Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2014 July 31

= July 31 =

Why can't Argentina pay bondholders of its restructured debt outside of the US banking system?
US courts have blocked Argentina from paying bondholders of the restructured debt if the holdouts are not paid as well. US banks who process payments to only the restructured bondholders will be held in contempt of court. But why can't Argentina then simply pay the bondholders via entities that are outside US jurisdiction? Count Iblis (talk) 03:40, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Fantasia has no boundaries. I know there's economic metaphor in there somewhere, but in the meantime, I'm downsizing. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:40, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Argentina issued the bonds under New York law. See http://nyti.ms/1obvCer for more info. Gabbe (talk) 14:25, 31 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Count Iblis (talk) 21:50, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks. Much clearer. Judge Thomas P. Griesa seems to be playing the Gmork role here, as the servant of the Nothing, and the banks hold the financial hopes and dreams of mankind. As mankind defaults on them, the Nothing grows within the banks as well ("They look like big, good, strong hands, don't they?"). Their fear holds them together, but in a global web that isn't reliant on or constrained by two-dimensional borders. Every step we make along the way, withdrawing a wish and depositing a memory, ripples across the strands to the mysterious spider at the center of it all (it was her 42nd birthday yesterday...).


 * What many regular people do in times of foreboding debt is give themselves a new name. Argentreyu has a nice ring to it. Encapsulates the French "money", the Spanish "king" and the old Dutch "you". InedibleHulk (talk) 00:15, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

When and how did HP Lovecraft become popular?
The Wikipedia article on Lovecraft reads: "Virtually unknown and only published in pulp magazines before he died in poverty, he is now regarded as one of the most significant 20th-century authors in his genre."

I read the entire article and feel it does a poor job explaining when his posthumous popularity took hold. Am I correct that the article doesn't say anything about this, or did I just overlook that part?

It does mention that the "Lovecraft circle" carried on with his themes and settings after he died, but it doesn't really say when these types of stories became commercially successful and even wildly popular, as they are today.

Who is credited with popularizing his stories? Is it critic ST Joshi? The creators of Dungeons and Dragons? Somebody else? I'm totally confused how he got to be such a big deal. --Jerk of Thrones (talk) 10:22, 31 July 2014 (UTC)


 * You are quite correct that the article does little to explain this, and it is a question that should be raised at the article talk page. As someone who first read Lovecraft's stories when they were published in paperback in the UK in the 1960s - probably inspired at the time by hearing the psychedelic rock band H. P. Lovecraft, who obviously took their name from him - I'm pretty sure that the main instigator of his popularity was his executor and co-writer August Derleth.  His article contains a lengthy section on "Arkham House and the "Cthulhu Mythos"", and also refers to the Arkham House publishing house that Derleth set up with Donald Wandrei.  Certainly, Lovecraft's popularity was quite widepread by the late 1960s.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:37, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * This Salon article offers multiple reasons, including the author's wide circle of correspondents while he was alive, the permission for others to write in his universe, etc. Wikipedia article August Derleth credits Derleth's efforts to publish Lovecraft's books. 184.147.144.166 (talk) 10:46, 31 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The artwork of the red, white, and black Lester Del Rey editions I got in the 70's was the main attraction to me. I'd never've bought The Hobbit or LotR based on the cover art, had I not seen the 1977 animation of the Hobbit first. μηδείς (talk) 18:12, 31 July 2014 (UTC)


 * He also seems to be the recipient of a lot of name dropping from later, more famous, writers. For example, Stephen King has mentioned him several times as a favourite author and inspiration. That kind of advertising can go a long way. I sometimes get the impression that very few people read the original Lovecraft and Howard, but every one of them went on to be a big name in fantasy/sci-fi/horror/comics. Matt Deres (talk) 19:53, 31 July 2014 (UTC)


