Palestinian nonviolent resistance
Hope and Empowerment:
Theory, practice and history of Palestinian and International Nonviolent Resistance 1878-2008
Draft of Book in Progress copyright By Mazin Qumsiyeh*
About the Author: Dr. Mazin Qumsiyeh is a Professor at Bethlehem University and is the President of the Administrative Board for the Rapproachement Center in Beit Sahour. He previously served on the on the faculty of Duke and Yale Universities and on the board/steering/executive committees of a number of groups including Peace Action Education Fund, the US Campaign to End the Occupation, the Palestinian American Congress, Association for One Democratic State in Israel/Palestine, and BoycottIsraeliGoods.org. He advised many other groups including Sommerville Divestment Project, Olympia-Rafah Sister City Project, Palestine Freedom Project, Sabeel North America, and National Council of Churches of Christ USA. His main interest is media activism and public education. He published over 200 letters to the editor and 100 op-ed pieces and interviewed in TV and radio extensively (local, national and international). He will be teaching at Bethlehem University in the fall. Appearances in national media included the Washington Post, New York Times, Boston Globe, CNBC, C-Span, and ABC, among others. He also regularly lectures on issues of human rights and international law. His other books include “Bats of Egypt”, “Mammals of the Holy Land”, and "Sharing the Land of Canaan: human rights and the Israeli/Palestinian Struggle" (the latter was also translated to Spanish). He also has an activism book published electronically on his web site (http://qumsiyeh.org).
Acknowledgements: This book would not be possible without the assistance of Manal Safi, Reem Helali, and Sahar Qumsiyeh. I am indebted to them and to hundreds of others who provided information and technical assistance.
Draft Table of Contents:
Preface
Introduction to Nonviolent Resistance
Local Context of Nonviolent Resistance
The Etiology of the problem in Palestine
History of Palestinians nonviolent resistance
- Ottoman Period
- British Occupation
- Jordanian rule of the West Bank (1948-1967)
- Egyptian Rule of Gaza (1948-1967)
- Remaining Palestinians in the new state of Israel (1948-1967)
- One state of oppression
o 1967-1986
o The uprising of 1987-1993
o The Oslo years 1993-2000
o 2000-date
Media Coverage of Nonviolent Resistance
Conclusion and outlook to the future
Appendix 1: Palestine History Timeline: A people’s history
Appendix 2: Palestinian Civil Society Calls for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions
Introduction
"Cowardice asks the question - is it safe? Expediency asks the question - is it politic? Vanity asks the question - is it popular? But conscience asks the question - is it right? And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular; but one must take it because it is right." Martin Luther King, Jr.
“Little is known about what actually happens inside nonviolent social campaigns, in part because of the failure of universities, social scientists, news media, and policy makers to study them systematically and interrogate the power of nonviolent sanctions and the dynamics of organized efforts to employ them” Mary Elizabeth King, p. 16
There is now wide recognition of the centrality of the question of Palestine not only to peace in Western Asia but to peace around the world. Yet, as I gave hundreds of talks on the issue in the past few years, some questions keep coming up: What is your position on Israeli violence? Palestinian violence? What do you think Israeli and Palestinians should or should not do? What makes Christian Zionists support Israel? And on and on but the question that makes me take the most time is “Why don’t Palestinians engage in nonviolent resistance? “ In a few minutes available in a Q&A segment, addressing questions is by nature limited to making few comments and summarizing a lot of material culled from personal experiences and documentary evidence. Some of the information is also available on the internet so I tell people just to search the internet using the phrase “Palestinian non-violent resistance” (which gives about 400,000 hits).
These questions also give us opportunity to ask about personal responsibility, our role in resisting injustice and in peacemaking. Sometimes this leads to follow up conversations over dinners and via emails and phones about where we go from here. The destabilizing effect of the Israel/Palestine conflict extends in ripple effects to issues like the attacks of September 11, 2001, to the US government’s "war on terrorism" used to illegally attack and occupy Afghanistan and Iraq, to the nascent revival of advocates of the doomsday scenarios of "clash of civilization", and to the mistreatment of Muslim and Arab minorities in Europe, North America, and Australia.
In countless books and articles, there has been no shortage of discussion of the history of conflicts at the political level, the violence that ensued, various methods of assigning blame for these conflicts etc. Conflicting histories exist because they are written by those who are in one camp or another. History is also uneven, those with access and power write more of it. Thousands of books are written in Western languages that support Israeli, European and US colonialism. Fewer are written in Arabic and report different versions of the same events. Readers are left to find the truth for themselves. Sometimes, revisionist historians in one country shatter the mythologies that the earlier conflicts were built on but usually this happens many years and sometimes decades later. We saw this with the Israeli new historians who explained the real origin of the state of Israel and shattered many of the myths upon which political Zionism staked its reputation (e.g. the origin of the Palestinian refugee problem, the myth of tiny Israel fending for itself among a region of more powerful hostile forces). But all these books articulate mostly histories of governments’ actions and actions of powerful leaders in military conflicts. There are few books that describe a people’s history at the grass-root level. Some books may of peace based on justice, human rights, and international law. Others tell meaningful stories of ordinary people living and adapting and struggling in extraordinary times.
Yet, there is a paucity of material published that synthesizes the rich history and the amazing achievements of Palestinian and International nonviolent resistance over the period of 128 years of active Zionist colonization. Those few that do are fairly limited in scope. For example, Mary Elizabeth King wrote an excellent book (with Introduction by Jimmy Carter) titled "A Quiet Revolution: The First Palestinian Intifada and Nonviolent Resistance" (Nation Books, 2007It emphasized the period of Palestinian resistance to the Zionist colonization after 1987 and laid out an excellent framework for discussion. But as King herself stated, there is so much out there that people do not know. Even those who engage in nonviolent resistance many times do not even recognize that that is what they are doing. Another book published on this subject is “Nonviolence and Israel/Palestine “by Johan Galtung (Institute for Peace, University of Hawaii Press) was also rather limited in scope focusing on the period 1987-1989.
The struggle for freedom whether by violent or nonviolent methods require clear communication both within and without the oppressed group. In nonviolent struggles we must communicate to our own people, to those who chose to oppress us, and to the outside world, the value, the wisdom, and the effectiveness of this form of resistance. Our goals must be clear and reasonable. In the case of Palestine, the rights to return to our homes and lands, the right to live in equality, and the right to self determination are all reasonable and rational rights that can be explained to friend and foe. The method of getting there is integral. The ends do not justify any means and the means are critically linked to an outcome that we all can live with as human beings. In 2005, the Palestinian Civil Society came up with a call to action that articulated Palestinians just demands and requested the solidarity and support of the International Community along the same lines extended to people in South Africa who struggled under another apartheid regime (see Appendix 1)
The importance of reviewing this history cannot be overstated. First, this history is barely recognized or totally missing in the minds of people both in the East and in the West. In the Western world, images of Palestine (and of Arabs and Islam in general) are usual images of violence and it is rare to see the images or any coverage of nonviolent resistance (see below….). But even in the Middle East, most people have no idea about the forms of nonviolent resistance that were and are engaged in actively. Second, by nature media and direct communication between people focus more on the bad news than any good news. Anybody who talked to people here would know that they would get a litany of negative and rather depressing news. The list is endless: murders, economic deprivation, torture, imprisonment, home demolitions, land confiscation, corruption, and denial of basic rights like right of free movement, right of return etc. It is hard to mobilize people who are bombarded with negative news and information. Telling them stories of successes (positive achievements) is critical to mobilize for a activism. Since there are literally hundreds of thousands of examples of such positive achievements based on nonviolent resistance, it would make sense to compile at least some of these stories in a book.
I will try to bring issues relevant to Palestinian and International nonviolent resistance specifically to bring peace with justice to this critical part of the world. This would highlight the history of nonviolent Palestinian resistance from the 1880s till today and not only in Palestine but globally. The text also highlights example of the International/global actions for peace in Palestine that involve direct actions (such as boycotts, divestments, and sanctions). I will not try here to define nor to articulate the arguments in favor of nonviolent resistance. There are literally hundreds of excellent books on the subject. It might be useful here to just quote from an article by Mubarak Awad, a Palestinian who was exiled by Israel for advocating nonviolence:
"(Nonviolence) is based on certain assumptions: First, non-violent struggle is a total and serious struggle, nothing short of a real war. There is no assurance that the enemy will be non-violent. On the contrary, there are great sacrifices we should expect in the non-violent struggle. Martyrs and wounded will fall, and Palestinians will suffer personal losses in terms of their interests, jobs, and possessions. .. Second, non-violent struggle is not negative or passive. It is an active, affirmative operation, a form of mobile warfare. It will re-enlist all resources and capabilities. It requires special training and a high degree of organization and discipline. Secrecy must be maintained in planning, organizing, and coordinating the different operations and campaigns. Most non-violence activities will be illegal according to the laws and military orders presently imposed on the population." (http://pinv.org/article2.html)
Violence and non-violent struggles are different in their strategies and their outcomes and their methods. It is thus impossible to mix them in one’s own mind. One either believes in Violence or Non-Violence. Yet those who engage in non-violent struggles by nature believe it is possible to confront their opponenents who use violence with non-violence. Because of this it is also understandable that non-violent advocates are more understanding of those who engage in violence from their own ranks rather than the other way around. Even Mahatma Ghandi stated”Where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, I would advice violence… but I believe that non-violence is infinitely superior to violence.” (Mohandas K. Gandhi, the doctrine of the sword” Young India, November 8, 1920, volume 21, p. 133-134, Collected Work of Mahatma Gandhi, new delhi, ministry of information and broadcasing, government of India, cited by king p21
People who participate in revolutions against oppression are always diverse: some support violence, some support nonviolence, and some who support both. But even then this is not a clean division since within those three groups extensive differences exist. Among those who support violence there are always arguments about what kind of violence is justified. Among those who support nonviolence there are arguments about what exactly is nonviolence (e.g. would damaging property used for oppression be considered violence or not?). Also, it is clear that people can and do change their positions on these issues. For those of us in the nonviolence camp, we are always encouraged when previous combatants lay down their arms and begin to work for peace (e.g. see Combatants for Peace, http://www.combatantsforpeace.org) or army soldiers refuse to serve (see http://www.refusersolidarity.net/ and http://www.yeshgvul.org/ ). In fact that is the point of nonviolent resistance, to allow your oppressors (those who consider themselves your enemy) to abandon their oppression and join in recognizing common humanity.
We are realistic in recognizing that there are no examples of completely nonviolent struggle for freedom from colonial occupation. Neither Mahatma Gandi's India nor Martin Luther King Jr.'s USA were free of violent resistance. Both violent and nonviolent resistent co-existed in Algeria under French rule and in South Africa under Apartheid. But, those of us who promote nonviolent methods believe that such direction is essential for successes that maintain our common humanity. Many of us believe that the extensive nonviolent resistance and solidarity perhaps (at least partially) explains the much less violence post-revolutionary success in South Africa as compared to Algeria. But we must also realize that the worl is more complex than our wishes and desires and uptimately it is what we chose to emphasize that shapes our actions (or inactions). Absolutist statements like violence is the only way to shape history or that nonviolence is the only way to change society are obviously too absolutist to be correct in the same way as saying the only way to cure a certain disease is by a certain drug (see p. 26 in Khalil AlKashtini.. Arabic reference)
Let us evaluate the issues surrounding forms of resistance (some of what follows was circulated to friends on the internet with subject heading “On violent and nonviolent struggle: what about our personal responsibility?” March 19, 2008).
