The Indian example
(Radhika Sainath, EI-- on non-violence vs. violence as means of resistance)
Gaza appeal video
(Guardian-- the video BBC will not air)
Tony Benn makes his own appeal on BBC
(youtube video "if you won't broadcast the Gaza appeal then I will myself.")
Error of judgement
(Editorial, Guardian)
Fear and trauma in Gaza's schools
(al Jazeera english)
Writing checks for Gaza is easy. Politics is the tricky bit.
(Chris Patten, Guardian)
Americans turn to Al Jazeera for coverage of Gaza conflict
(Guardian)
Showing posts with label resistance. Show all posts
Showing posts with label resistance. Show all posts
Monday, January 26, 2009
Monday, January 12, 2009
the oppressed must bear the burden of liberating themselves, politely and inoffensively.
at a protest yesterday against israel's continuing violence in gaza, a group of guys next to me started chanting "long live the intifada! long live the intifada!" (for those who don't know, 'intifada' means 'uprising' in Arabic)...and i thought how easy it is for us, over here, far far far away from hunger, true cold, and bombs to vocally support another uprising, without ourselves suffering any of the consequences of it directly. perhaps their call was for literally, another uprising. maybe they were chanting to lend their support to any sort of continued palestinian resistance--armed, intellectual, artistic...whatever form it might take...subsumed under the title of intifada.
peter beaumont wrote today in the guardian of the merits of armed resistance. for as long as i've been critically engaged in the palestinian struggle, i've tried to formulate one opinion on armed resistance-- good or bad? right or wrong? moral or immoral? and still, after years, it is grey in my mind. i know i don't believe in violence as means to an end. i have deep moral qualms about the taking of another person's life, even if that person has committed haneous, unforgivable crimes. i am not comfortable with violence of any form-- physical, emotional, psychological...but at the same time, i know that no resistance movement has ever suceeded which did not have aspects of it which were militant or violent. every independence movement i know of included factions which embraced violence-- from the Black civil rights movement in the US to the Indian independence movement to the anti-apartheid struggles of Africans in South Africa. struggles have always included an array of resistance strategies and actions. Even Patrick Henry, as we learned in 4th grade American history class, espoused the desire, "give me liberty or give me death!"...a life without liberty is none at all...so how do you acheive it? i don't know...
beaumont poses the question, "when do we regard armed resistance as being acceptable?"...which glosses over the fact that "armed resistance" implies that there is something to resist against-- implicit in this question is the acknowledgement that there is an oppressive force which merits resistance...armed or not being the focus of this postulation. and again the onus is borne upon the shoulders of the oppressed to fight their oppression and subjugation in terms acceptable to "the free world" and the judging allies of its oppressors. the oppressed must bear the burden of liberating themselves, politely and inoffensively.
so in turn, i would pose the question, "when do we regard oppression as being acceptable?"
peter beaumont wrote today in the guardian of the merits of armed resistance. for as long as i've been critically engaged in the palestinian struggle, i've tried to formulate one opinion on armed resistance-- good or bad? right or wrong? moral or immoral? and still, after years, it is grey in my mind. i know i don't believe in violence as means to an end. i have deep moral qualms about the taking of another person's life, even if that person has committed haneous, unforgivable crimes. i am not comfortable with violence of any form-- physical, emotional, psychological...but at the same time, i know that no resistance movement has ever suceeded which did not have aspects of it which were militant or violent. every independence movement i know of included factions which embraced violence-- from the Black civil rights movement in the US to the Indian independence movement to the anti-apartheid struggles of Africans in South Africa. struggles have always included an array of resistance strategies and actions. Even Patrick Henry, as we learned in 4th grade American history class, espoused the desire, "give me liberty or give me death!"...a life without liberty is none at all...so how do you acheive it? i don't know...
beaumont poses the question, "when do we regard armed resistance as being acceptable?"...which glosses over the fact that "armed resistance" implies that there is something to resist against-- implicit in this question is the acknowledgement that there is an oppressive force which merits resistance...armed or not being the focus of this postulation. and again the onus is borne upon the shoulders of the oppressed to fight their oppression and subjugation in terms acceptable to "the free world" and the judging allies of its oppressors. the oppressed must bear the burden of liberating themselves, politely and inoffensively.
so in turn, i would pose the question, "when do we regard oppression as being acceptable?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
