At this site and elsewhere, a discussion about “violence” versus “non-violence” has been taking place over the past month-or-so, since the massacre aboard the Mavi Marmara, revealingly joined recently by Nicholas Kristof. In the face of empirical and ethical deconstructions of the argument for “principled” non-violence for Palestinians and the total abnegation of force by solidarity activists, Matthew Taylor has offered a lengthy rejoinder re-stating his case for the moral, ethical, and pragmatic efficacy of Palestinian non-violence. Taylor begins by defining “violence,” goes on to re-assert the utility of Gandhi, accuses me of mis-understanding Gandhi, condemns Palestinian violence, and moves on to a How-To Guide for the Palestinian Resistance.
Here’s Taylor defining “non-violence”:
Nonviolence is a powerful method to harmonize relationships among people (and all living things) for the establishment of justice and the ultimate well-being of all parties. It draws its power from awareness of the profound truth to which the wisdom traditions of all cultures, science, and common experience bear witness: that all life is one.
If we can’t define “non-violence” and “violence,” we can’t discuss them. Is the above a definition or babble? The latter. No definition, no discussion. Earlier, I suggested that it is not so simple to define “non-violence” and “violence,” a suggestion that the language above inadvertently confirms. Try a very quick thought experiment. I am in a room with a man holding a gun to my head. I have a stick in my hand with a spike in it.
There is another person in that room. If I refuse to use force against that man by hitting him—possibly lethally—with my stick, he will kill me, then kill the other person. If I kill him, I will save the other person and myself. What kind of “non-violence” causes excess violent deaths and redounds to violence? The theorist raises his hand, quavering: “There are exceptions!” Of course there are. Otherwise the tension between theory and ethics would simply rip the argumentative fabric apart. Academic non-violence theory provides for exceptions in the case of sudden and overwhelming force. More colloquially, self-defense, taking its cue from common sense and international law. What “principled non-violence” mainly means in practice is the refusal to use bodily-harming force except when confronted with a deadly threat against which there is no other way to resist.
That exception makes sense. What doesn’t make sense is the principle—building an ethical and moral firewall between a permissible exception for self-defense in the face of immediate, corporeal danger and an exception for self-defense against the structural violence of colonialism, occupation, or capitalism. Especially, this does not make sense when the goal is the minimization of human suffering. The difference is essentially aesthetic—there’s no ready-to-hand alternative to violence in self-defense when the threat is manifest and present, despite the theorist’s aesthetic preference for militant non-violent practice, the inverse of fascist war-fetishizing. Despite the abstract grace of the theory, it needs an exception to shoehorn it into reality.
Faced with iterations of the situation above, only the most cloistered theorist could universally condemn the use of force. The problem is that asserting that there are ready-to-hand alternatives in nearly all situations, raising non-violence to principle, is an act of faith. It’s an atheist theology, fundamentalist to the core, its sacred texts Gandhi’s notebooks. And like most such belief systems, the believers are fiercely evangelical, desperate for converts. And they will say anything to get them, including misunderstanding the difference between resisting a politicidal ideology and intra-communal repression. When Kristof writes of how Palestinian protests with rock-throwers are “a far cry from the heroism of Gandhi’s followers, who refused even to raise their arms to ward off blows as they were clubbed,” one wonders what he knows about Israeli society. IDF soldiers make old Palestinian men kiss the asses of donkeys. This is not the Sepoys under the Raj. Genocide is always glimmering on the Zionist horizon, and it doesn’t do any good to claim that it is just a mirage.
Regarding the problems of defining violence, I offered a serious argument about how non-violence and violence aren’t a binary but compose a spectrum, and moreover one upon which it is quite difficult to place any particular conjuncture of resistance, so long as we are concerned with real-world effects, citing examples from Palestinian history—for example, the women pushing soldiers at Budrus. (That was violence, and it worked, at least a little.) High-technology rockets that can blow Merkavas to smithereens are embodied violence. Nuclear proliferation threatens world-killing violence. There hasn’t been an offensive nuclear detonation since 1945. Violence works in complicated ways. Violence can counter or deter greater violence, and fewer people die or are occupied or raped or tortured, and that is what we’re talking about, that’s the only reason this discussion can possibly matter. The response to that argument was silence.
That silence speaks. Here’s what it says. Those calling for “principled” Palestinian non-violence, for the categorical rejection of force, cannot possibly care about consequences. They are idealists in the philosophical sense, unconcerned despite their protestations with the physical world. I do not know how else to explain the surreally anodyne argumentative style, free of the infinite lacerations of a six-decade occupation. The distant prose of Palestinian pacifism patters smoothly along, seldom punctuated by the reality of the occupation. Nothing about religious zealots dropping white phosphorus on children, about ghettoes erected by Jewish fundamentalists, about tree-burnings in the West Bank perpetrated by crypto-fascist Gush Emunim fanatics. No mention of decapitated mosques, or of the Samouni family, no talk of Cast Lead, a massacre carried out by armed forces headed by men promising to bring Shoah upon Palestinian heads. The country that committed those crimes is in a state of advanced moral corruption, and no amount of citing mis-interpreted polling information will make that untrue. The question is how to arrest that moral corruption before it is too late. It may take violence. In the real world, there are times when violence is necessary. Most historical resistance is not remotely violent, including—especially—Palestinian resistance. Some resistance is violent. Does it have to be? Did Lebanese resistance from 1996 to 2006 have to take place with weapons? The truth is that maybe it did not. Maybe Lebanese peasants, instead of offering social support to Hizbollah, could have marched in white robes and dove costumes south from the Litani and offered olive branches and tea with maramiya to the IDF thugs who were occupying their land, and passed along Hebrew-language peace-missives, translated from the Arabic in a collaboration between Salaam Fayyad, Khaled Abu Toameh, Amos Oz and Gershom Gorenberg, explaining the love in the Lebanese heart and their belief in the humanity of the occupier. Maybe that could have worked. Big maybe. Rockets definitely worked. Violence not only works, it may be the only thing that can work against a hysterical Sparta in the grip of collective nationalist fervor.
Taylor side-steps this line of argument by asserting that no one can prove that those rockets—or the violence accompanying any resistance movement—were necessary. This is true in the sense that we cannot re-run history as though it is a computer program, merely excising the one variable, “violence,” and replacing practitioners of violence with practitioners of non-violence. The notion that such a fantastical what-if offers support for a principled rejection of violent resistance doesn’t even rise to the level of absurdity. If Taylor wishes to re-play that history and can manage to hot-wire the time-machine, he will wait with the fellaheen as they weigh their options, apprised of academic non-violent theory, living under military occupation. They will no doubt look apprehensively at Taylor, smile at his translator, pat him on the head, look for a padded room, and cheer on Hizbollah. They are not so stupid.
Next. Taylor and others fundamentally mis-understand the point about principled versus tactical non-violence. No one is arguing that there are not those who practice what they insist is principled rejection of the direct, physical use of force or violence. The point is that a rejection of direct physical violence can accelerate the worsening of structural violence. It follows that the principle is a flimsy one. The corollary is that the principle is not precisely principled, and suggests that as a normative point non-violence should be deployed tactically.
