In an opinion piece in today’s Times, Nicholas Kristof undoubtedly offers sensible advice for the Palestinians, both tactically, and morally, to pursue nonviolence in their struggle with the Israelis. But it is probably useful to remember the famous vignette attributed to Ho Chi Minh to the effect that if Gandhi were facing the French in Indochina, rather than the British in India, he would have been less enamored of non-violence. Others have said the same about the Israelis.
Unlike the British, who were not intent in settling large numbers of British in India, both the French in Vietnam and especially Algeria, and the Israelis in the West Bank, are fighting particularly “savage wars of peace” (to quote Kipling and Alistair Horne) because they played to stay. Kristof is no doubt right in general that non-violence is the way to go, but the Palestinians could be forgiven for feeling that they are being held to a higher standard by well-meaning liberals who think that there is a one-size-fits-all Gandhi/Martin Luther King solution here.
If the Israelis are so put upon, so threatened — even popular shows like NCIS spread this message — so on the verge of extinction, where is the Israeli Gandhi?
When England wanted to, it had no problem massacring innocent Indians.
Britain gave up India at the same time as its Colonial Office was shrinking. Even without Gandhi’s non-violent resistance, the UK would not have continued to rule India. For instance, it gave up control of Palestine the year after India’s independence – in the face of violence from both sides.
Jews love the “Where is the Palestinian Gandhi?” argument. I find it dishonest. What they are actually saying is: Arabs are less than us. Unlike us, they are incapable of peaceful protest. Look at the suicide bombers, look at how they treat each other.
Mutinies in 1945-6 in the Royal Indian Navy and the Indian Army played a major role in the British decision to quit India when they did. The mutinies were prompted by the abortive attempt to try for treason members of Bose’s Indian National Army (which had fought on the Japanese side against the British). The British decided they could no longer rely on their Indian army and navy.
Violence played a major role in the British quitting India when they did.
Thanks, Lysias.
Ya, good point. These were the “Sepoys” correct?
One thing that could improve the popularity of “non-violence” is if the “genuinely nonviolent protesters” were maimed, killed and meted prison sentences of many years less often.
The impulse to change that must come from “public opinion”, that has to reach above the level of blogs.
And one thing that could influence that is the “public opinion”, people like Kristoff who admired “marvelous women” who were shot at, beaten up and gassed, but somehow utters no cross word about the other side. Not in this article, in any case.
Another issue is how Israeli develop violent rhetoric concerning the non-violent resistance, with new words like “lawfare”. Israel has definitely means of resisting even most non-violent resistance. Its political class, except for a few outcast, gets no second thoughts like “perhaps we should not shoot them? they are non-violent”. Who is supposed to be impressed by nonviolent resistance, and to what effect? It would be nice for Kristoff to spell it out.
Perhaps in the next column. There is life, there is hope.
Michael,
It sounds like you think Palestinians like Dr. Mustafa Barghouthi are wrong?
Trying again, I did the HTML tags wrong in the previous comment…
Michael,
It sounds like you think Palestinians like Dr. Mustafa Barghouthi are wrong?
Or Ayed Morrar:
The problem with your assertion is that it is not just “well-meaning liberals” as you write who say that Gandhi’s approach would both succeed in achieving Palestinian freedom, and work to create conditions for reconciliation. It is Palestinians like Barghouti and Morrar who are calling for — and organizing — Palestinian nonviolence. So are you telling them to stop? Are you telling Barghouti he’s wrong when he calls for Palestinians to organize an event like Gandhi’s Salt March?
Most (the majority, as stated in opinion polls) of Israelis are not attached to settlements, but support them because of the rhetoric of security and fear. Morrar’s comments show a clear focus on the strategy of changing public opinion.
Jesus, didn’t Max Ajl clean your clock quite enough?
“Michael,
It sounds like you think Palestinians like Dr. Mustafa Barghouthi are wrong?”
Oh, wonderful, another person who criticizes a post without bothering to read it. I was hoping one was enough. What part of the following did you not understand–
“In an opinion piece in today’s Times, Nicholas Kristof undoubtedly offers sensible advice for the Palestinians, both tactically, and morally, to pursue nonviolence in their struggle with the Israelis.”
And you with your oh so fearful Israelis. What sort of humans do they have on your home world? Where I come from, the American South (which is on Earth), fear and bigotry go hand-in-hand. The really nasty types would openly proclaim their dislike of blacks (only they wouldn’t use that word), while the more genteel white racists would just talk about black crime and black laziness and oh of course they had nothing against the better sort of black.
