The Moral Equivalency of Violence

The slaughter of innocence may never be justified by a proclamation of moral righteous.

“You can not hide blood soaked hands, and matching soul, when it becomes your turn to meet your fate, by whatever words you choose to call God’s name.

East vs West

There are many cultural differences between Eastern and Western civilizations. Perhaps, no greater difference may found than within the perception of the application of violence to achieve a political outcome.

For the Palestinian People, and their supporters who cry out in anguish at the injustice and perceived hypocrisy of the western media coverage of Israeli combat actions in the township of Jenin, understanding the fundamental difference in thinking between western thought on political violence and eastern thought on political violence is critical if they are to take the first steps toward building the nation state of Palestine.

Perception is formed by life experience, life experience is formed by perception.

The words the Palestinian people and their leadership do not want to hear but the ones that need to be spoken are a simple cold reality, like the early morning’s first water. These are those words.

The people of the West view the overt targeting of unarmed civilians as sickening and morally repugnant, a criminal act that defines ones character as weak and inferior.

Western civilization no longer grants a moral equivalency to the “collateral damage” of civilian deaths in combat when fighting enemies that deliberately target and slaughter innocence.

This lesson, taught in blood to Western civilization by our enemies in the war on terror, has become ingrained into the western psyche.

Is it really a surprise that these lessons now shape the narratives of Western civilizations media?

Why non violence is the path forward

Historically, oppressed people have had two choices, a violent and bloody struggle to overthrow their oppressor, or a strategic non-violent resistance. Both options have historical success. Both options have historical failure.

Choosing between the path of violence and actionable non violent resistance reveals the strength, skill and intelligence of the oppressed leadership.

Within the context of the Israeli / Palestinian conflict the argument for non violence is overwhelming skewed one sided.

Simply put, if one is seriously interested in building the Nation State of Palestine, then the choice of violence of non violent resistance can be summed up within one statement of fact: “The depth of control the opposing force can apply is absolute.”

This fundamental fact is irrefutable, and should formulate the foundation of any Palestinian Leadership strategic thinking, and make any logic based calculations simplistic.

If the desired outcome of the resistance is the creation of the Nation state of Palestine, this goal is only achievable by non violent resistance.

More importantly, this non violent resistance, this attempt at moving a perceived unmovable object, must center upon a singular message of thought, one ideological belief:

“Palestinians will never take by violence what maybe offered to them in partnership.”

Pawns, no bishops or knights, who will lead?

The voices of many, crying out into the ether of the digital world, will not change the reality of the Palestinian people.

If the argument for violence as a solution has been refuted again in the township of Jennin, what now?

More violence? More death and despair?

Once again, the common man and woman awaits upon the men and women of the Palestinian leadership to decide what, if any, will be their reply to Israeli aggression?

Unbelievably, yet again, only one question hangs in the balance.

Has the leadership of the Palestinian people finally reached a point at which a common understanding can be reached?

Or, will the Palestinian leaders remain mere pawns of their Geopolitical Masters, and continue to sacrifice their youth without any real hope of freedom, or will their leadership step forth and be counted as men and women whom led, and be willing to make the sacrifice necessary to achieve what they state to believe in, the Nation State of Palestine?

Actions determine results. Now, more then ever, is the time for those who claim to represent Palestinian leadership to choose.

If the argument for non violence offers the solution, and the path forward, who among them will step forth and advocate its righteousness?

If none is worthy to pick up the banner of freedom that non violence offers, there will be no end to this endless cycle of violence and despair.

Because if the Palestinians are sincere in their desire for a political solution to the conflict, then the first order of business must be to change the Western civilizations perception of the Palestinian people from one of “adversarial criminal terrorist,” to one fights a “Ghandiesque struggle.”