Juan, thanks you so much for the link to the article. It was interesting. It elides the violence that preceded 1936, but none-the-less it’s refreshing to see mention of Palestinian non-violent resistance. I had an interesting exchange with Al Ahram a about 9 years ago. They had an article about an Egyptian conference on the history non-violence, with special attention to the Muslim world (Pakistan, etc.). Curiously an exception was made for Israel. The rationale being that early non-violent resistance to the occupation was met with brute force from the IDF – apparently demonstrating the inability of non-violent resistance to stop Israel. The conference was able to both honor Gandhi and fail to understand him.
Anyway, as to my original question. Would you by any chance be able to point me in the direction of Palestinian condemnations of violence against Jews from a moral, human perspective. Not because it undermines the Palestinian national cause. Not the politicians’ obligatory “deaths on all sides are a shame.” But just because murdering commuters and diners is wrong even if they are Jewish. I believe those public letters must exist.
In any case, thanks for your first response and your original post. It was very nice to see a letter from people brave enough to publically call Israel out for its actions. I hope crazy nationalist South African Jews don’t try to stop them from attending their grandkids bar mitzvah’s like they did to Goldstone.
This is great to read. Thanks so much for posting. It’s probably comforting for Jews in smaller communities who oppose Israel’s policy to see that they are not alone. And to see that others oppose Israel without becoming the anti-Semitic caricature that Israel’s so-called defenders portray. Hard to open up a mainstream Jewish paper without hearing that every boycotter is a Hamas supporter. (Certainly, as you mention, Beinart’s been doing a great job.)
I’m wondering, have you come across any public letters coming from Palestinian communities outside Gaza (or inside) opposed to violence used against Israelis? From a moral perspective that violence is wrong, rather than because terror undermines the Palestinian cause. I would very much appreciate being pointed in that directions.
Soren, thanks for your interesting and cogent analysis of the Syrian situation. I wonder how the Syrian minorities will feel protected by an army that will undergo fundamental change in a post-Alawite Syria. I do have one question about your description of Israel versus the resistance alliance. You state the problem is the way Israel relates to them militarily. Do you think it’s possible that the positions of Hamas and Hezbollah concerning the near term or far term goal of eliminating Israel may also inform their relations? And perhaps the grotesque anti-Semitic rhetoric of their leaders informs the relationship? You seem to show an appreciation of the concerns of Syrian minorities. Perhaps you can understand that when the head of Hezbollah calls Jews “pigs” and “dogs” and hails their destruction this discourages peaceful resolution. Also it seems Iran has little interest in resolving the crisis and has done their best to support intransigence. Resistance yes, but perhaps more for Iran’s interest than Palestinian. Perhaps absolving either side just helps perpetuate the destructive dynamic and Palestinian suffering that has been in process for so long.
Andrew doesn't need to work very hard to bash Hamas. The head of Hamas refers to the murderer of thousands of people as a "holy warrior." When Hamas equates the killing of a mass murderer to general actions of the US that could be defined as "oppression" they do a disservice to anyone who opposes oppression in all its forms. And perhaps they provide a moment of pause for people who think they support them. Or at least some pople who think they support them.
The reports do say Osama was unarmed. They do not say he put up no resistance. It is reasonable to assume that given Osama's history the SEALS in his compound would be in a very wary state. since they valued their own lives I think we can presume that any movement that was not clearly aimed toward surrender would be interpreted as potentially violent. Perhaps Osama wanted it that way. who knows?
© 2025 All Rights Reserved
Juan, thanks you so much for the link to the article. It was interesting. It elides the violence that preceded 1936, but none-the-less it’s refreshing to see mention of Palestinian non-violent resistance. I had an interesting exchange with Al Ahram a about 9 years ago. They had an article about an Egyptian conference on the history non-violence, with special attention to the Muslim world (Pakistan, etc.). Curiously an exception was made for Israel. The rationale being that early non-violent resistance to the occupation was met with brute force from the IDF – apparently demonstrating the inability of non-violent resistance to stop Israel. The conference was able to both honor Gandhi and fail to understand him.
Anyway, as to my original question. Would you by any chance be able to point me in the direction of Palestinian condemnations of violence against Jews from a moral, human perspective. Not because it undermines the Palestinian national cause. Not the politicians’ obligatory “deaths on all sides are a shame.” But just because murdering commuters and diners is wrong even if they are Jewish. I believe those public letters must exist.
In any case, thanks for your first response and your original post. It was very nice to see a letter from people brave enough to publically call Israel out for its actions. I hope crazy nationalist South African Jews don’t try to stop them from attending their grandkids bar mitzvah’s like they did to Goldstone.
This is great to read. Thanks so much for posting. It’s probably comforting for Jews in smaller communities who oppose Israel’s policy to see that they are not alone. And to see that others oppose Israel without becoming the anti-Semitic caricature that Israel’s so-called defenders portray. Hard to open up a mainstream Jewish paper without hearing that every boycotter is a Hamas supporter. (Certainly, as you mention, Beinart’s been doing a great job.)
I’m wondering, have you come across any public letters coming from Palestinian communities outside Gaza (or inside) opposed to violence used against Israelis? From a moral perspective that violence is wrong, rather than because terror undermines the Palestinian cause. I would very much appreciate being pointed in that directions.
Soren, thanks for your interesting and cogent analysis of the Syrian situation. I wonder how the Syrian minorities will feel protected by an army that will undergo fundamental change in a post-Alawite Syria. I do have one question about your description of Israel versus the resistance alliance. You state the problem is the way Israel relates to them militarily. Do you think it’s possible that the positions of Hamas and Hezbollah concerning the near term or far term goal of eliminating Israel may also inform their relations? And perhaps the grotesque anti-Semitic rhetoric of their leaders informs the relationship? You seem to show an appreciation of the concerns of Syrian minorities. Perhaps you can understand that when the head of Hezbollah calls Jews “pigs” and “dogs” and hails their destruction this discourages peaceful resolution. Also it seems Iran has little interest in resolving the crisis and has done their best to support intransigence. Resistance yes, but perhaps more for Iran’s interest than Palestinian. Perhaps absolving either side just helps perpetuate the destructive dynamic and Palestinian suffering that has been in process for so long.
Andrew doesn't need to work very hard to bash Hamas. The head of Hamas refers to the murderer of thousands of people as a "holy warrior." When Hamas equates the killing of a mass murderer to general actions of the US that could be defined as "oppression" they do a disservice to anyone who opposes oppression in all its forms. And perhaps they provide a moment of pause for people who think they support them. Or at least some pople who think they support them.
The reports do say Osama was unarmed. They do not say he put up no resistance. It is reasonable to assume that given Osama's history the SEALS in his compound would be in a very wary state. since they valued their own lives I think we can presume that any movement that was not clearly aimed toward surrender would be interpreted as potentially violent. Perhaps Osama wanted it that way. who knows?
It would be interesting to read Abd Al-Bari Atwan's piece. Can you post a link?