...
Even if I can't bear the Israel/Palestine problem at all anymore, I could be a reliance for him so he can keep it up. He is also the only one I know for sure, beside Martin, who actually bothered to read Gandhi himself to approach the matter of nonviolent resistance. This crap out Molyneux's mouth about Gandhi, thoroughly referenced as it may be, and even if mostly "true" to one extent or another, Finkelstein having been too much of a gentleman to enumerate the weird points he found in his reading, and it being beside the point anyway, it is beside the point anyway.
I love how Molyneux rales against the progressive fascists while sounding exactly like one here... trying to bash our reverence for Gandhi on the grounds of his racism and sexual creepiness and blood lusting enthusiasms for war. However true or false his accusations might be, he's using exactly the same self-righteous indignation the progressive-fascists do... the exact mechanism of blindness blinding people like... say... Chris Hedges use "against" fascism... the exact mechanism that lets everybody think they are opposing fascism while strengthening it every time they open their mouths.
Yes, Gandhi came to his strict Hinduism thing late... and, yes, strict Hinduism is not exactly pacifist in all situations... and, yes, Hindus and Muslims and all the rest of the religions have done some extremely unholy things... and I have no idea if he hated blacks and Jews... and I think one letter to Hitler where he was trying to be gracious has turned into many letters of solidarity in the minds of maniacs, but even if he wrote Hitler a thousand letters of not just solidarity, but also gave him pointers on how to better slaughter enemies, it is moot. Gandhi took the lead in an effort to evict Britain without calling down death and destruction on his own people.
He used nonviolence not because it is the only resort of enlightened people, but because it was the way to victory in that situation, the best, the safest, the way to pull it off with the least loss of life on his side. I loved the Hitler quote about all Indians spitting in unison and drowning the occupiers. He was right! We ought to do that! Be shut of the psychopaths right now! Anyway, Gandhi's nonviolent resistance was not pacifism. He was not a pacifist! It was not passive resistance! It was highly aggressive resistance. If you are outgunned even in a revolt you know you can ultimately win, nonviolent aggressive resistance is the best strategy because fewer people are slaughtered when you do it that way.
That was Gandhi's plan and that's pretty much the way it went down. Martin did an even better job, and actually was a pacifist.
Gandhi reviled cowards. He told people that if they could not smilingly walk into a hail of bullets in their aggressive resistance, then they better fight, and fight hard, but the real disgrace was being too afraid to show up for it. Martin reviled it too, told people they couldn't let their jobs and families be their excuses. You have to risk your life. You have to risk your family. You cannot win against a deadly foe if you will not do that. You are a slave and so is everyone else if you will not gather and use the courage it takes to prevail, violently or nonviolently. It's true in every case.
The Art of War is very clear about things like needing the high ground for victory and winning the war before the fight. Sun Tsu did not just mean it's better to make the enemy climb to get you and psyching them out about your troop strength before the battle. He meant the moral high ground, the spiritual advantage. There has never been a human engaged in a righteous battle who did not have a family and a livelihood staked on it as well.
Slaves have just been conditioned to believe these are righteous excuses. Children of all sizes have just been conditioned to believe that nonviolence and pacifism mean never risking your skin. I know Stefan wouldn't be happy to hear it, but he's darn prone to hypocrisy in much of his work.
