Lebanon and Israel: Rhetoric and Violence

Terrorism and the Prerogative of Violence:
Lessons from Israel’s 2006 Attack on Lebanon

Dana Cloud
University of Texas
For Western States Communication Association Conference
Feb. 16-20, 2007

My graduate students and I have been working for some time on project loosely defined as being about rhetoric and/of violence. (These students and former students include Kristen Hoerl, Amanda Davis, and Jennifer Asenas.) In thinking about war, terrorism, and social movements, we have decided that some core questions in thinking about rhetoric and violence are the following:
1) In a society marked by and defined in and through violence of various kinds, is violence effective and legitimate in response to system violence?
2) What are the constitutive/symbolic/identity-forming and instrumental/practical/material uses of violence on the part of nations, governments, individuals, and movements?
3) In capitalist society, who has the prerogative of violence and whose violence is deemed a threat? How does a group in society render its violence legitimate? In other words, whose violence is just warfare and whose is terrorism?
4) Is there such a thing as “terrorism” or is it just the label our rulers apply to the violence of those deemed a threat?
5) What role do mass media and political discourse play in framing violence differentially depending on the social actor(s) in question?
6) Does rhetoric’s traditional embrace of symbolic efficacy in a democratic context blind us to the undemocratic and coercive nature of our society as context; does it literally and figuratively “disarm” us in thinking about rhetoric, violence, and social movements?
7) Does the ethos of nonviolence in movements for social change literally and figuratively disarm us as agents of change? Is it naïve about the exercise of power?
8. What can we see if we look at situations of violent conflict with these questions in mind?Antonio Gramsci called our attention to how ruling classes obtain the cooperation of their subjects through persuasion when possible and by coercion if necessary. In the Prison Notebooks, Gramsci explains the dual characteristics of power: “They are the levels of force and of consent, authority and hegemony, violence and civilization . . . [I]t may happen as in human life, that the more an individual is compelled to defend his own immediate physical existence, the more will he uphold and identify with the highest values of civilisation and of humanity, in all their complexity.” Likewise, he writes, “When the pressure of coercion is exercised over the whole complex of society (and this has taken place in particular since the fall of slavery and the coming of Christianity) puritan ideologies develop which give an external form of persuasion and consent to the intrinsic use of force.”

The discourse of the “clash of civilizations” is an ideology that seemingly wins public consent to the use of force. Indeed, an irony of the discourses of war and terrorism is that the peaceful consent of a population is often won through the violence of the nation state enacted not on its own people, but on others in the name of “civilization.” Kenneth Burke likewise recognized how the construction of identity and identification rests upon the process of scapegoating of an externalized Other.

But there is more to the story than its symbolic dimensions. Wars are fought not only to reinforce national commitment and identification but also to win and sustain economic and geopolitical hegemony over the world’s people. The struggle for hegemony is not one-sided, however. The people tend to resist, enacting their own dialectic between persuasion and violence, national identity and material power.

Seen as a struggle for hegemony in the Middle East, the conflict between Israel (operating in its own interests and by proxy in the interests of U.S. hegemony in the oil-rich region) and Lebanon (currently home for thousands of displaced Palestinians and of Hezbollah and other radical resistance organizations), the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers (not civilians) by Hezbollah inside Israel’s claimed territory was not, by any standard definition, an act of terrorism. Writing in The New Yorker, Seymour Hersh documents how Israel had been looking for a pretext for invading Lebanon well before the July 12 kidnappings, which Israel regarded as an opportune provocation. After Israel invaded Lebanon, Hezbollah’s responses, which involved shooting missiles into Israel, were no more terrorist or targeted at civilians than Israel’s incursion and prior acts of war against Palestinians and its neighboring countries.