Here’s the obvious contradiction–if Israelis as a whole were so fearful of Palestinian violence but wanted to treat them right, then they could have maintained the occupation and as much repression as their fearful selves required to feel safe, but they didn’t have to tolerate the land theft. Supporting the settlements makes absolutely no sense if one is fearful of Palestinian violence. It’s like a white Southerner in 18o5 saying “I’m afraid if we freed the slaves they’d murder us in our beds. Look at Haiti. In the meantime, though, lets import some more potential murderers from Africa, because I’ve got some cotton that needs picking.”
By the way, I also agree with Desch, you, Morrar, Barghouti, and Kristof that it would be better if Palestinians didn’t throw stones. But I’m sure you’ll miss that point, just as you missed the point of this post. Here’s a clue–he’s very gently criticizing Western white liberals who mock Palestinians who don’t live up to his Gandhian ideals, ideals that Kristof would never dream of holding up for America. What did you think of Kristof’s condescending ridicule of the Bilin protestors, btw?
Michael, One other thing…
Re: your premise that according to Ho Chi Minh, Gandhi wouldn’t have gotten anywhere against the French in Indochina… Numerous problems:
1) Unreliable Historical speculation;
2) From what little I know of him, Ho Chi Minh hardly strikes me as an expert on nonviolence;
3) “Nonviolence would never have succeeded against X Y Z adversary” is a common claim of the skeptics — read Ralph Summy’s article, “Nonviolence and the case of the extremely ruthless opponent”, which details cases where nonviolence has succeeded against ruthless oppressors (for instance, the overthrow of the murderous Shah’s regime in the Iranian Revolution). An abstract:
Matthew,
The idea that Gandhi type non-violence would work in Israel/Palestine is itself unreliable historical speculation. Even more so for the fact that the Palestinians have used non-violence for decades and there has been no relief for them. Britian gave up India because after WWII it was close to bankrupt and no longer had the will, the money or the stomach to keep its Empire going. That is why both India and Israel gained their independence from Britain after WWII. India was credited with doing it non-violently, although violence played a part. Israel did it quite violently, and yet no one seems to think that there needs to be an Israeli Gandhi. Only the Palestinians are expected to all be Gandhi and to all have to non-violently earn what everyone else is granted as a human right, not a privilege to be earned by group-wide exemplary behavior.
And as for your insistence that Israeli fears need to be catered to, I have to agree with Donald. The problem is not Israeli fears, it is Israeli prejudices which are justified as fears. I’ve been reading Hirst’s “Beware of Small States”, which covers the history of Lebanon. I was surprised (and yet, not) to read that the IDF left the same calling cards in Lebanon as they left in the West Bank and Gaza after military attacks. They purposefully defecated in homes, in drawer, on walls, everywhere in order to leave a message behind. The message was not we are fearful of you. The message was we hate you and disrespect you and know that we can disrespect you with no consequence to ourselves. The message was ugly prejudice. A big hug only reinforces that behavior. Save the big hugs until after someone overcomes their prejudice, not before.
According to Beware of Small States, the IDF left those calling cards behind even in places in Beirut that they knew American troops were about to occupy. That message was not only directed at Arabs.
The revulsion in French public opinion over the use of torture in Algeria was a major factor in the French eventually deciding to throw in the towel in Algeria.
By the way, what’s stopping all of us Gandhi fans from doing our own salt march? The Bush Adminstration committed war crimes and far from living up to our obligations to investigate and punish those crimes, Obama seems bent on committing his own. Why not march on the White House or Congress until we can persuade them nonviolently and peacefully to live up to their obligations under international law?
Or, since we give Israel so much support, why not help the Palestinians by marching on some factory that manufactures weapons or bulldozers for Israel?
After we’ve been Tasered and beaten and sentenced to several years in prison, I’m sure our advocacy of Gandhian tactics would carry real weight.
I just want to make it clear I’ll be cheering you marchers on all the way, writing clever biting letters to the editor and what-not. I’m a real Gandhian, you know.
Love ya, Donald.
DONALD-
Oh I read it all right. Michael is on one hand saying he agrees that nonviolence is the way to go, but on the other hand, he’s saying that nonviolence has no chance of getting the Palestinians anywhere because Israel isn’t India (Ho Chi Minh and all that). So in that highly contradictory position, I’m noting that Michael is, in a very backhanded sense, dismissing the philosophy and work of people like Morrar and Barghouti who are explicitly calling for a Gandhi-like struggle.
