Pacifist Activists: Christian Peacemakers in Palestine 1995-2014

A dissertation submitted to the

Graduate School

of the University of Cincinnati

in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

in the Department of Political Science

Of the College of Arts and Sciences

by

Marlaina A. Leppert-Wahl

M.A. University of Cincinnati

August 2001

M.A. The George Washington University

February 1990

Committee Chair: Laura Jenkins, Ph.D. Abstract

Inspired by the nonviolence work of Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr., civilian peacemakers have spent three decades developing third-party nonviolent intervention as a method for preventing the escalation of violence in conflict zones. “[T]hird-party nonviolent intervention…is a collection of tactics and methods used to support, rather than direct, social change work in intense conflict situations” (Boothe and Smithey 2007, 39-40). Scholars and practitioners of nonviolent resistance have shown growing interest in this model. Christian Peacemaker Teams has employed third-party nonviolent intervention methods in Israel/Palestine for 20 years in an effort to reduce and ultimately transform the violence and oppression of the Occupation. The work of this faith-based, non-profit organization is of interest not only in this field, but also to ecumenical scholars and religious leaders exploring interfaith efforts to promote peace and to like-minded nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). This dissertation presents a qualitative case study of Christian Peacemaker Teams (CPT). This study tests the hypothesis that Christian Peacemaker Teams in the West Bank has effectively developed nonviolent institutions, skills, and training for intervention in the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians. It examines and assesses CPT’s organizational model, training, and strategies for intervention in the West Bank including public witness, information politics, and institution-building. Evidence supports the claim that despite its very limited resources, CPT has successfully developed institutions, skills, and training in nonviolent efforts to intervene effectively in the Israeli- Palestinian conflict. With only four to eight CPTers serving on the Palestine Project at one time, CPT’s impact has been extraordinary. One of CPT’s most successful endeavors has been its ongoing, nuanced strategy for protective accompaniment in the West Bank. In addition, CPT has been instrumental in the creation of Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions (ICAHD), International Solidarity Movement (ISM), and Ecumenical Accompaniment Programme for Palestine and Israel (EAPPI). CPT has also created a space for Palestinian organizations to develop and operate as exemplified by the South Hebron Hills Popular Committee. CPT’s skills and training have served as models for individuals and organizations throughout the West Bank. Although CPT has not approached a large-scale transformation of the violence and injustices within the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the organization has transformed the lives of individuals, families, and communities. CPT has saved lives. It has offered moral support to the vulnerable Palestinian community and has taught and modeled for them nonviolence skills. CPT’s 20-year effort in the West Bank has contributed to global condemnation of unjust Israeli settlement policies and systematic human rights abuse against a civilian population. CPT has successfully promoted cosmopolitan and communitarian values and cooperation through its interfaith, cross-cultural partnerships. This small group of thoughtful, committed activist pacifists is making a positive difference in Israel/Palestine.

ii

iii

Dedication

The following blessing hangs in the Christian Peacemaker Teams office in Chicago. It captures the heart of CPTers from around the globe. I pray this prayer for my own beloved children, who already demonstrate spirits of compassion and service. I dedicate this dissertation to them.

A Franciscan Blessing

May God bless you with discomfort at easy answers, half truths, and superficial relationships, so that you may live deep within your heart.

May God bless you with anger at injustice, oppression, and exploitation of people, so that you may work for justice, freedom and peace.

May God bless you with tears to shed for those who suffer from pain, rejection, starvation and war, so that you may reach out your hand to comfort them and to turn their pain into joy.

May God bless you with enough foolishness to believe that you can make a difference in this world, so that you can do what others claim cannot be done. – Amen

iv

Acknowledgements

With all of the searching for words that this dissertation has entailed, this final acknowledgement proves to be the most difficult to construct. Mere words on a page cannot begin to express the tremendous appreciation I feel toward those people in my life who have helped to make this possible. My heartfelt gratitude goes to Howard Tolley, Jr. for his longstanding support. His wisdom, guidance, and insistence on excellence have been invaluable to me during the process of shaping this dissertation. I am indebted to him for all that I have learned under his tutelage. I also owe sincere thanks to Laura Jenkins and Richard Harknett, whose insights and feedback were of great value to my work. These three members of my dissertation committee at the University of Cincinnati challenged me to grow and improve, and yet offered me patience, flexibility, and encouragement along the way. Every worthwhile study has an inspiration. CPTer Rick Polhamus served as the inspiration for this dissertation. I learned about CPT’s courageous work through his compelling narratives, which captured my initial interest. I must thank Rick for introducing me to a research topic that has continued to excite and fascinate me over time and for his constant assistance throughout the research process. I would also like to express my appreciation to the other CPTers who were so generous with their time and information during interviews, correspondence, and other encounters. This case study would have been exceedingly difficult without their cooperation, and instead I found a warm welcome and openness from so many. I thank Jonathan Brenneman, Kryss Chupp, Laura Ciaghi, Claire Evans, Mark Frey, Kathleen Kern, Cliff Kindy, Carole Powell, Doug Pritchard, Greg Rollins, Carol Rose, Sarah Thompson, and Terra Winston. My friends and colleagues at Wilmington College have served as an enduring network of support. The WC Isaac Harvey Fund provided a sizable grant toward my 2011 CPT delegation trip to Israel/Palestine for my research. Members from all corners of the WC community have uplifted me. I especially want to thank Mary Ellen Batiuk for the opportunities she has helped me seize through her constant encouragement and advocacy, including the opportunity to complete my Ph.D. with support from my Social Sciences area. Mary Rose Zink and Martha Hendricks both offered me support at key times during the dissertation process, which kept me moving forward. Michael Snarr travelled with me on delegation to the West Bank, and he and Melissa Snarr have shared their insights into the CPT delegation experience. WC student Alex Koyfis also deserves recognition for his patience and computer support. Behind every researcher, there is a librarian. In this case, there is an entire library staff to thank – Joni Streber, Patti Kinsinger, Lee Bowman, Kathy Hatfield, and Mary Beth Corcoran of WC’s Watson Library. This team provided me with unfailing research and moral support. Above and beyond the call of duty, Jean Mulhern worked tirelessly by my side to help keep me organized and on track. Without her assistance, this might still be a work in progress. I have appreciated her positive attitude, informed advice, organizational and reference skills, and steadfastness. I have learned new skills and strategies from our work together. I will “pay it forward,” as Jean says, and forever remember her selfless contribution to my successful completion of the dissertation. Randall Roberts of UC’s Langsam Library also deserves my gratitude for his assistance with data bases and RefWorks and his heartening spirit. Finally, it is impossible for me to express the extent of the love and gratitude I feel toward my parents, Thomas and Arlene Leppert. Their unwavering and extraordinary support has given me the time and space to focus on the work of the dissertation at critical points in the process. The tremendous gifts of their time, help with my children and home, encouragement, and love are immeasurable. My father also offered thoughtful insights into a portion of my dissertation work. My seven precious children – Maraya, Miah, Milena, David, Melora, Damien, and Dylan – have borne the brunt of the sacrifice that it took to make this all possible. They have risen to the occasion and have worked together to take care of each other and maintain a normal level of chaos. They already know how very much I love and cherish them. They know that this dissertation is my gift to them.

