Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Hypocrisy of Preaching Nonviolence to Palestinians
Nicholas Kristof is in Palestine, though like all mass media journalists he calls it "the West Bank." He has just discovered that many Palestinians are resisting the Israeli occupation nonviolently, though scholars of nonviolence started writing about the Palestinian resistance over 20 years ago. So Kristof is "waiting for Gandhi," as the title of his latest New York Times column puts it, or at least a "Palestinian version of Martin Luther King Jr."
Perhaps I should not be so cynical. Kristof has gained fame as a crusader for human rights, especially women's rights. Now he's taking a real risk by advocating for Palestinian rights and praising Palestinian resistance. Any hint of Israeli wrong-doing has undone many U.S. liberals in the past. And Kristof is giving more than a hint. His previous column detailed Israeli settler violence against Palestinians and clearly sympathized with their plight. He praised the work of Rabbis for Human Rights as "courageous and effective voices on behalf of oppressed Palestinians."
Kristof himself deserves praise for placing the Palestinians alongside all the other victims of oppression he has written about so eloquently. He's moving the mass media one more tiny step toward more honest and balanced reporting on the Israel/Palestine conflict.
But if a writer is not careful, every step forward can also be a step backward. By calling for a Palestinian Gandhi, Kristof clearly suggests that Palestinian resistance so far has fallen short of his high moral standards. He complains that "many Palestinians define ‘nonviolence' to include stone-throwing," so even when they claim to eschew violence their protests "aren't truly nonviolent."
That reinforces a self-serving stereotype we've been hearing from supporters of Israeli policy for decades: We Jews want peace, they say. We've even got an organized peace movement. But there's no Palestinian equivalent. It seems like those Palestinians are all a bunch hot-heads, implacably bent on violence. How can we make peace with them?
That kind of stereotyping spurs even more extreme views that are all too familiar: There's "no partner for peace" on the Palestinian side. "Those people" are so steeped in violence, there's no reasoning with them. They only understand one thing: force. And at their worst they ask: What else can you expect from Muslims?
I'm sure Nick Kristof didn't mean to promote that kind of simplistic anti-Palestinian prejudice. He sees good guys and bad guys on both sides. But when you are a top columnist for the nation's top newspaper, you are supposed to be smart enough to understand the implications of your words, to know what people can (and some inevitably will) read between the lines.
I don't know Kristof, so I can't say why he might have fallen into this trap. But I know the U.S. mass media coverage of the issue pretty well. Even when they begin to break out of their reflexive "pro-Israel" shell, mass media journalists are still plagued by lines of thinking that are so old, so deeply ingrained, that they go unnoticed. "Ain't it a shame those Palestinians are so violent. If only they'd turn to more peaceful ways, all would be well," is perhaps the oldest and deepest of those lines.
So it's not surprising that, even when a prominent columnist appeals for sympathy for the victims of oppression, he ends up indirectly but all too obviously blaming the victims.
Palestinians might well ask, "Who the hell is Nicholas Kristof to tell us how to resist the occupation anyway?" That's a good question. What can he really know about their situation after being with them for a day or two? Critics of American journalism have long noted the declining quality of our news from other countries. The main culprit, many say, is the ignorance of journalists who show up in a place for a few days or even a few weeks and write for the folks back home as if they were experts.
At a deeper level, there's the ever-present tendency among the stenographers of imperial power to assume that they've got the right to preach truth to "the natives" and tell them how to live their lives.
Even if Kristof had been living in Palestine for years, though, the question would still remain: Does he, or any non-Palestinian, have the right to tell an oppressed people how to resist their oppression? Maybe they do, if they've joined the resistance and taken all the risks involved for a long enough time to earn that right. But neither Kristof nor most any of the other non-Palestinians who call for a Palestinian Gandhi fit that description.
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.
But when Gandhi spoke about controlling our own choices, he included in "our" not just himself as an individual but his people. That's why, in the vast corpus of Gandhi's writings, you'll sometimes find indictments of British colonialism and insistence that the British must leave India -- in effect, telling the other side what to do -- but far more often you'll find indictments of Gandhi's own Indian people and insistence that they (Gandhi said "we") stop cooperating with oppression.
If you're looking for another Gandhi, then, look for someone who addresses his own people's policy choices rather than telling others about what they're doing wrong and how to fix it. Kristof made a nod in that direction when he repeated the words of Palestinian nonviolence advocates like Moustafa Barghouthi, Ayad Morrar, and Iltezam Morrar. He could have found plenty of others. They've got the right to call for a Palestinian Gandhi, since they are talking to their own people.
The only thing Nick Kristof has the right to do -- and the obligation, Gandhi would have added -- is to address his own American people about the choices that Americans are making. If any Americans are publicly waiting for the next Gandhi to appear, they should be waiting and hoping for him or her not in Palestine or any foreign country, but right here in the U.S. of A.
Kristof, given his immense readership and influence, has a special responsibility. Rather than flying half-way around the world for a few days and lamenting his failure to find another Gandhi, he could be doing what Gandhi did: writing about America's failure to stand on the side of justice, which is the only way to stand on the side of peace.
As Gershon Baskin, Israel's leading expert on conflict resolution, recently wrote, the U.S. must play a central role if Israel and Palestine are to forge a just peace settlement. The two parties mistrust each other so deeply that they need a truly even-handed third party to bring them together and guarantee adherence to a peace agreement.
Though the Obama administration has moved a bit closer than its predecessors to an even-handed approach, it is still far from the genuine neutrality that the Palestinians must see if they are to come to any negotiating table. Foolish steps like bolstering Israel's nuclear arsenal are bound to move Israel and Palestine away from the peace that both sides need so badly.
For the sake of that peace, it's we Americans, not the Palestinians, who need to take up the torch of nonviolence. Until we do, it seems hypocritical to be blaming Palestinians for failing to live up to Gandhian standards.
