A response to the debate on this site over the question of non-violent protest, following from the Gaza flotilla raid.
For Gandhi and for King non-violence was a principle. Tactics such as the refusal to budge from a position where one has a right to be, may grow out of the principle but are not to be confused with it. The principle starts from a discovery of a violence one recognizes as evil in oneself, and a rejection of that evil. What follows is the writing-large of the rejection as resistance to the evil that comes from oppression by others. One resists the violence within from the same discovery of justice that impels the resistance to the violence without. Both Gandhi and King emphasized the difficulty of the discovery. Both took care that their protest movements should on occasion go back to perform again acts of protest that had been corrupted by bursts of violence within the movement. Both made clear their disapproval of parallel movements that opposed the same evils they opposed (segregation, imperial subordination) but did so by violent means. There was no reason for them to do these things except the firm belief in non-violent resistance as a moral principle.
Non-violent action is meant to be visible and exemplary, in contrast with the violent action of the oppressor, which is shameful and always partly hidden. One shows one's commitment by a practice that requires enormous strength of self-discipline, a practice that may in consequence elicit wonder and provoke thought. Mass acts of non-violent resistance may cause a state power to remit its use of violence. At the far reach of persuasion, they may cause the state power to surrender control. But there will always be reasons for this besides awakened conscience. The power, for example, may desire the approval of other powers which have their own motives for siding with the protest. Or, the state may in some way need the cooperation of those whom it rules by coercion; when, therefore, its method of governing proves bankrupt, it gives up domination in exchange for the lifting of the protest.
Every regime of domination carries with it an agreeable story to cover the brutality of the facts. In British India the story was that the British only governed by the voluntary acceptance of the people of India, and they would leave on the day the people of India made it clear that they did not consent to imperial rule. Mass non-violent resistance did make the rejection of imperial rule transparently clear, without any possibility of confusion. Again, in the American South, the story was that segregation was a "way of life" that blacks and whites alike were happy with, and the trouble only came from "agitators." Mass non-violent resistance proved the explanation to be a fable. In Israel today, the story is that the blockade and the occupation are necessary because without them the Palestinians would subject Israel to an ungoverned series of terrorist attacks. Does terrorism or non-violent resistance seem a likelier method for disproving that assumption?
Both Gandhi and King searched these questions very deeply. Their writings are widely available. There is no excuse for attributing to them views which they argued against explicitly and with great cogency. As for the relativist idea that all who recognize an evil may freely choose their favorite tactic without judging among the tactics by any standard but success, such a resolution begs two questions at once. For to use non-violence opportunistically nullifies the distinction of the protester; the state power itself does not use violence day and night but only opportunistically. And the moral authority of non-violence was always based on a definition of success that differed from that of sheer power. The end you seek, the state you intend to build, is already indicated and has begun to be constituted by the means you employ to get there. A state arrived at by means of terror has already set up a definition of success that will affect its future conduct and character.
Postscript: Three passages from Gandhi
1. Let us first take the argument that we are justified in gaining our end by
using brute-force because the English gained theirs by using similar means. It
is perfectly true that they used brute-force and that it is possible for us to
do likewise, but by using similar means we can get only the same thing that
they got. You will admit that we do not want that.
--Hind Swaraj, 1909
2. Such being the hold that the doctrine of the sword has on the majority of
mankind, and as success of non-co-operation depends principally on absence of
violence during its pendency and as my views in this matter affect the conduct
of a large number of people, I am anxious to state them as clearly as possible.
I do believe that where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence I
would advise violence. Thus when my eldest son asked me what he should have
done, had he been present when I was almost fatally assaulted in 1908, whether
he should have run away and seen me killed or whether he should have used his
physical force which he could and wanted to use, and defended me, I told him
that it was his duty to defend me even by using violence. Hence it was that I
took part in the Boer War, the so-called Zulu rebellion and the late War. Hence
also do I advocate training in arms for those who believe in the method of
violence. I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her
honour than that she should in a cowardly manner become or remain a helpless
witness to her own dishonour.
But I believe that non-violence is infinitely superior to violence,
forgiveness is more manly than punishment. Forgiveness adorns a soldier. But
abstinence is forgiveness only when there is the power to punish; it is
meaningless when it pretends to proceed from a helpless creature. A mouse
hardly forgives a cat when it allows itself to be torn to pieces by her. I,
therefore, appreciate the sentiment of those who cry out for the condign
punishment of General Dyer and his ilk. They would tear him to pieces if they
could. But I do not believe India to be helpless. I do not believe myself to be
a helpless creature. Only I want to use India's and my strength for a better
purpose. Let me not be misunderstood. Strength does not come from physical
capacity. It comes from an indomitable will.
--The Doctrine of the Sword, 11 August 1920
3. The German persecution of the Jews seems to have no parallel in history. The
tyrants of old never went so mad as Hitler seems to have gone. And he is doing
it with religious zeal. For he is propounding a new religion of exclusive and
militant nationalism in the name of which mass inhumanity becomes an act of
humanity to be rewarded here and hereafter. The crime of an obviously mad but
intrepid youth is being visited upon his whole race with unbelievable ferocity.
