would then turn the other cheek and be killed en masse. Thus the destiny would be complete. The world would be populated by...well, you get the idea.

[cali]

4. No government of any country

can simply sit back and allow their citizens to be attacked. To say that government wouldn't last long is an understatement. Your suggestion that Israel deal with H'zbollah with law enforcement, begs the question of how that would work. H'zbollah is firing rockets from Lebanon. Clearly Israeli law enforcement has no jurisdiction in Lebanon.

Calling on one side to lay down its arms without making a similar plea to the other side, makes little sense.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

5. I Respect Gandhi

But there are times when even the most well intentioned theories or philosophies succumb to the cold hard facts that are reality.

Non violence works when you are appealing to elites who have some sense of shame or pity. That was the genius of Dr. King 's work. He embarrassed most white America and through that embarrassment that were motivated into action.

Gandhi also counseled the Jews of Nazi Germany to practice non-violent resistance. That was arguably worse than futile advice.

[dorkulon]

6. Funny, I've been thinking the same thing about Muslims.

No, that's not a snarky comment--I really mean it.

When I think of non-violent resistance, like most people I think of Gandhi and MLK. Both of these men achieved incredible societal changes against much stronger powers. It makes me wonder why the technique of mass civil disobedience hasn't been utilized more often.

It seems to me that if the Palestinians, or the Iraqis, for that matter, put down their weapons and simply marched peacefully against their occupiers (or liberators, if you prefer), far fewer of them would be killed before their opponents lost their stomach for such massacres. It seems like we'd be a lot further down the road to solutions to these conflicts if that were the predominant tactic.

Of course, it's difficult to get an angry mob to act peacefully in concert, but the example of Gandhi seems to teach us that this is not just the most civilized way to advance a cause, but the most effective as well.