IF tommorow the Palestinian people peacably protested in the street+did so for month

[Viking Berserk]

if the palestinians would fight hard for their freedom they may achieve it.

the israelian terrorists would kill innocents no mather what happens.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Viking Berserk
if the palestinians would fight hard for their freedom they may achieve it.

the israelian terrorists

[Ned]

Originally posted by Saint Marcus
Gandhi was all good and great, still the nation split into a muslim and hindu side, with violence on both sides till this very day. Sure he got his independence, but not an end to violence.

Saint Marcus, I never thought of Indian independence in this light. Viewed from the perspective of "non violence," the split between Muslim and Hindu India was a complete failure. I would even question whether it would be possible to for two countries to live in peace, side by side, if the Kashmir situation were resolved.

[Sikander]

Oh look, the stupid Vikings agree with each other!

[Saint Marcus]

Saint Marcus, I never thought of Indian independence in this light. Viewed from the perspective of "non violence," the split between Muslim and Hindu India was a complete failure. I would even question whether it would be possible to for two countries to live in peace, side by side, if the Kashmir situation were resolved.

I don't know if there was a sollution for that problem, but I do know Ghandi's ways weren't the answer. He did gain independence for India (though I'm sure that would have happened anyway, violent or non violent), but he did not end the violence. And still, to this very day the two sides are at eachother's throat.

Say Arafat did the same as Ghandi, and say he's just as succesful, then Palestine may have been independent, but hostilities wouldn't have ceased.

[Az]

I don't know if there was a sollution for that problem, but I do know Ghandi's ways weren't the answer. He did gain independence for India (though I'm sure that would have happened anyway, violent or non violent), but he did not end the violence. And still, to this very day the two sides are at eachother's throat.

Say Arafat did the same as Ghandi, and say he's just as succesful, then Palestine may have been independent, but hostilities wouldn't have ceased.

false example. Palestinians want to be independent from Israel.
Indians wanted to be independent from Britain, not from the muslims.

The non-violent approach created a state for the Indians.

this is another weird quote:

but the moral of the Ghandi story is: non-violence isn't the sole answer either. sadly. it appears people are too fond of violence and revenge.

how would violence against the Brits prevent the splitting of the country into it's muslim and hindu components?

[Ned]

Does anyone have any information as to why the Mulsims refused to be part of a democratic, sectarian India?

[Saint Marcus]

the Muslims didn't believe there would be a free, democratic, sectarian India. They feared the Muslim minority would be oppressed by a Hindu mayority.

[Saint Marcus]

The non-violent approach created a state for the Indians.

Two states. With frequent bursts of violence. It wasn't what Ghandi wanted.

false example. Palestinians want to be independent from Israel.

what about the Palestinians in Israel proper? Or the Jews in Palestine? If the country gets split in two, there would be minorities in both nations. Also, the status of Jerusalem would be heavily contested. It's very much the same between India and Pakistan, with their minorities and the status of Kashmer.

Non violence by Arafat may have helped in creating a free Palestine, but it wouldn't end the violence. Like in India, fighting between the various minorities against the majority would still take place. Also, there would most likely still be violence and tension in Jerusalem, since both sides still claim it. Furthermore, certain Muslims groups have sworn to conquer all of Israel.

Non violence by Arafat, and for a while by the people, may certainly have helped the Palestinian cause. However, the non violence it would be silence before the storm, and within a few years violence would resume, an independent Palestinian state or not.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Saint Marcus
the Muslims didn't believe there would be a free, democratic, sectarian India. They feared the Muslim minority would be oppressed by a Hindu mayority.

I assume the Indian government follows the British parliamentary system. Majority rules. In a Hindu India, this means that Hindu's would rule. I can see how this would be unacceptable per se to a religious minority.

Had they installed a Federal system with a constitution patterned on the US constitution that could not be amended without the consent of the Muslim states, the right to free exercise of religion would have been protected.

[TheStinger]

India is actually a cross between parlimentary and fedral systems. However whicever system you chose tehre was going to be religious violence

[TheStinger]

As soom as they realised the british would grant them independence they started on each other

[Saint Marcus]

I assume the Indian government follows the British parliamentary system. Majority rules. In a Hindu India, this means that Hindu's would rule. I can see how this would be unacceptable per se to a religious minority.

Had they installed a Federal system with a constitution patterned on the US constitution that could not be amended without the consent of the Muslim states, the right to free exercise of religion would have been protected.

No, it wasn't that. The Muslims didn't fear a democratic state with a Hindu mayority, they feared an Apartheid state with a Hindu mayority. They simply didn't believe an independent India would be a free and fair democracy, with the same rights for Muslims and Hindus alike. And a constitutions guaranteeing the rights of everyone would be nice and well, but in a fledling democracy in a third world culture, the possibility of a coup is ever present. The Muslims feared they would trade in a British oppressor for a Hindu oppressor.

[gsmoove23]

I'm sure Ghandi and MLK Jr would be spinning in their graves right now if they could see their political movements being used to attack oppressed people around the world. They were incredibly rare leaders with revolutionary ideas. It is certainly not a simple thing to tell people who are routinely being oppressed and have been for a long time(no matter what the reason this is the fact) that the answer is to turn the other cheek.

The peace movement in India only lasted long enough to get the British out, and in the states it had already begun to falter before MLK died, to be drowned out by the Black Power movements and the occasional riot. In Ireland I seem to remember someone attempting it with limited success.

The idea that palestinians would have peace tomorrow if the violence ended is as dreamy as the idea that violence would stop the day the occupation ended. For a peace movement to work the people need to see positive effects quickly or they will become disillusioned. Also, if there are people in the settlement communities, orthodox communities, IDF, Mossad or extremist arab groups who wouldn't want to see such a movement succeed, which I believe there are, it would be too vulnerable to them. Gunmen can be placed within demonstrations or it can simply be claimed that they were there. Strong leaders, which I believe such a movement would have to rely on, would also be vulnerable targets. Its just not realistic.

[Sirotnikov]

I believe it passed, did it not?

Yes they did, because they can't admit otherwise.

But they didn't want to state this statement.

A poll taken among likkud members showed that 85% of them think that the conflict would eventaully end with the creation of a Palestinian state (this even though they dislike the idea).

They aren't fools.