Search This Blog

Thursday, August 30, 2018

Civil resistance

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Anti-Trump protesters held "RESIST" sign at protest, San Francisco International Airport, Jan 29, 2017.

Civil resistance is political action that relies on the use of nonviolent resistance by civil groups to challenge a particular power, force, policy or regime. Civil resistance operates through appeals to the adversary, pressure and coercion: it can involve systematic attempts to undermine the adversary's sources of power, both domestic and international. Forms of action have included demonstrations, vigils and petitions; strikes, go-slows, boycotts and emigration movements; and sit-ins, occupations, and the creation of parallel institutions of government. Civil resistance movements' motivations for avoiding violence are generally related to context, including a society's values and its experience of war and violence, rather than to any absolute ethical principle. Cases of civil resistance can be found throughout history and in many modern struggles, against both tyrannical rulers and democratically elected governments. The phenomenon of civil resistance is often associated with the advancement of democracy.

Historical examples

Moscow, 19 August 1991: Boris Yeltsin, President of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic, standing on top of a tank in front of the building of the RSFSR's Council of Ministers and reading a statement urging people to resist the attempted coup d’état. Two days later, following extensive civil resistance, the coup, which had been aimed at restoring the old-style communist system, collapsed. The Soviet Union itself dissolved in December 1991.

Civil resistance is a long-standing and widespread phenomenon in human history. Several works on civil resistance adopt a historical approach to the analysis of the subject. Cases of civil resistance, both successful and unsuccessful, include:
Egypt, 25 January 2011: marchers in Cairo with ‘OUT’ signs on the 'Day of Anger' against President Mubarak. On 11 February he left office.
Numerous other campaigns, both successful and unsuccessful, could be included in a longer listing. In 1967 Gene Sharp produced a list of 84 cases. He followed this with further surveys. In 2013 Maciej Bartkowski authored a long list of cases in the past 200 years, arranged alphabetically by country.

Effectiveness

It is not easy to devise a method of proving the relative success of different methods of struggle. Often there are problems in identifying a given campaign as successful or otherwise. In 2008 Maria J. Stephan and Erica Chenoweth produced Why Civil Resistance Works, the most thorough and detailed analysis of the rate of success of civil resistance campaigns, as compared to violent resistance campaigns. After looking at over 300 cases of both types of campaign, from 1900 to 2006, they concluded that "nonviolent resistance methods are likely to be more successful than violent methods in achieving strategic objectives". Their article noted particularly that "resistance campaigns that compel loyalty shifts among security forces and civilian bureaucrats are likely to succeed".

The evidence of several of the 2011 uprisings, on the other hand, appears to provide contrasting pathways by which this logic may fail to materialise, with splits in the armed forces contributing towards civil war in Libya and Syria, and a shift in armed forces loyalty in Egypt failing to contribute towards enduring democratic reform. Criticisms of the central thesis of Why Civil Resistance Works have included:
  1. Forming judgements about whether a campaign is a success or failure is inherently difficult: the answer may depend on the time-frame used, and on necessarily subjective judgments about what constitutes success. Some of the authors' decisions on this are debatable. Similar difficulties arise in deciding whether a campaign is violent or non-violent, when on the ground both strategies may co-exist in several ways.
  2. Regimes transitioning from autocracy to democracy tend to be highly unstable, so an initial success for a movement may be followed by a more general failure.
  3. Perhaps, more generally, sufficient account is not taken of the possibility that violence often takes place in circumstances that were already violent and chaotic, stacking the odds against any successful outcome for violence.

Reasons for choosing to use civil resistance

Aung San Suu Kyi, Burmese pro-democracy leader, greeting supporters from Bago State, Burma, 14 August 2011. She has stated that she was attracted to non-violent civil resistance, not on moral grounds, but "on practical political grounds". Photo: Htoo Tay Zar

Some leaders of civil resistance struggles have urged the use of non-violent methods for primarily ethical reasons, while others have emphasized practical considerations. Some have indicated that both of these types of factor have to be taken into account – and that they necessarily overlap.
In his chapter on "Pilgrimage to Nonviolence" Martin Luther King gave a notably multi-faceted account of the various considerations, experiences and influences that constituted his "intellectual odyssey to nonviolence". By 1954 this had led to the intellectual conviction that "nonviolent resistance was one of the most potent weapons available to oppressed people in their quest for social justice."

Some have opted for civil resistance when they were in opposition to the government, but then have later, when in government, adopted or accepted very different policies and methods of action. For example, in one of her BBC Reith Lectures, first broadcast in July 2011, Aung San Suu Kyi, the pro-democracy campaigner in Myanmar (formerly Burma), stated: "Gandhi's teachings on non-violent civil resistance and the way in which he had put his theories into practice have become part of the working manual of those who would change authoritarian administrations through peaceful means. I was attracted to the way of non-violence, but not on moral grounds, as some believe. Only on practical political grounds." Subsequently, as State Counsellor of Myanmar from 2016 onwards, she incurred much criticism, especially in connection with the failure to prevent, and to condemn, the killings and expulsions of the Rohingya people in Rakhine State.

Relationship to other forms of power

The experience of civil resistance suggests that it can at least partially replace other forms of power. Some have seen civil resistance as offering, potentially, a complete alternative to power politics. The core vision is of non-violent methods replacing armed force in many or all of its forms.

Several writers, while sharing the vision of civil resistance as progressively overcoming the use of force, have warned against a narrowly instrumental view of non-violent action. For example, Joan V. Bondurant, a specialist on the Gandhian philosophy of conflict, indicated concern about "the symbolic violence of those who engage in conflict with techniques which they, at least, perceive to be nonviolent." She saw Gandhian satyagraha as a form of "creative conflict" and as "contrasted both to violence and to methods not violent or just short of violence".

