Violence, Nonviolence and the Palestinian National Movement

Jenny Sue Ross

December 5, 2011

World Politics: Professor Craig

Extra Credit Paper 3

“Even a non-state actor has domestic politics.” This statement was made today by Wendy Pearlman, a professor from Northwestern University, while giving a talk on her book Violence, Nonviolence and the Palestinian National Movement. I feel that this statement sums up the main point of her lecture: the internal workings of a non-state actor influence its actions as well as the external factors more commonly considered. Professor Pearlman’s focus was on the Palestinian nationalist movement, which has a history of both violence and nonviolence. Her theory is that the internal structure of the movement is a factor in the presence or absence of violence.

Professor Pearlman’s theory, entitled “Organizational Mediation Theory of Protest” essentially breaks down to this: a cohesive movement has more of a possibility to be nonviolent than a fragmented movement, and a fragmented movement is more likely to be violent than a cohesive movement. She clarified that these are not solid rules, but generally they are the case.

A cohesive movement is one with central leadership, a strong organizational structure and popular consensus of a goal. With respect to the Palestinian Nationalist movement, this was the case during the First Intifada when the UNLU (United National Leadership of the Uprising) was a clear, legitimate leader, there were popular committees to handle issues like education and agriculture, and the goal of the movement was agreed to be achieving statehood. (The First Intifada was an uprising of the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza in 1987 and lasted until 1993. This movement was majorly peaceful and involved protests boycotts, and attempts at self-sufficiency. It was followed by the Second Intifada from 2000 until 2005, which was much more violent.) Cohesive movements like the First Intifada have the ability to coordinate the masses, have popular support for a central cause, can control opposition, and can use restraint. The central leadership of a cohesive movement can also adapt, which helps facilitate nonviolence. If an area has low morale and it looks like the frustration could lead to violence, protests and other acts can be moved to other areas to let the frustrated people rejuvenate. These abilities allow a cohesive movement to avoid violence. This being said, just because a movement can avoid the use of violence does not mean that it will. Cohesive movements are relatively controlled so they can consciously choose a path that is followed by the masses. This also allows such movements to establish ceasefires in movements where there is violence because there is central leadership with whom the ceasefire can be made and whose decision the masses will follow.

A fragmented movement lacks the characteristics previously stated. (There is no central leadership, there is no organizational structure and there is no one clear goal for the movement.) This was the case for the Second Intifada. Fragmented movements have no way of controlling the masses, so even if one group desires nonviolence they have no control over the rest. Also, the factions of the movements are directly in conflict with one another for the top position in the movement. This conflict can be a cause of the violence. The lack of leadership in fragmented movements also makes violence difficult to end because there is no group with the authority to make and enforce a ceasefire.

Professor Pearlman connected her theory to modern day issues related to Palestinian statehood by explaining that the movement is currently fragmented because there is a divide between Hamas and Fatah. According to her theory, for the best chance at achieving non-violence, and in order to have a true leader to deal with, Fatah and Hamas need to reconcile their differences. These two groups have started reconciliation, but it has met major opposition from Israel, the US and European countries who feel Hamas is a terrorist group and illegitimate. Professor Pearlman’s theory is very interesting when connected to the present day situation because what initially seems like the unthinkable, reconciliation, is said to be necessary.

I found her theory very interesting and enlightening. I drew a connection between this idea and the two levels of diplomacy and their win-sets. We considered the domestic and international win-sets for states, but Professor Pearlman suggests that there are these levels in non-state actors as well. From what I learned at this lecture I think considering the internal, domestic, situation of a non-state actor is something we often look past but should consider when analyzing and dealing with such actors.