Two Options for Defeating Genocide in Gaza and the West Bank

The Rodriguez Killings and Us

By Carl Davidson

LeftLinks Weekly for May 23, 2025

This week's editorial is a difficult one. It's about Elias Rodriguez and his killing of two young staff members of the Israeli Embassy in D.C. this week. There are a dozen varieties of spin sweeping the media about it, most of them aimed at us, whether relevant or not. Hopefully, what we say here will matter.

One divides into two. First, as we see it, Elias Rodriguez is a rational human being. Second, we do not support his killings, however he wants to frame them. We are advocates and practitioners of nonviolence resistance and insurgency, with few exceptions. First, we advocate the use of the methods of struggle in our own country at this time. (They are hardly exhausted. Gene Sharp has written a manual, 198 Methods of Nonviolent Action, explaining various ways to do it. We need to study it more. You can get a summary here).

Revolutionary movements in other situations may take a different path, and we can still support their cause and their right to self-determination. Everything in the universe, naturally, has limits, and armed struggle in a just cause is still limited by due respect for fundamental human rights, even in the laws of war. Second, as insurgents in this country, we can also justly reserve the right of armed self-defense for ourselves and for protecting innocent human life at hand.

Given Rodriguez's rationality, we do well to study his 'Manifesto' (not his title, but used by the media) and his other declarations. "I did it for Palestine, I did it for Gaza," he shouted to police and others at the time of his arrest. He also proclaimed, "Escalate For Gaza, Bring The War Home."

Any of us can read his statement. We'll include a link below where you can download it. Read it over carefully. (If the FBI comes knocking on your door about it, as they already have in a few cases, politely tell them to go away. You have a right to refuse to talk with them. If one does speak to the FBI, it’s a crime to lie to them, and they decide what a ‘lie’ might be). Once read, you might find yourself agreeing with nearly all of Rodriguez’s statement. It's well crafted, forceful, and almost calm, since he knows it's equivalent to a suicide note.

So what do we make of it? We've been around long enough for our alarm bell to go off at one of his assertions, 'Bring the war home!' That was used primarily by the Weather Underground and to ill effect, both to themselves and the wider peace movement, back in the day, 1969 or so.

But there's something else awry. It's like the 'dog that didn't bark' in the Sherlock Holmes story. Rodriguez makes no mention of strategy or tactics, as such. He has written a moral narrative, and a good one, in its way. The lines between good and evil are finely and sharply drawn. But at root, it's irrational. The tiny clue is in his one use of the word, 'should.'

Albert Ellis, the founder of rational emotive therapy, in his book "Anger: How to Live With and Without It," and also in all his other books, focuses on understanding the role of irrational beliefs and thoughts in triggering and maintaining anger. He warns us about 'musturbation,' (he likes amusing terms). The use of 'ought,' 'should, 'must,' and related words, he argues, are often the source of irrationality.

Why? How does that work? When you say, for example, the Democrats 'must' or 'ought' to do such and such, there is no scientific law of the universe to test or back it up. It simply amounts to a demand. When the Democrats don't do what you think they 'must' do, it thereby gives rise to anger. And, in varying degrees, it can become a high anger bordering on rage. Ellis thus argues we would do well to use something like 'Democrats might do better in winning elections if they did such and such.' This is more rational thinking, insofar as we can test it with polls and ballot counts. We might be proven right or wrong, but that's OK. We've learned something through inquiry and critical examination. It's wise to note that Ellis didn't think his rules of RET would bring you to the promised land. He simply argued that if you stopped 'musturbating,' you could transform irrational anger into everyday human frustrations.

Here's another dog that doesn't bark. Rodriguez does not assess adequately how the U.S. electorate lines up as progressive, wavering, or backward around Palestine. To do so, the follow-up question is, 'What collective work can we do to shift these numbers in our direction?' That's 'politics as strategy.' Instead, Rodriguez's 'musts' fuel his militancy in 'politics as self-expression.'

Rodriguez does well, in a way, when he uses 'spectacle' to describe his 'propaganda of the deed.' He cites a convincing array of facts to back up his belief that the ongoing war on Gaza and the West Bank is genocidal. The underlying aim of the Likud and its allies is to remove all Palestinians from Palestine, dead or alive. Today, they are declaring it openly regarding Gaza. A Jewish theocracy will rule 'from the Sea to the River,' an actual slogan of the Likud.

Having made his case, Rodriguez states: 'Public opinion has shifted against the genocidal apartheid state, and the American government has simply shrugged, they'll do without public opinion then, criminalize it where they can, suffocate it with bland reassurances that they're doing all they can to restrain Israel where it cannot criminalize protest outright.'

Here, Rodriguez makes a tragic error. He, and all of us, have a little cop in our brains telling us two lies. First, nothing changes. Second, we have no power. Both are false. Everything changes, but not always just as we might choose. We have immense power, but we must organize for it socially. We are also called to fight wisely.

At the bottom, we face the two main political baskets of our time: politics as strategy and politics as self-expression. In important ways, we need both. We need the moral courage of Rosa Parks in the 1950s and the Greensboro Sit-ins in 1960, which aroused a critical force of a generation. We also need the political wisdom of Bayard Rustin, Dave Dellinger, and Cora Weiss, who believed they could find the strategy and tactics to arouse an antiwar majority that, alongside the growing strength of the Vietnamese, could bring an end to that genocidal war.

How do we know when to stress one or the other? It's an existential question where you do well to take responsibility for your assessment. The best first step is to learn to listen to everyone, then use some critical thinking, then listen some more. Rinse and repeat. You'll be on the terrain of social reality, but still with the firm grip of your political values and moral certainties.

We can expect a pro-Likud and a larger pro-Israel backlash in the days ahead. Our entire movement for an immediate ceasefire and a release of aid in Gaza, along with respect for Palestinians and their right to self-determination, is being smeared as anti-Semitic. Regarding Rodriguez's fate, we argue the same as for anyone: his right to a fair trial. There is no need to defend the political and moral path that got him there. We need to stick to the core demands above, which we make to Congress, which has the power to cut off the money, and to end the Likud's Road to Perdition. Work to awaken a ‘Respect for Palestine’ majority in your local county or Congressional District. We rarely win at the top what we have not yet won at the base. Download Rodriguez’s statement.