It is generally difficult in practice to separate out entirely the use of civil resistance and power-political considerations of various kinds. One frequently-encountered aspect of this problem is that regimes facing opposition taking the form of civil resistance often launch verbal attacks on the opposition in terms designed to suggest that civil resistance is simply a front for more sinister forces. It has sometimes been attacked as being planned and directed from abroad, and as intimately connected to terrorism, imperialism, communism etc. A classic case was the Soviet accusation that the 1968 Prague Spring, and the civil resistance after the Soviet-led invasion of August 1968, were the result of Western machinations. Similarly, President Bashar al-Assad of Syria, in March 2011, accused "enemies" of using "very sophisticated tools" to undermine Syria's stability; and President Vladimir Putin of Russia, in speeches in 2014, described events in Ukraine and the Arab countries as foreign-influenced. Such accusations of sinister power-political involvement are often presented without convincing evidence.

There can be some more plausible connections between civil resistance and other forms of power. Although civil resistance can sometimes be a substitute for other forms of power, it can also operate in conjunction with them. Such conjunction is never problem-free. Michael Randle has identified a core difficulty regarding strategies that seek to combine the use of violent and non-violent methods in the same campaign: "The obvious problem about employing a mixed strategy in the course of an actual struggle is that the dynamics of military and civil resistance are at some levels diametrically opposed to each other." However, the connections between civil resistance and other forms of power are not limited to the idea of a "mixed strategy". They can assume many forms. Eight ways in which civil resistance can in practice relate to other forms of power are identified here, with examples in each case:
  1. Civil resistance is often a response to changes in constellations of power. Leaders of civil resistance campaigns have often been acutely aware of power-political developments, both domestic and international. In some countries there has been a growth of civil opposition after, and perhaps in part because of, an occupying or colonial state's internal political turmoil or setbacks in war: for example, this was a key factor in the Finnish struggle of 1898–1905 against Russian control.[22] In other countries the problems faced by their own armed forces, whether against conventional armies or guerrillas, played some part in the development of civil resistance: for example, in the People Power Revolution in the Philippines in 1983–86.
  2. Civil resistance campaigns frequently lead to a situation of partial stalemate, in which negotiation between civil resisters and those in positions of governmental power is perceived as essential. Hence, "round table talks" were critically important in the Indian independence struggle up to 1947, in Solidarity's campaign in Poland up to 1989, and in Ukraine in 2004.
  3. The relation between civil resistance and the military coup d'état can be especially multi-faceted. In some cases a civil resistance campaign has been an effective response to a military coup.[25] In other cases a campaign could succeed in its final objective—e.g. the removal of a hated regime—only when there was the reality or the threat of a military coup to bring about the desired change. Thus, the 1963 Buddhist crisis in South Vietnam a long civil resistance campaign against the government resulted in change only when the South Vietnamese army coup of 1–2 November 1963 toppled President Ngo Dinh Diem. In Egypt in June–July 2013, a civil resistance movement in effect called for a military coup: peaceful demonstrators and a petition supported by millions of signatures demanded the replacement of the elected Muslim Brotherhood government, and provided a degree of revolutionary legitimacy for the army take-over of 3 July 2013. At least one non-violent campaign, the Revolution of the Carnations in Portugal in 1974–75, was in support of a military coup that had already occurred: this campaign helped to steer Portugal in a democratic direction.
  4. Some non-violent campaigns can be seen as reluctant or unwitting harbingers of violence. They may be followed by the emergence of groups using armed force and/or by military intervention from outside the territory concerned. This can happen if, for example, they (a) are perceived as failures, or (b) are repressed with extreme violence, or (c) succeed in removing a regime but then leave a power vacuum in its place. Processes of the first two of these kinds happened, for example, in Northern Ireland in 1967–72 and in Kosovo in the 1990s. Processes of the third kind, involving some forms of power vacuum, included Libya from 2011 onwards, and Yemen from 2012 onwards. The possibility of such developments can be an inducement to a government to bargain with a non-violent movement before things get out of hand. However, in several countries in the Middle East and North Africa in 2011 and after, campaigns by civil resistance movements were followed by violent internal conflict and civil war, often with the involvement of external forces: Syria is the most tragic case.

  1. Václav Havel, impresario of civil resistance in the years leading up to the 1989 Velvet Revolution. In April 1991, as President of post-Communist Czechoslovakia, he praised the NATO military alliance; and on 12 March 1999 the Czech Republic (with Havel still as President) joined the alliance. He is seen here on 26 September 2000. Photo: IMF
  2. There have also been some cases of certain uses of force by civil resistance movements, whether against their adversaries, or to maintain internal discipline. For example, on 2 February 2011, in the generally peaceful Egyptian struggle against President Mubarak, some groups among the crowds in Tahrir Square in Cairo did use certain forms of force for a defensive purpose when they were attacked by pro-regime thugs, some of whom were riding on horses and camels. In the subsequent days the crowds in Tahrir Square reverted to using non-violent methods.
  3. Some civil resistance movements have sought, or welcomed, a measure of armed protection for their activities. Thus in the American civil rights movement of the 1960s, the Freedom Ride of May 1961, having been opposed violently, received armed protection for part of its hazardous journey; and the Selma to Montgomery March of March 1965 only succeeded in reaching Montgomery, Alabama, at the third attempt, when it was protected by troops and federal agents.
  4. Some campaigns of civil resistance may depend up the existence of militarily defended space. A life-saving example of an effective civil resistance enabling threatened people to reach a defended space occurred with the Rescue of the Danish Jews in 1943 when thousands of Jews were spirited out of German-occupied Denmark and across a narrow stretch of sea (the Sound) to Sweden.
  5. When leaders of even the most determinedly non-violent movements have come to power in their countries, they have generally accepted the continued existence of armed forces and other more or less conventional security arrangements. For example, in 1991 Václav Havel who had been a leading figure in civil resistance in communist Czechoslovakia from the founding of Charter 77 to the Velvet Revolution of 1989, in his new capacity as President of the Czech and Slovak Federative Republic paid tribute to the NATO alliance. On 12 March 1999 the Czech Republic, along with Poland and Hungary, became a member of NATO.