Next. Academic and popular writers on non-violence cares quite a bit about Gandhi: what I say about Gandhi, what Thomas Nagler says about Gandhi, what CIA-funded Gene Sharp says about Gandhi, and what the Peace and Conflict Studies coven says about Gandhi. Taylor accuses me of mis-understanding Gandhi. Incorrectly, misunderstand that I was glossing the vernacular mis-reading of Gandhi, an odd mis-reading given how clearly I made that point. More importantly, Gandhi failed. Despite what Arnold Toynbee says, Gandhian non-violence did not break the colonial hold on India. Violence did, and no serious historian disputes this point. So do I care about Gandhi? No, not at all. Why should I? Gandhi is a dead Indian spiritual leader, and his stinky corpse is preventing any reasonable discussion from proceeding. We do not know what Gandhi would have said about Palestinian resistance, because he’s dead and his thought was rooted in the historical and anthropological realities of early-to-mid 20th century India. It’s just journalistic non-sense to carelessly extract and apply his thinking. There are other problems with this séance. As Sayres Rudy points out, Gandhi-as-prophet-in-lieu-of-Gramsci-as-prophet “is a choice by certain people. Why did they choose him? Or Him, whatever. Because they like him, they agree with him. Why do they agree with him? Because he (they think) agrees with them. Thus, as with God, what really matters, again, is arguments, not authority-figures.”
Have we seen an argument as to why Gandhi is relevant? Not a chance. Martin Buber asked Gandhi, after the latter delivered a speech extolling non-violence, “Do you think perhaps…that a Jew in Germany could pronounce in public one single sentence of a speech such as yours without being knocked down?” Have we seen any compelling argument that when faced with horrible violence Palestinians should on principle reject their right to resist violently? No. Are Palestinians different than Jews? Do different peoples have different rights?
Remember the Palestinians? Those people in Khoza’a waking up to the rat-tat of remote-controlled machine gun turrets firing off rounds, the people in Jabaliya living in the darkness of blacked-out Gaza? They are the point, not point-scoring in an academic debate. We resist their oppression because it is the right thing to do, because we are culpable for it. We are culpable as citizens, as taxpayers, as human beings, as privileged dwellers of the global North, as capitalists, as cogs in this churning machine. The first task is to end our society’s violence. Having failed to do that, we have no standing to enter a purely academic debate about the relevance of Gandhi to the Palestinian fight against politicide. Why are we going on and on about non-violence when we are enabling violence? We pay taxes, quipping uncomfortably and ironically to one another about our war-taxes going to fund Israeli violence, and let Apache factories keep on constructing helicopters and let our railroads ship those war-engines to ports where ships take them to Israel to kill Palestinians. We do next-to-nothing, we take no risks to check the systemic barbarity, almost none of us do. I laid out at saccharine, earnest length how theorist-practitioners of “principled” non-violence earned ethical standing to preach: by practicing first, both generally and because if you hope to be a tribune of non-violence, a social movement must be listening and you must be getting the crap kicked out of you while they are as well. Without practice, what they are saying is meaningless, just blubbery moralizing. Those who don’t dare to throw themselves on the machine that armors Zionism and fuels Merkavas can’t tell Palestinian peasants precisely how to do so. It’s the peak of racist thoughtlessness, reaching its misogynistic apotheosis when Kristof urges Palestinian women to allow “themselves to be tear-gassed, beaten and arrested without a single rock being thrown.” In what other instance would the man who whiles away his days saving whores from Thai brothels urge continued oppression to end oppression? Taylor and Kristof are free to ignore what I said and what I say. We are free to ignore them. Being ignored can’t be the goal, though. We write because we think writing matters and it matters especially when people listen. Mazin Qumsiyeh, for example, is writing a book on Palestinian civil resistance to Zionist encroachment. Here’s a bit of Qumsiyeh: “It is rather useless for armchair theorists to lecture people thousands of miles away about tactics and strategies.” I don’t want to get personal but it is individuals being “armchair theorists,” not abstractions. Taylor’s words literally will have no positive effect on the Palestinian struggle, because Palestinians actively resisting in Palestine are generally (a) increasingly agreed on the utility of non-violence at the present moment (b) are not quite so eager to give up their right to self-defense and (c) probably not reading this exchange.
Still, that does not mean that Qumsiyeh is correct. That doesn’t mean the words of a Taylor or a Gorenberg are “useless.” They could be very useful, just not to us, but to our enemies. They could convince people that condemning Palestinian violence, and issuing hypocritical demands for Palestinian non-violent resistance, is OK. That condemnation is unacceptable and intolerable. The primary task should be halting the violence issuing from our hands and our actions. Halting violence means not committing it, and not crafting the intellectual atmosphere that justifies that violence. Power is eager to blithely rob brown folk of a weapon they may need in the future. The corollary of enshrining Israeli aggression rights is erasing Palestinian self-defense rights. To carry out that robbery without incurring condemnation, power needs scribes who will justify its crimes. Edward Bernays knew this very well: the machine needs ideologues to lubricate it, to quiet its roar. Without ideologues providing that verbal lubrication, we would hear the screams and we would know the truth of their provenance. It is not a coincidence that Gershom Gorenberg wrote an essay dictating the routes of Palestinian resistance several years ago for one of the house-journals of Zionist racism. Un-nuanced, historically bleached calls for the Palestinian Gandhi are liberal Zionism’s newest hasbara product. The fading phenomenon of liberal Zionism is desperate to stabilize a rapidly-deteriorating settler-colony consumed by an ideology that has always contained genocidal possibilities. It’s a sort of meta-lubricant, intended to re-jigger the machine because the yells are becoming disturbingly loud, and those nearby—neighboring Arab populaces—need to be kept undisturbed. Unconsidered and thoughtless advocacy of principled Palestinian non-violence is now a route to career success, or certainly a way of chiming in to the chat about Palestine without marking yourself off as a radical. It’s a way to maintain credibility. Juxtapose the considered erudition of non-violent theorists with coarse passionate idiots who oddly think that the people under occupation are capable of choosing the course of their resistance on their own, and that they may need the same sort of tools the Jewish people used in the Warsaw Ghetto—guns and firebombs.
Careerism and thoughtlessness were the words describing the traits that Arendt thought produced evil. I am sorry to have to say this but the debate about Palestinian violence versus non-violence is a scoundrels’ debate: tiring, cheap, empty. It feels disgusting. Should Taylor wish to continue this debate, that is his business. Machines need lubricants to work and it is Taylor’s right to choose to manufacture lubricant. He could also elect to produce acid to dissolve the machine. It’s his call, it depends on what he thinks of the machine, it depends on whether he really wishes to destroy it or whether he has other ambitions. I don’t have high expectations. He has shown an overt willingness to mis-quote, mis-understand, manipulate, mis-read, and lie, and he’s done so in public. He can continue this discussion as he wishes. But I am done. Good-bye Matthew. There is work to do. Let’s get on it.
