Where is your CVC code?
At the beginning of the month, the Wall Street Journal ran an interesting article about Hamas and Hezbollah’s newfound interest and appreciation for nonviolent tactics following the Israeli raid on the Free Gaza boats at the end of May and other nonviolent actions by activists in Palestine:
“When we use violence, we help Israel win international support,” said Aziz Dweik, a leading Hamas lawmaker in the West Bank. “The Gaza flotilla has done more for Gaza than 10,000 rockets.”
[…]
Hamas’s turnaround has been… striking, said Mustapha Barghouti, a prominent Palestinian advocate for nonviolent resistance. “When we used to call for protests, and marches, and boycotts and anything called nonviolence, Hamas used these sexist insults against us. They described it as women’s struggle,” Mr. Barghouti said. That changed in 2008, he said, after the first aid ship successfully ran the Israeli blockade of Gaza.
“Hamas has started to appreciate just how effective this can be,” Mr. Barghouti said.
Hamas has started organizing its own peaceful marches into the Israeli-controlled buffer zone along the Gaza border and supported lawsuits against Israeli officials in European courts. Hamas says it has ramped up support for a committee dedicated to sponsoring similar protests in Gaza.
Mr. Dweik, the Hamas lawmaker, recently began turning up at weekly protests against Israel’s West Bank barrier.
Apparently, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah was so impressed by the effectiveness of the Free Gaza Movement that he has called on his followers to participate in the next flotilla.
Ghaleb Abu Zeinab, a member of the Hezbollah politburo in Beirut, said it was the first time Mr. Nasrallah had forcefully and publicly embraced such tactics against Israel.
“We saw that this kind of resistance has driven the Israelis into a big plight,” he said. Organizers in Lebanon say they have two ships ready to sail, but no departure date has been set.
While I’m happy to hear that these groups are beginning to see nonviolent action in a new light, I question how wise it would be to include members of Hezbollah or Hamas in any future flotilla, primarily since they have not renounced violence. Like it or not, their involvement would only make it that much easier for Israel and the corporate media to justify another attack and discredit the campaign to end the blockade of Gaza. It is clear from experience that nonviolence is most effective when it is not tainted by violence or even the hint that those involved in any given action may turn violent.
I agree. Hamas will have to invent its own type of non violent action, to show that it is really of their own conviction to denounce violence. They will have to be consistent in it for a long while, before they will be seen as trustworthy.
Very interesting article. However, I think its outrageous to exclude Hamas or Hizb Allah if they choose to be apart of the Free Gaza Movement. As long as they are unarmed I think it should be encouraged not discouraged. Let the corporate media report on a nonviolent Hamas. I don’t think we should exclude women from participating in nonviolent actions just because some are willing to use self-defense when they are being assaulted. We need to embrace militant non-violence for all just causes and hopes it spreads.
I actually had somewhat similar feelings myself at first. Part of me thought that we should encourage everyone to participate in nonviolent action, including those who may have been violent. It does seem strange to exclude people from participating. But historically nonviolent movements have chosen carefully who they want to participate in an action, and I don’t think that’s necessarily a bad thing. Who the participants are matters and can make a particular action more or less effective. Gandhi for example thought it was more important to have those who would take part in a campaign truly understand satyagraha than to have numbers.
Moreover, to stay nonviolent in the face of provocation takes discipline, probably more than it does to react violently. So if there is any doubt that someone may be violent, it may be best to have him/her play a different role in the campaign.
I think that was unfortunately one of the problems with the last Free Gaza trip. The number of people got so large that the organizers clearly didn’t vet the participants as thoroughly as they should have. So when the Israeli commandos stormed the boats, at least some of the those on board decided to fight, which really compromised the entire action.
Hi Eric,
I think you’re right, and it creates a dilemma. If Hamas should not adopt NV because of their history, how can things change?
On a separate note, I’m interested in your response to a reflection of mine about the flotilla violence. It seems to me that part of the dynamic of that event is that the (limited) protestor violence was at least partly responsible for the very violent Israeli interception, which in turn was responsible for the worldwide media coverage that was far more sympathetic to Gazans than anything in recent times. So while the media loved to blame the violent protestors for ‘starting it’, the overall outcome was huge pressure on Israel to lift the siege of Gaza.
In a nutshell, is it possible in this case that the protestor violence was indeed effective, even as it deligitimised the protestors themselves? ie that the gains outweighted the losses?
As an advocate for strategic nonviolence, this thought sits uneasily with me. But is it something we might need to grapple with?
Your reflection is a very interesting and important one. I’ve discussed this exact point with friends here. And I don’t know that I have a great answer.
Did the violence by the protesters spark the violence of the Israeli commandos or would they have shot protesters either way? I guess we will never know the answer to that question.
I could see how you could say that if the protester violence did lead to the violent Israeli response that it was somehow effective since the incident did end up putting a lot of pressure on Israel to end the blockade of Gaza. And maybe in that very limited sense it was “effective.” But I would argue that it really doesn’t forward a long-term peaceful solution to the conflict, which will ultimately require both sides to see the humanity in the other. Violence does the exact opposite.
And even if it was effective in triggering the extreme Israeli response, the thing that really redeemed the flotilla, despite the violence, was its humanitarian nature and the fact that the vast majority of those on board were nonviolent and had solid reputations. I still think the violence very nearly sabotaged the entire mission by giving defenders of Israel an excuse for the attack, even though they were clearly in the wrong.
But the Israeli commandos may have also opened fire on protesters even if they maintained nonviolent discipline. In that case, Israel would have had no excuses for their actions and the media would have focused more of its attention on the cause that the activists were killed for. This would have created even greater pressure for change.
If those on board the flotilla did remain nonviolent, maybe the Israelis wouldn’t have overreacted. Maybe the activists would have been stopped without making headlines. If that had happened, nine people would still be alive today.
As an advocate of nonviolence I would argue that would be the best outcome. We aren’t supposed to try to get our opponents to kill us or to act barbaric. We’re supposed to make them snap out of it and realize the injustices they are perpetrating. We’re supposed to find solutions to conflicts that avoid death altogether.
Thanks Eric for your thoughtful response. Absolutely agree about the long term strategy. On reflection another thing you could add is that (judging from media reports) Israeli society had a hugely defensive reaction in support of the troops and against the protest, and in that sense any short term gains viz the blockade would be outweighed by the deepening of fear and distrust between Israelis and Palestinians.