Israeli author Hans Lebrecht wrote in his book in Hebrew:
"According to international law, the people of a country, occupied by a foreign power, has the full right to fight for their liberation....This right is based, among other reasons, also upon the guiding lines set for the International Tribunal in Nuremberg, which, after World War II, had been established to judge the main Nazi criminals...The statutory argument in article 2 of the indictments (concerning transgressions against the laws on conducts of war) at the Nuremberg Tribunal was based upon the Den-Hague International Convention of 1907. Article 6 (b) of the Tribunal's rules relies upon articles 1 and 2 of the accompanying letters of the said Den-Hague Convention, which particularly lie down the right to popular resistance against military occupation, within the occupied territories themselves, as well as outside them. Further on is said there, that all the means of this resistance, political as well as military ones, are valid (as far as they do not hurt civilians who have no part whatsoever in the occupation regime and its forces). This determination was, at the time, important to forestall any claim by the Nazis that the partisans, Ghetto fighters, and other underground resistance forces in the territories occupied by them had allegedly been bandits and terrorists. In the Nuremberg Tribunal it was unequivocally set down, that resistance fighters, such as the partisans and underground activists (also such who struggled within Germany itself), Ghetto fighters etc., acted in accordance with the regulations of international law." ("HaPalestinaim - Avar veHoveh" The Palestinians- Past and Present, Tel-Aviv University Publishers, 1987, in Hebrew, page 219, translated by Lebrecht himself and shared over the internet on a listserve of Israelis 3 April 2002 http://peacepalestine.blogspot.com/2006/06/hans-lebrecht-right-to-resistance.html)
Resistance (violent and nonviolent) is also obviously predictable from a Psychological standpoint even when land was not yet being taken (but the writings was on the wall that the intention is to create a Jewish state - run by Jews in Palestine). Here is an excerpt from a letter by the father of psychotherapy and a great anti-Zionist Jew, Sigmund Freud in 1930:
"...I do not think that Palestine could ever become a Jewish state, nor that the Christian and Islamic worlds would ever be prepared to have their holy places under Jewish care. It would have seemed more sensible to me to establish a Jewish homeland on a less historically-burdened land. But I know that such a rational viewpoint would never have gained the enthusiasm of the masses and the financial support of the wealthy. I concede with sorrow that the baseless fanaticism of our people is in part to be blamed for the awakening of Arab distrust. I can raise no sympathy at all for the misdirected piety which transforms a piece of a Herodian wall into a national relic, thereby offending the feelings of the natives..."
Dr. Sigmund Freud on the Arab-Israeli Conflict: Vienna: 26 February 1930: Letter to the Keren Hajessod (Dr. Chaim Koffler) http://www.freud.org.uk/arab-israeli.html
Of course one must realize that while International law does sanction violent resistance, nonviolent resistance can be and is practiced in all struggles. In fact, I cannot think of a single historical precedent where the struggle for rights was waged solely by violent means (or solely by nonviolent means). It seems the history of human struggles is a history of admixture of both to varying degrees. In retrospect, societies that change will naturally chose to emphasize the positive elements. Thus in the US, Martin Luther King Jr and others who struggled with nonviolence are far more emphasized than black panthers, inner city riots, and so on.
In reflecting on Apartheid South Africa people in the West tend to forget that the African National Congress under the leadership of the jailed Nelson Mandela was a guerrilla movement fighting violently for liberation (and has never renounced violence). But on the other hand some individuals who believe very strongly in violent also tend to minimize the roles of people like Desmond Tutu, Mahatma Ghandi or MLK jr. Ironically in both situations, a similar argument is made. On the one hand some argue that liberation could not succeed without violent resistance and others would argue that it would not have succeeded without nonviolent resistance. I think this is a moot question because it remains a hypothetical situation that never existed: i.e. all struggles to date contained various mixtures if violent and nonviolent struggles. Can we really know exactly what the tipping points were in each situation? Can we truly say that we know what would have happened to the civil rights movement without the "good cop" of the MLK Jrs of the world or the "bad cop" of Malcolm X. What would have happened in South Africa without the Desmund Tutu's or the
For that matter, can we even imagine what would have happened without the diversity within the oppressor population? In white ruled America was President Johnson relevant to acquiring civil rights? Do Israeli groups like the Israeli Committee Against Home Demolitions and B'Tselem make a difference? I think the answers are obvious.
First, I think it important to realize as Howard Zinn stated that "you can't be neutral on a moving train". IMHO, we all have choices regardless of what we think of the trains speed and direction (if it is heading to a cliff?): sitting back and enjoying the fast ride for a while, buy products on the train, talking to the train conductor, mounting a rebellion, jumping off, getting off at the next station and taking another train. And these are metaphors for what obviously are more complicated choices in our lives. One could even argue that with Global warming, globalization, the internet etc, we are all in this boat together.
In the early 1980s, Mubarak Awad expanded Palestinian non-violent resistance (which as we will see below had a long history) such that the Israeli authorities considered him such a danger that he was arrested and deported (see Jonathan Kuttab and Mubarak Awad, “Non-violent Resistance in Palestine: Pursuing Alternative Strategies“ Information Brief No. 29, of the Jerusalem Fund,
http://www.thejerusalemfund.org/carryover/pubs/20020329ib.html )
Being a scientist and a medical professional, I always believe that we must first objectively characterize the symptoms and from those infer the etiology of the disease (the underlying cause) then design rational treatments before articulating based on accumulated data about prognosis. Whether in medicine or politics, ignoring historical precedents or data accumulated is done at the peril of repeating our mistakes. Of course different issues and struggles have unique features but also many common ones with previous struggles. But lessons from successes and failures can be instructive. How can we judge conduct and plans of US occupation of Iraq if we do not study what happened in Vietnam? How can we understand Israeli Hafrada (Segregation) if we do not know about Afrikaaner Apartheid (Segregation)? What was the role of violent and nonviolent resistance in achieving civil rights or an end to slavery in America? How can we understand why French colonial settlers were evicted from Algeria while Spanish colonial settlers succeeded in South America? Each of these struggles is worth studying carefully and applying relevant lessons learned to today’s struggles. There are several books that analyze those cases and throughout this book I will try to draw parallels and differences when useful.
Risk of non-violent resistance
Ofcourse, doing nonviolent resistance is just as risky (and sometimes more risky) than doing violent resistance. Countless Palestinians were killed doing nonviolent resistance. Even an American student, Rachel Corrie was killed standing in front of a bulldozer (that is an unusual event for internationals, Palestinians are killed regularly). But in a colonial occupation, people get killed, injured and jailed who are not resisting (other than by being on the coveted land, which can be considered a form of nonviolent resistance). Thousands of Palestinian civilians were killed and tens of thousands injured over the past few decades for simply being Palestinian in Palestine. Over 650,000 Palestinian males have gone through Israeli detention at some point in their lives (Gideon Levy in Haaretz). That is over 40% of the male population in the occupied/colonized territories. And every Palestinian has stories of oppression to tell beyond the issues of killing, injuring, and unjust imprisonment. For example, over 5000 homes were demolished in the past 7 years alone and hundreds of Palestinians died while being denied medical services. So what was surprising is not the extent of the violent resistance but the extent of steadfastness and nonviolent resistance among Palestinians. After all, the first suicide bombing was in April 1994 over 100 years after the start of the Zionist colonization program. Further, that suicide bombing in 1994 occurred 2 months after an Israeli colonial settler (from the US) entered a mosque in Hebron and killed 29 Palestinians (including Children) and injuring many others. The Israeli government (democratically elected) responded not by punishing the racist settler movement but by punishing the Palestinians in Hebron with a process that resulted in further ethnic cleansing and economic devastation to make life more comfortable for the racist Jewish settlers. Yahya Ayyash, a leading Hamas bomb maker who was killed by Israel in 1996, was quoted as saying that "martyrdom bombings" were adopted to "make the Israeli occupation that much more expensive in human lives, that much more unbearable." http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3256858.stm
(For a discussion of the issue of state and individual terrorism, please see my earlier article http://www.cactus48.com/struggle.html for now let us stay on the issue of violence generally in colonial systems.)
There are arguments to be made on all sides as to the value of different methods of resistance by a colonized occupied people. Did scalping by native Americans of white settlers terrorize them to leave the land or inflamed passions and enforced stereotypes of savagery etc thus causing accelerated colonization? Again I think that is a useless discussion; first you have to be in the mindset of a Native American response than a native Palestinian subjected to years of colonization (or decades as the case maybe) to begin to understand. Psychological studies done on suicide bombings show that perpetrators are actually driven not by nationalistic ideologies but largely by personal revenge (home demolished, relative hurt, land or job taken away). It may seem easier to understand and even sympathize with such motives at least as compared to someone like Goldstein who comes from a privileged life in the US to engage in violence against Palestinians thousands of miles away. But that also an illusion. Ideologies like Imperialism, Zionism, or Nazism by those in positions of power obviously resulted in far more motivation to violence that those of us not caught in it cannot comprehend. But we do see that it is possible and it does happen that people who engaged in violence may decide to abandon violence. This is true both for the violence that is considered legitimate by international law (self defense/resistance to colonialism and occupations) as well as that considered illegitimate (occupying other people's lands, ethnic cleansing etc). In Palestine/Israel, we see Israeli occupation soldiers and Palestinian resistance fighters who turned to nonviolence (e.g. the Israeli Refusenkick movement and the "Combatants for Peace").
Forms and power of nonviolent resistance
Resistance by definition is a rejection and attempt to change an existing power structure. Rulers and occupiers all maintain a power structure that enables them to dictate their agendas. This agenda is an agenda that the majority of the people reject. The rejection and resistance are as such focus on changing power structures. There are historical examples of changing power structures and in most of these we can give a rather subjective judgement on the mix of violent and nonviolent actions that were involved. Some may argue for example that the Algerian revolution against the French occupation was closer to more violence and the Indian revolution closer to more nonviolence. Whether things were 60:40 or 50:50 cannot ofcourse be measured objectively in a statistical fashion. The closest we can do is maybe measure number of people killed who were resisting violently vs those who were killed resisting nonviolently but this is also a subjective and highly fluid judgement (e.g. colonizers can claim when gunning down protesters that they came under fire from that direction and in some cases we know Israeli undercover agents in demonstrations fired bullets to create the pretext for shooting).
In Oriental martial arts, the first lesson in defense/resistance is not to face the power of your opponent with power but to deflect that power and make it meaningless or even to have the person who uses that power fail because of it. Nonviolence in many ways attempts to do that. Power only works when the population accepts it as a controlling feature. By noncooperation, civil disobedience, and deflecting power, the opponent loses balance. Just the act of doing nonviolent resistance immediately reveals that the power structure has failed (it is a power to ensure coercion and acceptance). Beyond that it can accomplish a lot:
- It can reduce the human resources that the rulers rely on (strikes, civil disobedience etc)
- It can deny knowledge and expertise
- It can deny material resources (taxes etc)
- It can increase the costs (material and people) to the rulers to maintain the system of oppression
(see also Gene Sharp, The role of power in nonviolent resistanc, p 9-23 in Saad Eddin Ibrahim, ed. 1988)
It must be alos noted that in addition to the ability to recruit from a wider pool of people (many more people do engage in non-violent than violent resistance), non-violent resistance can also be international in scope. As Jonathan Kuttab and Mubarak Awad wrote:
“Those who support occupation and its crimes must be shamed and challenged everywhere. This creates a worldwide arena for a non-violent struggle based on morality and international law. South Africa’s apartheid regime faced such a fight and ultimately collapsed. Israel is far more vulnerable because it is highly dependent on the rest of the world, particularly Europe and the United States, and cannot afford to ignore these voices.” Jonathan Kuttab and Mubarak Awad, “Non-violent Resistance in Palestine: Pursuing Alternative Strategies“ Information Brief No. 29, of the Jerusalem Fund, http://www.thejerusalemfund.org/carryover/pubs/20020329ib.html )
The globalization of non-violent resistance against Israeli occupation is already evident to all observers. Dr. Vijaya Rajiva wrote that “The newly liberated countries, India being one of them, voted against the partition of historic Palestine and in 1967, Arthur Lall the Indian representative at the UN called for Israel’s withdrawal from ALL occupied territory. Although India has normalized its relations with Israel since then, the sentiment of wanting to see Palestine liberated from the Occupation is still there.” (Will Non Violent Resistance Work in Palestine? July 03, 2008 by Dr. Vijaya Rajiva http://www.imemc.org/article/55795 )
Historically it is important to separate the confusion that existed in the minds of individuals about resistance to colonial occupation (British, Ottoman, Israeli) and resistance to unjust Arab leaders. Arab leaders are from the people and they are interested in maintaining their power but their policies are flexible (see also discussion in Khaled Alkashtiny,…) . There has been many cases were dictatorial leaders switched their policies under popular pressure far more willingly than say an Israeli military general. That leeway of change has been used frequently. As an example in 1999 as the PLO leadership of Yasser Arafat engaged in negotiations with Israeli leaders, a mass movement mobilized to pressure the Palestinian negotiators not to give up on the right of refugees to return. I was involved with a few other people in a movement that collected over a period of 10 months over 800,000 signatures (majority Palestinian) in affirmation of the rights of refugees. As is well known Arafat did not agree in the meetings of 2000 at Camp David to liquidate or even minimize that right. Several of his aids have stated publicly that all of them where aware of how significant this issue is to Palestinians in general.
