Terror, nonviolence, and Israel

A few years ago, during grad school I tried to write a paper on the concept of “Nonviolent terrorism”. The scope of the project quickly revealed itself to be far beyond the requirements of the class that I was writing it for, and instead I limited the focus of the paper to the performative aspects of self-immolation. (part one of that paper can be found here, part two and three are forthcoming)

The idea of nonviolent terrorism is one that is largely symbolic – actions that induce fear, chaos, and psychological trauma without causing physical harm to people or infrastructure. Bomb threats are probably the most common form of nonviolent terrorism, but other examples can be found – white powder in envelopes, firecrackers tossed into a tense crowd, psychological warfare through pranks. These things wear on the public psyche until it is like a tightly wound spring or a spooked horse unsure which way to jump - ready to protect itself from a threat whose likelihood cannot be clearly determined and whose severity cannot be calculated.

Nonviolent terrorism seeks to mimic the effects of a terrorist act without utilizing the destructive methods of terrorism. Nonviolent terrorism, however, does not exist seperate from terrorism – in fact, the success of an act of nonviolent terrorism is contingent on it being temporarily indistinguishable from a real act of terrorism. The act draws its potency from the real potential for violent terrorism. Threatening to poison a city’s drinking water can be an act of nonviolent terrorism. Threatening to destroy a city with the death ray from your moon base is something altogether different.

Nonviolent terrorism operates on the premise that the thing you fear hasn’t happened yet, but it might...

Israel is currently undergoing a wave of non-violent terrorism.

Let me be clear – I am not referring to the fear that more Gravads and Katushas will rain in from the Gaza strip, or the fear that a collapsing Lebanese government will become the puppet of Hezbollah, or the fear that the Muslim brotherhood will seize the reins of the fledgling Egyptian political scene and nullify the Israel/Egypt peace treaties.

All of these things are real fears, but none of these are the real fear.

The real fear comes from what we saw in Egypt. Less than a month ago millions of people filled the streets of Egypt, and in the face of police brutality and government force they stood their ground. Certainly there were acts of violence by the Egyptian protesters – clashes between hired baltagi and a public who was unwilling to be driven back, there was rock throwing and car burning in defiance of riot police, and there were a few nights where protesters in Tahrir square were pelted with firebombs and fought back with stones. But overall, it was a largely nonviolent movement, and therein lies the seeds of terror.

Certainly, when it comes to Egypt’s future some Israelis are hopeful and others are suspicious. But underneath it all there is a creeping and un-addressable gnawing fear that transcends concerns regarding the Egyptian people.

It is a fear that something like what we saw in Tahrir square could take place in Israel.

Every action by Hamas, or by the Palestinian Authority, or by the Palestinians themselves whether singly or in groups now brings with it the second-guessing - "Will this be the Mohamed Bouazizi moment?", "Is this the next Khaled Said?", "Could this be the thing that triggers it?"

As I said before, these things wear on the public psyche until it is like a tightly wound spring or a spooked horse unsure which way to jump - ready to protect itself from a threat whose likelihood cannot be clearly determined and whose severity cannot be calculated.

What would happen if 100,000 Palestinian citizens of Israel (AKA “Israeli Arabs”) showed up on Ben Yehuda street in Jerusalem demanding an end to the settlements?

What would happen if thousands of Gazan Palestinians marched from Gaza City and the refugee camps to the Erez and Karni crossings demanding passage to their estranged families in East Jerusalem and the West Bank?

What if the Muslim and Christian residents of Ramallah walked en masse to Ma’ale Adumim to protests the progressive loss of what little land they have left?

Most importantly, what if they did it with their hands empty of anything except for their camera phones?

How could Israel respond? And how long could large-scale human action in Israel stay nonviolent - either on the part of the Israelis or the Palestinians?

Because lurking behind the spectacle of Egypt is the specter of Libya: a population who no longer fear for their own lives facing down a military willing to use deadly force.

There is true terror.

Situational Updates - what's going on where?

400+ pageviews in less than a week! Thanks to all of you who have been tuning in. The fact that people are checking out this site helps motivate me to keep writing, so please share this site with your friends and don't hesitate to give feedback.

**

First, a point of personal frustration – the Egypt issue certainly deserves attention, but it's sucking up almost all of the news right now. Given the limits of most foreign news agencies’ Middle East division, we certainly aren’t getting the wider picture. Al Jezeera is better than many, but with finite resources. I have little doubt that the germ of similar events is being carefully extinguished in many other countries while the world watches Egypt.