But that does not mean we should sit around "waiting for Gandhi." The Mahatma surely would have scolded Nick Kristof and all of us who waiting for some extraordinary charismatic leader to rescue us from our wars and injustice. It's easier to wait for someone else to do the job than to heed the charge Gandhi famously left us: Be the change you want to see in the world.
We Americans have already had our Gandhi. And while we elevated him to the status of a heroic King, most of us conveniently forgot the most difficult parts of his message, his call to recognize our own nation as the greatest purveyor of violence in the world and to practice nonviolence no matter what the consequences.
Now, instead of waiting for another miraculously gifted leader, we should each be speaking out and acting up, doing whatever little bit we can. We may not see the greatness of a Gandhi or King again for a very long time. But that's no reason to give up the quest for nonviolent resolution of our problems. It's all the more reason for each of us to take responsibility for ourselves and our own people, to stop telling others what they should do and start, right now, changing what we do.
Meanwhile, when oppressed, militarily occupied people resist, let's recognize that it's not our place to tell them what means they should or should not use -- and certainly not when our own nation is contributing so much to their oppression.
- Posted in
99 Comments so far
Show AllActually, that was one of the points he made, in a general way.
"He's moving the mass media one more tiny step toward more honest and balanced reporting on the Israel/Palestine conflict."
..."mass media journalists are still plagued by lines of thinking that are so old, so deeply ingrained, that they go unnoticed."
"Critics of American journalism have long noted the declining quality of our news ...
It's in there; maybe you missed it.
You missed Ardent's point. The NYT goes way beyond being "unbalanced" or "old thinking". As the paid propaganda agent for powerful interests, it is a key and critical player in the manufacture of consent for US belllgerance around the world. So, for the NYT to insist on "nonviolence" for the Palestinians, is rather stunning in it's hypocracy.
Wasn't the NYT the one that rallied for the invasion of Iraq?
As Alinsky pointed out, Gandhiji preached passive resistance and non-violence because that's all he had to work with. Judging by his writings at the time, it wasn't his first choice.
I believe you're quite correct, Mairead. Moreover, Gandhi categorically opposed the establishment of the state of Israel.
I didn't know about this, Mairead. I will need to look into it.
I also think we look too much for messianic figures. In the long run........is the world better off now than it was then? Has there been a meaningful change for the better, substantially?
I risk auguring anger here, but that's ok with me. Ghandi, in my opinion, would not have made it in this time period. He'd have been taken to an undisclosed location very early on.
When there is no 'civil society' , civil disobedience becomes meaningless. That is what i have experienced and witnessed, at least in the past ten years.
My two cents....
peace.
Ghandi, in my opinion, would not have made it in this time period. He'd have been taken to an undisclosed location very early on.
When there is no 'civil society' , civil disobedience becomes meaningless.
--------------------------------
That's the same point Orwell made, too, Rita. Gandhi's tactic only worked because the occupying power was Britain, where fair play was a basic cultural value, people rooted reflexively for the underdog, and except for D-notices, the press was almost completely free of restraint. Had it been Germany (Orwell's example) Gandhiji would have been Nacht-und-Nebel'd and that would have been the end of it.
When there's no civil society, civil disobedience becomes meaningless. Too true.
"When there is no 'civil society', civil disobedience becomes meaningless."
Thank, you RTT, and for the amplification, Mairead. This one sentence distlls it in a nutshell.
As someone who has witnessed the decline to complete ineffectiveness of NVCD in the US and Canada, the implication that civil society no longer exists here is very disturbing.
The Israelis have a history of jailing and killing peaceful protesters. With the death of Rachel Corrie they seem to even want to kill foreigners now. I believe it is a tactical decision on their part. Her death was no accident. They kill a few to scare off the others. Just like the flotilla. The flotilla participants say they are going to try again. We'll see if they are up to it. If the flotilla is bigger and with more participants they have a chance to win. If it is smaller with less participants I wouldn't be surprised if the Israelis used violence again. Maybe just kill one or two this time...
"Ghandi, in my opinion, would not have made it in this time period. He'd have been taken to an undisclosed location very early on." –(Mairead)
–Most certainly.
Passive resistance is no longer an option, either collectively or individually in the context of modern fascism.
In retrospect, the Ghandian strategy now appears as quaint as 'tea and crumpets' and the perfumed time of the old Imperial Raj.
The darker perception is that with the advent of heretofore unprecedented military and police technology, as monopolized by the state, ANY resistance is to be crushed if it becomes remotely problematic.
Israel, of course is the maximal practitioner of a barbarism that has disassociated itself from all contingency– becoming unhinged from the restraints of ethics, and any vestigial trace of the culture of fair play. All that has gone by the wayside, in an orgy of exigent violence. That is now so transparently obvious it brooks little discussion.
It is also why Hezbollah must be unequivocally supported against Israeli state terror and why all the talk about passive resistance and non-violence in the context of Palestinian liberation is like chaff in the wind.
"When there is no 'civil society', civil disobedience becomes meaningless." –(Mairead)
Modern capitalist societies now are only the 'appearances' of civil society. My point being is that any civil disobedience, is just that 'civil,' almost ornately so. It has as much efficacy as pissing into the wind. This is also perhaps why one sees so little of it. Nothing is as vaporous. Force is now the regnant reality.
No one takes mere civil disobedience seriously anymore. Certainly not the general population. How many 'general strikes' have taken place in Greece during the last year and to what effect?
And in America? When Americans can't even talk to one another; where all politics is an illusory non-politics?
Both those passages you attribute to me, VK, were actually written by Rita. Credit where due!
OK. My mistake.
This is why I sometimes think that the formal use of quotation marks is necessary–perhaps painstakingly so– even in an informal venue such as a blog.
But that does not excuse my lassitude in missing your citation.
–(Kim Nguyen)
Mairead, i do appreciate your gracious post!
Thank you.
rita
I think the biggest factor in the inefficacy of NVCD is not at all the police or surveillence, it is simply the ability of the mass media to competely ignore, dissapear and memory-hole (per Orwell) any event that reflects poorly on elite interests.
