Violent vs. Non-violent solutions. Violent solutions are temporary solutions. Nonviolent solutions are more permanent due to the fact that the process for achieving the solution is consistent with the goal. It was said by Napoleon that everything taken by force is temporary. Nonviolence is more permanent because it is based on social growth, human reconciliation, and changing conditions. With respect to this statement, how would you apply it to the conflict found in the Middle East? Solution The conflict in the Middle East is an altogether different scenario. Its a conflict between the two Islamic sects, that has been there since almost a millennia. Historically, the Shia\'a sect is recognised as more \'Persian\' since Iran itself is a predominantly Shiite nation. When the caliphate invaded Persian lands, its people recognized themselves as a different sect since they were non-Arabs and supported Muhammad\'s son-in-law and cousin Ali Talib to be the successor of the caliphate. Since he was killed in battle by the armies who supported Abu Bakr as the rightful successor, Sunni Islam became the dominant sect - roughly 90% of the Muslim population is Sunni. Now, in such cases non-violence cannot really be used since its a conflict that also involves terrorism. Since terrorism itself is an armed movement, stopping it requires force. Non-violence is used more in socio-political situations - the movements in South Africa, independence movement in India are some historical examples where the objective was to achieve a socio- political aim. For example, the laws of British imperialism were the cause of unrest in India that led to non-violent movements to achieve constitutional sovereignty. It was a socio-political objective led with a motive to achieve long term goals like stability & economic growth. Of course, a lot of violence was involved, but the ultimate objective could be met with only organised protest. Armed conflicts are achievable only when one faction or a party is able to assimilate annexed territory and people. This was not the case with Napoleon and with so many other dictators. Assimilation, establishing administration, peace and rule of law takes a lot of time. It involves establishing a welfare state for everyone affected. Besides, there always has to be a casus belli behind every armed movement. The reason why Napoleon failed is because his conquests were seen as forceful and lacking a justification - people outside the French borders were never ready to accept his rule. Similar is the situation in the Middle East. Since the Americans left, they appointed a Shiite President to head the country. The Sunnis never really liked this stance and add to it some of the pro-Shiite stance taken by the Iraqi president, was enough to further deepen sectarian tensions. So, non-violent movements require an environment where they can be executed. When an armed conflict is underway, there is little space for non-violence..

1. Violent vs. Non-violent solutions. Violent solutions are temporary solutions. Nonviolent
solutions are more permanent due to the fact that the process for achieving the solution is
consistent with the goal. It was said by Napoleon that everything taken by force is temporary.
Nonviolence is more permanent because it is based on social growth, human reconciliation, and
changing conditions. With respect to this statement, how would you apply it to the conflict found
in the Middle East?
Solution
The conflict in the Middle East is an altogether different scenario. Its a conflict between the two
Islamic sects, that has been there since almost a millennia. Historically, the Shia'a sect is
recognised as more 'Persian' since Iran itself is a predominantly Shiite nation. When the
caliphate invaded Persian lands, its people recognized themselves as a different sect since they
were non-Arabs and supported Muhammad's son-in-law and cousin Ali Talib to be the successor
of the caliphate. Since he was killed in battle by the armies who supported Abu Bakr as the
rightful successor, Sunni Islam became the dominant sect - roughly 90% of the Muslim
population is Sunni.
Now, in such cases non-violence cannot really be used since its a conflict that also involves
terrorism. Since terrorism itself is an armed movement, stopping it requires force. Non-violence
is used more in socio-political situations - the movements in South Africa, independence
movement in India are some historical examples where the objective was to achieve a socio-
political aim. For example, the laws of British imperialism were the cause of unrest in India that
led to non-violent movements to achieve constitutional sovereignty. It was a socio-political
objective led with a motive to achieve long term goals like stability & economic growth. Of
course, a lot of violence was involved, but the ultimate objective could be met with only
organised protest.
Armed conflicts are achievable only when one faction or a party is able to assimilate annexed
territory and people. This was not the case with Napoleon and with so many other dictators.
Assimilation, establishing administration, peace and rule of law takes a lot of time. It involves
establishing a welfare state for everyone affected. Besides, there always has to be a casus belli
behind every armed movement. The reason why Napoleon failed is because his conquests were
seen as forceful and lacking a justification - people outside the French borders were never ready
to accept his rule.
Similar is the situation in the Middle East. Since the Americans left, they appointed a Shiite
President to head the country. The Sunnis never really liked this stance and add to it some of the

2. pro-Shiite stance taken by the Iraqi president, was enough to further deepen sectarian tensions.
So, non-violent movements require an environment where they can be executed. When an armed
conflict is underway, there is little space for non-violence.