Prof. Michael N. Nagler, founder of UC Berkeley's Peace and Conflict Studies program and the Metta Center for Nonviolence Education (also, one of my mentors), shares a compelling perspective on the need to maintain strict discipline in a nonviolent direct action such as the Gaza Freedom Flotilla:
...Under normal circumstances even the “smallest” acts of violence can ruin the character of nonviolent action...
It is still hard to say exactly what happened when passengers aboard the Turkish vessel, the MV Mavi Marmara, clashed with Israeli commandos as they rappelled onto the boat from helicopters. Had the soldiers been firing live ammunition? The point is that even if they were – while terribly difficult – the passengers could have resisted nonviolently by refusing to comply with the soldiers’ demands without making any attempt to injure them.
Up until the recent attack it looked as though the flotilla, with its 600 passengers and many tons of humanitarian supplies for the beleaguered citizens of Gaza, was a perfect example of nonviolent action. Organisers’ intentions were advertised well in advance and it put the Israelis in the difficult position of deciding between two unfavourable choices...
However, as Gandhi often said, nonviolence requires, if anything, more training than violence.
Time and again, history has shown that a campaign of nonviolence is much more likely to succeed in accomplishing its stated objectives if the activists maintain nonviolent discipline. Numerous historical examples include the Philippines People Power Movement, Serbia's OTPOR! overthrow of Milošević, and dozens of others. On the other hand, the Seattle WTO protests demonstrate what happens when violence mixes with nonviolence. A small handful of Black Bloc anarchists smashed up windows and did the anti-corporate globalization movement no favors by distracting the press and confusing the issue.
On a deeper level, the true power of nonviolence to persuade the oppressor is unleashed with a commitment to pursue acts of courageous love (not just "not being violent"). For example, the Civil Rights Movement activists who sat in at the lunch counters, rode the buses, and registered voters never backed down, and nonviolently resisted the oppressors without demonization or rancor, but with a desire to win over those afflicted with racist views.
Remember George Wallace, the famous Alabama Governor who declared "Segregation now, segregation forever," and subsequently apologized prior to his death? If we want the Zionists who currently enable the policy of occupation to some day see the light, I believe we will only win them over with true nonviolence.
Yes, it would have been hard to maintain nonviolent discipline in the face of an assault like the one on the Mavi Marmara. But were those activists truly prepared? Had they undergone nonviolent training? Was there a consensus and commitment to nonviolence? Apparently not.
Consider as historical precedent the 1930 Indian raid on the Dharasana salt works, the climactic moment in Gandhi's movement to free India from British colonial rule:
On May 21, 1930, over 2,500 Indians “raided” the Dharasana salt works, a salt production facility controlled by the British regime. Column after column of Indians advanced toward the gates and were severely beaten by the native police under British direction. Not one of the Satyagrahis raised a hand to defend himself as the clubs rained down, fracturing skulls. Many lost consciousness, and several perished. In the Gandhi movie, the scene was famously encapsulated by a Western reporter: “Whatever moral ascendancy the West once held was lost here today.” The Indians accepted this suffering on behalf of the Truth they clung to of ending colonial rule.
While the Salt Satyagraha did not “succeed” in its short-term, situational objective – the salt laws were not repealed – it worked on a deeper level. British public opinion was deeply affected by the Dharasana nonviolent moment, which shockingly revealed the violence inherent in the British colonial system. Ultimately, this led to India’s independence in 1947.
In that incident, the strict nonviolent discipline of the raiders helped to move the hearts of the reference public and the British supporters of colonialism. No, I'm not claiming that discipline is easy, but I am claiming there are numerous historical examples that prove it is possible, and far more effective in advancing the goals of the campaign (as well as being the principled, moral path).
Before publication of this post, Phil Weiss asked me, "I wonder how much of this is because of Israeli violence; they want a violent outcome. And the conditions are far worse than what the Civil Rights Movement faced (and what if Turks didn't subscribe to nonviolence?)."
Two problems with this argument. One, the resisters' actions are not dictated by the oppressors' actions - the resisters can choose to maintain nonviolent discipline if they are properly prepared for it and committed. Two, resisters have maintained effective nonviolent discipline against oppressors who were far more ruthless than the Israeli commandos - see Ralph Summy's article, "Nonviolence and the case of the extremely ruthless oppressor."
In a recent email, Paul Larudee, cofounder of the Free Gaza Movement, noted that while he and many other Freedom Flotilla passengers were committed to nonviolence, many of the Turkish passengers who fought (and were wounded, and killed) were not committed to nonviolence. My argument -- recognizing that this is Monday-morning armchair Quarterbacking -- is future Flotillas should require a consistent commitment to nonviolence among all passengers. Gandhi and King required this commitment, and it's quite possible for international activist organizers to make this part of the pre-flight checklist before launching such an action.
My broader theme is we should have two main goals on the path toward Israeli/Palestinian equality: 1) shift the international political consensus, esp. the U.S. position, from enabling to obstructing Israel's oppression of the Palestinians, and 2) shift hearts and minds of Israelis (as well as Palestinians, as necessary) to support genuine equality.
The Gaza Flotilla apparently did a fantastic job with goal #1, and apparently has utterly backfired with #2. We cannot and must not operate as if Israeli public opinion is irrelevant; to do so is both a strategic and moral blunder. There's a reason that so many Israelis demonstrated in support of the IDF's actions, and I think the violence of the resisters was a huge part of it. Notice how the violent resistance was looped in Caroline Glick's video -- however offensive the video may have been, it underscored the Israeli hasbara about "violent activists". And while there's no doubt Israeli propaganda distorts reality quite often, in this case, it appears there's some truth. When you build propaganda around some kernel of truth, it's a lot easier to get people to swallow the whole of it then when it's entirely fabricated.
By the way, shifting views of American Jews is also key, and wouldn't the case be even easier to make and more powerful right now without the confusion of what the flotilla passengers did or didn't do when they were boarded?
During my travels in Israel, I found many of the Israeli Jews I interviewed to be intensely scared to their deepest core, behind all of the bluster and tough talk about not giving an inch to the Arabs. We must remember: understandable, justifiable fear of anti-Jewish oppression was the most powerful motivating factor for the project of political Zionism from its inception 130 years ago, and I argue that fear still is the primary motivating factor whether it's justified fear or not. We must design our activism campaigns to both end the oppression of the Palestinians AND help Israelis to feel less scared and more recognized for their humanity. The most powerful path, and I'd argue the only path, to achieve this is true nonviolence in the tradition of Gandhi and King.
Finally, I hope no one (especially the Gaza Flotilla veterans) hears this as taking away from the very real gains coming in the wake of the action. Put another way: look at how much we accomplished with the mixed message of some nonviolence and some violence, how much more could we accomplish with a consistent and disciplined commitment to nonviolence? If history is any guide, the answer is clear... much more.
I guess the real answer to these questions is that it depends on who is organising a given action. Unless there is a decision by the Palestinian leadership or the Palestinian people to pursue a single strategy/discipline, supporters and sympathisers must simply adopt whatever approach they believe to be most effective.
In light of pro-Israeli propaganda however, it is crucial to stress that the commitment or lack of commitment of passengers aboard the Mavi Marmara to Gandhian non-violence is irrelevant to the fact that they were on a non-violent (in the sense of not violent) humanitarian mission, and were attacked by Israeli commandos.
thanks Shmuel, for this:
non-violence is irrelevant to the fact that they were on a non-violent (in the sense of not violent) humanitarian mission, and were attacked by Israeli commandos.
Something about this feels like neocon light. Not millions of Arabs and/or Muslims, as the Turkish people or people of Turkish origin now, only wave after wave of lambs willingly walking to the slaughter to free Israel’s fearful soul?
… Not one of the Satyagrahis raised a hand to defend himself as the clubs rained down, fracturing skulls. Many lost consciousness, and several perished.
Would he not only advise on peaceful action but turn into one of the lambs that in his vision are needed? Not preach but practice it, or would he yell in the last moment: hey I am no Muslim, don’t shoot me.
Oh, I see below sherbrsi has the same impression. Besides, if these “Turks” had violent intentions as Richard Witty suggested in advance, and as Matthew Taylor does now, why weren’t there any weapons on board?
Not millions of Arabs and/or Muslims, as the Turkish people or people of Turkish origin now, only wave after wave of lambs willingly walking to the slaughter to free Israel’s fearful soul?
Well, that would solve the fascislamism problem (sarcasm)
These are empty words until those who propose the bold and life-risking strategy put themselves on the line.
Time and again, history has shown that a campaign of nonviolence is much more likely to succeed in accomplishing its stated objectives if the activists maintain nonviolent discipline.
As the article concedes further down, the Mavi Marmara incident was a spectacular success in changing world opinion. Policymakers in the U.S. took note and Israel is under intense pressure to change its policies. This success would not have happened had the Turkish activists followed the example of the Western internationals on the other boats. How many people outside this website remember the subsequent Rachel Corrie boat?
Regarding reaching Israelis, the presenting problem is partly fear of Arabs but Israelis’ attitudes are driven by what is attainable and other factors too. For years there has been non-violent resistance on the West Bank. What good has it done them?
Persistent active resistance may be counter-productive, but the Mavi Marmara incident shows the compelling effectiveness of judicious use of such a stance.
” This success would not have happened had the Turkish activists followed the example of the Western internationals on the other boats.”
That follows only if you accept IDF killings occurred in response to resistance by the flotilla activists – that a certain number of killings weren’t pre-mediatated or planned. Given the autopsies, survivor testimony & systematic campaign to confiscate all activist/journalist media I believe a certain number of deaths were planned as deterrent.
Fear of national dissolution, whether reasonable or not, plays a large role in peoples’ deciding to embark on genocide. It was true of the Turks for the Armenian genocide. It was true of the Germans for the Holocaust.
I argue that fear still is the primary motivating factor whether it’s justified fear or not.
Is this not the same self-serving and myopic reasoning that there can be no peace until the Israelis are made to feel secure?
We must design our activism campaigns to both end the oppression of the Palestinians AND help Israelis to feel less scared
So now, the Palestinians not only have to struggle for their rights and freedom within the context of complete and utter non-violence (no matter the violence being perpetrated against them by the Israelis), but also do so in such a manner as to cure and assuage the most irrational and paranoid elements of Israel’s siege mentality.
and more recognized for their humanity.
It doesn’t end there. It is also incumbent upon the Palestinians to restore the humanity of their oppressors. This author is really running away with the idea of Israel as the “spoiled brat,” no?
The person writing this piece of self-righteous crap should stop indulging us and start putting their money where their mouth is. One of Gandhi’s best qualities is that he lead by example. When this Matthew Taylor does the same, he can start lecturing those whose only crime is to defend themselves on the virtues of non-violence.
I think its interesting that Taylor should mention the Dharasana salt works. That incident was Gandhi’s struggle taken to to its highest. And the message is not only of non-violence, but setting an example, for Gandhi the apex of satyagraha was martyrdom in the way of non-violence.
The liberal fascination with Gandhi begins and ends with advocacy in the newspaper, and a poor understanding of Gandhi’s own ideals and philosophies.
Would complete non-violence on the part of the passengers of mavi marmara have changed anything at all? I don’t think so. The Israelis would still have imposed a news blackout and lied to the world that they were brutally attacked. They would still plant weapons and doctor evidence to suit their case. And those inclined to believe them would do so, as always.
We have to think long and hard about what Siegman wrote in Ha aretz. All of us who oppose Israel, Jews included, are “Arabs” now. That is what Israelis see us as..Arabs who must be destroyed.
Our government evidently agrees.
the author cites the “People’s Power” campaign in the Phillipine Islands as an example of successful non-violence. The only problem with his rosy scenario is that the situation now in PI is as bad as ever. Same can be said about all the other examples these pious optimists like to trot out.
“We must remember: understandable, justifiable fear of anti-Jewish oppression was the most powerful motivating factor for the project of political Zionism from its inception 130 years ago, and I argue that fear still is the primary motivating factor whether it’s justified fear or not. ”
That is not at all my impression. Today, Judeo-Nazism, pure and simple, is the center of the Israeli universe.
“Fear of oppression/anti-semitism” is the sleazy cover story. Nothing more.
Worshipping non-violence for its own sake should have a limit.
This piece reads like an open call to future activists to be lambs at the slaughter –unheard as a result, and if heard ridiculed by world opinion instead of recruiting for their cause.
Also, I have my doubts about the intentions of the author. As in:
“Had the soldiers been firing live ammunition … even if they were”.
Well, duh. They massacred at least 9 and possibly up to 15 people and wounded some 50 with paint balls, and they are seen in the movies throwing confetti.
“the passengers could have resisted nonviolently by refusing to comply with the soldiers’ demands without making any attempt to injure them”
reveals, as I see it, that the author has only read Israeli propaganda (and that is the most charitable interpretation.) What “demands” outside deadly shooting? So ridiculous that in fact no “demands” seem to be mentioned even in the Israeli propaganda. It is obvious, at least until there is a totally independent and credible inquiry, that the volunteers had to fight for their very life. If the volunteers had not fought and captured –and treated– three soldiers, the number of victims would probably be higher.
In a recent email, Paul Larudee, cofounder of the Free Gaza Movement, noted that while he and many other Freedom Flotilla passengers were committed to nonviolence, many of the Turkish passengers who fought (and were wounded, and killed) were not committed to nonviolence.
mathew, paul larudee does not represent the free gaza movement anymore nor was he on the ship w/the turkish passengers. prior to the departure he gave an interview to al jazeerah representing himself as one of the groups leaders and then proceeded to email the jerusalem correspondent personal emails he received from the free gaza movement wrt him giving interviews claiming to represent them without their permission which motivated the journalist to then write another article which shed a poor light on the movement. . he founded the free palestine movement after him and the organizers of free gaza movement parted ways after their first voyage to gaza.
since mr larudee wasn’t on that boat and does not speak for the movement his opinion about what ‘many turkish passengers’ did is merely his conjucture at this point. also there was the ex marine on board, he wasn’t turkish and he defines his actions as defensive.
i appreciate your article very much. i just know that there does happen to be some serious pushback within the free gaza movement to not have paul speak for them, so i wish he wouldn’t. his opinions are valuable all on their own he just is not in any position to be speaking for those who died or were on that boat.
I second Elliot’s remark : who remembers the Rachel Corrie and it’s passengers ? Did the “peaceful” arrest of those people bring any media attention and/or pressur on Israel to end the blockade ?
I’m not a big theologist, but there’s also this factor to take into account : Gandhi and his followers were mostly Hindu when the Turkish and a lot of other people aboard the Marmara were Muslims. Those two religions are teaching something different about violence. I’m in no way saying that Islam is a violent religion and Hinduism is peaceful, but they have different conceptions.
If I’m right, I believe Hinduism teaches nonviolence of the righteous and courageous, but if you fear for your life you have to use violence in a self-defense way. Indian history can bring a lot of references about people patiently suffering under oppression because they still have the courage to suffer.
In Islam, there’s the Shahid concept, litteraly meaning “witness” but in fact meaning “martyr”. A muslim martyr is promised a place in Paradise if he dies fighting for a noble cause, so staying alive is not a problem. We also have to remember a thing : for a lot of muslims around the world, the fight for the Palestinians is also a fight for East Jerusalem and the holy places, like the Al-Aqsa mosque and the Dome of the Rock. Never underestimate the role of these places in the heart of the muslims fighting against Israel.
I could tell you some stories about how religious muslims like my late father (and maybe a vast majority of them, but I’m not sure, and I don’t follow this point of view myself) view this I/P conflict, but you would consider me a nut and a conspiracy theorist.
This insistence on the right of “supporters” of Palestine to dictate that they be nonviolent is disturbing. And historically myopic.
The heroes of the Mavi Marmara are the John Browns of today: their actions may have been tactically ill-advised given the relationship of forces, but they did the right thing when confronted with murderers enforcing dispossession.
As for appealing to public opinion, and what leads to victory: give me the Union soldiers singing out Brown’s praises as they marched, to the traitorous Northern Democrats who said “we have to appeal to the slaveholders’ better nature.”
When the third Intifada comes, inshallah it will use EVERY tactic that can draw in masses of Palestinians, and not just the ones approved by latter-day Gandhis.
the dangerous “Turks”:
The latest Neocon insanity: Kick Turkey out of NATO and take Israel in, I guess.
The same day that JINSA issued their pronouncement, Daniel Pipes delivered his rant, proclaiming that Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan is a more dangerous radical Islamist than Osama bin-Laden. “If once only a small band of analysts recognized Erdogan’s Islamist outlook, this fact has now become obvious for the whole world to see. Erdogan has gratuitously discarded his carefully crafted image of a pro-Western `Muslim democrat,’ making it far easier to treat him as the Tehran-Damascus ally that he is.”
Good luck with winning these guys over with wave after wave of sacrificial lambs. …
If Turkey’s “ethnic and religious chauvinism” is supposedly “antithetical” to NATO membership, why isn’t that of Israel, which is considerably more virulent and murderous? Or is this Israel and its apologists using that gigantic blind-spot again?!
Craig Murray posted about the rumblings of discontent towards the US that he was hearing from within NATO on June 2. Would mooted expulsion of Turkey in exchange for Israel endanger its very future?
For those who favor reality over ignorant pontificating, see Ganhdi on the choice between cowardice and violence, and Gandhi on Palestine.
Non-violence is great when it works but so is a little rough and tumble, noisy street demonstrations when they work. The Seattle WTO demonstrations were a major success in spite of your claim that issues became confused. Hell before that the issues weren’t even being discussed. The demonstrations against Bush’s war in the ME were quite ineffective. I remember one of these demonstrations where the organizers used disciplined nonviolence while defying some assembly or something. What happened was a few hundred people meekly walked into these big wire cages making me absolutely cringe watching people passively submitting to fascist police state tactics. The press reports made the protesters look like a bunch of fools. Whatever, happened that was one demonstration that was a dismal failure.
What happened off the Israeli coast was a success of major proportions. If you measure success in how an action will move Israeli public opinion then maybe not, but you should realize that most people in the world have written them off — Israel has reached some kind of national consensus on the need to seize Golan and the WB — and rest of the world be damned. If you advocate that we must peaceably persuade Israelis to before there will be peace in the ME then you better be willing to wait a few millenium.
