Originally posted by Bosse de NageWho said anything about shooting Jews? He advocated anti-Zionist resistance!
I don't see anything along the lines of 'Palestinians are justified in shooting Jews'. I mean, India belongs to the Indians, but Ghandi advocated non-violence as the best means to achieve that. Get it?
Originally posted by Bosse de NageHe enlisted in the British army against the Zulus in South Africa; so much for "satyagraha under any condition".
Yes ... presumably non-violent resistance. Sorry, but you're on to a hiding to nothing if you're trying to invoke Ghandi, Mr Satyagraha, in support of violence.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI know what Ghandi or the Quakers would say.
Outside of sport, in my opinion, no. It's always wrong to kill a person (even in sport, LOL), but sometimes you may have no choice. Whether or not you truly have a choice -- whether you are truly compelled -- is a matter for your conscience to decide.
What would Ghandi say?
The level of suffering in the world would be immeasurably higher if people of good conscience had not resisted oppression by violent means in the past. I see no reason to believe that this won't hold true in the future.
Originally posted by no1marauderAnother categorical statement without anything to back it up -- but you'll supply it shortly, I know!
The level of suffering in the world would be immeasurably higher if people of good conscience had not resisted oppression by violent means in the past.
Non-violence worked in India, one of the world's biggest countries. In China, Russia, Ireland, Palestine ... violence has led to ... immeasurable suffering. But I really want to believe you, so please show me that you're right.
Originally posted by scherzoSpectacularly irrelevant to the question of non-violence, especially as far as Palestine is concerned! Not to mention that -- at the risk of repeating myself -- his philosophy was not yet formed at the time he served in the Ambulance Corps. You might as well claim that Florence Nightingale was an imperialist oppressor for serving as a nurse in the Crimean War. Come to think of it, you probably would ...
But he enlisted nonetheless, meaning he did support the British ... just not when the British were dealing with India or Indians.
Originally posted by Bosse de Nage"I am not defending the Arab excesses. I wish they had chosen the way of non-violence in resisting what they rightly regarded as an unwarrantable encroachment upon their country. But according to the accepted canons of right and wrong, nothing can be said against the Arab resistance in the face of overwhelming odds."
Spectacularly irrelevant to the question of non-violence, especially as far as Palestine is concerned! Not to mention that -- at the risk of repeating myself -- his philosophy was not yet formed at the time he served in the Ambulance Corps. You might as well claim that Florence Nightingale was an imperialist oppressor for serving as a nurse in the Crimean War. Come to think of it, you probably would ...
He wrote that in a letter. The last sentence is the most revealing.
Originally posted by scherzoThat's Ghandi expressing solidarity with the Arab cause while deploring their means. Almost as if the Arabs were too stupid to be non violent (Ghandi was always a bit of an elitist). Why would he wish that they had chosen the way of non-violence if he thought that the violent way was right?
"I am not defending the Arab excesses. I wish they had chosen the way of non-violence in resisting what they rightly regarded as an unwarrantable encroachment upon their country. But according to the accepted canons of right and wrong, nothing can be said against the Arab resistance in the face of overwhelming odds."
He wrote that in a letter. The last sentence is the most revealing.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageGandhi may have been elitist, but he certainly was not anti-Arab; in fact, as I mentioned earlier, many people are all too willing to call anyone who criticizes Israel as anti-Semitic, and Gandhi does not serve as an exception to their rule.
That's Ghandi expressing solidarity with the Arab cause while deploring their means. Almost as if the Arabs were too stupid to be non violent (Ghandi was always a bit of an elitist). Why would he wish that they had chosen the way of non-violence if he thought that the violent way was right?
1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de NageNonviolence didn't "work" in India. Without violent resistance, there would never have been Indian independence.
Another categorical statement without anything to back it up -- but you'll supply it shortly, I know!
Non-violence worked in India, one of the world's biggest countries. In China, Russia, Ireland, Palestine ... violence has led to ... immeasurable suffering. But I really want to believe you, so please show me that you're right.
Did violent resistance to the Third Reich cause more or less suffering in the long run?
Originally posted by no1marauderWell ... Gandhi was nonviolent generally, and he did support Indian lib. Jinna and Nehru were similar, but less ideological. Nonviolence might have worked, especially if the partition had never happened.
Nonviolence didn't "work" in India. Without violent resistance, there would never have been Indian independence.
Did violent resistance to the Third Reich cause more or less suffering in the long run?
Originally posted by scherzoRegardless of what Ghandi or those in his movement thought, there were other groups violently resisting British occupation and colonial rule in India.
Well ... Gandhi was nonviolent generally, and he did support Indian lib. Jinna and Nehru were similar, but less ideological. Nonviolence might have worked, especially if the partition had never happened.