Gandhi, Bin Laden and HAMAS

[freeandfun1]

Gandhi, Bin Laden and HAMAS

May 10, 2004

By: SAMI EL-BEHIRI

For the second time in my life, I recently watched the movie “Gandhi”, which I first saw 20 years ago. This time I saw the movie from a different prospective. As we get older, we look at things from different angles, but the main principles of human life stay the same. We will always search for love, peace, being good, freedom, and justice.

Gandhi studied law in England and then went to South Africa for his first experience as a young lawyer. He experienced the injustice against non-whites when he was kicked off the first class section of the train, because he was considered “colored.” He was harassed because he was walking on the same sidewalk with white people. When he experienced this kind of injustice he decided to fight it.

In his first meeting with the Congress Party in South Africa, most leaders wanted to fight the injustice with force and violence. Gandhi refused and said: “fighting injustice with violence could be for two reasons: first reason is revenge, and he preferred to leave revenge for GOD, the second reason was to stop the injustice, and the best way to stop it is non-cooperation, passive resistance, and refusal. They can beat us, break our bones but they will never break our wills”.

Gandhi was the master of passive resistance, he was intelligent enough to know that he could not fight Great Britain using bullets but he could fight using passive resistance. He said: “We have to make them feel guilty about themselves to stop the injustice.”

This poor humble Indian who never possessed anything except his simple clothes (that he wove himself), never carried a title, never held a political position, or military rank, was able to defeat the Great British Empire without shooting one bullet and without having military militias. That defeat of Great Britain in India was the beginning of the End of that great empire.

Today “Osama Bin Laden” comes with a militia of a few hundred young men who hate the USA, the Western Culture, freedom, and they even hate themselves and they decided to put themselves in a war against the USA and the West, for no logical reason except hatred.

If “Bin Laden” and his followers are claiming that they are fighting the American support for Israel and fighting the American existence in the Middle East, he and his people should have gone to the Middle East and used passive resistance against the “injustice” in the Middle East. Instead they found easier targets in the civilians of New York’s Twin Towers. Bin Laden and his criminal gang lost everything; they lost the sympathy of the whole world including their own people. Today there is great unity against terrorism, and President Bush announced it clearly: “If you are not with us you are with the terrorists”. The USA gave the green light for all governments (either Democratic or Not) to arrest or even kill all terrorists, and any government that will not fight terrorism will face the same fate as the “Taliban” government.

There is a clear line today between terrorism and acceptable legal resistance to injustice. Unfortunately, terrorist organization like HAMAS, Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah refuse to accept that red line and instead focus on murdering innocent Israeli and Jews. By ignoring the red line HAMAS and Islamic Jihad have done more damage to the Palestinian cause than any enemy of the Palestinians.

So what can the poor helpless people of the Gaza strip and the West Bank do to end their suffering? First they need to destroy HAMAS and Islamic Jihad and then they can use passive resistance as did Gandhi. Some might say the Gandhi’s style of resistance worked in the first half of the 20th century, but it will not work today. I say no, it will work today and tomorrow. You have to make them feel guilty and show the world that they are guilty. Only then will they stop their injustice from within. We all remember the famous picture of the Chinese young man raising his hand to stop the army tank in the Tia-na-man Square in Beijing. We all remember how people all over the world even inside Israel sympathized with the young kids who were throwing stones against the Israeli’s armed trucks and tanks. Today the Suicide Bombers in civilian places have lost that sympathy from most of the world.

If the Palestinians use the passive resistance that Gandhi used and denounce violence and terrorism, I am sure in no time the injustice will be defeated from within. The question is: where is the Arab “Gandhi”?

 

[Annie]

Gandhi, Bin Laden and HAMAS

I'm not sure who I had this conversation with, could have been Said1 in pm's or another contact. I truly wonder if Ghandi would have BEEN Ghandi if the 'devil' was not Britain, but rather someone of the bin Laden ilk, such as Hitler or even the French?

Britain had a remarkable run at Empire, lord knows. Their strength was also their weakness, they 'taught' their precepts to those in power. Whether the American colonies or India. When confronted with a populace that wanted them gone, they eventually left.

 

[freeandfun1]

I'm not sure who I had this conversation with, could have been Said1 in pm's or another contact. I truly wonder if Ghandi would have BEEN Ghandi if the 'devil' was not Britain, but rather someone of the bin Laden ilk, such as Hitler or even the French?

Britain had a remarkable run at Empire, lord knows. Their strength was also their weakness, they 'taught' their precepts to those in power. Whether the American colonies or India. When confronted with a populace that wanted them gone, they eventually left.