Well done, Phil. Matthew’s blather is Wittyesque: a useless distraction. He’s made his point, we’ ve listened respectfully, now we need to move on to action. Time is short, lives are being lost, another generation headed toward the abyss. Kristof failed and we expected no more than that. Let’s move on, get things done.
Correction — kudos to max.
Oscar – “Matthew’s blather is Wittyesque”
Or worse. While Witty is only after creating whatever distraction he can, Taylor is unbearably nagging in trying to impose a religion of so-called nonviolence on people who only need a solution, i.e. whatever will work for their practical aims –violent or nonviolent, who cares as long as it gets effectively from Point A to Point B. That nagging has an insistence comparable to a Puritan preacher’s (to avoid offensive comparisons), presumably until everyone is flattened into acquiescence. The fact that the non-violent tactic is often more effective has nothing to do with this.
Max, masterful piece.
Totally agree with you Max.
…and it’s his problem to resolve, not yours.
norm reminds us in his book about gaza ‘this time we went to far’ gandhi said
“Fight violence with non-violence if you can, and if you can’t do that, fight violence by any means, even if it means your utter extinction. But in no case should you leave your hearths and homes to be looted and burnt.”
the book opens w/
so that’s where i’m at. lecture israelis about non violence, let them put down their friggin weapons. when i was in gaza we had the pleasure of spending and evening with a room full of women from hamas and i asked them what was the primary reason they supported hamas over fatah and they all said because of their right to defend themselves. if my people were targeted for extinction non violence would not be on my list of priorities.
“lecture israelis about non violence,”
Yeah, exactly. I still admire Gandhi and hope Palestinians take up purely non-violent methods, but that doesn’t give me or any comfortable Westerner the right to lecture Palestinians about this. One can make or try to make a pragmatic case for nonviolence as a tactic that is superior to violent methods and maybe this is right (especially since the Israelis have the overwhelming military advantage), but when someone preaches it as a moral principle you have to wonder why all these American and Israeli “liberals” think it’s a moral principle that only applies to Palestinians.
And even on the pragmatic level, shouldn’t it be easier to persuade Israelis to be less violent and less oppressive than they are, if in fact most of them are well meaning as Matt Taylor claims? Most of what the Israelis do in the name of security seems designed to provoke violence.
>> Donald: Most of what the Israelis do in the name of security seems designed to provoke violence.
>> MAX AJL: IDF soldiers make old Palestinian men kiss the asses of donkeys.
That sounds like “essential to Israel’s security” to me. Then again, I keep missing the “nuances”… ;-)
Lecture Israelis about non-violence.
That was a theme of Bradley Burston’s article yesterday. I disagree with it, not that Israel shouldn’t rigorously practice minimum violence as its norm.
But, I disagree with the idea that the remedy is Israeli non-violence, as force is a component of enforcing law, but that Israel should adopt universal application of rule of law, rather than selective in any way.
The presence of law is not occupation. Only the selective application of law is persecution.
It leads again to the question of what is the goal of resistance, and in tangible form, not the abstraction “free from occupation”.
Does that mean, two states for two peoples, or one democratic state applying the rule of law equally to all?
nonvoilence as a strategy requires everyone to be on board and a set of charismatic leaders to keep everyone in compliance with the tactics and must be sustained over time as the oppressors continually humiliate and brutally attack their victims … no such will seems able to manifest nor the appropriate leaders … if the Palestinian activists can just be patient and keep letting israel make their case for them then a de-facto kind of nonviolence is at work and so far it is quite effective
“Few Palestinians are listening to the western debate over non-violence”
If you wrote that headline, then that is a continuing strategy for Palestinians.
I’m amazed at how much ranting you did to address really only two non “normative” points.
1. What does the world see, and evaluate from that?
2. What short and long-term affect do particular tactics have on Israel and supporters?
The answer to the first question is:
1. When the world sees Palestinians blowing up cafes, they are understood as barbaric. When the world sees Palestinians throwing rocks at tanks, they are seen as heroic. When the world sees Palestinians throwing rocks and raging at young soldiers, they are seen as malicious. When the world sees solidarity describe rock-throwing as non-violent, they dismiss every other word coming from dissenters mouths.
What is communicated?
2. The effect on Israelis is dismissal, some contempt, and hopelessness that humane approaches yeild any reconciliation, any peace. And, from that hopelessness, they empower their military to achieve peace “by any means necessary”, with very sadly, the same limitations of possibilities that that entails in the minds of solidarity (ie pressure only).
In contrast, those that adopt non-violent, non-collectively punitive, non-threatening approaches, communicate hope that there is a possibility of conciliation, of peace, of co-existing.
What do YOU communicate, is the next relevant question.
What do you think?
That should be continuing tragedy, in the first line.
You didn’t actually bother to read the article at all, did you? I have a choice word for you, but since I’m on moderation I can’t use it (and probably shouldn’t, even if I weren’t)
“When the world sees Palestinians throwing rocks and raging at young soldiers, they are seen as malicious. ”
Hilarious. Young soldiers, no doubt just innocently minding their own business repressing their inferiors and enforcing apartheid when set upon by raging Palestinians. Oh the humanity.
Also this word “world”–I don’t think it means what you think it means.
The question is what is communicated Donald.
Are you blind to that?
What do you WANT to communicate? That Palestinians are brutal, that they are forever violent, forever threatening?
Or something else, maybe that they are potentially good neighbors?
That they are “potentially” good neighbors? You miserable racist.
They are already good neighbors to each other. And it’s up to those who are stealing their land to demonstrate that they can, potentially, become good neighbors.
>> What do you WANT to communicate? That Palestinians are brutal, that they are forever violent, forever threatening?
>> Or something else, maybe that they are potentially good neighbors?
Once again, Israel – that overwhelming military power, that occupier and colonizer, that land thief and homes/fields/aquifers destroyer – gets a pass on having to communicate ITS “good neighbour” intent. “Generation to generation” fear-scarred Israel doesn’t have to devise a “new narrative” or “make the ‘better argument’”. It is permitted to keep its boot firmly planted on Palestinian necks, while the Palestinians are expected to smile and bow, to hug Israelis and recite poetry to them like a good neighbour should. The hypocrisy continues to astound.
“Remember the Holocaust!”
So, you want to communicate to Israelis that Palestinians will forever be Israelis enemies, willing to slit their throats at a moments Pavlovian provocation?
I could see how they would be extremely defensive in response to that communication.
Jim and eljay–
Agreed. Richard cares mainly about what Israelis think–that’s why Palestinian rock throwing upsets him far more than Israeli violence of any sort, whether it’s the structural daily violence that they endure living under apartheid or white phosphorus dropped on urban areas.
>> So, you want to communicate to Israelis that Palestinians will forever be Israelis enemies, willing to slit their throats at a moments Pavlovian provocation?
You are being either dense, willfully ignorant or purposely manipulative. You continue to state that the Palestinians must do this and must do that and must do the other thing for Israel; but when it comes to what Israel must do for the Palestinians…there’s a deafening silence.