That being said, events in Syria have gotten some attention - Assad  has moved from the denial stage of the Kubler-Ross model to the bargaining stage. Two days ago the Syrian state media apparatus was claiming that the Egyptian protesters were calling for the expulsion of the Israeli ambassador - part of the classic, “when in doubt, blame Israel” strategy that is so often the norm in the Islamic sections of the Mediterranean. Today his tune has changed and his attention has shifted to domestic affairs, claiming that Arab rulers need to do more to accommodate their people's rising political and economic aspirations. Assad's obvious intention here is to appease the Syrians before thousands of them end up in the streets. His strategy is probably a sound one - dispense visible (but limited) reforms, and do his best to distinguish himself from Mubarak. It may or may not work - I think it will for the time being (i.e. the next six to twelve months).

Yemen seems to be trying the same tactic, but they’re a day late (3-5 days, really) and a dollar short. I have far less faith in their ability to pull such a thing off, and I fear that there is ugliness and long-term instability in store for the country.

Meanwhile, back in Tunisia where this whole thing started, the two highest profile Tunisian opposition leaders returning from European exile show serious promise for a positive outcome for the country - Moncef Marzouki and Rashid Al-Ghannushi. It is, of course, still too soon to tell what the response will be. (I should probably just end every paragraph with that qualifier and be done with it.)

Events in Sudan since the partition vote have gotten…interesting (for lack of a better term). As the country seeks to resolve a procedural debate over to whether it was 98% or 95% that voted for partition, some protests are popping up in the north against President Omar al Bashir. It's a small factor right now (though it spurred some violent government reaction) but stay tuned…

So -Who aren’t we hearing about?

Libya and Morocco in particular have been awfully silent for the past few days. The King of Morocco is visiting France right now, which may or may not be  a coincidence - Morocco is hardly a police state and not really capable of an Egyptian-style media lockdown, and so the lack of protest buzz is probably not indicative of something more sinister. 

Libya, on the other hand, is locked down tighter than an off-color reference to batrachian anatomy. Ghaddafi, in a rare moment of discretion, has actually shut up, which speaks volumes about how serious his situation must be at this point. 

On that note, it’s never a good sign when Ghaddafi is exercising more tact and judiciousness than your own leaders – Israel, I’m looking at you.

Israel is doubling-down on the stupid. A conflict of opinions is to be expected - arguing politics is the national sport of Israelis, but a sense of panic has begun to seep into the editorial columns and blogs. The Israeli government has been telling their diplomats to pull for Hosni in their host countries. "We must therefore curb public criticism against President Hosni Mubarak” they were told on Friday. A comment like this reeks of either denial or idiocy (or both…it can always be both).

• They’re not doing Mubarak any favors by pulling for him.
• They’re not doing themselves any good by hitching their wagon to a dying donkey.

Oh well…if the Israeli government wants my advice I’m sure they can figure out how to get a hold of me.

On that note, one more state has formally recognized Palestinian statehood within the ’67 borders, and this time it’s not a random South American country. Cyprus, one of the most popular Israeli vacation destinations in the world, sent Abbas a letter of recognition today. Frankly, if Abbas can keep pulling these in he may survive the fallout from the al Jazeera leaks.

**

Well, that's it for now, I'm sure tomorrow will bring new revelations. Stay tuned for a piece on the Muslim Brotherhood and Part Two of my piece on Self-Immolation in the next few days - maybe tomorrow, if the snow cancels my other plans.

Self-immolation: Performing Protest with Fire -- Part 1: Background

Introduction: the Jan. 2011 regime change in Tunisia can be traced back to a single trigger event - On Dec 17th a young man named Mohamed Bouazizi was publicly abused and humiliated by the police for selling  vegetables without a permit. Frustrated at the obstacles to simply making a living and the denial of simple human dignity he publicly set himself on fire. The jarring intensity of the act caught the attention of the Tunisian public, who strongly identified with the young man’s plight. Several more incidents of self immolation followed in Tunisia, as well as in Algeria and Egypt, and majorly contributed to the burst of protests and revolutions across North African and the Middle East.

Self immolation as performed political protest has been a high profile practice since the early 1960’s, but until now has been largely unreported in the Arab world. Last years ago in Toronto I delivered a paper on self immolation. Given that Bouazizi’s self-immolation was the catalyst for such unprecedented events in the middle east (including a string of subsequent self immolations) I wanted to cannibalize some of last year’s paper to shed a little light on this practice. This is part one of a three-part blog, part two can be found here.
 

