"Nonviolence in its dynamic condition means conscious suffering. It does not mean meek submission to the evildoer, but means the pitting of one's whole soul against the will of the tyrant. Working under this law of our being, it is possible for a single individual to defy the whole might of an unjust empire to save honor, religion, soul and lay the foundation for that empire's fall or regeneration." -- Gandhi
In a conflict between groups with opposing goals in which one group has a large force advantage, the other group must employ non-standard tactics to balance the field. For example, in a military conflict the weaker side can attempt asymmetric or guerrilla warfare. I distinguish this from the alternative tactic of terrorism targeting civilians, which is regrettably common. There is another choice that is morally superior to terrorism and surprisingly effective: nonviolent resistance and protest.
Many groups choose to utilize nonviolence for religious or moral reasons, such as those expressed in the Christian tradition in the Sermon on the Mount: Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: but I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. Others turn to nonviolence after participating in and experiencing firsthand the effects of terrorism, such as this convicted murderer from Northern Ireland:
"It was people from the working class who followed the leadership of the so-called responsible people," he said, "but what has happened is that the ex-prisoners have just said: 'No. We're the people who suffered the consequences, we're the ones who carried the coffins down our streets, who visited friends in prison and who have had to come to terms with having taken others lives.' "
"Remember," he said, "whenever you shoot someone, you don't just victimize them, you victimize yourself. We have to live with that, they don't."
Even if one were somehow inclined or able to set aside moral considerations and the human cost of violence, there remains a compelling reason to embrace nonviolence: it is surprisingly effective. This is not some naive tactic embraced by soft-headed idealists, it is a complex, multi-tiered, well-established, and widely-used strategy that is often (not always) successful. The key conditions required for nonviolent methods to succeed include for the stronger opposition to be responsive to "outrage" pressure (internal or external) and for the weaker group to have media access to distribute their message and trigger that pressure.
The Palestinian cause in Israel presents an ideal case for the (continued) application of nonviolent methods. In today's plugged-in world, where video clips from youtube to CNN shape the debate, Palestinian activists and their international and Israeli allies have the opportunity to use the moral high ground as leverage to obtain concrete concessions. Such concessions may come from Israeli politicians (perhaps as the result of internal or international pressure) or from Israeli courts. Unfortunately, some Palestinian radicals have adopted and promoted counterproductive violent resistance in an effort to secure an independent Palestinian state, even targeting civilians. It's been suggested that such tactics draw attention to the struggle in a way that nonviolence would not (Cook 2004):
Palestinians also now understand that violence is the surest way to get their struggle noticed. Bombing buses is immoral, but it makes the front pages, reminding the world that there is a conflict. When Palestinians alone are the victims, the world switches off.
This view is somewhat condescending to both Palestinians (who are portrayed as engaging in cold-blooded calculations as to how to maximize coverage through terroristic carnage) and to the rest of the world (portrayed as not caring about Palestinian suffering), but more importantly it is incredibly short-sighted. To have the struggle "noticed" is not a sufficient goal -- the whole point of people noticing must be that you think they will assist your effort, and consequently the manner in which you are noticed matters a great deal. If you bomb a bus, the people who read about it will notice your cause... and likely regard it unsympathetically due to your horrific tactics. The proper cold-blooded calculation here, if we insist on ignoring morality, is not whether terrorism draws attention to your struggle in a useful manner (it obviously doesn't) but rather whether terrorism can force the stronger side (here Israel) into changing policies to benefit the weaker side (here Palestine). It should be apparent to any neutral observer that Israel has a history of not only refusing to succumb to demands associated with terrorism but of in fact reacting by taking extreme measures allegedly aimed at preventing future attacks -- measures that are directly opposed to Palestinian goals. In the post-911 GWOT climate, Israel has proven adept at creating a narrative (of questionable accuracy) in which its actions are a necessary response to Palestinian terror.
Nonviolence has garnered positive press and the increased media exposure is making such tactics increasingly effective. In the last few years (primarily) nonviolent protests have been used, in conjunction with legal challenges, to put pressure on Israel to reroute the wall. Some recent examples:
Israel's high court ordered the military Tuesday [Sept. 4] to reroute the separation barrier near the West Bank village of Bilin, the scene of sometimes rowdy weekly demonstrations against the project that Israeli and Palestinian activists say helped bring about their rare legal victory.