v

Table of Contents

Abstract ...... ii

Dedication ...... iv

Acknowledgements ...... v

Table of Contents vi

List of Tables and Figures ...... viii

Chapter 1: Introduction ...... 1 Pacifist Activists ...... 1 Problem Statement ...... 3 The Israeli-Occupied West Bank ...... 5 Peacemaking in the Global Context ...... 9 Academic and Practical Significance ...... 11 Methodology ...... 15 Overview of Chapters ...... 22

Chapter 2: Theoretical and Theological Frameworks (Rival Worldviews) ...... 23 Introduction ...... 23 Conservative Theories ...... 23 Liberal Theories ...... 30 Conclusion ...... 46

Chapter 3: Christian Peacemaker Teams ...... 48 Introduction ...... 48 Origins of Christian Peacemaker Teams...... 48 Organizational Overview of Christian Peacemaker Teams...... 57 Recruitment and Training of CPTers ...... 76 Conclusion ...... 85

Chapter 4: CPT’s Palestine Project ...... 89 Introduction ...... 89 Early CPT Work in Palestine ...... 90 Hebron and the Establishment of CPT’s Hebron Team ...... 92 At-Tuwani and the Establishment of CPT’s At-Tuwani Team ...... 108 Partners ...... 113 Conclusion ...... 121

Chapter 5: CPT’s Public Witness ...... 124 Introduction ...... 124 Accompaniment ...... 124 Nonviolent Resistance and Advocacy ...... 133 Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions ...... 141 Conclusion ...... 143

vi

Chapter 6: CPT’s Information Politics ...... 146 Introduction ...... 146 Reporting Human Rights Violations 146 Public Outreach ...... 149 Special Role of Delegations ...... 157 Conclusion ...... 165

Chapter 7: CPT’s Institution-Building ...... 169 Introduction ...... 169 Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions (ICAHD) ...... 169 International Solidarity Movement (ISM) ...... 173 Ecumenical Accompaniment Programme for Palestine and Israel (EAPPI) ...... 183 South Hebron Hills Popular Committee ...... 190 Conclusion ...... 191

Chapter 8: Assessment and Looking Forward ...... 193 Assessment ...... 193 Future Research ...... 201 Conclusion ...... 203

Glossary of Terms and Acronyms ...... 204

References ...... 206

Appendices Appendix A: Photographs – CPT’s Palestine Project ...... 224 Appendix B: CPT –Palestine Strategic Plan 2013-2014: Goals and Objectives ...... 234

vii

List of Tables and Figures

Table 1: Steinberg’s Perspective: A Transnational Advocacy Network of NGOs Promoting A Campaign of Boycotts, Divestment, and Sanctions ...... 37

Table 2: CPT Financial Summary of Income/Expenditure (1994-2012) ...... 69

Table 3: CPT Palestine Project Annual Expenses ...... 71

Table 4: CPT’s Partners and Other Collaborating Organizations ...... 115

Table 5: CPT’s Website Visitors...... 152

Table 6: Christian Peacemaker Teams Regular Delegations to Israel/Palestine 1996-2013 ...... 158

Figure 1: Christian Peacemaker Teams Organizational Chart...... 58

Figure 2: CPT Financial Summary of Income/Expenditures (1994-2012) ...... 68

Figure 3: CPT Palestine Project Annual Expenses...... 71

Figure 4: CPT Training Curriculum...... 82

Figure 5: Map of West Bank and Gaza under Israeli Occupation Since 1967...... 90

Figure 6: Map of Hebron in West Bank ...... 95

Figure 7: Map of Southern West Bank including Hebron and At-Tuwani...... 110

Figure 8: Map of South Hebron Hills including At-Tuwani, Ma’on Settlement, Outposts, and Firing Zone 918...... 110

viii

Chapter 1 Introduction

Between stimulus and response, there is a space. In that space is our power to choose our response. In our response lies our growth and our freedom. -Viktor E. Frankl1

Pacifist Activists

Understanding the tremendous cost of war drives activists and scholars to find nonviolent ways to end conflict and foster justice. Religious faith moves many activists to embrace nonviolence in conflicts around the globe. In the US, Christian activist, Martin Luther King, Jr. led a successful interfaith civil rights movement that serves as a model for the current global network of peace and human rights nongovernmental organizations. In India, Mahatma Gandhi’s Quit India movement engaged Hindus and

Muslims in nonviolent direct action such as boycotts, marches, strikes, and nonviolent civil disobedience to obtain independence from British rule. Both of these movements have inspired and instructed today’s nonviolent activists, including a new wave of third-party activists intervening in conflict situations around the world.