(Note: Although the term self-immolation is most commonly used to designate the public performance of protest through suicide by fire it can be used much more broadly - to immolate simply means to sacrifice and carries no specificity with regards to ideology, methodology or motivation.)
**

son llamas
los ojos y son llamas lo que miran,
llama la oreja y el sonido llama,
brasa los labios y tizón la lengua,
el tacto y lo que toca, el pensamiento
y lo pensado, llama el que lo piensa,
todo se quema, el universo es llama,
arde la misma nada que no es nada
sino un pensar en llamas, al fin humo:
no hay verdugo ni víctima...
-Octavio Paz

Performing the act:
On June 11, 1963 Vietnamese Tich Quang Duc, Buddhist monk and head abbot for a large Buddhist monastery stepped out of a small car on an unremarkable Saigon street. Approximately 200 other monks were already present, and upon his arrival they formed a wide circle around their abbot as passersby stepped back and took notice.  After brief conversation with a few of his fellow monks, TQD walked to the center of the street-space ringed by monks and onlookers and settled into a cross-legged meditation posture.

He had with him a plastic jerry-can partially filled with gasoline. Two of his fellow monks emptied the contents of the can over him and moved to the boundary outlined by approximately 200 other Buddhist monks and nuns.  Tich Quong Duc recited a short mantra to the Buddha of compassion, struck a match, and lit the gasoline that was soaking into his clothes and the packed dirt road beneath him. As he burned other monks chanted into a bullhorn, "A monk Burns himself to death.  A monk becomes a martyr."  AP photographer Malcolm Brown and New York Times writer David Halberstam were present for the event, having come on the recommendation of a Vietnamese journalist who insisted, “Something is going to happen. You should come." Thanks to the presence of the two reporters the act was captured on camera and in newsprint; their retelling of the story through words and images seared the idea of self-immolation into the global vocabulary.

Prior to that event the idea of self immolation was a foreign concept to most of the world, but despite its novelty the intensity of the performance gave it immediate and dramatic relevance – particularly in the light of civil rights struggles in the United States and fresh memories of Gandhi’s legacy in India. Other ideological movements appropriated the tactic to other settings and other causes, but Tich Quang Duc’s initial iconic act on that hot Saigon morning still stands as the original performance against which all subsequent self immolations are judged. Despite the fact that other examples of fiery self immolation can be found in the historical records of Buddhism in China and Southeast Asia, this singular act captured on film clearly established Tich Quong Duc as the grand patriarch of modern self immolation's genealogy of performance.

Between 1963 in 1975 dozens more Vietnamese monks performed their own variations on Tich Quong Duc’s grim street theater protest suicide. Others also recognized the compelling nature of the act and its potential for impact - it was borrowed, cited, and reenacted in different settings, under different circumstances, and for different causes, showing its versatility as means of protest and self expression. Even in Vietnam, it was used to send multiple messages depending on the political environment. The first cases of self immolation in Vietnam were in protest to the abuse and disenfranchisement of Buddhists under the predominantly Catholic Diem regime.  After Diem’s overthrow, the monks utilized self immolation as a tool to protest the immorality and brutality of the broader Vietnam conflict and the American role in Indochina. Following the US withdrawal the monks utilized self immolation as a protest against their mistreatment by the Communists government. During this same time (1963-1975) at least four Americans were inspired by Tich Quong Duc to perform self immolation in protest to the Vietnam War, as a declaration of solidarity with the actions of the Buddhist monks, as a nonviolent expression of protest against injustice, and a plea for peace.

Simultaneously, between 1966 and 1969 an even larger wave of self immolations took place in India. Dalits protesting the caste system inequalities that resulted in a grossly unequal distribution of opportunities, services and access to resources – a situation deemed unjust and inhumane by the lower Indian castes. India experienced a second wave of these protests in the 1990’s, when another large wave of Indian self immolation took place against disenfranchisement and exclusion of those same groups from colleges and employment. Additionally, during the late 60’s and early 70’s several similarly enacted instances of self immolation took place in Eastern Europe as protests against the occupation of several Eastern European countries by Communist Russia and remonstrations for the failure of the west to respond. These immolations took place in East Germany, Poland, Switzerland, France and Czechoslovakia, but by the 1980’s the practice of self immolation as a political tactic had generally dropped from favor outside of Asia. Aside from a small handful of exceptions, the vast majority of the self immolation events that have taken place in the 21st century have occurred in China, South Korea, India, Iran, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Sri Lanka and Tibet. It may be that the practice is also used parts of Asia that have a limited degree of global interconnectivity (e.g. Burma and North Korea).

