Effective to a fault
When a person uses violence she/he loses a piece of themselves. When societies do they lose a whole lot more.

May 12, 2007
iranian.com

It was quiet a challenge to grasp the point in the opinion piece by Jeesh Daram, which advocates public defecation as a mean to achieve political change.  Interesting idea ... if you smoke rock!  Hopefully, it was either a satirical or abstract notion whose meaning is lost on me.  Using defecation to solve a political impasse is as effective as using a political speech to release constipation.  But, there is at least one point in that piece worth considering.  It’s unclear what the reasoning behind Jeesh’s idea is, but he’s correct about the futility of using violence for political aims.

The truth is that violence works.  It’s an effective and powerful tool.  But, it only works for the more powerful party.  It would be stupid to go up against a hungry lioness with a stick.  It’s not enough to convince the lioness that you don’t make a good meal and you’ll probably piss her off more, escalating the level of violence that she’ll use.  But if you’re the lioness looking at a homosapien with a stick, then violence will probably get you a meal and the stick might help to work up your appetite.

Two simple cases demonstrate this point.  First, the conflict between Israel and Palestinians, and I admit that it’s certainly easier for me to write this when neither do I live in the hellish situation of Gaza and West Bank, nor do I have to worry about what might happened the next time I get on a bus. 

What have the Palestinians gained with all the violence that they have used?  Absolutely nothing, it has only intensified and helped to justify the violence that is perpetrated against them.  All the suicide bombings and armed resistance has done nothing to help their cause.  Had they made a cardinal rule to avoid violence, they would at least have more worldwide sympathy, especially in the Israeli public opinion, which would be the most powerful tool to end the occupation and theft of their territory.

Second case, the Iraqi resistance (I think ‘insurgency’ is a deliberately misleading term), and again I admit that my observation is made from the sidelines.  What has all the violence in Iraq gained the Sunnis, Shiites, or the Kurds?  Nothing but a shattered country, sectarian divide and serious issues that will take decades (at least) to solve, not to mention the dead Iraqis.  Even if the American occupation would end tomorrow, the Iraq that is left behind will have the monumental task of healing its wounds, and may even cease to exist as a whole.  Is it worth it?

There is also another side to violence.  Even though violence is effective in the hands of the powerful, I still don’t think it’s a good tool.  There is a cost to using violence and when it comes to countries, there is a great ‘social cost.’  To take the same two examples, what have the Israelis gained from all the violence that they have unleashed on the Palestinians?  Yes, they have a country but do they have peace?  Do they feel safe?  With every bomb, rocket, and bullet that IDF hurls into Gaza and West Bank, peace and safety sink deeper into the realm of impossibility.  Most importantly, they have lost themselves. 

When a person uses violence she/he looses a piece of themselves.  When societies do they loose a whole lot more.  There is a great and well documented Jewish history of standing for democracy, freedom, and against tyranny.  Israel’s actions are shredding that great heritage.  I won’t event get into what the violence in Iraq has cost Americans.  That is far too clear.  Certainly in case of Iran, violence (or mass diarrhea) is not the answer.