If there ever could be a justifiable war in the name of and for humanity, a war
against Germany, to prevent the wanton persecution of a whole race, would be
completely justified. But I do not believe in any war. . . .
Germany is showing to the world how efficiently violence can be worked when
it is not hampered by any hypocrisy or weakness masquerading as
humanitarianism. It is also showing how hideous, terrible and terrifying it
looks in its nakedness.
Can the Jews resist this organized and shameless persecution? Is there a way
to preserve their self-respect, and not to feel helpless, neglected and
forlorn? I submit there is. . . .If I were a Jew and were born in Germany and
earned my livelihood there, I would claim Germany as my home even as the
tallest gentile German may, and challenge him to shoot me or cast me in the
dungeon; I would refuse to be expelled or to submit to discriminating
treatment. And for doing this, I should not wait for the fellow Jews to join me
in civil resistance but would have confidence that in the end the rest are bound
to follow my example. If one Jew or all the Jews were to accept the prescription
here offered, he or they cannot be worse off than now.
--Zionism and Anti-Semitism, 26 November 1938
Callow morally bankrupt crypto- Zionist sophistry. If you’re going to give space to a Jewish college Professor, an “Ethics” man – tell Bromwich to pick up his check at ZOA, and bring in Michael Neumann who actually cares about helping the Palestinians. I mean, c’mon, this is just another wolf in tweedy sheep’s clothing who cares more about keeping Israel intact than anything else.
RE: “tell Bromwich to pick up his check at ZOA” – Debonnaire
MY COMMENT: Tsk-tsk! (whatever that means)
P.S. I can assure you it will be a frigid day in Hell™ before Prof. Bromwich sees a payday at ZOA. I imagine Mort Klein would more likely put out a contract on him (lol – not to be taken literally).
I remember seeing a German film several decades ago about a revolution in a fictitious South American country. At some point, one of the young ‘revolutionaries’ was being given advice/admonitions by his aged grandfather. One of the English subtitles read: “Experience is like a comb you are unable to use until all of your hair has fallen out.”
ALSO SEE: Gaza Flotilla: This is What Smart Strategy Looks Like | By Ira Chernus, CommonDreams.org, 05/28/10
LINK – link to commondreams.org
AND ON A LIGHTER NOTE: The Re-Education of Helen Thomas, By Christopher Ketcham, Counterpunch, 06/14/10
LINK – link to counterpunch.org
All that philosophizing on general principles, absolute truths sounds exactly like religion –which it possibly is.
Right now we are talking about the current problem, to wit the act of piracy within present situation of Palestine and the available balances of power. Yes, there seems to be a good amount to be said about things to be done in the approved, kosher non-violent way, but also for energic self-defense. In fact, once the tilting point is past for world opinion, it may become more productive to use force. Who knows, it will all depend on the tactical moment and the strategy updates.
Otherwise all this well-intentioned soul-searching risks looking like a request to be lambs at the slaughter even it only brings slaughter.
Both the British in India and the United States during Segregation claimed to believe in the “rule of law” and had a constitution (unwritten and written respectively) which guaranteed people certain rights. Since those countries’ laws/constitution constrained state violence, excessive state violence against non-violent protestors ultimately could delegitimize those country. In a country which does not believe in the rule of law, there are no such contraints on state violence. In Nazi Germany, the law was what Hitler wanted it to be, so he changed the law to make any protest including non-violent protest a serious offence. For example, the White Rose protestors in Munich were executed for their actions and that changed nothing. As for Gandhi’s claim that non-violent protests would have brought down Nazi Germany, that is pure baloney because Hitler didn’t give a rat’s arse what people thought of him and the Germans proved that they could go on killing mercilessly right up until the Russians captured Berlin.
While I do not equate Israel with Nazi Germany, I think it must be said that just like Nazi Germany pre-1941, the rule of law is breaking down within Israel, perhaps because the United States has repeatedly allowed Israel to breech international law on a whim.
It’s an oversimplification to say that, all through the history of Nazi Germany, the law was simply what Adolf Hitler said. In late 1933, most of the defendants in the Reichstag Fire trial were acquitted by the Reichsgericht. Reichstag Fire Trial. As a matter of fact, it was Hitler’s fury at this result that led to his establishing the Volksgerichtshof, the People’s Court that condemned the White Rose protesters.
But, even though gradually the German legal system was more and more Nazified over time, Hitler continued to be dissatisfied by German courts’ decisions. The last time the Reichstag met, on April 26, 1942, it was to pass a law that gave Hitler total power to overrule court decisions.