Characteristics of the act.
“To express will by burning oneself, therefore, is not to commit an act of destruction but to perform an act of construction, that is, to suffer and to die for the sake of one’s people.” -Tich Nat Han
It may seem obvious to state this, but self immolation is traditionally a tactic employed by the disempowered, regardless of its religious or ideological pedigree. As DeCertau states, "The weak must continually turn to their own ends forces alien to them.” In this case, the actions of Tich Quang Duc provided the basic script, which is now citationally evoked in each subsequent performance of self immolation (deliberately or not). This supplies the act of self immolation with some common overtures. Self immolation is generally performed as an expression of protest against injustice, prefigured upon the premise that all human life has value. The clear dissemination of this message is essential to the act of self immolations, and the effectiveness of the practice is in large part contingent upon the unignorability of the performance. It is a jarring and unsettling specter: a human being publicly engulfed in flames by their own hand and free will, It is in no way a private act, and it is done with an audience in mind; an audience that varies according to its message and setting. Some variations of the act seem directed outwards towards a global audience (particularly the Czechoslovakian and early Vietnamese examples of self immolation). Others, like those in India and South Korea seem to be much more domestically oriented, intended to convince or remonstrate a narrower local audience. It is not always clear if this is the case, reception in the international news may not be in accordance with immolators’ objectives.

One continual insistence made by researchers into the issue of self immolation, and by close friends of the self immolators is that their actions are not the work of mentally unbalanced individuals. Even the initial performance by Tich Quong Duc was defended as rational and constructive by his friend and colleague, fellow Buddhists monk Tich Nat Han. “I explained to her that the venerable Tich Quang Duc was over 70, that I had lived with him for nearly 1 year at Long-Vinh pagoda and found him a very kind and lucid person, and that he was calm and in full possession of his mental facilities when he burned himself.”

Based on the journals of self immolators and interviews with people who knew them well, it seems to generally be the case that the act is only planned for a few days or weeks before being implemented, usually precipitated by a relevant event, or a prior self immolation. Often times self immolations come in clusters or waves over a period of days or weeks (See "The Copycat Effect: How the Media and Popular Culture Trigger the Mayhem in Tomorrow's Headlines" by  Loren Coleman). This singularly bounded act is thusly given unity of ideology and action. It needs little preparation, simply a location, a match, a flammable liquid, and conviction. In the words of DeCertau, “The intellectual synthesis of these given element takes the form, however, not as a discourse, but of the decision itself, the act and manner in which the opportunity is "seized". This is particularly relevant because another important characteristic of self immolation is the speed inherent to the act. The event must be executed swiftly, or the practitioner risks interruption by the authorities and a dilution of message. Self-discipline and conviction grant credibility to political issues, and the painfully terminal nature of self immolation is no exception. The extended suffering provides a secondary platform, however.  An ideological message that might otherwise be blunted or misappropriated can be clarified and repeated by a survivor.

Self immolation is dramatically different than the other well known form of protest suicide: hunger strikes. Hunger strikes are usually conducted with a specific outlined goal or set of goals that, if achieved, will prevent the death of those protesting. Self immolation is not presented as a threat to ensure concessions, it is not used as leverage but as a spectacle, instead; a remonstration and a cry of outrage whose immediate goal is self-death in the hope of later equity towards others. A hunger strike is stretched out over days and weeks, slowly intensifying as the possibility of death approaches, whereas self immolation can reach its climax long before any remedying action can be taken. The visible intensity of self immolation is the better part of its power. Movie footage from Tich Quang Duc’s 1963 performance shows nearby police officers standing agog, unable to act, and overwhelmed by the reality of the tableau before them.

(End part 1)

Part 2 is here

The story so far...

So the funny thing is, I started writing about the new developments in the Middle East last week, and since that time things have gone from bananas to apesh*t.