Proposals for defence by civil resistance

The promise of civil resistance as a means of opposing oppressive rule has led to many proposals that countries might rely, in whole or in part, on civil resistance as a means of defence against external attack (for example, invasion) and internal usurpation (for example, coup d'état). Preparations for such resistance are sometimes seen as potentially helping to deter such threats in the first place. Various terms have been used to describe either the policy of relying on such non-military action by a society or social group, or the general phenomenon of sustained country-wide campaigns against outside attack or dictatorial rule. These terms - all near-synonyms - include "defence by civil resistance", "non-violent defence", "civilian defence", "civilian-based defence", and "social defence". For further information and references to some relevant literature, see social defence.

The term "civil resistance": merits and concerns

Gandhi in South Africa in about 1906–1909. Referring to his years there, he later wrote: "... I found that even civil disobedience failed to convey the full meaning of the struggle. I therefore adopted the phrase civil resistance."

The term is not new. Gandhi used it in many of his writings. In 1935 he wrote: "... I found that even civil disobedience failed to convey the full meaning of the struggle. I therefore adopted the phrase civil resistance." It is a near-synonym for nonviolent resistance, civil disobedience, people power and satyagraha. While each of these terms has its uses and connotations, "civil resistance" is one appropriate term to use in cases where the resistance has a civic quality, relating to a society as a whole; where the action involved is not necessarily disobedience, but instead involves supporting the norms of a society against usurpers; where the decision not to use violent methods is not based on a general philosophy of nonviolence, but on a wide range of prudential, ethical and legal considerations; and where the technical and communications infrastructure of modern civil societies provides a means of organizing resistance. Because of such considerations, the term has been used in this century in many analyses in academic journals.

What exactly are the advantages of the term "civil resistance", as distinct from its near-synonyms "non-violent action" and "non-violent resistance"? All these terms have merits, and refer to largely the same phenomena. Indeed, there is a long history, in many languages, of using a wide variety of terms to describe these phenomena. The term "civil resistance" has been used increasingly for two main reasons:
  1. It emphasises the positive (civic goals; widespread civil society involvement; and civil as distinct from uncivil conduct) rather than the negative (avoidance of the use of violence).
  2. It conveys, more effectively perhaps than such terms as "nonviolent resistance", that a movement's avoidance of violence in pursuit of a particular cause is not necessarily tied to a general belief in "nonviolence" in all circumstances, nor to a philosophy of "Gandhism", but rather arises from the particular values and circumstances of the society concerned.
There have been concerns that the term "civil resistance" might on occasion be misused, or at least stretched in a highly controversial way, to encompass acts of violence. Thus, arising from experience within the anti-globalization movement, one participant-observer has seen "new forms of civil resistance" as being associated with a problematic departure from a previously more widely shared commitment to maintaining non-violent discipline. Because of these concerns, those who have used the term "civil resistance" have tended to emphasise its non-violent character, and to use it in addition to – and not in substitution of – such terms as "non-violent resistance".
at

Pan-Arabism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
The Arab world
 
Pan-Arabism, or simply Arabism, is an ideology espousing the unification of the countries of North Africa and West Asia from the Atlantic Ocean to the Arabian Sea, referred to as the Arab world. It is closely connected to Arab nationalism, which asserts that the Arabs constitute a single nation. Its popularity was at its height during the 1950s and 1960s. Advocates of pan-Arabism have often espoused socialist principles and strongly opposed Western political involvement in the Arab world. It also sought to empower Arab states against outside forces by forming alliances and – to a lesser extent – economic co-operation.

Origins and development

The origins of pan-Arabism are often attributed to Jurji Zaydan (1861–1914) and his Nahda (Revival) movement. He was one of the first intellectuals to espouse pan-Arabism as a cultural nationalist force. Zaydan had critical influence on acceptance of a modernized version of the Quranic Arabic language (Modern Standard Arabic) as the universal written and official language throughout the Arab world, instead of adoption of local dialects in the various countries. Zaydan wrote several articles during the early 20th century which emphasized that Arabic-speaking regions stretching from the Maghreb to Persian Gulf constitute one people with a shared national consciousness and that this linguistic bond trumped religious, racial and specific territorial bonds, inspired in part by his status as a Levantine Christian emigre in 19th century Egypt. He also popularized through his historical novels a secular understanding of Arab history encompassing the pre-Islamic and Islamic periods into a shared history that all Arabs could claim as their own. As a political project, Pan-Arabism was first pressed by Sharif Hussein ibn Ali, the Sharif of Mecca, who sought independence for the Mashreq Arabs from the Ottoman Empire, and the establishment of a unified Arab state in the Mashreq. In 1915 and 1916, the Hussein-McMahon Correspondence resulted in an agreement between the United Kingdom and the Sharif that if the Mashreq Arabs revolted successfully against the Ottomans, the United Kingdom would support claims for Mashreq Arab independence. In 1916, however, the Sykes-Picot Agreement between the United Kingdom and France determined that parts of the Mashreq would be divided between those powers rather than forming part of an independent Arab state. When the Ottoman Empire surrendered in 1918, the United Kingdom refused to keep to the letter of its arrangements with Hussein,[2] and the two nations assumed guardianship of Mesopotamia, Lebanon, Palestine and what became modern Syria. Ultimately, Hussein became King of only Hijaz, in the then less strategically valuable south, but lost his Caliphate throne when the kingdom was sacked by the Najdi Ikhwan forces of the Saudites and forcefully incorporated into the newly created Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

