    From Joh Domingo

    While joesixpack is understandably perplexed at the support for the
    struggling Palestinian situation, I am equally perplexed at his use
    of the term `armed resistance'. Surely he does not consider
    the use of peashooters against the mightiest army in the universe to
    be `armed resistance'. Perhaps he has something else in mind,
    and mistakes the desperation to avoid incarceration, torture and
    assassination to be `armed resistance'. Yes, I support armed
    resistance, but let us first arm the Palestinians.

    But he means something else altogether, and it is revealed in the
    second paragraph; "violence by Arabs against Zionist"

    As a principle "violence by Arabs against Zionist" ranks as the
    pre-eminent no-no, not because Joesixpack believes that violence against
    Zionist ranks above violence against anyone else, but because violence
    against Zionists is foolhardy and suicidal, and it provides Israel with
    the excuse to implement its nefarious objectives. It is not only
    joesixpack who voices this complaint - it is also heard in Palestine
    itself, with opinion polls of Palestinians showing a growing realization
    that the society has been deeply affected by violence against them under
    the cover of `retaliation'. It is disheartening to observe the
    destruction of an entire people, it's institutions and culture.

    It is important, if we are to debate this issue, to put it in its proper
    perspective and not distort the intent of those protesting the use of
    violence as strategy in Palestine. As I read it, the argument is that it
    is not in the interest of Palestine to employ violent resistance,
    not that they are not justified in the use of violence. Every
    individual who is aggressed against by a State must look to the context
    of his oppression and decide whether it is in his best interest to
    resist that aggression and to retaliate against those that initiate
    force against him. To oppose {the use of} retaliative violence against a
    superior armed and equipped State is tantamount to opposing retaliation
    {as a tactic}. It is pacifism and ignores the function of moral
    principles; we should serve life, not allow life to be destroyed.
    Although it may be stupid as a tactic, it clearly is valid to consider
    the application of the principle of retaliation. One always possesses
    the right to retaliate against aggression, and therefore one always
    possesses the right of armed resistance.

    Whilst I have observed the debate about Shamir's `The Sword of St.
    Michael' with detached interest, it is clear that the objections to it
    vary at the base. From outright rejection of violence on religious and
    philosophical grounds, to joesixpack's objection on the grounds that it
    is a poor strategy for the Palestinians. Of the former, I would say that
    it depends on the conviction of the individual. My personal view is that
    retaliative violence, on which resistance to occupation and oppression
    is fundamentally based, is a moral imperative. Others may have a
    different view, but the argument is a separate one from the issue of
    tactics. IMV, `The Sword of St. Michael' merely asserts the principle of
    retaliative violence and does not advocate whether it is in the self-
    interest of the Palestinians or not.

    I am unconvinced that Palestinian violent resistance to Israeli
    aggression is against their self-interest. This argument revolves
    around the deteriorating situation for Palestinians since the
    outbreak of the Intifada. It is argued that the position of the
    Palestinians has become more desperate as a result, and that Israel
    is winning the Intifada. This would be true if the goal of the
    Intifada was the Intifada itself, but rarely does conflict entail the
    improvement of the situation of the protagonists. War or revolution
    is not an improvement, but implicit is the distant goal of stopping
    the aggression. The process itself is extremely destructive.

    With this in mind, it is impossible for the Palestinians to lose this
    conflict. Clearly they have achieved, with their sacrifice, important
    milestones in their quest for justice: They have become a
    recognizable and visible entity; they have succeeded in winning
    unprecedented support where none existed before; they have forged a
    unity in the face of aggression and they have managed to export their
    narrative.

    More importantly, they have broken a pattern of being intimidated and
    obsequiousness towards their overlords. This State of affairs hurts
    Israel tremendously and they desire nothing more than to put the genie
    back in the bottle and revert to a political process; something they
    feel comfortable with and which they are confident of dominating.
    Despite Israel's military strength, it is an albatross, they would much
    rather use their political armory. People who agitate for taking on
    Israel politically are living in a fool's paradise.

    Zionist steal land during periods of calm, and in periods of conflict
    they steal land. That is what Zionist do. While it is true that more land
    is stolen during times of war, their most grievous errors have been
    made during times of war. The 1967 war made them responsible for a
    further 2 million non-Jews they would rather not be responsible for.
    Every political maneuver since has been an attempt to divest
    themselves of these people. That single conquest may well mean the
    demise of the Zionist enterprise. One wonders what the effect would
    be if Israel were to succeed in achieving its dream - `Greater Israel'
    - and by default the millions of non-Jews that would come
    with the territory.

    Palestinians will learn to combine violent resistance with other
    forms of resistance. They have as yet not employed forms of civil
    disobedience; the refusal to identify themselves and co-operate in
    any way with the occupation. While Israel seems locked into a
    strategy of wanton aggression against the Palestinians, they are well
    aware that they cannot win using these tactics. They have lost a lot
    of ground politically while they have been consumed with military
    solutions, which have a limited utility. By employing violent
    resistance, Palestinians are utilizing both a military and political
    strategy. Whichever way you see it, it forces Israel to act
    unilaterally, and denies them the political initiative.

    JohD