Four articles
on understanding and addressing the Israeli - Palestinian impasse,
by William J. Thomson, Ph.D.

Part 3-B

"Palestinians are creative, ingenious and resourceful people.  I do not mean this to sound as cloying as it may, but it is a fact that the Palestinian people have been hardened by decades of oppression, perhaps for a longer time and more intensively than any other population in the world.  As has been said, "If adversity does not destroy me, it makes me stronger....In a situation determined by violence, the party with greater violence at its disposal will prevail.  That party is, of course, Israel.  In a situation determined by nonviolence, the party with greater nonviolence at its disposal will prevail.  Nonviolent action can defeat violence force; history is filled with such examples.  I would submit that nonviolent action is the best, and perhaps the only way in which the Palestinian people can achieve their destiny." -- Bill Thomson

-----------------------------

Dear Friends,

        This is the concluding section of the third (of three) articles on understanding and addressing the Israeli - Palestinian impasse.

Peace,
        Bill

**********************************************

       The Case for Palestinian Nonviolent Direct Action
William J. Thomson, Ph.D.
July 26, 2002


(Continued from Section 1)

How does nonviolence work?

        The success of nonviolent action is based on sound psychological principles of human interaction.  One model which makes these interactions especially clear is transactional analysis, originated by Eric Berne and described in Born to Win (above).  The model proposes five, and only five, divisions of personality, or "ego states", which each of us possesses.  These are:

        1. Controlling Parent (CP)--The CP consists of information and behaviors about how to control other people through force or coercion (e.g., demanding "don't go on the roof (during curfew)", use of physical coercion, etc.)
        2. Nurturing Parent (NP)--The NP consists of information and behaviors about nurturing and taking care of other people (e.g., saying "I love you", Arab hospitality, etc.)
        3. Adult (A)--The A consists of factual and realistic information and behavior (e.g., reading this paper on nonviolent action, questions such as "what time is it?", etc.).  This ego state is often called the computer, because it analyzes and responds to information in a factual, non-emotional fashion.
        4. Reactive Child (RC) (originally named the Adaptive Child)--The RC consists of information and behaviors regarding how to react appropriately to the Controlling (and to some degree, the Nurturing) Parent.  The RC can adapt to, model, or rebel against the Controlling Parent.  Note that each of these three reactions, while superficially different, are all defined with respect to an external referent (the Controlling Parent), and are thus not independent actions.
        5. Free Child (FC)--The FC consists of the thoughts, feelings and behaviors of the unfettered child.  This ego state is the seat of emotions, spontaneity, defiance ("terrible twos"), fun and creativity.  It recognizes no limits, and realistically must be kept under some monitoring by the Nurturing and Controlling Parent.

        Understanding of these ego states is of critical importance, as understanding of why nonviolent action works and how it can be applied to potentially violent situations is based on clear understanding these ego states and how they interact with each other.  If you remain unclear about ego states after completing this section, please contact me <wthomson@umich.edu> or consult Born to Win or any of the many books on transactional analysis by Eric Berne, Claude Steiner or Tom Harris.