Don’t take this as a criticism of the article. It was a great piece! Just some thoughts…
Saying that the Salt works protest led to independence is like saying that the Flotilla action or even suicide bombing will lead to independence. To create that kind of causal argument doesn’t have too strong a basis. It would probably be more accurate to say that a number of things led to independence, including violence.
Having said that, I agree with your principle. The goal of the flotilla was to get world attention (the same with the WTO protests). In that sense they were both successful and the violence that occurred may have even served their goal. Who knows, without this, those soldiers could have boarded and taken the flotilla to Ashdod with no incidence, and the whole event would have passed like the other 5 Free Gaza ships – with little coverage. As one comment above said, look at the Rachel Corrie, who will remember that? Had they pushed soldiers off their boat and been aggressive in their posture it might have led to more coverage, but maybe more casualties. The point here is the one Gandhi makes, which is that you shouldn’t take on these voyages if you are not ready to sacrifice your life – not those of the enemy – by some accounts, it seems the Turkish fleet operated on those terms and not killing the Israeli soldiers.
On the other hand, where you are right, is that the coverage has been gray. People are questioning the limited violence, even if defensive, on the part of the activists, and that is detracting from the great crime that occurred. I think it is productive for us to self-critique and think that possibly our nonviolence can be improved – instead of defending with sticks we should use fists next time for example – or nothing, but I’m not so brave.
With world opinion the way it is, we should know that only true nonviolence will ultimately be effective, and not because it is necessarily more principled.
Some comments have pointed to the article implying that Palestinians need to free themselves and their oppressor, and that this is ridiculous. Sadly, it is ridiculous, but yet, it is the only way. In some ways, crazy as it is, the Palestinians, especially those inside 48 palestine, are the Israelis salvation. The oppressed must make the oppressor understand equality and love and all that “junk.” In some ways this is Franz Fanon’s argument and nothing entirely new.
In the wake of the Mavi Marmara massacre, the passengers of the Rachael Corrie said they would put up no resistance whatsoever, should Israel board their vessel.
Was this the correct or the wrong approach? Should they have insisted on their legal right to defend a vessel from aggression and piracy in international waters, by all means including deadly force? What was the best approach and how far should activists go in pursuit of justice for Palestine?
I think they should go as far as they personally decide. In this case, they should have made it clear that they would “resist nonviolently in any way possible”. One thing this could have meant was pushing soldiers back into their Zodiacs for example, and using their arms in any way they could. This would have not been pretty, and maybe I would not be brave enough to do so. But I was not on the ships. If one is to commit to going on the voyage then one should, I think, also commit to the possible sacrifice if nonviolence is met with force.
I mostly agree with your points, but the implications are certainly depressing. To me it implies that activists ought to prepare themselves to be blinded or otherwise maimed, or killed outright in their pursuit of justice for Palestine. This will surely reduce the movement’s numbers to the very most committed and the very most courageous. It will also deprive the victims of one of the very few weapons they have against Israel—what we in the West like to call ‘terrorism’ (though it is a central ingredient in US and Israeli strategic efforts, employed on a daily basis in Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine).
I don’t think it’s too depressing. As I said, the answer is that each has to assess what they can personally do. For some, protesting mildly in the US is enough; for others, it is to write (blogs, books, etc); and still others, it is to confront more directly; and finally, it is to carry arms as well. I think the sum total of that is where you will find change and where liberation comes about. One hopes that few will choose the way of violent arms after seeing its ineffectiveness, but it is for those people to decide. My point is simply that if you decide to go on a voyage to confront the enemy (whether a flotilla or walking up to a police barricade at a US protest) then you need to understand what that confrontation means. it does not mean turning around at the last moment because you are scared to lose an eye or a limb. Well, you can, but you wouldn’t be working in the spirit of Gandhi’s nonviolence, or mine at least.
“One hopes that few will choose the way of violent arms after seeing its ineffectiveness, but it is for those people to decide.”
All methods have to date proven ineffective in producing improvements in the horrifying conditions of the Palestinians. I don’t see non-violence showing any more verifiable results than violent attacks on Israeli society–probably less. What will happen in the future is an open question. Certainly we can agree I would hope, that many conflicts required violent resistance. The Vietnamese facing a full blown holocaust (actually, far more vicious and murderous than the holocaust unleashed on the Jews of Europe) had no choice but to attempt to maximize the number of US Nazi dead, and hope the aggressor retreated. It was either that, or be exterminated. In the end, they were successful.
“The Vietnamese facing a full blown holocaust (actually, far more vicious and murderous than the holocaust unleashed on the Jews of Europe)”
The death toll in Vietnam was about 3-4 million according to the Vietnamese government (though I’ve read demographers who say it was somewhat less) and the death toll of the Holocaust was 5 to 6 million.
In terms of sheer numbers, the Nazi holocaust was worse–though not by much. In every other respect, the Indochina genocide was far worse. The blind cruelty was of a far more intense and nauseating nature, the environmental destruction has no precedent, people are STILL dying from the unexploded ordnance the US refuses to clean up, not to mention horrifying deaths due to the toxins we dumped on them by the metric ton. Birth defects and severe health problems continue, over 30 years after the war.
Most horrifying of all is that America continues to glorify the perpetrators of these abominations and filth like John McCain brag about them at every opportunity, to great public adulation.
There’s also the Cambodia bombing campaign, which is relevant here :
www.yale.edu/cgp/Walrus_CambodiaBombing_OCT06.pdf
It was admitted too that the destruction caused by this bombing campaign was used as propaganda against the US, creating much more support for the Khmer Rouge among the population. See any parallels here?
One more thing…in the article, there was a Turkish-Western division between activists that I do resent. Those who resisted with any way they could were not all Turks. There was at least one US citizen (a former Marine) and a number of other non-Turks. Maybe it was not intentional, but such a division plays into the orientalist view of the world. Paul Larudee’s article (quoted above) is more nuanced in this sense.
MATTHEW TAYLOR- After reading your post I had an epiphany. Had the Jews only practiced non-violence during World War II, the Nazis would have been so ashamed of themselves that they would have called off the Holocaust, Israel would never have been created as a Jewish state, and there would be peace in historic Palestine. It seems so obvious in hindsight.
Matthew Taylor writes, “If we want the Zionists who currently enable the policy of occupation to some day see the light, I believe we will only win them over with true nonviolence.”
Then he writes,” “future Flotillas should require a consistent commitment to nonviolence among all passengers. Gandhi and King required this commitment, and it’s quite possible for international activist organizers to make this part of the pre-flight checklist before launching such an action.”
Now, what is interesting is that I had never heard of Matthew Taylor until the recent fight for BDS at UC Berkeley, which had been organized by and large by Palestinian students in which, out of the blue, he became one of the organizers of a “Jewish only” ad for the UC Daily Cal supporting the BDS resolution and then appeared and spoke for the resolution at the meeting in which the UC Student Senate upheld the veto draped in an Israeli flag.
When he says, “we,” who is he talking about? On whose behalf is he speaking? I am not aware that there is any significant body of Palestinians who believe for one minute that through non-violence the Israelis will see the errors of their ways. The Zionists be damned; the non-violent campaign being waged in the West Bank is to get the world to see the errors of the Israelis’ ways and force them to change their racist and sadistic behavior.
Then I need to ask, “who is Matthew Taylor to tell organizers of future flotillas what they should or shouldn’t do? This is the same kind of arrogance that I have witnessed and struggled against in my many years in this movement in which Jewish individuals and Jewish organizations, waving the two-state flag, have sought to define the acceptable parameters within which Israel nay be criticized and the struggle for justice for Palestine may be waged, and exclude those who don’t accept or fit within them. This was my experience when I first began to speak out against the power of the Zionist establishment in the 80s which does not fit within those parameters any more today than it did then. And that is one of the reasons that up to this point in time, the Palestinian solidarity movement has been an utter failure, which, I suspect, was the intended outcome of one of the first of those organizations, New Jewish Agenda.
Taylor begins this piece by citing the writings of Michael Nagler who, from his comfortable Berkeley home, has the audacity to condemn those brave crew members of the Mavi Marmara who took on an elite unit of Israeli commandos and sacrificed their lives for the Palestinian cause. They are heroes. but even on “our side” we see the efforts by Zionists and crypto-Zionists to deny them their heroic status. Nagler knows what he’s doing and I suspect Matthew Taylor does, too.
Had the dead and wounded crew members followed the dictates of the Naglers of this world who put “non-violent resistance” over justice, for it is nothing less than that, there would have been no coverage of the flotilla in the US medi and we would not have seen the condemnations of Israeli barbarism from virtually every world leader with the exception of President Obama who fears to do so less he feel once again the wrath of the Jewish establishment and its stable of Israel-firsters who dominate the nation’s op-ed pages. The silence of Obama, apparently is not an issue for either Nagler or Taylor.
Those like Nagler and his apprentice, Taylor, who place the principle of non-violence above the right of those subjected to violence to decide for themselves their form of resistance, are, I will argue, simply practicing imperialism in another form.
What is curious is though Nagler is the founder of the UC Peace and Conflict Studies program I don’t recall ever seeing his name among supporters of the Palestinian struggle over the many years that I worked on the issue of Palestinian rights in the Bay Area.