Another issue to consider is the nature of leadership required in violent and nonviolent resistance. The fact that violent resistance must be carried out in clandestine operations under constant threat of infiltration and liquidation by the occupiers/colonizers. Thus it is natural that leadership for such organizations require strong leaders with executive power and limited circles of consultation. Leadership cannot occur by popular vote and democratic structures in guerrilla institutions cannot be reasonable because of safety-security issues. The skills of managing such operations are very different skills than those required to manage governmental institutions by democratic means. Leadership of non-violent resistance can evolve in a different direction. It can be elected by a democratic vote and such leaders generally cannot do effective resistance with few people so must ensure the widest consultation possible.
Resistance by violent means has far more constraints and possibilities of failure than resistance by nonviolent means. This is because of many reasons: it requires much more logistical support (arms etc), secrecy, the ease of killing armed combatants, difficulty in establishing geographic areas for armed control, and much more. This is particularly true when the armed resistance has also to contend with leaders from its own people who are collaborating with the occupiers.
Another point to consider is that when the resistance actions fail, nonviolent forms only leave behind far less devastation (social, economic, lives lost etc) than armed resistance (p 23, Khaled AlKashtiny1984).
Zionism is a world-wide phenomenon (unlike apartheid in South Africa or France's colonization of Algeria), and has agents who push for it in powerful countries around the globe (e.g. the Israel lobby in the United States see Mearsheimer and Walt). Since traditionally nonviolent organizing requires targeting areas of friction with the oppressors, it was natural that friction also occurs around the world whereever Zionists try to muffle free speech, suppress the truth, and divert national resources to serve the perceived Israeli interests (see for example Paul Findley's book "They Dare to Speak Out"). More and more people realize taht the liberation of Palestine is tied to their own liberation and thus act on it. Some even lost their lives in the struggle (e.g. Rachel Corrie, Tom Hurndall etc). Others lost jobs (e.g. Cynthia McKinney, Norman Finkelstein, Tom Nagy, myself). Thus, I also included in this book assays on the growing global solidarity and nonviolent resistance.
Palestinians and their global supporters have been inspirational in the depth of their commitment and struggle against colonization of Palestine for the past 128 years. Yet, their heroic stories are seldom heard or known in the west or even in the Middle East.
As a respected leader articulated: "Nonviolent resistance demands strong leaders. In the first days of the occupation in 1967, the Palestinian nonviolence movement had a surplus. A dynamic voluntary work movement sprag up under the guidance of democratically elected municipal councils. This movement created jobs, uilt schools, established youth clubs, and created public libraries. Seven years later, in 1973, the establishment of the Palestinian national Front provided much needed central leadership with representation from all the occupied territories. Its goal was to collectively confront the Israeli occupation by nonviolent means... Over the next ten years, the Israeli Occupation Authority dissolved Palestinian municipal council, deported some of their elected leaders, and attempted the assassination of others." (Abdul Jawad Saleh, the Palestinian Nonviolent Resistance Movement, pp. 49-52 in "Live from Palestine: International and Palestinian Direct Action Against the Israeli Occupation" Edited by Nancy Stohlman and Laurieann Aladin (2004, South End Press).
The book by Mohammed Omar Hamadeh (1985) titled A3lam Falastine: from the first to the 15th century Hijra, from the 7th to twentieth century AD lists hundreds of Palestinian inspirational leaders, authors, intellectuals and others. But it is hard for people to read an encyclopedia of biographies. Instead, it is worthwhile to review here examples by historical periods followed by a discussion of trends and directions.
Local Context of Nonviolent Resistance
Jesus was born in a place named Palestine and spoke Aramaic a semitic language that gave rise to the Arabic alphabet. He preached nonviolence and himself was killed for speaking truth to entrenched power. The power of the Jewish Pharisees and Scribes and the power of the Roman Empire. His radical departure from the Old Testament thinking is ignored by those who now claim to follow his teachings. Take for example these statements:
“Blessed are the gentle, for they shall inherit the earth. Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied. Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy. Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God. Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God. Blessed are those who have been persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 5: 5-10
"You have heard that it was said, 'an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth'. Bt I say to you, do not resist him who is evil; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also." Matthew 5:38-39
"You have heard that it was said,'love your neighbor and hate your enemy' But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven" Matthew 5:44-45
“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others.” Matthew 23:23
And when Islam was embraced by the inhabitants of Palestine in the 7th century, the notion of nonviolence was not diminished but actually strengthened. Christians, Muslims, and Jews lived in relative harmony for centuries until the crusaders came. People forget that we can find in the traditions of all religions statements of support for justice, for peace, and for speaking truth to tyrant rulers (the essence of nonviolent resistance). Here are just a couple of quotes from Muslim traditions:
“O you who believe! Stand out firmly for justice, as witnesses to Allah (God), even as against yourselves, or your parents, or your kin, and whether it be (against) rich or poor: for Allah can best protect both. Follow not the lusts (of your hearts), lest you swerve, and if you distort (justice) or decline to do justice, verily Allah is well-acquainted with all that you do.” Holy Quran, 4:135
"The best jihad is when a person speaks the truth before a tyrant ruler." --The Noble Hadith (sayings and doings of the prophet Muhammad, PBUH)
“Whoever among you sees something abominable should rectify it with his hand; and if he has not strength to do so; then he should do it with his tongue; and if he has not strength to do so, then he should (abhor it) from his heart, and that is the least of Faith.” Prophet Mohammad (peace be upon him), Sahih Muslim
And is should be remembered that “Yakrah ul-Munker” is a saying in Islam meaning “hating the evil deeds”. Note that like in Christianity it is not hating those who do bad things/evil but the evil ACTS. Love your enemies does not mean love their acts of injustice. In all other religions (Buddhism, Judaism etc.) you find similar sayings. The tradition of Mahatma Ghandi and other pacifists also state the same: challenge bad deeds but leave the option and the door open for those who do bad things.
As Awad and Said stated: “In the Hadith it is said, "a true Muslim is one whose tongue and hands bear no violence and a perfect Mujahid is he who has given up those that are prohibited by God." Jihad is an effort; a striving for justice and truth that need not be violent.” Mubarak Awad and Dr. Abdul Aziz Said, The Power of Non Violence, Nonviolent Change Journal, Vol. XVII, No.2 Winter, 2003
http://home.earthlink.net/~circlepoint/ncarticle0302.htm
Islamic religion and traditions and non-violence (audio of lecture): http://www.aupeace.org/node/2726
As pointed above, the Holy Land of the three Monotheistic traditions had a rich history of nonviolent resistance. Unfortunately, and as in other parts of the world, the history of violence gets documented in history books and people ignore and with generations passing forget what was done nonviolently. Someday I hope someone goes back to find the misplaced resources and texts and materials on nonviolent resistance between the time of Jesus and the 19th century. Books can be written on those. Considering that we want to bring peace to this troubled land today, it would seem important here to focus on the ideological and political conflict today with its roots in the 19th century (the advent of European interventions in Palestine including the European Ashkenazi concepts of political Zionism). The question to ask is what was the role on nonviolence in the struggle against Zionism and what might we expect in the coming years?
In the Islamic and Arabic world, nonviolent resistance is well established. One of Mahatma Gandhi’s colleagues in India was a Muslim man by the named AbdelGafar Khan. In the 1920s and 1930s, Khan established his army of nonviolent resisters among the Muslims of Peshawer. They had a unique uniform, discipline, and complete nonviolent methods. In one demonstration alone, the British forces opened fire killing over 300 of them (p46-48, Brad Bennett, Global examples of Nonviolent Resistance, in Saad Eddin Ibrahim, ed, 1988).
In Egypt on 11 November 1918 Saad Zaghloul and other grass root Egyptian leaders asked the new British occupation forces to allow development of an Egyptian leadership leading eventually to indepence. When this was rejected these leaders collected over two million signatures that endorsed the leadership anyway. The British responded by arresting those leaders and this led to general strikes and demonstration. The distrurbances accelerated in 1919 and continued to 1922 when the British allowed formation of an Egyptian government (albeit ruled by a King subserviant to British interests) (pp 48-50, idem).
In Iraq in 1948, secretive British deals with quisling Iraqi leadership for permanent military bases were leaked to the masses and mass demonstrations ensued. In one day 26 Jan 1948 over 100 were gunned down in peaceful demonstrations in Baghdad. The demonstrations succeded in scuttling the agreements but the government compensated by instituting more dictatorial powers to prevent the return of such popular unrest (p. 50-51 idem )
The Etiology of the problem in Palestine
The underlying etiology of the struggle here is actually not very complicated (even though many gate keepers in the media and politics want you to think it is). It can be summarized in a few sentences. Jews were discriminated against especially in 19th century Europe when ethnocentric nation states were created by Europeans (who are now abandoning the concept for a European Union!). A minority of Western European Jews egged on and supported by colonial powers of the time (primarily France and England) created its own ethnocentric nationalistic paradigm called Zionism as a response (originally supposedly to benefit Eastern European Jews). With the support of primarily the British government (and other allies in WWI), they planned and executed a strategy to establish a Jewish state in Palestine at the expense of the native Christians and Muslims. Thus, 530 villages and towns were completely depopulated between 1947-1950 and, in the six decades that followed, most of the remaining land was taken over. Today, the remaining Palestinians live as either 10th class citizens or under occupation with no citizenship on the still shrinking reservations left for us (less than 10% of historic Palestine). Of the 10 million Palestinians in the world, 7 million are refugees or displaced people. Israel is now heavily funded by our taxes (over $1 trillion spent so far per a study published in the Christian Science Monitor) and protected by a US hegemony that prevents the International community from forcing Israel to comply with human rights and International law (Israel is in violations of 65 UN Security Council Resolutions and over 200 UN General Assembly Resolution and shielded from many others by use of 35 US Vetoes).
This is the essence of the problem. The solution would be rather simple and peace could have been achieved decades ago if the US stopped its support of Israel until it complies with International law (e.g. allowing Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and lands). In fact, in 1956, US President Eisenhower forced Israel to withdraw from the Gaza Strip and Sinai, which Israeli forces occupied with the support of the British and the French. After that, the Israel-first lobby in Washington and the US media got stronger and more effective. Thus, we do not only support Israel's wars (e.g. the latest 2006 war on Lebanon that killed 7000 civilians or the past 7 years of war on the Occupied Gaza and the West Bank that killed 5000 civilians), but we are fighting wars partially to help Israel (e.g. Iraq and plans for conflict with Iran). So this is an issue of relevance not only for Israelis and Palestinians but Iraqis, US citizens and the whole world (Europeans surveyed rated the US and Israel as the two most dangerous countries in the World!).
But what was stated in the last two paragraphs is what we call in the medical field diagnosis. What we need is evaluation of previous therapies and designing additional therapies as well as make more predictive diagnosis. That is what I hope to address.
Some would argue the 2002 Bush "Road Map to Peace" to arrive at two states need to be simply implemented and force Palestinians and Israelis to comply. That road map has some good elements (e.g. requiring Israel to freeze all settlement activities including natural growth in all the occupied territories). But it is remarkable that in 2218 words it fails to mention or address International Law and Human Rights. Further Israel has the fourth or fifth strongest army in the World with hundreds of nuclear weapons, chemical and biological weapons etc while Palestinians are occupied, colonized people with few resources at their disposal. "Negotiations" in such a situation are predicted to yield no fair resolution.
Israeli General and Army Chief of Staff Rafael Eitan once stated: "When we have settled the land, all the Arabs will be able to do about it will be to scurry around like drugged cockroaches in a bottle." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4034765.stm
But of course, the "cockroaches" may have proven themselves amazingly resilient. Here we are 120+ years later and 50% of Palestinians still live between the River Jordan and the Mediterranean (i.e. in their historic homeland). Here we are 120+ years later with a solid majority of people in what was designated as Eretz Yisrael (the same geographic area) rejecting Zionism. Anti-Zionism and Post-Zionism are now common not only among the 1.5 million Palestinian who are Israeli citizens and the 3.5 million under the brutal Israeli occupation but is widespread in segments of the Israeli Jewish society (the 4.5 million who are identified by the state as privileged Israeli Jews). Further, nearly half a million Israelis have voted with their feet by choosing to live in Western countries (Europe and North America).
