The Case for Palestinian Nonviolent Direct Action
William J. Thomson, Ph.D.
July 29, 2002
Part 1
This rather lengthy paper is based on discussions held in the spring of
2001 with Palestinians at Bir Zeit University and with Israeli members of
Bat Shalom in Jerusalem. It is designed to serve as a primer for
the application of nonviolence theory and technique to the situation in
Occupied Palestine. I invite you to discuss and debate the points
raised, and to apply them creatively to your own requirements. I
would welcome any feedback and can be reached at
<wthomson@umich.edu>.
While much of this analysis is based on American data, my six decades of
experience with individuals on five continents suggest that the concepts
are essentially universal. Nonetheless, modifications may well need
to be made for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and I invite you to be
creative in utilizing the concepts in this paper which appear to be
immediately applicable, and to put the remainder on hold.
Primary References
Peter Ackerman, Jack DuVall, A Force More Powerful: A Century of Nonviolent Conflict
Martin Luther King, Jr., , Nonviolent Strategies and Tactics for
Social Change
Caleb Carr, The Lessons of Terror
Dajani,
S., Eyes Without Country: Searching for a Palestinian Strategy of Liberation
Gandhi,
Mohandas, Gandhi on Non-Violence
(1965)
Gandhi,
Mohandas, Selected Political Writings. (1996)
James, M.
& Jongeward, D. Born to Win: Transactional Analysis With Gestalt Experiments
Phillips,
D. Martin Luther King, Jr., on Leadership
Sharp,
Gene, Methods of Nonviolent Action (
Tzu, S., The Art of War
Brief Personal Information
In
this essay I will be making the argument that widespread,
confrontive, nonviolent direct action is the optimal course for the
Palestinian people. This is an extraordinarily controversial view,
especially within the Palestinian community, and I feel that it is
appropriate for me to present my credentials and biases, so that my
argument may be evaluated appropriately.
My
original academic training was as a mathematical psychologist, having
received my Ph.D. in 1969 from Stanford University. In the early 70's I
retrained as a clinical psychologist at the University of Michigan, and
since that time I have been in private clinical practice and a member of
the psychology faculty of the University of Michigan/Dearborn, where I
teach courses in clinical areas, as well as nonviolence/violence..
The evaluation and treatment of psychological trauma is one of my
particular areas of interest, and I have organized trainings for
Palestinian mental health professionals in the prevention and treatment
of psychological trauma in both the West Bank and Gaza. Since 1992
I have made six trips to Israel/Palestine, three to Jordan, and two to
Iraq. Since my primary training is as a clinical psychologist, I
tend to approach nonviolence from that perspective, although I will
certainly address other approaches as well.
My own
experience with nonviolence began somewhat tentatively in the 1950’s,
where as a student in the American South (Texas). I began to
question many of the assumptions about race and about my participation in
upholding the prevailing views on that issue. To my regret, other
than a few discussions with teachers and fellow students, and writing
some "letters to the editor" (for which I once received a death threat),
I made little contribution to the civil rights struggle in America.
During the
Vietnam era, however, I was quite active, starting about 1965. At the
time I was in graduate school in the San Francisco Bay area, a hotbed of
anti-war sentiment, and I participated in numerous actions, both violent
and nonviolent. For example, I was involved in a demonstration at
the Oakland army terminal where mace pepper spray was first used, and for
many years I assisted in organizing, participated in street actions,
lobbied the Congress, and performed other activities.
Following
the end of the Vietnamese war, I was relatively dormant (family, career,
etc.) until the start of the Gulf War flare up in August of 1990. Along
with many others, I worked to try to prevent that war, and since that
time I have been intimately involved in the process of ending the
sanctions against the Iraqi people. Two years ago I was involved in the
formation of the National Network to End the War Against Iraq, and I have
twice traveled to Iraq to directly witness the effects of the US/UN
sanctions policy. I have also been involved in several projects to
alleviate medical and psychological suffering of the Iraqi people,
particularly children.
My initial
focused interest in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict was stimulated by
the first Intifada (12/9/87) and my first trip there in 1992, where I saw
firsthand many facts that called into question what I had been previously
led to believe by the US media. At the time I speculated about the
possibilities of nonviolence applied to the conflict, and I proceeded to
research the possibilities. This ultimately led to my initiating a course
on nonviolence, which I have been teaching at the University of
Michigan/Dearborn for several years now.
