Third-party Nonviolent Intervention and Peace-building:
The Ecumenical Accompaniment Programme in Palestine and Israel
This thesis is submitted for obtaining the Master’s Degree in International Humanitarian Action.
By submitting the thesis, the author certifies that the text is from his/her hand, does not include the work of someone else unless clearly indicated, and that the thesis has been produced in accordance with proper academic practices.
Joint Master‟s Programme in International Humanitarian Action NOHA Master Thesis – 30 ECTS Author: Karolina Göranzon Date of submission: 6th December 2016 Supervisor: Brian Palmer, Uppsala University
1 Abstract
This thesis explores the role of third-party nonviolent interventions as a supportive mechanism in relation to local peace-building initiatives. A framework on violence, conflict, peace, nonviolence and intervention is outlined in the theoretical chapters, to provide a basis for discussing the empirical findings of the research. Through the strategy of a case study and with a mixed-method approach of participant observations and interviews, perspectives from the context of the situation in Palestine and Israel were gathered. Five key informant interviews with former participants of third-party nonviolent interventions programmes were conducted, and during ethnographic fieldwork in Palestine and Israel, four local peace-building initiatives were studied.
The findings are discussed in relation to the theoretical framework and the conclusions drawn from the discussion is that while third-party nonviolent interventions can contribute to local peace- building, it is mainly through decreasing the risk of escalation of violence in certain situations, sharing information and by supporting local peace-building initiatives. In order to be effective in this area, it is crucial that the third-party nonviolent interventions are perceptive of the local context, and reflect on the role that they play.
2 Acknowledgments
I would like to direct my heartfelt gratitude to my key informants for sharing their time and experiences with me in the process of this research. I am deeply grateful for the opportunity granted to me by SweFOR to participate in the training of trainers in nonviolence, providing me with invaluable insights into the workings of nonviolence.
I would like to thank my supervisor, Brian Palmer, for his guidance and feedback throughout the process. To my family, friends and co-workers: your support and encouragement has been a key motivation for me while working on this thesis.
Finally I would like to acknowledge all those who are tirelessly working for peace in different ways, some of which I have met while conducting the research for this thesis. You are an inspiration.
3 Acronyms
EAPPI Ecumenical Accompaniment Programme in Palestine and Israel
SEAPPI Swedish Ecumenical Accompaniment Programme in Palestine and Israel
EA Ecumenical Accompanier
WCC World Council of Churches
PBI Peace Brigades International
CPT Christian Peacemaker Teams
ISM International Solidarity Movement
SweFOR Swedish Fellowship of Reconciliation
ICAHD Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions
UN United Nations
UNOCHA UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs
AU African Union
IDF Israeli Defence Force
PLO Palestine Liberation Organisation
BDS Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions
NGO Non-Governmental Organisation
4 Table of contents
Abstract 1
Acknowledgments 2
Acronyms 3
1 Introduction 5
1.1 Research problem, relevance to the field of humanitarian action and previous research 5
1.2 Research question 6
1.2.1 Sub questions 6
1.3 Research design 6
1.3.1 Strategy, approach, methods and limitations 6
1.3.2 Disposition 9
1.4 Ethical considerations 10
2 Deterrence 11
2.1 Violence and conflict 11
2.2 Peace and nonviolence 14
3 Protection 18
3.1 Intervention mechanisms 18
3.2 Third-party nonviolent initiatives 20
4 Acceptance 24
4.1 Ecumenical Accompaniment Programme in Palestine and Israel 25
4.2 Local initiatives 34
4.3 Excursus 38
5 Discussion 41
6 Conclusions 44
7 List of References 46
Appendices 52
5 1 Introduction
1.1 Research problem, relevance to the field of humanitarian action and previous research Humanitarian interventions can be defined as:
any coercive action up to and including the use of force, with the alleged purpose of preventing or putting to halt gross and massive violations of human rights, with or without the consent of the receiving state as well as with or without the authorization of the UN Security Council. (Krieg, 2013: 9).
With the inclusion of the use of force, this definition echoes the human tendency to use force as a means to solve conflict, since this is generally assumed to be the most effective path (Stephan and Chenoweth, 2008: 7). In the context of humanitarian interventions, I have always found this a strange assumption, and even more so when it comes to peace-building. This thesis will explore third-party nonviolent interventions potential as an alternative mechanism to support peace-building in conflict settings. I have chosen to do so through the strategy of a case study, focusing primarily on the international initiative the Ecumenical Accompaniment Programme in Palestine and Israel (EAPPI), as well as by looking at different local peace-building initiatives in Palestine and Israel1.
Peace-building and humanitarian action has been linked in previous research; here I would like to mention a master thesis by Gabriele François Casini, attendant of the NOHA Master's Programme.
Casini (2012: 6) writes that:
getting a better understanding of peacebuilding organizations and their work can provide humanitarian actors with useful insights on how to link and complement their respective efforts, thus contributing to implement more sustainable and effective strategies.
I agree with Casini on this issue. I also believe that nonviolence adopted as both an approach and method can contribute much to humanitarian assistance and peace-building. Nonetheless, violence tends to be in forefront of research (Chenoweth and Gallagher Cunningham, 2013) (Galtung, 2009). This thesis will hopefully present a piece of the puzzle on the issue of nonviolence and peace-building.
EAPPI has been the topic of previous theses. Emmy Sartell (2014) studied the impartiality and neutrality of the programme in her bachelor thesis, and Louise Albansson (2005) conducted an evaluation and reflection of the programme in her bachelor thesis. However, these research
1 I have chosen to write ‟Palestine and Israel‟ since that is the order of the names in the title of the main third-party nonviolent intervention – EAPPPI – studied in this research project.
6 projects do not cover the same research question as this thesis.
1.2 Research question
The objective of this thesis is to explore the practise of third-party nonviolent intervention, and its potential as a tool to enable local peace-building. My primary research question is:
In the setting of Palestine and Israel, can third-party nonviolent initiatives such as the Ecumenical Accompaniment Programme in Palestine and Israel (EAPPI) contribute to peace-building locally, and if yes, how?
1.2.1 Sub-questions
Through my ethnographic fieldwork in Palestine and Israel in April 2015 when I met with local peace-building organisations, as well as through interviews conducted during 2015 and 2016, I have investigated the following sub-questions:
Do the conditions for local peace-building in Palestine and Israel influence third-party nonviolent intervention, and if yes, how?
How are third-party nonviolent interventions regarded by programme-participants themselves, as well as by people in the local context?