 * And Howard in no small part due to the help of Frazetta and Buscema. Lovecraft didn't have quite the same impact in comics (or, rather, it took him a bit longer), but Howard, Derleth, Lovecraft, Ashton Smith, et al. were something of a clique, and their ideas bled over with one another quite a bit, Ashton Smith's "Hyperborean cycle" being the source of Howard's "Hyborian Age," and numerous Cthulhu mythos entities/deities making appearances in (especially unedited) Conan stories. The backmatter in The Coming of Conan the Cimmerian, a recent reprint of Howard's stories, goes into some detail regarding the connection between Lovecraft's ideas and Howard's writing. Point being: it's much harder to account for "influence" as such than it is for simple "popularity"&mdash;and if your tropes are popular for their use in other authors' writings, isn't that a popularity of sorts? Evan (talk&#124;contribs) 01:14, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Restoration of Charles II
Charles II was "restored" to the English throne following Cromwell's death and the Commonwealth's collapse. The formal date given for his restoration (which I guess in this context is meant to be noticeably different from the traditional route of accession, since we was supposed by his supporters to have been King since his father's death eleven years ago) is 29 May 1660, the first time since Charles I's death that a monarch had sat with Parliament. He was formally recognized as King by Parliament four days later and was "proclaimed King in London" six days after that. He was not crowned at Westminster Abbey, however, until 23 April 1661, nearly a full year after being recognized by parliament, returning from exile, and assuming all the formal powers of the English monarch.

My basic question is: why did it take so long for him to be crowned, and what practical effect did that crowning have, on his formal powers or simply on public perception of his status, that parliamentary recognition had not had? Evan (talk&#124;contribs) 17:03, 31 July 2014 (UTC)


 * In short, coronations are a big deal. You might ask why people today see weddings as such a big deal. I mean, if you're together with your partner, if you love each other, then that's what counts, right? But to most the wedding ritual is not just a mere formality - it has a massive significance that is beyond symbolic, having a deeper religious meaning as well. Typical Britons of the 17th century would similarly see a coronation as a tremendous watershed moment, unlike formal recognition by Parliament. As to why it occured quite some time after him taking charge, our article "Coronation of the British monarch" notes that waiting several months into the onset of a monarch's reign "gives planners enough time to complete the elaborate arrangements required". Gabbe (talk) 17:39, 31 July 2014 (UTC)


