|
International
Presence in The Holy Land
By
Bernt Jonsson
November 7, 2000
Introduction
Political acceptance is based on a successful struggle
concerning the understanding of reality. In a conflict
the issue is how the parties and the conflict are
portrayed to the international public opinion. Eye
witnesses on the spot, who are a danger to the
credibility of the propagated image, represent a threat
to an acceptance of the performed policy as justifiable.
A strategic response is then, primarily, to prevent their
presence and, secondarily, to limit it. Thirdly, their
credibility ought to be undermined, if possible.
The intention of this paper is to argue:
- that Israel over the years has followed this
strategy successfully in the Israeli - Palestinian
conflict;
- that this strategy is now in danger and may even be
counterproductive, as the undertaken measures are meeting
increasing criticism and resistance;
- that this critique is formulated by the international
community and particularly enacted by the civil society,
consisting of nongovernmental organisations and
churches;
- that different sectors of the civil society represent
different strategies with certain similarities and vary
in strengths and weaknesses;
- that the church oikoumene has a unique relationship to
The Holy Land and consequently both a particular
responsibility and a particular possibility to act in
this context.
UN and presence in
The Holy Land
Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary General, nodded
"vigorously when asked if he supports the posting of an
armed peacekeeping force to separate the adversaries" in
the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and he was sceptical
about the sufficiency of the 15 American monitors of the
road map to peace. (1)
Kofi Annan is not alone in taking this stand. On the
contrary, this position seems to be a logical and quite
reasonable conclusion in view of both the durability of
the conflict and the many UN resolutions asking Israel to
stop the occupation and solve the conflict peacefully
together with the Palestinians. While Palestinians - both
leaders and grass root people - for a long time have
wished a sizable international presence, such ideas have
with one rare exception been totally and successfully
dismissed by Israel.
In connection with the Israeli re-occupation of the
West Bank in April 2002, the UN wanted to send a
fact-finding mission to find out what happened
more precisely in Jenin, but Israel refused to let them
come - without any resulting international sanctions.
Israel has been able to refuse a co-operation with the
international community, as the United States has had the
option and obviously also the willingness to veto every
idea as to a UN Security Council resolution, based on
chapter VII in the UN Charter. This chapter allows peace
enforcement, i.e. measures not necessarily accepted by
both the parties in a conflict.
In 1948 such a resolution (2) was decided, but it did
only tell the parties (= Israel and its neighbours) to
issue a cease-fire. In 1982 a draft resolution referring
to the Israeli annexation of the Syrian Golan heights as
an act of aggression was vetoed by the USA, while five
other Members abstained.
In the fall 2000 Arafat wanted 2000 UN peacekeepers to
separate the parties in the occupied territories and to
limit police actions by the Israeli occupation forces. In
spite of Israel's rejection of the idea, it was brought
to the Security Council, where the proposal came within
one vote of a majority. Only the threat of a US veto held
Britain, France and Russia to a mere abstention on the
final resolution. (3)
The absence of UN peacekeepers, however, does not mean
that international presence has been missing totally.
Temporary
International Presence in the City of Hebron
(TIPH)
Apart from the monitors mentioned above there is
though just one example of a mutual agreement about an
official international presence on the West Bank:
Temporary International Presence in the City of Hebron
(TIPH) with its present mandate from an agreement, signed
by the parties in 1997. (4)
Hebron has a history of bloody conflicts, even if the
Jewish presence in the city is described as peaceful up
the end of the nineteenth century. When the Jews started
to immigrate in large numbers in the early 1900s, the
equilibrium was broken. The tensions lead to clashes,
escalating in 1929 with the Hebron riots. 67 Jews were
killed, 60 more were wounded, and roughly 700 survived,
mainly due to the protection given by Palestinian
neighbours. The survivors were in 1936 evacuated by the
British Mandate Authorities, and Hebron remained closed
to Jews until 1967. Since then the area is characterized
by repeated clashes between Palestinians and militant
Jewish settlers and by daily confrontations between the
Israeli army (IDF) and the Palestinian population.
(5)
There were primarily three factors leading to the 1997
agreement:
- The Jewish settlements, which now has increased to
around 500 settlers in the Old City of Hebron, as a motif
for special arrangements.
- The Oslo process ("Oslo I", 1993 and "Oslo II", 1995),
in which Arafat already in 1993 had demanded
international observers in Hebron.
