Why Not Non-Violence?

Several posts ago I described discussing at a conference I attended in Lebanon how dispossession was the root cause of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, and not Islam, as others may think. I also mentioned in that post my general support for the Palestinian cause. As I alluded to, though, I have serious problems with the way Palestinians fight for their cause, which was discussed at this same conference in sessions about peacemaking.

During the conference there were two joint sessions with representatives from the Muslim community in Beirut, and both times the question of peacemaking in the context of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict was raised. I went straight to the point in the first session, asking one of the Muslim representatives this question: "Why has there been no large scale movement of non-violence in the Palestinian community against Israel, such as the movements of Martin Luther King Jr. in the United States and Gandhi in India? I believe such a movement would bring Palestinians the desired results more quickly." My question was serious and sincere, and in the absence of a serious movement of non-violence in the 60 years of bloodletting since the creation of the state of Israel, I really hoped for some thoughtful reflections on this topic. Who knows, maybe there were perfectly good reasons for the lack of such a movement. The answer I received, though, disappointed me, as the gist of the response was this: Israel has attacked the Palestinians, so the Palestinians have the right to defend themselves. That was it. End of story, next question. No reflective consideration as to the merits or effectiveness of non-violence was given. Just a brush off.

The second joint session was held a few days later at an Islamic center in a Shi'ite neighborhood that was heavily bombed by Israel in their 2006 war with Hezbollah. The imam of the center discussed Palestinian resistance to Israel, but his consideration of non-violence was also disappointing, as it basically mirrored that of the previous session: Israel has attacked the Palestinians, so the Palestinians have the right to defend themselves. He even compared the use of violence on an enemy to the use of chemotherapy on cancer. Although both chemotherapy and violence cause all sorts of unwanted, undesirable side-affects, he said, they can also bring about positive results.

Now, I wasn't necessarily expecting any of the representatives there to side with non-violence and/or call on Palestinians to begin a non-violent movement. I'm also not saying their responses--basic statements on the right to self-defense--were anything out of the ordinary, or different from what most people in this world would have said or believe. After all, pacifists or adherents of non-violence are a minority in this world, and more than likely you are not one of their number.

As I said, though, their responses were still extremely disappointing to me. However, they were disappointing not so much because I didn't like or agree with them, but more so because so little thought went into them. I believe there is a place for non-violence, but in each case the question of non-violence was swiftly whisked aside and instead violence was defended, without even the tiniest reflection as to whether non-violence had any merit at all, or whether the more acceptable violent tactics were even working to better the lives of Palestinians or helping them to reach their goals. I mean, as I alluded to in my question from the first session, non-violent tactics worked for Gandhi against the British and for Martin Luther King, Jr. against the American government. Meanwhile, the Palestinians have been fighting the State of Israel with bombs and guns now for 60 years and their situation has only gotten worse. Again, I believe the cause is just, but how long will it be before new methods are used to fight for this cause, and how long will it be before non-violence gets a serious look, and not just reflexive rejections?

Taste the Reconciliation

Just before we went to Lebanon at the end of June about 18 months of struggle between Hezbollah and the Lebanese government--followed by a couple weeks of violent fighting in the streets of Beirut--ended. What brought an end to this struggle were talks initiated by Prince Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al Thani of Qatar, which were held in the capital of Qatar, Doha. The work of Qatar and the prince to help bring an end to the deadlock was not lost on the Lebanese people, and we saw signs all around Beirut thanking them for their involvement. Below are two of them.

This one says, "We all say thank you Qatar."

Even Haagen-Dazs got in on the act with a new marketing campaign, offering the "Doha Agreement Cone." It was tempting, if only to have the opportunity to say "I'll have the Doha Agreement Cone please," but we just took the picture instead. Tasting the reconciliation required spending more money than we were willing for ice cream.

Lebanon: Outside Beirut

Here are some pictures of our travels outside of Beirut.

Jounieh, north of Beirut.

The small port of Byblos, about 45 minutes north of Beirut, where we saw...

pomegranate trees...

backgammon played in the market area by some small Roman ruins...

beautiful gardens...

flowers...

and churches.

A stream south of Beirut.

The city of Sidon, about 25 minutes south of Beirut, where we saw...

the old souq, or market...

a jumble of wires...

and watermelons overflowing.

Lebanon: Beirut

Yesterday we returned home to Jordan after spending about one month in Beirut. We really enjoyed enjoyed our time in another Middle Eastern capital, and came away with two big impressions of the city.

For one, from both the 23rd floor of the apartment where we were staying and from street level too, the buildings of Beirut shows the scars of violence and civil war it has suffered over the last several decades. After a 15 year civil war that ended in 1990, heavy bombardment by Israel in 2006, and sporadic bouts of unrest and fighting between and since--including skirmishes downtown and in other areas just before we arrived--the city probably has not been able to revamp its infrastructure and keep up with general maintenance the way other cities can. For example, many buildings are still pocked with bullet holes from the civil war, with occasional severely damaged buildings still holding residents in the units that are still somewhat liveable. Although much of the damage has been cleaned up, the 2006 bombing campaign of Israel left empty lots where buildings once stood, the result of vacuum bombs that--after impact--created a hole in the ground and then sucked their target down into it. Also, the paint or stucco of many buildings is peeling or falling off, leaving the brick underneath exposed. Combined with the pollution that had turned many of the buildings a dirty black or grey, parts of the city just looked in need of a 2008 makeover.

One shouldn't have the impression that the whole city was like this, though. A lot of work has been done and is being done in the city, and many new buildings have been erected and others have been restored. We are just not used to seeing bullet riddled buildings and the like, so such images tend to stay with us.

Also, Beirut is also a much more liberal city than Amman, or perhaps it is better to say it is much less conservative. It was rare to see a woman wearing the hijab, and many women were wearing the same kinds of outfits one might see women wearing on hot summer days in Minneapolis. Matt wore shorts every day--men rarely wear shorts in Jordan--and Annamarie wore tank tops and skirts. Also, it was common to see men and women hanging out together, which--as we wrote in a previous post--does not happen much here. To us, this liberalism gave the city a more relaxed feel, and because the atmosphere was so different from Amman, gave our time a vacation-like feel. Here are some pictures.

Looking out from the 23rd floor.

From the boardwalk.

Translation: America is the head of terrorism.

The former Holiday Inn, used as a sniper position in the civil war.

Construction near the waterfront.

A restored building.

Restored area of downtown.

In the neighborhood where we stayed.

A mosque.