 * One important thing that changed was that at the coronation, Charles II was anointed - marked with holy oil on the hands, breast and head (at the same point that he would have been marked with water during his baptism). This has specific religious meaning, consecrating him and indicating his status as sacred (the divine right of kings). In its sacred capacity kingship has certain elements in common with priesthood; for example, his sacred status supposedly allows a king to cure certain illnesses (such as the King's evil) by his touch, similarly to a priest or prophet. The act of anointing Christian monarchs can ultimately be traced back to the Bible, where Saul and David were anointed, as, famously, was Solomon. RomanSpa (talk) 18:52, 31 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Not to take anything away from the above posts, but to answer your question, the coronation had no effect on his formal powers. He got all of them back the moment he was restored to the throne.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  20:08, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * He got his formal powers the moment his father was murdered, his effective powers at the moment of Restoration. DuncanHill (talk) 03:54, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Was the restitution of the monarchy made retrospective? I appreciate that monarchists probably never accepted the legitimacy of the republic, but as far as the law of the land was concerned, was there not a period during which there was no monarchy?  How could any aspect of Charles II's monarchy have predated the change in the law (re-)establishing said monarchy?  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  04:38, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The Commonwealth/Protectorate effectively never happened as far as law and the constitution were concerned - this was effected by the Act of Indemnity and Oblivion. There are no interregnums (interregna?) in English law - at the very moment the King dies, the new King becomes King - The king is dead, long live the king!. DuncanHill (talk) 05:11, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The article on Charles II says his reign began in 1660. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:30, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a reliable source. DuncanHill (talk) 05:41, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't listen to Duncan on this one. Nearly every other source (I'll concede he could find one or two otherwise, but the vast preponderance of them...) outside of Wikipedia also recognizes the dates in Wikipedia articles, and the historical reality of the British interregnum.  You can't do better than the official website of the British Monarchy itself for this one.  And I quote "From 1649 to 1660, England was therefore a republic during a period known as the Interregnum ('between reigns'). A series of political experiments followed, as the country's rulers tried to redefine and establish a workable constitution without a monarchy."  One could find 100 sources that recognize the dates and facts of the interregnum of scrupulous reliability and respect for every one fringe and dubious source that Duncan would care to produce that would claim that the Commonwealth didn't exist.  -- Jayron  32  23:30, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Wow Jayron, way to miss the point entirely! My point is that legally the period of the Commonwealth & Protectorate were annulled - by the Act of Indemnity and Oblivion. I'm sorry that you think that acts of the English parliament are fringe and dubious. BTW, Charles II was crowned as King of Great Britain in 1651. The Commonwealth existed as a thing, but its existence in law was annulled - that is, made so as never to have been (just as an annulled marriage has never been). If you can't distinguish between law and practical fact then you have no place on a Humanities board. DuncanHill (talk) 23:57, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Acts of Parliament are not fringe and dubious, but you're claiming that such political moves have the weight of changing the existence of historical events... you've said that Cromwell et. al. didn't exist because Parliament said they didn't. Parliament acceded to the demands of Charles for political reasons so he would accept the throne offered to him at the end of the interregnum.  But they can't make the interregnum go away.  You said that because Wikipedia said Charles became king in 1660, it must be wrong.  On the contrary, I was just pointing out that merely because Wikipedia mentions that date doesn't make it wrong, especially when other more reliable sources quote that date repeatedly.  Yes, Parliament passed laws.  They didn't make the interregnum go away by doing so.  It was still a real event in real history, and declaring it not to be so doesn't actually make it not happen.  Legally, Parliament can say it doesn't recognize the politics of the interregnum, it can abolish, invalidate, annul, or overturn every such law passed by the Commonwealth parliaments, it can declare the legal situation in England to revert to that the day before Charles I was executed, but what it cannot do it make the years from 1649-1660 have actually worked differently.  Parliament, and later Cromwell, really did operate a functioning republic for those 11 years.  That Parliament declared said republic to have not "counted" doesn't mean it didn't happen.  Historians universally agree on the date of the start of Charles II's reign in England, acts of Parliament notwithstanding... -- Jayron  32  00:26, 2 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I didn't say they didn't exist. Seriously Jayron, what are you finding so hard to understand? And I didn't say Wikipedia must be wrong. Not only are you being astonishingly obtuse, you are even putting words into my mouth. Why? Are you just stupid, or do you have some kind of grudge leading to you telling lies about me and misrepresenting what I say? DuncanHill (talk) 00:41, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Bugs quoted Wikipedia saying that Charles's reign began in 1660. You told him Wikipedia wasn't a reliable source.  I reminded you that Wikipedia is not the only source for that date.  What was your point in denying the date Wikipedia reported merely because Wikipedia isn't reliable.  If you don't dispute that date, why did you dispute Bugs's mention of it?  To what end was your starting of an argument with Bugs over a widely accepted historical date of a widely accepted historical event?  If you don't dispute 1660 as the start of Charles' reign, then why did you make such a point of denying Bugs as being correct?  -- Jayron  32  00:53, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Wow, I wasn't aware that Bugs and I were having an argument (and we've had enough of them in the past). I though he and I were enjoying the mutual incomprehension of a common language (as we often do). Anyway - Parliament, in the acts passed after the Restoration, used 1649 as the starting date of Charles II's reign - that is why, for example, the Act of Indemnity is the "Act of 12 Car. II c. 11" - that is to say, the The 12th Year of Charles II, chapter 11. My point, which you seem incapable of understanding, is that in law the Commonwealth and the interregnum never happened - certainly Cromwell murdered lots of Irish people & Catholics, and used the Army to suppress Parliament after his gerrymandering and threats failed to make it bend to his will, but in law the parliaments and assemblies of the Commonwealth had no effect. At no time did I suggest that actual events did not happen - and I fail to see how you could honestly claim that I did. DuncanHill (talk) 01:03, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Look, this isn't helpful to insult each other. I public apologize for comments I made to that effect to you.  I should not have made them.  It's not productive going forward to use insulting words, and any statements I made above that had the effect of misrepresenting your meaning, well for that I am duly and totally ashamed, and I apologize for them; not because I seek your forgiveness, but because it is the right thing to do when I recognize my own mistake.  I own that mistake, and apologize for it.  What I offer in the way of an explanation forthcoming is not an excuse for it, or a justification for it (as my actions are without excuse or justification), but merely an explanation so you can understand why I acted the way I did (though again, the existence of this explanation is not, in any way, an attempt to lessen my own culpability in this argument, for which I take full ownership and fully apologize).  