The problem thus remains: Zionism requires maximum geography (for a Jewish state) with minimum demography (of Palestinian Christians and Muslims living in the coveted land). The offered solutions of a Palestinian statelet in the West Bank and Gaza is increasingly recognized as an illusion/mirage promoted to delay the inevitable day of reckoning with the what it means to the nature of the Jewish nation state (some in Israel are engaging in this discussion by for example questioning the national anthem which is about Jewish yearning or the national symbols/all Jewish). But this and the need to maintain both a Hebrew Jewish as well as the endogenous Arabic and Islamic culture and religion (and native Christians) are subjects for another conversation. Here we want to deal with the issue of resistance to a colonial program and our role in it.
The Zionist program did not start in 1967 or even in 1948; it started in 1882 with the establishment of the first European Ashkenazi colony in Palestine. Right from the beginning and as expected (even by Zionist leaders), Palestinians engaged in resistance. In the first 100 years of the struggle, the evolution of the methods and strategies of resistance was similar to other struggles by native people facing a colonial settler population. There are many published comparative studies of struggles of people in Palestine, Native Americans, South Africans under apartheid, Algeria under French rule, Vietnam, and others. While each of these situations is unique, what is common in all of them is significant. First and foremost, when history is written objectively in all these struggles, there is never any question as to the natural right of the people being occupied/colonized to defend themselves and mount a vigorous resistance to those who oppress them.
History of Palestinians nonviolent resistance
In this, the largest section of this book, we will review nonviolent Palestinian struggle from the period of the Ottoman rule in the 19th century through British, Jordanian, and Israeli eras. It might be worthwhile first to enumerate some of the over 100 nonviolent methods used by Palestinians over the past century: demosntrations, strikes, boycotts, sanctions, obstruction, refusal to work with/for the occupiers, refusal to appear when summoned, refusal to obey orders, refusal to use imposed bureacracy, writing articles, distributing leaflets, arguing, developing alternative sources of income and other institutions, refusal to pay tax, ostracizing collaborators and traitors, mutual aid to people impacted by the occupation, going to school, going to clinics, bypassing barriers (checkpoints and apartheid walls), praying on one's lands, praying at checkpoints when prevented from going to Churches and Mosques, die-ins, and other acts of civil disobedience.
Period of Ottoman Rule from 1878-1917
Modern political Zionism was inspired by the writings of Moses Hess (1812-1875), Judah Leib (Leon) Pinsker (1821-1891), Moses Lilienblum (Hibbat Zion founders), and Nathan Birnbaum (alias Mathias Ascher) who coined the term "Zionism" based on the ideas of Hess and Pinsker. But the practical form of this commenced when some a group of religious Jews purchased land and settled in “Petah Tikva” (=opening of hope” taken from a biblical passage) in 1778. The purchase and development was helped by generous funds from Baron Edmond de Rothschild who also helped founding Rishon LeZiyyo near Jaffa and Zikhron Yaaqov near Haifa. By 1891, about 10,000 Jews had relocated to these pioneering settlements in Palestine (then part of the Ottoman Empire). This period that Israeli history called the “first Aliya” up to 1903 saw the founding of few communities collectively housing no more than 10,000 people. Yet, the rather ambitious goals of these “pioneers” was clear from the beginning. Palestinian native fear of what is to become indeed were justified as history shows. This had nothing to do with fear of foreigners or any other factor other than clear Zionist intent to take over the land and establish “Jewish” sovereignity as envisioned and articulated clearly in many languages by these early Zionist pioneers. Palestinians indeed have welcomed immigrants and refugees throughout the last few hundred years. From Sharkas to Druze to Armednias, Palestine has been a magnet for persecuted people who found a welcoming home here. The same with Jews who did not come under the banner of Zionist colonization but to flea persecution (e.g. during 19th century Czarist pogroms in Russia). But the articulation of the Zionist dream of a national home for Jews from around the world that would be a Jewish state was an obvious nightmare to the local Palestinians. All other migrants integrated successfully in Palestinian society including Jews who became native Palestinians just as Armenians did after the genocide of WWI. But Zionists envisioned not integration but rather separation and eventual rule over the area. The Zionist program from its inception emphasized “reclaiming” the land as “Jewish land” and “Jewish labor” and “Jewish ‘defense' forces”.
Thus, as the first actual Zionist colony in Palestine became known, the struggle ensued between the Palestinian farmers and Jewish settlers in 1886 and continued throughout the remainder of the Ottoman rule over Palestine (Neville J. Mandel “The Arabs and Zionism before World War I”, Berkely, University of California Press, 1976, pp. 35-37, cited in King, p. 25)
Palestinians were mostly farmers and peasants (few nomads and city dwellers). They were allowed to elect their parliamentary representatives under Ottoman rule but those elected representatives served in a parliament of an empire in which the Palestinian representatives were a handful among hundreds. The representatives further had no real political power on the ground which was held by Turk military officers who encouraged native Palestinians to develop feudal systems dependency and a patriarchal authority that depended more on family and tribe rather than nation. This was the case not only in Palestine but also in most of the so-called "third World" under colonial rules. Unlike other nascent countries facing colonial rule, Palestine had the added and incredible weight of the Zionist program to settle the place and make it a Jewish state.
Yet, even as early as the first settlements in Palestine by the Zionist movement around the end of the 19th century, two classes of Palestinians shared a distrust and antagonism to this movement. These were the intellectuals (including the representatives elected to the Ottoman Parliament) and the peasants (known as the fallahin, singular fallah in Arabic).
Some 418,100 dunums (Dunum= about 0.25 acre) of land were acquired by Jewish Europeans in Palestine before 1914. 58% of this was purchased by Zionists from absentee land lords who were not Palestinians, 36% from Palestinian Absentee landlords and the remainder 6% from local landlords and fallahin (Rashid Khalidi, Palestinian Identity: The Construction of modern national consciousness. Columbia University Press, New York, 1997, p112-113 and references therein). This was made possible by the Ottoman empire changing land ownership laws and insisting that traditional communal land ownership be abandoned in favor of private ownership. The British and Zionist pressure on the Ottoman empire facilitated this change in laws in the late 19th century. It was no accident that the push by the British Empire to spread the notions of private ownership and laws to protect that around the world coincided with the pressures exerted on the British government by Zionists like the Rothschild's and the Weissman's. Adam Smith's book "The Wealth of Nations" was peddled as the ideological justification for these efforts.
The biggest resentment was by the fellahin (farmers) who have farmed these communal lands for many generations and assumed de facto ownenership to later find out that Turkish or British laws were used by corrupt elite landlords to register large parcels in the names of a few individuals who were then free to sell them for handsome gains. The dispossessed fellahin **had great resentment and antagonism and turned their anger at the new owners (pioneering Zionists). In fact, the famed Martyr Shaykh Iz al-Din Al-Qassam had lived amond displaced fellahin for years in the poor slums of Haifa where he understood their pain and initially tried in vein to help their cause through the existing Ottoman system (S. Abdullah Schleifer, 1979. “The Life and Thought of ‘Izz-id-Din al-Qassam: Preacher and Mujahid” Islamic Quarterly 22(2): 61-81, p. 70).
Khalidi (Rashid Khalidi, Palestinian Identity: The Construction of modern national consciousness. Columbia University Press, New York, 1997) discusses the attempts by Palestinians to modify Ottoman rule and laws to protect their land from the danger they saw inherent in the ideas of Zionism. The Ottoman Parliament discussion of 1897 are cited as examples of how such concerns were dismissed.
“The first protest had been sent by Arab notables in 1891 to the Grand Vizier in Istanbul asking him to prohibit European Jewish immigration, and to end land purchase by those already in Palestine.” (“the Palestinians, the Road to Nationhood” David McDowall, 1994 –library reference: DS119.7.M3)
This first period of Palestinian nonviolent resistance aimed at Ottoman rulers to prevent further concessions of Palestine to Zionist aspirations was indeed successful. In 1902, having been turned down by the Ottoman empure, Herzl and the World Zionist Congress turned to the British empire for support (Nevill Barbour, “Nisi Dominus: A survey of the Palestine Controversy”, Beirut, Institute of Palestine Studies, 1969, pp 41-52,; cited by King, p.27)
"In 1902, the inhabitants of three Palestinian villages - al-Shajara, Misha and Melhamiyya - held a collective peaceful protest against the takeover of 70,000 dunums (7,000 ha) of agricultural land by the first European Zionist settlers." http://www.palestinemonitor.org/spip/spip.php?article49
“In 1914 a circular distributed and published in the press and entitled ‘General Summons to Palestinians-Beware of Zionist danger’, warned that ‘The Zionist desire to settle in our country and expel us from it’, and was signed anonymously by ‘a Palestinian’.” (Mandel, The Arabs and Zionism, pp220., cited in (“the Palestinians, the Road to Nationhood” David McDowall, 1994 –library reference: DS119.7.M3).
Khalidi cites an editorial in May 1914 published in the popular newspaper "Filastin" (Palestine) in which the editors of this fiercely nationalistic paper defend their position. The editors attacked the central Ottoman government for its attempts to shutdown this newspaper because the newspaper portrayed Zionism as a threat to the Palestinian nation (Al-Umma Al-Falastinia) (Khalidi, p155). But these small pro-Palestinian stirrings were no match for great power plays that were to completely redraw the Middle East landscape.
Palestinains also resisted Ottoman rules by developing their own educational systems. “Palestinian Recognition of the value of education and the importance of being able to shape what is learnt goes back to the British mandate and beyond...Under the Ottoman Empire (1517-1917) Arab students formed in mosques as an indigenous response to Turkish control...and During the British mandate period Arab dissatisfaction with foreign control of the education system grew stronger, with the content of education becoming a particular focus for debate and resistance.” (Education, Repression, Liberation; The Palestinians, Sarah Graham Brown, WVS(UK) 1984, p14, cited in p. 8 of Arab Education in Israel, Sami Khalil Mar’I Library reference LA1443.7.M3 1978)
Balfour and Jules Declarations 1917 and the British Rule
To assure support of powerful Zionists around the world especially in the US (leading to US getting into WWI), both France and England engaged in lengthy negotiations leading to issuance public promises to the Zionist movement. The promise from France came via a letter sent from Jules Cambon, Secretary General of the French Foreign Ministry to Nahum Sokolow official of the World Zionist Organization:
You were kind enough to inform me of your project regarding the expansion of the Jewish colonization of Palestine. You expressed to me that, if the circumstances were allowing for that, and if on another hand, the independency of the holy sites was guaranteed, it would then be a work of justice and retribution for the allied forces to help the renaissance of the Jewish nationality on the land from which the Jewish people was exiled so many centuries ago. The French Government, which entered this present war to defend a people wrongly attacked, and which continues the struggle to assure victory of right over might, cannot but feel sympathy for your cause, the triumph of which is bound up with that of the Allies. I am happy to give you herewith such assurance (Jules Cambon June 4, 1917 letter is posted at the "Zionist Exposition" of the World Zionist Organization http://www.wzo.org.il/home/politic/balfour.htm).
Some five months later, on November 2, 1917, the British Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour conveyed to Lord Rothschild a similar declaration of sympathy with Zionist aspirations. It stated that:
His Majesty's Government view with favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.
These declarations are now clearly understood as contractual in nature (see King., p. 29). Palestinians and others in the Arab world were immediately alarmed and engaged in vigourous discussion and effort (no violence) to try and halt this trend of colonization. The declaration was issued when Britain had no jurisdiction over the area, and was done without consultation of the inhabitants of the land that was to become a "national home for the Jewish people." The declaration also wanted to protect "rights and political status" of Jews who choose not to immigrate to Palestine. However, the native Palestinians are simply referred to as non-Jews and their political rights are not mentioned but only their "civic and religious rights". Lord Balfour wrote in a private memorandum sent to Lord Curzon, his successor at the Foreign Office (Curzon initially opposed Zionism) on 11 August 1919:
For in Palestine we do not propose to go through the form of consulting the wishes of the present inhabitants ... The four great powers are committed to Zionism and Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-long tradition, in present needs, in future hopes, of far profounder import than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land (Quoted in Christopher Sykes, Crossroads to Israel 1917-1948, reprinted Bloomingtron: Indiana University Press, 1973).