This dissertation provides a unique case study that examines Christian Peacemakers Teams’

(CPT) attempt to reduce violence and foster justice in the Israeli-occupied West Bank from 1995-2014.2

CPT is a North American faith-based nongovernmental organization (NGO) that engages in violence reduction, consciousness raising, and nonviolent direct action3 in support of communities threatened by violence and oppression. CPT sends teams into conflict situations around the world by invitation of local peacemakers to serve as an example of “what would happen if Christians devoted the same discipline and

1 Quote from autobiographical Man’s Search for Meaning, chronicling Austrian neurologist and psychiatrist Viktor Frankl’s years in Nazi concentration camps.

2 Research for this dissertation ended in June 2014. June 2014 also marked the abduction and murder of three Israeli teenagers by Palestinians near Hebron, sparking the Israeli operation against Hamas in the West Bank. In retaliation, Hamas launched missiles into Israel from Gaza on June 27-28, prompting an Israeli offensive against Gaza targeting militants (BBC News 2014; RT 2014). The July 2nd revenge killing of a Palestinian teenager from East Jerusalem by three Israelis added to the intensity of attacks from both sides (DW 2014). Prior to submission of this dissertation, on July 20, 2014, the death toll from the offensive reached 434 Palestinians, many of them civilians, and 18 Israeli soldiers and two Israeli civilians. Many more have been injured and displaced (Mughrabi and Fisher-Ilan 2014).

3 CPT also refers to nonviolent direct action as “public witness.”

1 self-sacrifice to nonviolent peacemaking that armies devote to war” (CPT 2010d). In stark contrast to the

Christians of the Crusades waging religious wars in the Middle East, Christians in CPT work relentlessly to bring peace to the Holy Land (CPT 2012c).

Since 1967, the Israeli military has occupied the Palestinian West Bank, and Jewish settlers have displaced and restricted local Palestinian residents. Unlike King’s and Gandhi’s movements of the past, today’s Palestinians are joined by a myriad of international, or third-party, activists who support local nonviolent efforts to create social change and promote justice in the protracted conflict between Israelis and Palestinians. Christian Peacemaker Teams is one of the international groups providing third-party accompaniment and long-term support for local interfaith nonviolent direct action. In Hebron and the

South Hebron Hills, including the village of At-Tuwani, in the southern West Bank, CPT offers support for “… Palestinian-led, nonviolent, grassroots resistance to the Israeli occupation and the unjust structures that uphold it. By collaborating with local Palestinian and Israeli peacemakers and educating [their] home communities, [CPT helps] create a space for justice and peace” (CPT 2014a).

Has CPT fulfilled the organization’s mission by spreading the gospel of nonviolence among faith communities, developing nonviolent institutions, and training individuals to confront the challenges of

Israeli occupation? This case study examines the goals CPT has established for itself in its “Palestine

Project.” It offers an independent analysis of CPT’s effectiveness in realizing its own goals as defined in the organization’s original mission statement, which declares:

Christian Peacemaker Teams (CPT) offers an organized, nonviolent alternative to war and other forms of lethal inter-group conflict. CPT provides organizational support to persons committed to faith-based nonviolent alternatives in situations where lethal conflict is an immediate reality or is supported by public policy. CPT seeks to enlist the response of the whole church in conscientious objection to war, and in the development of nonviolent institutions, skills and training for intervention in conflict situations. CPT projects connect intimately with the spiritual lives of constituent congregations. Gifts of prayer, money and time from these churches undergird CPT’s peacemaking ministries.

We believe that the mandate to proclaim the Gospel of repentance, salvation and reconciliation includes a strengthened Biblical peace witness.

We believe that faithfulness to what Jesus taught and modeled calls us to more active peacemaking.

2

We believe that a renewed commitment to the Gospel of Peace calls us to new forms of public witness which may include nonviolent direct action.

- CPT founding conference: Techny, Illinois, December 1986 (CPT 2010f).

Problem Statement

Thesis: Christian Peacemaker Teams in the West Bank has effectively developed nonviolent institutions, skills, and training for intervention in the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians.

Christian Peacemaker Teams emerged in 1986 from the resolve of the traditional peace churches to practice their faith in Jesus as the way to peace and to embrace and develop creative methods of organized nonviolence to confront militarism and promote social change. North American Anabaptists rose to Ron Sider’s challenge at the Mennonite Conference in Strasbourg, France in 1984 calling upon these Christian pacifists to be willing to risk their own lives in pursuit of peace. In his powerful speech at the conference, Sider challenged this community of Christians to “prayerfully and nonviolently place ourselves between the weak and the oppressor. Do we have the courage to move from the back lines of isolationist pacifism to the front lines of nonviolent peacemaking?” (Sider 1984). The creation of CPT was in response to this call.

Since then, CPT has sent teams practicing spiritually-based, active nonviolence to conflict zones in Haiti, Mexico, Colombia, Iraq, and the West Bank, among others. CPT has also led teams in support of inner city and indigenous populations in the United States and Canada. Both North American countries serve as headquarters for the organization, and the majority of CPT members are American and Canadian.

CPT aspires to mobilize the Christian community in order to achieve the general objectives of developing nonviolent institutions, skills, and training to confront conflict situations. This dissertation deals with these general goals contained in the organization’s mission statement, but as they apply to

CPT’s Palestine Project in the West Bank. In particular, this study proposes to test the effectiveness of

CPT in its realization of these objectives in its Palestine Project. CPT’s Palestine Project has consisted of two teams of “Peacemaker Corps” members (CPTers) providing a long-term international presence in the

West Bank: the Al Khalil Team in Hebron since 1995 to reduce the violence between Israeli settlers and

3 soldiers and the Palestinian residents and the At-Tuwani Team from 2004 to 2011 to prevent attacks by

Israeli settlers on Palestinian schoolchildren, farmers, and shepherds (CPT 2012a, b, d).