As for Kristof’s condescension, no doubt about it – Kristof’s use of “dabbling” to describe the Pal. NV struggle seems quite a minimization.
But Michael’s post is at best quite muddy, and he mixes his disdain for Kristof with a dismissal of the Gandhian approach. If he wants to take down Kristof for being a privileged liberal, fine, do it separately. As is, he’s slathering his skepticism of nonviolence and Gandhi all over Palestinians who are risking their lives in nonviolent struggle.
And by the way, there are plenty of Palestinians who criticize the stone throwing and say it’s highly counterproductive and unhelpful to the struggle. Maybe Kristof comes across like the privileged elite he is, but that doesn’t change the fact that a lot of what he’s written, Palestinians agree with completely.
It’s called “nuance”, Matt. One can safely sit here and tell Palestinians that Gandhi’s approach is best, but a Westerner who does this really ought to be sensitive about it. Also, as I just realized (I’m kind of slow sometimes), it’s actually outrageous for Americans to tell Palestinians to do this unless we’re like the Berrigan brothers and really act on our recommendations. Why should it be on the Palestinians to do this marching? You and I are directly responsible for much of the killing, both Israel’s and our own. Our own government shows not the slightest inclination to prosecute its own war crimes. If one tenth the number of people who used the phrase “Palestinian Gandhi” acted like Gandhi, we’d have a mass movement the likes of which the world has never seen.
If one tenth the number of people who used the phrase “Palestinian Gandhi” acted like Gandhi, we’d have a mass movement the likes of which the world has never seen.
“You must be the change you want to see in the world,” said Gandhi.
But don’t tell that to Taylor, because he is privy to the real Gandhi, and apparently that Gandhi doesn’t incline him to any action besides condescending, self-righteous and demeaning commentary to those who actually have the courage of conviction to act on their beliefs.
Yep. I’m all in favor of nonviolence, and I think there’s a lot to be said for it particularly in this situation, and so on, but I thought Kristoff’s column was morally deranged. Here is this advocate for women’s rights worldwide writing about how we should “imagine”
Well, it seems likely to me that Kristoff’s reaction in other such cases, and that of any normal human being, would be to say, “who is beating these women? It needs to stop”. Not about how great it would be to imagine such a scenario, and that the beatings might have to go on until a nonviolent campaign can somehow help stop the beatings.
The key reason why Kristoff is unable to react like a normal human being is of course that here we are the ones making possible the tear-gassing and beating, and worse.
It is not the responsibility of Palestinians to stop Israeli violence. It is the responsibility of those providing the weapons and other support for that violence, namely us. But this is Kristoff, and this is the Times. In 2003 he wrote some good columns about the situation of the Kurds in Turkey, but he was unable to bring himself to mention that it was us that funded and made possible the attacks against the Kurds. Same thing.
“Deranged” is apt in all kinds of ways as per this discussion. Everyone knows that when someone has their boot on your kneck you should contort yourself to provide said wearer of boot maximum comfort.
I think Mr. Desch’s most cogent point is that of the settler state colonial, as opposed to a small contingency trying to just control a target nation. It can only be ignored to the peril of the victims.
Second, people seem to forget that there was both non-violent as well as violent in every country by the indigenous. This was true in India, as much as it was true in the USA during the civil rights movement. It does not good to ignore it, and to expunge it from the equation of liberation is sloppy.
There is some ridiculous element in praising non-violence.
Namely, violence is bad even against evil because evil does not justify evil. So far, so good. Bombing, sniping, bad. But if troops punch protesters, shot rubber bullets and tear gas at them without any prior violent behavior, I think it is excessive to condemn the stone throwers.
And what is the punchline? That unlike in villages where the protesters used stones, the land of the village that consistently sacrificed young girls to be beaten up by soldiers was spared. But, alas, “no MLK jr emerged”. Just some good dabblers.
What is it? Stealing land of stone throwing villages is OK? Should we make vigorous diplomacy on behalf of more virtuous villages? Is it a valid moral/political distinction?
So, if IDF will start beating girls and women all over West Bank, and them, befitting their Oriental female stereotype, take it graciously, we could bestir Congress to do something, say, deprive tax exempt status from Charities that subsidize illegal settlements (illegal according to the international law, not according to Israeli laws). Or, even better, criminalize such donations and channeling money to charities that engage in such financing? Or, oven better, freeze assets of Israeli government in USA until it will move the separation wall to 1967 border?