For example last week, there was a significant NVCD action at the EPA Headquarters regarding MTR mining. Up until the mid-1970's reporters would have rushed to the scene and produced a lot of media TV and print coverage - mostly sympathetic.
But like all other NVCD actions over past decades, a google search resulted on aboslutely zero media coverage - zero. The only results were a couple press releases by the organizers -competely ignored by the media. Presumably the participants were arrested in complete anomynity and obscurity.
Having ones message simply ignored is far more effective, and far more demoralizing to the participants than any sort of police brutality woud be.
"...the biggest factor in the inefficacy of NVCD is not at all the police or surveillance, it is simply the ability of the mass media to completely ignore, disappear and memory-hole (per Orwell) any event that reflects poorly on elite interests." –(SaboCat)
–Your point is well taken, but what I was trying to say, but failed to state it clearly enough, is at the point where 'disobedience' goes beyond the 'civil' and actually becomes a meaningful resistance, at that point–or with the mere possibility of that eventuality–the state is prepared to use overwhelming and lethal force with complete impunity. And in heretofore unprecedented force.
Tasers Rule! A sadistic cop wet dream.
In a column that in its entirety is to my mind as fine as any I've seen on Israel/Palestine in a long while, this for me stood out:
"The only thing Nick Kristof has the right to do -- and the obligation, Gandhi would have added -- is to address his own American people about the choices that Americans are making. If any Americans are publicly waiting for the next Gandhi to appear, they should be waiting and hoping for him or her not in Palestine or any foreign country, but right here in the U.S. of A."
Many thanks.
I know this is off topic, but I really can't get out of my head the Prof. Chernus' piece here on CD, from late 2008, describing the heights of extacy he felt at an Obama Rally in Mile High Stadium, and how critical he was of those like me who could see right through this charlatain.
I'm searching for it, and I'd love to read it again.
Can you find the link to it? The search utility in CD is crude. Maybe in the past few months the article was removed at Ira's request. I wouldnt blame him if he did such a thing.
Don't kid yourself - this article notwithstanding, Chernus' articles mostly serve to promote aspects of Zionism and diffuse the Palestinian rights movements. Look at his previous articles here and the posters' responses...
He's not a moral person - he's someone that generally appropriates the language of morality to promote Zionism.
Actually, i find this to be one of Chernus's better offerings on this topic.
Although, i personally find 'Rabbis for Human Rights' to be less than impressive, both conceptually and in reality.
I believe that violence begets violence , which is something humanity should have learned by now. I am not big on 'passivity' however. Creativity is infinite and is the goal, in my opinion - and only way out of any of our human disasters. Radical reframing of the human condition will need to emerge. Or not.
FWIW, readytotransform, I concur.
The ironies and contradictions abound, e.g. the fact that Kristof (I'm not a fan) works for a major cog and enabler of the Amerikan/Israeli Terror Juggernaut, and the insistence that the US can, or must, become a trustworthy broker for peace although it's firmly esconced in Israel's corner and ensures that Israel has state-of-the-art matériel AND unconditional positive regard and political support for its genocidal rogue-state policies.
That said, I skeptically skim through the Chernus articles published here, as I do with many CD regulars-- the wretched Robert Kuttner comes to mind. Like you, I found this one more palatable than I expected-- too often Chernus lapses into Michael Lerner-style mush-and-milk rabbification. (I just coined "rabbification" as a kosher alternative to "pontification".)
I agree exactly with your comment about the cycle of violence and the bankruptcy of passivity.
Obedient Servant, i love your "rabbification" as in Michael Lerner style.......
rita
Non-violence is only effective against oppressor regimes when the larger population reacts to the official violence by joining the activists. This happened back in Iran 1979 when the Shah's troops fired on the crowds. Violent repression can work, of course, as it did in Bejing in 1989. And the Green Revolution in Iran, altho it may yet revive, was severely damaged last year by violent repression.
In the case of Gandhi, the oppressor regime was so alien and so thinly spread that any shift in allegiance among the vast population of India caused the Brits to make a rapid exit. And the civil rights movement led by Martin Luther King, among others, awakened both southern and northern whites to the reality of the racism they had so casually accepted for generations. No decent white people wanted to think they were like the Klansmen who killed small children and murdered civil rights workers, and everything began to change.
Clearly, the Palestinians are not in the position to mount a successful armed rebellion,and the occasional violence offered by Hamas and other groups only strengthens the hold of the Israeli Right and aids their enablers in the US. But I think Kristof is right that a Gandhian mass movement could be successful. The majority of the Israeli people are not racist and would find the murder of peaceful marchers to be abhorrent and would no longer find it morally possible to support the rightists who have for so long stirred up fear of the Palestinians. Israeli voters support the Right only because they fear the Palestinians, and would soon move toward a reasonable and equitable two- or even a one-state solution without that pervasive fear.
Valatius, although what you are saying sounds quite reasonable, i must say that if you consider what happened in Gaza..........Need i say more?
We are not dealing with a situation that is based in present reality. For example (and this doesn't go just for israel - it at least goes for the u.s.) A peaceful march would be spun - could be spun- as a ploy. Look at what happened with the flotilla for example.
It could be spun as a trojan horse operation. It isn't about the here and now reality. It is about paranoia. Just like the u.s. support of invading.........you name it.
My own opinions, of course.
peace.
"Why can't the Palestinians be nonviolent?"
Why can't the Israelis be nonviolent? The Israelis want land in the West Bank, fine, let them march en masse, in their thousands and tens of thousands, unarmed, to claim what they believe is their birthright. If the Palestinian police try to prevent them, let them lie down on the road in front of their vehicles to bar their way, peacefully and nonviolently. Sure, there are risks, sure the Palestinian police vehicles might crush them on the road, but if the sacred soil of the historical biblical Land of Israel in the West Bank is really that sacred to them, it is worth risking their lives for. And if it is not worth risking their lives for, then they always have the option of staying home in Israel and leaving the Palestinians alone.
"Why can't the Palestinians be nonviolent?"
