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 3: Political Violence
Political violence is a unique form of organizing that demonizes individual people and causes them active harm simply because they hold a different viewpoint. It includes the tactics of boycotting and public shaming. These tactics are intended to intimidate an organization or person in power and communicate that their rules or regulations need to be updated to meet the needs of a community.
Boycotting
Rules for Radicals by Saul Alinsky mentions the effectiveness of boycotts in the 70’s. The point Alinsky drives home is the ineffectiveness of most organized boycotts. The Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement has consistently lacked the tools to make their boycotts impactful (their website listing their “successes” is limited). For a boycott to be an effective organizing tool, it requires mass participation, high-profit impact, and strict limits.
A vast number of participants ensures targeted businesses feel the profit lost. A few participants cannot make a meaningful impact of this kind. For that reason, timing is crucial. A boycott on a day like Black Friday cannot compete with the surge of shoppers that will join. The “boycott” of Disney+ and Marvel over Halloween will not impact Disney’s profits, partly because Disney’s revenue streams are so diverse that a marginal dip in streaming will not affect their bottom line. It’s also impossible to make a boycott sufficiently widespread and interconnected simply by calling for it over a social media platform, in part because no system change can successfully take place solely on social media.
A company must have a profit incentive to change its behavior. Most companies will not change for moral reasons (capitalism still rules American society, even if organizers don’t like it), especially when the “right” moral answer may be disputed. If a business is more at risk by pulling sales from one country than it is by a small group of organizers boycotting their product, it will outlast a boycott.
Strict limits on a boycott allow for ease of participation (in turn, making more people able and willing to participate). One limit is the number of businesses. Having more than one business or trade to boycott makes participating onerous and results much less impactful for any company. Effective boycotts also require strict start and stop time frames a) for ease of mass participation and b) to ensure the targeted company can recognize their loss as due to the action and not something else. Lastly, boycotts require strict demands or clear-cut goals for the company to understand how to regain business–otherwise, there is no reason for them to change their behavior since they can’t even know what is asked of them.
Boycotting is generally ineffective unless it’s hyperspecific and widespread, and you can guarantee the company will be able to draw direct comparisons between your action and their business performance. The social media organizers that put out a general call to boycott any company that does business in Israel will not persuade a company to stop their business with Israel because the marginal profit loss from the disorganized action will never outweigh the other profit the company makes up elsewhere.
Public Shaming
Shame is an emotion reserved for an action society widely accepts as unforgivable. Public shaming seeks to alienate people in power and force them to confront their “unforgivable” views or actions. This tactic does not have many historical examples because it is a relatively new phenomenon with the advent of the Internet and social media.
This past June, I was personally the victim of a public shaming campaign by antisemitic pro-Palestinian activists. Two groups posted my name and photo on Instagram, resulting in death threats against me and eventually resulting in Cincinnati Pride pushing me out of the position I held. I’m not the only victim of a public shaming campaign by these same organizers, and our city is far from unique in the prevalence of this tactic. But what did it accomplish?
These anonymous organizers successfully pushed me out of my public position of power, but did it bring about a ceasefire in Gaza? They put my safety at risk, but did it save any Palestinians? Did it persuade anyone to join their coalition to create peace? Unequivocally, the answer to these questions is “no.” Shaming me for their assigned label of “Zionist” did not bring this war to an end. It did not persuade me to fight for what the agitators consider peace. It put a member of a marginalized group at further risk and alienated a potential ally.
Using public shaming as a tactic will never expand coalitions nor educate people we disagree with. People are seldom persuaded by those they oppose with shame. There is no way to make public shame a part of effective organizing because it permanently alienates others. Systemic change requires a coalition to move from a radical idea into mainstream thought, and it’s impossible to build an alliance while pushing away those who disagree.
Strategies That Work
The tactics explained so far are used mainly by Americans and people outside of the Middle East, who see oppression being live-streamed on social media and feel a deep need to support the oppressed. Advocates across the globe learn that we have to uplift the most marginalized to make the world more equitable, but we have yet to learn how to balance that power appropriately to achieve the goal of equity.
Utilizing trauma and political violence as the primary organizing tactics will not bring equity to the world because they bring more harm and division. Awareness alone does not generate action, but in conjunction with other tactics, it can widen the coalition of support. The next part of this series will explore what strategies work in achieving goals and creating a more just society.