A more formalized pan-Arab ideology than that of Hussein was first espoused in the 1930s, notably by Syrian thinkers such as Constantin Zureiq, Sati' al-Husri, Zaki al-Arsuzi, and Michel Aflaq. Aflaq and al-Arsuzi were key figures in the establishment of the Arab Ba’ath (Renaissance) Party, and the former was for long its chief ideologist, combining elements of Marxist thought with a nationalism to a considerable extent reminiscent of nineteenth-century European romantic nationalism. It has been said that Arsuzi was fascinated with the Nazi ideology of "racial purity" and impacted Aflaq.

Abdullah I of Jordan dreamed of uniting Syria, Palestine, and Jordan under his leadership in what he would call Greater Syria. He unsuccessfully proposed a plan to this effect to the United Kingdom, which controlled Palestine at that time. The plan was not popular among the majority of Arabs and fostered distrust among the leaders of the other Middle Eastern countries against Abdallah. The distrust of Abdallah's expansionist aspirations was one of the principal reasons for the founding of the Arab League in 1945.[6] Once Abdallah was assassinated by a Palestinian nationalist in 1951, the vision of Greater Syria was dropped from the Jordanian agenda.

Although pan-Arabism began at the time of World War I, Egypt (the most populous and arguably most important Arabic-speaking country) was not interested in pan-Arabism prior to the 1950s. Thus, in the 1930s and 1940s, Egyptian nationalism – not pan-Arabism – was the dominant mode of expression of Egyptian political activists. James Jankowski wrote about Egypt at the time,
What is most significant is the absence of an Arab component in early Egyptian nationalism. The thrust of Egyptian political, economic, and cultural development throughout the nineteenth century worked against, rather than for, an 'Arab' orientation. ... This situation—that of divergent political trajectories for Egyptians and Arabs—if anything increased after 1900.

Attempts at Arab union

It was not until Gamal Abdel Nasser that Arab nationalism (in addition to Arab socialism) became a state policy and a means with which to define Egypt's position in the Middle East and the world,[8][9] usually articulated vis-à-vis Zionism in the neighbouring state of Israel.

Under Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser, pan-Arabism dominated politics in the 1950s and 1960s

There have been several attempts to bring about a pan-Arab state by many well-known Arab leaders, all of which ultimately resulted in failure. British Foreign Minister Anthony Eden called for Arab unity during the 1940s, and was followed by specific proposals from pro-British leaders, including King Abdullah of Transjordan and Prime Minister Nuri al-Said of Iraq, but Egyptian proposals for a broader grouping of independent Arab states prevailed with the establishment of the League of Arab States, a regional international organization, in 1945. In large part representing the popularity Nasser had gained among the masses in the Arab world following the Suez crisis, the United Arab Republic (UAR) in 1958 was the first case of the actual merger of two previously-independent Arab countries. Hastily formed under President Nasser's leadership but on the initiative of Syrian leaders who feared a takeover by communists or "reactionaries" and hoped to lead the new entity, the UAR was a unitary state, not a federal union, with its critics seeing this as hardly more than a small country being annexed by a larger one. It lasted until 1961, when Syrian army officers carried out a coup d'état and withdrew from the union. As politicians felt pressured by the wide public to espouse the idea of unity, Egypt, Syria and Iraq entered into an abortive agreement in 1963 to form the United Arab Republic, which was to be "federal in structure, leaving each member state its identity and institutions." By 1961, Egypt had become the only remaining member but continued to call itself "the UAR" (thereby implying it was open for unification with other Arab countries), but it eventually renamed itself the "Arab Republic of Egypt" in 1973.

Also in 1958, a Hashemite-led rival, the Arab Federation, was founded between Jordan and Iraq. Tensions with the UAR and the 14 July Revolution made the Arab Federation collapse after only six months. Another attempt, the United Arab States, existed as a confederation between the United Arab Republic, Arab Federation and the Mutawakkilite Kingdom of Yemen, but it dissolved in 1961.

Two later attempts represented the enthusiasm of Libya's Muammar Gaddafi, the Federation of Arab Republics, which lasted five years, and the Arab Islamic Republic, which never emerged in practice. Aside from the forcible unification of much of the Arabian Peninsula by the Saudi rulers of Najd during the 1920s, the unity of seven Arab emirates that form the United Arab Emirates and the unification of North Yemen and South Yemen stand today as rare examples of actual unification. The current Syrian government is and the former government of Iraq was led by rival factions of the Ba'ath Party, which continues to espouse pan-Arabism and is organized in several other countries.

Decline

States and territories in the Arab League

The Arab defeat by Israel in the 1967 Six-Day War and the inability of pan-Arabist governments to generate economic growth severely damaged the credibility of pan-Arabism as a relevant ideology. "By the mid-1970s," according to The Continuum Political Encyclopedia of the Middle East, "the idea of Arab unity became less and less apparent in Arab politics, though it remained a wishful goal among the masses."