When you stated "Wikipedia is not a reliable source" in response to Bugs's quoted date of 1660, it felt to me as though you were claiming dismissing the entire notion that Charles' reign began in 1660 (as opposed to the date when Parliament retroactively decided they wanted it to have begun on).  It was the way in which you dismissed Bugs that set me off in irrational ways; it's a cheap argument to dismiss historical facts with a trite statement like "Wikipedia isn't reliable".  Still, of course you don't deny that the Republic existed from 1649-1660, I clearly understand and acknowledge that you are noting the difference between the historical existence of that period in history with the legal recognition of the laws passed by the Republican parliaments.  All you have been saying is that Parliament legally declared the Commonwealth as invalid, and that it recognized Charles II as having seceeded to the throne at the moment of his father's death.  That Parliament in 1660 passed that law is of course undeniable.  Again, I apologize for acting the way I have, I only hope you understand (not excuse mind you, but comprehend) that the statement "Wikipedia is not a reliable source" was perceived by me to be such a ridiculously non-sequitur response to Bugs's noting of the 1660 date that it set me off in unfortunate ways... -- Jayron  32  01:18, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Speaking of sudden, ridiculous, unfortunate and non-sequitur, here's a failed Segway. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:31, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You can't change the past. If it existed, it can't be made not to have existed.  You can make it so that the apparatus of the law, going forward, must behave as though it never existed, but this is a legal fiction, not reality, practical or otherwise. --Trovatore (talk) 00:08, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * No, it's not a legal fiction, that is something else. The Commonwealth was made to have had no legal existence - acts of its Parliament and its Executive were made to have no effect. It was annulled. DuncanHill (talk) 00:14, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That's precisely what a legal fiction is. The Commonwealth may have no legal existence from the point of view of the law going forward.  But that doesn't change what, in actual truth, happened.  The right word is "truth", not "practicality".  If something existed, and the law claims after the fact that it didn't, then the law is lying. --Trovatore (talk) 00:20, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The sequence of actions was:
 * 6 January 1649. Parliament creates a court to try Charles I, because he is notorious for having a wicked design to subvert the ancient and fundamental laws and liberties and substitute and arbitrary and tyrannical government, and for murdering a lot of people.
 * 27 January 1649. The court condemns Charles I to death
 * 30 January 1649. Parliament prohibits the throne from being claimed (by anyone) without their consent after Charles I has been executed.
 * 30 January 1649 (later in the day). Charles I is executed.  ("Murdered"?  Come off it.  He was under a death sentence.)
 * 17 March 1949. Parliament abolishes the monarchy.
 * 8 May 1660. Parliament proclaims that since Charles II has obviously been king since 1649, he should hurry up and start exercising his powers of office.
 * So not only was the restoraction retroactive, it was a case of retroactive continuity: Parliament simply started acting as if the monarchy had never been abolished.
 * --50.100.189.29 (talk) 07:06, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Clarification: all those dates are Julian calendar but with the year treated as starting on January 1, the same as in the Charles I of England article. --50.100.189.29 (talk) 07:08, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The official British Royals website likewise gives 1660 as the first year of the reign of Charles II. Ah, but what do they know? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:55, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * British law may not recognize an interregnum ... but historians do. So, the answer to the "but what do they know" question is ... lawyers know law, historians know history.  Law and History don't have to agree with each other. Blueboar (talk) 11:13, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Given that, who is the current King of France, or the Tsar of Russia? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:11, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Depends on who you ask... For France it is probably either Louis Alphonse, Duke of Anjou or Felipe VI of Spain... For Russia it is probably Nicholas Romanov, Prince of Russia or Maria Vladimirovna, Grand Duchess of Russia. Blueboar (talk) 00:52, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * see also List of current pretenders...-- Jayron  32  02:45, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * And here are the current Pretenders. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:51, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, yes, they're the Great Pretenders. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:19, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Famous leaders who practiced nonviolence
Even though the page on Nonviolence in the Simple English Wikipedia is only a Stub, I decide it would be instructive to create a Level 2 heading for famous leaders who practiced nonviolence. I stopped after populating the list with Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr., as I don't know enough about the lives of such figures as, say, Gautama Buddha and Jesus to be sure they'd qualify. Appropriate contributions would be appreciated, I'm sure. -- Deborahjay (talk) 17:59, 31 July 2014 (UTC) ETA: I just found the Category:Nonviolence advocates with over 200 pages, a daunting quantity though not all are well-known leaders. It seems prudent to choose those who already have pages in the Simple English WP. Any favorite candidates to recommend? -- Deborahjay (talk) 18:12, 31 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Jesus did not have any official position of authority, and was not a political activist in any ordinary sense, but according to the New Testament he was mostly non-violent -- except when driving the moneychangers from the Temple, or cursing the fig tree... [[Image:SFriendly.gif|20px]] -- AnonMoos (talk) 22:14, 31 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Or possibly when just going about his daily non-recorded life. Dead men tell no tales. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:51, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, being a "leader" does not necessarily mean one holds any official position of authority (in sociology, not doing so is a major characteristic of "charismatic" leaders). Gandhi was a leader without holding any officially sanctioned position. Similarly, Jesus was indisputably a leader of his disciples; the same applies, mutatis mutandis, to Buddha (with the caveat that, apparently, he would have had some broader societal authority as well, had he not renounced the privileges afforded by his noble birth).
 * And Jesus was absolutely a political activist, though not in the way we're used to thinking of the term. He was not a revolutionary, in that he did not advocate for the forcible overthrow of the existing government, but he absolutely urged reform in the way people relate to one another socially (see the story of the Good Samaritan, the Beatitudes, etc.) and questioned the authority of the existing Jewish leaderships to regulate the people's interaction with God. His political activism was primarily or exclusively religious, and fell firmly in the tradition of the prophets of ancient Israel and Judah, with some apocalyptic innovations courtesy the development of that worldview during the Babylonian exile and the period of Achaemenid rule (largely by way of the Book of Daniel). But his being a religious reformer does not mean he was not a political activist; politics and religion were not as separate then as we like to think they are now, and many of Jesus' statements had immediate relevance to the political context in which he was active. "Render unto Caesar" is just as much a political statement as it is a religious/ethical one. Evan (talk&#124;contribs) 01:46, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Are you only looking for those who made it a point to actively use non-violence against violence? The ones who protest violent things often get more spotlight than those who do non-violent things, but is there a real difference, or is non-violence just easier to see in contrast to violence? Maybe the leaders of the neutral states would qualify. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