It is not entirely clear why the Jules declaration gained very little media attention while the Balfour Declaration received more attention. Perhaps it was because for the three years before than, Britain had made many promises to the Arabs regarding independence and self-government that the Balfour Declaration clearly contradicted. Muffled expressions of anger were mitigated by the fact that Britain did not hold Palestine then. Only after the end of WWI did Britain came in possession of the land that they give conflicting promises about to the Arab inhabitants and to the World Zionist Organization.
The Palestinian weakened political initiatives and leadership following centuries of Ottoman rule where exacerbated in the British rule which was predicated on helping stem national aspirations of the Palestinian natives to fulfill the aspirations of Zionism. In 1919, the Paris Peace conference considering the future of Palestine had no Palestinian delegates or representatives. The Zionists were there, jockeying for implementation of the Balfour Declaration, but British forces prevented departure of a Palestinian group who merely wished the delegates to know of the wishes of the native Arab inhabitants of Palestine. There was this symbolic act of resistance when Palestinians tried to leave the port of Jaffa on a ship and were prevented by the British. For the following decade, from 1919 to 1929, Palestinians at every level of society entered into the economic and political life of the British Mandate and tried to influence its policies in many ways and mostly non-violently.
Oppositions to the Allied forces support of Zionist aspirations among natives began as soon as Britain occupied the area and began maneuvering to get a mandate on Palestine (which would include support of Zionist aspirations). Thus, a well attended first conference of Palestinians was held between 27 January to 4 February 1919 in Jerusalem dubbed an “Arab Palestinian Conference”. In the first day, the telegrammed the 1919 post WWI “peace conference” in Paris to express their dismay at what they heard from making tyheir country a national home for Jews” (p. 135, Alfikr AlSiyasi fi Falastin, author?). A similar letter was sent by Palestinian notables from the region of Tulkarem and from the Islamic Christian society 30 March 1919 (p. 137 idem).
The Palestinian resistance deepened with clear evidence that pointed to dangerous new directions. In 1920, the Hagannah (forerunner of Israel’s army) was founded as a “defense force” for the ever increasing Zionist colonies. This added to local fears that the Zionist Jews intend indeed to take over Palestine. This fear was validated by direct statements from leaders of the Zionist movement (King, p. 33).
In 1921, he British appointed the first Zionist ruler of Palestine: Herbert Samuels. Palestinians responded by mass resignation from government jobs, by strikes, protests, petitions, and pleas for chjange. All fell on deaf ears and instead, the British ruling Zionist viceroy instituted forced segregation of communities. Samuelxs allowed the Yishuv/Jewish Agency to establish independent Jewish schools, Jewish colonies, Jewish industries and so on. This signalled the first official apartheid system (before that and since 1880, the Yishuv has done it in secret or out of the limelight and without official recognition). When Palestinian non-violent resistance was met with neglect and later by violence (arrests, detentions, beatings, forced opening of shops etc.), violence erupted in late 1921.
Between 1919 and 1936, the ruling British supported unlimited Jewish immigration and unfair practices of transferring land ownership effecting tens of thousands of fallahin (Palestinian villagers). By 1936, things had gotten so bad for these villagers and for most other Palestinians that they all declared a general strike accompanied by boycotts of all British and Zionist institutions. The strike lasted seeveral months and crippled commercial activities in Mandate-ruled Palestine. The strike was met with extreme physical force and resulted in a popular uprising (some of it violent, some by demonstrations). The uprsing was eventually crushed, leaders killed or deported, thousands of Palestinians were killed or injured, and hundreds of homes demolished in collective punishment. But the mayhem resulted in the British white paper of 1939, which recognized and attempted to address some of the grievances. Unfortunately, the White Paper was too little, too late to effect a long-term move toward peace. Britain had created a huge problem by supporting teh Zionist program and it was not possible to draw back. Further, historical events such as the Second World War, Nazi atrocities, and the establishment of the powerful Yishuv (Zionist settlement movement) with British support, all added up to continuing the Zionist project full force.
Palestinian society in the 1920s was riddled with problems. Having gone through the dramatic changes from four centuries of Ottoman rule to British rule was the biggest and perhaps least investigated aspect of the shifts in power and allegiances in the Palestinian society. Yet, this new British rule was unique. For, in addition to being a colonial rule, it had a distinct new twist: to fulfil the Balfour declaration of creating a "Jewish homeland" in predominantly Arab Palestine.
People who were affiliated with any aspect of the Ottoman rule were now discredited. People who fought on the side of the British were given positions and prestige. The class of elite Palestinians continued to prosper. Meanwhile, increased Jewish immigration and unfair British land laws squeezed Palestinian peasants. The latter is particularly worthy of note. The British believed in a capitalist system and individual land ownership. Palestinian peasants having farmed their lands communally as Hamoulas (extended families) were not impressed with the idea of assigning specific ownership to specific individuals. Many had to comply and pick one or a few individuals to receive new titles to the land (these were usually the elders and traditional Hamoula leaders or Mukhtars). This fit well with British colonial schemes utilized in other British colonies (e.g. finding people who will take responsibility for managing the restless natives from among the natives themselves). Many Palestinians refused to comply but eventually, the British managed to transform a system of village ownership of land with at least nominally individual ownership of lands. In many of these villages, the farmers or peasants (called Fellahin in Arabic) continued to do their farming on lands they farmed for ages even though now it may have been registered in a name of a particular individual or "leader." These leaders thus received new powers they never had and soon did not feel bound by tradition or culture and started to exercise power including preventing the Fellahin from using their own lands that they farmed for hundreds of years or even worse to sell it to the Jewish Yishuv.
The British rule included collective punishment for Palestinians, preferential treatment of Jewish settlers (arming them also), assignment of land deeds, and changing status and access to holy sites like the Western Wall and Waqf lands (these are lands deed to Islamic religious use). Coupled with the refusal to fulfill of the basic human rights of the locals, including the right to self-determination, these policies engendered resentment and resistance. The British policies at the time were classically similar to those elsewhere in the British colonial world: brutal and calculating and divisive. Thousands were arrested over the years for nothing more than voicing opposition or establishing political parties taht challenged the colonial rule. Those who resisted violently were hunted down and killed. Hangings were common. The lines between the colonial Zionist settlers, the British occupation, and even local Jews who benefitted but not involved continued to be blurred. There were isolated incidents of horrific violence on all sides.
On March 11, 1920 many demonstrations ensued in all major Palestinian cities both against the Balfour Declaration and planned British over-rule of Palestine post WWI (Kayyali, Palestine, p. 75-76, p. 84; Yeheshua Porath “The emergence of the Palestinian-Arab National Movement” Vol. 1, 1918-1929, London, Frank Cass, 1974, p. 86 Cited in King p.31). This 1920 uprising (called “riots” by the British occupiers) spread widely in the spring with mass resignations, protests, strikes etc.
The British acted brutally to suppress this uprising but it took them 16 years and another uprising (1936) to finally set-up a commission headed by Lord William Robert Wellesly Peel to look into the causes of Palestinian unrest and how to quell it. The Peel commission concluded in July 1937 that the events of 1920 (as well as 1936) occurred because the locals were disappointed at British refusal to fulfill promises of independence, the Balfour Declaration, and fears of transforming their homeland into a Jewish state (Officially the Royal Commission of Inquiry, London, 1937, cited in King., p.31). That is certainly closer to the truth than the usual Zionist mythology that people like Haj Amin AlHussaini instigated and controlled the Palestinian anger (see also, Philip Mattar, the Mufti of Jerusalem: Al-Haj Amin al-Husayni and the Palestinian National Movement” New York, Columbia Univesrity Press, 1988, p. 17.
The British government entered Jerusalem as an occupying force in 1919 and then replaced its military rule with a “civil administration” on June 30, 1920, an administration by a Zionist British man by the name of Herbert Louis Samuel. His appointment elicited immediate protests and boycotts (Kayyali, p. 86). The third Palestinian Arab Congress was held in Haifa in December 1920 repeating its calls to repudiate the Balfour Declaration and in support of self-determination putting Haifa on a the map of cities of resistance and organizing (see May Seikaly, Haifa: Transformation of a Palestinian Arab Society, 1918-1939. London, I. B. Taurus and Co., 1995, pp. 163-164, cited in King p. 32) ” (p. 139, Alfikr AlSiyasi fi Falastin, author?).
Mass demonstration and unrest intensified when Winston Churchil made his visit to Palestine on 18 March 1921 and the demonstration were met with a hail of bullets that killed several people (p. 120, Saleh Masoud Bouyasbir, 1987)
When the royal embassador was giving a speech 14 April 1921, a young Palestinain man by the name of Jibran Kazna stood up demanding that the British government stop changing Palesine to a Jewish homeland and to implement article 22 of the League of Nations about self-determination (p 121 Saleh Masoud Bouyasbir, 1987)
In Jaffa, shops closed on March 28, 1921 as a form of protest (king. P. 33).
When these events were ignored and the situation seems to deteriorate, there were riolts on May 1st, 1921 and within a week 47 Jews and 48 Arabs had been killed (King p. 33).
In June 1921 the fourth Palestinian Arab Congress was held in Jerusalem and elected a group that traveled in July 1921 to London to try to convince the British government to reverse its policies of support for the Zionist movement (p. 125 Saleh Masoud Bouyasbir, 1987)
Britain issued a white paper of July 1922 studying the 1921 disturbances but leaving British policy intact. This coincided with League of Nationals approval of British mandate on Palestine. In the same month, Palestinians traveled to Mecca to get Muslim support . That same month, a Palestinian general strike July 13-14, 1922 closed commerce across the country. Religious leaders also discouraged adherents from selling land to Zionists or agents of the Jewish Agency.
From the beginning, there was always struggle between camps that favored cooperation (some would say collaboration) with the occupiers in hope of getting something and those who favor confrontation and non-cooperation. This was true in 1920 and it is still true in 2008. What is not mentioned is that is is a natural phenomenon of resistance to colonial rule and that ending colonial rule has never happened with 100% cooperation or 100% non-cooperation. It is just that in certain periods, the leaning comes close to one or the other. For example, King stated that “from 1920 to 1924, the Palestinian Arabs took the position that no elements of their society could cooperate with the British so long as its policy remained based on the Balfour Decalation.” (King p. 36). But throughout the 1919-1929 period, the events were limited to petitions, boycotts, demonstration, and so on. There was no major civil disobedience efforts nor was there major violent insurrection.
King summarized the state of affairs in this period politically:
“Six Palestine Arab congresses convened between 1919 and 1923 in opposition to the Balfour Declaration. Even before the official disclosure of Balfour’s letter to the residents of Palestine, a large and peaceful demonstrations of hundreds of Palestinian Arabs assembled in opposition to its rumored contents in Jerusalem on February 27, 1920, with the knowledge if not assent of the British colonial authorities.” (King, A Quiet Revolution, p 30). Palestinians closed their shops and submitted petitions to British authorities. They held peaceful demonstrations mainly in Jerusalem, Jaffa and Haifa. Lord William Robert Wellesley Peel concluded that the cause of the trouble had been “(1) The Arabs’ disappointment at the non-fulfillment of the promises of independence…(2) The Arabs’ belief that the Balfour Declaration implied a denial of the right of self-determination, and their fear that the establishment of the National Home would mean a great increase of Jewish immigration and would lead to their economic and political subjection to the Jews…” (Peel commission Report, p 50)
The refusal to participate in an assembly elections by Palestinians in February 1923 was near complete and forced Herbert Samuel to declare the election result unusable. (Caplan, “Yishuv, Sir Herbert Samuel, and the Arab question”. P. 37, Wasserstein “Herbert Samuel and the Palestine Problem”, p. 771 cited in King p 36). The Arab executive committee which called for this boycott also demanded that the Arab members appointed by Herbert Samuel as his “advisors” resign and seven did so en mass on 13 June 1923. That move caused the British governmentto form a special ministerial committee to study the situation (p. 48 in Alfikr AlSiyasi fi Falastin, author?). 1923 also witnessed a call during the Palestinian Arab Congress of boycotting economic projects that the British government and Zionist leadership supported (e.g. the Rutenberg Electric power generation plant (p. 151, Alfikr AlSiyasi fi Falastin, author?).