Egyptians' attachment to pan-Arabism was particularly questioned after the Six-Day War. Nasser had overplayed his hand in trying to form a pan-Arab hegemony under himself. Thousands of Egyptians had lost their lives, and the country became disillusioned with Arab politics. The Camp David Accords between Egypt and Israel in 1978 further fractured the Arabic-speaking countries. Nasser's successor Anwar Sadat, both through public policy and his peace initiative with Israel, revived an uncontested Egyptian orientation, unequivocally asserting that only Egypt and Egyptians were his responsibility. The terms Arab, Arabism, and Arab unity became conspicuously absent.

By the late 1980s, pan-Arabism began to be eclipsed by both nationalist and Islamist ideologies.
Egyptian critics of Arab nationalism contend that it has worked to erode and relegate native Egyptian identity by superimposing only one aspect of Egypt's culture. Those views and sources for collective identification in the Egyptian state are captured in the words of a linguistic anthropologist who conducted fieldwork in Cairo:
Historically, Egyptians have considered themselves as distinct from 'Arabs' and even at present rarely do they make that identification in casual contexts; il-'arab [the Arabs] as used by Egyptians refers mainly to the inhabitants of the Gulf states... Egypt has been both a leader of pan-Arabism and a site of intense resentment towards that ideology. Egyptians had to be made, often forcefully, into "Arabs" [during the Nasser era] because they did not historically identify themselves as such. Egypt was self-consciously a nation not only before pan-Arabism but also before becoming a colony of the British Empire. Its territorial continuity since ancient times, its unique history as exemplified in its pharaonic past and later on its Coptic language and culture, had already made Egypt into a nation for centuries. Egyptians saw themselves, their history, culture and language as specifically Egyptian and not "Arab."
at

Peace Now

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Peace Now
Peace Now logo.svg
Founded 1978; 40 years ago
Founders Amos Oz
Amir Peretz
Yuli Tamir
Tzaly Reshef
Janet Aviad
Gavri Bargil
Galia Golan
Avshalom Vilan
Type Non-profit
NGO
Focus Two-state solution to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict
Location
Area served
Israel and the Israeli-occupied territories
Method "public campaigns, advertisements, petitions, distribution of educational materials, conferences, lectures, surveys, dialogue groups, street activities, vigils, and demonstrations."
Members
over 10,000
Key people
 Avi Buskila (Director)
Yariv Oppenheimer (Secretary)
Hagit Ofran (Settlement Watch Director)
Website peacenow.org.il/eng 

Peace Now (Hebrew: שלום עכשיו‬ Shalom Achshav, IPA: [ʃaˈlom (ʔ)aχˈʃav]) is a non-governmental organization, "liberal advocacy", and activist group in Israel with the aim of promoting a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Objectives/positions

  • Two states for two nations — Israel and Palestine
  • A Palestinian state alongside the State of Israel, based on the borders of June 1967 with land swaps agreed upon by both sides
  • Jerusalem — In an official document from 1982 Peace Now advocated for an undivided Jerusalem as Israel's capital. It has since shifted its position to two capitals for two states – a solution based on demographic breakdowns with a special agreement for the Old City.
  • Peace with Syria — A peace agreement based on secure and recognized borders, and the regulation of relations between the two countries is the primary strategic issue for the people of Israel and Syria.
  • Beginning negotiations with Syria is a gateway to negotiations with Lebanon and will help create a new international mood in the region.
  • Peace Now views the settlements as a threat to the existence of Israel as a democratic and Jewish state.
  • Peace Now views the settlements as a main obstacle to any future peace agreement.
  • Peace Now views the settlements as an element that harms the State of Israel on many fronts: security, economically, morally, and culturally.
  • Peace Now views the settlements as harmful to Israel's standing in the international community.

Origins

The open Officers' Letter presented to the Prime Minister of Israel calling upon his government to normalise relations with Egypt.
 
Peace Now was formed during the 1978 Israeli-Egyptian peace talks between Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin and Egyptian President Anwar Sadat at a time when the talks looked close to collapse.

348 reserve officers and soldiers from Israeli army combat units published an open letter to the Prime Minister of Israel in which they called for the Israeli government not to squander the historic opportunity for peace between the two nations. The officers realised that Israel could not retain its Jewish-democratic nature whilst it continued to perpetuate its rule over one million Arabs. They concluded that Israel's security needs could only be met by the attainment of peace between Israel and its neighbours via a negotiated agreement. Subsequently, tens of thousands of Israelis petitioned the Israeli government in support of the letter, and as a result the movement known as Peace Now was born.

Early activism

Peace Now again came to prominence following Israel's 1982 Invasion of Lebanon, and in particular the massacre of Palestinian refugees by Christian Lebanese Phalangists at the Israeli controlled Sabra and the Shatila refugee camp. On 25 September 1982 Peace Now held a mass protest in Tel Aviv in order to pressure the government to establish a national inquiry commission to investigate the massacres, as well as calling for the resignation of the Defence Minister Ariel Sharon. Peace Now's 1982 demonstration was attended by 400,000 people, approximately 10% of Israel's population at the time.

Subsequently, the Israeli government established the Kahan Commission on 28 September 1982. Four months later the commission found Israel to be indirectly responsible for the massacres, and recommended Ariel Sharon's resignation.

Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin at first refused to adopt the Kahan Commission's recommendations. Consequently, Peace Now decided to hold a demonstration on 10 February 1983 that marched from Zion Square towards the Prime Minister's residence in Jerusalem in order to pressure the government to do so.