 * If its notable enough for WP, its good enough to list on the page. Although you'd be better off just linking to category as I did with sports and politics.Lihaas (talk) 23:52, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

OP recaps: Thanks for your contributions. I'd say the concept relates to advocacy of nonviolent action to achieve social change (besides pacifism as a nonviolent response to militarism). By "leader" I was considering ideological movements besides elected or appointed officials. The simple:Nonviolence page would benefit by a section on leaders who renounced violence. Meanwhile, to immediately improve existing pages in the Simple English WP I created the Category:Nonviolence advocates and populated it by adding this Cat to the 26 pages there, among that category's 101 pages in English. Several hours' work was instructive for me as well: e.g., three nonviolence activists in Guatemala and one in Cuba who don't have a page in es.Wikipedia.org. More relevant for me at present was the discovery of English-language pages for several Palestinian advocates of nonviolence (Nafez Assaily, Naim Ateek, and Ali Abu Awwad) who aren't represented in either the Hebrew or Arabic-language Wikipedias. Now I'm going back to trawling the Category:Israeli-Palestinian peace process that could use some work, no doubt. -- Deborahjay (talk) 15:43, 2 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I've often wondered why Palestinians don't follow Ghandi's example. Clearly violence has not been able to achieve any of their goals, as it's been 2/3 of a century since the formation of Israel, and despite numerous wars, suicide bombers, missiles, etc., they haven't won back their land.  If they had engaged exclusively in nonviolent protests, on the other hand, I bet they would have gotten world opinion on their side and be in a much better situation right now.