While the focus of this thesis is the role of the international initiatives, these sub-questions will provide a crucial connection with local peace-building initiatives.
1.3 Research design
1.3.1 Strategy, approach, methods and limitations
The first step of my thesis involved a literature review covering aspects of peacebuilding and nonviolence. Based on literature from peace studies and nonviolence, a conceptual framework on what third part nonviolent initiatives was created.
In the concluding chapter of Civil Resistance and Power Politics – The experience of Non-violent Action from Gandhi to the Present (2009), Garton Ash reflects on the lack of research on the issue of international support to local peace initiatives. He pinpoints the difficulty in gathering data, for
7 example due to the numerous initiatives that exist, but he also emphasises the critique that all international interventions receive to some degree, be they military, aid or nonviolent. The critique is that of Western neo-colonialism – by supporting or standing on the side of a specific movement that has chosen nonviolent means of resistance, the international community can be accused of subversive activity in internal state affairs, promoting a specific method, approach or solution.
Although the challenge formulated by Garton Ash opens up the path to choose a postcolonial perspective when writing my thesis, I instead opted out of this path. Instead, I decided to use a multidisciplinary theoretical framework to avoid a dilemma described in Postcolonial Theory and the Arab-Israeli Conflict. Steinberg (2009) contributes with a chapter to the book where he examines the relationship between peace studies and post-colonialism. Due to peace studies having evolved in a period dominated by politicisation, it has been especially influenced by post- colonialism. Steinberg (2009: 118) even goes so far as to state that:
the distorting impact of postcolonial ideology on peace studies is clearly a contributing factor in the record of failures in this field. This ideology has replaces research with systematic biases that select favoured 'victims' and rejected 'oppressors', and empirical methodology based on testable hypotheses with political formulae and incantations.
In the same volume, Lewis describes how anthropology is a field that has also been influenced by postcolonialism, but in a different way. Postcolonialism leads to a critique of the field of anthropology, as complicit to colonialism. This critique has been internalised by many anthropologists today, leading, according to the author, to the politicisation of anthropology.
Not choosing postcolonialism as the approach in this thesis was not a critique of the theory in itself, but rather posed a challenge to navigate the perceived postcolonial tendencies of peace studies and anthropology. Adding nonviolence theory as a perspective is a way to do this. By combining perspectives from peace studies and nonviolence, and by being reflexive throughout the research I hope to minimise bias as much as possible. Harvey (2011: 238) writes that “the best examples of publications arising from fieldwork make the researcher's presence, participation, experience and reflexive processes visible”. Davies (2008: 4) defines reflexivity in the following way:
Reflexivity, broadly defined, means a turning back on oneself, a process of self- reference. In the context of social research, reflexivity at its most immediately obvious level refers to the ways in which the products of research are affected by the personnel and process of doing research.
8 Research is conducted by a researcher, and that researcher brings her/his person into the research. In order to meet the criteria of reliability, the researcher must therefore continuously reflect on how she/he influences the research, and make that clear to the reader. (Michrina and Richards, 1996).
There are two main theories that lay the foundation for this thesis: Johan Galtung's work on peace and conflict on the one hand, and Gene Sharps work on nonviolence on the other. Both Galtung and Sharp have been active in these topics for a considerable amount of time, providing strength to their theories. I have also researched other voices on the topic, through books, journal articles, as well as websites for organisations.
My empirical material has been gathered by means of ethnographic fieldwork and the use of a mixed-methods approach. Mixed-methods approach was chosen as a way of triangulation in order to strengthen the reliability, validity and generalisability of the research. (Denscombe, 2016).
Ethnographic fieldwork was chosen since it generates detailed data, enables reflexivity and paves the way for presenting both the view of the actors in the field, as well as providing multiple perspectives. (Denscombe, 2016). Davies (2008) discusses the validity of ethnographic fieldwork in her book Reflexive Ethnography: A Guide Researching Self and Others. She writes that ethnographic fieldwork is commonly criticised in this area, but counters the arguments by stating that “ethnographers in the field employ a wide range of methods from surveys to observation to interviews”, and that “it is generally argued that validity is more likely if a variety of methods are used” (2008: 96). There is also an added value to ethnographic fieldwork captured in an interview with Don Kulick, where he describes that as an anthropologist, sometimes the most interesting findings can be what you hear in the periphery, without asking a direct question (Svensson, 2015).
As a participant of a training of trainers in nonviolence organised by the Swedish Fellowship of Reconciliation, I spent 10 days in Palestine and Israel where I met several local peace initiatives.
The main aim of the 10 days was to gather narratives from people engaged in local peace initiatives on their perception of the space for peace-building, as well as how they experience international preventative presence. The method I employed here was participant observation since the organisations that we were scheduled to meet with were part of the training. Bernard (2002: 327) explains that as participant observers, researchers: “can be outsiders who participate in some aspect of life around them and record what they can”. During my stay in Palestine and Israel I continuously wrote field notes, to record my observations
As part of the ethnographic fieldwork, I have conducted key interviews with individuals who have
9 been active in some kind of third-party nonviolent intervention/preventative presence. Bernard (2002: 188) describes good key informants as: “people to whom you can talk easily, who understand the information you need, and who are glad to give it to you or get it for you”. Sine I am adopting a mixed-methods approach, I have chosen to use key informants to increase the effectiveness of the interviews. The sampling technique I have used was judgment sampling or critical case sampling. Bernard (2002: 183) writes that this kind of sampling is common when choosing key informants in ethnographic fieldwork, since “it would be pointless to select a handful of people randomly from a population and try to turn them into trusted key informants”. I used a cumulative approach to sampling since this thesis is a small-scale project and because the purpose of the sampling is explorative, meaning that the purpose of the sampling is not precision as in the representative approach, but rather in-depth information. (Denscombe, 2016).
In total I conducted five key informant interviews. The interviews were semi-structured; I prepared questions and topics (see Appendix 1) to cover during the interviews, but I stayed open to topics and questions that arose during the interview discussions. The interviews were recorded, with the permission of the informants and their consent to the interview explicitly given in the beginning of the recording, and parts of them have been transcribed. As my informants are Swedish, the interviews were conducted in Swedish.