The scenario that Nagler and Taylor would not like to see repeated, that is physical resistance to armed Israeli attacks, has caused a major crisis for Israel and its officials have been mobilizing every Jewish organization and committed supporter of Israel–to a degree that I have never seen before– to do what they can to turn the propaganda tide Israel’s way. Their goal is to turn true heroes into villains or at best, hotheads. We can’t allow that to happen.
Jeff, (and to Cliff below),
It seems you know the background of Mr. Taylor a bit more than I do, but despite some shortcomings which were pointed out, I don’t see why the hardcore attack. We all pontificate in our different ways, whether on the ground or in our high chairs. People can choose to listen or not. I don’t think Taylor’s call for nonviolence should be shunned, so why would Phill not give him a platform?
You claim that without resistance there would have been no media coverage. But Taylor is not telling them not to resist or sacrifice their lives. He is just saying, from my interpretation, that in their resistance they should not be using pipes, knives or sticks, as at least some did. His point, from what I understand, is that this serves to split the media attention so that it is not entirely on Israel. I agree that there is little the activists could do that would not deem them terrorists, but I see Taylor’s call as asking for more commitment to pure nonviolence in our confrontation. Nothing wrong with that is there?
And Palestinians are calling for exactly the same thing with their BDS call and their confrontations in Bilin where they resist Israeli violence with their bodies – dying in some instances.
I have provided my own interpretation of Taylor – Mr. Taylor, correct me if I am wrong. And Jeff, if you know something I don’t then that’s something else.
This is an important lesson.
The lasting impact of the flotilla affair in the eyes of the world will forever be the video of the IHH cell beating the Commandos as they descended with metal bars. The stabbings, shootings and lynches of the Israeli men filled the airwaves. It was extremely bad PR for the Free Gaza movement.
Again, this comment does not violate the comments policy and I politely ask you to stop moderating, delaying, and censoring my dissent of immoral and anti-semitic statements on this forum. Thank you
Let me correct you : The lasting impact of the flotilla affair in the eyes of the world will forever be the display of Israel’s total disdain of international laws and institutions like the UN and how the Obama administration (like previous ones) are playing with Israel at the risk of a really ugly increase of terrorists attack on US soil.
And please stop complaining about being moderated. I have to remind you that a website is under the control of their owners/creators, and like in a newspaper, if they don’t want to display your opinion, they are free to do so. There are plenty other websites out there where you can write if this one doesn’t suits you.
“immoral and anti-semitic statements on this forum”
No, no, that won’t do.
That is not what the world took away. Perhaps that’s what mass media victims in Israel, US and part of Canada took away.
Everyone else remembers the cold blooded assination of 9 peace activists. You are a loud mouthed tool. Either you are part of a propaganda effort or a victim of it.
The moderation policy which insists on original and sincere contribution to the discussion will continue to prevent most of your repetitive and disingenuous remarks from appearing. When you have something of substance to say, it may be published. Although your consistent bad behaviour and loud mouthing makes it less likely.
Phil, do you know Mr. Taylor? Why are you giving him a platform on the blog?
I think this is an important and fruitful discussion to have, and the comments on this article have been outstanding.
I found the author’s argument persuasive. But some of you have raised concerns that I completely agree with: Shmuel’s point about looking to Palestinian leadership, sherbsri on the importance of practicing what you preach (especially before lecturing committed activists), sam on the author’s implied orientalist distinctions, and many of you on the effectiveness of other (less nonviolent) approaches in various situations.
My thinking goes something like this: in this situation, we are not the Union, or the Allies. We do not have the power to physically impose our vision of what’s right. As much as we may hate the idea of cajoling and relying on a change of heart from Israelis and US Zionists, there is no other way to free Palestinians. That doesn’t mean we pander to them, it means we try to change them. We use our strongest form of power, which is our moral power.
Looking at it the other way, I think the absolute most that a violent strategy can hope to achieve for the Palestinians is the kind of hostile withdrawal we saw in Gaza.
A mixed one may be effective. It seems debatable whether (a) limited Palestinian and solidarity violence (such as stone throwing or fighting commandos with poles) elicits greater Israeli violence and (b) whether the benefit of that Israeli violence outweighs the damage of the activists’ violence.
I am personally inclined to believe, in this case, that some Israeli violence was pre-meditated and some of it was an increase in response to the activists’ ferocity. But a lot of the facts are still unknown. The Marmara was a propaganda coup as far as the rest of the world, but as sam points out, the results were mixed in the United States and pretty awful as far as Israelis were a target (although that is a hard battle to win).
I apologize that this is kind of a rambling post but I am in a hurry, and I was really hoping to see this discussion come up on Mondoweiss.
The best cocktail for the Israelis is one of:
* BDS
* peaceful resistance
* less peaceful resistance
* international pressure in the UN
* media pressure
Why should we ban our allies from any of the formidable weapons in our arsenal?
The Israelis will use anything from kidnapping, to assassination, to white phospher. Our campaign to free the Palestinians is intrinsically far less violent than the state terrorism on the other side.
Kumbaya, holding hands and hoping for the best is the province of the MIA Richard Witty. He isn’t a friend of yours by any chance?
Yes, Sam, I do have a problem with Matthew not only asking for others to resist Israel non-violently and but that those who don’t accept that stipulationshould be barred from participating. In order to do that, I would think that the person taking such a position or giving advice on any issueshould have earned some standing within the movement to say that. Matthew does not have that.
Before the BDS struggle at UCB, I had never heard of him or did I see his name connected with the I-P issue. Suddenly, he is all over the place, opining on the primacy of non-violence over justice as if he is the veteran of this movement with some experience to back it up. If I am wrong and he is that, I would like to know about it but the bottom line for me is that it is not the position of an American, Jew or non-Jew, but the former in particular, to dictate or even strongly suggest the means of struggle for the Palestinian people and their supporters in the region, including Hezbollah, in Lebanon, whose armed resistance to Israel since 1983 has been an inspiration to the Palestinians as well as to many others struggling against violent injustice around the world.
I am neither an advocate for violence or non-violence although I would prefer the latter when it is more effective. But to endorse it as a principle that takes precedent over the struggle for justice is a form of cultural imperialism that I will not accept however noble the motive of those believing in it.
I think you’re right, Jeffrey. If the Hizbollah wasn’t been there, southern Lebanon might still be occupied – is it better to be occupied and peaceful, or temporarily violent and free? Unfortunately, Israel has been forcing its neighbors into a position where they have little choice but to fight – that has always (as far as I know) its technique. It’s easy to look from afar and philosophize that non-violence must systematically ALWAYS be the chosen tactic, but it’s a misconception to think that this was Gandhi’s ideal – it wasn’t. We don’t have the right to dictate to people how they should resist occupation, even though non-violence is nobler and will garner more sympathy. The problem is that many in America have already indoctrinated to the fact that Muslims and Arabs are inherently “violent”, so they have those cards stacked against them from the start, and their actions are scrutinized more (when was the last time you heard of a US cluster bomb or drone attack tearing up civilians in Pakistan, or Yemen, yawn… no big deal).
As for the boat, two things :
1. Don’t passengers have the right to defend themselves, even with lethal force if they are illegally boarded and fired upon? I don’t know about this.
2. In retrospect, it’s easy to say that they didn’t need to wield pipes and chains (which ARE in the video) – but in the moment, as they had seen that the Israelis were using live ammo, they frankly didn’t know what to expect, and could very well thought that their lives were in danger.
should read :
“indoctrinated to the IDEA that Muslims and Arabs are inherently “violent””
As is saying Craig Murray :
So in one case, it should be judged by the International Criminal Court and the other by Turkey’s legal system. In one case or another, we still have not enough infos to know the truth.
I don’t remember who said that (one of the passenger of the flotilla, maybe Ed Peck), but in this case, it’s like a burglar coming into your home, and according to US laws, I believe, you can kick the shit out of him or even kill him in self-defense for as long as he’s staying on your property.
Sorry for my pointless comments :)
Thank you melka, I bookmarked Murray’s page. As I thought, the question is not whether or not the passengers used violence – they had the right. The question is if it was premeditated and lethal ; and the answer is no.
chouette blog, by the way.
Your last point is a tough one. I’m more inclined not to go down the path of means/ends. The means are the ends because they are all we know. The struggle for justice is also in the justice of the techniques of struggle.
The struggle for justice is also in the justice of the techniques of struggle.
Yes, but, this unwillingly opens the door to “martyrdom” if you think about it – putting oneself in a potentially deadly position without defense. Who are we to ask people to do this?
Lareine this is a good point — in theory. In practice, if the IDF wants you dead, you cannot stop them from killing you, nor can any Palestinian or solidarity activist. “Violent self-defense” is not a real category in this conflict, given the power imbalance. The Marmara is a case in point. Whether or not the killing was premeditated, actually subduing and disarming Israeli soldiers (you cannot stop all of them after all, unless you are the U.S. military) failed to save the lives of 9 people, and may have even contributed indirectly to their murder (which remains entirely Israel’s responsibility). The IDF does kill unarmed, non-violent people. But in resisting Israel, I don’t think nonviolence is likely to ever hurt someone’s chances of survival.
