Yassir Arafat founded Fatah in 1959. From the end of 1964, Fatah engaged itself in attacks against Israeli, Jewish, and later (in the 1970s) western targets. There is no doubt that Palestinian attacks helped attract international attention to the Palestinian problem. But, after all those years as a Palestinian state has yet to emerge, one has to wonder:
Did the new (post-1948) Palestinian leadership made a right choice to resort to violence? Could they have gotten Israel to negotiate with them, or perhaps even reach statehood, had they turned to diplomatic efforts only?
This is a hypothetical question (a "what if" question that historians usually don't like to answer), of course, so there is no right or wrong answer here. You may also choose to answer this question from a philosophical perspective: is it wise to use violence, or extreme measures in general, to achieve a certain goal.
Had the world not forgotten about the Palestinians within a few years or at least not paid any significant attention to them if it had not been for the extreme displays of discontent that Fatah did? How long would had the world have bothered to try and help a population that is so far away from them? States are often more worried about problems closer to home and issues that will affect themselves. Not that the world’s attention has accomplished much, but at least there are efforts.
ReplyDeleteIt is of course not impossible that Israel would have negotiated with the Palestinians had they taken a more diplomatic stance, but I find it rather unlikely that much more would have been accomplished. Even though some Israelis were against the complete deportation of Arabs out of Israel, their main goal would still have been to secure their position in their homeland, and only after this was a hundred percent secured would they consider truly helping the Palestinians. I do not think they would have done anything to put their goal at risk.
The Palestinians had no incentive to be less violent in their cause. The number of Arab Palestinians who are “refugees” is way to large for Israel to consider giving them all the right of return. And since this is important to the Palestinians, they might as well fight for it.
While the use of violence certainly brought attention to the Palestinian cause, by choosing to resort to violence the Palestinian leadership sacrificed any moral high ground they had. Non-governmental organizations that champion the causes of minority or disenfranchised groups are generally unwilling to support groups that engage in violence. Nevertheless, because violence attracts more attention, the media focuses on groups and situations where violence occurs, placing the Palestinians in a situation where they must choose between promoting their cause, or engaging in peaceful means of protest.
ReplyDeleteIt is, highly questionable if Israel would have been willing to negotiation them if Palestinian leadership choose to utilize peaceful tactics to gain attention. Unless the international community pressured Israel into reaching an agreement that would provide for Palestinian statehood, it seems unlikely that any negotiations would have been unsuccessful.
I am unconvinced that the Palestinian leadership would have been capable of gaining the international and regional attention needed to promote the Palestinian issue without the use of violent attacks. After the State of Israel was created, Israel and the other Arab countries marginalized the Palestinian population and its grievances to an extent, because Israeli, Egyptian, Syrian, and Jordanian national interests overpowered the Palestinian's voices and agenda. In other words, discussions occurred about the Palestinian problem but no Palestinians were included in the dialogues. Although the use of violence diminished the moral integrity, as Katie mentioned, it reiterated the seriousness of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Therefore, it is difficult to decide whether violence was the right decision. On one hand, it heightened awareness of the issues; yet on the other hand, Palestinians lost their victimized facade and generated further tension and resentment from Israelis and the Western world.
ReplyDeleteEven if the Palestinian leadership attempts to gain attention had been diplomatic, they might have been able to negotiate with Israel but not achieve their aspiration of statehood. First, Israel was not concerned with the Palestinian problem during the 60s and 70s because it was not as much of a security threat as the larger entities, which were more capable and ready forces being dealt with at the time. Second, the leadership's goals and conditions conflicted with those of Israel. Palestinians wanted a state with greater borders, the right of return, and self-determination; none of which, Israel would have accepted. Therefore, even if Israel would have turned its attention away from other countries, the two negotiating parties would have been at a standstill because neither party would compromise its interests
As a pacifist who supports diplomatic measures, my immediate response is to say YES Palestine could have avoided using violence and YES Palestine could have reached statehood by using only diplomatic means; however, this would be naive. The use of violence definitely made the impact on Israel and the world that was so desperately needed at the time. Had Palestine turned to diplomatic measures instead of (constantly) fighting, I think it's possible that Palestine could have reached statehood in a shorter period of time, but not likely. Obviously violence draws attention, and the world wasn't giving Palestine the amount of attention they wanted (and needed) for their cause.