The strategy for presenting the empirical data in this thesis is in the form of a case study. Case studies are especially designed with the purpose of highlighting the general by looking at the specific (Denscombe, 2016). The case study strategy is often criticised for the limited generalisability of its findings, as well as being more suitable as a strategy to describe a situation rather than analysing it. However, a case study is especially relevant when it comes to small-scale research projects since it focuses the research to one field, and encourages the use of more than one research method. (Denscombe, 2016). This is one of the main reasons why I chose this strategy. The critiques of the strategy are compensated by combining the strategy with a mixed-method approach, as well as by analysing the findings in relation to the theoretical framework presented.
The design of the case study is single-case, with the case being the situation in Palestine and Israel, which will be presented briefly in the third chapter. The reason for this is that the local narratives in my empirical data are from this specific context. The case study will be the basis of my discussion, but since I have gathered material from contexts other than the situation in Palestine and Israel, and that is relevant to the thesis topic and research questions, I have chosen to present this material as well, in an excursus. The material gathered, both primary and secondary, will be and discussed
10 through mainly empirical analysis in relation to the theories presented in the first two chapters of the thesis.
1.3.2 Disposition
This thesis has five main chapters: an introduction, two theoretical chapters, one empirical chapter and one analytical chapter. The introduction sets the scene for the thesis. The first theoretical chapter, Deterrence, presents the main theories that serve as the approach for this thesis. The second theoretical chapter, Protection, presents different mechanisms for international intervention in conflict settings, proceeding with the United Nation's (UN) mechanisms and concluding with the concept of third-party nonviolent intervention. The empirical chapter, Acceptance, presents the case study and the findings of the ethnographic fieldwork. In the discussion chapter, these findings are discussed in relation to the theories and mechanisms presented in the two theoretical chapters.
Following the discussion chapter, the conclusion summarises the research findings and possible answers the research questions presented above.
The names of the three middle-chapters correlate to the traditional approaches to security within humanitarian interventions. (Brooks, 2015).
1.4 Ethical considerations
Denscombe (2016) writes that one of the challenges of ethnographic fieldwork is that it is a method that it can lead to ethical dilemmas when it comes to the notion of informed consent more frequently than other methods do. As mentioned above I attained and recorded the consent of my key informants prior to conducting the interviews. On the first training occasion I asked for some time to explain my research and let everyone know that if they did not want to be part of my research, they could tell me. I repeated this at later stages as well. The response from the group was enthusiastic and supportive. When it comes to the participant observation aspect of my research, namely the meetings with the local peace-building initiatives, I talked to the representatives after the sessions to explain my research and receive their oral consent, which was granted.
11 2 Deterrence
2.1 Violence and conflict
Johan Galtung (1969) emphasises that in order to understand peace, we have to understand violence.
I struggled with this notion at first, since I agree with several authors that peace studies tend to focus on violence and conflict, rather than nonviolence and peace. (Chenoweth and Gallagher Cunningham, 2013; Johansen, 2009; Mayton II, 2009). However, I decided to include a brief section on violence and conflict, since Galtung is one of my main sources and outlining a theoretical approach on violence and conflict is one of the steps in the discussion of the situation in Palestine and Israel.
Violence
Eisner (2009) argues that a general theory of violence is challenging, since there are so many dimensions of violence that relates to different local contexts – and that in order to combat violence one needs to be aware of all these dimensions and local contexts. Instead, Eisner (2009) looks for a meta-theory of violence that would serve four purposes. First, a meta-theory of violence should be able to see patterns between different kinds of violence and what causes these manifestations.
Second, it would show that some kinds of violence occur in different contexts and would set out to discover if the causes are similar. Thirdly, it would have to be an interdisciplinary theory, combing theoretical perspectives from biology, psychology and sociology. Lastly, a meta-theory of violence would set out to see if effective methods for preventing violence share common principles.
Eisner (2009: 42) defines violence as 'intentional but unwanted infliction of physical harm on other humans', and although this definition is limited, he makes some interesting observations. As a step to outlining a meta-theoretical framework of violence, he commences by discussing violence as a means to achieve a goal, i.e. violence as an instrument, and that this is an idea that is supported across different disciplines.
Galtung's (1969) definition of violence is much broader than Eisner's, and not just limited to the physical form. Galtung's definition outlines six different distinctions to violence. The first one is between physical and psychological violence. The most common is the perception that violence is something that can be seen, i.e. something physical, but Galtung also highlights that violence that cannot be seen, i.e. psychological violence, and is violence nonetheless. The second distinction that Galtung makes is whether the approach to influence is positive or negative. By this he means to
12 draw attention to whether violence is administered by imposing an action on someone (negative), or by reducing the effect of an already on-going act of violence (positive). While the positive violence is a reduction of violence to a certain extent, it is still a kind of power-play, through which the violence is hidden, similar to the way in which psychological violence can be hidden. The third distinction relates to the object of violence, i.e. whether or not an act of violence has to result in harm. Threat of violence is covered within this distinction, as is destruction of inanimate objects.
(Galtung, 1969).
The fourth distinction relates to the subject – the actor who performs violence. This distinction encompasses the very important definition of personal/direct and structural/indirect violence. The category of personal/direct violence is comprised of all types of violent acts where the subject is a person/s. Within the category of structural/indirect violence we find the types of violence that exist without a physical person(s) inflicting them. The relationship between personal and structural violence is often interlinked – structural violence can be maintained by personal violence, whereas personal violence can erupt due to structural violence. The fifth distinction outlines the differences between intended and unintended violence. When it comes to consequences of violence, focus is usually placed on intended violence, but this allows the consequences of unintended violence to, potentially, be overlooked. Structural violence can fall into the category of unintended violence, and if attention is not brought to the fifth distinction, the consequences of structural violence might be overlooked. The sixth and last distinction that Galtung makes is between manifest and latent violence, where manifest violence is observable and on-going, whereas latent refers to violence that might easily erupt but is currently not present.
Though there are more distinctions that can be made, the aforementioned are the main ones identified by Galtung, with an addition made later that Galtung (1990) connects to the fourth distinction of direct or structural violence. This addition is cultural violence, (Galtung, 1990) and it is the last distinction I will mention here. Cultural violence refers to those phenomenon or facets of cultures that may validate the use of any kind of violence. “Cultural violence makes direct and structural violence look, even feel, right – or at least not wrong.” (Galtung, 1990: 291). Examples of cultural violence can be certain kinds of ideologies, religions, art – even languages. Galtung explains the inter-play between direct, structural and cultural violence as a triangle (see Appendix 2). By outlining these distinctions, and in reference to that on principle of “peace is absence of violence” (Galtung, 1969: 167), Galtung argues that peace should be structured in the same way as violence.