But as long as folks who are beaten up, harrassed and imprisoned protest together with stone throwers, naaaaay.
Too, why isn’t AIPAC registered as a foreign agent like the World Zionist Org? Everytime the issues comes up it is quickly buried.
For nonviolence to work the militant and armed faction of whatever movement must be convinced to not use their weapons for a sustained period of time and allow the nonviolence campaign to work … only in the past year or so does it seem various pro-Palestinian militant factions seem to recognize that letting israel do their dirty work for them is more effective than their violent operations … it is not clear that any nonviolent movement is coalescing and certainly not one that can be sustained without this or that militant faction launching a solo violent operation …
… Only if sustained nonviolence and a willingness to mass in great numbers and possibly be injured or killed while doing so in nonviolent actions can generate the political forces to topple the monstrous war-crimes government of the zionists and force it to change into something more humane and fair and grounded in the law … again, there is no evidence yet that massive numbers will turn out and all adhere to the nonviolence strategy and actions
Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, all those wanting fair treatement, dignity and peace for Palestinians need to arm them with cameras, satellite access, and media coverage … if the nonviolent struggle happens in a media blackout due to widespread control of media by zionists then it cannot manifest its change effects
“In an opinion piece in today’s Times,”
Wrong. The article isn’t in The Times.
The link is to a page on the New York Times Web site. Are you saying that the piece didn’t make it into the print edition, or are you complaining that only the Times of London should be called “the Times”?
I am saying that in an international forum (which this is) the term “the Times” is ambiguous. It suggests The Times. If The New York Times is the newspaper that is meant, the first reference to it should make that clear. It isn’t difficult to write NYT or New York Times.
(Though it may be difficult for some writers to remember that there is a world outside New York.)
I had no trouble understanding what was meant by “today’s Times” in this New York-based blog. On the other hand, I was puzzled enough by the meaning of your comment to have to ask you what you meant.
When I see “the Times” said in a Brit publication, I have no trouble understanding that the Times of London is meant.
And when you read the “Clash of Civilizations” post, you immediately understood which “Times” was meant?
I can’t see anything on the blog saying it is New York based.
But why is it so difficult to remember that there are lots of newspapers with “Times” as part of their name?
(E.g. The Irish Times, the Times of India, the Milton Ulladulla Times, the Japan Times, the Straits Times, the Teheran Times, the Los Angeles Times, to name but a few.)
A vague reference to the “Times” might be to any one of them.
But The Times is the whole name of the newspaper from which the others derive their names.
By the time you got to it, it was “yesterday’s” NYT.
I read it yesterday, and it was a stale piece from Kristof. When will the Palestinian Gandhi appear? Has this not been said before.
Non-Violence have been tried by Jews during the Second World War. It made no impact on Germans because they did not see Jews as humans.
I am not impressed by passivity of cows or sheep loaded for slaughterhouses. Rowdiness of pigs and horses needs to be handled, but it is husbandry issue to get them slaughtered with minimum of sweat. But none will stir in me any feelings of moral guild that will turn me to be a vegetarian, and I will never give up any of my worldly possessions to restrain others from benefiting from farm animals.
For non-violence to work you need to be able to induce empathy with your degradation, humiliation and suffering in someone on the side of enemy or someone on the outside who primo does recognise you as a fellow human being, secundo is able to communicate this feeling to others and tertio creates a group of like minded people who have enough clout to prevent you enemy to continue degradation, humiliation and suffering.
Ghandi’s non-violence was coupled with civil disobedience and the primary audience were Indian law enforcement personnel who were co-operating with the occupier. It was theirs empathy he was harvesting and it was them that he was shaming with non-resistance to their violence.
Before internet, non-violent resistance and acquiescence to destruction of Palestine were, to all intends and purposes, indistinguishable from each other in outcome.
Against Hitler, violence didn’t work either (at least, not until he was faced with violence from powers powerful enough to defeat him.) You’d think a militarist like Hitler would have had a grudging respect for people like the Poles who had the spunk to resist him. Not a bit of it. He hated the Poles because they fought against him.
But the majesty of the brave Polish Hussars riding with sabers drawn against The Blitzkrieging Panzer divisions is indeed gallant.