Palestinians decided to use every mean to end the British rule. They boycotted Jewish and British products and boycotted government boards.
The machinations of power was such that any time the British government tried to set up a more sober policy based on rights of people of Palestine to representation, the strong pressures mounting politically from the Zionist lobby in London and from right wing conservatives forsed a reversal to the failed policies of the past. This was true of the Passfield report of the 1920s or the White paper of 1939 (see later)(King. P.39).
When Balfour made his one and only trip to Palestine in 1925 (to help inaugurate the Hebrew University), he was met with a strike and a period of mourning. (PHH Massy “Eastern Mediterranean Lands: Twenty years of life, sport, and travel, London, George Routledge and Son, 1928, p. 20 cited in King, p. 36).
The seventh and last conference of the Palestinian Arab Congress was held on 20 June 1928 and again made certain demands (e.g. changing British rules to emply Palestinians) and objections (e.g. to the British giving the Dead Sea Concession to Zionist company) (p. 149 Saleh Masoud Bouyasbir, 1987). But the era of petitions and complainst and demonstrations seemed to be reaching its end.
A new religious element entered into the question on September 24, 1928. On that day, controversy arose at a section of the Haram AlSharif/Temple mount called the Western Wall by Jews and Al Buraq by Muslims (some Jews think it part of the old temple, some Muslims believe it is where the Prophet Muhammaed landed on his night Journey to Jerusalem). It was part of the Muslim Waqf sites but Muslims have traditionally allowed Jewish prayers there. The Jewish worshippers on that day violated both tradition and British policy by erecting a partition at the sight. As the days passed by and the Jewish leaders refused to remove the barrier, Muslim anger mounted and moved from letters and protests in November 1928 to dueling demonstrations in August 1929 to a week of rioting between August 23-29, 1929. The latter riots involved the killing of Jewish non-Zionists and anti-Zionists. Perhaps the best description of this is taken from Einstein:
Sigmund Freud, was approached to sign a petition to condemn these Arab riots in Palestine and to support the Zionist project. He wrote in response:
“I cannot do as you wish. I am unable to overcome my aversion to burdening the public with my name, and even the present critical time does not seem to me to warrant it. Whoever wants to influence the masses must give them something rousing and inflammatory and my sober judgment of Zionism does not permit this. I certainly sympathize with its goals, am proud of our University in Jerusalem and am delighted with our settlement's prosperity. But, on the other hand, I do not think that Palestine could ever become a Jewish state, nor that the Christian and Islamic worlds would ever be prepared to have their holy places under Jewish care. It would have seemed more sensible to me to establish a Jewish homeland on a less historically-burdened land. But I know that such a rational viewpoint would never have gained the enthusiasm of the masses and the financial support of the wealthy. I concede with sorrow that the baseless fanaticism of our people is in part to be blamed for the awakening of Arab distrust. I can raise no sympathy at all for the misdirected piety which transforms a piece of a Herodian wall into a national relic, thereby offending the feelings of the natives.
Now judge for yourself whether I, with such a critical point of view, am the right person to come forward as the solace of a people deluded by unjustified hope.” (Freud's Letter to Dr. Chaim Koffler Keren HaYassod, Vienna: 26 February 1930; posted at the Freud Institute in UK website: http://www.freud.org.uk./arab-israeli.html)
The Palestinian disturbances of 1929 and the two years that followed did not advance the cause of challenging British policies of support for Zionist aspirations. Frustration boiled over in a meeting in July 1931 in Nablus as delegates called for initiating armed resistance (against both British and Zionists) and took minor steps towards that (setting up committee to procure weapons but this committee did nothing). This meeting was however important at least in terms of altering the rhetoric stage for a Palestinian armed revolt and essentially transformed the then 50 year conflict into the realm of a guerrilla warfare rather than civil unrest and nonviolent struggle.
The Islamic element entered with a meeting in Jerusalem 4 December 1931 dubbed the Islamic Conference and included delegates from many Muslim countries. It also issued declarations but also decided to form an Islamic University (ala the Hebrew University), a compant=y to help Palestinians struggling with the depressed economy to stay on their lands. While these decisions sounded good, there was hardly any follow-up or implementation (p. 177, Saleh Masoud Bouyasbir, 1987)
(Husseini and Nashashibi rivalry harmed the paslestinian cause)
In 1932, educated and nationalist leadership emerged in the form of Hizb AlIstiklal (party of Independence). Its founder was a lawyer by the name of Awni AbdelHadi and its main demand was national freedom/independence. They demanded (e.g. through article by Sami AlSarraj in their AlDifa3 newspaper in 1933) from the Arab Executive Committee that it be changed to replace the members with a new and younger generations of leaders. (p. 60 in Alfikr AlSiyasi fi Falastin, author?). In assemblies of activists on 24 February 1933 and 26 March 1933 (attended by over 500), plans and ideas were explored for ending any cooperation and using nonviolence and noncooperation to achieve the goals of independence.
The Nazis came to power in Germany in March 1933 and more calls were made by both the new Nazi regime and the Zionist movement for relocating Jews of Europe to Palestine. In 1929, the number of Jewish immigrants was about 5000 and by 1933 over 30,000 (peel commission report, 79,82,279). Palestinians expressed their feelings in mass demonstrations against dumping Europe’s problems on them, e.g. a large demonstration 13 September 1933 in Jerusalem that spilled over to other cities (p. 109 in Alfikr AlSiyasi fi Falastin, author?). In 13 October 1933 seven thousand angry demonstrators filled the streets of Jaffa and the British forces opened fire killing 12 and wonding 78 Palestinians (one policeman was also killed). This violence escalated the situation and distrust. Riots and violence spread to many cities and a general strike lasted until November.
The same groups also wanted an escalation of the nonviolent tactics from demonstrations, boycotts, and the like to direct civil disobedience actions. For example, another article from Sami AlSarraj in AlDifa3 newspaper on 15 January 1935 extolled “Come oh Arabs let us disobey the laws one time. Come ye writers let us disobey the laws without worry about what the legal system will do to us. .. and ye Arab, there is nothing that forces you to buy products of foreigners and certainly not products of your enemies..” (p. 67 idem).
1935-1939 Uprising
The period 1935-1939 provides a monumental turning point for Palestine and Palestinians. Let us start by readinga bit from one of the notables of that period. Akram Zeiter was born in Nablus in 1909 and studied at AlNajah College, AUB, and AlHuqooq College in Jerusalem at a time when the geographic continuity of bilad Alsham was notable and the main issues were the Arab resistance to Turkish Ottoman Rule and then the first world war. He came of age under the British occupation which started in 1919 and as a young man carved a name for himself in speaking ourt against the resistance. At age 20, he left his teaching position in Acre and became editor of Mira’at Alsharq in Jerusalem. He was arrested and imprisoned 3 months later and then “deported” to Nablus where he intensified his work against the British occupation. He cofounded Hizb AlIstiqlal and was arrested in the uprising of 1936. Later he headed an Arab delegation to Latin America and wrote a book about that experience. In 1980 he published “Diaries of Akram Zeiter: Palestinian patriotic ovement 1935-1939”. He explains that the origin of the 1935 revolt began with distress over the British occupation and its unjust policies of supporting land transfer to the Jewish agency.
Flare-up of clashes with the British forces in 1934 and 1935 were small and contained. It is not clear as to when exactly the disturbances that were going on from 1919 to 1935 (which peaked in 1929) became the revolt of 1935-1939. Some attribute the events of 2 November 1935 (Balfour Declaration anniversary) or the taking of land from Tulkarem Agricultural School for Jewish use to be the straws that broke the camel’s back (p. 198, Saleh Masoud Bouyasbir, 1987). It was in this period and after over 10 years of British occupation were limited demonstrations and nonviolent actions and occasional violent outburst failed, that is when a charismaticleader called Shaykh Izz Al-Din Al-Qassam emerged forming a group for violent organized resistance (his group was called AlKaf alAswad, the black hand). His center of activism was in the city of Haifa which was a locus for many peasants who were displaced from their lands by unfair land laws and purchases of lands that these peasant farmed for hundreds of years (sold usually by absentee property deed holders). His death in a fight with British occupation forces November 1935, may have precipitated the uprising that ensued. Others believe it was the call on November 13, 1935 by local leadership in Nablus to promote a strike throughout the country even when the leaderships of most political factions (Ahzab) voted against the strike (to give more time to the British authorities).
On 9 December 1935, a number of meetings and other popular gatherings were held to commemorate the anniversary of the British occupation of Jerusalem, This led to intensified feelings of resistance and opposition to the colonial activities. May 1936 witnessed the biggest month of demonstrations, strikes, civil disobedience and also violent resistance.
Perhaps it was a combination of factors from years of disappointment and frustration over British occupation and support of Zionist colonization that made the grass root people opposed to waiting or continuing with similar policies tried over the 15 year of British occupation.
On April 19, 1936 the authorities denied a permit for a demonstration in Jaffa and this news resulted in anger that became violent demonstrations that killed more Jews than Arabs. On April 21,most political factions agreed to noncooperation and a general strike until demands are met. Committees were formed to promote the strike and to develop other forms of nonviolent resistance. The “Arab Car owners and Drivers Committee” issued a call to the public in late April 1936 to refuse to pay taxes (this later gave some historical precedebt to the tax revolt in Beit Sahour in the 1980s)(Kalkas, Revolt of 1936, p.248, cited in King p. 50).
On May 17, 1936, prisoners in Nur Shams declared a strike and confronted the prison guards. The prison wardon, a Mr. Grand ordered soldiers to shoot and one prisoner was killed, several wonded as prisoner shouted in defiance “Martyrdom better than jail” (Zeiter, 1980, p101).
Nonviolent struggles in 1935 nd 1936 involved far more people including women and Children as a scale not well recorded in history books. In our digging in writings of the period we find many examples…..
Rural and urban committees for resistance formed and organized acts of tax resistance, nonooperation, strikes and other acts of nonviolent resistance. King states that “group after group joined the local committees – Bedouins, chambers of commerce, labor groups, Muslim and Christian sports clubs, Arab “National guard units”, and the Jaffa boatman’s association- all guiding aspects of the strike in loose coordination with the Arab Higher Committee.” (King. P. 51).
Within a few weeks hundreds f strike organizers were imprisoned. Mayors of many cities met in Ramallah May 30th 1936 and resolved to support the strikes.
British authorities took drastic steps to put down both the violent and nonviolent Palestinain revolt. On June 16, 1936 the authorities demolished large section of the old city of Jafa which they suspected held many resistance fighters.
The middle and lower class members of the Palestinian society came under tremendous pressures and they rightly blamed the tripartite cause of their misery to: the Palestinian elite, the Jewish settlers, and the British overlords. Worsening economic situation across the globe in the early 1930s made this an even more volatile situation. Thus, was born the first truly grass-root rebellion/uprising by Palestinians in 1936. On May 7 1936, a conference of 150 delegates representing all sectors of the population calls for a general strike and refusal to pay taxes to the British occupation authorities. Later, peasants form resitsance units and hide in the mountains. The resistance wants immediate halt to Zionist immigraton and colonization, prohibition of the transfer of the lands possessed by the Palestinians to European Zionists, and establishment of a democratic government. In June 18 1936: A large section of Jaffa is destroyed by the British leaving 6000 residents homeless. (see France-Palestine 70 years of resistance http://azls.over-blog.com/)
It originated from the young people who have by now established groups like the Young Men's Muslim Association, scouting organizations, and Hizb Al-Istiqlal (the Party of Independence), a radical progressive organization.
On April 19, 1936, a riot broke out in Jaffa in response to increased Zionist activity, British oppression, and unfair laws by the British Mandate government. the British immediately and violently put this down and imposed curfews and emergency regulations throughout the country. Palestinian leaders in response called for a general strike which lasted till October and essentially paralyzed economic life. The British underestimated the level of resentment at their policy and attempted to undercut the growing revolt by some statements that were not consistent with their actions on the ground (severe repression of the natives and increased support for the Zionist program between 1922-the late 1930s). At one point, the British proposed dividing the country to a small Jewish state and a larger segment of Palestine to be incorporated under Britain's puppet government of Jordan. This proposal touched off more demonstrations and continued uprising, which the British were not able to completely suppress until 1939.