Emil Grunzweig

In the wake of the Sabra and Shatila massacre, Peace Now led a march from Zion Square and moved towards the Prime Ministers' Office in Jerusalem on 10 February 1983. During the march Peace Now demonstrators encountered a group of right-wing activists. In the ensuing confrontation, Yona Avrushmi tossed a hand-grenade into the crowd, killing Emil Grunzweig, a prominent Peace Now activist, and injuring several others.

Yona Avrushmi was duly arrested, convicted of murder and given a mandatory life sentence, which was commuted to 27 years by President Ezer Weizman in 1995. Avrushmi was released on 26 January 2011.
As a result of mounting public pressure on Menachem Begin to adopt the Kahan Commission's recommendations Ariel Sharon agreed to step down as Defence Minister. However, he remained in the government as a minister without portfolio.

Peace Now and the First Intifada (1987–1993)

In 1988 Yasser Arafat (Chairman of the PLO) publicly accepted United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 at the PNC in Algiers. For the first time, Yasser Arafat accepted Israel's existence according to its borders set out in United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181, and rejected and condemned the use of terrorism in all its forms. In reaction Peace Now led a demonstration of more than 100,000 people, calling for immediate Israeli-Palestinian negotiations for the purposes of attaining peace between the two parties. Following this, Peace Now led the Hands Around Jerusalem event, in which 25,000 Israelis and Palestinians linked hands to encircle the walls of the Old City of Jerusalem in a chain of peace.
 
In part due to the Israeli-Palestinian discourse engendered by Peace Now and its activists, Israeli Prime Minister Yitzchak Rabin and Yasser Arafat succeeded in signing the Declaration of Principles/Oslo Accords on the lawn of the White House on 13 September 1993. Peace Now was the first Israeli organisation to meet with the PLO, at a time when such an undertaking was deemed illegal by the Israeli government.

The signing of the Oslo accords marked a milestone in Israeli-Palestinian relations, as for the first time both peoples recognised their counterpart's right to exist. Furthermore, the Oslo Peace Process was initiated; this process was a framework for future negotiations which aimed to resolve the Israel-Palestine conflict within a five-year period according to the logic of the 'two state solution', as set out in UN General Assembly Resolution 181.

Peace Now supported the Oslo Accords, and since then it has called upon all Israeli administrations to date to adhere to the terms of interim agreements which were agreed upon as part of the Oslo Peace Process.

Peace Now and the Second Intifada (2000–2005)

Since the outbreak of the violent Second Intifada in December 2000, Peace Now has arguably lost a certain degree of the Israeli public's support. While the First Intifada was largely a popular movement on the part of the Palestinian public, the Second Intifada consisted of far more violent confrontations between Palestinian militants and the IDF, Israeli settlers within the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, and Israeli civilians. According to the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 132 Israeli individuals were killed by Palestinian militant bomb/suicide attacks within Israel proper between 2000 and 2004.
Despite the arguable decline in the Israeli public's support for the Oslo Peace Process, Peace Now succeeded in leading a demonstration of between 60,000 to 100,000 in May 2002, after Israeli military forces began on March 29 a large-scale military Operation Defensive Shield in the West Bank and as Prime Minister Ariel Sharon was mobilizing reserve forces for a possible military invasion of Gaza. The demonstration was held under the banner "Get Out of The Territories". According to "Peace Now" itself, shortly after the outbreak of the Second Intifada, it was instrumental in creating the Israeli Peace Coalition, which later evolved into the Israeli-Palestine Peace Coalition. Its main objective is to end the Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands, and to achieve a just, lasting and comprehensive peace based on a two-state solution.

Israel's unilateral disengagement from the Gaza Strip

Peace Now was a key advocate of Israel's 2004 Disengagement Plan. Peace Now led the 'Mate ha-Rov' ("majority camp") demonstration on 14 May 2004 in Tel Aviv, in order to pressure the Israeli government to adopt the Disengagement Plan. However, support for the Disengagement Plan faced contention within the Peace Now camp over its unilateral nature. Peace Now decided it was most important for Israel to withdraw from the Gaza Strip, regardless of the manner in which this withdrawal was to take place.

Settlement Watch

Settlement activity

Settlement Watch's map showing settlements in the West Bank

One of the most important activities of Peace Now is its ongoing Settlement Watch project which monitors and protests against the building of Jewish settlements in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem. Dror Aktes headed this committee until 2007 when he was replaced by Hagit Ofran. The project focuses on the following issues with regards to the settlements:-
  • Physical development – Where and why are there construction and expansion activities connected to the settlements or their residents? And what are the short- and long-term implications of these activities?
  • Economy – How much do the settlements cost and who is paying for them?
  • Demography – How many settlers and how many Palestinians live in the territories? What are the demographic trends that can be pointed out today?
  • Proper management – How are decisions regarding construction and development made? What elements are responsible for planning and for the enforcement of the construction laws and regulations in the territories?
  • Environmental implications – What are the environmental implications of the settlements and the continued construction that is being undertaken there?
Peace Now's Settlement Watch project has resulted in the following developments:-
  • Amona (2005) - Peace Now motioned to the Supreme Court demanding the evacuation of the settlement in Amona. Their motion was accepted and the settlement was evacuated by security forces several months later.
  • A decision, never implemented, to remove of all illegal West Bank settlements (March 2011) - Following a petition submitted by Peace Now to the Israeli Supreme Court, Benyamin Netanyahu's government ordered that the state dismantle all illegal West Bank outposts built on private Palestinian land by the end of 2011.
  • Migron (ongoing)- Following a petition to the Israeli Supreme Court by Peace Now, the state was ordered to dismantle Migron, the largest illegal settlement outpost in the West Bank, by April 2012. This was key as this was the first time the Supreme Court had ordered the Israeli state to dismantle an outpost in the West Bank.
Similarly, the movement continues activity on the ground in support of evacuation through demonstrations, vigils and other campaign activity. Activities include:-
  • Updates on settlement expansion by means of aerial photography/ground surveys
  • Publication of figures to the public and decision makers in Israel as well as around the world (American government officials often rely on data presented by Peace Now to assess the nature of Israel's various settlement programs)
  • Submission of cases to the court to evacuate outposts in the West Bank.
  • Formulation and dissemination of maps/media reports (in English and Hebrew) on a tri-annual basis showing contemporaneous settlement activity in the West Bank.