13 Böhm and Kaplan (2011) connect violence to the psychological notion of revenge, a phenomena that is present in many conflicts around the world. Perceived reasons behind revenge can legitimise violence in a similar fashion to how Galtung explains that cultural violence can legitimise direct and structural violence. The authors illustrate that the urge of revenge leads the person into a spiral of revenge that is necessary, but not easy, to end. The revenge spiral also creates interplay between people's identity as victim and perpetrator, where the urge of revenge lead to victims becoming perpetrators of violence. Böhm and Kaplan (2011) also illustrate how revenge and violent outlets for revenge manifests on a societal level, facilitated by group identification, de-humanisation of the other and shared experiences of violence in the past.
Conflict
Galtung (1996; 2010) defines conflict as a situation where the goals of the actors involved are incompatible. This contradiction can lead to the occurrence of behaviours (violent behaviours or behaviours not involving violence), as well as be influenced by people‟s emotions and assumptions (attitudes). Galtung (1996: 72) presents Contradiction, Behaviour and Attitude/Assumptions in the form of a triangle (see Appendix 2) that together illustrates a situation of conflict. The three different corners of the conflict triangle and the violence triangle relate to each other so that Behaviour corresponds to Direct Violence, Attitude/Assumptions correspond to Cultural Violence, and Contradiction corresponds to Structural Violence. (Galtung, 2010). Behaviour is usually manifest and conscious, whether both attitudes/assumptions and contradictions can be either latent and unconscious, or manifest and conscious. Galtung also points out that a conflict featuring these dimensions can either be violent or it can be a constructive conflict. If a conflict manifests itself in a violent formation in either of the dimensions or in all of them, Galtung argues that they can be transformed in order to achieve a constructive conflict. (Galtung, 1996).
In a conflict formation, the disharmonious aspect of the formation is dominant. But in no way should that make us blind to the cooperative, harmonious aspects that may very well be the basis on which conflict transformation can build. (Galtung, 1996: 80).
Åkerlund (2001) also reiterates that conflicts do not have to be violent, and that they can be handled differently. If any of the actors to a conflict do resort to violence, this immediately changes the direction of that conflict, making all parties involved more prone to use violence. This creates as spiral not unlike that of Böhm and Kaplan's (2011) revenge spiral described above. What is more, when war has broken out due to one or all of the actors of a conflict resorting to violence, all parts
14 of the communities are usually urged to be a part of the war. (Åkerlund, 2001).
2.2 Peace and nonviolence
A lot more could be written about violence and conflict, but the purpose of the previous section was to illustrate that even though violence is an instrument used to solve conflict it has various dimensions that need to be understood in order to discuss peace. Sponsel (1994) reiterates Galtung‟s notion that in order to study peace one first has to understand the different aspects of violence, but Sponsel (1994) also notes that:
While this work is certainly very important, it is insufficient: nonviolence, peace and related phenomena also deserve serious systematic attention, as research and teaching foci, following the positive concept of peace. Nonviolent and peaceful societies appear to be rare – not because they are, in fact, rare, but because nonviolence and peace are so rarely considered in research, the media, and other arenas. (Sponsel, 1994: 18).
Therefore, the following section will focus on peace and nonviolence, with the emphasis on nonviolence.
Peace
The concept of peace brings us back to where we left off with Galtung (1969). The distinctions outlined in the previous chapter constitute the basis for Galtung's definition of peace, which is divided into two parts. The first part of the definition is negative peace, which is the absence of personal/direct violence, and the second part of the definition is positive peace, which is the absence of structural/indirect violence (1969: 183). Galtung (1969) argues that peace research needs to focus on both negative and positive peace. Sponsel (1994) describes the two dimensions further by giving the example that negative peace has a focus on security, stability and order, whereas positive peace has a focus on freedom, equality and social and economic justice.
The above definition of peace by Galtung is violence-oriented. Galtung (1996: 9) also adds a second, conflict-oriented definition of peace: ”peace is nonviolent and creative conflict transformation”.
This dimension of peace corresponds close to Galtung's conflict triangle discussed above. In order for a violent conflict to become a peaceful conflict, or a nonviolent conflict, there needs to be focus on transforming both the behaviours (direct violence), attitudes (cultural violence) and
15 contradictions (structural violence). Åkerlund (2001) discusses various ways in which attitudes, contradictions and behaviours can be transformed and finds that nonviolence as a method is effective when it comes to influencing behaviours.
Nonviolence
Johansen (2009) introduces nonviolence as a word that is commonly used to specify certain issues, and is therefore often connected to another word, such as action, communication etc. Nonviolence is elusive to define, but in this thesis I am inclined to adopt Stellan Vinthagen's (2016) definition.
According to classical nonviolence research, nonviolence is defined as actions that are undertaken without violence or by refusing to do certain actions of violence. Vinthagen (2016) expresses that this is an incomplete definition, since nonviolence is more than an action without violence and that everything that is done without violence is not nonviolence. Instead, Vinthagen (2016) proposes a definition of nonviolence that has two dimensions: without violence and against violence. The nonviolent act is a combination of utilising both elements at the same time. Research on nonviolence needs to be undertaken in a way that describes both the possibilities and limitations of the method. When descriptions and followers become too dogmatic, it creates one of the largest obstacles for a wider discovery of nonviolence. (Vinthagen, 2016).
Historically, two dimensions of nonviolence can be found, pacifist nonviolence and pragmatic nonviolence. (Johansen, 2009). The two dimensions are not mutually exclusive, but are often used at the same time and overlap in various ways. Pacifist nonviolence is a somewhat misleading term.
Traditionally, this kind of nonviolence can be found in religious movements, where violence is viewed as something that is wrong and sinful, and prohibited by the religion itself. Pacifist nonviolence is characterised by the notion that using violence can never be justified, not even if the reason behind using violence, or the purpose of it, is viewed as good or desirable. The reason why referring to this dimension of nonviolence as pacifist is misleading, is because it implies passivity.
Many religious traditions (along with the teaching of Mahatma Gandhi, who is categorised as part of the pacifist tradition) in fact distance themselves from passivity, indicating that it is a form of violence not to stop violence. Gandhi, in particular, coined nonviolence as something larger than merely not performing violence. Nonviolence should influence your whole life, all parts of it.
Especially Gandhi's constructive programme stands out here – that a person should change an unjust system, while at the same time living in a way that is compatible with the way one would if the change had already taken place. (Johansen, 2009). Gandhi's ideas and nonviolent lifestyle is sometimes referred to as principled nonviolence.