 * As far as other advocates of nonviolence, I believe a woman in the US Congress voted against both WW1 (as did many others) and WW2 (which required a dyed-in-the-wool pacifist, after Pearl Harbor). I forget her name. StuRat (talk) 15:54, 2 August 2014 (UTC)


 * It's Jeannette Rankin you're thinking of. (Possibly stating the obvious, but the Palestinians already have world opinion on their side. Outside the USA, which for historic reasons has highly pro-Israel politics and media, I don't think it's unfair to say that Israel is generally somewhere on the level of North Korea in terms of popularity rankings. Before someone accuses me of being anti-Israeli for saying it, here's a source from the Israeli press for the fact.) 80.44.176.255 (talk) 16:11, 2 August 2014 (UTC)


 * So the world hates the Jews. What else is new? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:31, 2 August 2014 (UTC)


 * However, Israel isn't so unpopular that most of the nations of the world refuse to trade with them, as in South Africa in the Apartheid days, or blockade them, as in Japan pre-WW2 (or early WW2, depending on when you say it began). Had the Palestinians been pacifists, I believe US support would have evaporated and those steps would have been taken, leading to a better outcome for Palestinians. But so long as they continue to use violence, they will be viewed as terrorists in the US, which will use it's Security Council vote to stop any UN actions against it.  StuRat (talk)


 * And Israel doesn't "use violence"? They always claim they only ever use it to defend themselves against the attacks of others (Palestine, Lebanon ...) in order to protect what is rightfully theirs.  But use it, they still do.  And Palestine is still hurting from having had removed from them what was rightfully theirs by what they still see as a usurper.  Palestine is supposed to practise Gandhian non-violence in the face of offence.  Why isn't Israel also charged with this approach?  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  21:44, 2 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Jack, nonviolent resistance is designed to be used against a more powerful enemy which uses violence. The British were violent against Ghandi's Indian protesters, and Martin Luther King's protesters were also violently attacked.  That's the whole point.  When nonviolent protesters are shot or attacked by dogs or fire hoses, and you get that on film, you can shape world opinion in your favor.  When you fight back violently, on the other hand, it becomes just another war and the world turns away.  The only point in fighting back violently is if you actually have some chance of winning that way, and the Palestinians haven't a chance in hell of winning militarily.  StuRat (talk) 23:54, 2 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Are you saying the US is not philosophically opposed to violence, as long as the perp is able to overwhelm and defeat their opponent? Choosing not to use violence only because you know you can't win, is hardly "practising non-violence".  It's just pragmatism.  Practising non-violence means choosing not to use it, even when you know you would win.  By all means, demand Palestine practise non-violence; but be even-handed about and demand ALL parties do the same, all the time.  How ironic that the person who advocated not striking back when provoked but turning the other cheek lived in that part of the world. What a laugh I have when I remember the people who've won Nobel Peace Prizes for "bringing peace to the Middle East".  Did I blink and miss it?   --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  02:28, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Pragmatism is exactly what I'm talking about here. The Palestinians seem more interested in fighting than in achieving their goals.  This I find hard to understand.  I haven't seen as bad of a strategy since Japan attacked the US in WW2, completely ignoring the fact that they couldn't hope to invade and conquer the continental US, and the vast difference in industrial capacity.  The logic that "they made us mad so we must fight, even though we are certain to lose" just totally escapes me. StuRat (talk) 05:58, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That's because you're not mad as hell. Logic's easy now. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:08, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Maybe because the Palestinians only seem relatively non-violent, as a consequence of poverty. Throwing a rock at a tank or a homemade rocket at a jet looks like a symbolic gesture to the educated eye, but the kids who launch them likely intend that target to explode. In other words, it's easy to be less violent when you're weak. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:41, 2 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I really don't think that non-violence is the one single missing ingredient or quasi-panacea which would quickly bring about Arab-Israeli peace. In my opinion, far more self-defeating errors have been 1) an anti-pragmatic political philosophy of "the perfect is the enemy of the good" or "all or nothing" or "maximalism" (which means rejecting almost any proposal which does not fully meet one's ultimate grand aspirational visions, even if by accepting it one would gain solid concrete practical benefits at a lower level) and 2) embracing tactics of "immoralism", which means that no attack ostensibly carried out in support of one's own side will ever be rejected or condemned, regardless of the circumstances (so that Dalal Mughrabi, Kozo Okamoto, Samir Kuntar etc. are celebrated as "martyrs" or "heros").  If there were some kind of ethical limitations of Palestinian armed activities which the Israeli public could understand, it would noticeably diminish Israeli vs. Arab bitterness without requiring any kind of strict non-violence... AnonMoos (talk) 02:23, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