Why can't North Americans, Australians and Western Europeans be nonviolent? Let's withdraw all our troops from foreign countries and close all our foreign military bases, let's pull back our navies and their air forces from the world's oceans and skies and use them to patrol our own shores, skies and borders, and announce to the world that all we want is to live in peace in our own countries. I think we will be pleasantly surprised at how positively the rest of the world responds to that dramatic display of nonviolence.
If I am going to preach nonviolence to Palestinians or anybody else who is not Canadian, North American, Anglo-Saxon or Western European (i.e. somebody who is an "outsider" in relation to myself), then I must be absolutely sure that I myself am being as nonviolent as it is possible for me to be in my relations with the rest of the world, and if I feel that I absolutely must practice violence, that I can provide a convincing explanation for my absolute existential need to do so. In the absence of those two conditions being fulfilled, I have no reason to expect that anybody should take my talk of nonviolence seriously. And the same applies to Nicholas Kristof, of course.
Having said all that, Nicholas Kristof is to be commended for speaking out in favour of Palestinian rights. That is one of the most dangerous things a North American mainstream journalist to do. If he keeps it up, people will try to destroy him. They will call him an anti-Semite, and if that label sticks, not only his career, but his membership in respectable society will be over. I hope he has a secure pension.
Mark Marshall
Toronto, Canada
You make some very good points, Mark.
Yes, he does, but Chernus doesn't agree, and as you'll see over the course of the day, neither do most of the posters here. All but a tiny handful will agree that Kristoff is a diversionary mouthpiece for his imperialist, Zionist overlords at the Times and should just shut up.
Of course, they'll all declare a national holiday in Kristoff's honor if he loses his job over this, or even has to put up with any degree of organized haranguing that can be tied back to AIPAC.
Is a problem recognizing sarcasm among the general reading comprehension issues found on these pages? The general point has been amply certified by posters on this thread, no matter which specific language they chose, some using the word Zionist and others just getting to the point.
The whole concept of peace is that it's something you make with your enemies, not your friends or neutral parties. You're at peace with your friends and neutral parties, or else they're not your friends and neutral parties. That applies to us in convincing wider portions of America to change it's mind, not just actual combatants moving beyond war. I'm not impressed when anti-Zionist publications put a pro-Palestine piece in front of its readers. I'm more impressed when a paper that has hardly any anti-Zionists in its readership does it, because they know it's going to be something they don't generally mull over, and they're the customers, the ones who pay the piper and are accustomed to calling the tunes. Nobody's pretending the Times has, overall, been anything but pro-war. But they publish Bob Herbert, too. And now they've published a pro-Palestinian independence column in the newspaper most often read by AIPAC's supporters. I can't find anything bad about that. Chernus's article starts out stating that he probably shouldn't find anything bad about it either, but then explains why he's going to, anyway. All I've been saying since the beginning of this thread is that Chernus should have gone with his first instinct. Kristoff didn't do anything to deserve the bludgeon -- not even for recommending non-violence to people who have gained nothing and lost much through violence. That just happens to be his opinion based on a considerable amount of data. He was not moralizing, only making a tactical suggestion. Why do the same thing you've always done and expect a different result?
If any of you think violence has been working for the Palestinians, please back that up. Again, we're not arguing over Israel's or America's violence, and no reason we should, because we all deplore it even though we can't currently stop it. And we're not arguing over whether the Palestinians are justified in wanting to return the suffering they've been burdened with all these decades. The question is strategic. If a tactic isn't working, do you keep doing it, just because you're pissed off? Are you trying to deliver a measure of vengeance for your people, or are you trying to deliver freedom? At some point do you wake up and remember that what you're seeking is independence, not blood? So could anyone please stop arguing the moral questions and talk tactics, which is what Kristoff was talking about, and about which Chernus totally changed the subject? Do you have any citations to show the success of violence, even low-level macho adolescent posturing like throwing rocks at people with machine guns?
Do you have any citations to show the success of violence...?
------------------------------
Sure. Zionist violence in Palestine, which has been going on at multiple levels more than 80 years now, would have to be deemed 'successful', don't you think? At least temporarily so. I don't think it will (or can) continue to be 'successful', and will do what I can to see that it's not, but right now...? Certainly the violence-committers/-orderers appear to see a sufficient payoff.
And I'd say the same is true of US violence, direct and proxy, the world around. Again, I don't think it will (or can) continue to succeed, and I will do what I can to see that it doesn't, but right now? Sure, it's 'successful', for some value of 'success'.
"All but a tiny handful will agree that Kristoff is a diversionary mouthpiece."
I think with the MSM that's all relative. The official conversation is extremely weighted towards imperial war and the likudnik dialect of zionism.
The NYT's is discredited as a voice of reason regarding US middle east policy. The idea of "zionist media overlords" may seem wildly hyperbolic to you, but the US media is extremely censored on middle east issues and extremely biased against the arab POV. It also happens that many mass media owners in America are zionists and all of them subscribe to the doctrines of the all powerful US National Security State.
The Times helped lie the American people into the catastrophic invasions of Bush and will continue to lie to support American imperialism under Big O. Kristoff is suspect as a result, but still...
I WELCOME THE KRISTOFF ARTICLE. It's a little crack in the zio-penta-armor.
Support a total arms embargo of the middle east!
End all aid to Israel!
"If I am going to preach nonviolence to Palestinians or anybody else who is not Canadian, North American, Anglo-Saxon or Western European (i.e. somebody who is an "outsider" in relation to myself), then I must be absolutely sure that I myself am being as nonviolent as it is possible for me to be in my relations with the rest of the world, and if I feel that I absolutely must practice violence, that I can provide a convincing explanation for my absolute existential need to do so."
Yes, but I don't see it as a matter of morality in personal behavior, as in my relations with the rest of the world. That's too general for me and can lead to an obsession with tiny implications of individual behavior.
Your advocacy of peace and justice issues has far more impact than nearly any private personal morality.
Your understanding that you reside just above the belly of the beast is essential, as in knowing that Canada is firmly entrenched in the war on terror. We North Americans live in a fortress and believe that we far away from our empire's bloody battlegrounds.