- The massacre February 25, 1994, when the Jewish settler
Baruch Goldstein killed 29 Palestinians in the Ibrahim
Mosque; the deed was condemned by the Security Council
(Resolution 904), which demanded international observers
in Hebron.
A special Memorandum of Understanding defines
the mandate for TIPH with personnel from Denmark, Italy,
Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey and the coordinator country
Norway. The area of surveillance is in principle all the
city of Hebron, i.e. both H1 (= 80% of Hebron under
Palestinian rule) and H2 (= 20% of Hebron under Israeli
rule). In June 2002 Israel destroyed the local
Palestinian police headquarter and re-occupied H1.
The originally intended 180 staff persons are now only
60 (6), half of whom are observers, unarmed by choice to
underline the civilian character of the mission. The
tasks of TIPH personnel are, inter alia
- "to promote by their presence a feeling of security
to the Palestinians of Hebron
- "to stability and an appropriate environment conducive
to the enhancement of the well-being of the Palestinians
of Hebron and their economic development"
- "to observe the enhancement of peace and prosperity
among Palestinians"
- "to assist in the promotion and execution of projects
initiated by the donor countries". (7)
Due to the re-occupation much of the agreed structure
with different meetings between the parties has broken
down, but TIPH continues to report on a bi-weekly basis
to the foreign offices at home and to Israel and the
Palestinian Authority. TIPH has reasonable resources but
suffers from a number of frustrating problems:
1. Its limited mandate: only to observe but never to
interfere, not even through efforts of persuasion
2 The great opportunities for IDF to play "hide and
seek", i.e. stopping a TIPH patrol by suddenly defining a
street as a closed military zone and thereby preventing
TIPH from observing IDF actions. After ten minutes the
street may be re-opened to no avail, as the observation
object is gone. (8)
3. TIPH is not allowed to spread its reports to media
and NGOs following the development in the area. This
means that no authority can be made publicly accountable,
neither can TIPH mobilize any public opinion against
violations of human rights.
Consequently the political effect of TIPH activities
is limited and totally dependent on the willingness of
the parties and the six governments to act. As the
prolongation of TIPH is up to a new decision every three
months, viable and uncomfortable pressures from the six
observer countries upon the parties may rapidly make the
TIPH mission to something in the past.
In the absence of any UN mandate to send peace forces
or even monitors a number of international
nongovernmental actors - both secular and religious -
have entered the scene. (9)
The International
Solidarity Movement (ISM)
Most media attention has been given to The
International Solidarity Movement (ISM) (10), which
has made reporting to and via media to their primary
instrument. It is a Palestinian guided movement, founded
by Palestinian, Israeli and American activists in order
to increase the awareness about the Palestinian struggle
and to stop the occupation. It is primarily a network
with an office in Beit Sahour.
"As enshrined in international law and UN resolutions"
ISM recognizes "the Palestinian right to resist Israeli
violence and occupation via legitimate armed struggle"
but is "committed to the principles of nonviolent
resistance". The non-violence ground-rules include no
weapons and no alcohol or drugs except for medical
purposes.
Nonviolent direct action has been used as a method to
confront and challenge the occupation and its principles.
International activists (11) participate in order to be a
resource for the Palestinians through their sheer
presence and to be witnesses to the daily humiliation
Palestinians suffer from the occupation forces. ISM
considers itself as an avant-garde to the
intergovernmental intervention it does demand as
protection of the Palestinian population and as an
guarantee for Israel's compliance with international
law.
The movement was founded only a couple of years ago
but has got media attention through a number of bold -
some would say adventurous or even foolhardy - actions,
i.a. staying in Palestinian houses threatened by
demolition (12). Some have followed Palestinian
ambulances and medical personnel. Others have, together
with Palestinian peasants, tried to prevent IDF
bulldozers from destroying fruit trees and plantations. A
young American woman was killed in such an effort.
(13)
Even if many peace activists and human right workers
have been denied visa to Israel earlier (14), the
negative publicity Israel has received through these
events has most likely been an important reason for the
authorities to step up the campaign against ISM. (15)
This is mirrored also in international media. (16) In May
2003 the ISM office was raided by IDF, confiscating
computers and other equipment.
