The Palestinian decision to apply for full United Nations membership at the Security Council, announced Friday by President Mahmoud Abbas, was the most viable of the only options possible: surrender, return to violence or appeal to the international community, a senior Palestinian official said Saturday.

I think this sentiment has been grossly misinterpreted in the media. We all understand what a “return to violence” would mean. It would mean another intifada. The last one failed to achieve anything at all for the Palestinians. Intifada is not going to lead to a state.

“Appeal to the international community” obviously means bringing to the United Nations demands that could not be achieved through violence.

The real question is what “surrender” means. I think that many people who support the creation of a Palestinian state believe wrongly that this means give in, not have a state, and continue to be occupied forever. Thus, their gut reaction is to say, “No, we don’t want you to surrender!” However, I do not believe this is what “surrender” means at all.

What is meant by “surrender” is giving up the goal of winning the war of 1948, of eventually eliminating the Jewish state. By not asking the proper question which is “Surrender what exactly?” the supporters of a two-states for two-peoples solution end up preventing exactly that. Instead of telling the Palestinians “Yes, we want you to surrender and to make peace with a Jewish state that will continue to exist for generations to come,” they say, “No, we don’t want you to surrender; fight for your right to self determination.” They say this naive to the fact that the goal is neither statehood nor peace, but a step forward on a path designed to eliminate the Jewish state.

I know there are plenty of supporters of the Palestinians who would advocate for the elimination of the Jewish state. I do not make this argument for their benefit. I write this for those who believe in a two state solution and who wish to help the Palestinians achieve statehood. They need to hear the words, “Yes, you need to surrender. Yes, you need to make peace with the Jewish state.” Nothing other than those words will make a difference.

In Cairo, in June of 2009, President Obama linked the Palestinian quest for freedom to the American civil rights movement. “Palestinians must abandon violence,” he said. “Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and it does not succeed.” He was right. So why is it that now — when finally, Montgomery has come to Nabi Saleh — he chooses to remain silent?

This is an appeal to Obama specifically presenting the Palestinian cause as a civil rights movement. The obvious answer to Perry is that it is not a civil rights movement, but rather an attempt to use non-violence to achieve the military objectives that violence failed to achieve, namely the acquisition of lands. In other words, the only rights in question are rights to land.

Land issues should be solved in negotiations, not through violence or through non-violence. Non-violence is a tactic, not a goal. If the goals are the acquisition of territory or the elimination of the Jewish state, non-violence is in fact simply another tactic used to achieve these military goals. One can be a non-violent hater, a non-violent Jew hater, a non-violent advocate for the elimination of the Jewish state through non-violent means, a non-violent advocate for the expulsion of the Jews from the land.

We may argue about whether or not certain border fences should be where they are and whether certain lands will be Israel’s or part of a future Palestinian state, but the use of non-violence to achieve those goals rather than negotiations is only qualitatively different from using violence. In effect, one can execute a non-violent attack and attempts to harm Israelis by harming Israeli security are exactly such an attack. This is why non-violent protests that attempt to do harm to Israel’s security are met with a response as if Israel were under attack. They are attacks.

The only question that need be asked if one is wondering whether or not an action qualifies as an attack is “Does it affect the other side harmfully?” Attempts to dismantle security barriers that prevent harm from coming to residents on the other side are such attempts.

Addendum from Meryl: Mark Perry is lying about the protests being nonviolent.

A border guard was blinded by a “protester”. There were also broken leg, broken arm, injuries, injuries, and more injuries during the weekly Bilin “protests.” And here is a picture of the stones used to injure the soldiers.