Christian Peacemaker Teams activists employ various tactics in their attempts to reduce violence and support social change in the Israeli-occupied West Bank. CPTers constitute an international presence that documents and reports violent, coercive, or unjust behavior. They work actively to create international awareness about abuses on the ground. They also offer routine protective accompaniment to

Palestinians and, on rare occasion, to vulnerable Israelis. CPTers partner with Palestinian and Israeli activists in support of local peacemaking efforts and institutions, thus exemplifying CPT’s current motto

“Building partnerships to transform violence and oppression.” CPTers join local initiatives in nonviolent direct action such as rebuilding homes after demolition, replanting destroyed crops, participating in peaceful protests, and engaging in civil disobedience. CPTers also regularly intervene physically with their own bodies to create an obstacle between opposing parties in certain threatening situations, which epitomized CPT’s original motto of “Getting in the Way.”

CPTers call upon other Christians in their home communities to support CPT programs through prayer, money, and time. Support for CPT initially came from the traditional peace churches –

Mennonites, Church of the Brethren, and Quakers – but has spread to other denominations as well. On the ground in the West Bank, CPT also engages in interfaith cooperation with Muslims and Jews. Palestine

Project teams must collaborate regularly with religious and secular Palestinians, Jews, and internationals in efforts to raise consciousness and carry out nonviolent direct action.

A brochure from CPT’s Hebron office declares:

Because we believe in a God of mercy and justice, we are not neutral about situations where one group is being oppressed by another. We do not affiliate ourselves with any particular political agenda, but we do believe it is our calling as Christians to stand in solidarity with the downtrodden in conflict situations…. (CPT 2010k).

In this way, CPT’s efforts in the West Bank are generally in support of rights and justice for the

Palestinians, who are in a much weaker position than the Israelis who control the area with a heavily armed military and settler presence. CPT does not espouse a particular political solution, such as a one- or

4 two-state solution, to the conflict. Instead, the organization supports local efforts to produce a nonviolent, just resolution that would recognize Palestinian rights. CPT also opposes violence committed by any individual or party to the conflict, believing “that both violent acts and unjust acts demean the image of

God in human beings” (CPT 2010k).

This case study examines the goals CPT has set for its work in the West Bank employing terms and phrases used by CPT. There is controversy over terms such as “Palestine” and “Occupied Territories” due to the political debate over the status of the West Bank and Gaza. Many Israelis and supporters do not recognize the existence of a geographic location or political entity known as “Palestine,” and they prefer the term “Disputed Territories” when referring to the West Bank and Gaza. However, CPT demonstrates its solidarity with the Palestinian people by adopting their chosen terms. In addition, UN Security Council resolutions use “occupied” rather than “disputed” territories. It is also worth noting that even the US State

Department refers to “Israel and the occupied territories” (U.S. Department of State 2010).

The Israeli-Occupied West Bank

Since Israel’s victory during the Six-Day War in 1967, the Israeli military has occupied the

Palestinian West Bank. Israel seized the West Bank from Jordan, which has since relinquished its right to the territory. Mere retention of the West Bank violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 242, which, in 1967, called for the “[w]ithdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict” (United Nations Security Council 1967). Instead, for over 40 years, the Israeli military has remained and imposed its authority over the Palestinian residents of the West Bank. Human rights organizations including Amnesty International, Palestinian organization Al-Haq, and B’Tselem, the

Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories, have documented and reported regular human rights violations directed against the Palestinian population in the West Bank and Gaza.

These include unlawful killings of children and other civilians and routine ill-treatment during detentions.

Former US President Jimmy Carter commented that Israelis “…are violating the Universal Declaration of

Human Rights in their mistreatment of Palestinians who live inside Israel, in East Jerusalem, in the West

Bank, and also – most horribly perhaps – in Gaza, which is like an open-air prison” (Carter 2010). Israeli

5 soldiers arbitrarily detain and restrict the movements of the local Palestinian Arabs, impose curfews and collective punishments on them, and oversee the demolition of their homes and businesses. Collective punishments and home demolitions are in direct violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention (Articles 33 and 53) (International Committee of the Red Cross 1949).

The establishment of settlements by an occupying power also violates the Fourth Geneva

Convention (Article 49). However, according to B’Tselem, the government of Israel has allowed and even encouraged Jewish settlers in the West Bank to construct settlements encroaching on the homes and privately-owned land of the local Palestinians (B’Tselem 2010). The Israeli government actually rejects the application of the Fourth Geneva Convention to the West Bank and Gaza arguing that “the international conventions relating to occupied land do not apply to the Palestinian territories because they were not under the legitimate sovereignty of any state in the first place” (BBC 2009). The vast majority of the international community, including allies of Israel, disagrees. The European Union and the United

Nations have repeatedly condemned the building of the Jewish settlements and have deemed them “illegal and in need of removal” in multiple resolutions (Berry and Philo 2006, 57). A portion of the Jewish settlers are unbending in their conviction that the land is Jewish land promised to them by God and therefore an entitlement. Human rights organizations report that Jewish settlers displace, harass, and even physically harm Palestinians with impunity. Christian Peacemaker Teams’ initial delegation to the West

Bank in 1995 went with the purpose of documenting “a burst of settlement expansion around Jerusalem”

(Kern 2009, 97).

Some Palestinians displaced by war and land confiscations have fled to neighboring Arab countries, where they often live as impoverished refugees. Many remaining Palestinians have resorted to violent actions from rock-throwing and shooting to rocket attacks and suicide bombings targeting both

Israeli soldiers and civilians. Palestinians in occupied Gaza and the West Bank spontaneously lashed out against Israeli police and soldiers during the First Intifada following the death of four Gazans in a road incident in December 1987. Palestinians threw rocks at Israeli police and soldiers and engaged in a persistent campaign of nonviolent civil resistance accompanied at times by violent demonstrations against

6 the Israeli occupying forces. This uprising continued for over three years until after the 1991 Gulf War and the plausible hope for a two-state solution - Israeli and Palestinian - mapped out in the Oslo I Accord of 1993.

