TFF logo
NEWPRESSINFOTFFFORUMSFEATURESPUBLICATIONSKALEJDOSKOPLINKS


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

 

 

mail
Tell a friend about this article

Send to:

From:

Message and your name

 

 

Back to NONVIOLENCE
FORUM

 

 

SPECIALS 

Photo galleries

Nonviolence Forum

TFF News Navigator

Become a TFF Friend

TFF Online Bookstore

Reconciliation project

Make an online donation

Foundation update and more

TFF Peace Training Network

Make a donation via bank or postal giro

Menu below

 


Home

New

PressInfo

TFF

Forums

Features

Publications

Kalejdoskop

Links



 

The Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research
Vegagatan 25, S - 224 57 Lund, Sweden
Phone + 46 - 46 - 145909     Fax + 46 - 46 - 144512
http://www.transnational.org   comments@transnational.org

© TFF 1997-2003