| The joy and celebration we are witnessing at the initiation of the ceasefire is something to behold. The plan itself may be full of holes and disappointing to many (I gave a legal analysis of its shortcomings here), and many expect that after the initial phase, including the exchange of prisoners and a surge of food and humanitarian aid, Netanyahu will find an excuse to resume the bombing and reimplement the siege, while finding a way to blame Hamas for it. Despite this, we cannot help but celebrate the cessation of the bombing, however temporary it may be, and to reassert our own values, in the rejection of violence, war, and combat as a method of resolving conflicts and dealing with injustice, no matter the circumstances. It bears repeating that the position of Sabeel, and the majority of Palestinian Christians, is one of a radical Christian rejection of violence and a stubborn refusal to resort to the killing of our enemies. To be sure, the majority of Christians in every country throughout the ages (excluding for the First Century Early Church) have not been pacifist but developed theological and practical excuses to engage in war and violence. For Example, the Just War theory establishes criteria that must be met for Christians to participate in war and the taking of life. Others point out the duty to obey the political rulers, the necessity of defending ourselves and our families, the need to resist violent forces who are evil and oppressive to us and our people. In addition, international law recognizes the legitimate right of oppressed people to resist and use armed force to overthrow the yoke of their oppressors. The arguments for just war and the necessity of participating in armed resistance have been accepted by a majority of Christians worldwide, yet there has always been a faithful minority who saw things otherwise. Quakers, Mennonites and other anabaptists, and peace movements within multiple denominations have always understood the message of Christ to involve a radical rejection of the logic of power and of the world. That worldview is indeed a radical one built on the concept of the Kingdom of God, rather than the dynamics of realpolitik. It does not usually serve the empires and kingdoms of the world, so it is not surprising that it was never a majority view even among Christians, but it is one that I believe to be most faithful to the message of Christ, who taught us to love our enemies, who declared, “Blessed are the peacemakers,” and who called us into an ethic of love and forgiveness rather than hatred and revenge. Our Muslim friends also recognize Jesus as being the prince of peace and are amazed at the militancy of countries professing to be followers of Christ. But even for those who are not willing to take an approach of radical nonviolence, there is still much to be done. For one thing, they must apply the same criteria to Palestinians as they do to Israelis. If they are always talking about Israel’s right to defend itself, and its security needs, what about Palestinians? Do they not also have the right to defend themselves, and to protect their people who are constantly under attack? Palestinians in the West Bank today are constantly harassed by Jewish settlers and the Israeli army. Palestinians in Gaza, long before October 7, were suffering from Israel’s siege and frequent bombardments (referred to by Israeli Army as “mowing the loan”). Israel has been allowed to develop a huge army, an arms industry, chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, without restrictions, while Palestinians were constantly lectured about the need for nonviolence and refraining from armed struggle. This hypocrisy is unjustifiable. Both sides need to seek peace and abandon reliance on weapons and violence as the only way to secure their lives and aspirations. Greater respect for international law and institutions as well as nonviolent methods of conflict resolution should be urged, even forced upon Israelis as well as Palestinians. For those who accept that violence is counterproductive and contrary to Christ’s teachings, there is an important corollary: pacifism and the rejection of violence is in no way a passive or cowardly option. It requires that we actively work for justice in creative, effective, but nonviolent means. The rejection of violence is not only a rejection of armed resistance, as violence itself can be seen as an evil and oppressive system that needs to be confronted and dismantled. The symbols of Israeli violence for many Palestinians are not only the gun or the bomb, but the bulldozer, the Apartheid-Wall, and the checkpoint. Israel’s siege of Gaza and its deliberate starvation is certainly a lethal form of violence. Working against oppression is never an easy path. For this reason, BDS, international solidarity, accountability, and challenges to complicity in the ongoing oppression of Palestinians are vital tools for the nonviolent activist/warrior. The Sumud Flotilla, calls for boycotting Israeli participation in FIFA and Eurovision, demanding an end to impunity, appeals to international tribunals are all nonviolent examples of struggling for Palestinian rights and Palestinian liberation. It just so happens that nonviolence, in our case, is even more effective than resorting to armed struggle and violence, however legitimate and justified it may be. So yes, let us savor this blessed moment of the silence of the guns, but let us also prepare for even more nonviolent actions in the days ahead. |