 * By definition, non-violence brings about peace if both sides use it.
 * Back to the OP's question: many Palestinian leaders have tried non-violence. The PLO has renounced violence for many decades, and cracks down (to a greater or lesser extent) on terrorists planning to attack Israelis.  Even during the Second Intifada, Mahmoud Abbas, the current president of the PA, was elected president on a platform of peaceful negotiation with Israel and non-violence.  To say that no Palestinians have ever tried non-violence is a gross distortion of reality.
 * Also, although Jack mocks Yasser Arafat and Yitzhak Rabin for winning the Nobel peace prize, the fact is that they have gotten closer than anyone else in achieving peace between Israel and Palestine. It's easy to mock near-successes, but I bet Israel would love to have Arafat in charge of Gaza at this moment, and Gazans would love to have Rabin in Israel.  --Bowlhover (talk) 06:35, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, some of your facts are incorrect. Non-violence has not been tried as a consistent Palestinian strategy for any length of time (as opposed to rather brief and localized episodes).  Anyway, while non-violence could theoretically reduce mideast tensions, it's not too realistic to expect it to suddenly and spontaneously break out in the current mid-east context, and there are actually measures which would fall far short of strict non-violence yet which could significantly ease current antagonisms.  If there's a long-running conflict between two sides, and each side restrains its own partisans from "going too far" (violating established rules of war and humanitarian norms etc.), and so punishes or disowns such attacks inflicted on the other side, then that conflict will probably be a lot less bitter and intractable than a conflict where one or both sides do not punish or disown attacks on the other side which "go too far".  Perfunctory or ritualistic condemnations of a very small number of terrorist acts made by Abbas under international pressure while Arabs are simultaneously glorifying Dalal Mughrabi or Suleiman Khater (or by Arafat when he is simultaneously protecting Mohammed Deif!!) helps to keep the international money flowing to the Palestinian Authority, but it does almost nothing whatsoever to convince the majority of the Israeli public that the ultimate goal of the Arabs isn't still to throw the Jews into sea...  I bet that most Israelis do not want Arafat back -- among other reasons, because he was a pathological liar who made a very conscious decision to try to "ride" the wave of violence in 2001 to extract more concessions from Israel (which has filled many Israelis with an implacable resolve not to reward terrorism, since to do so would be to merely encourage more terrorism in future). AnonMoos (talk) 12:58, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I nominate Nelson Mandela. However, he was a terrorist earlier in life, so do what you will with that information.  --Bowlhover (talk) 06:50, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * All people constantly change. A violent deed in the past doesn't factor into whether a person is non-violent later (or the other way around). But like he was both an old man and a little boy, the typical progression is from violence to non-violence, not the other way. People either learn from the consequences, or are forced to stop, by incarceration or death.


 * The longer the life, the more chance to experience and appreciate the precious parts. It's easy to sign a kid up for a gang or army, when all they have is a limited sample of boredom, pain and hopelessness, which they were too weak to avoid. But then those same kids grow up fast once they're in, and it's not uncommon to see reformed soldiers, still in their twenties or thirties, trying to clean up the streets or governments. On the other hand, it takes something much more acute and (relatively) rare to convince a 40-year-old to throw those years away for their country or set. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:02, 4 August 2014 (UTC)