Characteristics of ego states

        1.  Any thought, feeling or behavior which we produce must be under the control of one, and only one, of these five ego states.
        2. Another way of stating this is that at any point in time, one, and only one, of these five ego states will be in control of our thoughts and actions, even while sleeping (FC).  Commonly, the following activities and ego states will be related:  for example, preparing a meal (NP), comforting a child (NP), disciplining a child (CP), arguing (CP or RC), working (A), paying bills (A), brushing teeth (RC), rebelling against a parent's wishes (RC), playing (FC), laughing (FC) and sleeping (FC).  One way to practice this concept is to look at your normal activities and try to determine which of these five ego states in is in control.
        3. Each of us has all five of these ego states from age two onward, though in each individual, some may be more obvious than others.  In general (although there are many exceptions to these rules) females are often in close contact with their Nurturing Parent; males with the Controlling Parent.  Children are more in touch with Reactive and Free Child ego states. (However, it is important to note that as young as age two, traces of all five ego states may be noticed, and of course, many elderly people have delightful access to their Free Child ego state).
        4. It is possible to learn to control our actions by learning to access any particular ego state at any point in time.  For example, as we will see, one way to stop an argument (typically involving the CP or RC ego state) is to move into the Adult ego state.  In fact, some have defined mental health as having the ability to appropriately activate any of the five ego states at any point in time.
        5. We can also use ego states to invite a particular ego state response from another person.  For example,
                a. NP actions will typically evoke FC responses
                b. CP actions will typically evoke CP or RC responses
                c. A actions will typically evoke A responses
                d. RC actions will typically evoke CP or RC responses
                e. FC actions will typically evoke FC or NP responses
Thus by learning to control our own ego states, we can learn to effectively control the responses from other people, and thus control transactions in general.
        6. Any time that we are in an ego state and create some thought or action, we are directing that thought or action at another ego state.  This is called a transaction.  Thus, we can use these ego states for transactions within ourselves (e.g., FC --> FC: "Wow, another piece of baklava!  Who cares if I weigh 100 Kg.  Let's eat!!", or  CP --> FC:  "Don't eat it!!", or NP --> FC: "Why don't you save that piece for tomorrow?", or A  --> FC:  " That's 200 calories."  In other words, we do have internal conversations and arguments which can be analyzed in terms of ego states.  (Please note:  the symbol "-->" means "is directed toward".)
        7. We also have transactions with other people which can be similarly analyzed, and this is the heart of the application of this analysis to nonviolent action.  Each interaction which we have with another person originates in one of these five ego states, and is directed at a particular ego state in another person. (e.g.,  A   -->   A:  "What time is it?, or CP -->  RC: "Watch out!", or NP  -->  FC:  "I love you."
        8. The mathematically inclined have perhaps already figured out that there are a total of 25 possible transactions, defined as starting in one of the five ego states and directed at one of the five ego states in the other individual. Fortunately, most human interaction is based on only five sets of these 25 possibilities.  They are:
                a. CP --> RC and the corresponding response from RC --> CP.  This interaction is used for control, e.g., "Be quiet!" (CP -->  RC), with a behavioral response of "silence" (RC --> CP).
                b. CP --> CP and the corresponding response from CP --> CP.  Most arguments take this form.
                c. A --> A and the corresponding response from A --> A.  This transaction describes routine information exchange used in business, families, etc.
                d. NP --> FC and the corresponding response from FC --> NP.  This is the primary nurturing transaction.
                e. FC --> FC and the corresponding response from FC --> FC.  This is the primary play, humor and emotional exchange transaction.

Note that the people we choose for friends, spouses, etc. are defined by d & e.

Rules controlling transactions

        All transactions follow one of two simple rules.  The transactions I have described thus far are defined as “parallel” transactions.  A parallel transaction is one which begins in a particular ego state (e.g., NP) in the first person, and is directed toward a particular ego state in the second person (e.g., FC).  If the response in the second person is received in the ego state to which it was directed (e.g., FC), and a new transaction is initiated from that ego state (e.g., FC) directed toward the originating ego state (e.g., NP), then the transaction is defined as “parallel”.  For example, “Have some baklava” (NP --> FC).  “Wow, this is really good!” (FC --> NP).

        The basic rule for parallel transactions is that they will continue indefinitely (or until the baklava is gone).  In the simple example above, additional transactions might be:  “I’m glad that you like it.”  (NP --> FC)  “This may be the best baklava I have ever had.” (FC --> NP), etc.  Note that any of the ego state pairings described in #8 above will likely result in parallel transactions.  For example, arguments (CP --> CP) tend to continue “indefinitely”, as do business transactions (A --> A).