First of all, all bets are off in Israeli and Palestinian politics right now. Al Jazeera, perhaps inspired by the Wikileaks dump, released decades of private negotiation conversations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Crazy stuff. I don’t know where to begin, actually. Suffice to say, Mahmoud Abbas, the semi-official leader of the Palestinian Authority (at least the parts that aren’t in Gaza) has at various times offered Israel far more than what anybody might imagine in exchange for some semblance of dignity and independence. (Although, given the near total capitulation evidenced in his overtures, he may have given up on dignity a long time ago)

Israel, still reeling from a variety of corruption investigations, and Ehud Barak’s sudden breakaway from the relatively strong (and quite conservative) Labor Party, has settled into their favorite pastime, arguing with each other about politics. In the meantime, the Palestinians (having learned something from the Israelis over the past several decades) have taken up doing the exact same thing. In this case, Palestinians in Gaza are loudly denouncing Mahmoud Abbas for his duplicitous actions that were ostensibly on behalf of the Palestinian peoples (but conducted without their knowledge or consent). In the West Bank, however, Palestinians have identified the true criminal in this situation: Al Jazeera – some have gone so far as to accuse them of forging the documents entirely, or at the very least, releasing them to undermine Abbas’ authority (who knew such a thing existed?)

Most surprising for Israelis in this situation is the fact that, for once, the finger of blame isn’t pointed at them. (at this point, responsibility for the actual leaking of the documents is being ascribed to an American employee of Al Jazeera, but further revelations are still forthcoming.)

At the same time, there’s been a groundswell of support for an end-run around the stalled peace process through direct declaration of Palestinian statehood. Russia and several South American countries have already made it clear that they will recognize an independent Palestinian state. Ireland upgraded the Palestinian mission in Dublin to full Embassy status, and the Palestinian mission in DC started to fly the Palestinian flag last Wednesday.

**

But, a Middle East that contains only Israel and Palestine is, frankly, not a very interesting Middle East at all. Well…interesting perhaps, but not nearly as interesting as the Middle East with all the other stuff. So - riots in Tunisia, riots in Egypt. Additionally, there are also been reports of riots in Jordan, Yemen, Algeria, and Libya.

Thanks to the beauty of Google, a map of all of these places can easily be found with a click of the mouse.

Rather than expecting you, my stalwart reader, to extensively research all these places I’ll give you a very quick overview just so you know what’s at stake (but further reading is always encouraged).

Algeria: Tenuous stability has been the norm for the past decade. In 1991 conservative Islamists won big at the polls during an election year, scaring the pants off of several people. The military (with some western backing) stopped the elections and took over to prevent a Muslim rise to power. The result: a decade of vicious civil war that only ended post 9/11 when the US started pouring money into the war on terror (which included the Algerian government’s anti-Islamist military actions). The government was ranked 105 out of 178 on the 2010 corruption index, which isn’t too bad (but it isn’t that great). They have substantial natural gas reserves keeping their economy afloat, but they have serious unemployment issues and a ballooning under-thirty population.

Yemen: For a goodly party of the 20th century Yemen was two countries – North Yemen and South Arabia. In 1990 they unified as the Republic of Yemen, and in 1999 they held something that vaguely approximated free elections (the winner just happen to be the guy who had been the military dictator for the previous nine years). Ranked 131 out of 179 countries on the 2010 corruption index Yemen has just enough oil revenue to keep the government functioning. They face 65% unemployment, a ballooning under-30 population, and 70% of their citizenry are addicted to a leafy chewable narcotic called qat. Marx said religion is the opiate of the masses – In Yemen, narcotics are the opiate of the masses. Yemen could get very ugly very quickly – people don’t have much respect for the government and there’s already a low level civil war going on up north.

Jordan: The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan is run by a smart royal family, has a good human rights record, and is only 50 of 179 on the 2010 corruption index – way better than most of its neighbors (Qatar, Bahrain, Israel, and the UAE are the only nearby countries with a better record). The economy isn’t great, but it’s stable - local protests probably won’t do much here.

Libya: Very quiet from the outside. Some protests, but it’s a big country with a small population, and a robust military/police junta. Qaddafi is the longest serving African dictator, and he didn’t get there by being sloppy. You can call him crazy, but don’t call him stupid. Barring a military coup and/or Qaddafi’s death nothing will change unless he decides The times they are a-changing. He may even figure out a way to turn this to his advantage.

Egypt: Could be very ugly. Best case scenario - Mubarak flees (rumor has it that his son has already left), elections are held, elBaradei becomes president and everyone is happy. Worst case scenario – Mubarak gets overly possessive about his presidency, police action becomes military action, clubs and teargas become bullets and tanks, and Cairo ends up like Baghdad in 2004/2005. We’ll have a better idea of what’s happening after Friday evening prayers.