I agree, as I have agreed before, that the Palestinians must provide assurances to the egalitarian democracy of Israel that they will work with Israel to achieve a fair, mutually-beneficial, sincerely-negotiated, egalitarian and democratic peace.
And, so, I ask you once again: What must Israel do for the Palestinians? Or do you want to communicate to the Palestinians that Israel will forever be the Palestinians’ enemies, willing to slit their throats at a moments Pavlovian provocation?
The definition of nonviolence is not “mine” per se (I didn’t write it), but one I quoted from the Metta Center for Nonviolence Education (www.mettacenter.org). For those with no background in nonviolence, I’m sure it sounds like babble. It would have sounded like babble to me eight years ago, before I took any classes on the subject. It took me a year of studying the material to really get it. I recommend you check out Metta Center’s online classes.
I agree with you Max, Palestinians are likely not paying any attention to this back-and-forth. I have asked Phil no less than four times to agree to invite a Palestinian grassroots organizer in the nonviolent struggle to post. So far Phil has not agreed. I have told him I think this debate is preposterous and becoming a total waste of time without Palestinian voices. Why even have the debate without Palestinian inclusion?
This whole thing started with a much more appropriate subject – the Mavi Marmara, and its passengers’ actions. Debate within the international community, about what internationals should and should not do to help the Palestinian people, is legitimate, even if no Palestinians are part of the debate (although, OBVIOUSLY, it’s much better with Palestinian voices). But to debate Palestinian struggle without Palestinian voices is just lame.
Max, you call yourself an academic. I’ve given you the links to the definition of principled nonviolence, and real world examples, such as the Dharasana Satyagraha. There’s just no excuse, at this point, for this level of ignorance about what principled nonviolence is all about. Well perhaps there is, my guess is you’ve never read any serious literature on the topic. Why else would you be so ignorant?
I didn’t respond to this because as a starting point, you have absolutely no idea at all what principled nonviolence is. You’ve made that clear, repeatedly, in all of your posts, including this one. Once you have an accurate understanding of both the definition of principled nonviolence and real-world historical examples of it being utilized in struggle, then we have a basis of discussion for what might or might not constitute nonviolence, violence, or a gray area in-between. (As I’ve said before, Palestinian scholar Mohammed Abu-Nimer says stone-throwing, as an example, falls into such a gray area, and I agree with his take). But as it is, you’re trying to establish a spectrum based on the false premise. So I’m choosing not to waste my time by engaging with your false premise.
If you’ve taken any time to read the archive of writings on my website – link to
– you would see in fact I have written about such things, repeatedly, in various forums. I discussed the Samouni case at length.
Agreed
But perhaps the polls can give us some measure of understanding into the psychology of the oppressors, and strategically how to change that psychology.
Agreed. This debate is a thoroughly unhelpful waste of time for all parties, that I doubt has contributed anything meaningful to anyone. Had it involved Palestinians, as I repeatedly suggested to Phil, I think this debate would have been worthwhile. As it is, it’s just a lot of words in an echo chamber. It was more relevant when it stuck with the Mavi Marmara. Anyway, yes, let’s get back to figuring out what we can do to support the Palestinian freedom struggle.
I have no quarrel with your assessment of Kristof’s writing, although I would have preferred Phil had invited Palestinian nonviolent resistance organizers to share their views.
I agree. Perhaps it may come as a shock to you that my words were never intended as a dictate to Palestinians. On the other hand, my comments about the Mavi Marmara were in fact a firm suggestion to future Gaza Flotillas. The international community is my peer group, and I have a right to offer fellow international activists suggestions (they can listen to it or not). My comments on the Palestinian struggle are analysis. I’m sure you won’t see the fine point difference, and you will continue to excoriate me if you keep this going.
I agree this is a very real danger, and I keep it in mind when I choose both what to say and where to say it. If I could get 50 words of my choosing into the New Zionist Times, believe me it would not be about Palestinian stone-throwing. It would be about Israel’s worse-than-Apartheid policies. I can’t recall how many letters and op-eds I’ve written to the NZT on this topic, none which were ever published.
Palestinians have a right to self-defense. What forms of defense are most helpful to the struggle? That is an analytical question that can be discussed and has been discussed, repeatedly, at great length, in many academic forums, and by Palesitnians. I’m not the first nor the last to tackle this subject.
I fully agree, the Palestinians are more than capable to choosing their course of resistance, have done so for decades, and will continue to do so, regardless of anything you or I say!
So from an analytical standpoint, what did the Palestinian suicide bombing campaign — and the Gaza rockets — achieve for Palestinian freedom, justice, equality, and reconciliation? Nothing. Palestinians say this too.
Speaking of which:
Remember the definitions of success and work from my previous post — success is the short term goal, work is long term changes for equality, reconciliation, establishing peaceful relationships. (Unless perpetual hostility is the goal?)
Violence sometimes succeeds and never works, nonviolence sometimes succeeds and always works.
So yes the Lebanese rockets succeeded in driving out the IDF, but did they work? No. And what about the Palestinian rockets from Gaza? Answer: no success, no work. Did the Palestinian rockets from Gaza (and suicide bombing, for that matter) “work” [eg succeed?], as you say, “against a hysterical Sparta in the grip of collective nationalist fervor” — or did the rockets make the hysteria worse?
Matt, do you have to have the last word to win?
I believe you should move on for your own good.
Respectfully, if you find yourself a hole,
you should stop digging.
@Matt
I think advocating non-violence is perfectly fine. It’s also fine to question if a specific violent resistance action would have been more successful for the goall when the resistance action would been done non-violently. But what’s harming the cause of resistance is condemning just violent resistance action and trying to cause a rift into the resistance in this way. What resistance actions need to be, is that they need to be just.
Let me bring up an example. On March 26th the Qassam brigades killed two Israeli sodiers (Major Eliraz Peretz and Staff Sergeant Ilan Sviatkovsky), which invaded Gaza and were kiling Palestinians in Gaza, whom they suspected laying mines in Gaza against possibe invasions. See the operation notice of the Qassam brigades here:
link to qassam.ps
The main facts, that these Israeli soldiers invaded Gaza, opened fire on Palestinains in Gaza and were killed subsequently by resistance fighters while still in Gaza was not disputed by IDF – though IDF of course called the resistance fighters terrorists.
So, was this just resistance action? I say yes. The Israeli sodiers were invading Gaza, opened fire in Gaza, were kiling Palestinians in Gaza and were stopped committing these actions by being killed. From my point of view, that is completely just defense action done by the resistance.
So what I want to illustrate with this example? In my opinion:
It’s OK to advocate non-violence even in such a case.
It’s perfectly fine to ask, if there was no better nonviolent way of resistance in this case – for example just running away. It’s OK, to question, if that resistance action was just.
But what’s not OK, is to comdemn this resistance action just because it was violent or demand from other people to separate themselves from this resistance because it was violent. Such a demand promotes creating a rift in the resistance and the solidarity with the resistance.
