Brad,
>>Why do you believe a sudden pledge of non-violence on the part of the
>>Palestinians would somehow eliminate the pro-Israel bias in the Western
>>press? Why should the Palestinians believe this will help them achieve
>>their goals, rather than be an effective capitulation to Israeli
>>domination?
>What's the goal?
>
>Is the goal to push the Israeli's into the sea? Is the goal to kill a
>bunch of people or blow up a bunch of buildings? Or is the goal to
>convince the center of the Israeli electorate that nothing bad will
>happen if the Palestinian authority is sovereign over parts of Temple
>Mount?
The Palestinian goal is to be granted an independent state. Perhaps there are other options, such as a single, secular, multi-ethnic state that J. Hearfield mentioned. But in any case the Palestinians want to be full citizens with the same rights and voice in their communities as other people in the region. And they deserve to have their wishes granted - Palestine is as much their homeland as it is for the Israelis.
The question is, how to accomplish this goal. I believe your claim is that they should renounce violence and resist peacefully. If the Palestinians would just stop bombing buses and keep the Intifada in line, then Israeli repression would somehow stand out to such an extent that Israel would be pressured to give in to Palestinian demands for autonomy. Like I said earlier, I'm sympathetic to this view, but I think you ignore some important reasons as to why this strategy is not very likely to be effective.
First of all, the international consensus already recognizes Palestinian rights and supports a two-state settlement. The US is virtually the only exception, outside of Israel. So either attitudes have to change inside of Israel towards an accomodation of the Palestinians right to autonomy, or US policy that must be changed and US pressure brought to bear on the Israelis to make such concessions.
Can Palestinian non-violent protests accomplish this? The evidence is not good. I found the reference I mentioned on Monday, which is a perfect example of what I'm talking about (it took me a bit of digging since it wasn't in the Chomsky Reader, as I had thought, but in _Chronicles of Dissent_, pp. 169-171, a collection of interviews with David Barsamian). The town of Beit Sahour protested against Israeli occupation by refusing to pay taxes. The Israelis simply cracked down, making arrests and confiscating property. There was no public outcry over this either in Israel or in the US (it wasn't even reported in the US press, to my knowledge).
If Israel is able to use force freely, with no adverse public reaction in the countries that matter (Israel and the US in this case), then non-violent protest is futile. If every time you practice civil disobedience you are beaten or jailed or killed, and you don't achieve any publicity or recognition for your actions, you are less likely to try that approach the next time.
A couple of additional comments:
>Is the goal to push the Israeli's into the sea? Is the goal to kill a
>bunch of people or blow up a bunch of buildings?
Obviously there are some extreme individuals and groups among the Palestinians that would like to see the destruction of Israel. However, it is the Israeli's, not the Palestinians, who have been the most intransigent on this issue. Most Palestinians are willing to accept a permanent state of Israel. They simply want their own state as well, and this is something the Israelis have never agreed to.
>Or is the goal to convince the center of the Israeli electorate that
nothing bad >will happen if the Palestinian authority is sovereign over
parts of Temple
>Mount?
This is ridiculous. The Palestinians threaten Israeli security about as much as Grenada threatens the security of the US. It is the Palestinians who have to live in fear of Israeli repression.