Return to related issue of Nonviolent
News
The facts of the recent war in Lebanon are quite well
known but can be restated as follows. After the kidnapping
of two Israeli soldiers in an incursion to Israel, Israel
declared war on Hizbullah, who were responsible for the
kidnapping, and Israel started to bombard and then invade
Lebanon - this was pre-planned, the kidnapping providing
Israel with an excuse for their action. The USA and Britain
refused to support demands for an immediate ceasefire,
both Israel and the USA presumably thinking that this
invasion would 'sort out' Hizbullah (and 'root out the
men of violence' in old, and reactionary, Northern Ireland
language).
However the resistance by Hizbullah's armed
force proved more dogged than Israel imagined, and Hizbullah
were also able to fire rockets into Israel, meaning that
the deaths, though much worse on the Lebanese side were
also significant for the Israelis. When military action
ground more slowly, eventually even Bush and Blair supported
a ceasefire, the Lebanese army moved in to control areas
and the UN slowly mobilised to provide another interventionist
force. Around 1,100 civilians were killed in Lebanon and
about 40 in Israel; Israel lost around 80 soldiers and,
while claiming to have killed 500 Hizbullah fighters,
around 100 deaths are definite.
Strategically it was certainly not a victory
for Israel. Despite being previously bogged down in Lebanon,
Israel relearnt that its army is not invincible and, while
they killed many Hizbullah militants, Hizbullah could
hold its head even higher in the Arab world as having
stood up against the military might of Israel (late on
in the war, Israel had 30,000 soldiers in Lebanon). Meanwhile
a huge amount of infrastructure in Lebanon was destroyed
and people even more likely to support Hizbullah.
Without reference to the conflict over Palestine,
none of this makes sense. It is the injustice suffered
by the Palestinian people which drives this conflict in
the Middle East and specifically the conflict in Gaza
which led to the Hizbullah kidnapping. Gaza, for example,
is one of the ten poorest territories on earth in terms
of wealth production because there is no possibility of
developing the economy. While Israel's removal of its
settlers from Gaza may have been positive, its policy
of expansion on the West Bank is disastrous for any possible
settlement, and that and its security wall mean that Palestine
must remain a kind of bantustan [an artificial apartheid
era statelet set up by South Africa to give the impression
of democracy and local control] rather than a state.
Of course there are security issues for
Israel. But the way to turn enemies into friends is not
to attack them and deprive them of resources (water, land,
human rights). The right of return for Jews to Israel
is a factor in the Israeli demand for land and its theft
of Palestinian land. Palestinians in exile abroad, several
million of them, have no 'right of return', even if born
there; any Jew, anywhere in the world, even without any
previous connection with the state of Israel, has the
right of 'return' to Israel.
If Israel can find it in its heart to deal
justly with Palestinians, giving them back the land which
international agreements specified is theirs, and allowing
the development of a viable political, social and economic
state of Palestine, they will find that Palestinians specifically,
and Arabs in general, will move on, and they can live
in comparative peace. The 'security' road to security
is usually a road to perpetual insecurity. When Israel
deals justly with Palestinians then the wars of the Middle
East will become a thing of the past. That is not to say
that Arab and other Islamic states have not exacerbated
the situation but the driving force is the Palestinian
question. Meanwhile the UK and USA should know better
then to encourage Israel in a foolhardy war, but then
the current leaders of both these countries are foolhardy
and have learnt nothing when it comes to making decisions
about war.
The Irish government took the decision not
to allow bombs, including bunker-busters, be transported
from the USA via Shannon airport for use by Israel in
Lebanon and must be commended for this decision (these
bombs went via Scotland instead, provoking protests there).
Why the Irish government did not make the same decision
to deny US troops and supplies to the war in Iraq is another
question, however, and in the light of the history of
the Iraqi war one which is difficult to answer. If anti-war
activists had not made Shannon a hot political potato,
would the Irish government have made this decision on
bombs for use in Lebanon? Quite possibly not.
The action of the Derry/Raytheon 9 in throwing computers
out the window during their occupation of Raytheon offices
in Derry (see news section) brings back into focus the
debate about damage to property in nonviolent action.