ReplyDeleteThe problem isn't so much whether Palestine's use of diplomatic measures would have changed anything, but more about if Israel would have been receptive. Even when given the option to negotiate with the greater Arab world (i.e. Egypt), Israel refused. When warned by Jordan about an impending attack from Egypt and Syria, Israel merely scoffed and pushed Jordan away. Israel's attitude towards the Arab world is extremely hateful. Maybe this is rightfully so, seeing as they've been constantly rebuked and hated throughout history, but in order to bring peace, stability, and gain recognition as a state Israel has some maturing to do.
Back to the question at hand, though: Palestine's hypothetical use of diplomacy. Ultimately, I don't think it would have (or could have) worked because of Israel's unwillingness to negotiate. That isn't to say that Palestine shouldn't have first tried diplomacy: diplomatic tactics MUST ALWAYS be a first measure. Palestine should have also been persistent in their use of diplomacy; multiple tries means they're making an effort. However, if at the end of all the failed negotiations Israel still didn't budge, then Palestine would have had the right to join with the Arab world to defend themselves and their land.
Before I say whether or not I think that the new Palestinian leadership made a right choice to resort to violence, I want to try to explore a couple of reasons why they made that choice.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, Israel’s government respected power, and as long as the Palestinians possessed no effective political or military representation then they possessed no leverage with which to negotiate with Israel; because neighboring Arab countries were more concerned with their internal politics and relations with Israel and each other than with the “Palestinian problem,” Palestinians were powerless. This feeling of powerless may have caused the Palestinian leadership to feel a sense of desperation, therefore leading them to resort to violence.
Israel rarely accepted compromises when it would have to give up Israeli-occupied land (i.e. land in which Israeli settlements were situated; one of a few exceptions to this statement include northern Sinai, where Yamit was located). Palestinians wanted to be given sovereignty over parts of Palestine (if not all of it). Obviously, negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians vis-a-vis land would have gone nowhere. I can see how this political dead-end could have inspired the Palestinian leadership to resort to violence.
I think that the Palestinian leadership made the right choice. As Amy and Katie have mentioned above, the Palestinians’ use of violence brought more international attention upon their plight than any of their lobbying efforts had. From a philosophical perspective, I think that it is often wise to use violence to achieve a goal. I think it was wise of Winston Churchill to use violence to prevent the Nazis from invading England. Nevertheless, there is often a choice between the use of violence and the use of diplomacy, and while violence often seems like the more immediate and effective choice, it may not always be the wisest.
As Miranda discussed, Israel did not show much interest in carrying out negotiations with the Arab countries, much less with the liberation group, Fatah. Again, I agree with Miranda that diplomacy should be the first course chosen, but I do not think that it would have been effective. A few years after the establishment of Fatah, the Palestinian Liberation Organization was created in 1964 and eventually became the umbrella group for other resistance and liberation groups. Even though the PLO housed many of these violent organizations, it did not have a military agenda or branch and was recognized by other countries as the official representation of the Palestinians. Nevertheless, Israel refused to acknowledge or negotiate with any group that refused to admit the existence of the state of Israel, including the PLO which, isolated from the other groups, was more politically organized. As I said earlier, the Israelis and Palestinians had confrontational aspirations and diplomacy would not have been able to readjust the stance of either side. The use of only diplomatic measures would not have gotten the Palestinians any closer to achieving statehood than their method of armed resistance.
ReplyDeleteAfter the reading about the first Intifada, it seems more evident that rejection of violent methods would not have led to the establishment of a Palestinian state. The PLO’s use of terrorist tactics gave Israel and the U.S. a clear justification for not recognizing or negotiating with the PLO. However, the violence and destruction that resulted from the first Intifada brought attention to the need for the Palestinian problem to be addressed and recognized. In his book, Shimon Peres describes a situation in which both sides were desperate for peace. Yet, Peres emphasizes that Israel was unwilling to recognize the PLO as long as it continued to utilize violent tactics. Conversely, it seems that without the use of such tactics Israel would not have had any incentive to recognize the PLO. I believe that without the prospect of continued violence, the Israelis and Palestinians would not have been as willing to negotiate and agree on a framework for peace as they were in 1993.