If I’m right about that, it raises a different question. Is there a dividend in coaxing Israeli brutality using limited violence? I think I made a mistake earlier in talking about this so callously. The lives of the nine Marmara victims and those of all people working for justice have immeasurable inherent value as well as value to their families, communities, and to the movement itself. They are not reducible merely to a form of capital to be expended. But, if an activist is willing to himself make that ultimate commitment, is that a helpful action? Or is strict nonviolence always preferable and more effective?
It seems to be a grim truth that, in recent years, piles of bodies have fueled the most significant advancements of the Palestinian cause. Do we have more or better “weapons” than that? I genuinely don’t think I know the answers to these questions.
Lareine this is a good point — in theory. In practice, if the IDF wants you dead, you cannot stop them from killing you, nor can any Palestinian or solidarity activist.
Unless you are the superman K’OK
Who are we to ask people to do this?
You’re totally right, we can’t ask people to put their brain and hearts in the trajectory of bullets, but as I stated earlier when I ranted about religions, don’t forget that a lot of people are willing to die for this cause. I’m not saying we should recruit an army of people willing to become martyrs, but we also never should forget that as we are fighting for pure justice, a lot of people (if not the majority) fighting for Palestine are muslims and they do it for 2 other reasons : fraternity for their brothers in faith and having “control” on some holy piece of land. Those people don’t need us telling them what to do, they are prepared to die during this fight. I’m not saying they are willing to kill, though, just lose their own live.
I recognize what I am saying can be frightening to some and even fuel zionists with their fear of external “terrorists” or jihadists, but I believe this is important to take into consideration.
I don’t know who the people writing articles and comments on mondoweiss are, what faith they have, etc… but this is just what I observed in my neighborhood (muslim family living in france).
@ Jeffrey Blankfort June 11, 2010 at 8:22 pm
That was very well said. My take on the notion:
Many of us are taught as children that “violence never solves anything,” but that is nonsense. Often it is a stupid and counterproductive method of achieving political goals and is always a morally degrading tragedy when employed, but the ugly reality is that sometimes it must be. The Nazis would never have been defeated with non-violent or Ghandian methods. Destruction of their system of governance required that millions of them be killed and wounded. World War II: Combatants and Casualties (1937 – 45)
People who kick you out of your home at gunpoint and move in won’t leave or share if they are comfortable. If peaceful methods can make them uncomfortable enough to compromise, then they are obviously to be preferred, but if they won’t then one is faced with the unhappy choice of either forgoing any hope of justice or using violence.
Unfortunately, for decades there has been an inverse correlation between Palestinian violence and Israeli colonization. When ‘peace talks’ drag on without Palestinian violence, colonization intensifies. The physical and human resources that indigenous violence requires a colonizing government to expend to protect existing colonies isn’t spent building new ones.
Hamas and other groups drove Israel out of Gaza. They didn’t defeat the IDF on the battlefield but over time killed in small numbers enough colonists and IDF to convince Sharon and enough of the Israeli political establishment that allocation of colonization resources to Gaza was wasteful with a small chance of long-term success, and that Israel would be able to seize more land by completely focusing on the West Bank. If there had been no intermittent violence engendering an omnipresent threat, the IDF would not have had to invest resources highly disproportionate to the number of colonists, and the colonies would still be there.
Hizbullah drove the IDF out of Lebanon in a similar manner, killing Israeli soldiers at a slow rate that over 18 years accumulated to a body count that became unacceptable to the Israeli public. If Hizbullah had not been organized and taken up arms, there would have been no public outcry and there would probably be Israel colonies in Lebanon up to the Litani River.
No one should construe these assessments of the past as advocation of violence in general; they are merely attempts to see reality for what it is. Personally I find violence a sickening betrayal of human potential and the extinguishment of God’s gifts of the sparks of divinity that lie within each of our lives is spitting in his face.
Now that the world is paying attention to the Occupation and the Israel Lobby is having to battle to maintain a veneer of credibility on the traditional Zionist narrative, Palestinian violence in my opinion is highly counter-productive. Not only do peaceful methods of resistance now have a vastly higher chance of winning freedom than in the past, but high levels of Palestinian violence, especially during the next regional war, will increase the likelihood of an ultra-Nakba.
I agree, and I think your use of Gaza as an example is telling. Is that a model to be copied? I think it is, if anything, in a much more hopeless position than the West Bank because Israel has a roughly equal ability to inflict suffering in both cases, but without their presence “in Gaza” their responsibility there is less clear (especially especially with the infuriating Egyptian collaboration).
For full justice, Palestinians are going to require some level of Israeli cooperation, the more the better. It is not like in Lebanon, where the entire goal is to make them “go away”. Israelis simply will not go away from Israel proper or Jerusalem (nor should they really have to), or probably even the settlements.
In a way the settlements are a vital asset to Palestinian aspirations. By intermixing populations on a macro- level they frustrate the ethnic cleansing impulse to get rid of the Palestinians by jettisoning or sealing off territory (the Bantustan approach). Obviously it is still possible, but in a way that is less tenable.
And I think in my arguments I am implying a preference for the one-state solution, which tackles the roots and many facets of Palestinian oppression. To me the situation in Gaza has proved the bankruptcy of the two-state solution — it is just a shitty deal for Palestinians. It can’t guarantee real sovereignty or security, and it represents an absolute loss of rights (and unity) that Palestinians would enjoy in a single democratic state in all Palestine. There’s no good reason why they should accept that, especially when Israelis themselves don’t want to cut off that land (if not for the people there).
And I’m also getting at how goals and strategy go hand-in-hand — in this case, the one-state solution and non-violence. Non-violence is more fitting of a movement geared toward integration, and violence more natural when the goal is separation. Separation in this case amounts to compromised sovereignty in 22% of Palestine and continuing discrimination and exclusion in the rest. It just does not seem worth pursuing, especially given the obstacles.
Israelis have three options:
1. one state
2. giving the Palestinians the 1967 borders
3. genocide
What they are working on is the groundwork for number three, genocide, driving the remaining Palestinians across the river into Jordan. By offering a bad enough deal back in Palestine, they hope most Palestinians will accept the move as no worse than staying at home. The Israelis can’t quite figure out what to do with Gaza. If it weren’t for the gas offshore they’d just give Gaza to Egypt.
The only way to save the Palestinians is to make the price of genocide too high for Israel to pay. We are getting there. Lots more flotillas and lots more BDS will only help. The Israelis are in the same position as the South Africa’s apartheid rulers in the eighties.
Exactly. Don’t let those goons get away with anything. Keep up the pressure and spread awareness. In time, this hateful logic will collapse on itself.
Interesting article. I wish people could disagree with it without questioning the author’s motives. I think his intentions are good, even if the argument isn’t as strong as he thinks.
I’m sympathetic to pacifism, but not completely convinced. Someday I might read Jonathan Schell’s book about it from a few years ago–he attempts to show that nonviolence is far more effective against even the most ruthless regimes than non-pacifists like to admit. Non-pacifists tend to ridicule pacifism and one thing lefties share with righties is their tendency to romanticize violence. Pacifists are good to have around in order to challenge that.
That said, I’m not sure the civil rights movement would have succeeded if ultimately the government of the United States hadn’t come down on the side of the protestors. (Well, on the whole. J Edgar Hoover had this vendetta going against MLK.) If civil rights had been treated as a purely local matter the Freedom Riders would have all been lynched, I suspect.
And as others have pointed out, sadly enough it’s the violence that led to all the deaths in this flotilla which caught the attention of the press. If it had just been the IDF roughing people up and stealing their equipment it wouldn’t have been more than a one paragraph story on page A12 in the NYT.
I strongly believe that if Matthew Taylor and Michael Nagler actually lived in the region for an extended period, familiarized themselves with Israel’s tactics over the years and lived in a refugee camp or two to get a sense of the daily struggle, they would come out with a different set of ideas.
When I say “different”, I’m not referring to the violence vs. non-violence paradigm. No. That is not my contention. My contention is that all these propositions sound good on paper, as mere theoretical academic proposals, but when it comes to the reality on the ground, I find that both Matthew Taylor’s and Nagler’s viewpoints are quite detached from it.
For example, on the need to change Israeli public opinion and assuaging the fears of Israelis, perhaps Nagler and Taylor could join forces with Palestinian human rights organizations that have been – for at least 30 years now – attempting to engage Israelis in collaborative cultural projects, including theater, music, arts and crafts etc.
By and large, mainstream Israeli society is simply not interested. Israelis enjoy Arab food, since the second Intifada, Israel’s Jewish sector has also enjoyed the much affordable prices on goods that the Palestinian sector in Israel offers. But when it comes to truly engaging Palestinians on a human level, the vast majority of Israelis are not interested. Some of it may have to do with racism, but there are also many cases in which Israeli Jews do not feel compelled to engage “those Arabs”. Nothing compels the average Israeli who enjoys a comfortable life in Tel-Aviv, for example, to get to know Arabs, what moves them, their dreams, their aspirations, whether they are Palestinians from Israel or from the occupied territories.
Why? Because Israeli mainstream culture has been and continues to be Ashkenazi oriented, always looking westward, not eastward. Israelis simply do not wish to view themselves as part of the greater Middle East.
