Apologizing for terrorism is completely indefensible. Have people forgotten MLK and Gandhi’s teachings? Have people forgotten the Velvet and Singing Revolutions in Eastern Europe against the Soviet/Russian Empire?
The Soviets murdered millions, deported millions to Siberia, bugged telephones, banned books, outlawed native languages, encouraged Russians to emigrate to occupied nations to dilute the indigenous cultures, assassinated and jailed dissidents — it was the Orwellian horror come true. (Please read, “Lithuanians, Jews, Nazis, the Holocaust, and Collective Guilt,” and “That Other Holocaust, Revisited.”)
But, for example, the Balts (Lithuanians, Latvians, and Estonians) never turned to terrorism during 50 years of brutal occupation. They organized secret meetings, passed banned books around, held clandestine cultural festivals — held tenaciously onto their culture. In their ultimate act of rejection of Soviet oppression, thousands of people held hands forming a chain across all three Baltic nations. Now that’s beauty. That’s what MLK and Gandhi taught.
Estonia (1.3 million people), Latvia (2.3 million people), and Lithuania (3.6 million), all three with few natural resources, never had a chance of facing off militarily against the might of Russia (141 million) with virtually unlimited natural resources.
The Balts didn’t blow up cafes full of civilians. Same goes for African-Americans led by MLK against the U.S. status quo of the time, or Gandhi against the British Empire, or now the infinitesimally small Tibet against 1.3 billion Chinese.
Turning to terrorism takes a twisted, immoral, despicable consciousness — an unwillingness to accept personal responsibility, and an abrogation of common decency.
Cross-posted at netwmd.com and NeoConstant.
Democracy means the rule of law, property rights, separation of religious rule and state, representational government accountable to the people, civil rights, and civilian audit of a robust military. Democracy is currently the most mature form of political system for peacefully organizing societies and allowing citizens to realize their full potential as human beings.
on Jul 22nd, 2008 at 10:41 pm
Great essay, Andrew. All across the globe and throughout history one can see that the peaceful resistances, or even the military resistances that targeted only occupying military forces rather than civilians, have been far more effective than terrorism.
One problem with terror is that it leaves everyone–both the resistance and the occupiers–broken and empty. The Palestinians would have much more beautiful lives if it weren’t for the terrorists. It’s really very sad, in fact. Without terror, I think Palestine would already be its own State…
on Jul 22nd, 2008 at 10:52 pm
Yes. The law of karma is inescapable. All of our actions have repercussions, and some much more than others. To purposely target civilians as a means to an end is selling one’s soul to heal the body — but the body is worthless without a soul. A nation built on terror would be a nation without a soul.
Thanks E.D.
on Jul 23rd, 2008 at 1:53 pm
I appreciate the sentiment of the article but…
Gandhi is well-known but not the totality of the Indian revolutionary movement. The Ghaddar Party advocated violence as do the Naxalites and other radical leftists today. That includes violence against political opponents i.e. civilians.
The civil rights movement gave rise to Black Power militancy. Many of these organizations advocated “armed struggle” against whitey and “the system.” Some engaged in terrorism.
Context matters. Action is a matter of will (motivation) plus capacity. What was the capacity of Baltic revolutionaries versus the USSR? Would the use of violence precipitate freedom or lead to horrendous consequences? After the Hungarian Revolution (1956) was crushed, I suspect many erstwhile revolutionaries in the Soviet satellites were reluctant to use force against the Red Army.
The context in Palestine, to provide one example, was completely different. In contrast to Russian control of the Baltic nations, British occupation of Palestine was not very popular at home. As the Zionists started using force against the British, many British voters wanted to see the U.K. leave Palestine. And make no mistake, some Zionist groups did engage in terrorism (the use of force against civilians). To be clear they were a minority, the use of terrorism was not on the same scale as the Islamist groups today, it was considered a tactic of last resort, but we should not deny this. Would non-violence have produced the same results? I suspect not. Same with Algeria. There are many other examples.
I guess what I’m getting at is what is successful at one time and in a specific place is not universally successful. Revolution and national liberation is not a “one size fits all” project.
“The law of karma is inescapable.”
The “law of karma” is a metaphysical abstraction. It is based on a theory of reincarnation where your present life is determined by previous actions. The goal is moving up the caste ladder until you are a Brahman (highest caste) and can attain Moksha (freedom/salvation). Americans have dumbed down the theory to a caricature (“My Name is Earl”) as people often do with foreign beliefs, philosophies and ideologies. We are not unique in this regard.
Sorry for the long comment…
The New Centrists last blog post..Bernhard Goetz in the Holy Land: Settler Kills Bulldozer Terrorist
on Jul 23rd, 2008 at 3:33 pm
TNC–
All good points. One distinction to note between Zionist terrorism and modern Islamist terrorism is the targets involved. Zionists and many other militant groups throughout history have targeted police and military groups, whereas the modern Islamists target anything that moves, including their own people. They have taken terror to a new level, and a new age of cruelty and violence…
on Jul 23rd, 2008 at 6:31 pm
Thanks, E.D.
I am aware of the difference between targeting civilians, on the one hand, and the military or gendarme, on the other.
