Every bout of Israeli-Palestinian fighting leads to debate over whether Palestinians should resist the Israeli occupation by arms or through non-violence. This tends to be argued in simplistic terms – right versus wrong, effective versus ineffective – which do not reflect the reality on the ground.
While working for the United Nations in Palestine, I witnessed countless peaceful protests that were violently broken up by Israeli forces and still ignored by the international media.
There were regular general strikes, but they mainly hurt Palestinian businesses and workers. Despite two decades of negotiations with Israel, the occupation, colonisation and dismemberment of Palestine are more entrenched than ever. As such, cynicism over non-violence is understandable.
However, there are flaws, advantages and necessities to both approaches. One can just as easily cite examples of armed resistance achieving or disappointing national aspirations as non-violence. Countless times, both have been used simultaneously.
The present form of armed Palestinian resistance is rocket-fire from Gaza. Like suicide bombings in the 1990s, their indiscriminate nature damages the moral standing of the cause and alienates would-be supporters. One should not be selective in opposing or defending the targeting of civilians. It is wrong, regardless of perpetrator or victim.
Furthermore, Hamas’ rockets have had little effect against Israel, which intercepts almost all of them. Their use, however, may not be primarily for military gain. The fact is, the world ignores the plight of Gaza unless rockets are fired. The same was true of suicide bombings regarding the wider Palestinian cause. Generally, the media seldom covers festering injustices unless violence occurs.
So while Palestinian rocket-fire is problematic from a public-relations perspective, militants also use it as a PR weapon. This signifies a resounding failure of the international community and media, whose blind eyes have created a sense that only resorting to arms can sufficiently draw the world’s attention.
India and South Africa are most often held up as examples of the effectiveness of non-violence, but this simplifies and even distorts the struggles against British imperialism and Apartheid, respectively.
Despite popular belief, both were marked by significant violence. South Africa’s Nelson Mandela and India’s Mahatma Gandhi are celebrated for their legacy of non-violence, but neither renounced the right to armed resistance.
Mandela was himself a militant until his incarceration, and his African National Congress received foreign training and arms. As Gandhi put it: “He who can’t protect himself or his nearest and dearest or their honour by non-violently facing death may and ought to do so by violently dealing with the oppressor.”
Non-violence in India and South Africa was effective largely due to the potential for much greater violence if peaceful means were ignored or crushed. This threat succeeded because the oppressed far outnumbered the oppressors, so it was much easier for civil disobedience to reach a critical mass.
However, Israelis and Palestinians have numerical parity, so it is far easier for the former to repress the latter. Furthermore, Gandhi’s non-violence was boosted by the weakness of the British Empire following World War II. Israel is a regional hegemon unflinchingly supported by the world’s only superpower.
Gandhi and Mandela championed non-violence because they viewed it as more effective than armed resistance, not because they deemed the latter illegitimate. The right to resist foreign occupation is enshrined in international law and the UN charter, though targeting civilians is forbidden.
Palestinians are right to call for Israel to be held accountable for war crimes, but in the process should avoid committing them – not only from moral and strategic standpoints, but to minimise their own suffering. Israel uses ineffectual rocket-fire as a pretext to rain death and destruction on Palestinians – one can ask whether the price paid is worth it.
If Hamas, and Hizbollah in Lebanon, claim victories against Israel when the latter suffers comparatively negligible losses, this inadvertently reinforces the widespread, racist view in Israel that Arab life is expendable or worth less.
It is easy – sometimes patronising – to advise those who live an intolerable existence how to reclaim their rights, but this debate among Palestinians and their supporters is necessary and healthy given the stakes involved.
Neither armed nor non-violent resistance has yet achieved their national aspirations, but military means have been exhausted by a lack of weaponry and a stark imbalance of power.
The logic of fighting a much more powerful enemy using means with which it has a huge advantage are questionable. As my mother says: “If you want to beat Mike Tyson, don’t do it in the boxing ring.”
There are more non-violent options available, so it is sensible to ditch methods that have failed in favour of those that hold promise.
Arguably the most effective today is the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement. It has made great strides since its establishment almost a decade ago, modelled along the campaign that was pivotal to ending Apartheid in South Africa. Initially dismissed as fringe fanaticism, it has become mainstream.
BDS is causing alarm in Israel, not least because the movement is gaining traction in countries and regions that are key trading partners and allies, and because it is backed by an increasing number of Jews, such that Israel passed a punitive law in 2011 criminalising support for boycotts.
Israeli politicians are warning of the BDS threat because it hits the country where it hurts: the economy, whose “vulnerability is now greater than the threat of war”, as then-president Shimon Peres said in January.
BDS is “advancing uniformly and exponentially,” said justice minister Tzipi Livni. “Those who don’t want to see it will end up feeling it.”
Finance minister Yair Lapid warned that even with a partial European boycott, “Israel’s economy will retreat” and “every Israeli citizen will feel it straight in the pocket”.
Not a week seems to go by without further BDS successes, which are widely reported because they constitute domestic news for countries involved, and because the relevant companies and institutions are often multinational.
Another important avenue is the International Criminal Court, to which the Palestinian Authority is reportedly applying with Hamas’s support. Israel vehemently opposed Palestine’s upgraded UN status precisely because it enabled access to the court.
Israel is right to be worried, because international law is on the Palestinians’ side, and ICC rulings against Israel would boost BDS.
The Israelis are nervous about legal action because, as Chris McGreal of The Guardian wrote, “taking on the Jewish settlements does not threaten Israel’s right to exist. It is not violent. It is not terrorism. And there’s not many governments going to rush to Israel’s defence”.
“A legal fight at the ICC would lay bare the annexation and dispossession behind Israel’s settlement strategy,” he added. “And that’s without even getting into the broader scheme to claim as much territory as possible for Israel.”
Perhaps the most effective, principled means of resistance is a dual approach articulated by Marwan Barghouti, jailed by Israel since 2002. Described as the Palestinian Mandela, he opposes targeting civilians, but reserves “the right to protect myself, to resist the Israeli occupation of my country, and to fight for my freedom” by “all means approved by the UN charter and international law”.
Sharif Nashashibi is a London-based journalist and analyst on Arab affairs
