Nonviolent Change Journal

Amos Gvirtz is a founder of Israelis and Palestinians for Non-Violence, former Israeli representative of the International Fellowship of Reconciliation (IFOR) and chairperson of the Committee Against House Demolitions.

Republished from the Palestine-Israel Journal (PIJ). Distributed by the Common Ground News Service. with permission for republication.

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. The stone photographed better than all the other actions and thus made 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 Œ30s and Œ40s). 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.

Nonviolent 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 ˆ 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.

Top of Page

These articles and opinions of the authors do not constitute the endorsement of Nonviolent Change nor its publisher, Organization Development Institute, or any of its staff, nor of CirclePoint which is housing the Nonviolent Change Journal.

©2002.2003. All rights reserve. The Nonviolent Change Journal is published by the Research/Action Team on Nonviolent Large Systems Change - an interorganizational and international project of The Organization Development Institute.

Permissions: Reposting and reprints are encouraged, as long as proper source acknowledgement is given. As a courtesy, please let us know that you are reprinting or electronically reposting. It helps us know of the interest level. Thank you.