        The second type of transaction is called a “crossed” (or non-parallel) transaction.  In short, any transaction which is not parallel must be crossed.  This can be achieved by having a transaction directed toward a particular ego state but not being received there (e.g., “Have some baklava” (NP --> FC), followed by a response of “People who eat baklava need to be more concerned about their weight!” (CP --> RC).  Note that the expected FC response was changed into a CP response.  This could be due to the original transaction not being received by the FC, or the second individual could have willfully decided to respond out of the CP ego state.  In any case, we now have a crossed transaction and the second rule of transactions:  When a transaction is "crossed", there will be a brief pause, which if used skillfully, can be utilized to redirect the flow of the transactions.  This redirection can lead to negative (as in this example) or positive outcomes, but the key point to remember is that by crossing transactions, a skilled practitioner can very effectively control the entire nature and outcome of the transaction.  By changing our own ego state and using the information in #5 above, which describes the likely outcome of such a change, we can effectively control the overall flow of the transaction.  For example, you can often end an argument by going into the Adult ego state, since, according to #5 above, A will tend to evoke A.  Or, if skillfully used, humor will almost always lead to an FC --> FC transaction, which will also end the argument.

        Understanding and using crossed transactions will provide a substantial level of control in transaction exchange, but it will not always work perfectly.  For example, a typical response when the transaction is crossed is for the original "sender" to escalate for his/her original ego state (e.g., “I know, but this is really good baklava!! (NP! --> FC).  Or a person in an argument (CP --> RC), might escalate for the CP position.  This, in turn, leads to a technique for change called “broken record”, in which the person wishing to cross the transaction (e.g., and end the argument), escalates for the A or FC position and “forces” the other person out of CP.

        UNDERSTANDING AND USING CROSSED TRANSACTIONS IS THE KEY TO USING NONVIOLENT ACTION TECHNIQUES SUCCESSFULLY.  I will explain below exactly how this occurs.

        Before leaving the topic of transactions, however, let me briefly describe a third type of transaction.  Sometimes a transaction has both an overt message and a covert/hidden one as well (e.g., your child comes home late:  "Do you know what time it is?" (overt :  A  -->  A).  However, as any worried parent knows, the real (covert/hidden) message is "Why are you home so late?  I’m really upset!" (CP --> RC)  The key to understanding covert transactions is to note that all covert transactions are decided at the covert/hidden level.  In other words, all covert transactions ultimately reduce to either parallel or crossed transactions, and the above rules apply.  For example, the response "I lost track of the time" (RC --> CP) will continue the RC <--> CP exchange until the parent’s anger is vented and the child feels appropriately disciplined.  Note that if the child actually responded to the parent’s original question by saying  "It's 2:18 in the morning" (A --> A), they would have actually crossed the original covert message.  This would result in a stop in the action, and a likely escalation for the CP position by the parent (e.g., “Don’t get smart with me!!" CP! --> RC).

        Also let me note that transactions can be verbal (thinking), but they can also be behavioral or emotional as well.  Thus, transactions may be controlled verbally, behaviorally or emotionally.  Within each of us, the thinking, behavioral and emotional parts must at all times be in some sort of homeostasis, so if we can use the above methods to change verbal/thinking responses, ultimately change must also be reflected in behavior and/or emotion as well in order to maintain homeostasis. 

Applications to the current conflict

        Nations/cultures operate with the same ego states as do individuals.  With nations, however, the most common transactions are reduced to three:
a. CP --> RC:  Used for control.  (Military/economic force)
b.  A --> A:  Used for routine information, business, etc.
c. NP --> FC:  Used for nurturing.  (Economic/military support, etc.)  In many cases this would really be a CP <--> RC transaction, since something would be expected for the “nurturing”.  An example of this would be US aid to Saudi Arabia/Jordan/Turkey with the expectation of aid (e.g., air bases) in a possible attack against Iraq.

