The current intifada in the West Bank and Gaza is now four years old. Forty-eight months in to this uprising, it is clear that, by any measure, it has been a disaster for the Palestinians. Militarily, Israel has inflicted three times as many casualties on the Palestinians as the Palestinians have on Israel. In the past few years, suicide bombers have found it much harder to get through Israel's elaborate security apparatus to wreak haovc in Israel's cities. Economically, the intifada may have hurt Israelis, but it has pauperised the Palestinians, many of whom now get by on less than a dollar a day. Revenue from tourism and work in Israel has all but disappeared.
Politically, the Palestinian Authority is in ruins, unable to control what little territory is still, in theory under its control. Dissatisfaction with the coruption of many PA functionaries grows, and the street is turning increasingly to Hamas for leadership. Yasser Arafat is confined to a few rooms in his headquarters as the two men who wish to lead the world's only superpower compete to see which of them can spit the most venom his way.
But most of all, regardless of every bombing, every UN resolution, every peace plan; the settlements continue to grow, taking up more and more land. They, and the roads which service them, tighten their death grip on the cities of the West Bank with each passing day.
A change of course is desperatlely needed if the Palestinians are to achieve their dream of statehood. Should the Palestinains simply call off the uprising and ask Israel for talks? In my opinion the answer is no.
Negotiations at this stage could only lead to defeat for the Palestinians. Even if the Israelis agreed to talk, it is clear that, given Palestinian weakness, Sharon would be free to dictate terms. The Palestinians have been here before, when they negotiated in the wake of the PLO's disastrous support for Saddam Hussein during the first Gulf War. The end result was Oslo, a deal so one-sided that the late Edward Said memorably described it as "a Palestinian Versailles".
So, if making war isn't working, and making peace hasn't worked, what then is the alternative? I believe that non-violent resistance to the occupation is now the Palestinians best hope. Let me be clear that, when I say this, I'm speaking in political rather than moral terms. The morality or otherwise of armed resistance by the Palestinians is another issue for another blog.
It is my belief that the use of non-violent action - strikes, boycootts, sit-down protests, hunger strikes, sanctions etc - is the only feasible way for Palestinians to tip the scakes back their way a little so that, when peace talks come, the Palestinian leaders are not sent "naked into the negotiating chamber".
The single biggest problem for Palestinians is that their adversary has the whole-hearted support of the world's largest economic and military force - the United States. This will remain the case for the forseeable future. Therefore, the Palestinians desperately need a patron of thier own to bring a semblance of balance to the struggle.
In the past, many Palestinians hoped that the Arab countries would come to their aid. But the Arab League is too fragmented and its members too weak to provide coherent support to the people of the West Bank and Gaza. There is however a second potential patron, one whose emotional attachment to the Palestinians is far weaker than the Arab League's, but whose economic and political power is infintely greater. I'm thinking of the European Union (EU).
Many of Europe's citizens and rulers feel very sympathetic to the Palestinian cause. Yet, given it's power and its adjacent location, the EU has never played a major role in the conflict, certainly nothing comparable to that played by the US.
I feel that the impact of Palestinian violence on the European psyche has much to do with this anomaly. Much as many Europeans support the Palestinians in their quest for satatehoood, they find some of the methods used to achieve this aim abhorrent. Palestinian violence, particularly when directed against civilians, is an obstacle in the way of greater European support for their cause.
By adopting non-violence, the Palestinains would open up the possibility of real EU support for the first time. Perhaps an EU wide boycott of Israeli goods could be possible. Most of all, the Palestinians would gain on the propaganda front by exposing the conflict for what it really is, a brutal occupation of one people by another. "The whole world is watching" as they used to say in Derry. Non-violence can be a very effective weapon against a more powerful enemy.
But the operative word in that last sentence is "can". I'm not suggesting that non-violence is always the answer. Both violence and non-violence can succeed, and both can also fail. The East German people brought down their regime without a shot being fired, the protestors at Tiananmen did not. Likewise, Algeria won its independence after a long and bloody struggle, Chechnya did not.
Each case needs to be judged on its merits. If there were a "one size fits all" solution then the Palestinians would already have used it. Nevertheless, I feel that non-violence could be the answer for the Palestinians. Both "peace" (Oslo) and "war" (the intifada) have failed lamentably.
It's time to try something new, before it's too late.