The Journal of Multimodal Rhetorics

Aline Nguyễn

 

(This work is a collage of conversations, drawn from various sources, pieced together to interrupt and interact—as if in conversation. My own voice is part of these conversations.)

 

“Muqawama sha’biya, the term commonly used in Palestine, is roughly translated as popular resistance. The word sha’biya has its roots in sha’b (people) and is understood by many Palestinians to refer to the kinds of resistance practiced by large numbers of the population” (Qumsiyeh, 2011, p. 11).[1]

 

Jacqueline: But you talk for your people or you talk for yourself?

Stokely[2]: Well, I fight for myself because I believe everybody must fight for himself.

Jacqueline: Yes.

Stokely: And in a larger sense, I fight for my people. But, uhm, if you're not for yourself, who will be for you?

George: If you were not for your people, who will be for them? (Brook, 1968)

 

“Popular resistance in Palestine is a movement of direct action intended to accomplish what other similar movements have done before:

1. Pressuring opponents to understand the injustice that they engage in.
2. Weakening the grip of opponents on power.
3. Strengthening the community, including forms of empowerment and steadfastness (sumud in Arabic).
4. Bolstering the ability to withstand injustice and do something about it (a positive, can-do attitude is challenging with any other technique).  
5. Building self-sufficiency and improving standards of living.
6. Achieving justice, including the right to return and self-determination” (Qumsiyeh, 2011, p. 32).

 

Stokely: Where they want what? Peace?

Stokely: There's a difference between peace and liberation, is there not? You can have injustice and have peace, isn't that correct?

Jacqueline: Yes

George: You can have peace and be enslaved.

Jacqueline: Yes

Stokely: So peace isn't the answer.

Jacqueline: No

Stokely: Liberation is the answer.

Jacqueline: Yes, of course.

Stokely: Ok, then, that's what you should talk about, never peace. That's the white man's word, peace. Liberation is our word.

Mark: But you'll want peace in the end.

Stokely: Yes, but you can't have peace until everybody is equal.

Mark: But you seem free at the moment.

Stokely: I seem peaceful at the moment.

Mark: You seem free.

Stokely: I seem peaceful.

Stokely, to George: Am I free?

George: I think not (Brook, 1968).

 

“First and foremost, when history is written objectively about all these struggles, there is never any question of the right of the people being colonized to defend themselves and mount a vigorous resistance to those oppressing them” (Qumsiyeh, 2011, p. 13).

 

“I denounce violence in the form of any identities, gender, sexual orientation, nationalism, religion, or any other form of identity to justify violence. I think we should have all forms of violence as taboo.” (Carter School for Peace and Conflict Resolution, 2023).[3]

 

Stokely: I think that when people are oppressed, any act of violence is self-defense (Brook, 1968).

 

“I reaffirm a fundamental principle that lies at the very heart of our institution: an unwavering opposition to all forms of war and violence [and] commitment to peace.
We firmly oppose all forms of violence and injustice and unequivocally condemn the attacks perpetrated by Hamas, as well as the ongoing prosecution of the war by Israel. With dozens of armed conflicts worldwide, the need for champions of peace and dialogue is evident” (Feasel, 2023).

 

“As well meaning as these two men are, they fail to understand the true nature of the struggle by reducing the message to a statement about the undesirability of violence on the part of an oppressed people. Both ignore the rich history of precisely such nonviolent struggle while failing to appreciate what Palestinians really want: freedom and the right of return, not a flag over a canton called a state” (Qumsiyeh, 2011, p. 1).

“Societal violence has traditionally been legitimized and legalized, while violence by non-state actors has been denounced and made illegal, giving the state a monopoly on its use” (Qumsiyeh, 2011 p. 5).

 

Stokely: Because I think that what is going to happen is that the people who their societies oppress are going to come together and probably blow them off the face of the Earth.

Mark: Who's gonna do that?

Stokely: The peoples of the Third World, the colored peoples, whom their societies have oppressed.

Mark: Why do you think that?

Stokely: Well, because a long time ago, they started believing they were superior to everybody else, and they developed weapons to help maintain that position of superiority. And they have oppressed and suppressed; they have disrupted societies; they have squashed cultures; they have ruined people's humanity.

Mark: So you think... They should be squashed, now?

