What are effective organizing tactics, and how are they used? Can you build a movement by alienating folks who might be persuadable? What do litmus tests do for the health of a movement?
I’ve already explained how performative activism is not a means to make lasting change. Still, I want to examine some specific organizing tactics used by anti-Israel and pro-peace activists and their accomplishments (or lack thereof). These examples are pulled from the leading anti-Zionist organizing platform (Instagram) and linked. Be aware before clicking links that many examples are disturbing and intended to cause outrage.
Tactic 1: Trauma
One of the most prominent tactics used by contemporary activists relies on trauma to galvanize people. Pro-Palestinian groups use the horrors of the war on social media and in the news to make people care about the “liberation” of the Palestinian people. If attention only turns to your movement when something deeply traumatic occurs, what happens when the world turns away?
The question of trauma continuing to motivate action was something Black Lives Matter protestors struggled with in The Quiet Before by Gal Beckerman. BLM activists were only able to stimulate action when police murdered a BIPOC person. Not only was the trauma organizing sporadic and unpredictable, but it was also tiring and unsustainable. An organizer cannot build a movement on trauma alone.
Both sides of the Israel and Palestinian conflict have used trauma to galvanize their supporters. The use of trauma in pro-Palestinian activism appears in the broadcasting of the genuine, deeply disturbing, and horrific videos of the violence people in Palestine are experiencing. These videos and testimonies are meant to shock viewers and enrage them enough to join the movement. Those who support Israel, in turn, have also tried building their movement by utilizing the (very real) trauma of October 7th. Every single email and presentation from Jewish institutions in the last year has been about “the horrors of October 7th.”
Attention spans can only last so long, and rage, despair, and many powerful emotions can last for a limited time. Our brains are not equipped to handle long-lasting exposure to trauma. This tactic is not sustainable.
Tactic 2: Awareness
Many of these local activist groups have been setting up installations and taking up physical space without going through the proper channels to do so legally or according to the host institution’s rules. Then, when they are caught, or their installations are taken down, they post on social media that the institution does not care about Palestinian life.
Over Sukkot, campus Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) and Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) groups illegally set up Sukkahs on their campuses across the country. Then, when police or campus authorities told groups they had to take their Sukkahs down, the groups cried antisemitism and anti-Palestinian sentiment. The impact of this type of action is aligning antisemitism and anti-Palestinian rhetoric. That could be incredibly effective messaging in bringing groups together in coalition and raising awareness. Unfortunately, such performative activism does not bring about a ceasefire and does not get a university to divest from Israel or bring Palestinian self-determination. There are no tangible next steps with this kind of performative awareness campaign.
Awareness allows your action to be seen by many, to spark outrage, and to center the fight of the (mostly white) Americans. These activists choose not to work within an institutional system to force the institution into action.
On October 7th of this year, a group of antisemitic Pro-Palestinian activists created an encampment outside of Representative Greg Landsman’s home. The activists did not have demands for Landsman or goals for the action. They wanted to “raise awareness.”
Landsman did not walk away from that action eager to engage with those activists’ views. There was limited coverage of the event because Landsman isn’t a well-known political figure outside the city and is one of hundreds of representatives. In that way, their awareness was limited to social media coverage, which did not bring new activists to their cause. It was a performance that only made the activists involved feel like they did something productive.
Even Congress only has so much influence over the war in Gaza. They can help decide where military aid goes or try to apply political pressure, but limiting military aid with an arms embargo or divesting investments from Israeli companies is not only controversial but has a limited impact on the peace process. Israel is its own country with a unique populace and domestic considerations, and US military aid only accounts for 10% of Israel’s military budget.
That does not mean organizers should abandon their small influence – talking with representatives to achieve goals can be very powerful. If you want your representative to advocate for Congress’s role in a ceasefire, call them to ask for that. If you want them to increase military aid to Israel, call them to ask for it. But, simultaneously, be realistic about the limitations of different advocacy avenues. And, if you have goals that can’t be attained through one means of activism, explore what other options you have available to you.
Awareness can effectively bring new, passionate people into the coalition. It can make more people care about your demands and join a movement. However, it does not drive people to take action independently because being aware of an issue does not give information on what position to take and how to take action.
