June 2024
26 27 28 29 30 31 1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 1 2 3 4 5 6


M. Peleg: A Call for Non-Violence

The non-violent approach unequivocally won and changed forever the history of the United States and of the entire world. The precedent it created, similarly to the French Revolution 200 years earlier, turned into a symbol with present and future implications for political struggles in various locations.

As opposed to the French Revolution, which introduced the idea that liberty and equality can only be realized through violence, the message conveyed by Martin Luther King, Jr., and his associates was that a just society will emerge out of a non-violent struggle.

Violence, even if it stems from genuine motives and distress, fans counter-violence and perpetuates the original pain that gave rise to it. More than any other people in the world today, the Palestinians should adopt the non-violent model. Had they already done so vis-à-vis the Israeli occupation, it is likely that many Israelis fed up with violating human rights and controlling another people would have joined them, and an independent and functioning Palestinian state would have already emerged.

The ongoing violence, both through its spontaneous and popular displays in the first Intifada as well as the evil aspects of mass undiscriminating terrorism, extended and perpetuated Palestinian misery. The fact that many Palestinians condemn the violence and are aware that its results are destructive for them does not change a thing; ever since the beginning of the conflict, the violent approach ruled and suppressed any possibility of another protest.

Yet for Israelis too, the non-violent approach is odd and foreign, unpopular, and viewed with contempt by a culture that has become used to violence and aggression from its very inception. And here lies the conflict's tragedy.

Non-violence is the key to changing the situation where both sides are losing every day. Until this model is adopted, the desired change will not come. However, this model suffers from a false image premised on a misunderstanding of the essence of the phenomenon: non-violence is perceived as a weak and ineffective model of concessions.

Yet as a rule, the reality is different: the single student vis-à-vis a row of tanks in China's Tiananmen Square, a mob of young people facing rifles on the streets of the Ukraine, and Dr. King himself walking erect in the face of a hostile crowd in Georgia—those are images not of weakness, but rather of strength and determination.

Non-violence is the blatant expression of standing up for what one believes in. Being dragged into violence and imitating the conduct of the other side is equal to the renunciation of principles and beliefs, capitulating and adopting the rules of a game introduced by others.

Many times violence stems from despair, losing one's head, and lack of choice. Non-violence is proud, has many faces, and boasts many choices. Ultimately, it is also a symbol of political efficiency. Following a 381-day bus boycott in Montgomery, Alabama, the bus company caved in and allowed African-Americans to sit anywhere they wished; sit-ins at restaurants and coffee shops managed, despite the beatings, spitting, and harsh humiliation, to curb the phenomenon of "places that are out of bounds"; eventually, non-violence, and only that, led to the annulment of all laws enforcing racial segregation.

Yet despite its obvious advantages and the accumulated historical experience regarding its necessity, resorting to non-violence in our region is not simple. Many Palestinians and Israelis built a career based on mutual violence and developed their individual identity, meaning of life, and group attachment on the basis of perceiving the other people as violent.

The negative and satanic image of the enemy flourished as a result of the occupation, on one side, and terrorism, on the other side. Non-violence threatens and endangers this outline, which has been created and reinforced for generations. How many Israelis, for example, are familiar with the Palestinian Organization for Non-violence and Democracy, which engages in widespread activity at schools and public institutions? Not many, since such familiarity may crack the collective image of a violent Palestinian culture.

There is no doubt that similar examples exist on the other side as well—and again, we are trapped in the grim symmetry of the conflict.If we return to the two great historic revolutionaries—Robespierre and Martin Luther King, Jr.—we can ask: What did the French Revolution bring us, aside from the recognition that the time of absolute government had passed and that equality and liberty were needed? It brought us the tradition of violence as a tool for realizing goals.And what did violence bring to the twentieth century? The deprivation of equality and liberty from many people, in addition to the killing of many others. Such horrific means cannot be sanctified by any goal.

If they are not blind to history, and if they seek life, both Palestinians and Israelis must adopt non-violence immediately—preaching in favor of a non-violent, untainted twenty-first century.