The Israeli/Palestinian conflict

        In the present conflict, the primary transaction is CP(Israel) < --> RC (Palestine).  Israel uses military force and many other forms of violence (see Section 1) and expects the Palestinians to capitulate (adaptive part of the RC).  Many Palestinians do adapt, with some rebellion (rebellious part of the RC), but in any case, it creates a parallel transaction, which as we have seen above, will continue indefinitely.  Also note that even the overt transactions (as seen by other countries?) which are  ostensibly A(Israel) --> A (Palestinian), such as requiring building permits, permits to enter Jerusalem, using terms such as “administered", rather than "occupied" territories are really covert CP(Israel) --> RC (Palestine), and as such, will be decided at the covert level, with either an adaptive or a rebellious response.

        Another way to state this is that Palestinians are coerced by Israeli violence (as broadly defined in Part 1) to respond violently (using available violence, which is usually physical violence), an RC (rebellious) --> CP response.  According to the above rules, this CP <--> RC interaction will continue indefinitely, and in CP/RC interactions, the CP almost always prevails. 

There are three primary ways in which Palestinians could change the CP < --> RC interaction :

        1.  By responding from FC (e.g., suffering), Israelis will be "coerced" into responding from NP.  This is the concept underlying Gandhi’s comment that the nonviolent actionist “believes not in destruction but in conversion”.  Or, as Martin Luther King, Jr. put it, “Nonviolence accepts suffering without retaliation.  The end result…is redemption and reconciliation”.  The more pragmatic Gene Sharp describes “conversion” as occurring when the opponent comes around to positively accepting the point of view of the actionists.  Each of these views, in psychological terms, means that the Israelis are invited/psychologically “forced” to move into the NP position. 

Gandhi put it most succinctly, "We will match our capacity to suffer against your capacity to inflict the suffering, our soul force against your physical force. We will not hate you, but we will not obey you. Do what you like, and we will wear you down by our capacity to suffer. And in the winning of the freedom we will so appeal to your heart and conscience that we will win you.  So ours will be a double victory; we will win our freedom and our captors in the process."

        2.  By responding from A, Israelis will be coerced into responding from A..  Gene Sharp describes this as “accommodation”, a situation in which the opponent chooses to grant demands without changing their viewpoint.  Also, by responding from A, the Palestinians could evoke Sharp’s “nonviolent coercion” change in the Israelis.  In the words from the movie “Godfather”, the Palestinians would make offers to the Israelis which they cannot refuse.  Last week’s aborted declaration of a unilateral cease-fire by the Palestinians is just such an example.  The violent attack on Gaza with which the Israeli government crushed the possibility of this proposed action shows just how much Israel fears this approach.  Another example of an Adult ego state response is to simply refuse to accept the CP demands of the Israelis.  For example, it was reported that on July 28, 2002, the residents of Hebron refused to cooperate with the Israeli-imposed curfew.  This could be interpreted as a response from the Adult ego state which said, in essence, “I am going to go about my business and accept the consequences.”  If people are unwilling to abide by the CP rules imposed by their “captors”, ultimately the CP will have no choice but to move out of the CP position.  Gandhi grasped this idea quite clearly when he stated that "The first principle of nonviolent action is non-cooperation with everything humiliating."

        3.  By responding from NP, one can often evoke an FC response in the adversary.  For example, on my last trip to the West Bank (Spring 2002), I engaged many Israeli soldiers with an eye to conversion or accommodation.  I would often initiate conversation by stating "It must be tough being a soldier under these circumstances--very boring and occasionally dangerous”.  The idea here, once again, is to move the soldier out of the CP position for which they are trained, and move them, in this case, to an FC position.  This, by the way, is an important tool for nonviolent activists in individual interactions.  If a soldier can be moved out of the CP position, by engaging him/her with an A (factual), FC (humor) or an NP(nurturing) response, the dangers inherent in the situation will be dramatically reduced.

