March-April 2002:
More for Pentagon
From Protest to Resistance
Where Does Iraq’s Money Go?
Lessons from Latvia
The Peaceful Legionnaire
Anti-War History Quiz
Letters
WRL News

Homepages:
War Resisters League
The Nonviolent Activist

Personal pacifism, cont.
I am very disappointed in the letter from Eugene Vasilew (January-February) claiming that pacifism is only for individual people, and that nations cannot subscribe to it. I’ve heard that view before, but this is coming from a lifelong conscientious objector. Hard to believe.

I’m confident that both Gandhi and King would disagree with Mr. Vasilew. Could it be possible that the universal principle of sowing what we would reap only applies to individuals and not groups (be they organizations, companies, nations, or whatever)? I hardly think so. To think that the war in Afghanistan has accomplished anything of truly lasting value is shallow thinking. Individuals or groups can be taken out, but there will be others soon to take their place without the basic changes in the climate out of which terrorism grows. Nonviolence is a sacred principle. Once any exceptions are made, we’re all caught in the quagmire. I proudly espouse pacifism for nations as well as individuals.

No doubt, were King alive today, he’d be speaking out against the war on terrorism. We must be the change we wish to see, as Gandhi said, and in my mind that goes for nations just as much as for individuals.

—Michael Fogler
Lexington KY

Zionism/anti-Zionism
As a result of the anti-Israel basis repeatedly shown in the Nonviolent Activist, I am compelled to tender my resignation [from WRL]. Robert Reiss’ letter (January-February) was on point. The editors’ response was clever rationalizing.

The article entitled “Nonviolent Resistance in the Islamic World” can only be described as propaganda. The section of the article entitled “The Two Intifadas” contained gross inaccuracies. The PLO, PA and the Palestinian people have waged a bloody and murderous terrorist campaign against civilian targets in Israel, including catering halls, pedestrian malls, bus stops, pizzerias, discos, etc. To call this nonviolent (as the article implies) is an outrage. I cannot support an organization that condones terrorists.

I cannot support an organization that dispenses pro-Palestinian propaganda in the face of Palestinian murder.

I therefore am [resigning] effective immediately.

—Gary Konecky
Fair Lawn, NJ

Stephen Zunes responds:
How documenting the widespread use of nonviolent action in the Islamic world can be considered as anti-Israeli propaganda is beyond me. Indeed, the knowledge of this history should be a sign of hope for supporters of Israel, of whom I consider myself one, who desire for Israelis to live in peace with their Muslim neighbors. At no point did I ever imply that terrorism was nonviolent nor did I or anyone at WRL condone terrorism. Indeed, my article bemoaned the growing violence in the Palestinian resistance, even as I mentioned there were also some nonviolent components, often done in conjunction with Israeli peace activists.

Finally, it should be noted that the heinous acts of terrorism against civilians in Israel have been committed by extremist Islamic groups that do not have the support of the majority of the Palestinian people, the Palestinian Authority or the PLO. As those of us who have actually spent time in the Islamic world can vouch, the vast majority of Muslims oppose terrorism and support nonviolent resistance.

‘Unlawful combatants’?
The Bush administration has been very cleverly meshing the concepts of declared war and criminal justice, confusing both so that they can do whatever they like without following the precepts of either. Justice has been made synonymous with military retaliation. The use of military tribunals replaces international law and tribunals. The line between civilian law enforcement and criminal courts and military actions is being eroded seriously.

The latest example is the use of the term “unlawful combatants” regarding the detainees from Afghanistan being held at Camp X-Ray in Guantanamo Bay Naval Station, Cuba. This clever designation puts them beyond the reach of either criminal legal rights or Geneva accord protections for prisoners of war. The events of September 11 were not acts of war but mass murders that should be dealt with before an international tribunal. There is no declared war, only war powers ceded to the President.

The administration is claiming that these people are not “prisoners of war” (and rightly so, but for the wrong reason of course) but “unlawful combatants” who can be detained and interrogated. The Geneva Convention clearly states that prisoners taken in combat must be assumed to be POWs and under the protections unless an independent tribunal is held that would determine a different status for them. The claim that they are not POWs because they were not wearing uniforms or fighting on behalf of a nation state is disingenuous. Many wars happen within nation states, for instance. Many forces fight without uniforms, including the American Revolutionary forces. They are called irregulars, guerrillas or resistance/freedom fighters. If the Soviets had captured elements of the Afghan resistance in the ’90s, would they have been “unlawful combatants” for lack of uniforms?

Truth and the constitution are often the very first victims of war, but we should not be confused by the rhetoric of this administration into accepting the argument only on their terms. Those who took part in the events of September 11 were mass murderers for political purpose and violated international law. Their targets were primarily civilian, though some servicemembers died in the Pentagon crash, and they should be seen as criminals. Those who resisted the U.S. attack on Afghanistan seem to be in a different category. A few fit both, perhaps. As with the use of the term “warlords” to refer to tribal leaders, the United States should take a hard look at itself before calling anyone an “unlawful combatant.”

—John Judge
Washington, DC