ISM has also had special shorter campaigns - most
recently Freedom Summer Palestine - with several
hundreds of international participants. To the olive
harvest in 2002 many came in order to protect Palestinian
peasants against violations by militant settlers. In some
cases ISM-ers themselves were attacked and wounded. Quite
a few well-known Israelis joined the campaign, which had
the effect that both international and Israeli media drew
attention to the problem of settler violence.
The commitment of the activists and the media
publicity are clearly ISM assets, but there are also a
number of weaknesses:
1. ISM has no practical possibility to implement a
screening process as to participants. Instead
enthusiastic volunteers raise their funds on their own.
These two factors increase the risk that "wrong" persons
join and act in the name of movement. With or without
intentional infiltration this structure makes ISM
vulnerable and could easily be used by its
adversaries.
2. Many ISM'ers are quite young and fairly
inexperienced activists, which increases the danger of
wrong judgments concerning both risks and long term
effects of different activities. Victories in a short
term perspective may have to be paid dearly by exactly
those the intention was to support.
3. Most of the ISM-ers come for a very short time and
are therefore given a very short introduction - a two
days training. As many do not have earlier experience
from the area and its tensions this may have troubling
consequences. There is also a risk that they don't get
enough debriefing afterwards to cope with their traumatic
experiences.
Grassroots
International Protection for the Palestinian People
(GIPP)
ISM is a member of a Palestinian network Grassroots
International Protection for the Palestinian People
(GIPP) (17), an umbrella organization for a number of
Palestinian NGOs. It defines itself as a peaceful and
non-violent solidarity organization. It has taken a
strong stand against suicide bombings and other violence
against civilians - whoever the actors and victims
are.
Like ISM, GIPP also wants to see and an increased
international presence in the occupied territories - both
on a voluntary basis and through a genuine international
protection force. While ISM to a high extent has
cultivated its American contacts, GIPP has more been
oriented towards Europe - especially France and Italy but
also Belgium, the Netherlands and Switzerland, from where
volunteers have come. In these countries GIPP has a
variety of different partners.
International
Women´s Peace Service (IWPS)
While the ISM and GIPP activists are spread over all
the occupied Palestinian territories, International
Women´s Peace Service (IWPS) (18) created a
centre in the village Hares, covering the Salfit area
south of Nablus. Nearby is Ariel, one of the very largest
Israeli settlements (20 000 inhabitants), still
continuing to expand on land, expropriated from Hares and
neighbouring villages.
After a couple of years with delegations to Hares IWPS
last year began a three-year project with continuous
presence. The model is to a very large extent taken from
Christian Peacemaker Teams (see below), the difference
being that IWPS is secular and gender based. The hope is
that the experiences in Palestine should be of value also
in other urgent conflict areas.
The work is centred in the International Women´s
House, created at the invitation by the Hares village
council. As other international groups described in this
paper IWPS wants to document violations of human rights
and to spread information about them via media and
internet, in their case especially to a broad network of
peace and feminist groups. One speciality is the ambition
to write special "village profiles", i.e. describing the
villages in the Salfit Governate - their history, present
situation and future - a project with clear political
implications during present circumstances.
The founders of IWPS belong to a strong tradition of
non-violence, which is mirrored in their activist
profile. This includes providing protective shields for
civilians, support to direct non-violent actions by
Israeli and Palestinian peace movements. Even if
volunteers are welcome for shorter periods, the more
permanent team members are expected to have received a
thorough training as to both non-violent civil resistance
and the historical and political background of the area
and the conflict.
The idea is also to share their knowledge about
non-violence with the local population. Therefore actions
are carried through in consultation with the villagers.
This means that they can be disrupted, if they are deemed
to use up local resources or to increase the risks for
the population in an unacceptable way.
IWPS is still a small scale project, and its effects
are difficult to evaluate. Even if the library and
meeting facilites of the Women´s House are open to
both sexes, its feminist character is of special
interest. No doubt, this may be an asset in the local
Muslim culture, at the same time as the activist
character might be a challenge to a society influenced by
traditional Arabic culture.
The impelling force of feminism in this context lies
in an understanding of "masculine cultures as especially
prone to violence and so feminist women tend to have a
particular perspective on security, safety, violence and
war." (19) This in combination with a fear that women's
voices would be drowned out in a mixed structure has
paved the way for this experiment in feminist peace and
justice work.