However, there was uncertainty about whether or not the Israeli government would evacuate the settlers. Relations between Israeli settlers and Palestinian residents in Hebron were among the most contentious and culminated in the 1994 Al-Ibrahimi mosque massacre in which settler Baruch Goldstein killed 29 worshippers in the mosque before he was killed. Little over a year later in April of 1995, the

Palestinian mayor of Hebron invited CPT to monitor the city. CPT agreed to set up a project for five months to provide an international presence during Israeli troop pullout (Kern 2009, 94-100). As part of the peace process in September 1995, Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin’s government deliberately scheduled Hebron “as the last of the West Bank towns from which Israeli soldiers were to redeploy under

Oslo II in order to allow time to work out the security issues arising from the presence of 450 militant

Israeli settlers in the city’s center” (Andoni 1997, 18). Under the terms of the agreement…[f]our percent of the West Bank (including…Hebron) was turned over to exclusive Palestinian control…” (Shlaim 2001,

528). However, both the prime minister and the peace process were killed. Subsequently, Israeli forces and settlers remained in Hebron, and the 1997 Hebron Protocol divided the city between Israeli and

Palestinian control. CPT’s Al Khalil Team also stayed and has been there ever since.

Attempts to revive the peace process between Israelis and Palestinians proved unsuccessful. In

September 2000, after the failure of Israeli-Palestinian peace talks at Camp David, the bloodier Second

Intifada commenced. It was triggered by Israeli hardliner Ariel Sharon’s decision to ostentatiously stroll through the Haram es Sharif, the plaza around Jerusalem’s Dome of the Rock, Islam’s third holiest site.

This is the point when “things fell apart,” as CPTer Kathleen Kern (2009) describes the period between

2000 and 2006. Violent clashes between Palestinians and Israelis became a regular facet of life. Israel began the construction of the security fence, known disparagingly as the “apartheid wall,” separating the

7

Palestinian West Bank from Israel proper (and from other parts of the West Bank in places)4. Over 4,000

Israelis and Palestinians died in the Second Intifada, many of them in suicide bombings carried out by

Palestinian men and women. During this time, too, CPT developed temporary satellite projects including a Rapid Response Team in Jerusalem to provide international eyewitness accounts of attacks on Israeli civilians. Violent Palestinian groups such as Hamas, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), and the Popular

Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), which espouse the destruction of Israel and threaten the security of Israel, have indeed emerged out of the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza.

There are, however, Palestinians who actively seek to combat the injustices and violence of

Israeli occupation through the use of nonviolence. Palestinian organizations committed to nonviolent direct action include the International Solidarity Movement (ISM), the Palestinian Center for

Rapprochement Between People (PCR), the AL-WATAN Center, Holy Land Trust, and the Wi’am

Center. The founder of Wi’am, or the Palestinian Conflict Resolution Center, was instrumental in bringing the initial CPT delegation to the West Bank in 1995. These Palestinian organizations coordinate acts of nonviolent resistance such as demonstrations, boycotts, obstruction of Israeli settlement building, obstruction to acts of destruction against Palestinian property, and other forms of civil disobedience in their struggle against Israeli occupation. In addition, many employ tactics designed to strengthen their communities and create international awareness.

Increasingly, Israeli Jews have joined the efforts of these local Palestinian organizations employing nonviolence in their quest for peace and justice in the West Bank and Gaza. Israeli soldiers themselves have been instrumental in creating a public awareness of the abuses of occupation. These soldiers have formed organizations such as Peace Now and Breaking the Silence seeking nonviolent solutions. Rabbis for Human Rights and the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions are Israeli

NGOs that embrace nonviolent direct action to deter the violence and injustices of occupation. Israelis and Palestinians joined together to form the peace group Ta’ayush, which invited CPT along with Italian

4 “Approximately 606 square miles, or 16.6% of the entire West Bank (including East Jerusalem), will lie on the Israeli side of the West Bank fence/wall, when Israel completes its construction. This area is home to approximately 17,000 Palestinians in the West Bank and 220,000 in East Jerusalem” (ProCon.org 2013).

8

NGO Operation Dove to supply international accompaniment to the Palestinians in and around the village of At-Tuwani to protect school children, farmers, and shepherds from violent settler attacks. CPT established its full-time presence in this remote and vulnerable community in southern West Bank in 2004 and withdrew the team in residence there in 2011.

Like CPTers, other people from outside Israel and the West Bank seek to create space for peace through their presence. Operation Dove and the Ecumenical Accompaniment Programme in Palestine and

Israel (EAPPI), which was modeled after CPT, employ many of the same nonviolent direct-action and conscious-raising techniques used by CPT. CPT collaborates with both of these organizations at different times, as it does with many of the Palestinian and Israeli NGOs committed to nonviolence. CPT’s network of partners has expanded over the years.

Peacemaking in the Global Context

On a broader scale, the mission of Christian Peacemaker Teams emerges from a sometimes overlooked history of peace movements that have confronted violence and oppression with nonviolent civil resistance. The study of CPT’s ability to carry out that mission in its Palestine Project adds to the body of knowledge about organizations within peace movements. CPT in Hebron and At-Tuwani has a role within the modern Palestinian nonviolence movement with origins “dating back well before 1948, when the state of Israel was established atop a depopulated Palestine” (Munnayyer 2011, 2). Much of

CPT’s work follows the lead of local initiatives. CPT Palestine Project teams work with various local partner organizations such as Holy Land Trust founded by Palestinian Christian Sami Awad. Sami

Awad’s uncle Mubarak Awad was among the leaders of Palestinian nonviolent resistance during the First

Intifada. Influenced by the teachings of Gandhi as well as Mennonite and Quaker pacifists in the US,

Mubarak Awad was sometimes called the Arab Gandhi.

The oppressed commonly choose violence in their pursuit of self-determination and human rights.