        In each of these examples, the key to success, from a transactional perspective, is to move the individual soldier, or Israel in general, out of the CP ego state for which they have been so extensively trained.  They expect an RC response (adaptation, modeling or rebellion) and are well equipped to deal with it.  Therefore, the first step is to refuse to make an RC response (e.g., rebellion), which will perpetuate the CP <--> RC transaction state.  By moving to FC, A or NP, you can usually move the opponent (whether individual or state) out of the dangerous CP position.  By utilizing nonviolent action, one avoids an RC response and forces the adversary out of the CP position.  FROM A PSYCHOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE, NONVIOLENT ACTION WORKS BY FORCING THE ADVERSARY OUT OF THE POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS CONTROLLING PARENT POSITION.

Concluding comments

        Recently I distributed some comments on the book, The Lessons of Terror by Caleb Carr.

        Carr defines terrorism as "warfare deliberately waged against civilians with the purpose of destroying their will to support either leaders or policies that the agents of such violence find objectionable."  Carr recognizes that such terrorism can be perpetrated by individuals, groups or states, and he makes a powerful and cogent argument that such actions are NEVER successful in the long run.  This brief book contains a concise history of warfare dating back to the Roman Empire, and categorizes major wars and warriors as either destructive (terrorist) or productive.  While Carr says little about nonviolent movements, I believe that analogs to his ideas also exist within nonviolent paradigms.

        I offer several quotes from the book:

        "[Karl von Clausewitz was a young Prussian officer who wrote perhaps the most influential book on military action ever published, "On War".  In this book he argues forcefully for the concept of total (terrorist) war, describing the aims of war as] a) to conquer AND destroy the enemy's armed force, b) to get possession of the enemy's material elements of aggression, and c) to gain public opinion....The first two of these goals could be made to dovetail nicely together within Clausewitz's theories; the third was a very tough fit....Yet, as J.F.C. Fuller noted, Clausewitz's conception of war was fatally flawed, as was Napoleon's by a consuming passion for war itself.  The young Prussian, Fuller correctly observed, 'never grasped that the true aim of war is peace and not victory'."  (pp. 128-129)

        "There is an irony concerning most of these [anti-Roman] rebel leaders that also holds enormous implications for our present experience:  the most dangerous and effective of them were men who had been trained by Rome itself, usually in the ranks and often in the officer corps of the legions.  It was this training that enabled them to organize their warriors into disciplined units capable of combating the Romans with their own methods.  The clear lesson here is one that has stood the test of countless brutal struggles over the ages:  a nation must never think that it can use (and especially train) the agents of terror when convenient and then be rid of them when they are no longer needed" (p. 23).  [As when Israel supported HAMAS as a counterweight to the PLO, or as the US trained Al-Qaeda to confront the Soviet Union--BT]

Chapter 10 deals with Ireland and Palestine:

        "In truth, the IRA's greatest hope for the advancement of their cause lies in the extent to which their Unionist enemies are willing to imitate their tactics and thus alienate the public.  But as for the terrorists over whom such leaders as Adams either cannot or will not exercise control, they have gained nothing more through such tactics than did Michael Collins.  Collin's one chance for greatness, for true achievement, lay in limiting the Irish cause's violence to a guerrilla campaign aimed at British soldiers and officials; and indeed, during the fleeting moments when he was able to so limit it, he came within reach of remarkable results.  But when he let the conflict bleed over into terrorism, all the ground he had gained was lost, and he proved far less effective an advocate for Irish rights than the members of the INP, who had struggled for so long in Parliament" (pp. 206-207)

...on Palestine...

        "Indeed the only periods during which Palestinian organizations were able to drum up meaningful Western support came when they engaged Israeli conventional military forces--or, as in the case of Black September in 1970, other Arab military units.  The internecine war between Arafat's feyayeen--'those who are ready to sacrifice themselves'--and King Hussein of Jordan's Western-modeled Arab Legion happened to coincide with an unusual multiple-airplane hijacking by the PFLP, during which the Palestinians removed the passengers and released many of them before destroying only the planes and then opening communication with reporters and making demands for the release of various comrades in Europe.  They thus sent a signal that their priority, even their intention, might not be murder but rather serious international attention for their plight.  The tactic served them, as it resulted in not only the release of their comrades but considerable television interview time, which would likely not have been possible had they gone on a killing spree aboard the planes."