The Palestinians paid a heavy price for the uprising of 1935-39 in material and personal losses. The British killed over 5000 Palestinians and, as collective punishment, demolished whole sections of Jaffa and many other places. The best fighting men were either killed or imprisoned (approximately 10% of adult males thus included). On the social and political level, the impact was also devastating. The Arab high Commission was now more divided than ever, the Mufti gained more power at the expense of the demolished progressive and grassroots organizations. The British were able to split the Palestinians further into factions squabbling over everything from remaining and dwindling resources to tactics to philosophy (Rashid Khalidi, "The Palestinians and 1948: the underlying causes of failure", pp. 12-36 in "The War for Palestine: Rewriting the History of 1948", E. L. Rogan and A. Schlaim, eds., Cambridge University Press. 2001)
Period of 1939-1948
In response to the AngloAmerican Commission recommendation o 20 April 1946 to admit 100,000 Jewish immigrants, the higher arab commission called for a general strike for May 3, 1946 and further boycotts of International “commissions:” intended to support partition followed in June 1947 (p. 92-99, Alfikr Alsiyasi fi falastin, author?)
The UN General assembly with significant pressure from the US voted to recommend partition of Palestine to give the Zionist movement control over 55% of Palestine and leave the Palestinians (who were more than 2/3rd of the population) with 45% of Palestine. The High Arab Commission (Alhai’a alarabiya alulia) responded by calling for a general 3-day strike from 2-4 December 1947 which was near total and was accompanied by many demonstration around the country and in other countries from Iraq to Morocco (p. 145 I Bahjat AbuGhraybeh’s memoirs in Arabic, 1993)
During founding of the state of Israel, nearly 800,000 Palestinian were driven from their lands and many were shot while trying to return. General Glubb observed that:
“Some deep psychological urge, which impels a peasant to cling to and die on his land. A great many of these wretched people are killed now, picking their own oranges and olives just beyond the armistice line. The value of the fruit is often negligible. If the Jewish patrols see him he is shot on the spot, without any questions. But, they will persist in returning to their farms and gardens.” (Public Record office, FO 371/104778, General Glubb, ‘Note on Refugee Vagrancy’, quoted in Morris, Israel’s Border Wars, p.37., Cited in McDowall)
“Infiltrators, regardless of age or sex tended to be shot without compunction, including those wounded. The IDF took relatively few prisoners” (For example, see orders issued by Israel’s southern command, Morris, Israel’s border wars, p 125,129,132,414, Cited in McDowall)
“Between 1949 and 1956 between 3000 and 5000 infiltrators were killed, the vast majority unarmed. The vast majority of those who infiltrated were peasants trying to slip home, either to return, or to see relatives or to harvest crops either on account of acute hunger or out of deep attachment” (“the Palestinians, the Road to Nationhood” David McDowall, 1994 –library reference: DS119.7.M3 )
Stories of attempted resistance by simply refusing to leave are common place among Palestinians. Resistance by refusing to leave the land. Umm Ibrahim Shawabkeh, refugee from Bayt Jibrain, a village midway between Hebron and Majdal (Ashkelon), sacked by Israeli troops in October, 1948 stated: “I was 12 in 1948 when the Jews drove us out. We fled from the village when the soldiers came and started shooting people. My grandparents did not want to leave their home; they hid in a cave near the village and the soldiers found them and shot them.” (In Najjar, Orayb Aref, Portraits of Palestinian Women (Salt Lake City 1992), p.30 quoted by Holt, Maria, Half the people: women, History of the Palestinian Intifada, Jerusalem, 1992, p.26.)
Inside the new state of Israel 1949-1967
Resistance through seeking education despite the Israeli restrictions:
“Joined in many cases by liberal Jewish colleagues, Arab students volunteered during summer vacations to upgrade the level of Arab high school students through many enrichment programs aimed at increasing the pupils’ chances to pass the Bagrout (matriculation) examination. This effort represented a contribution to the increase of Arab students at Israeli universities.” P 124 Arab Education in Israel, Sami Khalil Mar’i
Library reference LA1443.7.M3 1978
Egyptian Rule of Gaza (1949-1967)
Jordanian Occupation (1949-1967)
Little documentary evidence exists of the non-violent resistance to Jordanian rule in the West Bank. There was a period of non-cooperation and direct resistance between 1950-1956. The revolt in 1956 was put down ruthlessly. It is well known that thousands were imprisoned for challenging King Hussain’s rule (one of them was my uncle). King Hussain’s going along with Nasser on issues of Pan-Arabism is attributed by many researchers as due in part to this resistance. After all, the Zionist leadership was involved in a tacit agreement with Hussain’s grandfather Abdullah who was assassinated by a Palestinain national for this collusion. According to this agreement, Abdullah would take that part of Palestine allotted to the Arabs west of the Jordan Valley according to UN Resolution #181 (II) of November 29, 1947. This part later became to be known as the West Bank. The rest of Palestine was to be left for the "Exclusive Jewish State". Documented with intriguing details of this agreement are reported in Avi Shlaim's book (Avi Shlaim, Collusion Across the Jordan, King Abdullah, the Zionist Movement, and the Partition of Palestine, New York: Columbia University Press, 1988, p. 139.).
Thousands of Palestinians (including my uncle) spent time in Jordanian jails for simply speaking out. The height of the Jordanian army atrocities came in 1955-6 when the young King sent his Bedouin soldiers to make sure no one spoke up against the jordanian rule. With prodding and support from Britain and the US, King Hussain especialy targeted socialists and communists. Most have only been engaged in speaking out for labor rights or for the return of refugees. The pogroms that followed are still remembered vividly by all Palestinians of that generation. Hundreds were tortured and thousands were jailed including in remote facilities in the Jordan Desert (at AlJafr and other camps) where many succumbed to diseases and starvation diets. This mini-Palestinian uprising was little eported in Western media.
Israeli Occupation of WB and Gaza 1967-1987
Israeli tanks rolled into the West Bank in the Blitzkrieg that became known as the "Six-day war of 1967". Soon after, Israel started to build settlements in the occupied areas on confiscated Palestinian lands. Israel also annexed East Jerusalem (in 1968) contrary to International law. The four decades of brutal occupation commenced in full gear. For Palestinians and other Arabs, nonviolent, grassroots action was learned “on the job” and commensurate with the onset of the occupation of these Palestinian lands.
Forms of resistance included simple spontaneous protests and refusal to abide by military orders. These efforts were crushed ruthlessly and yet they continued and accelerated. In February 1968, over 300 women demonstrated in Gaza about the policies of the occupation including expulsions and land confiscations (p63 Jeffry Aronson, 1990)
Demonstrations in 1968 and 1969 were met with force. In 1970, large demonstrations erupted in Gaza that scared the Israeli army (because of the number of people participating). Ariel Sharon was sent in to suppress the resistance (both violent and non-violent resistance). He became known as the Bulldozer because f the way he got his way: strong and aggressive). Home demolishings, massive shelling, killing of innocent civilians became his hall mark. These atrocities led to reactions of desperate attempts by few Palestinians to get the world to notice their plight. Palestinian violence in the 1970s escalated to mimic certain actions taken by the colonizers in the 1930s to the1950s. These tactics succeeded in attracting world attention to the problems in this part of the world but sometimes generated far more negative publicity than was an gain in political stature achieved (e.g. airplane hijacking, the Olympic athletes kidnapping).
But in parallel, Palestinian non-violent resistance continued to fluorish. In the early 1970s demonstrations against the occupation were common. The PLO was illegal and so was flying any Palestinian flags. Yet, nationalist feelings were very strong. In 1976 and after four years of unrest, Israel thought to try a new strategy: allow municipal elections and push for collaborators to run. The strategy backfired as Palestinians overwhelmingly chose people who are highly respected and who spoke strongly against the occupation.
When Israel commenced to build the settlement/colony of Elon Moreh, local Palestinains headed by the Charismatic Bassam Shak’a) were outraged and spilled into the streets in mass demonstration in Nablus that included 1500 people (p. 204 Jeffrey Aronson, 1990).
In 1967, Palestinian political prisoners in Israeli jails engaged in rejection of food and drinks. The fast lasted 45 days and was ended with Israeli promises to improve their living conditions. When Israeli authorities reneges, the prisoner resumed their fasting for a total of 65 days (see p. 20 in Fahd ElHaj, 1993)
November 1979 saw a mass resignation of 21 mayors from their positions after the events of bombings. (p. 207 Jeffrey Aronson, 1990)..
On March 23, 1980 Israel announced buildings in the center of Hebren. This colonial settlement in the heart of the heavily populated Arab city was denounced by residents. Leaders like Alqawasmah vowed to escalate nonviolent resistance. A meeting attended by hundreds called for general boycotts and other effective actions against the occupation (p 210 Jefrey Aronson, 1990)..
Israel engaged in a policy of assasinations and deportation. Two mayors were severely injued by planted Israeli bombs (Mayor Bassam Shaka of Nablus lost both his legs). The mayors responded by forming the national guidance committee and emphasizing that teh PLO represents all the Palestinian people. Israel forced most of these Mayors out of office and deported others. Israeli occupation authorities then established the "Vilage Leagues" in the early 1980s, a network of collaborators to administer the occupation on its behalf. Residents were forced to go to the appointed village league collaborators for any needs like permits to leave the country, electric and water issues, land arbitration etc. The league members were armed and trained by Israel and did not hesitate to kill, maim, and beat those who stood in their way. Palestinians showed incredible resiliance and resistance to these schemes by actions ranging from boycotts, public satements, church and mosque leaders shunning these people (in some cases priests excommunicated members of the church who collaborated or committed other crimes). Families openly denunciated members of their own families.
Mubarak Awad, established the first "Palestinian Center for the Study of Nonviolence" in Jerusalem in 1983. Awad was influenced by pacifist Mennonite traditions and by translating Islamic writings on nonviolence (e.g. those of the Muslim colleague of Gandhi's, Abdul Ghaffar Khan). Deportation proceedings against him were initiated before the uprising of December 1987. The deportation order was signed by Yitzhak Shamir on 6 May 1988. Israel's ambassador to the US felt it important to explain the deportation of Awad (who happened to be also a US Citizen) in an op-ed in the NY Times June 17, 1988. Robert Holmes "Nonviolence and the Intifada" pp.209-248 in "From the Eye of the Storm: Regional Conflicts and the Philosophy of Peace, edited By Laurence F. Bove and Laura Duhan Kaplan, 1995, Rodopi.
Intifada in the West Bank and Gaza 1987-1993
In the 1980s, the Palestinian tradition and practice of nonviolence grew dramatically. Among the first methods employed in the effort to effect change, and still in use today, were boycotts of Israeli products and services, refusal to obey military orders, burning Israeli ssued ID cards, refusal to vacate confiscated properties, and self-reliance. During the Palestinian uprising that started in 1987 these tactics were put into widespread use. Gardening in backyards, educating children in clandestine classrooms when schools were closed by the military, and countless other methods were developed and expanded. In one instance, a clandestine dairy farm in Beit Sahour was the subject of massive "hunt for the cows" by the Israeli military. My friend and fellow biologist Jad Ishaq was jailed for helping foster gardening skills among our people.
Like the 1935-1939 uprising this uprising provided a wealth of lessons and a wealth of achievements that give us hope for the future. Sometimes we wonder about why particular events act as the “straw that breaks the camels back”. In early October 1987, three Palestinians were killed in Bureij Camp by Israeli soldiers and in mid Novemebre, a settler in Gaza had killed a Palestinian female student (Intisar AlAttar). Twenty years had accumulated thousands of stories of oppression, of colonial settler activities, economic de-development in the occupied areas and far more. The uprising came one month after the Arab summit in Amman (November 8-11, 1987) revealed to most Palestinians that they are alone and that they cannot rely on these kings and rulers to effect a change in their circumstances. Also, a daring operation by members of the PFLP-General Command that killed 6 Israeli soldiers in the Upper Galilee created further tensions and made Israeli occupation forces more trigger happy.