BTW, the Palestinian ghandi's were tortured and stomped to death at an undisclosed location using American and Isreali "technology." No further information is available.
This discussion ignores the issue of whether resistance is black or white, either violent or non-violent? Mention is made of the rock-throwing by Palestinian youth but then nothing more is said about the subtleties of resistance. Were Rachael Corrie and Tom Hurndall practicing violent or non-violent resistance when they were killed by the Israelis? According to the standards of Israel, virtually any form of resistance is legitimately responded to as threatening national security.
Marwan Barghouti has been in an Israeli prison for years because, as perhaps the most popular and credible leader of the Palestinians, he advocates armed and violent resistance inside the occupied territories, against the IDF and against the heavily armed settlers. He rejects attacking Israelis across the 1967 border, inside Israel. Barghouti's approach denies Israel the excuse that resistance threatens Israel national security.
Some would say that failure to resist occupation by all means is a betrayal of the indigenous population, in effect treason. Think the Vichy government in France during WWII.
Random observations.
Is Ira a member of "The Jews" I always read about here? What about Chomsky, Joel Kovel, Alfred Lilienthal, and Norman Finkelstein? Or do they get a "ghetto pass" despite being Jews? Is it just them, or are they just several who get published out of many who agree with them? Who are these people http://www.acjna.org/ ? Haven't they been around since before Zionism achieved its goal?
Some pot calling kettle black here. Chernus's entire career is built around talking about Palestinian rights, including their right to use violence, and against Israel's abuses, yet he lectures Kristoff that Kristoff only has the right to critique the American portion of the problem. This despite Chernus's acknowledgment that this is a rare instance of a mainstream columnist declaring Palestinians to be in the category of oppressed peoples -- but then go tear him apart, right? And isn't this doubly hypocritical given Chernus's Obama worship? Where was Chernus when it would have been useful for him to critique the American component of this problem, to which he insists Kristoff must limit himself?
Ira seems to be writing this (acknowledged in the article) to simply remind us that he's Ira. He makes it very clear that he understands the culture at the Times and the MSM in general, and that efforts to nudge them in a new direction incrementally (rather than attempt to drag them kicking and screaming) should probably be supported.
Kristoff put himself and his family at risk. He stayed present with Palestinian freedom fighters who were doing things that have frequently resulted in a deadly hail of Israeli bullets. Is this, at this juncture and with a readership that vastly outnumbers Chernus, a fully justified moment to tear him a new one? Can't we at least wait to see how well or poorly Kristoff's column travels? If he ends up fired for supporting Palestinian independence, aren't Chernus and all of us here at Common Dreams going to declare him a hero who's being punished by Zionists and having his first amendment freedoms trampled upon?
Is it possible that Kristoff, whose career, like Chernus's, involves being paid for his opinions, is observing that 60 years of violence against Israel, Lebanon, and Jordan (I guess we've all forgotten Black September? Palestinian violence has resulted in only one "catastrophe"?) has done nothing to improve Palestinian prospects, and perhaps isn't evil for suggesting that maybe something else could work better? Maybe just hoping, and writing about it, and as entitled by data to form such an opinion, just as Chernus is entitled to the same?
Lastly, whether Israel is to dissolve itself as a "Jewish" state, or whether a "Saudi Solution" involving two states, who signs the papers on behalf of the Palestinians? This is a serious question. It was simple enough, despite the small amount of chaos within Palestinian liberation movements in the '60s and '70s, to figure this out back when this issue should have been addressed. Opportunity completely blown, fault Israel. But as the saying goes, that was then, and this is now. Who do the Palestinians send with the authority to take control of the new situation? Does Chernus know? Maybe papers aren't even necessary. Maybe for starters Israel can just pull all its troops and citizens out of the West Bank and abandon all housing and industry for any Palestinians who want to move in. Who gets the housing and who gets the businesses? Does civil war break out among Palestinians to settle these matters, and if so, is that Israel's fault, too? Isn't any effort by any outside party to help elevate any particular faction to the status of legitimate and empowered negotiators or temporary governing authority inherently imperialistic? If the best solution is to let Palestinians slug it out among themselves to determine the initial governing authority, who is responsible for the harm caused by the slugging, and how long should we wait for a winner to emerge before we have to get back into the ages-old argument of where the line is drawn between humanitarian intervention and imperial aggression? This is very serious stuff. Everyone on CD, both the published authors and the posters, refer to "The Palestinians" even more blithely than they refer to "The Jews." While the first is clearly meant as a positive reference and the second a negative one, by what data do you declare "The Palestinians" to be an entity prepared to govern itself should Israel just get out of the way? Even Chernus has never attempted to answer this with any degree of certainty. It's one of the things of which everyone in Palestinian areas, Palestinians living in Jewish territory, Palestinians living in Lebanese and Jordanian territory, and Jews living in Jewish territory are aware, and which never enters into conversations held by pro-Palestinian Americans -- probably because of the dread fear of falling prey to a Zionist political landmine, which is scarier to us than the risk of taking part in bringing about potential self-immolation of a nascent Palestinian state, so we choose not to think about it, or simply declare it to be invalid with no data to back up that declaraion. And that's kind of strange among leftists and peace advocates, because all of us talked about things like that openly when America was preparing to invade Afghanistan and Iraq. We were aware of the warlord situation in Afghanistan, and the fact that the Northern Alliance had little indgenous support. We were aware that Iraq was a British-drawn artifice comprised of Kurd, Sunni, and Shia, and that killing Saddam and "de-Baathifying" Iraqi civil institutions would cause instant civil war and anywhere between thousands and millions of Iraqi deaths. Where is our enlightened discussion on this with regard to Palestine?