Nonviolence is a broad 'church' and there is space for
those who believe it's perfectly fine in a campaign and
those who believe it's not, or may only be in very particular
circumstances, and there is space within nonviolence for
people to believe and do different things. But, as with
the Catholic Worker/Pit Stop Ploughshares 5 damage to
a US war plane at Shannon, some of Irish society went
into a moral panic which seemed to say more about people's
own insecurities and hang-ups than about (in the Shannon
case) damage done to a foreign warplane of a state at
war parked in a supposedly 'neutral' state. An Irish Independent
columnist went so far after the acquittal of the Shannon
5 to say it was now fine if you wanted to damage any hippies'
car or van (that this acquittal provided grounds for this
kind of action).
So perhaps it is wise to step back a minute
and reflect on violence to property. Sheila Rose and Lynne
Shivers' exploration of "7
Controversies in Nonviolent Action" includes
the briefest of arguments on the two sides of property
destruction and sabotage. There are a number of questions
and issues.
The first questions are - What is the specific
campaign about, what is the context, and what stage are
protests at? In the case of Raytheon in Derry, the campaign
to have it removed has been going on since its arrival.
Raytheon also lied through their teeth for some years
by saying they (the Derry branch of Raytheon) were only
engaged in civil contracts until, as ex-employees clearly
stated, it was proved there was considerable military
involvement. No political parties demanded they be removed
when it was proved that they had lied about military contracts.
But it would not be appropriate to be involved in destruction
of property as the first stage in a campaign when starting
to try to conscientise people on the issue (more about
pragmatics in a minute). There is also the fact that there
is meant to be a peace process of some sort in Northern
Ireland, and the irony of a military firm setting up in
a place trying to emerge from conflict - and the additional
irony that most political parties see no irony in this
fact.
The action of the Derry 9 was also taken
at the height of the Lebanon war when killing was going
on at a fierce rate. The Anti-War Coalition in Derry has
available a journalists' listing of all the bombings,
shellings, killings and violent acts going on in Lebanon
during the eight hours that the Derry 9 were in occupation
of the Raytheon offices. This helps put their action into
perspective at a time when Raytheon products were unleashing
death on men, women and children in Lebanon. The USA,
UK, and Israel were the only three countries to oppose
an immediate ceasefire in Lebanon. Once again Tony Blair
danced to the tune of George Bush which certainly led
to an increase in the feeling of total impotence for people
living within the boundaries of the UK (and Derry is -
just about! - in that category).
A second set of questions include whether
the property being destroyed is personal, of sentimental
and symbolic value to people, and whether it is part of
a violent and oppressive system. What effect is an action
going to have on relationships, and with whom? Destroying
the symbols of a nation or ethnic or other group may be
highly counter-productive and communicate violence; even
burning a flag such as the 'Stars and Stripes' is likely
to come across being petty-mindedly anti-USA. Raytheon,
on the other hand, is a key part of the USA's military-industrial
complex and a key supplier of weapons used in Israel's
assault on Lebanon.
A third area of questioning is whether any
accompanying violence has been done against people. It
is possible to be so focussed on a goal of destroying
something that people (police, security guards, company
employees etc) getting in the way are treated violently,
or are considered not to count and therefore treated with
contempt and violence. This is a danger and, in the nonviolent
canon, can be avoided best by careful preparation and
training so that people are clear, and prepared, for what
their goals are and clear what not to do.
A fourth area is about accepting responsibility
for the destruction of property. 'Hidden' destruction
might be called sabotage but nonviolent activists accept
the consequences of their actions, usually waiting to
be arrested by police after an action. They may feel,
argue and clearly state that they have committed no crime
but the state is likely to see it differently and subject
them to the full rigours of the law (and, in the case
of the Derry Raytheon 9, even the ridiculous prospect
of a no-jury Diplock court for 'terrorist' offences).
The outcome of this process is uncertain and the state
apparatus, or people within it, may feel vindictive and
do their utmost to secure a conviction and heavy sentence.
The final questions about an action are
in the area of whether they advance peace and justice,
or hinder it. This is actually very difficult to foresee
beforehand and even difficult to judge afterwards. If
an action causes revulsion of a kind which damages the
overall movement then it may not have been productive.
