Why Nonviolent Resistance is Important for the
Palestinian Intifada: A Response to Ramzy Baroud
By
Huwaida Arraf and Adam Shapiro
Earlier this
week, Ramzy Baroud, Editor-in-Chief of PalestineChronicle.com wrote a
feature article, Will
Nonviolent Resistance Work for the Palestinians?, in which he
questions the validity of attempting to establish a nonviolent movement as
part of the Intifada.
While we agree with Mr. Baroud that to date
the Palestinian leadership and resistance has failed to empower and
sustain a nonviolent resistance, we must object to Mr. Baroud's argument
and offer an alternative vision and outline for how nonviolence can be
used effectively, though not
exclusively, in resisting and overcoming
occupation.
To begin, however, we assert our agreement with Mr.
Baroud initial points and cknowledgement of history in that Israel has
proven time and again its willingness to use military technology and
weapons against unarmed civilians to kill and injure. Additionally, not
only has Israel managed to carry out such vicious and diabolical
atrocities, it has also managed to cover them up or define them in the
parlance of "defense" – or in the post-September 11th Rumsfeldian world,
as "fighting terrorism."
While we do not advocate adopting the
methods of Gandhi or Martin Luther King, Jr., we do believe that learning
from their experience and informing a Palestinian movement with this
knowledge can be quite valuable and of great utility. Contrary to Mr.
Baroud's claim, there is no misunderstanding about the nature of Israeli
occupation or violence, not by Palestinian intellectuals, not by activists
and not by those who advocate nonviolence. Additionally, Mr. Baroud uses
faulty logic when he claims that choosing nonviolence implies that use of
violence is a choice, never mind a strategic one.
First and
foremost, there is no guarantee that the use of nonviolence as a strategic
element of resistance as part of a larger Intifada would end the
occupation, deliver justice or resolve the conflict. It is simply a
strategy, one that can be employed to attain specific, pre-determined
goals.
Additionally, the use of nonviolence is about control and
power – those who maintain nonviolence and exploit the use of violence by
the oppressor maintain control and power, which is something that can be
manipulated to present a story, a case or an image.
When Mr. Baroud
writes, "the nature of the resistance, its magnitude and duration, is
often controlled by the behavior and response of the enemy, its brutality
and inhumanity," he gives excuse to those who find it far easier to pull a
trigger or shoot a mortar while claiming their rights than to stand up,
face abuse, but attempt to exercise those rights. Mr. Baroud shows a clear
misunderstanding of the power of nonviolence and gives up all power by
claiming that resistance is merely reaction. This is not so. Resistance
must be strategic, and as such, is very much in the hands of the resistor,
no matter the type, level or brutality of the oppression.
Allow us
to interject with an example to explain. Violent resistance is when an
armed Palestinian fighter shoots an Israeli who is oppressing him. The
Palestinian fighter claims his rights, but in reality does nothing to
achieve them. Another dead Israeli does not deliver a single right to a
Palestinian. Alternatively, Palestinian Birzeit University students who
march through a militarily-occupied area under curfew on their way to
school, who confront soldiers and absorb their teargas, sound grenades and
rubber bullets, are attempting to exercise their right to education and to
move freely. While they may not succeed, their effort is one aimed at
directly achieving rights.
The fighter, on the other hand, has used
his means (the gun) to achieve his end (a dead Israeli or instilling
greater fear among all Israelis) – neither rights nor justice nor freedom
are a factor in this equation. The students, acting together in a
disciplined manner, are directly acting in a way to achieve their
rights.
Let us reiterate, we accept that Palestinians have a right
to resist with arms, as they are an occupied people upon whom force and
violence is being used. The Geneva Conventions accept that armed
resistance is legitimate for an occupied people, and there is no doubt
that this right cannot be denied. But that does not mean that this right
must be utilized. Regardless of what is a right and what is not, the
elements that will make any change in the situation are strategy and
tactics. To date, the use of violence as part of the resistance has not
evinced a strategy. Not in operations against the military or settlers;
not in operations inside the Green Line. The choice of using nonviolence
would not be effective either if it was not organized
strategically.