Our resident Zionist spouting off at the mouth again. Most readers here don't want America telling Afghans, Iraqis, Pakistanis, or Palestinians how to govern themselves. I would prefer we end our so called "support" of all these countries... including Israel and let the chips fall where they may. Global imperialists like yourself think you are smart enough to rule over the world. Really you are just racists pigs who hide your elitism through a bunch of high brow mumbo jumbo. The Palestinians don't need worthless clowns like yourself telling them.... Ohhh how will these screwed up barbarians ever manage to get along without our enlightened hand dominating them with our bullets and bombs. Wow...you are a joke.
You answered none of my questions, and there was nothing Zionist in them or any of my comments. That's too typical on Common Dreams, and exemplary of the impossibility of progress by the Left.
Of course nobody needs anyone else telling them what to do or how to do it. That was my theme. But it's not like there's any improved form of justice (or even just saving lives) by ignoring the obvious and pretending we can avoid the moral consequences of walking out of a situation that is destabilized under the multiple burdens we created by walking in. That factions exist in imperialized realms doesn't make anyone a barbarian. They're just self-interested factions. Everyone has them. It's called pluralism, which used to be the definition of democracy. Just as an aggressor owes financial reparations, there are institutional consequences of imperialism that cannot be ignored, at least not by any rational anti-imperialist who is loudly proclaiming his own moral high ground.
But the great majority of my questions were about Chernus's comments, and of course you have no answer to them, because Chernus's starting point is anti-Zionist, and contemplating whether or not he's a successful advocate for that position or whether his own contradictions tend to lean his advocacy towards the fringes of the debate means running the risk of being conflated with Zionism, and that's a risk greater than the risk of failure, right? Just point a finger and yell "Zionist!" and you're excused from having to think. While that may (sadly) be true, it also excuses you from having to succeed, but that's not important, unless what you're trying to succeed at is being the best, most mindless, reactionary finger-pointer and don't really care whether Palestinians achieve independence.
So who's the real Zionist?
I think we're all a little busy to answer diversionary troll questions.
The treatment of Steve here -- and I don't know his thoughts beyond what I read in this string, and I don't agree with everything he said, either (as if that matters) -- is pretty much the kind of self-satirizing silliness we could all do without.
It helps to respond to arguments and evidence, not to demonize people, ascribing motivations (like racism), where I for one can see none.
I happen to agree, though it doesn't matter, that nonviolence has the best chance of working in this particular context, including the opening up of media coverage, which is necessary for nonviolence to have its behavior-changing effect. Palestinians have a legal and moral right to violent self-defense (within the limits of international law, of course, which, obviously, Israel doesn't respect); the question isn't moral, to me, but operational: given the massive superiority of Israeli force and the lessening but still real prejudice about "violent Arabs," etc., massive nonviolent nonparticipation looks like a good bet. Apparently, in the mostly nonviolent first intifada, early on, the Israelis nearly burst a blood vessel trying to deal with it. They have historically looked for the slightest violent pretext to unleash far more violence, banking on Western sympathy for the Nazi holocaust and for (white, Western, we're-like-you) Beautiful Israel against the (nonwhite, non-Western, not-like-us) untermenschen.
I say, break that cycle. It would and will and does take extreme discipline, but I agree with Steve that faux-macho posturing and name-calling, or reveling in the pointless, counterproductive, relatively minuscule violence, might have something to do with one's own masculinity issues but doesn't have much of a place in a reasonable conversation.
Btw, attacks on infrastructure -- sabotage -- while violent may also be helpful; if so, it should be done. This was pointed out to me by someone who doesn't agree with nonviolence as a potentially more successful tactic, but who knows how to actually argue and debate, and why to do so.
You have no moral authority over anybody here. You spout out your mindless opinions as facts and demand people answer them. Nobody here owes u sh$&. You are a Zionist... Itis obvious from your posts. You refuse to acknowledge that Israel is an apatheid state... You refuse to acknowledge that the Palestinians and Lebanese have every right to defend themselves by any means necessary. They do. Israel is a tiny country of 8 million surrounded by a few hundred million neighbors who don't appreciate their warmongering. It won't last another 30 years.
Interestingly, a rational person who doesn't agree with me actually answered the questions. That ought to tell you something right there -- about yourself. It also says something about the questions, which is that they're clear enough to be answered -- if you read them, or are able to read them, or are interested in reading them. The fact that all three of those possibilities escape you is why there will never be peace in the world. Billions of people think exactly the way you do. "Only my interests are reasonable, anyone who has other interests either doesn't understand mine or is trying to harm me, and violence is an effective way for me to implement my interests." If you're actually interested in peace (anywhere, not just in Palestine, and most particularly in convincing masses of Americans to stop being so violent), then you have to talk, and if you're going to be good at talking, you're a) going to have to be good a listening/reading, and b) you're going to have to drop the attitude about people who don't agree with you. They agree with themselves, just as you agree with yourself, and as you feel violence is an effective way to advance goals that you see as just, so do they -- and they have much bigger arsenals at their disposal. So where does that leave you? Just a violent SOB who loves bloodshed -- so long as it's for a just cause? Where does peace come into that framework -- ever? After everyone who disagrees with you, and is as willing as you to fight, is dead? How does that distinguish you from Hitler, or Stalin, or anyone who operated under that paradigm?
Come on, people. What ever happened to pursuing peace? Has that word been conflated by progressives with pursuing vengeance with the same tactics we deplore in our adversaries? Is this the prevailing faith of Common Dreams readers? Because if so, someone should inform the publisher. That's not what the website is about.
Deleted repeat
"Come on, people. What ever happened to pursuing peace?"
Well 7 years ago, we all marched in the streets in our millions, peacefully, and we were completely ineffective in stopping the invasion of Iraq. This demoralized the peace movement, and it yet to recover. It's not even tenth of its size in 2003.
Steve you may be a non-violent avatar, but nearly all the rest of us are mere humans. We are weary of your little lectures. Non-violence was a failure in 2003. Millions have died as a result of the wars we failed to stop.
IMO, this is the main reason why the peace movement is now so small. People decided that the US military-industrial complex is immune to our non-violent pleadings.