At the same time as IWPS is opposing the Israeli
occupation and its violations of human rights, its very
existence is also a critique - although not always
outspoken - of the traditional masculine society. It is
not unlikely that some participants look upon the
occupation as just another expression of the tendency of
such a society to go for solutions with violence.
Christian
Peacemaker Teams (CPT) (20)
As IWPS the Christian Peacemaker Teams (CPT)
(21) has had its focus on one area, in their case the
conflict filled Hebron, where they have been since 1995
after an official invitation by the Palestinian mayor of
Hebron. As a test CPT had for a shorter period in 2002 a
rapid deployment team in Jerusalem, but Hebron remains
the centre of their work.
CPT was founded at the end of the 80´s on an
initiative by the Mennonites and Church of Brethren, USA,
and later with support from the Quakers too. It was in
response to a challenge that Christian pacifists had to
be "ready to die by the thousands in dramatic vigorous
new exploits for peace and justice... Unless we are ready
to die developing new non-violent attempts to reduce
conflict, we should confess that we never meant that the
cross was an alternative to the sword." (22)
Imprisonment, beatings, deportation and even death
have affected CPT-ers, even if not in thousands. The
activities are still too modest but do now include
programmes and projects in almost ten countries, i.a.
Afghanistan, Colombia, Mexico and Puerto Rico. The long
term vision is to increase to about 100 000 peace-makers
through CPT and other actors. Presently - with few
exceptions - the participants come from Canada and
USA.
An ambitious one-month training is given to those who
commit themselves to a period of three years, and some of
them serve later as reservists in order to cover urgent
needs for shorter periods. The presence in the conflict
area is interrupted for shorter periods at home, which
are used for recovery, training and information
activities. Last year 35 CPT-ers were working full-time,
there were more than 100 reservists, and the number is
growing from year to year.
The participants come out of many different church
traditions but share a strong conviction that
non-violence is not only an alternative strategic method
but also a decisively ethical life style with a
foundation in Christian faith. The daily worship and
reflection regarding the interface between the Biblical
texts and the current reality serves also as a way to
work with traumatic experiences. In Hebron the faith-base
has been an asset in the "discussions with devout
Muslims, who may not understand (or trust) those with a
strong humanist ethic wanting to assist, they do
understand people wanting to help because God has called
them to do so." (23)
An important part of the CPT concept is trying to
engage as many churches as possible in the struggle
against war and violence and in long term the development
of institutions, abilities and training for nonviolent
interventions in conflict situations. One element in this
is to organize thorough study trips for delegations to
actual conflict areas. Both these and the number of
donors - individuals and congregations - have increased
substantially in recent years.
CPT in Hebron has used a lot of time to patrolling in
order to protect the school children against harassments
from soldiers and settlers. They have intervened to
support Palestinians against physical attacks, prevented
and documented house demolitions, inspired Israelis to
join the struggle against house demolitions, sold
tomatoes as a protest against the IDF closure of the
vegetable market, ridden bus #18 in Jerusalem during a
period after two suicide bombings, taught English and
non-violence outside of the closed Hebron University and
been an information resource to lots of reporters,
international church leaders and diplomats, who have
studied the expansion of settlements in the Baqa'a
valley. (24)
As seen the actions primarily try to protect
Palestinians against violence. Does this mean that CPT is
a part in the conflict? No, but definitely partial, i.e.
taking a stand against oppression and injustice and for
human rights. In the conflict between powers that be and
powerless people they go with the later. Generally the
aim is to reduce the level of violence. At the same time
there have been actions which, in the spirit of Martin
Luther King, have aimed at conflict
intensification instead of conflict escalation
in order to make a hidden conflict more visible and open
to non-violent means. (25)
Simultaneously conflict intensification carries an
evident risk for the affected Palestinians. The method
does therefore demand a sensitivity towards the local
population. After consultations with them CPT has in
certain cases disrupted or abstained from actions against
the occupants.
The CPT-ers themselves have over the years been
harassed by IDF, most recently in May 2003, when one of
the team members was put in jail. The rest of the staff
got a house arrest and was threatened with deportation in
case they left the house. Later all of them regained most
of the earlier freedom of movement in spite of living at
the very centre of the most 'hot' area with surrounding
settlements.