16 Pragmatic nonviolence is the type of civil resistance that takes place with peaceful means, through nonviolent actions. Pragmatic nonviolence is strategic and technical, and which nonviolent tool is used depends on what is deemed most effective for the situation. (Johansen, 2009). It is within the tradition of pragmatic nonviolence that Gene Sharp has been the most active. Sharp (1973) states that unjust, violent systems are maintained by power, and when that power is supported and obeyed by people it can keep the system going. Therefore, nonviolent action is when people stop supporting and obeying the power, and employs various means to do so. Essential to Sharp's (2012) pragmatic nonviolence is that it is equally strategic and involves training in nonviolent methods, similar to the way the military complex works.
Sharp (1998) also categorised the different methods of nonviolent action. The first such category is Protest/Persuasion. This category includes methods like demonstrations, petitions, formal affirmations of opposition or support and symbolic public acts (such as mock funerals to mourn the dead) among other things. Protest/Persuasion are methods that are peaceful and serves the purpose of showing opposition to violence/injustice. The second category of nonviolent method that Sharp (1998) presents is Non-Cooperation, which are methods that involves people terminating their cooperation with unjust and violent structures, people, activities, institutions or regimes. These methods include different kinds of social, strikes and boycotts. The third category of nonviolent methods is Intervention. The methods within the Intervention-category are more confrontational than the methods of the first two categories, and include such methods as hunger-strikes, sit-ins, nonviolent occupation and creating alternative social institutions in the place of unjust ones.
Together, the methods in the three categories count up to 198, effectively disproving that there is a lack of alternative methods to violent ones. (Sharp, 2012). Many of the methods are used almost every day by groups that work on issues such as the environment and gender equality, but the strategies are not always explicitly referred to as nonviolent. (Johansen, 2009).
Essential to nonviolence is also the refusal to dehumanise people with other sympathies than one‟s own, to separate the person and the problem. ”It is not me against you but you and me against the problem”, as Nagler (2014: 14) phrases it. Nagler (2014) writes that when one meets and treats people with respect and dignity this amplifies the respect and dignity. Here is a clear parallel to what Böhm and Kaplan (2011) writes, that de-humanisation is one of the phenomena that fuels the spiral of revenge and violent outlets of revenge, mentioned in the previous chapter.
In a similar way, nonviolence can be divided up into direct nonviolence, structural nonviolence and cultural nonviolence, providing a contrast to Galtung's (1969; 1990) categories of violence.
17 (Johansen, 2009). Direct nonviolence encompasses nonviolent techniques and methods as a way to resist and confront violence in various forms. Structural nonviolence refers to constructive structures in society that promote and enable nonviolent components of a society, such as inclusiveness and accountability to function. Nonviolent social structures ensure that any arising conflicts can be handled nonviolently, with methods that are categorised as direct nonviolence, but also processes such as reconciliation and conflict transformation. Cultural nonviolence refer to elements of for example culture and religion that addresses ways in which to act nonviolently and that celebrate nonviolence. Johansen (2009) talks about an elusive culture of nonviolence that has been present throughout history but like nonviolent conflicts today, has been given less attention than the culture of violence that is war, injustice and inequality. Direct, structural and cultural nonviolence interact and reinforce each other. Pinpointing cultures of nonviolence in history, but also today, has been made difficult by the lack of recognition of how essential nonviolent behaviour is. (Johansen, 2009).
There have been studies looking at the success of nonviolent civil resistance to unjust regimes. It has been found that these kinds of resistance often generate a higher success rate than violent ones.
(see for example Stephan and Chenoweth, 2012; Roberts and Garton Ash, 2009 and Johansen, 2009). I will not go into details about these and other similar studies, since it is outside the scope of the thesis. Johansen (2009) does however point out that while these kinds of movements are successful in getting rid of an unjust reign, the success to establish a just society after this is usually less of a success. The reason, Johansen (2009) argues, is that the movements focus on pragmatic nonviolence, and do not plan enough on the issue of what is to follow. This highlights the importance of not separating principled (or pacifist) nonviolence and pragmatic nonviolence, but rather to integrate the two traditions.
18 3 Protection
3.1 Intervention mechanisms
International military interventions in conflict settings are referred to as humanitarian interventions.
(Krieg, 2013). The definition of humanitarian interventions quoted in the introduction is problematic in itself, and warrants further research beyond the scope of this thesis in order to be fully explored. However it poses a good introduction to the second theoretical chapter of this thesis, where some of the mechanisms that exist in order for the international community to intervene in conflict settings will be presented.
Gawerc (2006) presents definitions to three approaches to supporting peace as a third-party:
peacemaking, peacekeeping and peace-building. Peacemaking is the process of mediation or negotiation to get parties to a conflict to end the conflict. Peacekeeping is when a third-party steps into a post-conflict setting in order to prevent reoccurrence of violence, or in Gawerc's (2006: 439) own words: “third-party intervention to keep apart warring groups and maintain the absence of direct violence (or reduce it)”. Peace-building is the more long-term effort, focusing on different aspects of society and includes various activities, initiated at grassroots level and adaptive to the local context and how it changes.
The intention of peace-building is to create a structure of peace that is based on justice, equity, and cooperation (i.e., positive peace), thereby addressing the underlying causes of violent conflict so that they become less likely in the future. (Gawerc, 2006: 439).
The UN has a similar, but somewhat different take on what peace-keeping is compared to Gawerc.
They refer to all the different methods of supporting peace as peace and security maintaining efforts, and have some additional activities as well. The UNs definition of peacemaking corresponds with what Gawerc presents. Peacekeeping refers to the troops deployed following a ceasefire or an agreement with the aim of providing support when what has been agreed is carried out. In order to defend themselves and civilians, the peace-keeping troops are allowed to use force. Peace enforcement is an activity initiated when there is an on-going conflict, and involves forceful means such as military action. The UN also carries out conflict prevention activities such as early warning, mediation and fact finding missions. Peace-building activities have similar elements as to what Gawerc writes above, but the UN peace-building activities focus more on a state level than on grassroots level. (United Nations Peacekeeping, 2014).
The UN notes that in recent years it has become rare with peace and security maintaining efforts
19 that include just one of these activities, rather they often include several of the above-mentioned activities. (United Nations Peacekeeping, 2014). This is mimicked by Last (2003) in his chapter in Conflict Prevention: Path to Peace or Grand Illusion, where Last investigates multifunctional observer missions. A multifunctional observer mission combines civil administration, military observers, police-training missions, civil affairs, elections and security forces to name a few. Last (2003) writes that experience shows that the kind of missions that are the most successful at preventing violence from erupting or reoccurring are not purely military missions (such as the UN Observer Mission in Liberia. UNOMIL, and UN Observer Mission in Sierra Leone, UNOMSIL), but rather the missions that combine civilian and military components.
Mediation is typically performed by actors such as the UN, regional organisations such as the African Union (AU), governments or even prominent individuals in the international community.
Katia Papagianni (2012) argues that because of the limitations of the above-mentioned actors, the space for non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and private actors to engage in conflict mediation has increased. Reasons for this are for example that the UN and governments cannot always engage with all parties to a conflict because it might result in the legitimisation of said party.
In a similar manner, parties to conflicts may not want to engage with UN and governments because they suspect that there are hidden agendas. Papagianni (2012) points out that because peace- building through mediation is a long-term effort, it creates space for various actors to get involved at different stages of the path.
Gawerc (2006) also highlights the necessity to look at peace-building as involving various actors, at various levels and at various times. One such level that is often overlooked is the grassroots level, even though it is often highlighted as fundamental to peace-building efforts. Building the capacity of local initiatives and creating space for their activities at different stages of a conflict is critical if peace is to be enduring and effective. Gawerc (2006) also mentions the various challenges the peace-building at grassroots levels face, which include lack of support from the government, resentment from the community and lack of access to dissidents, among other issues.
I would like to borrow here from the approach to safety and security of humanitarian action. Brooks (2015) describes the three approaches or strategies that are commonly used to ensure safety and security for humanitarian staff. The first approach, acceptance, is seen as the basis for all humanitarian action. It not only refers to the consent of the state where the operation is set up, but also to the acceptance of local stakeholders, including local authorities and beneficiaries. The second approach, protection, is a strategy put in place whereby the security risk is reduced by
20 reducing the vulnerability of the humanitarian intervention. The third strategy, deterrence, goes a step further. Deterrence moves to reduce the security risk by use of threat, for example armed security guards. (Brooks, 2015).
Each of these strategies gives rise to dilemmas:
While these high-profile protective and deterrent measures may have protected some humanitarian workers from attack in the short term, in many cases they not only severely limited humanitarians' ability to deliver aid to populations in need but also jeopardized their perceived neutrality, raising new security concerns. (Brooks, 2015: 14).
Acceptance, on the other hand, takes a longer time to achieve, especially in relation to beneficiaries.
The focus of deterrence is security, rather than safety, a status-quo rather than a change in the situation which creates more space for humanitarian actors in which to act. This echoes Sponsel's (1994) description of security as a focus in the endeavour for negative peace. It also correlates some to the activities involved in supporting peace described in this section, and the lack of effectiveness that can arise from putting them in action separately.
Chaulia (2011: 207) puts it like this: “Military humanitarianism is a feint to exacerbate a violent environment by injecting more armaments and combatants to prolong war”. This is a strong critique not only towards humanitarian interventions as military interventions to protect civilians, but also towards adding more weapons to an already volatile situation – no matter who wields them.
“Violence breeds violence”, as Åkerlund (2001: 75) so elegantly phrases it, again mimicking the spiral of revenge (Böhm and Kaplan, 2011) described in the previous section. Chaulia (2011) also criticises the international community for not practising what they preach in the sense that they aim to promote peace, but instead by its action legitimises the use of force, in part through military humanitarian interventions, but also through what the author (2011: 221) refers to as “its violent structural roots”, i.e. that humanitarianism (like peace studies and anthropology, mentioned in the introduction) has a colonialist burden. What Chaulia (2011) proposes as a remedy to this inconsistency is that the international community focus instead on local actors that are trying to mitigate the violence.
3.2 Third-party nonviolent initiatives
This brings us to the concluding theoretical section of this thesis. What has been illustrated in the previous chapters and sections is that various dimensions within violence, conflict, peace and
21 intervention are interlinked. Following this section as well as the next chapter on my empirical findings, the theoretical perspectives presented here will be discussed in relation to the case study.
Most of the common forms of third-party intervention focuses on security. Johan Galtung (2007) argues that if we are to relate conflict, violence and peace, peace needs always to be the focus.
Åkerlund (2001) writes that locating and supporting initiatives at local levels within society that have peace as its focus is an important step for third-parties to take. What makes that support even stronger is if the supportive international body itself has peace at its core.
When outside actors intervene in a situation where there is conflict, the goal is often to get the parties to negotiate, for example when it comes to diplomatic interventions. However, Galtung (2010) identified this as another faulty approach, since the parties may not be in a place where they are ready for this. Rather another approach could be to create an arena for narratives and dialogue to take place.
Although some of the mechanisms described in the previous section of this chapter do not use force or weapons as a tool, they are not what is meant by third-party nonviolent action in this thesis.
Åkerlund (2001) describes one form of third-party nonviolent intervention, namely preventative presence. With this, an international organisation is present in an area of conflict and aim to stave of violence. Most commonly, preventative presence is a form of protection for individuals and/or organisations that work for peace. The mere presence of an international volunteer is what is supposed to hold of violence. It also aims to give the individuals and/or organisations that they support a chance to do their work. Åkerlund (2001) points out the very important distinction between supporting organisations and individuals working for peace on the one hand, and support one party to the conflict. By nonviolently supporting a party to a conflict, Åkerlund writes, the conflict could intensify rather than ease and lead to further violence. An important element in third- party nonviolent intervention must be to include ideas from the principled (or pacifist) dimension of nonviolence.
Third-party nonviolent intervention can be put into action as accompaniment. Mahony (2013) writes about the accompaniment model and how the idea of accompaniment aims to influence the situation on the ground in different ways. These include preventing violence against people involved in peace-building locally; strengthen the agency and morale of local peace-building initiatives as well as creating an international base for advocacy.
22 Sharp (2000) writes that while sympathies from third-party actors may not influence the outcome of a conflict in a crucial way, they can be important if they lead to open support or direct action. While the third-party support that Sharp has looked at has been mainly symbolic, it has showed room for improvement when it comes to effectiveness. One such are of improvement that Sharp highlights is to offer capacity building to local initiatives. He does, however, place a very strong emphasis that while the area of third-party nonviolent intervention does have a lot of possibilities, it should always be initiated in support of a local initiative. (Sharp, 2000).
Boothe and Smithey (2007) make a similar point. While commending third-party nonviolent intervention as a mechanism with potential to support peace-building, they also highlight the possible negative side-effects of undermining local actors. The argument the authors make is that the preventative presence aspect of third-party nonviolent interventions rely heavily on the power dynamics of the international volunteers and that this aspect maintains inequalities such as racism.
Boothe and Smithey (2007) argue that in order to avoid this, third-party nonviolent initiatives should include reflexive training in recognising and problematising structural inequalities inherent in the intervention itself. At the same time, third-party nonviolent interventions should aim towards being as diverse as possible. (Boothe and Smithey, 2007).
Johansen (2009) reflects on the role of third parties when there is on-going nonviolent civil resistance in a country. He touches briefly on the occurrence of external political, moral and financial support, and the lack of research on the effect this different kinds of support has on the nonviolent movements. ”One crucial question is, if some intervention from abroad is important, necessary or sufficient for local movements to be victorious.” (Johansen, 2009: 157). Johansen (2009) points out that this is an area of research that should be studied further.
Coy (2012) brings up an interesting aspect of accompaniment in an article that compares the third- party nonviolent intervention of Peace Brigades International (PBI), Christian Peacemaker Teams (CPT) and International Solidarity Movement (ISM). The three organisations, while applying the accompaniment model, do it with slightly different approaches. Mainly the author looks at the extent to which the different organisations are neutral, as well as the extent to which they participate in and support activities that fall into the category of civil disobedience. Coy (2012) finds that a higher level of neutrality enables the organisation to continue their work in supporting local peace- building initiatives longer, since physical intervention and taking part in activities that are outside of the law in the country where they are can lead to that the organisation loses legitimacy. In a similar way to how neutrality in humanitarian action allows organisations greater access to people in need
23 of assistance, so too does neutrality when it comes to third-party nonviolent intervention contribute to fulfilling the aim of intervening in the first place.
Eddy (2014) takes the discussion of approaches to third-party nonviolent intervention through accompaniment a step further and links it to the two dimensions within nonviolence – principled and pragmatic. He too looks at CPT and ISM and finds that depending on which of the two dimensions a participant on one of the organisations adheres to, the behaviour of the participant can differ. Eddy (2014) found that if a participant followed pragmatic nonviolence too dogmatically, this could influence the movements negatively, putting far too much focus on the differences between the parties, and forgetting to separate the person and the system. The participants who had a more principled outlook, Eddy found to be more open and sympathetic. The conclusion is that it is important to be aware of the dimension one adheres to in order to avoid the risks involved. In order to do this, Eddy (2014) recommends that rather than viewing principled and pragmatic nonviolence as two separate approaches, third-party nonviolent interventions would benefit from viewing the dimensions more as a continuum.
24 4 Acceptance
Before presenting my empirical data, I will start this chapter by giving a short background to the context of my case study. Several volumes could – and have been – written about this, but I will only give a brief insight. At the core the contradiction may appear to be a basic one where there are two people laying claims on the same land area, but with the years other dimensions have developed. (Landguiden, 2015).
The conflict dates further back than the foundation of the Israeli state in 1948. Palestinians and Israelis have lived in the area for centuries, and the countries have been the subject of many conquests, occupations and different administrations through the years. This section will focus on the modern history of, since the end of the World War II. After the end of the war, the UN proposed that the area should be divided into one Jewish and one Arab state. The Arabs did not accept this proposition, and when the Jewish state of Israel was declared, Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Yemen launched an attack. A ceasefire was declared in 1949, and by then Israel had expanded its territory, diminishing the Palestinian state and around 700 000 Palestinians had fled to refugee camps in the Jordan-occupied West Bank and the Egypt-controlled Gaza. Around 160 000 Palestinians remained in Israel. (Landguiden, 2016).
During the 1950s, the Palestinians began to organise their resistance. The support for an Arab state was still found in surrounding countries, and in 1967, Egypt, Jordan and Syria launched a war against Israel. What followed was the so-called Six-Day War, which concluded with the Israeli seizure of several new territories, including Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem. In the 1973 October-War, Israel saw another victory against the neighbouring countries, and the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO), who had lead the Palestinian resistance, changed their tactics. The liberation of Palestine should be achieved through not only military means, but political as well.
PLO was granted observer-status in the UN in 1974. (Landguiden, 2016).
During the 1970s the so-called Israeli settlements on occupied territories increased and the frustration among the Palestinians grew. In 1987, a civilian uprising referred to as the first Intifada began. Collective punishment and low-intense warfare was Israel's response and the situation became increasingly untenable. When Jordan revoked their administrative responsibility for the West Bank in 1988, PLO declared an independent Palestinian state, which was recognised by around 80 countries. This move lead to that PLO recognised the possibility of a two-state solution
25 to the conflict and in a way indirectly recognised the state of Israel. (Landguiden, 2016).
In the beginning of the 1990s, a peace process was initiated between Palestine and Israel. The result of the negotiations was the Oslo accord, which was signed in 1993. The agreement gave limited Palestinian autonomy in the West Bank and Gaza. PLO declared Israel's right to exist, and Israel in turned recognised PLO as the representative of the Palestinian people. The accord was not a peace agreement, but a roadmap for the continued road to a solution of the conflict. The parties disagreed on the meaning and the opposition on both sides tried to sabotage the process. Islamist movements began carrying out suicide attacks against civilian Israelis and retaliatory attacks followed. Israel initiated the construction of a so-called safety barrier towards the West Bank, built primarily on Palestinian land. In 2000, a second Intifada was initiated by Palestinians, resulting in the Israeli occupation of the West Bank. (Landguiden, 2016).
After the failure of the peace-process many failed attempts have followed. The key issues to solve are the dual claims on Jerusalem as capital, the faith of the Palestinian refugees and their descendants, as well as the existence and questionable legality of the settlements on Palestinian land.
These issues, together with the on-going violence on the ground lead to the failure of peace processes in 2000, 2002 as well as 2013/2014. (Landguiden, 2016).
The violence and conflict has repeatedly resulted in wars between Palestine and Israel, mainly focused in Gaza, the latest one in the summer of 2014. Small-scale violence targeting civilians continues on both sides, often resulting in retaliatory attacks. While the two-state solution is still internationally considered to be the most viable, the continued violence as well as the failure to get a dialogue going leads to the idea slipping further away. (Landguiden, 2016).
4.1 Ecumenical Accompaniment Programme in Palestine and Israel
The Ecumenical Accompaniment Programme in Palestine and Israel (EAPPI) is an international programme established in 2002. It is coordinated by the World Council of Churches (WCC) and was initiated following a request from 13 church leaders in Jerusalem to enhance the international presence in Palestine and Israel. Since its establishment, over 1,500 people from all over the world have participated in the programme. The programme has a clear vision and mission (EAPPI, 2016a):
Vision – a future in which the occupation of Palestine has ended and both Palestinians and Israelis enjoy a just peace with freedom and security based on
26 international law.
Mission – to witness life under occupation, engage with local Palestinians and Israelis pursuing a just peace, to change the international community‟s involvement in the conflict, urging them to act against injustice in the region.
The programme follows the model of accompaniment, described above, and has six key principles.
The first principle is protective presence, the aim of which is to decrease violence against civilians.
The second principle is monitoring human rights violations. The Ecumenical Accompaniers (EAs) write reports on their observations of abuses they cannot prevent and share these reports with the UN. The third principle is to stand with local peace and human rights groups, through which they hope to strengthen the credibility and capacity of the work of both Palestinian and Israeli peace initiatives. The fourth principle is advocacy, which is something that is a strong focus for the EAs once they return home. They share their stories and experiences with different actors and raise awareness in the hope that this can contribute to changing policy for the better. The fifth principle is impartiality. This principle entails that they are not biased in the conflict, but are working for human rights and adherence to international humanitarian law. (EAPPI, 2016b). The sixth principle is nonviolence, which is described in the following way:
Nonviolence is a way of living that rejects the use of violence and seeks to bring change through the engagement of individuals and groups peaceful strategies. We believe nonviolence is the only way to a true and lasting solution to conflict. Our actions are nonviolent and we support all people working nonviolently for peace in Israel and Palestine. (EAPPI, 2016b)
The kind of activities that the EAs engage in during their three months in Palestine and Israel differs depending on where they are stationed, what time of the year they are in the field as well as their own resources and capacities. Gunlög, one of my key informants told me that the tasks that the EAs engage in should always be grounded in the local context. But the overall idea is that of preventative presence through accompaniment.
“The Accompaniment programme is more about having a preventative presence, that our mere presence should deter or prevent the occurrence of violence or harassment, so the method itself is not really about that we will intervene, but more that by being there in a way has intervened.”
This was Helena's, one of my other key informants, way of describing it. It was mirrored by Gunlög who said:
27
“We appeared in our vests that you may know what they look like, and the idea behind it is that we should suppress flare-up of violence by our presence. And to show solidarity with groups working nonviolently, both Palestinians and Israelis.
Maria, one of my key informants who I interviewed both as a former EA, but with a main focus on her time with Peace Brigades International (PBI) in Nepal said the following;
“There was more emphasis on SEAPPI (Swedish Ecumenical Accompaniment Programme in Palestine and Israel) to maybe not perform as much, but that there is a great value to only show oneself. So that the international presence in place can have an extremely strong symbolic value.”
Helena also said: “we should be visible, show that we are there, for all, all parts.” The intensity would also differ depending on the timing.
Helena was stationed in Tulkarem in the northern West Bank (see appendix 3, image 1). She told me that in this part the context was very much influenced by problems caused by the walls. In the mornings they would stand by the farm gates that the farmers used to reach their lands. Another task was to be present at one of the big checkpoints where many workers, students and people with appointments to see a doctor passed through each morning. They would also visit a Palestinian village nearby, situated in the zone between the green line and the wall. During the harvesting seasons the EAs in Tulkarem would help out. They were also on call to be present according to needs, for example when there was a house demolition. In the area on the West Bank surrounding Tulkarem there are also a lot of road blocks, but all of them are not manned at the same time. If one of them was manned all of a sudden, the EAs would receive a phone call informing them of the situation and asking them to go to the road block to observe. Helena also found it important to participate in the daily lives of the Palestinians she met, and attend occasions such as sport events and theatre, to not just be there at the farm gates and checkpoints, but also during joyous occasions.
A large part of what the EAs do is reporting. The reports are shared with mainly United Nation‟s Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), but also with the Red Cross and Save the Children. “Large organisations that may not have the same opportunity to be among the locals in the same way,” Helena added. There is also the aspect of advocacy and information sharing once the EAs return home. According to Helena, this is something that is especially requested by the parties. “Come, see and tell”.
Gunlög was stationed in East Jerusalem and had a variety of tasks. Aside from doing a lot of walking around, her team had a weekly schedule that involved presence at the entrances to the Haram esh-Sharif/Temple Mount on Fridays in connection to worshippers attending the prayer in
28 order to observe if there were restrictions imposed by the Israeli military and police and if so, what the reason for the restrictions could be. Sometimes the restrictions lead to protests and skirmished, that, which the EAs would report, also in this case to OCHA, the Red Cross and United Nations Children‟s Fund (UNICEF). On the Fridays Gunlög would also participate in a weekly returning demonstration against the occupation held by the movement Women in Black, which is an example of how the programme cooperates with a local Israeli peace-building initiative.
“Often other internationals would come and join in this and the more you are, the better it feels to stand there of course. They have been there since the 80's and they are really my heroines these persevering women.”
This was the only demonstration they participated in, but the EAs would also be observers at other demonstrations, in order to deter deterioration. One such demonstration was organised by Palestinians who protested against the restrictions of their right to own land in Jerusalem. ”We observe and they see that we are there and feel support from that. So you could say, we support nonviolence initiatives, both Palestinian and Israeli.”
Gunlög also had checkpoint watch as part of her duty. At the Abu Dis checkpoint a lot of school children pass through in order to attend school. Gunlög and her colleagues would count how many school children were let through and check for build-up in the lines. If that was the case, the EAs would get involved in order to try to get the military to upon up another lane.
On Tuesday mornings, Gunlög and her team were on checkpoint watch at Qalandia checkpoint. The task was again to count and register how many people passed through on their way to work, school, hospital appointments and the like, and if someone was refused to pass through, the EAs would try to find out what the reason was, document it and share it with OCHA.
The EAs in East Jerusalem were also on call in case there had been a house demolition. They would then receive a text from OCHA, go to location of the demolition and report back to them what had happened. If there had been people living in the demolished house, Gunlög and her team would follow up with the family afterwards to make sure that they had some place to live.
”You always get there, if it is close you might get there while it is happening, but we don't stand in front of the machines, we don't do that, that is not our task to confront in that way but rather to be present and support and morally show solidarity and report.”
The team preceding Gunlög's had had a task that involved accompanying Palestinian school