Very good question and valid points.

 

[Annie]

Very good question and valid points.

Thanks Free. Seems to me that Britain during the Empire period tended to actually populate their areas of influence, giving them much more influence than the French with their trappers or the Spanish with their missionaries.

In the American colonies it was with those that were disconnected to the English/European system of primogenture and religious beliefs. Then the English realised the potential and set up a venture capitalist system, which included English 'rights' and 'taxes' but then failed to enforce the caveats of both. The rights were expanded greatly in the colonies, which the colonists ran with. The Brits truly failed to enforce their laws for many years-thus setting precedents that the Sons of Liberty exploited.

In India where the rule was more recent there were crossovers. They put in the foundations of democracy-which were expanded beyond the beliefs of the times, they educated many Indians in the foundations, then the Indians led by Ghandi were able to capitalize on this.

If there is US empire, it's on this model.

 

[freeandfun1]

Thanks Free. Seems to me that Britain during the Empire period tended to actually populate their areas of influence, giving them much more influence than the French with their trappers or the Spanish with their missionaries.

In the American colonies it was with those that were disconnected to the English/European system of primogenture and religious beliefs. Then the English realised the potential and set up a venture capitalist system, which included English 'rights' and 'taxes' but then failed to enforce the caveats of both. The rights were expanded greatly in the colonies, which the colonists ran with. The Brits truly failed to enforce their laws for many years-thus setting precedents that the Sons of Liberty exploited.

In India where the rule was more recent there were crossovers. They put in the foundations of democracy-which were expanded beyond the beliefs of the times, they educated many Indians in the foundations, then the Indians led by Ghandi were able to capitalize on this.

If there is US empire, it's on this model.

I also tend to believe the British were not nearly as oppressive. If you look at Singapore/Malaya, India, etc., you see that they encouraged education and freedom. This eventually lead to those educated by the English looking for their own independence and eventually gaining it - and in the latter periods of the British Empire, independence tended to be given somewhat peacefully.

Quite interesting actually.

 

[Annie]

I also tend to believe the British were not nearly as oppressive. If you look at Singapore/Malaya, India, etc., you see that they encouraged education and freedom. This eventually lead to those educated by the English looking for their own independence and eventually gaining it - and in the latter periods of the British Empire, independence tended to be given somewhat peacefully.

Quite interesting actually.

I agree, with the interesting part. Is probably why the empire held so long...

 

[freeandfun1]

I agree, with the interesting part. Is probably why the empire held so long...

I agree. If you visit Malaysia and Singapore and even India today, they are still pretty close to England. Not because they are dependent, but because I believe they hold a mutual respect for each other.

 

[NATO AIR]

I agree. If you visit Malaysia and Singapore and even India today, they are still pretty close to England. Not because they are dependent, but because I believe they hold a mutual respect for each other.

Yep, that's what I've noticed at least in Hong Kong, Singapore and Malaysia.

 

[freeandfun1]

Yep, that's what I've noticed at least in Hong Kong, Singapore and Malaysia.

I forgot to mention Hong Kong.

Also, if you compare Malaysia, a former British colony, with Indonesia, a country that is just across The Malacca Straits from them and a former Dutch colony, you will see starkly different living conditions, economic development, etc.

Although both nations are Muslim, both nations have bountiful natural resources and both countries speak the same language (just different dialects of Bahasa), they developed vastly differently. I have to assume it is because of their former colonial powers. The British were much better managers and in many ways, less exploitive than the Dutch. You can even see this in the fact that the Dutch do not seem to have nearly the relationship with Indonesia that Britian has with Malaysia.

 

[BR-549]

American political philosopher Henry David Thoreau...i.e. Civil Disobediance..http://eserver.org/thoreau/civil.html.


Ghandi knew well that Civil Dis. would work only with society's like Britain's or the US. Democratic societies witha sense of right and wrong.. The whole thing went full circle back to the United States with the Civil Dis. practiced by Martin Luther King.. What goes around comes around.. Maybe Civil Dis. would work for the Palestinians but they have a long history now of being untrustworthy terrorists hell bent on the destruction of ths State of Israel.

That goes for all the Arab nations as well. Save Egypt, who has been payed off very well by the US, the other Arab states still consider the destruction of the Jewish state to be a given.. Under these conditions, and the Palestinians history I greatly doubt Civil Dis. will work.. Heck I think that if the Palestinians simply cease the Intifada, stop the terrorists bombings, and come to the bargaining table with Israel they will get much of what they desire. But for that to happen the Arab world will have to change its mental paradigm and accept the existence of the State of Israel.. That's a long shot for now.