In actuality, nonviolence is not enough. Rather,
what is needed is nonviolent direct action against the occupation. This
includes roadblock removal, boycotts, refusing to obey curfew orders,
blocking roads, refusing to show ID cards or even burning them. Yes, the
Israeli army and settlers will use violence. Yes, people will get killed
and injured. They are now also. Hamas claims it has many men ready to be
suicide bombers – we advocate that these men offer themselves as martyrs
by standing on a settler road and blocking it from traffic. This is no
less of a jihad. This is no less noble than carrying out a suicide
operation. And we are certain that if these men were killed during such an
action, they would be considered shaheed Allah. But an action like this
cannot happen once and it cannot be the only type of action. Large-scale,
mass popular participation must be developed in order for a movement to
have an effect.
First a strategy of nonviolent direct action
resistance must be developed. Palestinian leadership, civil society and
political activists must work together to define such a strategy and then
go about implementing it throughout Palestine.
What can this
strategy hope to achieve as its goals? We can identify four things, both
short- and long-term goals. First, such a movement would encourage all
elements of the society to participate and join in the struggle. Yes,
today all Palestinians are struggling, but mainly to live. Creating a
national struggle to achieve rights would have positive repercussions
throughout the community and would establish or enhance unity. Secondly,
the adoption of nonviolent direct action resistance would change the image
of the Palestinian struggle around the world. While I recognize that it is
not the image that determines whether a people live in freedom or not, it
is nonetheless important. Why else would Israel and the United States
spend so much money and time "spinning" the images the world sees from
Palestine and Afghanistan respectively? And this takes us to the third
benefit, which is that in changing the image, more foreigners would be
emboldened and empowered to speak out and question their governments'
policies vis-à-vis supporting Israel.
Additionally, more foreign
civilians would be encouraged to come to work with Palestinians in their
legitimate struggle against occupation and injustice, thereby
internationalizing the Intifada and bringing more resources to bear on
pressuring Israel and the international community to establish a just
peace. Finally, Palestinians must consider the long-term, which we realize
is quite difficult given the uncertainty and despair today. The prevalence
of violence as a heroic form of resistance has long-term implications for
Palestinian society and the Palestinian nation. Before the Intifada,
automatic weapons were hardly present on Palestinian streets; now, they
are commonplace on virtually every street corner. Not that the
Palestinians are heavily armed – far from it – but the weapon has become a
visible symbol of resistance, and the only symbol. Kids only play with
guns now, and the models being sold in the stores are almost identical to
the real guns. The future Palestinian state must not be allowed to be
spawned from violence without alternatives, or else it will likely suffer
the fate of all other nations that have emerged in this way – look at
Algeria or Cambodia or Angola.
The Palestinian resistance must take
on a variety of characteristics – both nonviolent and violent. But most
importantly it must develop a strategy involving both aspects. No other
successful nonviolent movement was able to achieve what it did without a
concurrent violent movement – in India militants attacked British outposts
and interests while Gandhi conducted his campaign, while the Black Panther
Movement and its earlier incarnations existed side-by-side with the Civil
Rights Movement in the United States.
To close, we too, as Mr.
Baroud did, will quote Malcolm X, "we declare our right on this earth, to
be a man, to be a human being, to be respected as a human being, to be
given the rights of a human being, in this society, on this earth, on this
day, which we intend to bring into existence by any means necessary."
Palestinians too should use any means necessary, and that includes the use
of nonviolent direct action. Using a gun does not make one a man, a human
being or deliver respect or rights. Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr.
were gunned down as well, but their deeds defined
historical
changes.
Huwaida Arraf (Palestinian-American)
and Adam Shapiro are activists living in Ramallah. Both are organizers
with the International Solidarity Movement, and have actively taken part
in nonviolent direct action against the Israeli
occupation.