Now we on the left have been well taught that violence is an inexcusable admission of a lack of intelligence. So since neither violence or non-violence seemed a workable option, lefties gave up on the Peace Movement enmasse.
Unfortunately the next great resurgence of anti-war activism was its cooption by the Obama campaign ( I can't count the Kerry campaign, I just can't), whose Presidency so far has been one big bloody death parade across much of the Middle East.
How many have died under Obama's military policy? When will he reach the 1,000,000 mark? (I think when he does he gets to actually touch David Rockefeller's tools.)
Steve, you need to quit your b**chin and realize that your kumbaya moralism is not quite as superior as you would like to believe.
At this point the end of American imperialism will come on the receiving end of an IED, or if the uber-bankers decide that they don't want to fund Uncle Sammy anymore.
We non-violent little people are not an important part of the military decision making equation here or in Palestine.
I suggest a good Irish Whiskey.
Might get the bad taste out of your snout ").
Sorry, but no resistance movement ever formed. You can't say it was tried. The big DC rally (I was there, same as I was at the big DC rally against draft registration when Carter was still President) was spectacle and nothing more, a first amendment exercise designed to allow Bush to extol the freedoms we have that we'd love to bring by force to other countries. While it was a good opening gathering, nobody -- and I mean nobody, not even Worker's World or the venerable WRL -- attempted to speak or recruit at that rally (or the subsequent one in New York and other major cities, which were equally well-attended) around the topic of resistance. I'm not even talking about drastic things that not everyone can do, like getting locked up. I'm talking about minor things that anyone can do with no risk, like sick-outs, boycotts, or local establishment of peace-pursuing institutions (you know, like actual groups that meet to serve a cause, like the way Black churches became the centers of localized civil rights efforts that easily tied together as a potent movement) that could compel politicians to appear, as the Rallies For America, various Christian conventions, and the teabaggers have done. Nobody ever tried it. Don't say it failed. Only things that have been tried can fail. And don't lay any of that kumbayah crap on me. I've been locked up, and I have a wife and three kids. I've taught CD to small groups and taken part in WRL meetings where plans for CD actions were being made. As a local organizer I've had considerable success in progressive politics, and you can look up the history of the Green Party in New Paltz, NY if you want to know what I'm talking about, where I took part not only in the campaign that resulted in the historic elections but in implementing and publicizing the lawbreaking by the Mayor, which was followed by my own election to School Board. I am not on the national stage. I'm just a middle-aged musician with a family in a small town. I cannot bottle this for others -- as I said, I have a wife and three kids, and a low income -- but if every town of 15,000 had just 30 people like the ones I've associated with since moving here, this whole country would be a very different place. So don't accuse me of bitching. I actually do stuff with other people who do stuff (in real life, not on Facebook or blogs), and a lot of it gets done, but not all of it, so I genuinely know the difference between failure and inaction. Progressives in this country are inactive. Those who think they are active generally don't even know what that means anymore. They think going to the peace vigil every Saturday from 10 to 11 AM in front of the public library is "peace action." So excuse the hell out of me if I'm abrupt with the "all talk, no action" crowd here and throughout the "progressive internet communities." I don't want you to be huggers -- I want you to be fighters. But to most of you, the decision to fight consists of nothing more than hitting the caps lock key when you type. Quite frankly, it makes me sick -- not because I am contemptuous of progressives, but because I despair how far we and the world in which we live have fallen because we do nothing and are resigned to doing a lot more of nothing while reactionaries from working-poor Teabaggers and Christian fundamentalists to corporate boardrooms never stop working. And that's what makes me so insufferable -- despair for our own awful condition as progressives. If a Martin Luther King arose among us today, we'd shoot him ourselves.
Steve, i have never seen your postings here before, so i don't know the history and feel like i've walked into the middle of a movie.............
But i agree that the past ten years was weak in terms of meaningful resistance. I was at the Republican convention week of protests in nyc in 2004, as well as all others between nyc and DC since 2001. To name a few things. No one cared and it wasn't covered in the media, as has been posted on threads here.
I knew a few people in nyc WRL. I find that organization to be rather mainstream and perhaps a kind of 'church' in itself.
I believe that we are in a different time now and we need to get real creative really fast. To me, this is so obvious it is not even worth saying. But what the heck.
Also, the right wing fanatical groups you mention, like teabaggers. I believe they have really deep pockets. They are undoubtedly organized and funded by corporations and Fox News. It is obvious. They began by being against universal health care.
Obviously, ending the draft had a lot to do with watering down the peace movement. But that is only one issue, isn't it? A wake up and become alive movement is needed. Radical Aliveness?
Also, notice lots of media attention regarding protests against arizona illegal alien laws. And that got organized pretty fast. I think one reason is because the Catholic church in particular, and the democratic party as well are invested. And also because people who are directly effected feel the life and death immediacy of what is happening to them.