“Perhaps it may come as a shock to you that my words were never intended as a dictate to Palestinians. On the other hand, my comments about the Mavi Marmara were in fact a firm suggestion to future Gaza Flotillas. The international community is my peer group, and I have a right to offer fellow international activists suggestions (they can listen to it or not). My comments on the Palestinian struggle are analysis. I’m sure you won’t see the fine point difference, and you will continue to excoriate me if you keep this going.”"
That’s fair, but if that wasn’t clear and it wasn’t I’d say it was your fault. I’ve agreed all along with the analysis that Palestinian violence hasn’t worked and has just given the Israelis even more excuses to be racist, but the way you’ve argued your case has sounded remarkably like preaching and I think our criticisms have forced you to clarify. Also, your claim that many Israelis want peace, aren’t racist, but are made fearful even by stone throwing makes no sense at all and for anyone familiar with how racists talk and think it just comes across as incredibly naive borderline apologetics. The more sophisticated racist usually denies his or her racism and is fearful and usually blames the Other for his fearfulness. How could you possibly not know this?
As for Palestinian participants, yes, that would be great. Bring them to your blog if Phil won’t do it. Though we should hear from Palestinians with varying positions on violence–I wonder if Phil would get into legal difficulties if he allowed his blog to be used to convey the full spectrum of opinion? There’s no problem in the US with allowing people to recommend that Palestinians be ethnically cleansed or Lebanese civilians to be bombed as a deterrent measure (and one of our resident advocates of nonviolence seems happy to defend the Israeli who made the latter recommendation), but allowing a Palestinian to make a similar argument might be touchy.
“…our goals are probably more compatible than not in the struggle to overcome Israel’s oppression machine. Perhaps we have different ideas about what acid is to be used, but certainly we both want to dissolve the machine.”
Here, as in other quotes I can’t find now, you have illustrated exactly the point that non-violence is in fact a tactic, and not necessarily a principle – it can be a means to ending Israeli oppression and waking them up to the reality that they are destroying a society and destroying themselves at the same time – a result that violence can equally attain. But, as I think Max has correctly pointed out, the definition of “violence” is not entirely clear, and until you define exactly your terms, it is impossible to go past a certain point in the discussion, there will be a deadlock.
Let’s put that aside for the moment, and assume that non-violent struggle is a superior method there being some kind of epiphany in the Israeli community, and the world community (read : American and European communities, as they / we are the ones most responsible for this state of affairs after the Israelis), and that they will suddenly realize that they have been wrong all along, and that there is no amount of persecution and expulsions that will force out the ideas the Palestinians have in their heads of some kind of liberation and control over their own destinies – is there any proof of this, and should the Palestinians gamble on this chance that the Israelis and the others will eventually “get it”? How long should they wait? The problem with this reasoning, and I think you are conscious of this, is that there needs to be a third party, namely the media and the international community, that is a witness to it all, and can be sufficiently informed of events that they can make a real judgment, and that there will be pressure put to bear on Israeli authorities to make some kind of change – how do we know this?
Think of a human triangle in any work environment, where there is an employer, an employee, and a third observer ; the employer is oppressing the employee, making impossible demands and threatening to sanction the employee if he/she doesn’t comply, and generally making his/her life miserable. Now, if there is no third objective observer to recognize that there is some sort of injustice going on, it can really go on indefinitely if the employee has no choice but to accept these conditions. If he/she tacitly goes along with it, not wanting to jeopardize his/her salary, the employer will not realize the insanity or his/her behavior, and will continue – if the employee simply refuses to come to work, another will be found as a replacement. If, however, there is an outside observer to corroborate the employee’s version of events, then there is more of a chance that the employer will think twice about acting in such a way. The point is, if it is a closed system, non-violent protest cannot have much of an effect if the person meeting out the violence is impervious to any kind of reasoning, and something more is needed to wake him from his slumber – if it is open, meaning there are outside observers, or some kind of recourse to justice available, then it can make a difference.
Now, here’s the catch : the world (mostly the US) has shown that it has little interest in understanding the Palestinians’ situation until now (this is changing, though), and even if it does, little interest in putting real pressure on Israel, enforcing some kind of justice. The third party simply knows nothing, or is simply looking the other way, or feels it has its hands tied behind its back, for various reasons (Israel lobby, complicit media, laziness). If you have ever been in a life-threatening or dangerous situation, in which you feel that if you do nothing you WILL suffer grave consequences, or in which you are certain that your very existence is being attacked, you can be sure that you understand the surge of adrenalin that accompanies the self-preservation impulse, and you KNOW that you must do something. This feeling is unmistakable for those who have felt it – and it can force a revelation on those who are the aggressors (even if they aren’t aware of it), that they must think it through more carefully, and that they were perhaps wrong. Docile acquiescence will only make them feel vindicated that they are doing nothing wrong.
Another example : a man wants to rape a woman in an unpopulated area – what will keep him from doing it in a populated one? The fact that there are people there observing, and that he risks prison – is this not violence, the threat of justice and being thrown behind bars? Of course it is. Is a house demolition not violence? Of course it is. You know this, but it needs to be said again, as Max has done eloquently, speaking of “fetishizing” it, that what we generally recognize as physical violence is certainly not the only type of violence, nor is it necessarily the most damaging or far-reaching one. The threat of violence IS violence.
I think you are right that simply because we are “westerners” (whatever that means) does not disqualify us from discussing these issues, because we are implicated in them, and that you are to be commended for your efforts at trying to keep up this discussion, but if the academic study of “non-violence” does not entail putting oneself in the oppressed peoples’ shoes (as you have stated), then it is maybe lacking in depth and intelligence, and time to rethink it.
That’s the main point why his “academic” self-parade doesn’t work:
but if the academic study of “non-violence” does not entail putting oneself in the oppressed peoples’ shoes (as you have stated), then it is maybe lacking in depth and intelligence, and time to rethink it.
I do believe that beyond labeling others, or accusing them of bad scholarship, without responding to the critique doesn’t work. I agree with Max, a scholar should be able to define his terms and summarize a definition shortly or give one of his own. It’s of course more easy to pull back into the lonely-misunderstood-position. But you do not necessarily need to label others in this state. Feels like weakness to me; when the majority do not accept your argument, simple label them with whatever stereotypes on your mind: the passengers on the Marvi Marmara, were violent, violent, look at the IDF images, the IDF soldiers only did their job. Yes I know this is slightly sarcastic.
Basically I think Max too, should have calmed down slightly in certain passages, but I can understand his anger. I absolutely prefer that he puts his scholarship into his argument and doesn’t need the extra-scholarly self-presentation. I have in mind here what Annie calls: “It doesn’t work for me.”
I am still wondering about this passage:
The Bulletin article in places takes the same frame that you, and 90% of the commenters on your blog, take: who/what is to blame? But we on Mondoweiss already know the answer: Israel’s oppression and policies are overwhelmingly responsible for the suffering of the Palestinians, not Palestinian resistance or lashing out (I think suicide bombing is more lashing out than coherent resistance). So when I say, “disciplined Palestinian nonviolence is more likely to succeed at ending the occupation and work to create conditions for equality, reconciliation, freedom, and justice than less disciplined non-violence that includes stone-throwing,” most people hear that as saying, “the Palestinians are to blame.” But I’m not saying that. That’s an inaccurate interpretation. I think the statement is clear and speaks for itself when it’s not washed through the “who’s to blame” lens.