There were no Polish Hussars as far as I know. There were cavalry units with some heavy machine guns and light anti-tank weapons, and horses were used to move around quickly even in a difficult terrain. The most frequent name used (other than generic cavalry) was “Ulani”, or “Uhlans”. One cavalry unit evaded capture for months and successfully attacked Germans as late as March 1940 (after September 1939 invasion).
Arguably, Hitler hated Polish people long before that. Mein Kampf might describe Jews as a threat to the German nation, but it describes those not “reinrassig” east of the nominal German border as chaff to be burned away. And I don’t think his original words were quite as metaphorical.
RE: “Nicholas Kristof undoubtedly offers sensible advice for the Palestinians, both tactically, and morally, to pursue nonviolence…” – Michael Desch
ALSO SEE: The Hypocrisy of Preaching Nonviolence to Palestinians | By Ira Chernus, CommonDreams.org, 07/12/10
…I’ve been teaching and writing about, and advocating nonviolence for a long time. From the beginning, I felt in my gut that I don’t have the right to tell oppressed people to keep their resistance nonviolent, since I haven’t shared in their suffering.
Eventually, I found in Gandhi’s own writings a powerful theoretical argument to explain my gut feeling. It starts with the heart of Gandhi’s teachings. He would have rejected the premise of Kristof’s column: that nonviolence is a smarter tactic for the Palestinians, the best way to get what they want. For Gandhi, nonviolence was never a tactic or a way to win anything. It was a way — the only way, he insisted — to act out moral truth in daily life. The core principle of Gandhian nonviolence is to do the right thing in every situation, regardless how painful or even lethal the consequences.
In other words, nonviolence is not about figuring out how to make the other side — even when they are brutal oppressors — change their ways. It’s not about making others change their ways at all. Gandhi said that such efforts are senseless, because we cannot control the choices of others. All we can control is our own choices, trying to make sure that they are as morally correct as possible.
So telling other people what to do, how to live their lives, or even how to resist oppression simply doesn’t fit Gandhi’s vision of nonviolence. It’s only about changing our own ways…
ENTIRE ARTICLE – link to commondreams.org
Did the Polish Hussars really do that? I had thought that to some extent at least this picture was produced by British propaganda – we weren’t going to do anything to help the Poles, so we said that they were so backward militarily, still fighting the Battle of Waterloo, that it was no use trying.
I was impressed by Kristof’s previous piece about the essential and obvious inhumanity and immorality of the occupation but this one seems very questionable. Should we really ask any group to expose its womenfolk to a beating?
You’re correct MHughes, but I think it was the Germans propagating the meme of the idiocy of cavalry vs. Tanks I think the British were trying enoble the brave futility. I think there is some truth to the myth, I have seen photos of Polish Lancers charging a Brigade of Panzer-Grenadiers who were supported by Panzer-Kampwagen I which were an early peice of light armor with 2 MG-34′s in the turret. I think they were mainly utilized as a light mobile Infantry at the time. But it makes a nice tableau. Maybe Eva knows more about it.
Actually it was part of German propaganda:
Propaganda film 1.
link to youtube.com
Propaganda film 2.
link to youtube.com
Polish light cavalry units were engaging enemy as infantry, using horses to allow them fast transport.
Their role in fighting Germans was romanticised in collective memory, but there were only one known occurance where they engaged German tank division (battle of Mokra) – and no, they did not charge at the tanks LOL.
Another possible source of the story was battle where cavalry was defending a road against German infantry near village of Krojanty, and reinforcement of German armoured vehicles with 20 mm cannons arrived, resulting in very heavy losses to the Polish side. Many cavalry units immediately retreated into Polish forests starting units of Resistance and continuing fighting using gorilla tactics.
Ironically, they were called………Terrorists.
We must admire the enduring power of propaganda, though.
>> We must admire the enduring power of propaganda, though.
Indeed. Without it, Jews wouldn’t be “long-term exile” Israelites scarred by fear-inducing, “generation to generation” stories that make them want hugs from the people they oppress. They’d be regular folk like you and me. And I think to myself, “What a wonderful world!” :-D
The breadth of knowledge of the commentariat here is indeed impressive. Just so I don’t sound like a total idiot, Panzer Grenadiers were support infantry attached to Panzer divisions, and the PanzerKampwagen I was a tiny 2 man tank with 2 machine guns in the turret, they were no King-Tigers to say the least. I always found it gallant the thought of Polish Cavalrymen dressed in their anachronistic finery riding against the Nazi War-Machine. I like under-dogs very much.