I'm Not Endorsing The Path of Violence

As death continues to reign in Gaza, the Israeli army prepares for invasion and the US and allies stand idly by with the same old refrain...."Israel has the right to defend itself". The new face of change, Obama, is included in this Greek chorus of the ongoing tragedy being carried out.

The rationale for killing over 300 and destroying entire communities by accounts of the mainstream media is 7 dead Israeli citizens from the rocket attacks of groups in the Gaza strip. The truth, of course, is Israel is challenging the new President's loyalty to Zionist causes before he even takes the oath of office. The invasion and bombings were every bit as planned as was the war in Iraq. It was inevitable Israel would start the violence once again and continue it until they get what they want; a government they can control rather than one "democratically" elected.

Of course, the US can't condemn Israel's actions since they are so much like the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. The military strategy is simple; pound the target area with bombs and artillery killing indiscriminately to soften things up. Once the chaos, death and destroyed infrastructure is completed, the ground troops aided by helicopter gunships and on call air support enter and occupy. It's the Falllujah strategy. It was refined in Vietnam and carried over to the Middle East.

We fool ourselves, however, if we think voicing our outrage will do much more than validate that we care about the inhumanity of our biggest ally in the world stage. I don't say we shouldn't voice outrage however futile it is. I do suggest we not forget the great urgency we have to build a stronger coalition of activist that spans all cultures and ethnic groups.We have AIPAC and the military industrial complex to overcome to have our voices heard. Only when the numbers reach the scale of the Vietnam moratorium days or the days of Dr. King will the reasonable voices of peace and justice be heard.

I've worked with many activists in my 60 years of life. The most effective have been the men and women who decried the violence of all sides of conflict. The continued killing of those people caught between the two or more political forces at war isn't true revolution or peace and justice. The eye for an eye mentality so often demontrated by the warring sides is a vile repudiation of peace and justice for anyone.

I've been a participant in this insanity of war. The code was retribution for any of our Marines killed by the other side. If a sniper in a village killed one of us, that village was likely to disappear and evacuation of the innocent wasn't part of the deal. My Lai wasn't an isolated incident of war. That fact is finally coming out forty years after the war in Vietnam.

Retribution and revenge killing is common in wars. If I am to offer my support for the insurgents of Iraq, Afghanistan or Gaza, I'm forgetting the concept of peace and justice. Killing and destruction may make us feel good if it is inflicted on the "bad guys" but we give up a large chunk of our humanity to feel satisfaction about killing other humans.

I read and hear anarchists, liberals, progressives, Marxists, socialists and others talk enthusiastically about the struggle with the thinking violence is a logical tool of the struggle. I hardly ever hear that from the combat veterans who have gone that route. Young idealists with rage and frustration in their heart are misdirected in thinking violence will get them peace and justice. They're quick to recall Malcolm X and other radical figures in the past but forget Malcolm came to the conclusion violence wasn't the path.

Rhetoric about violent revolution is one thing, carrying out violence against a stronger and larger force is another. Entering the battle with spears against tanks, artillery and air power may be brave of those who actually engage but it's pretty damn stupid and a waste of life.

I've heard young radicals talk a good story of resistance and struggle but seen them disappear when heads started getting bashed. I've seen vocal leaders encourage their followers to act in violent ways but they always seem to be missing when the violence they encouraged happens. I've listened to impassioned speakers encourage others to resist and act but the only part they take is their words. They don't face the guns or the prisons. They seldom even risk arrest.

I'm not inclined to listen to rhetoric of phonies encouraging us to act violently, to resist and risk prison or to confront the oppressors if they don't walk their talk. And there's a lot of them out there. Now, folks like Kathy Kelly, Roy Bourgeois, Ardeth Platte, Carol Gilbert and Jackie Hudson walk the talk and do it nonviolently. Their voices are strong and determined.

So, salute the leaders of violent means of change if you choose but don't expect things to change all that much. The power of the gun is a false god that leads only to more violence.