Examples of these from the last half century alone abound. Among the Palestinians, the Palestine

Liberation Organization, Fatah, the PFLP, the PIJ, Hamas, and the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade have engaged in guerrilla activities, shootings, bombings, hostage taking, plane hijackings, rocket attacks, and

9 suicide attacks against Israelis since the 1960s. Over the past 50 years, Kurds, Basques, Croats, Bosnian

Muslims, Kosovar Albanians, Muslim Chechens, and Sri Lankan Tamils have also organized themselves in armed resistance against regimes in power.

Far fewer have refused to use violence to counter the violence and injustice of repressive social and political systems, but there are notable examples analogous to those Palestinians employing nonviolent methods today. Mahatma Gandhi’s Quit India movement struggled for national liberation from

British rule. As in the Israeli-occupied territories, strategies of violence and nonviolence existed side by side in the Indian effort to gain independence in the 1930s and 1940s. Gandhi led Indians in boycotts, marches, strikes, and acts of nonviolent civil disobedience such as the famous “Salt Campaign” in protest of British policies and ultimately British rule. The 14th Dalai Lama, in his acceptance speech for the

Nobel Peace Prize in 1989, touted Gandhi as “the man who founded the modern tradition of non-violent action for change” (1989). Gandhi’s methods have influenced and been adopted by subsequent peace movements around the world including peace activists in the West Bank.

Directly inspired by Gandhi’s philosophy of nonviolent social protest as well as his own

Christian convictions, Martin Luther King, Jr. led black Americans in acts of civil resistance during the civil rights movement in the United States during the 1960s. Baptist pastor and leader of the Southern

Christian Leadership Conference, King employed and encouraged nonviolent yet confrontational methods in the attempt to end racial segregation and discrimination. The Birmingham bus boycott and demonstrations, the 1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, and the Selma voting rights campaign and 1965 March to Montgomery propelled black Americans and white supporters from diverse faith communities into the often dangerous role of nonviolent resister.

Like Martin Luther King, Jr., Desmund Tutu’s Christian faith led him to embrace nonviolent struggle against racial oppression in South Africa. Archbishop Tutu, the first black cleric to lead the

Anglican Church in South Africa, spoke out fervently against apartheid and urged nonviolent civil disobedience in protest of the injustices. Others, including Nelson Mandela, advocated violence to fight

10 the system. International nonviolent support also contributed to the destruction of South African apartheid and has been a growing part of the contemporary peace movements in opposition to repressive systems.

The anti-war and disarmament movements also have a rich tradition of nonviolent direct action.

Civil disobedience at nuclear weapons sites, military bases, and government offices has been the weapon of choice for those advocating nuclear disarmament in the US and around the world. Anti-war protesters have also adopted nonviolent methods. In the US from the Vietnam War to the War in Iraq, protesters have conducted mass marches and rallies, blocked traffic, resisted the draft, and refused to pay taxes.

Academic and Practical Significance

The study of CPT’s ability to effectively develop nonviolent institutions, skills, and training for intervention in the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians derives significance from multiple areas. The work done by CPT overlaps with numerous fields of interest to social scientists but also to anyone committed to promoting nonviolence and human rights. An investigation into CPT’s activities in the West

Bank contributes to the urgent conversation in search of solutions for the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian rift.

It also adds to the body of knowledge about interest groups, third-party nonviolent intervention, faith- based peacebuilding, interfaith and cross-cultural cooperation, and peace movements in general. An examination of CPT’s financial and member support related to its ability to carry out its mission provides discussion and evidence in the realm of interest group studies. Information derived from this study is of both academic interest to social scientists and of practical benefit to the NGO itself. In addition, lessons learned from CPT’s experiences might offer guidance to CPT and other similar organizations in the future.

Over the past three decades, civilian peacemakers have developed third-party nonviolent intervention as a method for preventing the escalation of violence in conflict zones. “[T]hird-party nonviolent intervention…is a collection of tactics and methods used to support, rather than direct, social change work in intense conflict situations” (Boothe and Smithey 2007, 39-40). Scholars and practitioners of nonviolent resistance have shown growing interest in this model. Christian Peacemaker Teams has funneled many of its efforts – funding, skills development and training, and support for other nonviolent

11 institutions – into projects employing third-party nonviolent intervention methods. “Nonviolent interventionists dissuade parties from harming one another by interjecting a third party into the situation whom one or both sides have reasons not to harm” (Boothe and Smithey 2007, 40). Western volunteers often serve as the buffering third party. Disputants might fear negative sanctions from Western governments or a tarnished reputation at the hands of a wider press and therefore refrain from violence against or in the presence of the Westerner. CPTers serving on teams are predominantly Americans and

Canadians. Short-term delegations participating in CPT activities also include Europeans and Australians.

Scholars use “international protective accompaniment” and “third-party nonviolent intervention” interchangeably. Liam Mahoney, whose work has produced a theory of accompaniment, describes international protective accompaniment as “the presence of foreign actors with local actors for two purposes: to protect those local actors against attack, and to encourage them to engage in democratic civilian activities” (1997, 207). Accompaniment can also be identified as a tool of third-party interventionists. In their article “Privilege, Empowerment and Nonviolent Intervention,” Ivan Boothe and

Lee A. Smithey examine protective accompaniment as well as observation and monitoring, interposition, and presence as the principal methods of contemporary third-party nonviolent intervention (2007, 42-43).

CPT employs the full range of methods.

The literature examining third-party nonviolent intervention also recognizes that some Westerners choose to go beyond mere accompaniment to participate in solidarity activities or civil disobedience to protest injustices. Patrick Coy compares the activities of the Peace Brigades, which offers non-partisan accompaniment, with those of Christian Peacemaker Teams and the International Solidarity Movement.