Other CPT difficulties are e.g.:
1) Their knowledge in Arabic and Hebrew is most often
limited - a problem shared with most of the international
activists. This is sometimes a problem in the
communication with the local population and also with the
Israeli soldiers. There is not always help available
through a good interpreter.
2) CPT has earlier tried to come on speaking terms
with settlers in Hebron - but in vain. The settler
aggressiveness has been too strong. However, this failure
- or maybe rather the de facto capitulation in the face
of this attitude - may carry a risk that it does confirm
the worldview of the settlers that all those who do not
accept their values are their enemies. And thus the
result is a negative spiral.
3) The perpective of the CPT-er is at risk of staying
at micro level, even when the intended reduction of
violence perhaps can be achieved only at macro level.
This is partially a result of the method, which is
applied among the grassroots. To get into dialogue with
the real powers that be - high ranked officers within IDF
- is difficult but ought to be an important complimentary
element to the necessary meetings and conversations on
the ground. The insight of this complimentary need does
not always seem to be present among all CPT-ers, a
situation they may share with other activists.
Ecumenical
Accompaniment Programme in Palestine and Israel
(EAPPI)
The long CPT presence and work in Hebron has been an
important inspiration and experience to build upon in the
development of The Ecumenical Accompaniment Programme in
Palestine and Israel (EAPPI), launched by the World
Council of Churches in 2002. The programme is a response
to the request from the church leaders for an increased
international presence in the area. Already earlier there
were many international church based institutions and
humanitarian organisations, but the church leaders wanted
primarily international observers to mitigate and report
about the effects of the occupation.
EAPPI was started as an integrated part of the WCC
campaign End the Illegal Occupation of Palestine.
Support a Just Peace in the Middle East, which in its
turn is a part of the WCC Decade to Overcome Violence
2001-2010 (DOV). (26) EAPPI is supported today
by more than 30 churches and ecumenical partners in - so
far - eight countries. (27)
In contrast to several other international programmes
EAPPI does not work through their own large teams. After
a couple of weeks' training at home and on the spot, the
ecumenical accompaniers are - under the guidance of the
EAPPI office in Jerusalem - co-located with Israeli and
Palestinian organisations and churches, working for
justice, peace, human rights and reconciliation. Roughly
60 accompaniers have spent three months or more in the
area since the beginning of the programme in August 2002.
They range in age from 22 to 72 years.
The objectives of EAPPI are defined as follows:
- Express solidarity and empower local churches and
Palestinian and Israeli peace activists
- Ensure the respect of human rights and international
humanitarian law and contribute to ending the brutality,
humiliation and violence against all civilians
- Be an active witness that an alternative, non-violent
struggle for justice and peace is possible to end the
illegal occupation of Palestine
- Expose the violence of occupation and construct a
stronger global advocacy network to influence public
opinion and national foreign policies with regard to
ending the occupation and creating a viable Palestinian
state. (28)
The presence as such should be seen as an expression
of solidarity with the churches in the area and with
other people, suffering from the Israeli occupation and
its consequences for both Palestinians and Israelis.
There has been a number of different accompanier roles
(29):
Some have followed health teams and ambulances through
military checkpoints in order to, for instance, transport
dialysis patients from the West Bank to hospitals in
Jerusalem. Others have been assisting Israeli and
Palestinian human rights, peace, information and
ecumenical organisations with field work, research,
documentation and reporting; this pertains to issues such
as freedom of movement in southern Gaza, water problems
as a result of occupation, statelessness, house
demolitions, rehabilitation of youth and the construction
of the separation wall.
Some have been working with Christian congregations in
Jerusalem, visiting church schools and homes and
accompanying church leaders on local travels and
meetings.
Accompanying Israeli and Palestinian field workers in
collecting testimonies about violations of human rights,
humanitarian workers in delivering relief aid to remote
areas, mental health doctors visiting patients at home
and peace activists attending protest actions are other
examples. Vocational training and sessions on
non-violence to women's groups is another activity. One
shared the sorrow with Israelis after a suicide bombing
in Netanya, and one participated in an Israeli
demonstration outside a military prison in which
soldiers, refusing to serve on occupied territory, had
been confined. Others have been patrolling areas where
there has been curfew or settler violence to ensure that
children can safely attend school.