However, just because there is a knee jerk reaction from
many in the public over a particular action does not necessarily
mean that long term damage has been done to building an
effective campaign and movement; its symbolic and innovatory
nature may inspire other people to get involved, and those
who react negatively might be people who actively supported
armed violence by states and less likely to have their
mind changed by some other symbolic action which did not
involve destruction of property. In the case of the Shannon
warplane, three and a half years down the line it put
a large question mark over the Irish government's permission
for the USA to use Shannon as a warport when twelve Irish
citizens on a jury, chosen at random, decided no crime
had been committed in damaging a US warplane.
But as to whether an action advances peace
and justice or not, the answer may be clear cut and it
may not. In the case of the Shannon defendants they went
through a very difficult three and a half years and three
trials before being acquitted. Bail and trials are very
wearing in any case and to have to go through three trials
is mind-bogglingly difficult for those involved. Another
point is that there are people who by temperament and
personal circumstances are happy to risk going through
this legal minefield with an uncertain outcome, and possible
sentence at the end. There are others who may do valuable
work in working for peace but would never dream of going
through this, perhaps for principled reasons, or whose
personal circumstances (work, parenting etc) would militate
against it. And while actions of this sort may garner
publicity and seem glamorous, there should be no hierarchy
in thinking that doing this kind of 'nonviolent direct
action' is necessarily more effective than some other
sort of activity which may get no publicity but be just
as good, or better, in building a peaceful future. And
for those who are Christians it perhaps needs stated that
Jesus drove moneychangers from the temple, overturning
tables, in righteous indignation; if this is not a Christian
precedent for nonviolent direct action, it is difficult
to know what is (apart altogether from the concept of
swords into ploughshares).
In the case of the Derry 9 they acted in
the heat of the war situation in Lebanon and it is to
their credit that felt compelled to act when so many others
felt impotent. How long the resultant legal process will
drag out, and what the outcome will be, we will have to
wait and see. They deserve the solidarity and support
of all those who oppose war and death as a means of solving
conflict and of those who desire a peaceful solution in
the Middle East.
lResponses welcome to this as to all material
in 'Nonviolent News' (please indicate if not for publication).
- - - - - - -
A report by Tony Manasseh, Beirut
28 August 2006
Well, the war has stopped and circulation
is slowly going back to semi-normal. People are coming
out of their holes to check on their belongings and each
other. There is a general feeling of despair and apprehension
as to what all that destruction has achieved. Destruction
is in the billions and over 200,000 Lebanese have fled
the country mostly from the Christian community. Businesses
and industries have huge losses apart from the infrastructure
of the country. Tourism, the main lifeline of the Lebanese
economy has been brought to a halt. Investors' appetite
for Lebanon, another major lifeline, will need time to
re-appear. The general feeling is that of despair, consolidation
and counting the losses. TV programs keep updating that
in money terms. Burying the dead out of the collective
ditches into private cemeteries provide sad pictures for
news programmes. Foreign emissaries, world organisations
and NGO's as well as Arab officials are arriving here
to check on the damage and assess the aid needed.
The Blockade is still in effect and, although
the airport is open, all flights in and out have to pass
through Amman/Jordan to check the manifest of passengers,
providing more delays and inconvenience to travellers
as if to remind people that the embargo is still on. Power
supply is still at 50% and fuel rationing is still in
effect. Businesses are dismissing employees, as they had
made no provision against a war. A potential social problem
in sight. Schools and universities are scheduled to open,
if they were not destroyed, by the 9th October. Many have
lost 30-40% of their pupils due to relocation or emigration.
Some will eventually come back, but as with every war
episode Lebanon has had, more and more will seek final
settlement in the countries they have fled to. Braindrain
is a tremendous loss to Lebanon although some argue that
it enriches the Lebanese Diaspora.
Politically, there is no real understanding
or explanation as to what happened. Hizballa politicians
and leadership seem to regret having started all that
destructive process but seem to have earned tremendous
respect and appreciation from Arab populace for lasting
so long in the face of the Israeli army. Previous Arab
Israeli wars never lasted more than a few days when it
was armies fighting. There is great fear that Hizballa
will gain local power in the cabinet and in future elections.
Syria and Iran still have a huge manipulating hand in
Lebanon and there is a lot to be sorted out on the social
and demographic scenes. Iranian nuclear adventures are
still paramount and the reaction from the west, coming
up end August, will be worthwhile watching. UNIFIL and
the multinational forces have started coming in and the
number is expected to reach 12 -15 thousand. Their mission
is clearly to establish peace in the Lebanon-Israeli boarder
area and de-mine the fields the Israelis left behind.