CPT’s direct-action approach and intimate involvement with the activities of the Palestinians they accompany, Coy argues, has resulted in CPTers being singled out by Israeli settlers and military for harassment and violence (Coy 2008). Boothe and Smithey also raise concerns about the risks of third- party nonviolent intervention. Reliance on Western privilege, for instance, can lead to a relationship of dependency and obstruct the nonviolent empowerment of local movements (2007, 48-49; also Coy 2008).

CPT’s goal of developing institutions may be seen as an effort to increase the independence and strength

12 of the local population. Boothe and Smithey also point out that punishment of local activists is sometimes more severe after Western interventionists have left the scene (2007, 50). CPTers in the West Bank, including Kathleen Kern (2009), have confirmed that harsh reprisals against local Palestinians are a real concern. However, those practicing third-party nonviolent intervention have made inroads where conventional human rights workers have not. Practitioners have offered extensive anecdotal evidence that they have deterred disputants from carrying out violent actions. In addition, Alison Brown commends the emotional and highly personal reporting process of international accompanists in the West Bank to share with the outside world the impact of the movement restrictions on Palestinians (Brown 2004, 514-515).

CPTers report back to home populations in an attempt to inform and educate them and raise financial and moral support for CPT’s work.

Ecumenical scholars and a growing number of religious leaders engage in interfaith efforts to build trust and promote peace, particularly among Christians, Muslims, and Jews. This constitutes an international phenomenon. For Israelis and Palestinians, the building of interfaith trust and collaboration is essential to the resolution of the protracted conflict between the two. CPT has recognized this need and provides support to other Christians as well as Muslims and Jews committed to nonviolent action. In his report “Faith-Based NGOs and International Peacebuilding,” David Smock aptly points out that

“[i]nterethnic and interfaith relations can often be improved at the community level before improvements occur among elites and politicians” (2001, 8). His survey of the activities of 40 faith-based NGOs, including CPT, demonstrates the breadth of peace-building activities in which these organizations are involved, from conflict prevention to reconciliation. Susan Thistlethwaite and Glen Stassen acknowledge that the sacred texts of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam contain passages that are interpreted to support violence and justify warfare. However, they identify examples of teachings that promote peace and offer the means for achieving it within each religion’s scripture. They argue that overlapping methods for peacemaking might serve as the foundation for an Abrahamic Just Peacemaking paradigm or alternative to war (2008).

13

Along with advancing the areas of scholarship in third-party nonviolent intervention and faith- based and interfaith peacebuilding, this work has practical relevance. This case study seeks to contribute, if only in a small way, ideas that will promote nonviolence between Israelis and Palestinians. These two peoples have suffered for too long from an unending insecurity. This research expands the international knowledge base concerning strategies for transforming the violence and oppression within the current conflict.

This study also has practical value to CPT and other Christian peace organizations. CPT activists reflect and write frequently about the activities in which they are involved. However, this study offers assessment by a neutral observer of the organization’s ability to reach its own goals. CPT’s Palestine

Project may also serve as a model for other organizations espousing similar values and objectives and operating in the same conflict region. Already, EAPPI has patterned itself out of CPT’s example. CPT and other organizations can learn not only from CPT’s successes, but also from challenges and shortcomings. This research gives all an opportunity to contemplate the practices of this faith-based NGO with a relatively long history in the West Bank. It notes consistent success, improvements, and deficiencies in CPT’s effectiveness in the performance of its Palestinian Project over the years.

Additionally, NGOs depend on their ability to raise funds for their work. This research will focus, in part, on the financial support CPT has received over time. Financial supporters of Christian Peacemaker Teams will take an interest in the findings by an independent source. Up to this point, CPT has received very limited evaluations of its finances by external sources. Benefactors are often committed to the principles of the work that CPT and other similar organizations do. Quoting Mother Theresa, CPTer Rick Polhamus has said of the organization on numerous occasions, “We are not called to be successful, but faithful.”

Members of the traditional peace churches and other supporters of CPT might very well share these sentiments. However, contributors are also encouraged when they see positive results made possible by their donations.

14

Methodology

Case Selection

This study tests the hypothesis that Christian Peacemaker Teams in the West Bank has effectively developed nonviolent institutions, skills, and training for intervention in the conflict between

Israelis and Palestinians. This case study examines and evaluates CPT’s effectiveness in realizing the goals that the organization established for itself as they relate to its “Palestine Project.” CPT set up its initial project in the West Bank city of Hebron in 1995. The study therefore examines activities from 1995 through 2014.

There are various reasons for the selection of CPT as the focus of this study. First, the past three decades have witnessed the rise of third-party nonviolent intervention into conflicts around the world, and the work of CPT may serve as a model of such international intervention by other practitioners. Second, religious activists increasingly engage in nonviolent methods to stop war and oppression. Christians are taking a more active role in searching for ways to stop conflict in the region and bring justice to

Palestinians. An examination of CPTers’ collaborative interaction with Muslim, Jewish, and other activists in the West Bank offers insight into interfaith peacebuilding, which is also a field of increasing international importance. Third, in practical terms, the choice of CPT reflects the availability of resources to research conducted primarily in the Midwest (USA). Key CPT activists reside in Ohio, Illinois, and

Indiana; CPT’s US office is located in Chicago; and archival information about the organization is housed in Goshen, Indiana.

Operationalization of Concepts

The research design of this case study includes the operationalization of concepts derived from the thesis: CPT in the West Bank has effectively developed nonviolent institutions, skills, and training for intervention in the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians. “Effectiveness” is at the core of this inquiry but is an elusive concept. This study adopts the definition put forth by Claude E. Welch, Jr. in NGOs and

Human Rights: Promise and Performance:

15

“Success” and “effectiveness” mean, in simplest terms, achieving the maximum results from the resources invested. Success for HR NGOs may be in the eye of the beholder – but does the most appropriate judgment come from the persons served, activists of the organization, providers of resources, disinterested outside observers, or others? Each has a valid perspective that must be drawn upon for full, accurate assessment; determination of success should ideally incorporate all these points of view (2001, 12).