Stokely: Well, they will not squash their society; they enjoy the benefits and the profits of their society, which is built upon the oppression and suppression of those other people, so they will have to be inevitably squashed--or, they will have to squash the other societies (Brook, 1968).

 

"First of all, I want to attain mutual recognition of our humanity, that we are all human beings" (Just Vision, 2009).[4]

 

The work of humanizing others is, indeed, important and necessary to building a better world. At the same time, I borrow these words from Students for Justice in Palestine at Penn State (2024): “Between Palestinians fighting for life and Israeli settlers killing Palestinians, stealing their homes in the West Bank, and blocking trucks of humanitarian aid to Gaza? What is 'shared humanity' between the oppressor and the oppressed?”

 

“Thousands of Palestinian civilians have been killed and tens of thousands injured over the past few decades for simply being Palestinian in Palestine. […] Every Palestinian has a story of oppression to tell beyond the issue of killing, injuring and unjust imprisonment” (Qumsiyeh, 2011, p. 30).

Stokely: See, there are different forms of violence. That's what white society tries to delude people with. I just read in the papers today that India--they're going to sterilize people. That's the most dastardly act of violence anyone can commit. To sterilize a human being. To stop them from reproducing. That's violent. That is more violent than shooting a man (Brook, 1968).

“In November 1967 the Israeli authorities issued Military Order 158, which stated that Palestinians could not construct any new water installation without first obtaining a permit from the Israeli army. Since then, the extraction of water from any new source or the development of any new water infrastructure would require permits from Israel, which are near impossible to obtain […] Palestinians consume on average 73 litres of water a day per person, which is well below the World Health Organization’s (WHO) recommended daily minimum of 100 litres per capita. In many herding communities in the West Bank, the water consumption for thousands of Palestinians is as low as 20 litres per person a day, according to the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA). By contrast, an average Israeli consumes approximately 300 litres of water a day.” (Amnesty International, 2017).

Now, nine months into ‘israel’s most recent escalations in its genocide of Palestinians, we witness violence, not only when the bombs are dropping or when the IOF employs ground invasions and guns people down, but also when the occupation denies nearly all access to the basic necessities of food, water, medical aid, shelter, and fuel. Palestinians are dying not only from injury, but also from heat, cold, malnutrition, starvation, dehydration, and disease.

This, too, is violence.

 

It is possible for the oppressed to see the humanity in the oppressor, and, at the same time, hold anger for the injustices that besiege every moment and aspect of the lives of those being oppressed. But, the dehumanization of those being oppressed is inseparable from being the oppressor—that is, so long as one remains an oppressor, one is incapable of fully humanizing those one oppresses. In this way, so long as one retains and embraces one’s so-called ‘israeli citizenship,’ one remains a settler-colonizer, an active oppressor, of the Palestinian people, and thus, continues to choose one’s own humanity over that of Palestinians’.

 

Mark: Do you think they're really being violent?
Stokely: I think they have to be; their society makes them violent. It's subconscious. They enjoy the living that they do. Because the economic security is derived from a system that allows them to enjoy that luxury.
Mark: But is that gonna get them anywhere?
Stokely: No, I think they're lost; they're hopeless. There's no hope for them (Brook, 1968).

 

“Dangerous is the moment when the powerful feel threatened. And, unfortunately, the powerful feel threatened very often, because they want to be powerful and they want to keep their power, right? So, the problem is not the threat. The problem is the perception of threat by the powerful that can respond to that threat in a destructive way.
Hopeful is the moment when everyone is powerful enough to experience a threat as an opportunity to cooperate” (Soka University of America, 2024).[5]

 

“In 1929, the number of Jewish immigrants was about 5,000; by 1933 this had risen to over 30,000 annually. Palestinians expressed their feelings against dumping Europe’s problems on them in mass demonstrations. […] On October 13, 1933, 7,000 angry demonstrators filled the streets of Jaffa. The British forces opened fire, killing twelve and wounding 78 Palestinians” (Qumsiyeh, 2011, p. 76).

 

“In a lot of cases, the 'powerless' party is not even able to express their conditions [to resolve a conflict]. The 'powerful' one is so powerful that they simply ignore the other one.
[…] The first violence that we do to one another is ignoring, is not seeing, is not recognizing—you don’t exist—or, your pain is nothing to me, your suffering is nothing to me—you are invisible; your suffering is nothing” (Soka University of America, 2024).

