| 
 “Abolition” isn’t just a fun
                                  word to say. “I want to abolish prisons,”
                                  doesn’t just mean that you think there are too
                                  many prisons and they are too horrible.
                                  “Abolish the police” isn’t just a hip way to
                                  say “I’m angry at abuse by police.” Abolishing
                                  something means eliminating it entirely, which
                                  often also means creating very different
                                  institutions that do things very differently. Entirely
                                means every last speck. Abolishing
                                war, and preparations for war, and weapons of
                                war, and militaries means working for a world in
                                which there exists not a single member of a
                                single military or a single weapon. To some that
                                sounds so big and crazy that they actually relax
                                about it, treat it as a dream for some distant
                                future, and maybe even applaud Barack Obama
                                making speeches about abolishing nuclear weapons
                                as long as it’s not in his lifetime. But the
                                logic behind abolishing war makes it an
                                immediate and urgent project, because the
                                dangers and damage war creates threaten the
                                likelihood of any distant human future existing,
                                and also because there are better alternatives
                                to war available right here today. If
                                you favor war abolition not because you love
                                simplicity or because you think it’s good for
                                your inner harmony or whatever, but because
                                nobody has ever shown you a single instance
                                where war can do something useful better than
                                nonviolence can, then you oppose all sorts of
                                things that are extremely popular, even among
                                people who call themselves peace activists,
                                things like: *
                                Sending military ships with aid flotillas to
                                Gaza. 
 *
                                Rushing military forces to people’s aid 
 after
                                a natural disaster. 
 *
                                Funding a green military to fight climate
                                change. 
 *
                                Sending weapons to Ukraine. 
 *
                                Cheering for the Russian military in Ukraine. 
 *
                                Arming either side of a war in Syria. 
 *
                                Attempting militarily to protect Venezuela from
                                another attempted coup by the United States. 
 *
                                Establishing a global antiwar force to oversee
                                the warless world. 
 The
                                reason to oppose a military intervention to Gaza
                                is not support for genocide or blind allegiance
                                to principle, but because there are other
                                      better tools more
                                likely to work to end the genocide. The
                                existence of those other better tools — openly
                                acknowledged by many advocates for a military
                                intervention — is, even though they may not
                                realize it, a problem for their talk of “do
                                something,” “stop doing nothing,” “we need more
                                than rhetoric,” and so forth. Changing the
                                subject to how horrible the genocide is or how
                                we’ve failed to stop it — things we all agree on
                                — is not usually an indication of a failure to
                                understand what we all agree on, and not usually
                                an indication of an unwillingness to think or of
                                a desire to deceive, but rather an expression of
                                anger and frustration. (So, everybody please
                                take five seconds and scream as loudly as you
                                can!) Eventually, though, the subject should
                                return to what would be best to do to try to end
                                the genocide — what would be the most likely
                                actions to actually succeed! I interviewed one
                                supporter of military intervention, who readily
                                agreed with me that governments of the world
                                cutting off arms and commerce and finances and
                                travel and diplomatic relations with Israel
                                would not be “doing nothing” and would in fact
                                collapse Israel’s economy and end the war. At
                                the very same time, he wanted Turkey and Iran
                                and Iraq to militarily attack Israeli cities.
                                Told this would mean attacking civilians, he
                                readily agreed. But he said that Israel only
                                understands violence — which seemed to mean that
                                it wouldn’t “understand” the collapse of its
                                economy or the absence of any more weapons. He
                                also assured me that he is a “pacifist.” Told
                                that Netanyahu would probably love nothing
                                better than an Iranian attack on an Israeli city
                                and a big new war with Donald Trump (and his
                                not-at-all-fat warriors) at Netanyahu’s beck and
                                call, my interviewee changed the subject. That’s
                                what this supporter meant by “United Nations
                                Protection Force” — bombing a city or two to
                                “make a point.” Others mean something different.
                                Most have avoided giving, and some have
                                adamantly and repeatedly refused to give, any
                                clear indication of what they mean at all. They
                                generally seem to mean a big and impressive
                                armed military force willing to fight Israel but
                                guaranteed not to have to fight Israel, because
                                Israel will bow before it. As soon as you
                                question their certainty that Israel (and the
                                United States) will do that, or the wisdom of
                                risking conflict with crazed governments that
                                have nuclear weapons, the accusations of
                                cowardice start flying. But the opposite of
                                bravery is not always cowardice. Choosing not to
                                jump off a roof, for example, is not cowardice
                                so much as sanity. Neither does unarmed civilian
                                defense require less bravery than armed
                                protection. (Please
                                      go here for what the heck unarmed civilian
                                      defense is.) Even
                                if you think an armed “protection force” is a
                                good idea — and pretty much regardless of
                                exactly what you mean by it — the fact remains
                                that the proposal for it has made moving
                                governments to other actions, and moving the UN
                                General Assembly to taking action through a
                                “Uniting for Peace” measure, more difficult. And
                                this has flowed right into demanding rogue
                                actions by militaries separate from the United
                                Nations. I think one reason for such a misguided
                                strategy, and for the vagueness about what is
                                being proposed, and for widespread confusion and
                                indignation about how Italy and Spain dealt with
                                the Global Sumud Flotilla is the staggering
                                incoherence at the core. Many nations are
                                      saturated with U.S.
