The bloody struggle has continued between Israel and the
Palestinians for about two years. The many hundreds of victims on
both sides, and the even greater number of injured, are merely the
most conspicuous part of the terrible suffering that the war has
brought. No one knows if either side will eventually achieve its
aims in the struggle. We do know that the cost is terrible.
Witnessing the appalling suffering and its appalling cost, we need
to ask ourselves if it is possible to find another way. If the
leaders are unable to arrive at a peace agreement, and a struggle
is unavoidable, is it not at least possible to find a different
method of conducting the struggle?
If we look at history, we will see that there are, indeed, other
possible ways to conduct a struggle. Mahatma Gandhi led the
movement to liberate India from the British using purely
non-violent means. Dr. Martin Luther King also adhered to
non-violent methods when he led black Americans in the struggle for
civil rights. Further back, we can find the Quakers who, in
settling the state of Pennsylvania, did so with the agreement of
the Native Americans while maintaining peaceful relations with
them.
Historical Precedents
Non-violence is not new to the conflict between Israelis and
Palestinians. In the Palestinian national movement, ideas of
non-violent action were raised at various times. The most
interesting experiment with introducing non-violence as a practical
strategy in the Palestinian struggle against the Israeli occupation
was made by Dr. Mubarak Awad in the 1980s. This experiment had much
influence on the early stages of the first Intifada. Actions such
as the display of the Palestinian flag, the declaring of
independence in villages, the boycott of Israeli goods and growing
of food to replace Israeli produce, self-determination of opening
and closing times for shops, and the tax revolt in Beit Sahour, are
just a few of the non-violent actions conducted in the first
Intifada. Still, for Israelis and apparently for the rest of the
world, stone throwing came to be seen as the central action of the
Intifada. Stone throwing photographed better than all the other
actions, making them less visible.
On the Israeli side, Brit Shalom (Peace Alliance) led by Professor
Martin Buber, Hebrew University President Dr. Yehuda Magnes and
others, was active during the early stages of the conflict (in the
'30s and '40s). This organization, which was joined later by
various others, tried to prevent the conflict between Jews and
Palestinians from developing into a war. They called for agreements
based on compromise, which would enable the two peoples to live in
peace with one another. It goes without saying that the peace
movement has remained active, and has grown to include many
groups.
Throughout the entire duration of the conflict, and especially
during the current Intifada, we can observe a pattern of escalation
of violence, which repeats itself again and again. One side harms
the other, which avenges the injury caused to it. The first side,
in turn, takes revenge for its own injury even more strongly. The
question, therefore, is whether it might be possible to create a
reverse escalation: Instead of creating an escalation of violence,
creating one of non-violence. Before making such a proposal, let us
look a little at the rationale for non-violence.
Preventive Non-Violence
In a non-violent struggle, there is an attempt to change the deeds
of the opponent without injuring his existence. It enables the
opponent ample time to change his ways. While violence works on the
principle of creating fear in one's opponent, non-violence is based
on freeing one's opponent from fear. In a conflict like ours, there
are various forms of non-violence suitable to the situation of each
side in the conflict. For Palestinians who are trying to rid
themselves of the Israeli occupation, there is the option of active
non-violence. This was implemented in India's struggle of
liberation from Britain, in the struggle of blacks for civil rights
in the US, and in many other less well-known cases. Israelis, too,
have a non-violent option, which I term preventive non-violence.
This was the tactic employed by the Quakers when establishing
Pennsylvania with the agreement of native Americans.
In a conflict like ours, besides the two sides that are struggling
against each other, there is also a role for a third party who has
no enemy in the conflict, and who can thus intervene in an attempt
to make peace between them. The role of a third party with no enemy
in the conflict is familiar to us from the use of UN forces in
patrolling a ceasefire between warring factions. Similarly, when
the US brokered the peace negotiations between Israel and Egypt, it
succeeded due to its position as a third party with no enemy in the
conflict.
Non-Violent Action Today
In the absence of a state-level decision to adopt non-violence, we
may ask what opposition movements may do. Even in the midst of
today's violent struggle between our peoples, there are groups of
Palestinians who are trying to maintain a non-violent struggle. A
prime example is the "Rapprochement" organization in Beit Sahour.
It initiates non-violent actions against the occupation and thus
demonstrates that there is an alternative to a violent struggle. It
is assisted by volunteers from abroad who serve as a third party
with no enemy in the conflict. These volunteers can non-violently
protect Palestinian activists from Israeli soldiers. There are
other Palestinian organizations that promote non-violent education.
Their aim is to prepare the Palestinian people to accept a
non-violent method of struggle.
On the Israeli side, one can say that the principal demands of the
Israeli peace movement on the government belong to the field of
preventive non-violence. When we call on the government to halt the
expropriation of land, the destruction of houses, the building of
settlements, and exhort it to end the occupation, etc., we are
demanding that it will cease to conduct actions that both
necessitate violence and awaken violence in the other side. The
question is what we can do in terms of preventive non-violence when
the government does not respond to our demands? War resisters who
refuse to serve as a military tool in the hands of the state (or
any other organization - and, incidentally, not just in Israel but
in any other place) are performing an act of preventive
non-violence. Those who refuse service in the occupied territories
are similarly performing an action of preventive non-violence.
Israelis who boycott the produce of settlements in the Occupied
Territories are performing an act of preventive non-violence. Thus,
also Israelis who refuse to work in the territories, to tour there,
or refuse any cooperation with the occupation, perform acts of
preventive non-violence.
Third Party Non-Violence
During the first Intifada we saw how the presence of journalists
and tourists would reduce violence by soldiers confronting
Palestinian protesters. On the same principle, North American
Christian peace activists moved to Hebron to observe and intervene
in matters of human rights, acting as a third party with no enemy
in the conflict. During all the years of the current Intifada
people from North America and Europe have acted as observers and
intervened in matters of human rights, thus fulfilling the role of
a third party with no enemy in the conflict.
Israeli-Palestinian Cooperation
Non-violence enables Israeli-Palestinian cooperation. Whereas
Israelis cannot support the violent struggle against their country
even if they see the legitimacy of Palestinian claims, they can
take part in a non-violent struggle against Israel's unjust actions
in the territories. One can cite as examples the work of the
Israeli Committee Against Housing Demolitions in helping to rebuild
destroyed houses, and the work of the Ta'ayush organization in
sending food convoys to villages and towns under closure. These
activities, in which Israelis and Palestinians often take part
together, are instances of active non-violence. Since the presence
of Israelis helps to shield Palestinians from violence by Israeli
soldiers, they are also fulfilling the role of a third party with
no enemy in the conflict.
The intention here is that each side will encourage the other to
reduce its tendency to resort to violence, and to turn to
non-violence as a means of struggle. Instead of encouraging hatred
and the lust for revenge, let us encourage goodwill and trust
between the two sides, and move towards a just and long-lasting
peace for the good of both our peoples and the entire region.