        "More recently, the men orchestrating and the youths participating in the Palestinian intifada movement have discovered that the world is willing to pay attention to--and even admire--their actions when they take the form of guerrilla attacks against the Israeli military.  Public-opinion polls in America alone showed a significant spike in favor of the Palestinians when the intifada campaigns were launched and the airwaves became dominated by pictures of young men armed with nothing more than rocks and slings facing up to combat troops and riot police.  The biblical parallel was obvious and effective; but change in American and Israeli policy did not follow the change in American public opinion fast enough to suit the Palestinians, who have since resorted to the tactic of blowing up Israeli civilians--specifically, on some occasions, young people--with equally young suicide bombers.  It is a doubly bestial and doubly counterproductive tactic, one that has led to a predictable plummet in the perception of Palestinians among Westerners; and an equally predictable maintenance of pro-Israeli policies." (pp. 216-218)

        Carr has much more information and many more insights into methods for using violence (and I would submit, nonviolence) for achieving political ends, and I heartily commend this book to your study.

        I would add some quotes from "the Art of War" by Sun Tzu, a brief manual of warfare that has been studied by military strategists for two millennia.  It will provide some insight into both current Israeli and perhaps future Palestinian strategy.

        "Therefore those who win every battle are not really skillful--those who render the others' armies helpless without fighting are the best of all."

        "Therefore one who is good at martial arts overcomes others' forces without battle, conquers others' cities without siege...."

        "A surrounded army must be given a way out."

        I would submit that the optimal way to achieve Sun Tzu's maxims is through powerful, confrontive nonviolent actions.  Using terror will, I believe, only lead to a hardening of positions, counterproductive prolongation of the conflict, and further loss of both Palestinian and Israeli life.

        Once again, I would argue that both Carr and Sun Tzu are suggesting that in order to achieve victory in any conflict one needs to be creative in manipulating the opponent and in avoiding being fixated in a position that provides greater advantages to the adversary than to oneself.  As a psychologist, I tend to translate this into the above analysis, and state that we need to be facile with crossing transactions (expectations), and to avoid being stuck in the rebellious RC position that the Israeli opponent would prefer.

        It is clear that a successful Palestinian nonviolent action movement will need to meet some basic requirements:

        1.  The cause must be true.  The Palestinian case is well established in international law, UN resolutions and and basic humanitarian rights.
        2.  There must be a clear and unambiguous statement of nonviolent intent.  Many Palestinians have been engaged for some time in nonviolent action, but major organizations, especially Fatah and HAMAS, have never made a declaration of nonviolent intent.  I can think of no action which would have as positive an impact on Palestinian aspirations as such a declaration.  At one fell swoop, it would remove the validity of Israel's greatest asset, its military power, and would put it perpetually on the defensive in combating Palestinian nonviolent actions.
        3.  From Sun Tzu we are instructed to know your enemy--their fears, strengths and weaknesses, as well as your own strengths and weaknesses (see below).  It is clear that in their mutual demonization of the other, neither Israelis nor Palestinians understand their adversaries very well.  Each sees the other as less than a human being.  Such blanket assumptions will make it impossible to find areas of true vulnerability in the opponent.
        4.  It is crucial to have clearly defined goals.  Within the Palestinian population (as within the Israelis) there are a variety of viewpoints on what would constitute an acceptable endpoint to the conflict.  Realistic and painful decisions will have to be made.
        5.  Organization, training and discipline are very important.  Many of the various Palestinian organizations meet this criteria, but overall much more can be done.  Gandhi was quite clear about this point, and suggested that some of his followers join the British army to achieve the necessary training and discipline before joining his nonviolent movement.
        6.  Related to #4 above, there must be cooperation and compromise with compatriots.
        7.  For nonviolent action to succeed, there needs to be a clear understanding of the principles and tactics of nonviolence.  A thorough study of Gene Sharp's volumes (above), in particular, would be important for the nonviolent leadership.  Nonviolent action should be approached with the same spirit of training as a military campaign. 
        8.  Ultimately, there needs to be large numbers of participants.  However, all nonviolent movements start small, and as Gandhi put it, "Nonviolence, when it becomes active, travels with extraordinary velocity, and then it becomes a miracle."
        9.  Media coverage is crucial.  The extent to which Israel has taken measures to limit media coverage indicates the concern they have on this matter.  However, I do not believe that they would ultimately be able to control the local and world media in the face of a massive Palestinian nonviolent movement.