Is the “we” above purely rhetorical. Guess who this argument reminds me of, except for the little “we”, we wouldn’t find there.
The main problem I have is, the imagery we are given feels slanted, there is the image of a IDF soldier losing his eye, but we do not see one single dislodged, robbed, humiliated, imprisoned without recourse to law, killed … Palestinians
Something I can’t get out of my mind reading this, and please do not misunderstand it as a parallel, but Matthew’s talks about universal laws: Would “principled non-violence” have worked against the Nazis?
Isn’t the ultimate violence of the Nazis the main reason why Zionists got their state? And beyond that didn’t their own violence work?
What is the percentage of “principled non-violence” that worked versus violence in the last couple of centuries?
I like Max violence non-violence axis, as I think scholar MT should address slightly more coherently what he “considers blame game”.
The neocon mindset with a little help from it’s favorite ally drives for war against Iran. And humanity should never blame them? Looking for cause and effect is nonscientific, bad scholarship?
In a world of preemption there is a big danger of action from a heated moral panic perspective, no response to a real threat. (If we leave good old interests out) But preemption like older more purely self-interested wars will leave dead corpses on the ground. Something “principled non-violence” can heal after?
“I like Max violence non-violence axis, as I think scholar MT should address slightly more coherently what he “considers blame game”.”
I’m not sure what you mean by the “blame game”, but I assume that you mean identifying who is responsible for the present situation. Those who have power are responsible for setting the conditions in which people act – which means that they are responsible for the violence which ensues when they set certain conditions.
“Basically I think Max too, should have calmed down slightly in certain passages, but I can understand his anger.”
This anger is salutary, and can have real results.
“But we on Mondoweiss already know the answer: “
The “we” here is : those of us who are sympathetic to Palestinians, I think – as Matt Taylor seems to be.
“In a world of preemption there is a big danger of action from a heated moral panic perspective, no response to a real threat. (If we leave good old interests out) But preemption like older more purely self-interested wars will leave dead corpses on the ground. Something “principled non-violence” can heal after?”
You’re talking about Iran here, and any war leaves corpses on the ground – the question is “is it worth it”? A preemptive strike on Iran would be a war crime. End of story. The question is, “who has the right to commit war crimes?”
lareineblanche/whitequeen,
You ask: I’m not sure what you mean by the “blame game”, but I assume that you mean identifying who is responsible for the present situation.
I was alluding to the MT passage I cite. The “we” feels like a rhetorical trick = look I am with you, I am on your side. But since he at the same times writes all “we” do Mondoweiss is blame, does he really want to include himself in it? There is something askew about the passage. I do not trust this kind of style.
Irony alert: The passage ends on, if only you would understand me you would follow me, make me your leader, so maybe the “we” has some kind of Utopian aspect, is the expression of hope.
If this is honestly for the best of Palestinians why is all I remember the missing eye of an IDF soldier? Why wasn’t there a trace of Palestinian needs. Only stones?
correction: But since he at the same times writes, all “we” do on Mondoweiss is blame …
I am sensitive to these kind of judgments.
Had it involved Palestinians, as I repeatedly suggested to Phil, I think this debate would have been worthwhile.
what does you repeatedly suggesting something to phil have to do w/anything. do you think he can make a palestinian engage in this conversation. go find yourself one if that is what you want. there are palestinians who read this blog, maybe ask yourself why they have not been receptive to you. btw, here is you responding to a question
your tone doesn’t work for me
perhaps the next time you choose to not engage you could do it by actually not engaging. instead you go on and on and on.
also i would appreciate you linking to your lecture to israelis about non violence, disrespectful tone included.
I’m not the only one who thinks you’re entirely off on these topics
it’s always impressive when people drag in their non identified ideological affiliates to pack the final punch/not.
Had it involved Palestinians, as I repeatedly suggested to Phil, I think this debate would have been worthwhile.
Annie, are you aware of anybody else trying to push Phil his way? Count how many times he repeated this. Only Richard comes to mind. Apart from being bad taste it is a stupid action. If you want Phil to do something, you consider worthy, would you demand it of him in such a authoritarian fashion (the scholar’s perspective?). Wouldn’t you instead of repeating it over and over again, think hard about how to put it and give Phil a chance to respond according to his conviction? Maybe even help him find somebody?
And isn’t it a bit of a lofty perspective given the facts on the ground? Let’s engage in an academic discussion about “principled non-violence” while your most urgent needs, hopes and desires are stamped into the dust.
gone again
LeaNder, my personal experience engaging w/phil has led me to the conclusion he is receptive empowering open and has repeatedly encouraged me to contribute more. i’m not sure what this ‘nudging blame’ implication is of ‘i’ve repeatedly suggested’ as if phil is what’s holding back the kind of response mathew desires. it borders on obsession.
plus, i checked out mathews link to his site. he claims ‘I utilize nonviolent communication in my practice.’ and links to a site that states ‘Nonviolent Communication (NVC) is based on the principles of nonviolence– the natural state of compassion when no violence is present in the heart.‘
i guess ‘browbeating’ falls under the category, according to mathew. maybe instead of bemoaning the lack of a palestinian response he should try listening to the response he did receive w/his naturally compassionate heart.
Someone needs to explain how useful non-violence is as a defense against US supplied white phosphorous.
Beautiful, Max!
Palestinians should us non-violent tactics if they choose and if those tactics proove are effective. Nonviolence is not the goal; liberation is!
I can’t help but ask: How much of this push for non-violence in all situations is tied to the fact that European Jews by-and-large did not raise up their arms in self-defense against the Nazi effort to destroy them.
Are we in fact demanding that Palestinians follow in these steps?
Let’s be clear: IT’S INSANE TO STAND THERE AND LET SOMEONE BEAT YOU ON THE HEAD!
When I was an active green, we argued over two slogans:
“The ends justify the means” and “By any means necessary” (I called that the red version of “green” politics).
vs
“The means are the ends”
I understand non-violence to be a procedure whereby we refuse conspicuously refuse to comply with the state’s (or purported state’s) instructions but simply stand or sit or lie there and take whatever violent actions that are inflicted on us, even if it means being horribly injured or burnt: all this in the expectation of at least a significant degree of public attention and in the hope that the publicity will demoralise and deligitimise the oppressors.
Statements like ‘it’s a powerful technique’ are not part of the definition, or rule about how the term should be used, but a questionable (not necessarily mistaken) claim of fact. Whether it is really that powerful is the main point at issue.
We in the West are not entitled to demand deference towards our opinions on the part of the Palestinians, though I think we do need to form our own ideas for the purposes of our own arguments in our own countries, where we need to take some views on Zionist use of the term ‘terrorism’. Much of the power of Israel is bound up in the two words ‘terrorism’ and ‘anti-Semitism’.
I understand non-violence to be a procedure whereby we refuse conspicuously refuse to comply with the state’s (or purported state’s) instructions but simply stand or sit or lie there and take whatever violent actions that are inflicted on us
BDS is non violent resistance. it comes in many forms and 99% of palestinian resistance is non violent.