Some border problems on the Syrio-Lebanese borders are
emerging and that may be a potential problem as well.
One important aspect of the damage is the
environmental one. Apart from the oil slick now, taking
enormous proportions as more is found out about it, there
are articles in local papers talking about arsenic material
that were dropped/sprayed by Israeli bombs and planes
over the agricultural areas in the south and the Bekaa,
producing pungent smell and killing the crops. It is known
that this material if ingested by humans and animals will
produce birth defects and mental retardation in new-borns.
This still has to be verified by the scientific community.
If it is true, this is mass murder and annihilation of
a people. The country is in dire need of help and re-organisation.
This 33-day war has been by far the most destructive Lebanon
ever had. What has been achieved? Destruction of Lebanon.
As usual Lebanon, fragile as it is, pays the price of
war and peace.
The political discourse is rapidly changing
and there are conflicting signals of war and peace. One
thing I see certain: matters will not be the same after
this war. If the good intentions of the major players
are there, the area could go towards peace from here.
There is enough awareness that a just peace is needed
and that wars have never resolved disputes. The balance
of powers is visible and can be ripe for peace. However,
there seems to be a recurring attempt to ignite the area
into long-term strife that will eventually change the
map of the region to accommodate ethnic and religious
groups or to shift adventurous groups to play each other
on fertile soils. If this is the case, we are in for a
long haul.
I believe we are at the crossroads of these
two scenarios. Active peacework has to grow. Fairness
has to be made visible and highlighted. It is not permitted
that so much unfairness is still around in the same place
for so long. This Middle East problem needs to be looked
at on the basis of equal dignity to all its peoples. Someone
should have learned that an equal hand is needed to sponsor
peace. There can not remain to be an aggressor and a victim.
Terror and horror should be interpreted differently.
- - - - - - - -
Larry Speight brings us his monthly column
In a recent radio interview Prime Minister
Tony Blair said that we all have a role to play in reducing
the negative impact we have upon the environment, mentioning
in particular the impact low-energy light bulbs would
have in reducing carbon emissions if used by every household
in the country. Although this is absolutely correct, the
reality is that our daily lives, and the ability for us
to live in an eco-sensitive way is in the main shaped
by the financial and physical infrastructure provided
by governments in collusion with the large corporations.
In fact it is the large corporations that determine the
framework in which we live our lives. The following figures
provided by Antonia Juhasz in her book The Bush Agenda
(2006) illustrate this.
"In many ways, corporations have supplanted
governments as the dominant economic force in the world
today. In 2002, corporations represented fifty-two of
the hundred largest economies in the world." (p.
100)
Corporations have the economic clout to
impose their will on governments, who at their behest
write the rules of national and international commerce.
In fact one could argue that in a good many countries,
such as the United States, it is the corporations who
form the government in all but brand name. The rules of
commerce as determined by the WTO enable corporations
to place their factories in countries with the cheapest
labour costs, lowest taxes, and most lenient environmental
regulations. The corporations through the World Bank and
the IMF persuade governments to privatize basic services,
which of course means that the poor are further trampled
underfoot.
Juhasz reports that when South Africa privatized
the state-owed telephone company and the water sector
ten million people, namely poor blacks, had their telephones
and water disconnected because they could not afford to
pay their bills. One result of this is that in the late
1990s, diarrhea killed 43,000 children a year in South
Africa because of lack of clean water. Tales of mass deprivation
and misery can be cited the world over, at root due not
to people's unwillingness to work, but to the wealth of
corporations. As Mike Davis informs us in his book Planet
of Slums (2006) the majority of the world's population
live in poverty, oppressed, disposed, and starving, and
that slum dwellers in poor countries make up 78.2% of
urban populations. When one lives in a situation of near
starvation, as most of humankind does, the option of consciously
behaving in an eco-sensitive way does not exist. So, apart
from people in rich countries taking practical measures
to live in an eco-friendly way, how in the face of the
greed of the corporations and the support they receive
from governments, can the biosphere be saved from collapse?
I will leave this question for readers to ponder.