The Way to Build a Peace Movement

by Aron Trauring

Recently, two people I respect raised some interesting questions about the peace movement. They complained about what they saw as the hypocrisy of the left for not being concerned about the suffering of the Iraqi people and for being anti-war just because it's Bush at the helm. When principled people raise valid criticisms, they can't just be ignored. So, in a positive vein, I want to talk about what principles a real peace movement must espouse.

1. A peace movement must act peacefully

This is the first principle. If we oppose violence, we must not use violence as a tool of resistance or protest. This is not only a moral stance, but a practical one as well. First the moral argument: I have been castigated by some for attacking the violence of Palestinian resistance groups, particularly the Hamas. Some argue that violence is justified by the Palestinians as an act of self defense. I do believe self defense is morally justified. There is a rabbinic expression which encapsulates this moral stance: "Is his blood redder than mine?" If the choice is between my death or my attacker's death, then sacrificing my own life is not a morally superior choice. The same can be said of defending defenseless innocents from attackers, and on a larger scale, for a society defending itself against attack.

However, self defense must be extremely narrowly defined, both for individuals and nations. What criterion can we use to define self-defense as clearly as possible? In societies ruled by law, the act of self defense must be so obvious that no reasonable person can deny it as such. We can apply the same rule to resistance movements and to international relations as well. How much more so, for a movement advocating peace. Using violence as an act of protest has no direct effect in stopping the killing. To act with violence is hypocrisy of the worst sort.

Using violence to bring about peace is inherently a contradictory act. When people see peace activists acting violently, far from convincing them of the justice of the cause, it makes them view the peace movement as morally bankrupt.

2. The ends never justify the means

This is a corollary of point 1 and true on both moral and pragmatic grounds. The moral argument is obvious. The pragmatic one is also the strongest argument against those who support Bush's war (the means) in order to redeem the Iraqi people from Saddam's oppression (the ends). Bush & Co. are the same people who embraced Saddam when it was clear to the world he was a madman and a dictator. These are the same people that sold out the Kurds and the Shiites last time around. How can these "means" be trusted to achieve peace for the Iraqi people?

Even if the Americans had the best of intentions going in (which they don't), the occupation will inevitably be brutal. Since they have bad intentions to begin with, the occupation will almost inevitably be a disaster both for Iraqis and Americans.

3. A peace movement must oppose aggression of any sort

This is another obvious corollary of point 1. If I oppose Bush, I can't support Saddam who by any definition is a ruthless murderer. If I oppose Sharon, I can't support Arafat or Sheik Yassin, who also espouse violence and transfer as part of their national cause. Consistent moral standards must be applied to all sides of a conflict.

4. The first pillar: A peace movement is first and foremost an educational enterprise

Peace movements tend to be reactive, letting the political leadership set their agenda. But peace won't be achieved by opposing specific wars. Peace can only be achieved through long-term efforts educating people on the meaning and goals of peace and compassionate justice. The emphasis here is on long-term. Peace activists tend to be impatient and grow bored if there are no immediate results. Without a long-term commitment, we can never effect change. The settler movement in Israel, by the way, is a great example of a movement that focused on the long-term and thereby achieved its goals, sadly to the detriment of us all.

5. The second pillar: A peace movement must have a social agenda

This is a controversial point, no doubt. But ultimately, if you believe, as I do, that war is a racket, the way wars will end and real disarmament become part of the international agenda, is through social change -- thereby undermining the economic control of the war mongerers. This point also reinforces the centrality of education. Real social change can only come through education. Because this is a long term process, violence is often advocated as a shortcut. Repeat points 1 and 4 and remember: there are no shortcuts to peace.

6. The third pillar: A peace movement must work to alleviate the suffering that war brings

First we must work to remove the political conditions that are leading to war, and thereby try to prevent a war from happening in the first place. That is why the peace movement needs to support the weapons inspection process and oppose the sanctions against Iraq. (Unfortunately, this should have been on the agenda during the Clinton administration, but the left cut him too much slack.) Then when war breaks out, to work for ending it as quickly and peacefully as possible. Opposing the war does not mean reveling in the death of American soldiers and hoping this war drags on for a long time just to show that Bush was wrong. Once it ends, to ensure the humanitarian needs of the war-ravaged population are addressed. This means making sure Bush isn't let off the hook (as the peace movement is doing by ignoring the humanitarian disaster brewing in Afghanistan.) And finally, post-war, to work toward removing the political conditions that led to war in the first place. That is, to go back to the beginning to ensure that war will not break out again. In the case of both Iraq and Palestine, this means these countries must be put under UN protection and taken out of the hands of the occupiers (the U.S. and Israel respectively).

7. The fourth pillar: A peace movement must work for universal disarmament

Since World War I the mechanization of war has accelerated to the point that all wars involve mass destruction, with civilian populations bearing the brunt. War has become the ultimate act of terror. The shameless use of the name "shock and awe" for the barbaric bombing of Baghdad makes this point with laser precision. Those who truly oppose terrorism must demand universal disarmament. Deterrent forces must be maintained, no doubt, under international supervision. But the massive spending in Western countries on weapons development and procurement are acts of aggression, not defense. We can only demand that petty tyrants give up their "weapons of mass destruction," if we are willing to give up our own.

8. Involvement in politics is a secondary activity for a peace movement

By "politics" I am referring to supporting this or that political candidate or party. This may seem surprising, but replacing one leader with another usually has marginal effects for change. Both Democratic and Republican American Presidents perpetrated horrific acts over the years. The differences between Israel's Labor and Likud is quite narrow. There are exceptions, where a political leader can and does make a positive difference, at least in terms of short term goals. But remember it was Nixon who ended the Vietnam war and Johnson who escalated it. Repeat point 4. We must first change society and then we will have good leaders.

9. Don't be disturbed if not everyone involved in the movement understands these principles

People have many different reasons to oppose war. But the Rabbis tell us: "Mi toch she lo l'shma bah l'shma" which means:  even when someone does a good deed for the wrong reasons, eventually it
will influence their internal behavior and it will help them become a better person internally as well. In other words, actions are primary, intentions are secondary.

I know you can turn this latter sentence around and apply this to Bush and his war. But note the beginning: "if a person does a good deed." The point is that violence is inherently bad, and requires overwhelmingly positive intentions and moral purity to overcome its evil force. When done out of evil intention, it can only lead to more evil. The Rabbis had a saying for this as well: a Mitzva (good deed) leads to another Mitzva, a transgression leads to more transgressions.

10. Believe in change.

I recently brought this quote from Chomsky:


One last Rabbinical quote: