Nonviolence in Israel/Palestine

Israel-Palestine is a challenging case because of all of the outside forces and interests playing out in this tiny strip of land. Nonviolent resistance continues to play a dominant role in the discussion around how to address the military occupation of the West Bank in a way that demands Israel change its current policies. The two Intifadas that have occurred in the region were distinctly different. Intifada, or 'shaking off', is an attempt by the Palestinians to end Israeli control of their land. 

The first Intifada was largely nonviolent. There were cases of violence, but for the most part this was not the norm. It is important to note that one of the challenges to characterizing certain actions as nonviolent is that both parties don't always agree on what nonviolence is or looks like. Palestinians view rock throwing as nonviolent. After all, a tank or gun versus a rock is hardly a fair fight. However, Israelis see this as a violent act that can cause harm to civilians and military personnel. The great success of this intifada was that it led to the start of the Oslo accords. While, these agreements in and of themselves did not ultimately result in Palestinian independence, they were a step towards peace that must be recognized. 

The second intifada, was much more violent than the first. Suicide bombs were a large issue which is why Israel states it started building the security barrier. There were also clashes between Israelis and Palestinians. 

The reason both of the Intifadas is important is because the type of conflict has shaped how the international community views the actors involved. It also shapes how Israelis and Palestinians view each other. Israelis live largely isolated from Palestinians. They do not have to interact with Palestinians on a regular basis, other than during their military service, and so many don't. Palestinians, as a result of living under occupation, do spend more time around Israelis. But the power differential between the two is so extreme that the relationship is typically damaged from the start and most interactions are out of necessity.  

There are a few Palestinian organizations doing nonviolent resistance to the occupation. One of their challenges is that depending on their tactics, they can be accused of being normalizers by those in their own community. This can be a damaging reputation that hinders their work. Palestinians are growing increasingly frustrated with the lack of results (i.e. statehood) and can see nonviolent resistance as a copout to stronger forms of resistance. 

Israelis, on the other hand, are largely afraid of Palestinians. They do not have to interact frequently, and live in fear that the second intifada will become their reality again. Nonviolence would be a better option from their perspective because it takes away some of the fear.  As the hegemonic power, however, they are not responsive to nonviolent resistance from within and have to have more international pressure. 

For example, one of the still emerging forms of nonviolent action in the region is the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement. I say emerging not because it hasn't been active, but because it is not yet effective. The movement itself has no clear direction and the level of boycott varies widely making the message inconclusive. Are you boycotting the state of Israel or the Israeli military occupation of Palestine? Without direction, even a well-intentioned nonviolent movement that has great potential can be limited and ineffective. In my view, it is better to highlight a boycott of settlement products since the military occupation and illegal settlements are the main issue.