Wikileaks

According to leaked documents released by WikiLeaks in April 2011, Peace Now has regularly updated both the U.S. government and the Israeli Ministry of Defense on ongoing settlement construction in the West Bank. The documents indicate that the Defence Ministry used Peace Now's services to monitor West Bank settlement construction. In 2006, Peace Now director Yariv Oppenheimer reportedly urged the U.S. to pressure Israel into evacuating West Bank outposts, according to a leaked U.S. diplomatic cable. Oppenheimer was quoted as saying that Israel might "evacuate a few outposts to show the U.S. that it is doing something, but in exchange it is trying to co-opt the settlers by retroactively approving some outposts and giving them a freer hand in building in the West Bank."

2006 settlement report

In a report issued in November 2006, Peace Now wrote that 38.8 percent of the land set aside for Israeli settlements, outposts and industrial land in the West Bank was privately owned by Palestinians. This included 86.4 percent of the land set aside for Ma'ale Adumim and 35.1 percent of Ariel's land. After successfully appealing to a court for access to a government database operated by the Israeli Civil Administration, Peace Now reduced its overall estimate to 32.4 percent and the estimate for Ma'ale Adumim to 0.5 percent. A spokesman for the Civil Administration replied that the new report was still "inaccurate in many places".

Outreach

Israel Student Campus Project

Peace Now seeks to educate the Israeli youth on the nature of, and solution to, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In order to achieve this, the organisation
  • leads a series of open debates and 6-week 'peace courses' on campuses throughout Israel
  • distributes brochures, maps and other such literature to students on campuses
  • conducts monthly tours for students across the West Bank, including East Jerusalem
  • sponsors and directs annual 'Dialogue Workshops' with Palestinian students.

Internet campaigns

Peace Now seeks to promote its various causes via an active presence on such social networking sites as Facebook. Against the background of the 'Boycott Laws' which were being passed through the Knesset in July 2011, the popular Israeli internet site 'Horim B’reshet' made a survey of the most popular Israeli protest Facebook pages, of which Peace Now's page ranked 5th.

West Bank tours for opinion-makers

Peace Now aims to educate leading decision makers on the perceived counterproductive effects the settlements have on the attainment of the two-state solution.

One such tour was conducted by Peace Now in August 2009 and attended by such figures as MKs Ophir Pines-Paz (Labor), Daniel Ben-Simon (Labor) and Chaim Oron (Meretz Chairman).

Demonstrations/rallies

Peace Now at the Rabin memorial rally in Rabin Square, 1 November 2014
 
Peace Now organises demonstrations and rallies in support of peace and human rights:

The Peace Kids, a mural affiliated with Peace Now in Tel Aviv depicting Palestinian Handala and Israeli Srulik embracing one another.
  • Rally Against Racism (26 February 2011) - Peace Now joined 1,500 other activists at Zion Square, Jerusalem, to protest against the spate of government policies dealing with the nature of the citizenship of Arab-Israelis living within the Israeli state; especially those forwarded by Israel's outspoken Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman (Yisrael Beiteinu).
  • In support of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip (4 June 2011) - Peace Now joined 5000 other activists in a march in Tel Aviv, to support the Palestinian bid for United Nations membership as an independent state.
  • Against the 'Boycott Law' (10 July 2011) - Peace Now held a protest in Jerusalem in response to proposed Knesset legislation stating that any boycott against Israel or any group located within its territory (including 'Judea and Samaria'/ the West Bank), would be labeled a civil offense. This law made boycotters subject to litigation and financial penalties. Following the passing of the boycott legislation into law, Peace Now led a campaign calling for the boycott of settlement produce.
  • 'Glenn Beck go home' (24 August 2011) - In response to Glenn Beck's 'Restoring Courage' tour in Israel, Peace Now activists protested outside the Jerusalem rally held by the conservative American broadcaster, claiming that his ultra-conservative values inflamed the already tense situation with regards to the Israel and Palestine situation.
  • Yitzchak Rabin Memorial Rally - Every year since former Israel Prime Minister Yitzchak Rabin's assassination (4 November 1995), Peace Now activists take part in an annual rally in Rabin Square (Tel Aviv) to commemorate the statesman's life, and to issue calls in support for the re-invigoration of the Middle East Peace Process.
  • In support of 'Freedom of Speech' (22 November 2011) - In response to a proposed government amendment to Israel's 'Defamation Law', which would increase the maximum compensation paid for libel violations sixfold to NIS 300,000 (roughly $80,500), regardless of proof of damages, Peace Now led a 2000-strong rally in Tel Aviv.

'Price-Tag' attacks against Peace Now activists

Due to Peace Now's continued opposition to the development and construction of Jewish settlements in the West Bank/East Jerusalem, the organisation and several of its leading activists have been subject to 'price-tag' attacks and death-threats.