You have the front line experience that I completely lack. Is it worthwhile distinguishing between non-violent opposition, which doesn’t normally draw a violent response, and non-violent resistance, where violent (maybe lethal) response is normal?
resistance is opposition. every opposing act or thought that does not entail violence is non violent resistance.
violent response in not ‘normal’ in the sense it is not normally applied or resorted to. whereas it is completely normal wrt survival instincts thru out most species, humans are no exception.
palestinians live in a constant state of threat therefore assume every action that relates to that threat not entailing violence is the choice of non violence whether out of calculated risk, fear, hope, strategy whatever.
what the opponent wants us to focus on is when the choice of violent resistance is applied, and nothing else. therefor it will appear palestinians are by nature violent and incapable of other action. but the opposite is true. had their normal MO been continued violence they would not have survived. the fact they are still there is astonishing under the circumstances because it is very natural to flee the scene under threat. the determination to remain in the area of threat and engage in extremely limited violence (under the circumstances) and sustain thrive and survive against a military superpower is nothing short of astounding.
how do they do it? imho it’s a combination of 99% of their action being non violent plus i think we’re dealing w/a highly evolved demographics. one might not view it that way because of outward appearances and surroundings. strip away those outward appearances and realize behind the scenes are some amazingly brilliant people dealing w/an advanced evolved highly technical noose, still hanging in there.
all this bodes well for them imho. when you look at the total history of the area what’s the longest track record of jewish dominance? not even 100 years centuries ago. it’s doubtful they can make it 100 years this time around. the region is not in a bubble it is part of the world, something israel tends to forget.
I’m not sure that Judy’s right to say that it’s demonstrably insane – a strong word – to let someone beat you over the head or do worse than that. ‘The blood of the martyrs was the seed of the Church’, helping to delegitimise the pagan empire. I say that even though I too am unconvinced that non-violence is all that successful overall.
I agree with Judy that Zionist propaganda seems to reproach the WW2 Jews for not doing what the Palestinians have sometimes done. A very barbed point.
I’ve personally never seen committed non-violence fail.
The only cases are where the oppressor dismisses the humanity of the other fundamentally, genuinely thinks of them as animals, not human beings.
In that sense, the commitment to non-violence is resistance itself, in the sense of asserting one’s dignity assertively.
It is a statement, “I AM not a slave”, rather than the conditional solidarity approach of “I will not be a slave (at some point in some future)”.
It is also a statement “I will not enslave”.
There is no possible dismissal of the humanity of that stand.
“Rockets definitely worked. Violence not only works, it may be the only thing that can work against a hysterical Sparta in the grip of collective nationalist fervor.”
They did? In what way?
You should ask the 1400 dead Gazans if rockets worked for them.
I suppose you’ll fight this academic battle to the last Palestinian, Max.
““Rockets definitely worked. Violence not only works, it may be the only thing that can work against a hysterical Sparta in the grip of collective nationalist fervor.”
They did? In what way?”
If you read carefully you’d see that Max was talking about Hizbullah and South Lebanon, not Gaza.
Thank you Max Ajl for your eloquent contribution to the discussion of violence and non-violence in the Palestinian struggle.
However I respectfully disagree with the thrust of the article, though in most ways we are on the same page.
First, I think we would agree that it is obnoxious of Israelis or Americans to encourage Palestinians on non-violence unless they are advocating disarmament in their own societies. Thus, unless Kristof is on record as advocating for the abolition of the US military, it is indeed rather tactless of him to lecture the Palestinians on non-violent confrontation. In terms of “just war” the Palestinian case is stronger than that of the case for any of United States’ wars, including the Revolution and WWII. However as one who has paid a price, albeit small, for being a defector from the armed ruling white male killer class of the United States terror forces, I will discourage armed Palestinian resistance. At the same time while explaining the Palestinian case to the uninitiated I would offer many of Max’s points – but to explain, not justify.
I also acknowledge that I have been under the influence of rage against the fraud occupying Palestine so severe that I would not have been able to take my own advice
I would follow that just as those who have not broken their own rifles should not lecture Palestinians on peaceful resistance, those who have never served in combat, or done relief in a war zone, or dealt with war injuries, death, and so on, should not be encouraging anyone to violence or supporting the same. How much contempt have we heaped upon the chicken hawks of the Washington regime who avoided their chances at combat in their youth and yet were not embarrassed to cheerlead and engineer the wars of this decade? Not enough. Yet what are we to make of those who have never shot or been shot at, who have never smelled a ripe corpse killed in anger days earlier, never walked on human bones in a church in Rwanda, never buried a war casualty, never transported a casualty, never worked in post war de-mining operations, never worked in physical rehab of those injured in combat, and on and on? Frankly someone in the comfortable West who has not experienced several of these is on shaky ground justifying or advocating any sort of violent struggle on the part of oppressed peoples. Now Habibis, this is partly rhetorical. I don’t want any young fellow to think he should go shoot or get his Teez shot at just so that he can have the credibility to argue in favor of armed struggle. It’s just that if you haven’t “been there” you really don’t know what you’re advocating.
There are real ethical and practical reasons for affirming a peaceful struggle for the transformation of Israel/Palestine. I will also suggest that it is harmful to everyone involved for friends of the Palestinians to advocate, encourage, cheer for, justify, or approve violent resistance on their part. More tomorrow. It’s late in the Sahara. Go easy on me everyone till I get back.
Your comment ought to be on the front page.
The trouble with all this talk about non-violent strategies and tactics is that nothing concrete is being suggested. “Get a leader like Ghandi who will come up with great ideas” is not a concrete suggestion. Personally, I’d be interested in hearing any suggestion that might help change the status quo-either here or in Palestine.
Another problem with fond memories about past movements is that those in power have developed ways to deal with dissent that have been used before. At one time, for instance, a protest demonstration really stymied those in power-like in Chicago in 1968. Now, all they do is simply fence off a protest area across town-for protesters to give their message to nobody.
One more thing: It’s really annoying when I have a problem and someone who has never been through something similar has a bunch of useless advice. If I ever find myself in the terrible situation that Palestinians find themselves in, I would hope I could get advice from one of them on how to deal with it.
The debate on Palestinian non-violence is a malignant outgrowth of the equivalency canard.
The Palestinians have very little capacity for anything beyond personal violence, the Israelis have an entire army, and militarised police.
Max seems to posess a very sophisticated morality. I can only say Bravo!
Thanks for your contribution, Max. I haven’t heard this phrased this well before.
The academic debate is only academically interesting, and it is only of marginal importance who “wins” it. What matters is that those of us who don’t risk anything, who have not done everything within their power to obstruct the violence exercised and advocated by our own societies, those who are not willing to pay the same price as Palestinans in order to end the violence and who are not putting their bodies on the line, along with the bodies of their children, their houses, their health, their future – those of us have no business of lecturing people fighting for survival and dignity.
Lecturing them is just one other form of disenfranchisement.
