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