It was December 8, 1987 when an Israeli truck plowed through two cars filled with Palestinian laborers in Gaza. Four were killed and five (some say nine) were injured. After some rumors that the Israeli driver is also related to an Israeli who had stabbed a Palestinian, anger swelled. The funeral December 10th in the streets of Jabalia Refugee Camp in Gaza evolved into an angry demonstration in which stones were thrown by youth against heavily armed soldiers and plain cloths Shin Bet security agents and at least one (a Shine Bet agent) opened fire using his Uzi gun injuring many and killing Hatem Alseesi, 17 year old, who became the first martyr of this uprising (Michael S. Serrill, “Days of Rage in the Territories” Time, December 28, 1987 cited in M E. King, p.7). The “uprising of the stones” ignited and spread like wildfire.
On December 11 two youths and one women were killed by occupation soldiers and the uprising had spread into the West Bank. Demonstrations became more frequent and in parallel, the repression and violence of Israel escalated. Then Defense minister Yitzhak Rabin gave a green light when he stated that “The first priority is to prevent violent demonstrations with force, power, and blows” Chris Wood, “Where will the Revolt End” McClean’s April 18, 1988, p. 23, cited in M E. King, p.7). Israeli soldiers also continued to use more lethal weapons. Yet, the first year of the Palestinian uprising remained essentially all nonviolent and no Israeli soldiers were killed during even though many Palestinians had hidden arsenals of weapons but they were not used against the Israeli army (see King, p 9).
The unorganized and popular revolt generated leadership from the ground. Within one month, there were so many people who became natural leaders of the resistance and those issued their first declaration and call to action January 4, 1988 under the “joint resistance leadership” which became highly organized and effective (p. 340, Jefrey Aronson, 1990). The first call to action included a call for a strike and civil disobedience Jan 11-13. Subsequent calls ensued included a variety of things and all were implemented professionally despite the Israeli brutal tactics of oppression:
- calling on days of unity
- building public sites to commemorate victims of the occupation
- refusal to pay tax
- developing self-sustenance through farming and other methods
- mass resignation from police forces, municipal councils, and other authorities.
- Refusal to pay unjust civil and criminal fines
- Holding public prayers
- Refusal to abide by military orders on closure of universities and schools (classes were held in people’s houses, houses of warship, and even underground basements and caves.
- Refusal to abide by military orders on closure of shops and other private institutions.
- Flying Palestinian flags (forbidden by military orders).
“In addition the secret command structure for steps to establish an alternative autonomous Palestinian administration. The banned Palestinian flag flew over local council buildings in many of the 530 Arab municipalities, towns and villages in the West Bank” (Behind the Uprising, Yossi Melman and Dan Raviv, 1989. Library ref: DS119.7.M4)
Political prisoners in Israeli jails who accumulated by the thousands during this uprising also participated in nonviolent resistance. IN 13 prisons, prisoners from all factions rejected food and water starting on 26 September 1992 (see p. 17 in Fahd ElHaj, 1993). These collective actions forged solidarity and raised political consciousness of all who participated.
Palestinian resistance did not forget its solidarity with others facing similar circumstances. In its 20th call the resistance called for designating June 25th 1988 a day of solidarity with all who resist racial discrimination especially in South Africa.
While the leadership issued directives, decisions were taken and actions were done by “Popular Committees.” The popular committees included some members of the PLO, members of other factions not part of the PLO (e.g. communists, Islamic forces), and independents. The popular committees were specialized. For example there was commercial committees that included business people that decided on hours of operations, on how best to boycott Israeli products etc. There were education committees that ensured minimally functioning educational systems.There were women committees that provided child care for prisoners, that ensured boycotts while maintining appropriate nutritions. There were provisions comiitytees that took care of ensuring food supplies especially to encircled and starved areas or areas that have been especially targeted by the occupation forces. There were health care committees, transporation committees, donors committees, intellecual committees, agricultural committees and more Rub’ie Almadhoun, 1989).
Tactically, the resistance tried to remove the layers of Israeli occupation powers gradually and this was likened to peeling layers of onion (see Almadhoum p. 47-49). Such steps for example included asking Palestinians who worked as policemen to resign. Pressure was applied on them through their families. Tactics varied case by case for achieving the final result. The village councils were targeted similarly (these are councils set up by Israel to facilitate its occupation by managing the local people). Most council members resigned voluntarily. Others were pressured by various means. The most effective was making people who stay in their positions social outcases (no one woyuld talk to them, priests refused to give them communion, they were refused entry to mosques etc).
On the Israeli side, the policy was initiated to break the bones of all who throw stones or engage in other acts of resistance. This broken bone policy was initiated in early jjanuary 1988 but was only officially announced when some reporters asked the specific questions about. Within three days of the announcement of Yitzhak Rabin of the policy of hitting demonstrators, over 200 were treated in hospitals and clinics for broken bones (JP 26/1/1988). In one hospital in gaza (Mustashfa Alshifa), records showed that in January 1988, over 200 people treated for injusries to hits/breaks of their knees, three for skull fractures, and three women lost their unborn babies due to gas inhalation (Eric Silver, the uprising continues despite Israeli crackdown policies” Observor cited by Almadhoiun, p. 60)
The strikes, resignations etc were then envisioned to transform to more general civil disobedience and complete separation. There were discussions and disagreement about this. Both leadership of Fatah and Hamas in 1988 spoke against too quick an escalation arguing for smaller steps until local institutions can be built. Leftist factions wanted a quicker escalation. While this discussion was going on, the individuals were left to decide on how to proceed with limited support. Places that boycotted Israel fully were denied services (including electricity and water) and life became difficult for many. Some relented and went back to work as usual. Even some policemen returned to their jobs. Lacking popular general disobedience, some resistance groups engaged in destroying property of the occupiers (this included not only military vehicles or infrastructure but industrial and agricultural propersty). This phase was short-lived because of the Israeli massive eye-for an eye response against Palestinian properties.
The Israeli leadership realized two facts: 1) that the uprising could or has become a way of life in the occupied territories and that 2) the PLO is the only major Palestinian political power that has a direct ability to end the Intifada (Kenneth Kaplan, “Intifada could go on Indefinetly” Jerusalem Post, 8/7/1988, cited in Almadhoun, p. 51)
Resistance spread over time and more importantly adapted to changing circumstances on the ground. My own hometown of Beit Sahour engaged in a tax revolt which became a poster case for nonviolent resistance to Israeli occupation. All town residents refused to pay taxes to an occupation army that was using our taxes not to build us schools and clinics but to fund its occupation army and to build Jewish-only settlements and roads on our lands. On 21 September 1989, the Israeli army tried to break the tax revolt by laying siege to teh twon, arresting 40 people for tax resistance, and then massive confiscation of valuable property from the town (everything from cars to furniture to TVs and other electric devises were stolen). Representatives of a number of European countries and church leaders attempted to visit the town while it was under siege (for 42 days during which food, telephones, electricity etc were cut). They were turned back by the Israeli army taht then surrounded the town (“Envoys turned back on road to Beit Sahour” The Globe and Mail, 7 October 1989, p. A9; “Israeli Troops Bar Western Envoys” Los Angeles Times 6 October 1989, p. 1)
The UN Security Council considered a resolution asking Israel to lift the siege and return the confiscated property but the US vetoed the resolution (supported by most other UNSC member states) (“U.S. vetoes UN resolution that Israel return property seized in tax revolt” The Montreal Gazette. 8 November 1989, p. A14). After failing to break the will of the people, the siege was finally lifted six weeks later.
In the October 20, 1989 edition of the Guardian (London) Ian Black reported on this tax revolt:
"Hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of goods - including manufacturing equipment, domestic appliances, cash and jewelry - have been carted off by Israeli bailiffs escorted by armed soldiers. ... Beit Sahour, a neat and relatively prosperous town of 12,000 in the 'Christian triangle' centering on Bethlehem, has been singled out for economic punishment by the authorities in a controversial operation that now appears to be intensifying. .... The confiscations have become routine: the entire town is a closed military area with nightly curfews imposed and telephone lines cut off. Earth ramparts have been bulldozed into position at the entrances and soldiers patrol the streets. The Israeli Defense Minister, Mr. Yitzhak Rabin, insists that the raids were carried out with full legal authority, although some experts dispute this. .... The latest attempt to crush the Intifada shows no sign of being any more successful than the other punishments that the Israeli authorities have been using in the West Bank and Gaza Strip for the past 22 months. .... The people of Beit Sahour line the streets and watch anxiously as the Israeli convoys set out from Camp Asaf. Many tell stories of brutal searches and of outright theft by the taxmen... the pastoral tranquility of the town, with its solid red-roofed stone villas, well-tended gardens and picturesque churches, is a far cry from the dark alleys of the Nablus casaba or the warren-like refugee camps of Gaza. But the tax revolt is Beit Sahour's proud contribution to the uprising. ...Some may well give in under pressure, but the majority, like Nader Qumsiyeh, will probably carry on. 'Taxes are paid by people to their own legitimate political bodies,' a leaflet explained when the Israeli raids began. 'The services provided to the Palestinians are opening new jails and building new settlements.' " ("Israeli bailiffs enlisted to crush Palestinian tax revolt: Refusal to pay rates turns 'Christian triangle' into symbol of resistance." Guardian 10/20/1989)
At the end of October 1989, Israel ended the tax raids due to the negative publicity and international outrage. A good report on that tax revolt in Beit Sahour is found in Anne Grace's article: “The Tax Resistance at Bayt Sahur” (Journal of Palestine Studies 1990).
Ibrahim Dakkak, the chair of the Engineer Union in the West Bank was asked about the forms of resistance during this uprising. His answer is revealing:
“There seems to be a picture of the Intifada outside that it is about throwing stones and Molotov cocktails. The reality is that the Intifada has diverse and deep forms. Those who count the dead and injured Palestinians observe one side of the Intifada. The Intifada was an intifada in the underlying construction of the Palestinian people in how people go about their daily lives. The Intifada became a way of living and this is not covered in the media. The intifada is moving in the direction of building what might be called a Palestinian indpendence route. It means independence from Israeli markets, staying as far away as possible from Israeli institutions, and building Palestinian institutions that are as independent as possible… the intifada evolves in daily confrontation with the occupation and also in reordering the elements of the Palestinian society in light of what fits the situation and what the Palestinain people expect will happen in the future and that is the building of the independent Palestinian state. So the Intifada is a civilized and living movement at this time and changing the circumstances in the Palestinian society, a change that is going forward/upward not the other way around” (p. 118, Nada AbdelSamad, Ayyam Alhijara, a book of transcripts of Sawt Alshaab radio interviews that included 50 Palestinian grassroot leaders, Lebanon, Dar AlFaraby, Beirut, 1989 in Arabic)
Violations of right to education and resistance to that.
“Popular education was developed by Palestinian neighborhood committees in response to the school closures during the early intifada period. Palestinian teachers, parents and older students organized alternative classes in local homes, mosques and churches in order to help the children to continue their schooling.” (p. 10 of Arab Education in Israel, Sami Khalil Mar’I Library reference LA1443.7.M3 1978
“They want to make us ignorant. They want to reduce us to being more backward than they are. They know we want to know about the world and especially about our situation. We want to formulate our struggle and to communicate our cause.” – A secondary pupil, Balata Refugee Camp” (Excerpt from Palestinians: Education Denied, 1989 WUS/JMCC, cited in p 9 of Arab Education in Israel, Sami Khalil Mar’I Library reference LA1443.7.M3 1978)
Resisting by withstanding torture in Israeli jails (?)
Israel’s interrogation of Palestinians from the occupied territories, Human Rights watch, HV 8599.W4.H8
During that Intifada (uprising) of 1987-1991, 1100 Palestinian civilians were killed while engaging in non-violent resistance or not even resisting (shot in homes in schools etc). Thousands were injured. Injuries accelerated when Rabin issued orders to break the bones of children who through stones at Israeli military vehicles or personnel. In some cases homes were demolished for such small infarctions as participating in a demonstration. But this largely unarmed uprising went on despite the Israeli army brutality.
The Herald Tribune summed up the political situation in Israel in the beginning of the Intifada:
“It became clear to decision makers, even
|