ReplyDeleteI will start out by saying I do not think the Palestinian leadership made the right choice in resorting to violence, but it still worked in reigniting the Palestinian cause. I do not believe there was ever a chance the PLO would take a diplomatic stance rather than resort to violence. In the Palestinian National Charter of July 1968 it even says, “Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine. Khalidi points out that the few, aristocratic Palestinian families who tried to negotiate deals during the Mandate had failed, and the Palestinian people needed change. The Palestinian leadership went from men in their 60s to men in their 20s, like Arafat. This new leadership had seen the diplomatic efforts of the Palestinians fail, and thought there needed to be a drastic change. This is a difficult question, and is hard to guess what might have happened had the PLO and Fatah not embedded themselves in violent efforts. Yes, there is always a chance for peace with diplomatic relations and I believe the Palestinians should have kept trying, rather than attacking Israeli and international targets to garner attention. However, as we saw in July of 2000 with Clinton, Barak, and Arafat, even in intense negotiations that seem so close to peace, one side may back out at the last second. Still, it would have been worth a shot for the Palestinians to try to stay peaceful, but they did what they thought was best for themselves. Here we are today, even after all the violence, with no peace.
ReplyDeleteViolence gets attention. That’s the simple truth of this question, but it is not the best means of accomplishing all goals, which is evident because no peace agreement has been reached even to this day. Israel had accepted a plan for partition before the 1948 war, and this was prior to most of the violence. After Palestinians chose to resort to the terror and violence that they did after Israel had declared its independence, they had little chance to be able to reach a compromise on the issue. That being said, it is unlikely that Israel would have reached out to the Palestinians if they had chosen instead the political route to solve the problem, but it is not completely impossible that it could have happened. With accepting the partition plan before the 1948 war, Israel knew almost certainly that the Palestinians would not accept the deal, and they mainly only did out of international pressure and to look like they wanted to compromise. It is doubtful that Israel wanted to negotiate with the Palestinians after the war, so violence may have been the best way to bring attention to the Palestinian cause. Again, it is a double edged sword, because without the violence, Palestinians would have more of a case on an international level to create enough pressure to force Israel into diplomatic efforts.
ReplyDeleteThough the use of violence certainly drew attention to Palestinian grievances, it also served to paint Palestinian people as the definite enemy. Previous posters have mentioned their apprehension to believe that Israel would have negotiated with Palestinians had violence not been utilized, but this stance undermines the negative ramifications that have continued to inhibit the Palestinian cause. Violence was obviously a bold spokesperson for the reality of the conflict, but it also failed (and continues to fail) to fairly represent the struggle of the Palestinian people. It is undeniable that Palestinian leadership missed countless opportunities to speak up and negotiate when they had the chance, but perhaps they could’ve effectively achieved the same goal by finally making official attempts to unify their people.
ReplyDeleteThe Arab Revolt of 1936-1939 is just one instance in which the Arab people began moving in the right direction toward a common cause. Yet it seems that they simply decided to throw in the towel rather than learn from their mistakes and utilize some sort of widespread motivational campaign to incite passive resistance or some similarly nonviolent movement. The Arabs did hold power; they merely failed to organize effectively so that their absence became something meaningful and missed among Israeli industry and economy. As Israel became increasingly westernized in this regard, I believe that the absence of Palestinian assets would have given Arabs leverage. History almost always roots for the little guy; the Palestinians simply seem to have willfully done away with this favor by acting abrasively and impulsively. Violence should be a last resort in handling diplomatic relations. In this case, the Palestinians neglected to explore alternative means of solving their displacement.
Whether or not violence is a plausible mean by which to achieve a certain goal often depends upon what the specific goal is. If Fatah’s goal in using violence was simply to draw attention to the Palestinian cause, it was undoubtedly successful. In the grand scheme, however, it is evident that any amount of violence inflicted thus far has not remedied the conflict.
ReplyDeleteWas resorting to violence ‘right’?
When examining the use of conquest and victory throughout history, the use of violence has been very effective. When the Caesar conquered and pacified Gaul, he did so by using warfare. The years after his conquest of Gaul and expanding the Roman Empire led to the most peaceful and prosperous era in the entire existence of the empire.
On the other hand, there is the ideology that violence only leads to more violence. I’m sure many of us have heard the words of Martin Luther King Jr. on this subject, “Returning violence for violence only multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already void of stars. Hate cannot drive out hate, only love can do that.”
To refrain from using violence requires a great deal of patience, specifically from the state or people group who feels as though it has been or is being ‘oppressed’. As humans, when we desire change, we often hope for that change to occur quickly. Diplomatic negotiations require a great deal of time. Not only that, but they require compromise from both sides.
In taking a lesson from ‘the children,’ it is much easier to for a young child to pull her older sister’s hair and take her Barbie while she isn’t looking than to simply ask her if she can play with it. Why? Seemingly quicker results. Additionally, had the young child simply asked her older sister if she could play with her Barbie, it might have required that she give up her teddy bear, for example. But I suppose the reality is that if the younger sister really wanted the Barbie, she might be willing to give up the teddy bear. I realize that is a seemingly trite example, but it makes sense to an extent.
Fortunately, in this situation, children often find a way of working things out on their own or have parents who promote the act of sharing. In comparing this childlike situation to the conflict, the UN plays the role of the parental figure; however, it is not particularly as effective as a great parent might be in resolving the issue. So in reality, the Israelis and Palestinians are left to handle the conflict by themselves, which perhaps may not be such a bad situation, after all.
Unfortunately, though, the growing animosity that has built up over the past fifty years has only continued to embitter both sides toward the other. At this point, in my opinion, negotiation is the only viable option to ensure both sides come out equally content with the solution. Violence will only further escalate the conflict.
Fatah did become a really powerful organization and later the PLO continued Arafat's ideas. The fact is that Fatah used violence to achieve its goals of bringing international attention to the plight of the Palestinian refugees and it did work. Unfortunately, VIOLENCE IS NOT THE ANSWER because violence only begets violence.
ReplyDeleteFatah did not see any other option but to attack Israel and Israel's allies. Fatah did not see negotiations with Israel as a viable option for them; that turned out to be a miscalculation on the part of Fatah.
To make matters worse for Fatah, Israel refused to recognize or talk with Fatah for as long as Fatah continued its violent ways. Therefore, Fatah and the Palestinian leadership made the wrong choice in deciding to use violence methods when they could have just as easily used diplomatic methods instead.
Palestinians did get international attention because of Fatah's violent attacks but the vast majority of the world did not see Fatah in a positive light, hence Fatah's choice of using violent tactics backfired horribly in the long run. Sure, Fatah killed many Israelis, destroyed many facilities but in the end they did not accomplish their ultimate goal, which was to make Israel get on its knees and beg for mercy.
Diplomacy was the was Fatah and later the PLO, should have approach their dilemma with Israel. Israel was and is way more powerful militarily, economically and politically so for Fatah to use violence against them would have been utter futility....maybe someone should have told Arafat and Fatah that.
Now, Hamas is basically using the same tactic of violence against Israel...which is not working for them. Hamas thinks that by using violence against its enemies it will win but the exact opposite is happening to Hamas as it did with Fatah: Israel will not talk with or recognize Hamas. Fatah finally came to its senses and stopped using violence against Israel. Arafat and PM Rabin signed the "Oslo Accords" in 1993 then Arafat and PM Barack signed the "Camp David Accords" in 2000 brining the Palestinian leadership to better terms with Israel. But, there is still a long ways to go and violence by either Israel or the Palestinians will only prolong the peace process and the long sought peace between the two groups.
Using violence to bring light to the injustices endured by the Palestinians was not only ethically but logically fallible as well. Using violence did bring attention to the Palestinians and their issues; however, instead it pinned the Palestinians against Israel and its allies. Generally the world’s response to violence is not going to be sympathetic towards the offender. Rather, using violence usually causes increased violence towards the initial perpetrators and leads to a tit-for-tat situation. Furthermore, Fatah’s use of violence discouraged Israel and the West from negotiating with the Palestinians.
ReplyDeleteAlso the situation was grim and the Palestinians felt like they were running out of options, diplomatic negotiations with Israel were possible. Rising up as a community to peacefully protest against the Israelis could have also had the potential to gain world-wide attention. While Israel may have tried to militarily crush even a peaceful protest, NGOs, the Arab states and Western powers would have been more enthusiastic about forcing Israel to negotiate with the Palestinians and agree to a fair, peaceful solution. Although the world would not be immediately jolted into action, if timed correctly and strategically carried out, a peaceful protest would yield a better long-term solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict.
The use of violence to gain a better bargaining position was a justifiable choice given the conditions of the Palestinians. The Arabs were poor, had little to no influence in Jewish society, and commanded too weak a presence to convince Israeli leaders to give them any concessions. Without any leverage against Israel, the only force capable of applying pressure to the Jewish leadership was the international community.
ReplyDeleteThe argument that using peaceful means can have real effects is debatable. The civil rights movement in the United States, the liberation of India from British rule, and others non-violent movements have been at least partially successful due to influences outside those resistance movements. Political, economic, and security issues tend to play a large role it their success as at least as much as the public outcry. The occupation of Tibet has been championed by one of the most revered and loved icons of non-violence. If the Dalai Lama, with the international clout and support he receives has not achieved success, it is hard to imagine different results in Palestine.
Had Arafat and the Palestinians not resorted to violent methods after the war of 1948, the international community may have felt more sympathetic toward the Arab cause in the region. Sure, the violence got the Arabs recognition, but it was not positive. By performing terrorist acts, Fatah quickly gained notoriety for being unapproachable and difficult to work with, lessening the probability for peace talks-because no one wants to negotiate with terrorists.
ReplyDeleteI do not believe violence furthered the cause of Palestinian self-determination or statehood. The acts committed by Fatah did bring awareness to the Arab/Israeli conflict, but it seemed to garner favor for the “victimized” Israeli government and people rather than the plight of the Palestinians. If the goal of the Palestinian leadership was to move toward statehood and peace with Israel, it should have considered closely its global reputation and how these acts would shape public opinion about the Palestinian people at large. Instead of receiving sympathy, the Palestinian people received worldwide condemnation of the violent acts, with many states coming down on Israel's side.
ReplyDeleteIf Fatah had initially pursued diplomatic means rather than violent ones, Palestine still may not have achieved statehood, but it would probably be closer to that goal. It would probably enjoy the support of more allies than it does currently, as many states have viewed Israel as the victim of the Palestinian instigation.
In response to Christopher's post, I do not think "success" as it pertains to civil rights or peaceful protest can be judged solely on the establishment of an independent state, whether referring to the Dalai Lama's desire for Tibetan autonomy, or Arafat's desire for Palestinian autonomy. While this may be the end goal, success when pursuing non-violent means is not so easily definable. Sometimes (read: often) non-violent acts take longer to achieve a noticeable impact. It starts with a ripple which make waves. Eventually, people will take heed. Also, people love martyrs, but only those who do not harm others. People identify with them; they want to believe they would suffer for their own cause, given the opportunity.
ReplyDeleteI heard a man talking about the Egyptian revolt on NPR a few weeks ago, stating that the reason it was so effective was because of the youth's embrace of non-violence. He said that using violence against dictatorships just allowed those in power to use their best tool, which is oppression. Dictatorships do not know how to fight those who do not fight with guns, knives, or fists.
I think people underestimate the power of organized, focused social movements. We have been witnessing this as the Arab Spring takes place. While violence is occurring in these revolutions, protests, etc. it is not usually being promoted or perpetrated by those trying to change the current government, but by those trying to keep the current regimes in power. As mentioned in previous posts by all of you, Gandhi’s non-violent movement in India and the civil rights movement in the United States are also good representations of non violence activism. While non-violence works, it does take a while. Fatah has stated repeatedly that they are in the fight for the long haul and are going to stay around as long as it takes to get Palestine a state. If that is true and their commitment is present, then there is no reason to move to violent attacks. They have all the time in the world to craft and spread their narrative, court international actors and media to present their case and become champions of their plight, and coordinate a movement with both breadth and depth that is capable of lobbying at the highest level and cementing such strong diplomatic ties that the world can’t ignore them and their needs any longer.
ReplyDeleteThis reminded me of the following quote, which I wanted to throw in since it fits so well with what we’re talking about.
"An idea is like a play. It needs a good producer and a good promoter even if it is a masterpiece. Otherwise the play may never open; or it may open but, for a lack of an audience, close after a week. Similarly, an idea will not move from the fringes to the mainstream simply because it is good; it must be skillfully marketed before it will actually shift people's perceptions and behavior."
— David Bornstein (How to Change the World: Social Entrepreneurs and the Power of New Ideas)