                                military bases, troops, weapons, and in some
                                cases (such as Italy and Turkey) nuclear
                                weapons. Their own militaries are using
                                U.S.-made weapons maintained and updated and
                                trained on by U.S. personnel. When Italy sent a
                                war ship to join the flotilla, it was either
                                going to make clear — as it soon did — that such
                                ships would depart before the flotilla neared
                                Israel, or it was going to risk conflict with
                                its U.S. master in the form of Israel. The shock
                                and outrage when such ships departed depended
                                not only on having missed the public statements
                                about their plans, but also on a preference for
                                Italy risking war with
                                  itself. We
                                can fantasize about Israel backing down in such
                                a scenario. If we want to dream big, we can
                                imagine Italy leaving NATO and booting out the
                                U.S. bases. I would have loved that. But we have
                                to plan for what is likely, and not plan
                                enormous risks that accomplish little. Either
                                the ships were going to sail away, or they were
                                going to risk a dramatic escalation of war that
                                could have brought in any number of nations. If
                                Israel had attacked NATO countries’ military
                                vessels, one longtime dedicated peace activist
                                told me “I hope that then Israel is given a
                                taste of its own medicine.” And, just like that,
                                we’re back to bombing Israeli cities . . . and
                                perhaps U.S. troops treating Rome like it’s
                                Chicago. How does that end well? Now
                                is not the moment in our discussion for cries of
                                “But what should we do, nothing?” We supporters
                                of the unarmed humanitarian flotilla are missing
                                the purpose and the power of that flotilla — not
                                to mention the aforementioned (if often
                                conscientiously forgotten) many
                                      useful steps that
                                should be taken. The flotilla itself is the
                                powerful tool, not the war ships. The flotilla
                                itself boosts the global demand for powerful
                                actions. Colombia cut off all relations with
                                Israel because the flotilla was attacked. Why
                                should any nation not take that step? Why should
                                any population not demand that its government
                                take that step immediately? Many are making that
                                demand right now because of the flotilla! The
                                bravest and most strategic people we’ve got, the
                                people on that flotilla, should not look — and
                                we should not look on their behalf — to the war
                                machine to save us from the war machine. Governments
                                could have, and should have, sent unarmed rescue
                                ships, not war ships. And those rescue ships
                                should have stayed with the flotilla to the end.
                                And if the result was official representatives
                                of the Italian government among the hostages
                                taken by Israel, Italy should have — as it
                                should right now — stopped arming Israel,
                                stopped arming or trading with any nation arming
                                Israel, stopped allowing Netanyahu to fly over
                                Italy on his way to lie to the UN, banned all
                                trade and travel and financial transactions with
                                Israel, closed Israel’s embassy in Rome, created
                                an official holiday for a government-sanctioned
                                general strike and celebration of dock workers,
                                and launched a major educational campaign on the
                                topic of Israeli propaganda. That former Israeli
                                embassy in Rome would make a great Museo
                                  delle Bugie Israeliane. Ships
                                of people trained and equipped to rescue at sea
                                should accompany the next flotilla, because they
                                are better at that work, because they can do it
                                to the end, and because they don’t risk acting
                                on their military training with their military
                                weapons when a crisis comes, since they don’t
                                have those things. This is similar to the reason
                                that the U.S. military should not, as Trump
                                says, train for its wars on U.S. cities, why the
                                so-called “National Guard” should not be going
                                uninvited into U.S. cities, even if it picks up
                                garbage or directs traffic. It’s not that we are
                                cowards in the face of garbage and traffic, but
                                that unarmed people can do those jobs better.
                                The automatic weapons get in the way. The
                                military training gets in the way even more.
                                Conflicts are provoked. Escalations are risked.
                                Horrible precedents are set. The rule of law is
                                damaged. And the war machine is supported. Supporting
                                the war machine when there are alternatives to
                                doing so means gratuitously supporting the
                                single biggest impediment to global cooperation,
                                the single biggest waste of badly needed
                                resources, the single biggest destroyer of the
                                natural environment, the cause of the nuclear
                                threat, the justification for government secrecy
                                and surveillance, and
                                      so on. Would
                                it be better for a military to help some people
                                during a natural disaster rather than nothing?
                                Of course, but those are not the choices. We are
                                perfectly capable, here and now, of sending
                                people trained and equipped for natural
                                disasters, and not for foreign occupations, to
                                assist with a disaster while credibly committed
                                to leaving after they’re done and not taking
                                over or killing anybody while they’re there. In
                                fact, why wait for a disaster? Take 4 or 5
                                percent of military spending and provide the
                                globe with unprecedented assistance right away,
                                making the provider beloved rather than
                                resented. Why
                                not thank our wonderful militaries for taking
                                the climate danger seriously? Well, the U.S.
                                Secretary of War this week told 800 generals to
                                deny the existence of any climate danger or be
                                tossed out on their oversized rears. But
                                Departments of “Defense” under good liberal
                                hypocritical leadership around the world are
                                      a massive threat to the climate with no
                                      ability to prevent or mitigate the damage
                                      that non-military institutions cannot do
                                      better. I
                                won’t go on. You can read about the
                                      case of Ukraine here.
                                My goal is merely to encourage thinking about
                                what total abolition actually involves. In
                                that regard, there is an online 
                                conference coming up on exploring 
 abolition
                                movements. Check
                                      it out. |