National Review misunderstands nonviolent resistance

    Not surprisingly, the conservative National Review does not get what nonviolence is all about. In a commentary on the killing by Syrian security forces of Ghiyath Matar—a young activist nicknamed “little Gandhi,” who pioneered the tactic of handing out flowers and water to soldiers—Mark Krikorian writes that his death “highlight[s] the limits of nonviolent resistance.”

    I have a couple issues with his analysis, if you can call it that. First, while it’s tragic that Matar was killed, his death doesn’t show the limits of nonviolence. The fact is that people die in nonviolent struggle, just as they die—almost always in far greater numbers—in violent conflict. To really illustrate the hypocrisy here: Would Krikorian argue that every US soldier that’s killed shows the “limits of war or violence?” I highly doubt it.

    What Matar’s death shows is that nonviolent struggle requires sacrifice and it may highlight the need for the Syrian opposition to consider shifting to tactics of dispersion, like strikes and boycotts, that would be more difficult for the security forces to repress.



    Recent Stories

    • Analysis

    Columbia students are sick at heart — just as we were in ‘68

    May 1, 2024

    An organizer of the 1968 Columbia University protests on why the message against war, then and now, is the same.

    • Q&A

    How bail funds are fighting new legal attacks on solidarity

    April 30, 2024

    Abolitionist organizer Pilar Weiss discusses how community bail funds have withstood past and present challenges from the state.

    • Feature

    What’s next for the struggle to stop the East Africa Crude Oil Pipeline

    April 26, 2024

    Climate activists in East Africa and abroad have momentum, but stopping the world’s longest heated crude oil pipeline will require greater risk and deeper solidarity.