And so the cultural divide, coupled with the propaganda with which the average Israeli is fed, are highly unlikely to result in the type of change that which the author proposes. Venturing on such a quest, is in fact, futile.
In conclusion, these are the kinds of nuances and collective memories that Nagler and Taylor lack. Hence, their theories fall short. They seem detached.
What this conflict needs is for the parties involved to directly engage with each other, especially on an academic level. And while Taylor’s and Nagler’s efforts seem to be in good faith, they border on orientalism.
This article sucks to high heaven, on so many levels. It ignores the fact the israelis started killing people before anybody resisted. It ignores the fact the israelis intended to kill people to send a message to Turkey, especially, and to future aide workers, it ignores the fact the israelis would have attacked and killed people whether they resisted or not. I’ll end it here since my objections have already been voiced. The article stinks of stealth zionist hasbara. People like taylor and nagler are why there is no left in the usa and why the american anti-war has accomplished zero this decade.
Bravo.
I’m very surprised that Phil was asleep enough at the wheel to allow this to be published as a Mondoweiss article with editorial approval rather than as a critiqued external article.
You are right about the article having stealth Zionist Hasbara. That is what the article reads like, since it is covertly pushing some of the most blockheaded stalemates keeping any progress in the peace process from advancing, namely that the Palestinians conform to the most non-offensive liberation strategy, even offering themselves to be slaughtered at the altar of Israel’s irrational siege mentality (which the author seems to acknowledge Israel to be suffering from). It is exactly the kind of thinking that has sought to cripple and undermine any Palestinian resistance that should commit the grievous act of offending the slightest Israeli sensibility. And of course, according to Taylor’s theory, god forbid should an Israeli stub his toe, the Palestinians will have lost their moral cause, and will forever be penalized for their violent ways until they slavishly subject themselves to having their skulls fractured by the IDF and raise not a finger in objection or defense.
Personally I think the author is just clueless, and doesn’t have the depth of understanding either of the conflict, nor of Gandhi’s ideals, to convincingly assert the idea he is proposing.
Nevertheless, I am surprised that Weiss gave him the platform, because it is representative of the liberal Zionists, and phony liberals in general. Instead of using Gandhi to empower the oppressed, they have hijacked his ideals to impose the most rigid conditions on the liberation struggle, which further shackles them to the reigns of the conqueror by prescribing the “righteous” and the “non-violent” actions the oppressed must devote themselves to.
Looking at the great notice paid to the Marmara flotilla and the little notice paid to the ships that quietly allowed themselves to be piloted into Ashdod, it seems to me that the secret of successful publicity in Palestine is:
1) Die.
2) Don’t be a U.S. citizen, the U.S. will suck your death up.
Let’s face reality, folks. Rather than telling the Palestinians, Lebanese, or other activists who might be venturing into the waters of off Gaza or on land in the West Bank what they should or shouldn’t do, it is beholden of those who are in what was and still remains “the belly of the beast,” to do what we can HERE to change American policy and that is best done by pushing BDS and, whenever feasible, by openly challenging every member of Congress who has voted the AIPAC/Israel line. That is the kind of struggle where massive and continuous non-violent civil disobedience is required since, unlike Israel, which was given the license to kill on June 8the 1967,* the the state and local governments will be restrained in their response.
* Date of the deliberate attack by Israel on the USS Liberty in whichthe Israeli military killed 34 US sailors and wounded 171 and and got away with it. It was the defining act in the history of US-Israel relations.
..appreciate jeffrey’s (always incisive) remarks. I see Sam’s point too though. Taylor clearly believes that success in this struggle is more likely through the strategy he advocates. No one can say he is wrong. We simply don’t know. I’m against shutting down anyone’s perspective because I may not agree with it or believe it is counterproductive. This only serves to divide and dissipate the force of the movement.
My own point of view is that violence that serves no other purpose than ‘consciousness raising’ is not worth the loss of life involved. Anyone who hasn’t lived in a Formosan subterranean termite nest for the past 20 years is well aware that the Israelis have been ruthless aggressors from the very beginning, their every claim, a lie, their case, utterly fraudulent.
The question is how Israel might be compelled to end the occupation. Shaming them into changing their policies is not a viable option. The Israeli contagion thrives on negative press–it needs negative press to sustain itself.
BDS? Maybe. I’d like to ask how many here are actively boycotting israeli goods. I forgo Starbucks. I stay out of Trader Joe’s OK Big deal. I bet many advocates here aren’t even aware of most Israeli products. Boycott by businesses is illegal under US law. The protests against caterpillar, at least so far, seem an utter failure–their stock has gone through the roof.
That’s not to say that these valiant efforts can’t succeed in the long run. Perhaps they can. Of course there might not BE a long run for the Palestinians. Israel’s ambitions to reduce them to “drugged cockroaches in a bottle” are nearing their final phase, from what I can see.
Another approach has been suicide terror. There is a tactical reasoning behind this, not merely a revenge instinct. Can Israeli civil society be so disrupted that the citizens, for the sake of their security, demand an end to the occupation? maybe yes, maybe no. I’d point only to the case of the Madrid bombings. This was a dreadful crime against innocent people. It DID achieve the desired result, where all non-violent efforts failed–Spain withdrew its forces from the US led bloodbath in Iraq. Spaniards are safer and the country is better off. It’s possible, perhaps likely, that more Spaniards would have been killed in Iraq, if they had remained there. These are difficult questions.
As for the reality of attacks on Israel, a good part of the revulsion has to do with the patently dishonest way they are reported and the fact that anyone killed in Israel becomes an automatic civilian, despite the fact that membership in the IDF is compulsory and most of not all suicide bombings kill IDF. They are therefore accurately described as permissible military strikes according to US and Israeli standards. Admittedly, these standards are immoral. Do we consign one side to fight with bows and arrows while the other uses napalm? Again–no easy answers.
Again–no easy answers
No. Abdicating veto power on the UNSC is a thought, though.
link to en.wikipedia.org
There is also the ‘Uniting for Peace’ resolution :
link to en.wikipedia.org
“decentjew” makes a number of good points. The BDS movement was gathering momentum in Europe, even before the attack on the Mavi Marmara. It has been less so in the US because of a media weighed heavily in Israel’s favor, the indifference of most Americans, including trade unionists, to what goes on in the world around them, and, last but not least, the resistance of many Jews who support the BDS movement as long as it targets companies that do business in the West Bank, but hold the line at targeting Israeli produce or Israeli companies, themselves, which, unfortunately, is the position advanced by Noam Chomsky, a person of no little influence. Individual communities need to find ways suitable to their communities to resolve this contradiction.
What we have not seen up to now is the targeting of PEP members of Congress, the Democrats who appear to be progressive on every issue but Palestine. They should no longer be able to get away with that than they would have if they supported aparthied in South Africa.
One of the reasons that we have not seen such actions organized or call for on a national level is that the two “leading” anti-war coalitions, ANSWER and United for Peace and Justice (or what still exists of it) follow the Chomsky-Zunes line that Congress is irrelevant when it comes to US Middle East policy. ANSWER has, in fact, made it an article of faith, that AIPAC/Israel Lobby, is not the problem. Dick Becker, its top poobah, devotes the first two chapters of a recent book on the I-P issue, insisting that it is the US government that supports the Israel Lobby [sic]. Then, just after the attack on the Turkish ship, a Russia Today interviewer from Washington was interviewing an ANSWER leader at a rally in Los Angeles about AIPAC. To the stunned disbelief of the interviewer, the spokesperson, Ian Thompson, replied, unequivocally, “AIPAC has no influence on US policy. I asked, jokingly, on an earlier thread, who are these people working for?
“decentjew” also makes a good point about how reports of atacks on Israeli soldiers are portrayed by Israel and in the US media. As they have distorted the meaning of the word, “kidnapped,” to describe the capture of an Israeli soldier, am example of Israeli speak that even critics of Israel have fallen into repeating, when Israeli soldiers are killed, for example, blown up at a bus stop, they are treated in the media as if they were innocent civilians, and only later in the story do we learn that they were not.
Those kind of attacks, however, were very different from the suicide bombings targeting civilians of all ages who were not in uniform. That campaign was a failure from every perspective and did great damage to the Palestinian struggle. Attacking settlers in the West Bank, however, is a different story, where Palestinians are far more likely to be victims of their violence and armed resistance is legitimate in every respect.
JEFFREY BLANKFORT- You can’t seem to resist the opportunity to take yet another uncalled for swipe at Noam Chomsky. Do you really believe that the situation in Israel/Palestine suffers due to Chomsky’s evil influence? Is he entitled to an opinion of his own that differs from yours?
To answer your first question, YES, although I would not use the term, evil. Thanks to Chomsky’s influence over what constitutes the Palestine solidarity movement for the past 30 years, movement activists have ignored the role that AIPAC and other national and local Jewish institutions have played in suppressing criticism from Israel on the part of otherwise “progressive,” politicians on the congressional, state and city levels since according to Chomsky, Washington’s support for Israel is based on Israel serving the US as a “strategic asset,” it’s “cop on the beat,” which makes what Congress thinks or does irrelevant, despite offering as evidence for this sources so shaky they would not be accepted on a college level term paper. He was and remains so out of touch with reality on this subject as to compare the US relationship with Israel with that it once had to El Salvador!