 

“In [1934], on May 12, a conference was held on the tax situation in Palestine to try to get the government to reduce the unfair tax burden at a time when increased Jewish migration had bankrupted many Palestinians and forced large numbers of farmers off their lands. The government ignored the unrest and continued with its policies of encouraging Jewish immigration and land purchases, supporting the Yishuv as a state-in-the-making and simultaneously pulling the rug from under the feet of the Palestinian farmers” (Qumsiyeh, 2011, p. 77).

 

Jacqueline: We just would like them [Americans]... to let—to leave us [Vietnamese] alone.

Stokely: Well, we asked them for the same thing for 400 years inside the United States. What goes next?

 

“In Palestine, resistance is made up of popular resistance (strikes, demonstrations, etc.), organized resistance in the form of committees and political movements for self-determination, and building economic and social self-sufficiency and independence in all spheres of life. These forms of popular resistance are supported by local religious and philosophical traditions that go back hundreds of years” (Qumsiyeh, 2011, p. 32).

“What is surprising is not the extent of the violent resistance, but the extent of steadfastness and nonviolent resistance among Palestinians. After all, the first suicide bombing was in April 1994, over 100 years after the start of the Zionist colonization program. Further, that suicide bombing occurred 40 days after an Israeli colonial settler (an American) entered a mosque in Hebron and killed 29 Palestinians, including children, and injured many others” (Qumsiyeh, 2011, p. 30).

 

Mark: But isn’t that kind of violence just going to breed more violence?

 

“First of all, I insist, violence is a reaction. Violence is a choice. It is not a necessary one. It is not an obligatory one. It's not the only one. It is never the only possible one.
Peace is also a choice and is not a reaction. Instead, it's the gift of attentive-seeking. It's always for the good of all. Peace is not just for me, not just for us; it's actually for everyone.” (Soka University of America, 2024).

 

“We must all be cognizant of the usual imbalance of power between the two and the fact that colonization never happens peacefully. Colonizers always use violence because it is the only way to remove people from the land, while those being colonized can choose to resist by other means” (Qumsiyeh, 2011, p. 7).

 

Stokely: No, white violence has bred colored violence, violence of colored people around the world. White violence is the one that is now going to be the brunt of that reaction. It is white violence that went to Asia, Africa, Latin America, plundered and raped the world. It is white violence that did that. Now, what they said was that they went to 'civilize' people, or they went to 'help' them, but we all know that's not true. Everybody knows that, not even white people believe that anymore. Take a look at that beautiful Vietnamese girl. The same people that oppress her oppress me (Brook, 1968).

 

"What directly led to the ‘Uprising of the Stones’ was a complex of internal and external factors – that is, a gradual intensification of Israeli repression responded to by (largely nonviolent) Palestinian resistance. The increase in intensity in these activities was not the result of a single cause or event but was due to an accumulation and intensification of Israeli repressive measures in the occupied areas” (Qumsiyeh, 2011, p. 168).

 

“The beauty […] is that, even when you are not recognized, you don’t exist, you don’t even start the negotiation, you have the capacity to respond with attentiveness, intelligence, reasonableness, and responsibility. So, the conflict may not be resolved in the present, […] but, well, y’know, time exists, it may not be solvable at the moment, but one party can actually keep open the possibility of a solution for both, at a later time.
[…] When the “powerless” party that is not even recognized, doesn’t give up, it keeps the option of solutions emerging later, not just for that party, but also for the others and for humanity as a whole” (Soka University of America, 2024).

“The moment from violent conflict to peace occurs through dialogue, through the mutual exchange of presence and meaning. Even when somebody is isolated in seeking this dialogue, in offering this dialogue, dialogue is still effective, because it keeps the possibility of an emergent, life-giving expression for future iteration” (Soka University of America, 2024).

