Reply #48: englander.....

[pelsar]

you read to fast...or I didnt write properly. (my examples above is how I define/imagine the past ISM philosophy of "we'll be non violent but we agree to a violent solution."

Though this appearst to be already by out of date..according to a real ISM member, and one whos has been there ( idontwantaname).

but I'll explain anyways....since its appears the ISM has understood that fuzzying the line between non violence and violent protest is not a good thing.

the philosophy of "we wont use guns, but we believe in their use against israelis and we will interfere with the IDF operations is protecting those shooting at me. IDF operations are designed in principle to protect me. Its that simple. Its not a good idea, if one values ones life, to try to confuse the line between non violence and violence infront of soldiers. Soldiers dont react well to confusion, since their bottom line is defending their lives and those of their unit. And if you confuse them (me) and we're not quite sure, we'll err on the side of our own defense and lives and the expense of the other.

it seems however that the ISM now has understood that and is taking a non violent observation status and letting the israelis and palestenians do the work...which is better since both understand the rules a lot better than those from the outside.

the ISM doesnt expose anything more than our own TV/mothers at roadblocks/soldiers/palestenians during interviews do.....they piss us off because they are playing with fire with a "holier than thou attitude" thinking they're better than both us and the palestenians as if they cant get hurt.... (but again i understand that has changed as reality has set in)