Over the years activists have and continue to internalize Chomsky’s line to the point where they repeat it verbatim without citing the source as if they themselves had done independent research on the subject. We can see the results in San Francisco, for example, which for many years has been represented by Nancy Pelosi and for a number of years before his death by Tom Lantos–this guy was evil–one of his Israel’s major agents in Congress, and yet there has never been a single demonstration larger than 50 or 60 people against either one of them called by solidarity activists, apart from myself and a handful of other activists who didn’t imbibe the Kool-Aid. That frame of mind led to there never having been an active public campaign, beyond the internet, directed at stopping aid to Israel and, what is unforgivable, to never mentioning or educating the public about the attack on the USS Liberty which would have given mainstream Americans very different thoughts about its treacherous ally. The whole movement was reduced to repeating,”End the occupation!” even when that mantra has produced zero results and now it seems to be “Stop the settlements!”.
Is Chomsky responsible for that? To a point, as I wrote in 1991, when, on friendly terms, we had a “debate” in the old National Guardian.
By placing all the blame on the elites in Washington and insisting as he still does today, that Israel doesn’t do anything that Washington doesn’t allow, which is total nonsense, he clearly conveys the message that doing anything about it is beyond the reach of grassroots activists, thus making us spectators when history demands we be participants.
The answer to your second question is also YES, and as is my right to challenge and expose it. Would that he had the guts or sufficient confidence in his opinion to defend it in a debate, but he has refused to do which he has been asked to do by 3rd parties, the latest being Berkeley’s KPFA. Since he refused, the KPFA interviewer wisely decided to have a virtual debate with Ali Abunimah and myself responding to statements made by Chomsky in an interview on the same program a month earlier
Here’s the link: link to aud1.kpfa.org
And once again, for newcomers to Mondoweiss, here’s the link to an article I wrote in 2004, Damage Control: Noam Chomsky and the Israel-Palestine Conflict.
www.leftcurve.org/LC29WebPages/Chomsky.html
After that program this January, Chomsky responded to a personal request for a debate that he hadn’t the time but that he would be willing to read anything I sent him that challenged his opinion. So I resent the above article which up to that point he had told others that he wouldn’t read. True to form, he replied to the effect that it was not worthy of his valuable time. I would hope that you, Keith, as well as others reading this thread might take a more enlightened approach and check it out.
JEFFREY BLANKFORT- Thanks for the response. I know that you are busy, and I appreciate it. I am going to pursue this just a bit more (probably for the last time) because I think it is important. Let me begin by noting that I am distressed by what I perceive as a form of sectarian turf war occurring on the left which, curiously, targets Chomsky for abuse. Christopher Hitchens comes to mind even though he is now a crypto neocon. The point being that there seems to be some political capital to be derived from attacking Noam. I say curiously, because I am unaware of any instance where Chomsky initiated the exchange, or was actively engaged in any sort of activity which could be construed as even mildly threatening to those doing the attacking. Chomsky has been passive throughout. He isn’t being attacked for what he did, but for what he didn’t do. For instance, has Noam Chomsky ever actively attacked or opposed anything you said or did? Or is his apostasy simply a matter of a perceived lack of support for your agenda?
As for Chomsky’s opinions on the lobby, I have read a lot of Chomsky and am unsure of what his exact opinion is. It doesn’t seem to interest him all that much and/or he doesn’t feel he can add to the debate. He appears to try to avoid the issue to the degree he can, instead concentrating on his analysis of US political economy and foreign policy. From time to time he feels obligated to answer questions put to him, but is not anxious to pursue it. Is this a crime? It doesn’t bother me, why you?
As for the lobby itself, we had an exchange on this topic a little while ago, at the conclusion of which I felt that our positions were closer than perhaps you initially thought. Our big difference seems to be the locus of decision making. You appear to think that the lobby (writ large, mind you) takes its orders from Israel, whereas, I feel that while Israel is the spiritual center of Zionism, the centers of Zionist power are New York/Washington. In other words, the Zionist lobby is deeply enmeshed in empire, and acts accordingly.
To sum up, Chomsky’s “power” is simply referent power which he has earned. He is not a member of the power elite which sets Middle East policy. If he could change US policy in the Middle East, I believe that it would likely be close to what you or I would advocate and support. He is not the problem. His personal opinion as to how to overcome US/Israel Middle East policy is not all that relevant, particularly since he tries to avoid recommending solutions. I respectfully suggest that you focus on how to overcome US/Israel policy rather than attacking this octogenarian straw man. If you care to respond, please do. If you don’t, don’t. I for one intend to drop this discussion upon which both of us have already spent too much time. Good luck, best wishes, etc.
Evidently, Keith, you have not taken the time to read my article in which I provide answers to probably all of your questions. I am not going to repeat them here. Despite being pressed to do so by his supporters when my article first appeared, Chomsky not only refused but insists, or so he says, that he still hasn’t read it, hardly the answer one would expect from an intellectual of his stature. If you had read it, you would know what Chomsky’s position is regarding what is more like a 1000 room Las Vegas hotel than a traditional lobby. All one needs to do is pour through the AIPAC website for the evidence of its power which gets less attention in the mainstream press than it once did, yet is more powerful than ever. The reason? Its influence over the mainstream media is also greater than ever which may have been a canard at one time but now is an easily proven fact.
I do, howver, agree with you that Zionism, Israeli and American–their being no fundamental difference between the two–has entwined itself with US imperialism in order to direct the power of the latter on Israel’s behalf, even as it lead it into a war on Iraq, and on the road to a confrontation with Iran which will quite likely produce a disaster of global proportions.
Chomsky, BTW, points to the fact that the US has yet to attack Iran despite The Lobby’s efforts is proof that it is not all powerful, but that’s a straw man. Nobody says that it is. The reason there has been no US attack on Tehran and why US officials have been running over to Jerusalem pressing on Israel not to do it is because the Pentagon and the intelligence agencies know full well what the fallout will be from such an attack. It is clear, however, the Jewish establishment AKA TheLobby has been the driving force behind Washington’s push for sanctions and its man in the Treasury Dept., Stuart Levey has been the one to determine which companies are in violation of the already existing US sanctions against Tehran.
anything about it is beyond the reach of grassroots activists, thus making us spectators when history demands we be participants.
You make a very valid point.
I was watching a video recently of Chomsky debating about the lobby with someone who, prior to the arguments, stated that he mostly agreed with Chomsky on the issue and thus wouldn’t even classify the “debate” as such. In other words, the only one Chomsky is willing to discuss the lobby with was his own protege.
More importantly, Chomsky’s ending suggestion to a roomful of youth activists hanging on his every word was to “educate” others, in response to the disinformation on the conflict prevalent in the MSM. Not to challenge the elites in power, presumably for that would reveal the workings of the Israeli lobby. Nevertheless, it was a very shortsighted and stunted recommendation when the advocacy and support for Zionism is embedded on so many different levels in the US.
Still, I am not sure if Chomsky is deliberately in denial of the Israeli lobby, as much as he thinks that it is ultimately a non-issue as long as America is projecting its empire. If that serves as a convenient excuse to muddle the Israeli influence and pressure on American foreign policy, or is a genuine belief on his part, is anyone’s guess. The latter would certainly be more consistent with the bulk of his own prolific writings on American imperialism.
But you are absolutely right on his influence on liberal activism in general. Chomsky’s oversight (whether intentional or not) has only misled a generation of activists seeking to make change, only they have been barking up the wrong tree, thus little if anything has changed on the grassroots level.
It’s time to target the PEP contingent in Congress NOW. The the letters are circulating.
I was half-listening to T.H. Breen author of “American Insurgents, American Patriots” and Jack Rakove author of “Revolutionaries” in conversation with Gary Johnson on C Span a few minutes ago. Breen comes from American Scots-Irish stock, has great admiration for the passion and emotion and grit of the Scots Irish. He says revolutions demand anger; there’s a place for writing that directs the anger, but a revolution is not a cerebral event. He narrates how one ‘insurgent’ group would round up some townspeople, take them out to a field, require that each dig a grave, then point guns at the captive and ask him about his commitment to the cause of the revolution. Gained a lot of stalwarts that way.
A revolution is not a teaparty. And it’s not a blog.
Likudniks and hasbaraniks know very well that they can plant one or two of their ilk on any given forum and in any given congressman’s office, and by their own sort of strongarm tactics, cause the congressman to dig his own grave.
Just as most Americans — particularly Jewish Americans, think of Exodus the Movie when the think of the zionist project, so we romanticize Gandhi the Movie. Gandhi wasn’t around when those Scots Irish made a stand to create a nation separate from British imperial domination.
The US is once again dominated by an imperial power. We’ve done the blogging/protesting/CodePinking/ActUp thing. Nothing is changing, the situation is getting beyond the control of the people.
Targeted violence might become necessary — the courage of the blood, not just of the sword. Who will demonstrate that courage?
As I watched Lee’s video, I observed several Muslims pray and prepare to die. You knew that was what they were doing. It is a blasphemy to form the words that they “hate life;” I insist that what they hate is domination, what they love is a future for their children and their families. Which of us keyboard warriors loves our community, our families, our children so much that we are willing to risk our lives so that theirs might be better?
I suppose that the presumption of non-violence is that sooner or later the other side will grow sick and ashamed of killing people. Gandhi, who was half-British culturally, must have thought this of the British. The Israelis are more than half Western in culture, moreover associated by Jewish tradition with the half of Western culture which is most humane. So I cherish the hope that non-violence, for all the discouraging evidence, may still work.
I’m glad to see that lrb is still with us. I had feared from something she said that she had decided to withdraw to a safer distance from the toxic ideas that are encountered here.
The Israelis are more than half Western in culture, moreover associated by Jewish tradition with the half of Western culture which is most humane
Could you please elaborate this idea ? Especially the “Western culture which is most humane” part. I may have miunderstood you but it seems to me that you’re saying Wester culture is more humane than others. That bothers me. A lot.
Melka, he said “…the half of Western culture which is most humane” – this is referring to the “two halves” of Western culture, implying that there is a “half” which is less humane (I’d say it’s a little more than a half, though).
If he had said “…the half of Western culture , which is most humane” , with the comma, THEN he would be insinuating what you thought he was. He’s not referring to any other cultures, I think.
MHughes976, thank you, but I regularly check in here because there is good debate, and the platform, encouraged by (our good friends) the moderators, is very democratic. For the “toxic ideas”, I was referring to the comments in the major news sites, certainly not here. To go on, I just have to say that never have I seen so much disinformation, propaganda and ill-though-out ideas than on the pro-zionist side of the I/P issue, it’s simply stunning. Even someone with little knowledge of the history can refute rather easily many of the outrageous claims of the propagandist crowd, it’s like taking candy from a baby – this is what fascinates me, because this conflict really illustrates for me the workings of POWER and its prerogatives to shape and distort the perception of reality more than any other – to the point of the propagandists actually convincing themselves of their own lies.
This was a critical article.
The flotilla movement now lives in a state of constant explanation, as Israel does. Few believe that the flotilla as a whole was non-violent civil disobedience as presented on the Free Gaza website.
The woman who submitted the film from “Cultures of Resistance” had a telling comment in her interview with Amy Goodman of Democracy Now. That was “we were brainwashed to believe in the importance of non-violence”.
“Brainwashed”.
Explanations that will now dog the Free Gaza movement include Iran’s subsequent declaration that in the next flotilla, they will provide military protection.
Yes indeed, I meant ‘most humane, by comparison with the other half of Western culture’ not ‘more humane than other cultures’ – apologies to melka for any misunderstanding! I agree with lrb that ‘half and half’ may be a rather generous division. Maybe I was thinking of Kipling, who said he had two sides to his head, one imperialist and one not. I was inoculated against anti-Semitism in my childhood by one of Kipling’s medieval stories in which a Jewish capitalist saves England from the tyrannous King John, though I think K did become rather anti-Semitic in his embittered old age.
I agree about the astonishing levels of disinformation, reaching new heights after the flotilla incidents. The level of public success that the disinformers achieve sometimes makes me feel ill.
Ok, thanks for the clarification, and sorry for my misunderstanding :)
I won’t go into how insufferably condescending, patronizing and preachy I find this article, or how I think it reinforces the good activist/bad activist narrative that Israel is consciously trying to spin about the people on the Mavi Marmara versus the rest of the Flotilla. Other comments have already addressed those points.
What I want to take up is Taylor and Nagler’s argument that the value of “pure” nonviolence is in its ability to “persuade the oppressor.” I think this is a tremendously flawed view of how change happens. The implication is that oppression is a product of bad ideas, and that it will end when oppressors see the light and change their behavior. This is false. Oppression ends when it becomes unsustainable. It can be made unsustainable in a number of ways, from armed resistance, to forms of nonviolent direct action (what Palestinians call “civil resistance”) such as strikes, sit-ins, marches, civil disobedience, etc., to international pressure tactics such as BDS. Which of these methods or combination of methods is most appropriate for a given situation should be a question of tactics and strategy, not principle.
There is a common misconception on the American left that change happens when we just convince enough people to shed their bigoted ideas, be they racism, sexism, homophobia, Zionism, what have you. In fact a careful study of history indicates it’s often the other way around. Particularly in situations of oppression, change happens because a determined minority who is directly affected refuses to give up fighting, and wins enough solidarity to force a concession from the powers that be. One small example from the US: in 1968, a year AFTER the Supreme Court struck down all laws banning interracial marriage, only 20% of Americans approved of marriage between Blacks and whites. By 2003 that figure was up to 73%. What happened? A bunch of people got interracial marriages and the 80% who’d been against them either realized the world hadn’t ended or at least realized it was no longer acceptable to air their racist views on the matter in public.
A more striking example, from apartheid South Africa, can be found in this excellent article by Ali Abunimah: link to electronicintifada.net
As Ali points out, as late as 1990, only 2.2 percent of Afrikaners said they were willing to accept majority (Black) rule in South Africa. If South African Blacks had waited to win over the most trenchant racists apartheid would still be alive and well today.
By all measures, nonviolent resistance is now the dominant form of struggle in Palestine. (There hasn’t been a suicide bombing in Israel since February 2008.) If Taylor and Nagler’s arguments about nonviolence were true, the Israeli public should be moving toward enlightenment. Instead it is marching toward fascism at a frightening and accelerating pace.
Nonviolent resistance tactics have many advantages, but being more palatable to the oppressor isn’t one of them.
I agree completely. Pro-Palestinian activists and those in solidarity w/ the Palestinians need to advocate the SA strategy. Two-States is dead.
A brilliant critique and what fittingly could be the last word on the subject and this thread.
The Israeli community is inspired by the non-violent work being done. It is changing hearts and minds.
The sad reality is that the violent elements of the Gaza flotilla and slightly-violent demonstrations of the intifada (leading to the grossly violent demonstrations of the second intifada and suicide bombings), changed their hearts and minds back.
And, it was not only the Israeli populace (a critical population to change consciousness, if you wish to undertake self-determination, rather than a chase them out with force version of social change), but also all those in responsible roles within functioning states that were changed back.
Laura,
You didn’t illuminate a critique of non-violence so much as artfully rally the converted.
The significance of the courage of non-violent civil disobedience is that it affects a comprehensive, deep and therefore permanent change of heart and of power relationships.
In contrast, the change of power relationships that occurs through slightly and grossly violent actions, is thin, temporary, angry.
A battle won maybe, but thats it.
I would love to see some opinion polls or statistics backing up your claims about trends in Israeli public opinion over the past thirty years (if you are indeed talking about both intifadas, we’re talking about going back to the ’80s.) For some reason I suspect the empirical evidence may be a bit thin there.
As for your claim that “all those in responsible roles within functioning states” had their hearts and minds turned off from the Palestine solidarity movement because of the Flotilla events…um, what kind of state to you consider Turkey to be?
Hundreds of thousands attended Peace Now demonstrations in the early 90′s. The first intifada illuminated the Israeli public (with obviously many exceptions), that the Palestinians were NOT invisible. That is was semi-violent was not lost on them, but they got the message that change was needed.
Millions supported the signing of the Oslo accords and subsequent negotiations, as flawed as they were structurally and logistically.
Even the Hamas compliance with the cease-fire for the majority of it was noted in government and in the populace.
The history of inhumane actions by Hamas, Al Aqsa Martyrs, Islamic Jihad, PFLP, others, is long and intimately experienced.
It is RATIONAL for Israelis to distrust Hamas officials, especially when their comments in English conflict radically with their comments (by the same officials) in Arabic, or translated into Farsi.
The use of force through violence, through even BDS (intended isolation, especially when conducted in an unclarified and undisciplined manner), is inciteful. It adds to the likelihood of war and that adds to the likelihood of fortress mentality and justification for suppression on the part of Israel.
It is currently utterly inneffective at stopping the settlement expansion (unless shifts to extremely disciplined approach).
This is not South Africa (10% minority controlling 90% majority), nor India (1% minority).
The people HAVE to end up living together. If you don’t see that, then you are missing a critical aspect of the reality there.
That illustrates the stupidity of the likud approach, as well as the stupidity of the militant Palestinian solidarity approach.
Well said Laura. Non violence should be employed as it is effective.
If Israeli Jews and their diaspora support system don’t think Palestinians are fully human, then shame on them. Exactly how does one human being go about proving his or her humanity to another?
Is there ANY principle (security for Israeli Jews, making Israeli Jews and their diaspora supporters feel “safe,” and in this piece, the principle of non-violence, etc) that Zionist supporters don’t place above the basic rights of Palestinians?
“When Nonviolence Meets Live Ammo – A Response to Matthew Taylor’s Condemnation of the Defence of the Mavi Marmara”
link to meldungen-aus-dem-exil.noblogs.org
“In The Tacitus Principle, I explained that any violent resistance by the passengers of the Mavi Marmara would fall within self-defence, a justification. While this is the legal category their actions fall into, I am not content to argue that the Marmara resisters were blameless. This is obvious. Instead, I would go far as to say that their actions are worthy of praise. Indeed, the way the people on board the Mavi Marmara responded to the Israeli attack should go down in history as an example of how one can resist murderous violence without losing one’s humanity.”
View Larger Map