In addition to these individual undertakings there
have also been a number of collective activities, e.g.
meetings with ecumenical delegations and visiting
journalists, participation in humanitarian convoys
organised by Christian NGOs, and in peaceful
Israeli-Palestinian demonstrations against the separation
wall. A large number of articles in English and in home
languages written by the accompaniers as well as lots of
speaking engagements after the return to the home
countries are other results of.
In terms of quantity a lot has happened but in terms
of quality? As always in a new activity there have been
some child diseases (30):
1) Recruitment and selection of accompaniers are made
at the national level, but the recruitment criteria
and/or their application seem to have been less clear and
consistent enough, which has created different
expectations among the accompaniers. This has in certain
cases created difficult tension among accompaniers and in
relation to locally responsible people.
2) Nonviolence has in principle been a basis for EAPPI
from the very first beginning, but non-violence was not
originally on the training agenda. As relatively few of
the accompaniers seem to have had earlier experiences of
non-violent action and theory this has been a handicap as
to the fulfilment of important objectives of the
programme.
3) The tasks and locations of accompaniers have as a
pre-requisite an understanding of the accompanier role,
which is the same for both EAPPI and the host
organisations. This has far from always been the
case.
4) As the accompaniers are spread all over and
co-located with Israeli and Palestinian organisations, it
is difficult to apply the positive experiences from CPT
of daily worship and reflection regarding the interface
between the Biblical texts and the current reality. This
lack of an on-going debriefing may aggravate some
traumatic experiences.
Finally there is a methodological problem: How do you
measure success and fulfilment of objectives? To register
obvious results is difficult. The programme is still
young, the time is too short, and the number of
accompaniers is still limited. However, even if these
shortcomings are overcome over time, the basic problem
will remain. If the accompanier of e.g. a human rights
worker does succeed (= no incident of violence), it goes
without being noticed, whereas a failure will be quite
manifest.
In relation to other civil society based efforts to
defend human rights, to decrease the violence in the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict and to end the occupation
EAPPI has a comparative advantage through the
international network of churches and ecumenical bodies.
This offers unique possibilities to pursue a long-term
public policy advocacy within and with the help of these
structures. The slowness often demonstrated by the
churches may in this context be an asset, as it does
exclude actions and activities based on the mood of the
day.
The broad international and ecumenical context of
EAPPI may have given a certain protection versus the
Israeli authorities, as the programme so far has not
suffered from such harassments as both CPT and ISM have
experienced. It is true that the Israeli ambassador to
Sweden has objected both to the Christian Council of
Sweden and the Swedish Ministry for Foreign Affairs, but
no ecumenical accompanier has been prevented to enter
Israel or Palestine to serve in the programme. Recently
though a former accompanier was stopped and deported,
which might indicate a change of policy.
Another EAPPI asset is that its project holder, the
World Council of Churches (31), simultaneously has a
number of political demands addressed to e.g. the
European Union:
- review all forms of military co-operation with the
state of Israel including instituting a strict arms
embargo
- suspend the EU-Israel Euro-Mediterranean Association
Agreement until Israel complies with the provisions of
the Agreement itself…on respect for human rights and
democratic principles
- participate in an international mission or third-party
mechanism on the ground to oversee the compliance of the
parties with the demands from the international
community.
These demands have a strong support among the
different international groups working in different ways
in order to end the occupation and to strengthen the
human rights of all involved. Interestingly enough these
thoughts - including the demand for a boycott of
settlement products - are beginning to receive an
increasing support within the Israeli peace movement.
(32)
Groups like ISM, GIPP, IWPS, CPT and EAPPI should with
all their limitations be seen as guides and avant-gardes
for a stronger international commitment to and
involvement in a peaceful future for Israelis and
Palestinians. Through their activities they contribute to
an undermining of the Israeli image of the conflict, an
image which has been successful for several decades.
Especially in the Western hemisphere the churches have
the advantage of a certain credibility and sometimes also
a certain status, which may be a special asset in the
advocacy work. So far though - in spite of the WCC
commitment to peace and justice in the Middle East - the
churches in many countries seem to be reluctant to give
their full support to EAPPI.
Appendix
Accompaniers (33)
Roles and functions
In a conflict the adversaries are the primary actors,
and those siding with any of them should be seen as
secondary actors. There is also a possibility of a third
party intervention, taking different forms and
characteristics. Examples of such roles - sometimes
performed by governments, intergovernmental organisations
and voluntary organisations, sometimes by individuals -
are brokers, mediators, facilitators, observers, monitors
and accompaniers. To combine the roles of secondary actor
and third party runs the risk of creating difficulties in
terms of credibility, which could undermine the very
purpose of the mission.