If terrorism is defined as a strategy of coercion that intentionally targets and threatens civilians with random and unpredictable violence, any number of acts considered to be warfare as usual among powerful nations—the carpet bombing of Dresden during World War II, Sherman’s march to the sea, the U.S. siege of Fallujah, the My Lai massacre, the Haditha massacre, and many more—should be designated as terrorism. Likewise, the appropriation of Palestinian land and displacement of many thousands of Palestinians from their home by force is as much (and more powerful) a campaign against civilians as the activities of Hamas or other militant Palestinian organization against Israel and Israelis.

So we must ask the questions, by what rhetorical and political process does one person’s violence become legitimate; by what rhetorical and political process does one group get to define another’s violence not as legitimate warfare or resistance but as terrorism? The mass media have a lot to do with it. We know from Todd Gitlin and others that resistance is often coded in commercial news media as violent even when it is not violent; and when resistance does employ coercive tactics, those means are discredited as irrational threats by prevailing media frames. (We see this pattern in media coverage of global justice protesters in Seattle an similarly in mainstream coverage of the activities of the Black Panther Party.) But this insight begs the more basic observation that those with more power get to define their own violence as the only legitimate use of force. In this sense, the nation state is a category of identification mainly concerned with winning a population within a particular border to the legitimacy of its government’s use of force in domestic and international settings. This consent is manufactured through the constitution of a violent, irrational, external threat against whom force becomes justified and righteous.

It is true that Hamas and Hezbollah also constitute the identities of their followers by setting forward a rhetorical construction of an external threat in the shape of Israel or the United States. We have to recognize, however, that when one is Palestinian (or Iraqi, or Afghan), the United States and Israel actually pose and have acted as real, violent, overpowering threats, when the weaker forces of the de-territorialized do not pose a similar degree of threat to stronger nations. Thus we need a materialist standard for evaluating claims as to the legitimacy of the rhetoric of self-defense.

In this context it is useful to define what we call “terrorism” as the desperate tactics of an oppressed people who have been denied the right to their own army, or, in other words, “asymmetrical warfare.” All warfare and organized violence are terrifying. Calling only one side’s violence “terrorism” enables the powerful to discredit resistance as illegitimate, irrational, and ineffective (as in “we will not bargain with terrorists”). It is easy enough to see through these rhetorical maneuvers, however: For the population of Lebanon, Hezbollah was and remains a legitimate representative of the people (stats here). As historian John Van Camp explains, “Hezbollah is viewed as a legitimate national resistance organization, among Shia and non-Shia, throughout much of Lebanese society. Even before this summer’s war, a 2005 Center for Strategic Studies survey found that three-quarters of Lebanese Christians–the traditional base of the right–identified Hezbollah as a legitimate group in challenging Israeli aggression.”

The label “terrorism” whips up an image of an enemy without legitimate grievance engaged in senseless violence. But for a people stripped of territory and rights and subjected to daily exclusions and violence, but without the real forces to respond in kind, the strategies of asymmetrical warfare are rational. And the rebuff of Hezbollah in ejecting Israel from Lebanon (for the second time since 2002) pretty well demonstrates that what we call terrorism actually works. The intifada (both times) brought Israel to the negotiating table and forced even Ariel Sharon, the butcher of Hebron, to pull back Israeli settlements in Palestinian territories. (In the context of U.S. social movements, Herbert Haines has observed that the militant flank of any social movement tends to prompt the powerful to negotiate with more moderate forces, leading to reforms.)

As Ahmad Khalidi wrote last July in The Guardian,

Much has been made in recent days – at the G8 summit and elsewhere – of Israel’s right to retaliate against the capture of its soldiers, or attacks on its troops on its own sovereign territory. Some, such as those in the US administration, seem to believe that Israel has an unqualified licence to hit back at its enemies no matter what the cost. And even those willing to recognise that there may be a problem tend to couch it in terms of Israel’s “disproportionate use of force” rather than its basic right to take military action.

But what is at stake here is not proportionality or the issue of self-defence, but symmetry and equivalence. Israel is staking a claim to the exclusive use of force as an instrument of policy and punishment, and is seeking to deny any opposing state or non-state actor a similar right. It is also largely succeeding in portraying its own “right to self-defence” as beyond question, while denying anyone else the same. And the international community is effectively endorsing Israel’s stance on both counts.

From an Arab point of view this cannot be right. There is no reason in the world why Israel should be able to enter Arab sovereign soil to occupy, destroy, kidnap and eliminate its perceived foes – repeatedly, with impunity and without restraint – while the Arab side cannot do the same.

One can point out the basic unfairness of this position, but the question remains as to what can the oppressed can do if their voices don’t count and their violence is discredited. I cannot think of a single episode in world history in which a major rebalancing of social power occurred without the use of coercive—if not violent—tactics by the forces of agitation. Iran President Ahmadinejad’s rhetoric (notoriously mistranslated so that “an end to the Israeli occupation” becomes “Israel wiped off the map”), along with the efforts of Hezbollah, Hamas, and perhaps even Al Qaeda, suggests that articulating the logic of localized resistance is an effective strategy in response to colonialism, occupation, and apartheid. The nationalism of the oppressed, as Lenin explained, is a different thing from the nationalism of the oppressor.

Deepa Kumar points out in an essay on the war in Lebanon how the Western media actually acknowledged the asymmetrical violence and power between Israel and Hezbollah. She cites an example from Newsweek of an interview with its Middle East correspondent:
KURTZ: Chris Dickey in Rome, if the dominant view in the Arab media is that Lebanon is a victimized population and Israel is the aggressor and all of that, would you say that the — the main picture provided by western media is, at the very least, much more sympathetic to Israel?

DICKEY: . . . [L]et’s not forget the difference in scale here. We’re talking of hundreds of rockets dropping at random in Northern Israel. We’re talking about 1,800 targets being hit by the Israeli air force and 3,600 bombing sorties, many with 500-pound bombs. Some with 5,000-pound bombs.

That’s an enormous amount of firepower. It’s a lot more accurate. These are smart munitions made by the United States of America in many cases.

Kumar also notes that when the left joins in the anti-terrorist chorus, its terms are often complicit with Islamophobia, a discourse of vilification that renders Muslims and Islam as irrational and terrifying in itself, its adherents blind followers of a sectarian and violent faith. She writes, “The wholesale demonization of Arabs and Muslims is racist and unacceptable, it serves to bolster US foreign policy goals in the Middle East, and giving even an inch to Islamophobia divides us and weakens our ability to build an effective opposition to the war in Iraq and the potential war on Iran.”

If we fail to consider these questions in material context—in terms of the struggle for hegemony and control over the world’s people and resources, we risk telling people who daily are the victims of system violence that they cannot or should not fight back. We ought to think twice before embracing a critique of radical Islam as irrational and illegitimate as a response to oppression. We should consider whether a liberal pacifist stance on geopolitical struggle disarms the oppressed.

Horowitz Rides Again, Takes Aim at the University of Texas

To the Editors:I am writing in response to the opinion essay by David Horowitz in Monday’s Daily Texan arguing that there are “two universities” here at Texas, one of which is allegedly engaged in left-wing indoctrination of our students. I am one of the faculty members targeted in the latest of Horowitz’s attacks, a “new” book (full of rehashed information from his discoverthenetwork.org and prior book The Professors) called Indoctrination U.

Let’s get one thing straight: David Horowitz is a cynical opportunist who whips up fears among legislators, parents and students about radical faculty allegedly engaged in some sort of mind control. His purpose is to shut down one of the few spaces we have in our society for critical thinking and the expression of diverse points of view from conservatism to the left. While some departments house one or maybe even two faculty of liberal or progressive bent, the University as a whole is not overrun with leftists. (In the whole country, he could only find 101 left-wing enough for him to consider “dangerous.”) And I don’t see Horowitz calling on the Business School to hire a labor leader or the economics department to hire enough Marxist economists to balance out the curriculum. I don’t see him calling for critics of the petroleum industry to be welcomed in the geology department.

So, you see, his attempts to police freedom of thought are aimed at only one small part of the ideological spectrum. He is an attack dog for the right; he would like nothing more than to see the few critical progressive faculty teaching at universities around the country lose their jobs—not because we advocate orthodoxy, but because we question his orthodoxy.

Curricula in communication, women’s and gender studies, social movements, and in fields across the humanities and social sciences are developed by experts; Horowitz knows little to nothing about the state of modern academic knowledge in these areas. For example, the idea that gender structures our society is not an ideological position (as he claims), but a fact recognized by many different disciplines including anthropology, sociology, government, psychology, and communication. Next he’ll be denying that racism is a problem—wait, he already does that, claiming that Oprah Winfrey, “a fat Black woman” (his words, during a lecture I attended) has made it to the top of society proves that racism is no longer a barrier to success for most Black Americans.

Many people regard Horowitz as a trivial crackpot, but the truth is that his activities and circulation of his grossly misnamed “Academic Bill of Rights” has led to the disciplining and even firing of excellent faculty members at universities across this country. Horowitz represents a new McCarthyism and he is witch-hunting scholars and programs crucial to the enterprise of higher education.

The irony for my own part in this latest round is that my teaching evaluations have never been higher, and I just won one of our College’s teaching awards on the basis, in part, of my openness to controversy in the classroom. Yes, I am an activist (but not in the classroom). And yes, I teach political subjects because that is the subject matter of my discipline—communication, political discourse, social movements, critical theory, and political rhetoric. No one forces students to take my classes, and I encourage students to bring readings and questions from many perspectives to discuss in class.

Horowitz thinks that students can’t think for themselves. I hope students here will tell him where to get off. Critical thinking is not indoctrination; when the entire political landscape is dominated by one point of view, there are few spaces in society where students may be exposed to points of view not available in many mainstream outlets. Teaching critical thinking and alternative points of view is a good thing. I have found that my students can hold their own.

I’ve had a large number of conservative students. Most of them do well, and some of them are fans of mine.

Here is a letter from one such student.
“To the Editor:

“Let’s get two things straight before we begin. I am a fervent capitalist and extremely conservative, so no one can say I’m writing this for any reason except out of my absolute admiration for Dr. Cloud. And before anyone dismisses me as a young, easily impressionable college kid, I’m 43 years old and the mother of children older than many of you reading this. With that said, I would like to go on record in saying that Dana Cloud is one of the finest teachers I have had the joy to encounter during my college experience.

“It is painfully and pathetically obvious that Mr. Horowitz did not have the intellectual honesty nor the journalistic integrity to interview any of Dr. Cloud’s students before writing his hit piece. I rather strongly disagree with some of Dr. Cloud’s positions, but while I was her student, I felt completely comfortable stating my opinions in class, regardless of whether I agreed with her or not.

“Dr. Cloud did what a good educator is supposed to do: she provided a forum for an open and lively debate of ideas. She encouraged everyone to give their opinions. She provided materials that were thought-provoking, which, as far as I understand it, is the very point of going to college. As a person, I find Dr. Cloud delightful. As an educator, I find Dr. Cloud exemplary. One of the 101 most dangerous professors? Only if you think a professor who is unfailingly open and honest is dangerous.

“I may not agree or even like some of Dr. Cloud’s political positions. But she is my fellow American and has the right to express her beliefs. And I point out again, that as an educator, she never forced her beliefs on anyone, never tried to “indoctrinate” in the classroom. She is an intelligent, vibrant, and wonderfully effective educator, and I pray that this situation serves as a springboard for people to discuss the vital issues of civil rights and freedom of speech.

“I will be horrified if Dr. Cloud is damaged by the obviously slanted piece done by Mr. Horowitz. With all honesty, there are only 4 professors I have had who truly stand out in my mind as wonderful teachers after 122 hours of college. Dr. Cloud, without one second’s hesitation, is the top of those four and I consider it an honor to speak for her publicly.

Paula Hudson
Senior, Corporate Communication”

I hope this clears up what Horowitz is about and what genuine, open education is about: They are opposites.

For more information, readers can go to teachersfordemocracy.org.