Many
people (Gandhi / MLK) take a religious/spiritual/moral approach to
nonviolence. I certainly respect that view, but I am at heart a
pragmatist and a realist, and I embrace nonviolence because I believe it
is an extraordinarily effective tool for promoting change and solving
problems, both interpersonally and internationally. I am
convinced, both by the weight of the scientific evidence and through my
own experience, that violence is generally counterproductive in the long
run, and that the core of human interaction, like that of most animal
species, is based on nonviolent cooperation.
This essay will be divided into 5 parts:
The nature of violence.
What is nonviolence?
What are the advantages of nonviolence?
How does nonviolence work?
Applications to the current conflict.
Position on suicide bombings / martyr attacks,
Before
I begin my argument, I feel that it is incumbent upon me to comment on
Palestinian suicide bombings / martyr attacks.
Often such
attacks are cast in a moral framework, but I must admit I have some
difficulty with universal moral issues. I have my own personal
morality, which absolutely prohibits the killing of anything (even a
biting mosquito), but my thrust as a therapist and as a humanist has
always been to attempt to understand the motivation behind any behavior,
which often involves trying to understand the moral position underlying
certain acts. While I usually have little difficulty deciding what
is moral FOR ME, I am extremely hesitant to impose my moral standards on
anyone else. It is my experience that moral arguments, like
historical ones, quickly dissolve to the level of "my
morality/history is more valid than your morality/history", and I
don't believe discourse at that level leads to productive outcomes.
With
regard to suicide bombings / martyr attacks, they would be absolutely
immoral FOR ME to plan or perform. I am also quite willing to say
that the killing of innocents, on either side, is unacceptable (which is,
I suppose, different from immoral). I can, and have (even directly
to members of Fatah, HAMAS and Islamic Jihad) condemned the bombings /
attacks as strategically and tactically unwise and counterproductive, and
I will continue to do so. I do condemn the attacks, but not the
attackers. I believe that these young men and women have been
acting out of motivations that have been praised by religious and secular
cultures throughout the millennia. I also readily acknowledge the
courage and bravery of martyrs; indeed those are the precise
qualities necessary for successful nonviolent action.
But here's
where the morality gets sticky. How can I condemn the bombings as
immoral, when NOT resisting the occupation could also be seen as
immoral? As Thomas Jefferson said in the United States Declaration
of Independence, "But when a long train of abuses and
usurpations...evinces a design to reduce them [the people] under absolute
despotism, it is their right, it is their DUTY [emphasis mine], to
throw off such government...."
In my
mind, there is clearly a better option for the Palestinians in the form
of massive ACTIVE nonviolent resistance, but both the Israelis and the
Palestinians have set up the situation so as to make that option
extraordinarily difficult, though certainly not impossible. For
many years the Israeli government (perhaps fearing the power of
nonviolent action) has taken extreme measures to make sure that such
actions do not take widespread root among Palestinians, including recent
deportations and refusal-of-entry of nonviolent activists. They
have also provoked predictable Palestinian violent responses by their
targeted assassinations (most recently last Monday night in Gaza), land
confiscation, detention, and other oppressive measures characteristic of
the occupation. The Palestinians have periodically responded with
violence, thus raising fear among the Israeli populace and providing
"justification" for additional Israeli actions.
In the
absence of nonviolent action, what effective means of resistance remain
for the Palestinians, other than the horrible bombings? And if that
is the only viable option at this point, set up in large part by Israeli
government actions over many years--even decades, how can I condemn it as
immoral, given that I see resistance as a moral requirement? Even
Gandhi, perhaps the foremost proponent of nonviolent action in the
world's history once said, "It is better to be violent if there is
violence in your heart than to put on a cloak of nonviolence to cover
impotence. There is hope for a violent man to become
nonviolent. There is no such hope for the impotent."
However,
this is an essay on NONVIOLENT alternatives, which I am absolutely
convinced can work in Palestine.
The nature of violence
Before
one can understand nonviolence, one must understand the nature of
violence.
Violence
consists of actions which are designed, in large part, to cause physical,
mental, economic or other harm to others, or to benefit the self at the
expense of others.
a.
It always contains an element of "I am better / more deserving /
more needy / etc." than the victim of the violence.
b.
It usually involves a power differential, with most (but not all) of the
violence going from more powerful toward the less powerful,
c.
it violates the common religious/ethical concept of "treating others
as you wish to be treated yourself".
d.
it ends with feelings of "righteous justification" on the part
of the perpetrator and
"anger/frustration/helplessness/hopelessness" on the part of
the victim.
Violence
is not just physical, in fact, I would suggest that violence is not even
primarily physical.
a.
Neil Wollman and Bradley Yoder have recently constructed a violence index
for the United States in which violence is subdivided into
"Personal" and "Societal" categories, where
"Personal" contains most of the actions normally thought of as
violent, such as physically violent crimes, but also containing crimes
that are not physically violent, such as burglary, embezzlement,
etc. "Societal" violence is a much broader category, and
contains items such as social negligence/poverty, misapplications of
criminal justice, as well as environmental, economic, racial*, gender*
and medical coercion. (*Not included by Wollman/Yoder). Note that,
by and large, personal violence is illegal, whereas societal violence is
legal. This leads to a speculation about hierarchies of violence,
with types of physical violence at the bottom, and types of societal
violence at the top. This allows us to construct general rules of
violent interaction.
a.
The lower in the hierarchy (e.g. physical), the more widely available is
the form of violence. That is, physical violence is potentially available
to almost everyone, and from numerous studies (e.g., Stanley Milgram's
obedience to authority work) we must reluctantly conclude that almost
everyone is capable of physical violence under appropriate
circumstances.
b.
Higher forms of violence (e.g., economic) are reserved for those with the
resources to implement them.
c.
In general, higher forms of violence are more likely to be successful
over lower forms of violence.
d.
In general, people will use the highest form of violence available to
them, because it is less physically (and otherwise) dangerous, the power
differentials (and likelihood of success) are greater, and it is more
likely to be legal.
e.
THIS IS THE KEY POINT: VIOLENCE OF ANY TYPE TENDS TO EVOKE A
VIOLENT RESPONSE. Again, people will tend to respond with the highest
form of violence available to them, which would sometimes be a form of
societal violence, but would always include as an option some form of
physical violence. Thus, the Palestinian children who throw stones, or
the martyrs/suicide bombers who attack Israeli civilians are responding
not just to Israeli military actions, but also (even more so) to social
negligence, misapplications of criminal justice, harassment, and grinding
poverty. They are responding to societal violence with the only form of
violence available to them.
What is nonviolence?
To
understand the nature of nonviolence, I will turn to three experts,
Mohandas Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Gene Sharp. Both
Gandhi and King approach nonviolence from a religious/spiritual/moral
perspective, whereas Sharp takes a more pragmatic approach. Common
to all three, however, is that the concept of nonviolence has nothing to
do with passivity--quite the opposite, it REQUIRES action. Let me
repeat, NONVIOLENCE REQUIRES ACTION--direct, confrontive, and much of the
time, dangerous action. It is not for the weak or the cowardly, but
for the bold and courageous. In addition, nonviolence is not only
the absence of violence, but as Martin Luther King, Jr. put it, the
presence of justice.
Gandhi
described a series of characteristics of nonviolence:
1.
Nonviolence is active
a.
"Nonviolence is the greatest and most active force in the world. One
cannot be passively nonviolent."
b.
"Without a direct active expression of it, nonviolence, to my mind,
in meaningless."
2.
Nonviolence is non-cooperative
a.
"The first principle of nonviolent action is non-cooperation with
everything humiliating."
b.
"Non-cooperation is a measure of discipline and sacrifice, and it
demands respect for the opposite view."
c.
"Real non-cooperation is non-cooperation with evil and not with the
evil-doer."
3.
Nonviolence requires suffering
a.
"The conditions necessary for the success of satyagraha (soul/truth
force) are
1)
The satyagrahi should not have any hatred in his heart against the
opponent.
2)
The issue must be true and substantial.
3)
The satyagrahi must be prepared to suffer till the end."
b.
"In nonviolence bravery consists in dying, not in
killing."
c.
"To lay down one's life for what one considers to be right is the
very core of satyagraha."
d.
"A nonviolent person should die without retaliation, anger or
malice, in self-defense or in defending the honor of a loved one. This is
the highest form of bravery."
e.