With one exception the aims and objectives of EAPPI
fall clearly within the third party category. In
accordance with traditional definitions of the tasks of
nonviolence they can be categorized in the following
way:
A. Opening up space for local peace actors to
work:
- Accompany Palestinians and Israelis in nonviolent
actions and concerted advocacy efforts to end the
occupation and to ensure respect of human rights and
international law.
- Express solidarity with Palestinian and Israeli human
rights groups, peace activists and empower local
Palestinian communities/churches
- Be an active witness that an alternative, nonviolent
struggle for justice and peace is possible to end the
illegal occupation of Palestine
- Strengthen ecumenical co-ordination and cooperation in
Palestine and Israel
B. Trying to break the spiral of violence through
international presence
- Monitor and report on violations of human rights and
international humanitarian law
- Offer protection through nonviolent presence
- Expose the violence of the occupation
- End the brutality, humiliation and violence against
civilians
- Ensure the respect of Human Rights and International
Humanitarian Law
C. Working to make an international impact
- Pursue public policy advocacy through information
and publicity work by different means
- Construct a stronger global advocacy network
- Influence public opinion in home country and affect
foreign policy on Middle East in order to end the
occupation and create a viable Palestinian State
- Contribute to the Ecumenical Decade of Overcoming
Violence and to the UN Decade of a Culture of Peace and
Nonviolence for the Children of the World
- Enhance the capacity of the churches and organisations
in the ecumenical networks to create peaceful processes
for transforming conflicts and preventing violence and
war
- Contribute to the ongoing development of policies,
action programmes and resources for preventing violence,
transforming conflicts and building peace.
The remaining objective
- Supporting acts of non-violent resistance alongside
local Christian and Muslim Palestinians and Israeli peace
activists which can be interpreted as having a leaning
towards the role of secondary actor, should be
implemented only on two conditions:
+ that both Israelis and Palestinians do participate
in the action
+ that the accompaniers do not have any leading
function
Notes
1. Haaretz 030613
2. Resolution 54
3. Jerry Pubantz and John Allphin Moore, Jr: Best of
Times, Worst of Time: The Fortunes of the United Nations
in the Middle East. Alternatives. Turkish Journal of
International Relations. Vol 2, Number 2, Summer
2003.
4. The Agreement on the Temporary International
Presence in the City of Hebron, January 21, 1997, signed
by the Israeli and PLO representatives. It is not
affiliated with the United Nations. The mandate is
renewed every three months pending the approval from the
two parties. TIPH was preceded by two earlier monitoring
missions (1994 and 1996), more limited in scope and
participation.
5. For further details about recent history &endash;
go to www.tiph.org,
which also presents TIPH facts, structures and work.
6. The numbers should be compared with the roughly 2
000 Israeli soldiers and 140 000 Palestinians in the
Hebron area. As an idea of the magnitude of peace keeping
tasks it might be worth mentioning that an international
conference in Sweden with representatives of both NGOs
and governments recommended the European Union to develop
national peace services with 5 000 trained civilians in
addition to the 5 000 police already decided. See Bernt
Jonsson (ed): Preventing Violent Conflict and Building
Peace. On Interaction between State Actors and Voluntary
Organisations (European Centre for Conflict Prevention
& Swedish Peace Team Forum 2002)
7. www.tiph.org/Documents/Agreement.asp
8. Author´s observation.
9. This paper does not analyze the presence of
international development and humanitarian NGOs. For a
broad discussion on a potentially positive role of
civilian actors in conflict situations, see Lisa Schirch:
Keeping the Peace. Exploring civilian alternatives in
conflict prevention (Life & Peace Institute,
1995)
10. For documentation about ISM and its mission, see
www.palsolidarity.org/aboutISM
and www.palsolidarity.org/mission
11. According to ISM so far more than 1 000 activists
totally from all around the world. Approximately 15-20%
Jewish, including participating Israelis. The age range
is vast, with an average over 30. Many have been young
but there are also people in their seventies. (Press
Conference Statement 030505).