However, some revisionist Zionist organizations (Irgun, Lehi) did target civilians. The Irgun killed over 250 civilians between 1937 and 1939. Lehi assassinated British minister Lord Moyne in Cairo (1944) and UN mediator Count Bernadotte (1948).
Granted, they were in the minority and their actions were condemned by the Labor Zionists in the Haganah who dominated the Zionist movement at this time.
But the Haganah killed civilians as well. The most well-known case being the bombing of the Patria in 1940.
Again, the use of terrorism was a tactic of last resort and not widely supported in the Yishuv. Nevertheless, we should not pretend these events did not take place.
The New Centrists last blog post..James K. Glassman: Winning the War of Ideas
on Jul 23rd, 2008 at 6:43 pm
You’re actually dumbing down the concept by insisting on some type of scientific basis for everything. The law of action and reaction is inescapable. I don’t give a hoot about the caste system, and neither did the people who wrote the core Hindu/Buddhist scriptures (Vedas, Bhagavad-Gita, Dhammapada).
on Jul 23rd, 2008 at 7:03 pm
Well, I agree the discussion on karma is kind of silly. Let’s drop it, since we’re all basically saying the same thing and agreeing with one another.
Drew, meet the New Centrist–New Centrist, meet Drew. Both of you are supporters of Israel and both of you are “friends” of mine (in that virtual sense that the blogosphere creates).
Good points on the Lehi, etc. Yes, there were some violent measures taken by these fringe groups. It is very important to realize that these were the acts of last resort mostly following the holocaust and the British refusal to admit any more Jewish refugees.
Now look at Palestine. Act of last resort? No–it’s pandemic. Terror has become societal, accepted in a way that has never been seen in modern history…
on Jul 23rd, 2008 at 7:56 pm
Yeah, I’m a little touchy. The point of the article was to show people that they can choose, and to highlight the fact that there are historical precedents for peaceful revolution/evolution. The purpose was not to nit-pick through every single historical detail.
on Jul 23rd, 2008 at 8:21 pm
Totally, and it’s a good lesson–if only the Pali’s had the sense to heed it.
on Jul 24th, 2008 at 12:23 am
Hello Mr. Jaffe,
I liked the gist of your article. I was trying to move you towards a deeper understanding of what makes a successful revolution possible. Paeans for non-violence are not adequate.
“Action and reaction” is your own interpretation of Karma. It has nothing to do with what Karma actually means. This is a pop-culture version of Karma. I write this as someone with a Brahman Hindu wife. We were married in India. If you think Karma has little to do with the caste system you have very little knowledge. The people who wrote the Hindu scriptures were obsessed with caste purity.
There are some similarities in Judaism. For the orthodox, to marry outside of the tribe is incredibly negative, especially when someone marries an “idol worshiping” Hindu as I did. It may seem banal but these things are incredibly important to orthodox Hindus and Jews.
As you may gather from my comments, this is personal to me. It is not an abstraction. I deal with these issues on a regular basis. Please don’t misinterpret the religion and philosophy of people you have little understanding of, in order to fit your own world-view. It does not lead to greater illumination, only misunderstanding. Or worse, “New Age” exploitation.
Also, please don’t tell my in-laws that I think Karma is a metaphysical abstraction. They are orthodox Hindus and would not like that.
All the best,
TNC
on Jul 24th, 2008 at 1:18 am
Oh my G#d, what insulting trash. Who are you to tell me what level of understanding I have of the religion and philosophy or the East? I’m done here.
on Jul 24th, 2008 at 3:02 am
Well shit. Peace-making didn’t work too well, I see. TNC–Drew has a very deep knowledge of all sorts of things–religion, culture, it never ceases to amaze me. I think his use of the word karma was more or less the flippant version used so often in our culture these days–not an in-depth look into the caste system or hinduism, etc. So no need to fixate the conversation on that…
Damn it all, I think you both have excellent blogs and lots of good points and so forth, so why don’t we get back to fighting with the baddies, eh?
Peace and love and all that rot.
on Jul 24th, 2008 at 3:41 am
No, I was using one of the many-splendid spiritual interpretations of the word “karma.” I personally reject the strict, ritualistic interpretation, akin to what the Hare Krishna’s believe, and which for example, the Bhagavad-Gita rejects. “I am the ritual, I am the Yajna, I am the offering, I am the herb, I am the mantra, I am the Ghee, I am the fire, and I am the oblation.” In other words, the ritual and the caste system are irrelevant.
But that’s irrelevant. I posted an article, and ended up getting a lecture about a religious interpretation of a word, and something about, “a deeper understanding of what makes a successful revolution possible,” which are both completely patronizing.
I’m not interested in lecturing any of your authors about anything.
on Jul 24th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
Totally understandable. (and by flippant, I mean many people use the term karma without really wanting to go into the detailed historical version of the word–like someone is a jerk and then gets in a bike accident, and you say “that’s just karma…)
on Jul 24th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
“I’m not interested in lecturing any of your authors about anything.”
Sorry for offending you. I am not an author here, merely commenting on your post. Blogs with comment fields are meant for interaction and discussion. Including people you may disagree with. If I read something I disagree with, I’m going to make a comment. If I did it in a rude manner, again, my apologies.