"Sorrow and suffering make for character if they are voluntarily
bourne, but not if they are imposed."
f.
"Just as one must learn the art of killing in the training for
violence, so one must learn the art of dying in the training for
nonviolence."
4.
Nonviolence works toward transformation, both within the society...
a.
"There is hope for a violent man to become nonviolent. There is no
such hope for the impotent."
5. and
with the opponent....
a.
"Satyagraha is never vindictive. It believes not in destruction but
in conversion. Any failure is due to the weakness of the satygrahi, not
to any defect in the law itself."
6.
Nonviolence is all-encompassing
a.
"Nonviolence is not a garment to be put on and taken off at will.
Its seat is in the heart and it must be an inseparable part of our very
being."
b.
"True nonviolence should mean a complete freedom from ill-will and
anger and hate and an overflowing love for all."
c.
"For a nonviolent person the whole world is one family. He will fear
none, nor will others fear him."
d.
"A satyagrahi loves his so-called enemy even as he loves his
friend."
7.
Nonviolence sets up the future
a.
"If liberty and democracy are to be truly saved, they will only be
by nonviolent resistance no less brave, no less glorious, than violent
resistance. And it will be infinitely braver and more glorious because it
will give life without taking any."
8.
Nonviolence is truth
a.
"It is the law of love that rules mankind. Had violence [or hate]
ruled us, we should have become extinct long ago. And yet the tragedy of
it is that the so-called civilized men and nations conduct themselves as
if the basis of society was violent."
9.
Nonviolence is ultimately successful
a.
"The power of unarmed nonviolence is any day far superior to that of
armed force."
b.
"Nonviolence, when it becomes active, travels with extraordinary
velocity, and then it becomes a miracle."
c.
"We will match our capacity to suffer against your capacity to
inflict the suffering, our soul force against your physical force. We
will not hate you, but we will not obey you. Do what you like, and we
will wear you down by our capacity to suffer. And in the winning of the
freedom we will so appeal to your heart and conscience that we will win
you. So ours will be a double victory; we will win our freedom and our
captors in the process."
d.
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you,
then you win."
Martin Luther King, Jr. likewise described several principles of
nonviolence:
1.
Nonviolence is a way of life for courageous people-
It
is active non-violent resistance to evil.
It
is aggressive spirituality.
It
is always persuading the opponent of the righteousness of your
cause.
2.
Nonviolence seeks to win friendship and understanding--
The
end result of nonviolence is redemption and reconciliation.
The
purpose of nonviolence is the creation of the Beloved Community.
3.
Nonviolence seeks to defeat injustice, not people--
Nonviolence
recognizes that evils doers are also victims and are not evil
people.
The
nonviolent resister seeks to defeat evil, not people.
4.
Nonviolence holds that suffering can educate and transform--
Nonviolence
accepts suffering without retaliation.
Nonviolence
accepts violence if necessary, but will never inflict it.
Nonviolence
willingly accepts the consequences of its acts.
Unearned
suffering is redemptive and has tremendous educational and transforming
possibilities.
Suffering
has the power to convert the enemy when reason fails.
5.
Nonviolence choose love instead of hate--
Nonviolence
resists violence of the spirit as well as the body.
Nonviolent
love is spontaneous, unmotivated, unselfish and creative.
Nonviolent
love gives willingly, knowing that the return might be hostility.
Nonviolent
love is active, not passive.
Nonviolent
love is unending in its ability to forgive in order to restore
community.
Love
for the enemy is how we demonstrate love for ourselves.
Love
restores community and resist injustice.
Nonviolence
recognizes the fact that all life is interrelated.
6.
Nonviolence believes that the universe is on the side of justice--
The
nonviolent resister has deep faith that justice will eventually
win.
Nonviolence
believes that God is a God of Justice.
Both
Gandhi and King, because of their strong spirituality, were able to see
"the God within" their adversaries. Many of their
followers did not, but were nonetheless able to implement successfully
nonviolent action techniques. While the Gandhi-King approach may in
some sense be the ideal, I am convinced that it is possible to be
successful with nonviolent techniques without requiring that
practitioners see "the God within" their adversaries.
Indeed, I suspect that in the initial stages of every successful
nonviolent action movement (and there have been many in this century /
see A Force More Powerful), the majority of the participants found
it quite difficult to see the humanity of their adversary. I am
certain that is currently true for the vast majority of both the
Palestinian and the Israeli populations. In the absence of such
recognition of the adversary's humanity, we turn to Gene Sharp for a more
pragmatic approach.
Sharp
contends that:
1.
Nonviolent action is a technique for applying power in a conflict without
the use of physical violence.
2.
Nonviolent action may involve acts of omission or acts of commission-or a
combination of the two. As a technique, therefore, nonviolent action is
not passive. It is not inaction. It is action that is nonviolent.
3. These
acts comprise some two hundred "nonviolent weapons", and
without doubt, scores more already exist or will emerge in future
conflicts.
4. Three
broad classes of nonviolent methods exist: nonviolent protest and
persuasion (e.g., signed public statements, display of Palestinian
flags/colors, demonstrative funerals), noncooperation (e.g., Beit Sahour
tax revolt, boycotts of Israeli goods, merchant's general strikes), and
nonviolent intervention (e.g., hunger strikes, alternative social
institutions / HAMAS).
5.
Nonviolent action provides a way to wield power in order to achieve
objectives and to sanction opponents without the use of physical
violence.
6.
Overwhelmingly, nonviolent action is group or mass action.
7. While
certain forms of this technique, especially the symbolic methods (e.g.,
filling in the Birzeit-Ramallah trench), may be regarded as efforts to
persuade by action, the other forms, specially those of noncooperation
(Beit Sahour tax revolt), may, if practiced by large numbers, coerce
opponents.
8.
Nonviolent action is a technique by which people who reject passivity and
submission, and who see struggle as essential, can wage their conflict
without violence.
9.
Nonviolent action is not an attempt to avoid conflict. It is one response
to the problem of how to wield power effectively.
Sharp also
describes what nonviolence is NOT:
1.
Nonviolent action has nothing to do with passivity, submissiveness, and
cowardice; just as in violent action, these must first be rejected and
overcome. Often the most violent elements ultimately make the best
nonviolent activists, since they already have learned courage and
discipline. (e.g., Bashrah Kahn and the Muslim Pathans of the
northeast Indian border; Gandhi encouraging his followers to join the
army to learn these skills.)
2.
Nonviolent action is not to be equated with verbal or purely
psychological persuasion, although it may use action to induce
psychological pressures for attitude change; nonviolent action, instead
of words, is a technique of struggle involving the use of social,
economic, and political power.
3.
Nonviolent action does not depend on the assumption that people are
inherently "good"; the potentialities of people for both
"good" and "evil" are recognized, including the
extremes of cruelty and inhumanity, which exist on each side of the
present conflict.
4. People
using nonviolent action do not have to be pacifists or saints; nonviolent
action as been predominantly and successfully practiced by
"ordinary" people. In other words, philosophical
commitment to nonviolence, as "required" by both Gandhi and
King, is a sufficient, but not necessary, prerequisite to successful
nonviolent action.
5. Success
with nonviolent action does not require (though it may be helped by)
shared standards and principles, a high degree of community of interest,
or a high degree of psychological closeness between the contending
groups.
6.
Nonviolent action is at least as much of a Western phenomenon as an
Eastern one; indeed, it is probably more Western, if one takes into
account the widespread use of strikes and boycotts in the labor movement
and the noncooperation struggles of subordinated nationalities.
7. In
nonviolent action there is no assumption that the opponent will refrain
from using violence against nonviolent actionists; indeed violence is
often likely or even "provoked". However, the technique
is designed to operate against violence when necessary.
8. There
is nothing in nonviolent action to prevent it from being used for both
"good" and "bad" causes, although the social
consequences of its use for a "bad" cause may differ
considerably from the consequences of violence used for the same
cause.
9.
Nonviolent action is not limited to domestic conflicts within a
democratic system; it as been widely used against dictatorial regimes,
foreign occupations, and even against totalitarian systems.
10.
Nonviolent action does not always take longer to produce victory than
violent struggle would. In a variety of cases nonviolent struggle as won
objectives in a very short time - in as little as a few days. The time
taken to achieve victory depends on diverse factors - primarily on the
strength of the nonviolent actionists.
Sharp goes
on to make the following general points:
1.
Nonviolent action produces change in three broad ways:
a.
Conversion - opponent comes around to positively accepting the point of
view of the actionists.
b.
Accommodation - opponent chooses to grant demands without changing
viewpoint
c.
Nonviolent Coercion - change is achieved against the opponent's will and
without his agreement - the sources of power have been so undercut by
nonviolent means that he no longer has control.
1)
The defiance may become too widespread and massive to be controlled by
the opponent's repression.
2)
The non-cooperation and defiance may make it impossible for the social,
economic and political system to operate unless the actionists' demands
are achieved.
3)
Even the opponent's ability to apply repression may be undermined.
2.
As in violent conflict, strategy is necessary for success - nonviolent
action (like violent combat) works by identifying an opponents
vulnerabilities and taking away their ability to maintain control.
3.
For any government to function, consent of the governed is crucial.
Nonviolent action leads to
a.
a psychological change from passive submission to self-respect
b.
recognition by the subject that his/her assistance makes the regime
possible
c.
building of a determination to withdraw cooperation and obedience
d.
Withdrawal of obedience, cooperation and submission by subjects, if
sustained, will produce a crisis for the ruler, threatening the existence
of the regime. In the face of such non-cooperation, the ruler will
inflict severe sanctions.
e.
Governments often object less to granting subjects' demands than they do
to the popular withdrawal of cooperation and obedience (e.g., IDF
reaction to soldiers who refuse to serve in the West Bank and Gaza), and
they fear the spread of an awareness of the power of non-cooperation in
controlling political power (Gandhi's statement that, "Nonviolence,
when it becomes active, travels with extraordinary velocity, and then it
becomes a miracle." . This is why even "liberal" rulers
react so strongly sometimes when a number of individuals act collectively
in non-cooperation and disobedience.
4.
Nonviolence operates by producing power changes. The power variability
can be more extreme and occur more rapidly than in situations where both
sides are using violence.
5. The
nature of nonviolent struggle makes it possible for actionists to also
win considerable support even in the camp of the opponent and among third
parties. This potential is much greater than with violence. The ability
to gain this types of support gives the nonviolent group a capacity to
influence - even regulate - their opponent's power by reducing or cutting
off this power at its source (e.g., potentially reducing/eliminating US
military support for Israel).
6. Violent
repression is more likely to be justified against violent resistance, but
can be counterproductive against nonviolent resistance. One of the
ways in which nonviolent action functions is to exhaust the opponent's
means of repression and demonstrate their impotence. In this the
actionist's attitude of fearlessness is crucial. Without fear of
sanctions, the sanctions lose their power to produce submission.
7. As
Gandhi indicated, facing repression with persistence and courage means
that the nonviolent actionists must be prepared to endure the opponent's
sanctions without flinching. The nonviolent actionists must be prepared
to suffer in order to advance their cause.
8. When
both sides in a conflict use violent methods there is likely to be a
cycle of violence and counter-violence. When one side uses nonviolent
"weapons" the cycle of violence is broken. More about
this shortly.
9. The
opponent's provocation to violence emphasizes still further the
importance of strict adherence to nonviolent discipline. To resort to
violence after provocation, declared Gandhi, is to "cooperate with
the government in the most active manner." Nonviolent
discipline can be promoted by:
a.
clear lines of command and communication, and ... a clear understanding
by the participants of what they are to do in a variety of
circumstances, (training is available in how to do this) and by
b.
"Marshals" - people who are especially experienced, able to
remain calm and confident, and well-versed in understanding the
nonviolent technique. They have played an extremely important role
in promoting nonviolent discipline among large numbers of people who may
have been new to both demonstrations and nonviolent action.
10.
Risks
a.
Nonviolent action may not work (but this is also true of violent
action).
b.
People may get hurt and suffer economic loss, physical injury,
imprisonment, even death. Injuries, deaths, suffering and destruction,
however, are significantly less - even on the resisters' side alone
- when one side relies on nonviolent action than when both sides
use violence.
c.
Violence may break out [among the actionists] during the use of
nonviolent action, but it is more likely to happen if no nonviolent
action is used at all. It is thus necessary to take measures to try to
prevent the outbreak of violence, and to isolate and eliminate such
violence if it occurred. In other words, discipline is
required.
Continued in Part 2:
What are the advantages of nonviolence?
How does nonviolence work?
Applications to the current conflict
___________________________
William J. (Bill) Thomson, Ph.D.
___________________________
|
|