12. ISM strongly objects to the media use of the term
"human shield" in this context. In a statement 030505 ISM
says: "The term human shield is a specific reference to
civilians used by military or armed personnel for
protection. The ISM DOES NOT do this. On the contrary,
documented reports of the Israeli Army engaging in this
very behavior are available from all human rights
organizations, including B´Tselem, Amnesty
International, Human Rights Watch. We request the
press…(to) refer to the ISM activists as
accompaniment for Palestinian civilians, or as imposing
themselves to prevent war crimes." (Ibidem) The IDF use
of Palestinian civilians has in Israeli media been termed
"neighbour praxis" and heavily criticized by many
Israelis.
13. Rachel Corrie in Rafah, 030316. In April two other
ISM-ers were very seriously wounded. (Ibidem).
14. ISM claims that 50 ISM-volunteers were deported
from April 2002 to August 2002 and that hundreds human
rights workers have been denied entry since April 2002.
(Ibidem).
15. On April 16, 2003 the Army Chief of Staff, Lt
General Moshe Yaalon announced that he had given orders
to "take the ISM out", as ISM injured the "freedom of
action" for IDF. Another reason given has been the
said-to-be-connection between ISM and two British suicide
bombers in Tel Aviv, April 30, 2003. ISM has emphatically
denied such a connection, as the Britons never registered
to join ISM and never attended the mandatory training and
orientation. A cup of tea meeting of 15 minutes seems to
have been the only contact. (Ibidem).
16. E.g. articles by the leadership of Samfundet
Sverige &endash; Israel, Upsala Nya Tidning, 030802 and
030902.
17. www.pngo.net/GIPP
18. www.womenspeacepalestine.org
19. www.members.freespeech.org/womenpeacepalestine/IWPSProposal
20. The author of this paper stayed with CPT in Hebron
for almost three months but was not a member of CPT
21. www.prairienet.org/cpt
22. Ron Sider at the Mennonite World Conference in
Strasbourg 1984 (www.prairienet.org/cpt/history)
23. Cole Hull and Kathleen Kern: Background
information on Hebron, p 4, quoted in Susan A. Lyke &
Joseph G. Bock: Reflecting on the Christian Peacemaking
Team in Hebron, 2000 (Reflecting on Peace Practice
Project)
24. Ibidem.
25 Simon Fisher et al: Working with Conflict: Skills
& Strategies for Action, 2000.
26. DOV has chosen to focus on different countries in
different years: Palestine 2002, Sudan 2003 and United
States 2004. See further www.wcc-coe.org/dov.
As to EAPPI go to www.wcc-coe.org/palestine
27. Press release 030912; www2.wcc-coe.org/pressreleasesen.nsf/index/pu-03-35.
28. For this and following paragraphs, see www.wcc-coe.org/wcc/what/international/palestine/background.
This document states that EAPPI "will be based on
principles of international humanitarian and human rights
law", which &endash; in line with the offical positions
of WCC &endash; is elaborated with references to i.a. UN
resolutions and IVth Geneva Convention.
29. For an enlightening discussion on primary,
secondary and third party roles in a conflict, see A as
in Accompaniment by Anna Åkerlund, Eduardo
Villanuevo and Kari Berg, Swedish Fellowship of
Reconciliation. A summary of the paper is attached as an
appendix to this paper.
30. Analysis to a high degree based on author´s
own observations and oral comments by accompaniers.
31. General Secretary Konrad Raiser in a letter
2002-04-12 to the foreign ministers of the European
Union. The demands are preceded by sharp words: "The
international community…has consistently allowed the
State of Israel to ignore or openly violate successive
General Assembly and Security Council resolutions with
virtual impunity." Press Update 12 April 2002. www2.wcc-coe.org/pressreleasesen.nsf/index/pu-02-10.
32. Lena Lönnqvist: Vad ska prioriteras för
fredsbyggande i Israel-Palestina. Rapport om den
israeliska fredsrörelsen (Sveriges Kristna
Socialdemokrater, 2002)
33. Extract from an application to Sida (June 2002).
The content leans heavily on the document A as in
Accompaniment, which was written by Anna Åkerlund,
Eduardo Villanuevo and Kari Berg - members of the Swedish
Fellowship of Reconciliation - during the project
development work
Copyright © 2003 TFF
& author
Tell a friend about this article
Send to:
From:
Message and your name
Back
to NONVIOLENCE
FORUM
|
|