A 'price-tag' attack is defined as a violent act committed against Palestinians, Israeli security forces and/or anti-settlement organisations by pro-settlement advocates in retaliation for terrorist attacks on Israeli targets, government demolition of structures in West Bank settlements or curbs on Israeli settlement construction in the West Bank.

In response to the demolition of three homes in the Migron settlement (as a result of a petition submitted to the Israeli Supreme Court by Peace Now in 2006), right-wing demonstrators spray-painted 'Price Tag Migron', 'Revenge' and 'Death to Traitors' on the entrance to the residence of Hagit Ofran, the head of Peace Now's 'Settlement Watch' project, in early October 2011. Following the incident, a police investigation was opened. Approximately two months later, another 'price tag' attack was carried out, again at Hagit Ofran's residence.

At the 2011 Rabin commemoration rally in Tel Aviv, Hagit Ofran stated in reference to the recent 'price tag attacks':

"The graffiti was sprayed in my home, but the taunts are in all of our stairwells. The tag may have marked me, but we all pay the price. We must not fear. We are here, and we are many. We have a voice and we must raise it. And today we say to Benjamin Netanyahu: We are not afraid."

On 6 November 2011, Peace Now's Jerusalem office received a bomb threat. Police were called to the scene and the building was evacuated. The threat was later found to be a hoax. Following a brief investigation, Jerusalem District Police arrested a 21-year-old male resident of a settlement near Jerusalem who was suspected of vandalizing Peace Now offices in Jerusalem. Police also tried to ascertain whether the suspect was involved in the 'price-tag' attacks on Hagit Ofran's residence. A gag order was initially placed on the publication of his name and picture due to the “ongoing investigation” into the attacks. Once the investigation was complete, the gag order remained in effect, despite the suspect not being a minor. The order also applied to details about the suspect's parents, due to the politically sensitive nature of their occupation.

Although the suspect had been arrested two months previously for issuing death threats against Peace Now's Director General Yariv Oppenhimer and a bomb hoax at the organisation's Jerusalem office, he was released shortly afterwards.

Following court proceedings against the suspect, he was released to house arrest and forced to wear an electronic bracelet, yet his 'price-tag' activities continued. On 27 November 2011, it was reported that the unnamed individual issued death-threats (via email) against all of Peace Now's core team from his Jerusalem house. The gag order remained.

Financing by foreign governments

Peace Now has received funding from foreign states and international organizations for such projects as those which measure the expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank. In 2008 Peace Now received ILS 935,622 from the Norwegian embassy, ILS 547,751 from the British Foreign Office, ILS 285,857 from Germany's Institut für Auslandsbeziehungen, and ILS 76,267 from the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs. According to Im Tirtzu, Peace Now received ILS 844,000 from the embassy of Norway in 2009, as well as ILS 731,000 from the United Kingdom and ILS 555,000 from the Belgian government.

The Knesset passed a law in 2008 requiring Israeli organizations to publicize any foreign funding they receive. The law was aimed specifically at Peace Now. In 2011, the Knesset passed a law which required organizations to report each quarter on any foreign funding they receive. In November 2011, Benyamin Netanyahu's government began proceedings to introduce legislation which would place a ILS 20,000 (approx $5000) limit on what NGOs could receive from foreign governments, government-supported foundations and/or groups of governments (e.g. the European Union and the United Nations). Another bill, advanced by Avigdor Lieberman's Yisrael Beiteinu party, proposed a 45% tax on foreign government donations to organizations that do not receive Israeli state funding.
Individuals such as Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu, Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman and MKs Tzipi Hotovely, Ofir Akunis and Fania Kirshenbaum have supported the proposed legislation. They argue that the legislation prevents foreign governments and organizations from unduly influencing Israel's domestic affairs. The legislation has encountered notable resistance from within Israel itself and abroad. The governments of the United Kingdom and the United States warned Benyamin Netanyahu that the adoption of such measures would harm Israel's standing in the West as a democratic country.

Certificate of Merit for Support to IDF Reservists

Peace Now received a certificate of merit from the Israeli government and IDF for support given to IDF reserve soldiers. The certificate was issued as part of a competition which honours organizations, businesses and companies whose workers serve as reservists and are supported by their workplace. The certificate was personally signed by Ehud Barak and Chief Reserve Officer Brigadier General Shuki Ben-Anat. It read:

'For your activity and care for employees serving in reserve duty. Your activity is commendable and greatly contributes to the IDF's fortitude and the State of Israel's security."

Notable supporters

Notable individuals such as American actor Leonard Nimoy, American authors Michael Chabon and Ayelet Waldman, and Israeli authors David Grossman and Amos Oz support Peace Now's objectives. Israeli author Jonathan Kis-Lev praised the organization in his book "My Quest For Peace",[71] and author Mordechai Bar-On described Peace Now as a key instrument for peace. Actor Mandy Patinkin expressed his support for Peace Now during a visit to Israel in 2012.

Peace Now's logo was designed by Israeli graphic designer David Tartakover in 1978. The logo emerged from a poster created by Tartakover for a mass rally, held in what is now Rabin Square in Tel Aviv on 1 April 1978, titled "Peace Now." It became the name of the organization, and was used on the first political bumper sticker in Israel. It is still one of Israel's most popular stickers. Tartakover, commenting in 2006, said "The movement activists liked the logo, [b]ut they thought there should also be a symbol. I told them it wasn't needed - this is the symbol. It took time until they understood that this was the first political sticker in Israel."
at
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Inequality (mathematics)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inequality...

  • Islamic State and the Levant
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant الدولة الإسلامية في العراق والشام   ( ...
  • Heart Sutra
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia A reproduction of the palm -leaf manuscript in Siddham script ...
  • Slum
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ...