Cross-Cultural Blog

Well, Raising awarness means a lot to us actually. I mean it is very important especially for a third world country seeking to move forward. However, it is important to create a balance between raising awareness and taking action of any kind after becoming aware. However, I believe that they balance is a little shabby for us Middleeasterns. I mean we have lots of campaigns and all about change and raising awareness; however not so much is done. Now I in my opinion I personally think we can be much better than this. I think we need the strong head start in order to take action and stay strong a long the way! You see its that head start is what is so important. How can we get that? I honestly believe that in order to just get a step ahead, we need to forget about our past and start living on the present and becoming aware of what is going on right now in the world and get motivated to reach and compete. Now, I know that people have probably read and heard about this like 100 million times. And some people benefited from it and some didnt. In my opinion I think it is that we have a sort of fear locked up inside of us that is preventing us from going above in beyond. Maybe because we are afraid of getting lost in the middle, or maybe because we have a fear of committing to a long term task. I think that we need to get rid of that fear and as soon as we do. I dont see what could stand in our way to start exploring and taking action. I believe that we have to realize that fear is simply a thought. It has no weight at all in the real world; however, it can control us (middleasterns) so well. Now, when I talk about getting rid of fear, I'm not really saying dont have a fear of jumping off a building. Not that extreme. But I mean in general, not having the fear of taking risks. Of course in the end this is just an opinion, that could be right or wrong. And of course its only one of probably many factors.

Ohh and btw, I forgot like the most important thing..TO INTRODUCE MYSELF :D..my bad!

Hi, my name is Omar nice to meet you sarah and ingrid ! :)

and btw Ingrid, I would love to hear your insights as well about the balance between raising awareness and taking action and what it means to you! :)

Hello Sarah and Ingrid, nice meeting you, I am Omar El Hawary. I think this blogging activity is rather interesting cause we can exchange ideas and views from a very large distance and with probably different prospective.
Can a non-violent movement be successful? Definitely, yes . Can a non-violent movement be successful in ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Umm, very interesting, let me tell you what I honestly think. Assuming that it might be successful, I don’t think it is applicable, mainly due to the brutality of the Israeli Army. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a very complicated, deeply rooted problem and very different than any other conflicts that have happened through the course of human history. In India, for example, Gandhi used non-violent means in making Britain emerge to the whole world as an abuser and an offender. It was condemned by the International community and found that it was no longer in its best interest to stay as an occupant. As for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict it is a different case. One of the many unresolved issues is the ‘refugees’. Thousands of Palestinians want to return to their houses (know in the State of Israel), if Israel lets them back it will be ending its survival. If the Palestinians have all their rights, Israel’s existence will come to an end. No matter how bad Israel’s position in front of the International Community, it will always be in their best interest to exist, and I don’t believe the International Community can do anything to change that. The International Community has very little influence if non at all on Israel. Israel has broken many International Laws without being punished. The UN cannot come up with any effective decisions due to the USA continuous use of the VETO. The UN could not even protect its own buildings, schools and supplies during the last war on Gaza. Even if all the Palestinian join a non violent movement, Israel will still come up with an excuse to shell their houses. I don’t think a non-violent movement could for once and for all end the conflict, although certain issues may be resolved with non-violent means.

Sarah, I would love to hear your reply, whether what I wrote seems logical and whether it convinced you =)

Hi Omar,
Thanks for your post :) The truth is that I am from Jordan and I used to think in the manner that you did, before I did my research on nonviolent movements. Now I firmly believe that a nonviolent movement is the way to go.

To address the issue you brought up of the return of the refugees - I think Israel can be brought to agree to their return if the refugees live in Gaza and the West Bank, and Israel and the Arabs finally negotiate a two state agreement. Jews will still be the majority in Israel, so the "Jewish state's" existence won't be threatened.

And speaking of international condemnation, if you look at precedent (e.g. the apartheid in South Africa, ) the oppressor usually has a powerful lobby to influence international opinion. But, if the Palestinians entirely renounce violence, the Jewish people themselves won't lose the few citizens they normally do rocket fire, and won't feel scared/angry/provoked. They will slowly grow ashamed of the activities of their own government and begin to protest these activities. Even internationally, no matter how much money is spent on positive publicity for the Israeli government, if people see Palestinian dying on the news, and being attacked without provocation, they will step up and demand justice.

I would love to hear your thoughts on the above, Omar!

Sorry for my late response, I was quite busy with my midterm exams. Sarah, let me first tell you that I think you’ve got a very optimistic view, unfortunately this view is quite unrealistic. The concept you’re talking about is great, but in the world we are living in there is no such thing as ‘ashamed’, there are interests and those with the power to maintain them. I don’t think that the Palestinians will stop resisting the Israeli occupation and leave the Israelis decide what to do with their future. Beside the refugees have the right to return to their homes even if it means they will be Israeli Arabs (now in the state of Israel) not be thrown on the streets of Gaza and the West Bank. Gaza is the most densely populated area on Earth; it can’t handle thousands of extra people living in it.
A non-violent movement would not in a hundred years force the Israelis to make peace with the Palestinians. As long as there is no balance in power, the stronger country, being aware of their military advantage, would always keep trying to achieve what it wants using its firepower. The only way for a long lasting peace treaty to actually take place is to prove to the Israelis that the Palestinians could ACTUALLY THREAT them (which is obviously not the case). Only when the Palestinians have enough power to threat the Israelis will Israel take them as equals and start fair negotiations with them which would ultimately lead to a stable peace treaty. The only case where Israel would resort to a peace treaty is when it is their best option and the only way for it to be their best option is for the Palestinians to have the power to threat Israel
This approach might be considered suicide by many countries, but look at the history of Israel. Israel did not leave Sinai (the Egyptian land conquered in 1967) except when their armies were defeated on many fronts. The Egyptian army was also defeated on a front. It was quite a balanced situation where both armies proved that they could become a threat to the other country. Only then did Israel agree to negotiations and a peace treaty between the two took place.
A non violent movement, no matter who participated in it or how long it took could not alone end the conflict or force Israel into a peace treaty. I don’t think a non-violent movement could end the conflict mainly because Israel doesn’t want the conflict to end as Israel is in a much stronger position. I think peace can come in other ways that could include a non violent movement, but a non-violent movement alone would not be sufficient to force Israel into doing anything.
I would love to hear your thoughts on the above and whether I managed to convince you.

Hi Omar! Your argument is very strong, it almost swayed me. Then I remembered what I had read about non-violent theory. In cases of precedent where non-violence has worked, it is almost ALWAYS the case that one side is being oppressed by the other, and the oppressive side has nothing to gain by a resolution of the conflict. The way to make them feel they have something to lose is if you deny violence, and make them feel like they are losing their morality. Imagine if you were an Israeli citizen. If you regularly watch Israeli news and its propaganda, and are only exposed to media detailing the deaths of other Israelis in rocket fire, there is little chance you will be supportive of the Palestinian cause (the Israeli media filters out most of what is happening on the Palestinian side). If Palestinian violence stops and you don't hear of Israeli deaths, and the Palestinian non-violent movement gains enough momentum that you begin to hear about it, on the web, through international outlets, there is a very good chance that you will stand up in protest of what your government is doing, and what "big interests" say. I understand that some Israelis are religious extremists who will not care that war crimes are occurring no matter what. But you also have ordinary Israelis with ethics. Proof of this is the existence of Israeli human rights movements, including B'Tselem, Courage to Refuse, The Other Israel, Jews Against Occupation, the Not in Our Name Coalition, and others.

This HAS worked in the past. Look at the cases of Ghandi's movement in India, the Solidarity movement in Poland, the restoration of democracy in the Philippines, etc. (really, look these up, they're incredibly interesting to read about :) ).

At this point, I'm really uncertain about whether the conflict can ever be solved. But, even if the non-violent approach only has a fraction of a chance at succeeding, I think it's worth adopting, because the current strategy that Palestine and the Arab countries are pursuing clearly isn't working.

Is there some other strategy you believe has the potential to resolve the conflict? I am fully open to hearing it. In the meanwhile, if you and others don't, it cannot hurt to adopt a non-violent movement. I understand why some Palestinians are driven to suicide bombing (if I was stuck in such a frustrating and suffocating situation, who knows, maybe I would be driven to do the same) but I think these bombings don't help their cause at all... neither do firing rockets at the opposite side. They only engender animosity and hatred towards the Palestinians on the Israeli side (look at the nightmare right-wing government that was voted in in Israel) and give justification for Israel to commit its seiges.

The idea of a non-violent movement probably sounds very naive to you, but I assure you that I researched it on the most pragmatic terms and it seems like a very viable path to pursue (I looked at precedence, strategy, the finer details, not just the 'fluffy' nice philosophy). Even if it is a little naive, all of the world's leaders who have ever accomplished something momentous have been infected with naive over optimism, not cynicism. Maybe in the near future, you, I, or some other promising Arab can bring change to resolve the conflict :)

Like Ingrid, I am very interested in understanding the connection between raising awareness and inspiring action or effecting social change. Oftentimes I find that organizations raise awareness about issues without providing enough avenues for people to get engaged. Specifically, I was speaking to a friend at dinner today about HAAS public service trips, which can be a wonderful experience, but do not always show students what next steps they can take on issues they have learned to care about.

Sarah's idea of exploring the rhetorical component of nonviolent movements is also really interesting to me. Did Ghandi's rhetoric actually make a difference in his nonviolent movement. Did MLK's "I Have a Dream" speech effect social change or is it only a famous speech by which we represent a movement characterized exclusively by action? I don't know the answer to those questions, but it's a really interesting topic. Does rhetoric affect history?

hello,
I am British of Indian origin.I was raised with stories of Mahatma Ghandi and his movement of non-violence and non-co-operation.A question if i may ask.Would this belief have worked against someone like Adolf hitler or Slobodan Milosovic?Please do not misinterpret me,i am a pacifist and believer in negotiation.Thank you

Magnificent phrase

Xenical