I was arrested at the 2004 RNC and held three days at "Guantanamo On The Hudson" with a couple of thousand close friends. Maybe we met. You have a decent sense of the WRL, too. In a way they are a church -- they have a foundation in religious opposition to violence and have had significant cross-membership with Catholic Worker and similar groups over their history. In the time I've been hanging out with them at their NY headquarters on Lafayette Street, I found them to be spiritually powerful but tending in their choice of actions to be overly theatrical (there are always costumes and props) and chosen more for an idea the location communicates than for the purpose of actual obstruction. They do not lay down in front of tractor trailers carrying arms shipments. They sit in on the steps of the Treasury to publicize the role of taxes in financing war. They hew to these traditions despite the fact that they don't work in the current time. As you may pick up on Common Dreams from reader reactions to my posts, I tend to generate offense when I point out to people that once it's known that a tactic isn't working against your opponent (as opposed to merely validating your identity as a leftist, resister, whatever), there is no reason to repeat it, and in stating that at planning meetings for actions, offense was taken, and I thought it best to not continue the long drives from where I live. I don't want to take anything away from the incredible work of Frida Berrigan, or Ed Hedemann, and Ruth Benn, and everyone else there, who are truly committed and work their butts off. I just think it's been a long time since they've been effective, they operate largely as a foundation these days rather than as organizers, and they're not adapting. But there is this: they are the absolute, second-to-none best source of institutional knowledge of how civil disobedience is done. It's something you have to learn about generally and then train for specifically following a very detailed plan. It's a lot of work and takes real discipline to do CD effectively. They have printed materials you should read, a newsletter to which you should subscribe, and CD trainers who will come to your location and train your group either on general scenarios or for a specific action you're developing. As a school of CD, they're the best. You should check their website at www.warresisters.org. Get this from them and consider it your bible: http://wri-irg.org/node/3855 (or use the online version). Another bible from the group I consider to be the last truly successful CD movement in this country (Act Up -- although the coal people in West Virginia may soon take the title as most recent) is here: http://www.actupny.org/documents/CDdocuments/CDindex.html Also check out Fellowship of Reconciliation at http://www.forusa.org/ This is a very short list. Apologies to anyone I left out. Once you've read these links, you'll find yourself wondering how anyone on Common Dreams can assert that meaningful, sustained mass non-violent resistance doesn't work, or can't in the case of Israel, or that any other form of resistance can. The first thing you'll notice is that today's progressives are doing absolutely not one single bit of it, nor proposing any ways to get started.
Defintely Catholic worker overlay there. I've been to Lafayette office several times. I am familiar with their website.
Outside of an all out national strike by the mass population of the u.s., i don't see how CD will work here. As i've said, a civil society is needed for CD to be relevant. It sure didn't matter at the RNC.
Creative actions can only follow creative change within those taking the action. And most are invested in keeping their own organizations going as they always have been. Thank Goodness UFPJ seems to have disappeared. Talk about holding on to the status quo......
Yeah, never liked UFPJ. They disappeared themselves when they predictably called off their own efforts to stay out of Kerry's way, even though Kerry was calling for troop escalations larger than those being called for by Bush. Good riddance to bad rubbish.
Is Ira a member of "The Jews" I always read about here?
------------------------------------
I don't think you "always" read about "The Jews" here. Nearly every pejorative reference to "the Jews" or "Jews" are in a context that makes it obvious that Zionist Jews are meant. If you think I'm wrong, please produce your evidence.
------------------
60 years of [Palestinian?] violence against Israel, Lebanon, and Jordan ... has resulted in only one "catastrophe"?)
----------------
Well, when a single Naqba has been going on for 60 years and counting, why would you need more than one?
As to Palestinian violence, I believe the Resistance in France 65-70 years ago was quite violent too, and for the same reason.
--------------------
Lastly, whether Israel is to dissolve itself as a "Jewish" state, or whether a "Saudi Solution" involving two states, who signs the papers on behalf of the Palestinians?
--------------------
Who signed on behalf of the Palestinians in '48? Nobody, that's who. And nobody needs to sign for them now, either. It's not they who are committing the Naqba, nor they who committed the Shoah. The Zionists don't need anyone's permission or signature to stop being colonialist arseholes and world-criminals. Stopping is well within their personal remit.
---------------------
by what data do you declare "The Palestinians" to be an entity prepared to govern itself should Israel just get out of the way?
---------------------
What a stunningly 19th-century conceit! Surely you're aware of Rebecca Sonit's "Paradise Built in Hell" and all the confirming research by anthros? People automatically self-govern in the absence of a ruling class. Any fighting that takes place is invariably between would-be rulers trying to drive each other off, or between would-be rulers and their intended-but-resisting victims.
"I don't think you "always" read about "The Jews" here. Nearly every pejorative reference to "the Jews" or "Jews" are in a context that makes it obvious that Zionist Jews are meant. If you think I'm wrong, please produce your evidence."
I can't tell you how much I appreciate this response. You probably won't believe it, but it's true. At least you have responses, and some background to support them. That's all I've been asking.
Actually, I do read always read it. That doesn't mean every post contains it. It means that every thread contains it. And they do. It's all over the site on every Palestine-related article. I'll grab a couple from the most recent, the Greenwald article from a few days ago.
"there is no such thing as "the Jews" "Oh, yeah - where does the phrase 'Homeland of the Jews' come from? The Arabs?" And all the bizarre stuff from kassandrasduplex.
"Well, when a single Naqba has been going on for 60 years and counting, why would you need more than one?" Because the topic here is whether or not violence has been working in favor of Palestinian independence. Running down a list of all the times it's been successful, and all the times its made their circumstances worse and strengthened the resolve of their various occupants and countries into which they've fled as refugees, there are no hash marks on the "violence worked" side. It's pretty useless for Chernus to attack Kristoff on moral grounds when Kristoff was very clearly writing on strategic grounds. That's what we were talking about, and that's why I brought it up. It is you that are attempting to change the subject rather than answer the question at hand.
"Who signed on behalf of the Palestinians in '48? Nobody, that's who. And nobody needs to sign for them now, either." We're in agreement on that. I offered the possibility of Israel simply pulling out immediately and abandoning all its settlements and commerce in the area. But my question is, what happens there next? You seem confident that "all will be well." History doesn't support that. That only happens when the two factions are pro-empire and anti-empire, and the empire leaves or is driven out. When there are other self-determinative issues in play within the same boundary, there are always serious and durable problems. Yugoslavia was once an historic experiment in what appeared to be a substitution of common interest for tribal heritage. Even the Warsaw Pact couldn't co-op them, but it all blew up just after what appeared to be their most substantial accomplishment on the world stage. Not all conflicts are materially based. The ones that people kill each other over for eons are never materially based. And while people may or may not "automatically" self-govern in the absence of a ruling class, they most certainly do not when there are multiple parties seeking to fill the absence of a ruling class. You said it yourself when you wrote "Any fighting that takes place is invariably between would-be rulers trying to drive each other off, or between would-be rulers and their intended-but-resisting victims." Ambitious people from all cultures abhor a class void. There is most decidedly no meaningful "no ruling class" component in the Palestinian movement.
Thanks for your input. We'll have to agree to disagree.