Basically, Israel won on the violence front. The combination of totalitarian control over subjugated population with increased technological advances, separation hardware etc. made sustained violence on the Palestinian side impossible, and even sporadic violence is problematic. So non-violence is the only game left. Which raises two questions:
1. Is there any way imaginable that would make non-violence work in this context?
2. What countermeasures will Israel undertake?
3. Countermeasures to countermeasures.
Re 1: there are several plausible scenarios. It boils down to the fact that in spite of oversized military, Israel is a small state, so doing shit “superpower style” is not sustainable.
Re 2: to a degree, Israel is more endangered by the countermeasures to non-violence than by resistance itself. Basically, it becomes a fascist state. At some point, it will be hard to overlook.
A more insidious countermeasure is to raise the bar of what is “sufficiently non-violent”. As in “only tactically non-violent”, or “not truly non-violent, some were throwing stones”, or “but no Gandhi emerged” etc. This is a SMART countermeasure. But given the rank stupidity of the predominating countermeasures, I am optimistic.
3. I guess, given that insidious countermeasures are most effective, the response should be in kind: raise the bar on permissible oppression. For example, Israel is only a potentially apartheid state, because Arabs do not constitute a majority of the persons under control of the state. Why this argument did not apply to Albanians in Serbia? Or, one can make a case that Israel is more brutal in dealing with protesters than Iran. Or mistreating NGOs worse than Russia. (And, unlike Russia, Israel forges passport of allied countries to commit murders abroad.)
And the final jujitsu argument: if the supporters and spokespeople of Israel are correct, than only unusually violent measures can preserve the existence of Israel, is this existence worth preserving? Either they invent something better, or they should get a red card.
My summary: nonviolence is the only way to go, realistically, for Palestinians, because Israel is much better at violence and Palestinian violence “legitimizes” Israel. But “exalted standards” should be recognized as an insidious countermeasures diverting attention from petty cruelties in which Israel is truly unmatched. And from totalitarian conditions where all possible “true Gandhis” are whisked away, either by Israelis or by PA quislings.
It was a typo “Palestinian violence legitimizes Israel”. I wanted “Israeli violence”. Although I do not agree, the majority sentiment in USA and many other places is that doing bad things to bad people is good.
I was a little surprized by this explanation found on the web:
I come from a culture in which the power of the state is much less trusted than in USA. Thus to me the natural explanation is “they give him a bad name because they want to hang him”. But American understanding seems to be “he has a bad name so we should hang him” and/or “we should give them a bad name”.
Another inspiring column by Max Ajl. A favorite line:”Those who don’t dare to throw themselves on the machine that armors Zionism and fuels Merkavas can’t tell Palestinian peasants precisely how to do so.” An implication here: non-violent resistance, like martyrdom, is ALWAYS something you elect for yourself, not that you prescribe for somebody else. And it’s always something you CAN elect.
The US anti-Occupation movement has not yet elected large-scale non-violent resistance for itself: by organizing large-scale sit-ins to shift the publicity at Zionist events, by getting arrested, by bailing out and writing about the people who get arrested. I think this needs to be the next phase for anti-Zionist struggle–and for resisting other aspects of US colonialism. This is one of the crucial ways in which the US antiwar effort failed: it did not follow up on the early antiwar rallies with mass campaigns of civil disobedience, shutting down the Pentagon, the Capitol, various cities, until the pressure mounted.
[I'm counting myself among the failures; I've never been arrested for civil disobedience. Max's writing is an inspiration.]
I hear two conversations going on: one is for Palestine and its supporters: “how can we achieve the liberation of Palestine from Israeli tyranny?”
I hear Matthew and Witty and others asking: “How can Palestinians use non-violence to liberate themselves, bring peace to the region, and heal their broken Israeli neighbors?”
Frankly, I think that is way too much to ask of the people of Palestine.
I loved this piece by Ira Chernus, which lays out the hypocrisy of the Western call for Palestinian non-violence:
link to gazafreedommarch.org
I have no doubt that under certain circumstances violence works, especially if it is justified self-defence, because basically sometimes that is the only language bullies understand. Israel has used its military superiority to throw its weight around the region because nobody has been able to really stand up to it militarily. Had Israel been successfully challenged militarily it would have had to learn to negotiate a long time ago. I am certain Israel pulled out of southern Lebanon due to a very large degree it being taught by Hezbollah that somebody would and could stand up to it and that its aggression would come with a hefty price tag. Just as I believe that both the US and Israel would think twice about attacking any state that already has nuclear weapons.
It might take an abusive husband many anger management courses to learn not to beat his wife up. But self-preservation and self-interest would mean this same individual would learn self-control very quickly if the subject of his anger was a bigger and stronger man from whom he would receive a thrashing.
Israel was challenged militarily by Egypt, sufficiently to force a peace agreement.
The current aggression against Iran is to make sure they can never be challenged again.
Israel was challenged successfully initially by Egypt until the Americans stepped in and bailed Israel out by landing all those tanks and other military equipment during the ’73 war. Israel, with the economic and military support of the US, has been able to get away with a lot that it wouldn’t have been able to without this support. Iran and the new shifting Mideast alliance involving Turkey and Syria might bring some balance to this.
And a lot of sources say the reason the U.S. bailed Israel out that time was that Israel was using nuclear blackmail.
Again,
“Terrorism is a normative term and not a descriptive concept. An empty word that means everything and nothing, it is used to describe what the Other does, not what we do. The powerful – whether Israel, America, Russia or China – will always describe their victims’ struggle as terrorism, but the destruction of Chechnya, the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, the slow slaughter of the remaining Palestinians, the American occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan – with the tens of thousands of civilians it has killed … these will never earn the title of terrorism, though civilians were the target and terrorising them was the purpose.
Counterinsurgency, now popular again among in the Pentagon, is another way of saying the suppression of national liberation struggles. Terror and intimidation are as essential to it as is winning hearts and minds.
Normative rules are determined by power relations. Those with power determine what is legal and illegal. They besiege the weak in legal prohibitions to prevent the weak from resisting. For the weak to resist is illegal by definition. Concepts like terrorism are invented and used normatively as if a neutral court had produced them, instead of the oppressors. The danger in this excessive use of legality actually undermines legality, diminishing the credibility of international institutions such as the United Nations. It becomes apparent that the powerful, those who make the rules, insist on legality merely to preserve the power relations that serve them or to maintain their occupation and colonialism.
Attacking civilians is the last, most desperate and basic method of resistance when confronting overwhelming odds and imminent eradication. The Palestinians do not attack Israeli civilians with the expectation that they will destroy Israel. The land of Palestine is being stolen day after day; the Palestinian people is being eradicated day after day. As a result, they respond in whatever way they can to apply pressure on Israel. Colonial powers use civilians strategically, settling them to claim land and dispossess the native population, be they Indians in North America or Palestinians in what is now Israel and the Occupied Territories. When the native population sees that there is an irreversible dynamic that is taking away their land and identity with the support of an overwhelming power, then they are forced to resort to whatever methods of resistance they can.”
GAZA: THE LOGIC OF COLONIAL POWER