        There are many strengths which Palestinians bring to this conflict.

        1.  Palestinians are creative, ingenious and resourceful people.  I do not mean this to sound as cloying as it may, but it is a fact that the Palestinian people have been hardened by decades of oppression, perhaps for a longer time and more intensively than any other population in the world.  As has been said, "If adversity does not destroy me, it makes me stronger."
        2.  Palestinians are facing an adversary whose policies are fundamentally unjust and flawed, and whose only realistic option for maintaining injustice is the use of physical force (the "iron fist").
        3.  Israeli society is divided and, I believe, open to persuasion by Palestinian nonviolent actions.
        4.  Most Israelis and American Jews have a core belief in humanity and justice that I believe could be brought to bear by Palestinians' directly and actively seeking out suffering at the hands of the more militant Israeli elements.
        5.  Certain groups in Palestinian society, both militant and otherwise, are well organized, courageous and disciplined, and with a commitment to nonviolent confrontation could present a powerful counterpoint to violent Israeli actions.
        6.  Many Palestinians have wide experience in nonviolent strategy and tactics (e.g., the International Protection Force, organized and led by Palestinians).

        The Palestinian group Justice Now also points out weaknesses in the Palestinian position, particularly regarding the use of violence.

        1.  Violence prompts an overwhelming Israeli military response, and the Palestinians do not have the means to win a military victory.
        2.  In this unequal confrontation, the Palestinians pay a very high price, both in terms of deaths and in terms of injuries.
        3.  The use of firearms by Palestinians seems to justify the Israeli military response in the eyes of many Israelis and foreigners.
        4.  Violence locks both sides in a vicious pattern of retaliation and counter-retaliation that bears the seeds of escalation into a disastrous all-out war.
        5.  Violent protests lead to an image of Palestinians as a fundamentally violent and irresponsible people, a people with whom it is not possible to make peace.
        6.  It diverts attention from the real issue--the injustice endured by the Palestinian people--to its manifestation, the violent outbreaks.
        7.  Violence also puzzles the natural allies of the Palestinians in the Israeli political scene and in the world. Throwing stones does not constitute well-phrased political demands, and many people in Israel and the United States do not understand what the Palestinians want from their impulsive demonstrations of anger.
        8.  Violence triggers reactions of fear that alienate the Israeli people and provoke a right-wing shift of the Israeli public and electors, decreasing the will and the ability of Israel to make concessions and compromises.
        9.  Suicide attacks, whether in the occupied territories or inside the Green Line, decrease the support of the international community for the Palestinian cause.

        Let me close by expressing a concern.  The darkest scenario is that Israel will find a pretext to slaughter the Palestinian population or to expel Palestinians, including Israeli Arabs, to Jordan and/or Gaza.  Such a scenario could come about under the cover of a US attack on Iraq, proposed for any time from October 2002 to the beginning of 2003.  Serious decisions need to be made now in order to forestall this possibility. 

        In a situation determined by violence, the party with greater violence at its disposal will prevail.  That party is, of course, Israel.  In a situation determined by nonviolence, the party with greater nonviolence at its disposal will prevail.  Nonviolent action can defeat violence force; history is filled with such examples.  I would submit that nonviolent action is the best, and perhaps the only way in which the Palestinian people can achieve their destiny.