[...] "The fact the justices even agreed to hear this case is attributable to the struggle," said Jonathan Pollak, an organizer with the group Anarchists Against the Wall. "It's a great political victory for the popular movement. When people unite, they have power over Israeli institutions, whether it's the army or the courts."
Inspired by the experience of other Palestinian villages [like Bilin], the Al Walajeh demonstrators are part of a small but growing core of protesters combining civil disobedience with legal petitions to fight Israeli policies.
[...] Protest leaders say the nonlethal tactics have one crucial advantage: it attracts Israeli and international peace activists, who in turn bring sympathetic media coverage. [...] "We use nonviolence as a way of life.... We learned from many experiences: like India, Martin Luther [King], and South Africa," says Samer Jabber, who oversees a network of activists in the villages surrounding Bethlehem.
[...] "It has become obvious that popular civil resistance has become the best way for national resistance from the occupation," wrote Waleed Salem in an Al Quds newspaper op-ed.
Talk of non-violence is a challenge to the influence of the armed factions that dominate Palestinian society, an argument that says their suicide bombings not just failed to advance the Palestinian cause but set it back so far that now Israel's military occupation has got tougher, with more checkpoints, frequent incursions and a rapidly growing barrier, and that it brought an economic and political crisis and a violent feud between rival Palestinian factions.
[...] Every Friday, the villagers from Ma'asara and the surrounding area gather a few hundred yards from the route of the barrier, among them also activists from Israel and abroad. For now they have obtained a brief court injunction halting the construction so they gather for prayers first, before making speeches on megaphones and then marching back up the road towards their homes.
I've concentrated on the Palestinian perspective here, but the principles are broadly applicable. For example, the settlers have a similar incentive to avoid violence and to use nonviolence to promote their cause. When they celebrate terrorism, they alienate observers; who can support this:
In the hills of the occupied West Bank, the ultra-religious settlers of Tapuakh celebrate the assassin and voice contempt for Rabin. "Of course he deserved it," Koby, a 19-year-old, American-born settler, said. "He was a traitor."
[...] These are the Jewish extremists who annually celebrate the 1994 slaughter of 29 Palestinian worshippers by their fellow settler Baruch Goldstein, and admire Eden Natan-Zeda, the anti-disengagement deserter from Tapuakh who shot dead four Israeli Arabs on a bus in August. Their stark outlook is rooted in religious certainty that dismisses democracy, peace treaties and negotiations as the works of man, irrelevant beside God's biblical promise of the Land of Israel to Abraham and his descendants.
On the other hand, when they engage in nonviolent resistance, as in the removal from Gaza, they present their cause in a more sympathetic fashion:
Thousands of Israeli troops dragged sobbing Jewish settlers out of homes, synagogues and even a nursery school Wednesday and hauled them onto buses in a massive evacuation, fulfilling Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's promise to withdraw from the Gaza Strip after a 38-year occupation. Soldiers carried away worshippers still wrapped in their white prayer shawls. Wailing men ripped their shirts in a Jewish mourning ritual. Women in a synagogue pressed their faces against the curtain covering the Torah scroll. And a woman set herself on fire at a police roadblock in Israel.
I don't agree with the goals of the settlers, but I must admit their passive resistance in Gaza seems to have gained them some public support and perhaps deterred the Israeli government from attempting to enforce withdrawal from the West Bank. It's probably worth noting at this point that the use of nonviolence isn't, by itself, automatic validation of the justness of the desired goals -- to take an example from the other side, I don't agree with the goals of protecting Hamas militants from Israeli airstrikes, but the nonviolent method of lots of people standing on that house is effective.
I would be the first to acknowledge that in an actual war, against an unmerciful enemy, nonviolence may be tantamount to surrender. In a war fought as much in the realm of public perception as on the battlefield, nonviolent resistance and protest can often humble a stronger opponent and has the further moral advantage of minimizing civilian casualties. Those who would effectively promote the Palestinian cause should focus on engaging in or publicizing acts of nonviolence. Nonviolence isn't easy, of course. As Gandhi said, it demands the pitting of one's whole soul against the will of the tyrant. This is no one-time push of a button such as any coward drunk on self-importance and petty rage could manage; this is a disciplined and farsighted struggle to accomplish a stable, fair, and lasting peace.
Cross-posted (in slightly modified form) from Swords Crossed; written as a reaction to comments in a discussion on MLW (see here).