back in 2004 i lived and worked in a small village in the West Bank called at-tuwani.  a friend, joy, just returned from working in that village and surrounding villages.

she writes:

A couple of months ago I had the great pleasure of watching Palestinians successfully graze their sheep near Avigail settlement, on land where they are regularly attacked and harassed. The joy I felt in seeing my friends and partners grazing on their land was overwhelming. Sitting on the hill and eating lunch together felt like having a party.

As the day drew to an end, one of the Palestinian leaders excitedly explained to me the strategy he had used in dealing with the army and settlers that morning. Mahmoud told me how, even though the army had declared the area a closed military zone, he firmly stood up for his rights. He explained how he pretended to slowly begin to comply with the military order, all the while challenging the soldiers and insisting on his right to graze his sheep. Eventually, he said, the army lost control of the situation and gave in. When he finished his description, Mahmoud turned to me and grinned. “I read in a book that this is called nonviolence,” he said, laughing.

When President Obama called on Palestinians to practice nonviolence, I laughed just like Mahmoud. Palestinians like Mahmoud have never needed to be told about nonviolence. The English word may be unfamiliar but the steadfast, daily acts of resistance known as nonviolence are nothing new. In the South Hebron hills, Palestinians face Israeli soldiers and violent Israeli settlers who are illegally expanding their settlements and attacking Palestinians, including children walking to school. In response to this profound injustice, Palestinians are organizing demonstrations, refusing to comply with military orders, filing complaints against settlers, and courageously working their land despite the risk of arrest and attack. They don’t need President Obama to tell them to practice nonviolence.

after years of thought and work, i have stopped referring to myself as non-violent.  non-violence to me is a series of tactics that one uses in order to achieve a more just world.  non-violence is a tactic.  not a goal.  in the non-violent org i used to work for (the same one that joy worked for in palestine) we used to joke: non-violence is the answer.  non-violence is the answer.  non-violence is the answer.  now what was the question?

furthermore i had major ethical issues of being one who benefits from the violence that my country perpetrates against other communities.  and then using my privilege (that is always backed by the threat of violence) to advocate of those ‘other communities’ to not oppose my privilege (that is a form of violence) with violence. does that make sense?

i also saw that the term ‘non-violence’ tells us that certain forms of violence (namely physical or direct) are immoral.  while other forms of violence (for instance using one’s privilege to achieve one’s goals or using other forms of structural oppression and violence) are not as immoral or even are quite moral (for instance using one’s privilege to oppose violence, which to me looks like using one form of violence to oppose a different form of violence).

most of the palestinians i talked to saw non-violence as a tactic.  a tactic that needed to be used in this time and place because other tactics were not achieving the national goals of freedom, autonomy, and justice. non-violence as a tactic to ensure the survival of their communities and peoples.

furthermore, palestinians continued existence is considered by the powers that be as an extreme form of violence.  their very survival is enough to justify murder and torture against their bodies and their communities.

you see non-violence is effective when it draws moral support and publicity to your side of struggle.  but when you very existence on this planet, on the land that your family has lived and loved for centuries is considered to be an act of war.  then the only peace that is possible, the only non-violent act that is permissible (in the eyes of the powers that be, the israeli government) is your annihilation.

when netanyahu refuses to stop the building of settlements in the west bank.  when the decisions for what should be done about israeli settlements is always left to ‘final stages of the negotiation’ (aka never ever ever…) we are watching the the slow genocide of a palestinian people.  and so netanyahu and israel et al get to take all the land they want in the west bank.  in other words they take all of it.  and if you are people.  and you have no land.  you become permanent refugees.

golda meir once said: there is no such thing as a palestinian.

my deep sense tells me that if we focus on palestinian violenct  vs non-violent resistance, rather than the palestinian survival vs. extinction, we are coming closer to making golda meir statement true.

joy knows this.

Instead of preaching to Palestinians, Obama should insist emphatically on the dismantlement of illegal Israeli settlements and law enforcement against violent settlers, like those living in the South Hebron Hills. After decades of Israeli military occupation, it is time for a US president to call on Israel to stop its violence towards Palestinians.

what i am also trying to say.  is how important land is.  that sometimes i can forget this.  because i live in this digital age, with online communities, and skype hugs.  i forget how important, how human, it is to take care of land.  for generations.  to love not only your family and friends.  but to take care of the earth, of the very piece of earth, that directly nourishes all of your loved-ones lives.

and palestinians who still live in the west bank.  have an experience of landlove that informs their strategy of resistance.

and that maybe this is something that we  can learn (?) from indigenous movement.  that taking care of a piece of land.  and letting that land take care of you.  makes our resistance to the powers that be–stronger, more effective, more sustaining.

can we mother the land and let it mother us?

is that too a form of radical love?