 

This may sound beautiful and inspiring to some, but the reality of this vision is grueling. The labor of continually opening dialogue with another party may be necessary and admirable work, but how long must the oppressed parley with a party that has little to no interest in listening? “One party can actually keep open the possibility of a solution for both, at a later time,” but why must the party that is already laboring just to survive be expected to also take upon the labor of tirelessly offering olive branches to the very hands which continue to deal injustice on their peoples and their bodies? And, what is the cost of waiting? In the time we wait for the “powerful” oppressor to be ready to come to the table and not ignore us, how much more harm, suffering, injustice, violence, dehumanization, mutilation, and death are we expected to endure? Why must we wait? We are always told to wait. Why must we work on the oppressor’s timeline? When our peoples are hurting, when our peoples are dying, when our peoples are being genocided, we do not have the time to wait for peace to come without fighting back. We cannot rely on the chance that the oppressor may someday recover their humanity and morality; we must change our material conditions and pressure the oppressor into coming to the table. It is precisely for this reason that “dialogical” approaches alone will never bring peace—dialogue alone rarely changes material conditions.

 

"[The ‘Uprising of the Stones’] cost the Israeli economy over $2 billion (in 1990 US$) and forced many Israelis to re-evaluate whether it is possible to continue to occupy the West Bank and Gaza (this led to pressure on the government to negotiate peace)" (Qumsiyeh, 2011, p. 169).

 

Such a moment from which violent conflict transitions to peace through dialogue does not exist, because neither peace nor liberation may be achieved in a singular moment or with a single decree.

 

"The political process and the hope for a peace process ended the ‘Uprising of the Stones’ and ushered in the Oslo process" (Qumsiyeh, 2011, p. 170).

"The Oslo process is now recognized universally, including by many who were initially supportive of it, as disastrous as it led to:

• the fragmentation of the Palestinian people and cause;
• normalization of Israel as a Jewish state in over 60 countries and significant expansion of Israel’s economic power;
• weakening and marginalization of the PLO institutions to be replaced by the Ramallah-based Palestinian authority; and
• freeing up Israel to do what it wants in area C (over 60 percent of the West Bank and Gaza), doubling the number of settlers there in seven years and entrenching the system of apartheid.
Meanwhile the ‘peace process’ became an end in itself and a tool used by Israel to gain time to enforce more colonization" (Qumsiyeh, 2011, p. 239).

That's the white man's word, peace. Liberation is our word.  (Brook, 1968)

 

Liberation is a process rather than a moment: changing material conditions requires time…

it requires resistance against oppressive and repressive status quos, which oftentimes means destabilizing the oppressor’s power structure—therein disrupting their ‘peace’

it requires a variety of approaches, armed resistance to nonviolent resistance. And, nonviolence is not just limited to dialogue and sharing humanity; it is also the building of community and resources, preservation of land and culture, mass demonstrations—popular resistance.

Resisting in every way we can is important—every way of resisting is connected, in ways we may and may not know. The ways we can all do our parts look like infinity, and whatever skills we have at our disposal are our own to make into tools of resistance in any way we can imagine.

 

“The armed struggle is only part of the political struggle” (King, 1989, as cited in Qumsiyeh, 2011, p. 22).

 

“Acts of non-cooperation, civil disobedience and deflecting power can make the opponent lose balance, just as the act of engaging in nonviolent resistance immediately reveals that the power structure has failed. Beyond that, it can accomplish a great deal, including but not limited to the following:

• It can reduce the human resources that the rulers call on.
• It can deny knowledge and expertise.
• It can deny material resources (taxes, etc.).
• It can increase the costs (in terms of material and people) to the rulers of maintaining the system of oppression.

I believe that civil resistance’s greatest advantage is its ability to recruit and transform a large pool of people, thereby making a significant impact on society” (Qumsiyeh, 2011, p. 23).

 

 There is always a lot of thought and discussion and debate—critique, even—about what actions and types of actions are better/worse, more/less effective, necessary/unnecessary, flawed/improved/problematic... These are all essential discussions to hold in our communities, centering the judgements and concerns of those most impacted in our struggles.

And yet, still, every action is important.

 

“Nonviolent resistance demands strong leaders. In the first days of the occupation in 1967, the Palestinian nonviolence movement had a surplus. A dynamic voluntary work movement sprang up under the guidance of democratically elected municipal councils. This movement created jobs, built schools, established youth clubs, and created public libraries” (Qumsiyeh, 2011, p. 4).

 

Discussions about methods of resistance require nuance beyond the condemnation of all violence. After all, all resistance happens within context, and not all violence is the same (certainly not the violence of the oppressor and that of those they oppress).

 

“To those who believe in it, popular resistance is superior on both moral and utilitarian grounds. We believe violence is not easily defensible on utilitarian grounds because it breeds more violence and is usually counterproductive. Violence to defeat the opponent is a zero-sum game and generates opposition and, even if ‘successful’, can create traumatic post-conflict situations that are very difficult to overcome (compare Algeria after liberation from French colonialism). But also in terms of morality, violence creates the kind of society that we all think of as amoral. Popular resistance, as we shall see from the hundreds of examples cited in the following chapters, gives those who engage in it a level of humanity that inspires and mobilizes others to act” (Qumsiyeh, 2011, p. 30-31).

“[Armed] resistance requires strong leaders with executive power and limited circles of consultation. Leadership cannot reasonably be assigned by popular vote and democratic structures in guerrilla institutions because of safety/security issues. The skills of managing such operations are very different from those required to manage governmental institutions by democratic means. Leadership of popular resistance can evolve organically in different directions” (Qumsiyeh, 2011,    p. 9).

 

Even the discussions of nonviolent resistance require nuance. Nonviolent resistance is neither sanctimonious nor glorious; it is still resistance, and resistance is not always pretty and palatable—it’s not meant to be.

 

“Another point to consider is that when resistance fails, nonviolent forms leave far less devastation (social, economic, lives lost, etc.) than armed resistance. That is not to say that this form of resistance is safe. On the contrary, popular resistance can in many situations be more dangerous than armed resistance (after all, we have only our bodies and willingness to suffer)” (Qumsiyeh, 2011, p. 9-10).

                                                                                                                                                                                  Ultimately,
“Just as saying there is only one way to cure a disease, so statements such as ‘violence is the only way’ or ‘nonviolence is the only way’ are too absolutist to be true. Overall, there is more tolerance among those who promote popular resistance because those who engage in it believe it is possible to change the behavior of their (violent) opponents by peaceful means. Nonviolent advocates thus understand better those who engage in violence than those who engage in violence understand those in nonviolent struggle. This does not mean there is little diversity in the two camps” (Qumsiyeh, 2011, p. 23).

 

Stokely: Liberation is our word.

Mark: But you'll want peace in the end.

Stokely: Yes, but you can't have peace until everybody is equal.

Mark: But you seem free at the moment.

Stokely: I seem peaceful at the moment.

Mark: You seem free.

Stokely: I seem peaceful.

Stokely, to George: Am I free?

George: I think not (Brook, 1968).

 

References

Amnesty International. (2017, November 29). The Occupation of Water. Amnesty International. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2017/11/the-occupation-of-water/

Brook, P. (Director). (1968). Tell Me Lies [Film].  Ronorus Limited.

Carter School for Peace and Conflict Resolution. (2023, December 3). Israel Palestine Conflict: Why are we in a war and how do we go for peace? [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpBoE8NoadI&t=2668s

Feasel, E. (2023, December 14). President's Message: Our Unwavering Commitment to Peace and Opposition to War. Soka University of America. https://www.soka.edu/news-events/news/presidents-message-our-unwavering-commitment-peace-and-opposition-war

George Mason University. (2024). Israel and Palestine - Reflective Practice: CRDC, Winter. George Mason University. https://masonabroad.gmu.edu/index.cfm?FuseAction=Programs.ViewProgramAngular&id=10115

Just Vision. (2009). Interview Archives: Elad Vazana. Just Vision. https://justvision.org/portrait/1290/interview

Qumsiyeh, M. B. (2011). Popular Resistance in Palestine: A History of Hope and Empowerment. Pluto Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt183p294

Soka University of America. (2024, January 8). Insights on Conflict Resolution, Dialogue and Peace a University Talk by Dr. Andrea Bartoli [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFV3CeoLdQ8

Students for Justice in Palestine. (2024, April 2). What is our responsibility to the people of Gaza? [Letter to the editor]. Daily Collegian. https://www.psucollegian.com/opinion/letters_to_editor/letter-to-the-editor-what-is-our-responsibility-to-the-people-of-gaza/article_3c70e58e-f04e-11ee-a8d1-0b88ed77b15e.html

---

Aline Nguyễn (she/they) is a queer writer/activist/student/educator/translator/photographer of the Việt diaspora. Aline enjoys writing in multiple languages and experiments with form and space. Aline is learning the praxis of community building, mutual aid, disability justice, and restorative justice.