I believe too much emphasis is placed on how much nicer non-violence is than violence, and how much your oppressors and their friends like you if you don’t put up meaningful resistance. But historically, non-violent resistance has been a useful tool to those who aren’t in a position to fight back, and if it is able to be mobilized effectively it can bring down a system-and I am not talking about through a public relations effort-if the resisters are able to withstand the initial onslaught of brutality, the system just falls apart because so much effort is spent controlling the protests and people aren’t participating in allowing the system to live. In other words, seven boats trying to break the Gaza blockade makes Israel look bad. A thousand boats trying to break the blockade-and the blockade is broken-maybe.
The Palestinians are in a specific situation-fighting their lives and the life of their nation. Will their non-violent, or at least non-lethal, options be more effective? I really hope so because I’m really sick of violence everywhere; I don’t like inflicting it and I certainly don’t enjoy having it inflicted upon me. But I really can’t lecture them in good faith about how everyone will like them if they do this or that.
Well said.
Great comments. Much better than the article, as with what happened with the taylor piece.
“A state arrived at by means of terror has already set up a definition of success that will affect its future conduct and character.”
That’s an important point. Independence movements that use terror tactics to achieve their goals usually don’t stop when the goal is achieved. They may turn those tactics against their own people or they may start using such tactics against other enemies or they may do both. We see that in history happening over and over and over again.
This doesn’t have too much to do with the violence used by the people fighting the Israelis on the flotilla, though. That was just guys with clubs reacting in a natural way (whether one agrees or not) to the Israeli act of piracy. It doesn’t really tell me anything, except that if the flotilla organizers want a completely non-violent protest movement they didn’t successfully convey that message. But there’s a big difference between, say, a resistance group that deliberately kill civilians and some protestors beating up a few Israeli commandos trying to take over a ship.
David Bromowich is wrong. Ghandhi’s succees was the result of the British weakness out of the War. Rabindra Nath tagore , noble laureate in literature from India was highly critical of romatic violence perpetrated by the Inidan youth but he was equally critical of the non violence approach .I will praphrase him -” The message of the peace will sound hollow and weak against the marauding powerful inhuman army , that peace feels like the quiet night of the graveyard”
Did British learn the essence of non-violence? They kept on doing same thing to Kenya and Malayasia long after India was free.
In case of Israel the non-violence is more complicated. Israel destroyed a non -violent Palestinian by name Nussubaum. Israeli fister all along have been asking “where is Palestinian Ghandhi and Mandela”? The thing is this Ghandhi necer supported concept of Israel in his communication to Israeli leader( ? martin Beuber).His grnadson in US was called antisemite for raising the sufferring of Gaza under Isreali occupation . Mandela when was languishing in jail never received any recognition from Israeli firster in this country.Same fate awaits any wannabe non violnet leader.
What I liked about the Ajl piece was it was not polemic, but practical oriented. Once you adopt a rigid framework to operate in, your opponent need only use that to nullify what you are trying to do. Resistance to an occupying colonial power is a war, and those resisting need to be able to adapt their tactics to their circumstances and use the criteria of whether the tactics are working and if they can actually use the tactic.
With non-violent resistance, publicity is a large part of its effectiveness. If there is no publicity, non-violence will not help much in the face of a violent oppressor. Likewise, if one is grossly outmatched, violent resistance is likely to just result in the resistance’s annihilation.
First off, one needs to maneuver themselves into a position where they can pick and chose their “battles”, and not always be subjected to being reactive and on the defensive. That requires flexibility and a toolkit that allows one to adjust and change their tactics at will.
I agree with the premise of Ajl that these are tactics, not some philosophical framework of laws that must be adhered to (for lack of being able to think of a better way of putting it at the moment).
David Bromwich is no different than Andy Pessin, Rich Landes and 50,000 other Jewish academics. They write for Pajamas Media, he writes for HuffPo. They’re all nice Jewish boys who think Israel is a special place and want to protect it at any cost. When Israeli goons shoot a 3 yr. old girl in the back or murder a father at a checkpoint – it means nothing to them. Now, if the settler Crazy Howie from Brooklyn gets a rash on his tuchas – that’s troubling.
You know, all this talk is a load of horse dung – on both sides. Until any of you can face people with guns either with your own guns or weaponless then i don’t think principles or pragmatism mean anything. Test your principles or pragmatism through action and then we can all speak. Until then it is just a bunch of people sitting in their comfy homes pontificating about violence, nonviolence or both. I think though, assuming we want to build a better world, that the principle of nonviolence outlined in these posts should not be demeaned, even if you think it makes strategic or tactical nonsense in your current political realism.
Irsih famine and three Indian famines did not wake up British to any new moral dawn.It did not elevate British to any new understanding of universal human quality /rights/security/liberty , one would doubt that non violence played a significant role in achieving Indian independence. India was just getting too dangerous for UK. India did not accecpt british rules.there were mutinies, rebllion,massacre that would testify against that excuse.
If non violence were going to change any behavior of Israel , then the silnece and sufferring among the refugees of the Golan Heioght would have done that a longtime ago.