To Support Violence or Nonviolence — That is The Question
Professor Peter T. Coleman, Columbia University
Recent calls by Columbia University students and faculty supporting violent resistance to the Israeli occupation of Palestine have once again become an area of media focus and sharp division on our campus. However, there has been an absence of discourse that authentically interrogates the efficacy of violent resistance. Indeed, violence may feel justified, necessary, and appropriate in the face of excessively violent state practices, but does it work? Are violent forms of resistance by lower-power opponents actually effective in achieving their political objectives? Or might non-violent resistance prove a superior strategy?
First, let’s define terms. Most of us are all too familiar with violent resistance campaigns, such as the acts of heinous terrorism committed by Hamas in Israel on October 7th, 2023 or the alarming spikes in deadly rampages on Palestinians by Israeli Settlers in the West Bank. These strategies are centered on the use of physical force to threaten, intimidate, destabilize, deter, or otherwise influence their respective opponents.
The relative value of violent resistance campaigns, as explained by Ted Robert Gurr in his landmark work Why Men Rebel, includes that they a) can be more rapidly employed, efficient and less costly in the short-term, providing a means of defense and immediate leverage against oppressive forces; b) can offer tactical gains, like enabling groups to seize control over key areas, resources, or destabilize adversaries in a way that forces their recognition; and c) can demonstrate a groups capability and resolve, potentially attracting followers and forcing adversaries to take them seriously. They can also shine a harsh light on a normative imbalance of power and force in a society. As Malcolm X said, “We’re nonviolent with people who are nonviolent with us. But we are not nonviolent with anyone who is violent with us.”
Non-violence campaigns, however, are the polar opposite. They entail a long-term strategy for social and political change that seeks to achieve goals without using physical force, relying on peaceful pressure methods such as protests, civil disobedience, boycotts, and other forms of non-cooperation. They seek to build a broad base of support without inflicting physical harm, even among those sympathetic to the opponent. The objective is to win over opponents by appealing to their sense of justice, humanizing all parties involved, and fostering dialogue rather than conflict.
As Gene Sharp, a leading scholar on non-violent resistance, has written, “Non-violent action is a technique by which people who reject passivity and submission, and who see struggle as essential, can wage their conflict without violence. Non-violent action is not an attempt to avoid or ignore conflict. It is one response to the problem of how to act effectively in politics, especially how to wield powers effectively.”
Mahatma Gandhi similarly argued, “Non-violence is a weapon of the strong.”
However, non-violence is not without consequences. Martin Luther King stressed that when engaging in civil disobedience against unjust laws, one must willingly accept the consequences, including punishment, as a way to highlight the injustice and ultimately bring about change, demonstrating the highest respect for the law by openly breaking it with a clear conscience. He wrote from Birmingham Jail, “One who breaks an unjust law must do it openly, lovingly . . . and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and willingly accepts the penalty by staying in jail to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the very highest respect for the law.”
These arguments for each strategy aside, which is more empirically effective — violent or non-violent resistance? Research by Erica Chenoweth and Maria J. Stephan, detailed in their book Why Civil Resistance Works: The Strategic Logic of Nonviolent Conflict, found that nonviolent campaigns are about twice as likely to succeed as violent ones. Their analysis of 323 major political campaigns between 1900 and 2006 showed that nonviolent movements achieved their goals nearly 53% of the time, compared to 26% for violent movements.
The advantages of non-violent campaigns extend beyond their comparative success rates. Chenoweth and Stephan’s research identified several key factors that make non-violent resistance a powerful tool for change:
Firstly, non-violent movements tend to attract a more diverse range of participants than violent campaigns, as the lower risks associated with non-violent actions — such as protests, strikes, and boycotts — enable the involvement of social groups like women, children, and the elderly. This broad participation undermines the legitimacy of the regime and can weaken its support base, even eroding loyalty from essential institutions like the military or police.
Secondly, states that resort to violence in response to peaceful protests often suffer a loss of legitimacy, both domestically and internationally. This “backfire” phenomenon can increase public support for the non-violent movement, further empowering the resistance.
Thirdly, non-violent resistance is frequently viewed as more morally valid than violent resistance, appealing to the conscience of participants and outside observers. This moral high ground fosters unity within the movement and strengthens its appeal to a broader audience.
Lastly, societies that emerge from nonviolent campaigns tend to be more stable and democratic, as the usual methods of negotiation and persuasion foster a culture of nonviolence that can persist after the conflict ends.
Overall, while exceptions and complex situations can pose challenges to nonviolent resistance, Chenoweth and Stephan’s research supports the conclusion that nonviolent resistance is more effective than violent approaches for achieving sustainable social and political change. From this data, they concluded that nonviolent movements are particularly effective in overthrowing authoritarian regimes, resisting occupation, or seeking self-determination.
In fact, non-violent resistance has been a crucial aspect of the history of the Palestinian struggle against Israeli occupation. From the early days of strikes and boycotts during the British Mandate to the mass mobilizations of the First Intifada, the resistance has taken many forms. The ongoing protests against the separation barrier, the global BDS movement, and the rise of digital activism continue to shape this nonviolent approach. While the path to peace remains fraught with challenges, the history of nonviolent resistance in Palestine serves as a testament to the enduring spirit of the Palestinian people in their pursuit of justice, dignity, and self-determination.
Given the evidence, perhaps Columbia’s students and faculty who wish to support the Palestinian cause would do well to give serious consideration to what, exactly, they are supporting, and how their support might in fact translate to a just and lasting peace.
Peter T. Coleman is a professor of psychology and education and director of the Morton Deutsch International Center for Cooperation and Conflict Resolution at Teachers College, Columbia University. Dr. Coleman studies polarization, conflict intelligence, intractable conflict and sustainable peace.