This study measures “effective development of nonviolent institutions” in terms of CPT’s assistance to new nonviolent organizations emerging on the scene of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. An examination of sources reveals how many of these NGOs CPT has helped to develop and in what ways.

This includes any instances in which CPT has served in some way as a model for other organizations.

“Effective development of skills” is measured by identifying the skills employed by CPTers and the application of those skills on site in the West Bank or as an extension of the work of the Palestine

Project. In addition, the measurement comprises evidence of the impact of the application of those skills in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Finally, this study qualitatively measures “effective development of training” by identifying the goals of training, types of skills taught, and training methods used both in general Peacemaker Corps training and the on-site orientation in the West Bank. Also included in the measurement is the extent to which CPT training serves as a model and is replicated by others. The study will quantitatively measure

“effective development of training” whenever possible by identifying the number of people who have completed the intensive CPT training or CPT-inspired trainings.

Whenever possible, data and outcomes are compared to specific goals set by CPT. In addition, self-assessment by CPTers who have served on the Palestine Project teams as well as the opinions of

Support Team and Steering Committee members, individuals served by CPT, and outside observers will provide qualitative measures of effectiveness in the different areas by giving insight into the perceived quality of the work done.

Data Collection Methods

This case study of the work of Christian Peacemaker Teams in the Israeli-occupied West Bank employs both primary and secondary sources. Primary sources include in-person and telephone interviews

16 and email correspondence with key members of CPT, public addresses by CPTers, blogs by CPTers and short-term delegates, CPT’s official and unofficial records, personal papers of CPT’s first executive director, information posted on CPT’s and other NGOs’ websites, and field observation on a CPT short- term delegation to Israel/Palestine. Secondary sources used for this study include print and online publications, press releases, and public statements; the survey of published works containing self- assessment by CPTers; the review of press accounts of CPT work as well as published commentary and online publications regarding the organization’s activities; and public assessments from individuals outside the organization. CPT posts many documents and publications on its website.

The CPT website has made available general information about the organization and Palestine

Project, CPT’s annual reports (2007-2013), much of its training material for Peacemaker Corps training sessions, CPT’s Sign of the Times quarterly newsletter (1999-2014), CPTNet email news releases direct from CPT projects (1998-2014), and blogs by CPTers and CPT delegates. The Mennonite Church USA –

Goshen has supplied earlier annual reports and Gene Stoltzfus Papers, 1940-2012. The CPT office in

Chicago has also provided the Christian Peacemaker Corps training curriculum and additional materials, budget data for both the overall organization and the Palestine Project, CPT’s current organizational chart, and available data from tracking donations, website visits, and short-term delegations to Israel/Palestine.

The Palestine Team has shared the current goals and objectives within their 2013-2014 strategic plan.

CPTers Kathleen Kern, Art Gish, Gene Stoltzfus, Jerry Levin, Mark Frey, Dianne Roe, and

Wendy Lehman and Laura Ciaghi offer reflections about CPT’s activities in the West Bank in published books and articles. They provide insight into CPT’s goals and operations and assessments of the organization’s work that will be examined within this research. In addition to the CPT website, the websites of CPT partners (listed in Chapter 4) have provided information and links to articles covering

CPT’s work. These include primarily English-language websites and articles. However, Italian-language online publications produced by Operation Dove, an Italian NGO partnering with CPT in At-Tuwani, offer further accounts of CPT’s work.

17

Original personal interviews and email correspondence with 15 key members of CPT’s Palestine

Team, Support Team, and Steering Committee have elicited greater insight into CPT’s goals for and undertakings within the organization’s Palestine Project. They have also provided detailed personal evaluations of CPT’s effectiveness in developing nonviolent institutions, skills, and training for intervention in the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians. Two CPT delegates also provided information about their short-term delegation experiences to Israel/Palestine through email correspondence and personal communication. Interview and email respondents included in this study are

English speakers 21 years of age or older. They have given written permission to allow their names and opinions to be used. There is minimal risk to those who allow disclosure of their names. There is always a small chance that CPTers entering Israel will be detained in the airport and even denied access to Israel and the West Bank because of their affiliation to the organization and the nature of the work they do.

However, it is unlikely that identifying them as respondents within this study will have any effect on their ability to travel to Israel. At this point, those CPT members interviewed have already identified themselves as members of the organization through the posting of their names on the organization’s website or in published accounts of CPT’s work.

The author of this study conducted approximately 20 of hours of personal interviews and engaged in extensive email correspondence with the following respondents:

 Jonathan Brenneman – Ohio/Mennonite/member of the Palestine Team in Hebron 2012-2013

until denied entry, currently full-time in US (emails and personal communication)

 Kryss Chupp – Chicago/Mennonite and United Church of Christ/Training Coordinator since

1993, currently Training and Publications Coordinator (in-person interview and emails)

 Laura Ciaghi – Italy/member of Palestine Team in At-Tuwani 2005-2012 (emails and published

article)

18

 Claire Evans – Chicago/came to CPT in 1998 from Catholic Workers community and served on

various projects/Delegations Coordinator until her death in 2012 (emails and personal

communication)

 Mark Frey – Chicago/Mennonite/member of Palestine Team 1997-2000 and current

Administrative Coordinator (telephone interview and emails)

 Kathleen Kern – New York/member of Palestine Team 1995-2002 until denied entry and current

CPTNet editor (telephone interview, emails, and published materials)

 Cliff Kindy – Indiana/Church of Brethren/began as member of Steering Committee for Church of

the Brethren in 1989, member of Palestine Team in Hebron until denied entry and Reservist since

1990 (in-person interview and emails)

 Rick Polhamus – Ohio/Church of Brethren/member on Palestine Team (full-time) 2000-2005 and

(reservist) 2006-2011, currently reservist leading short-term delegations to Israel/Palestine

(interviews, emails, and personal communication)

 Carole Powell – Australia/reservist on Palestine Team since 2013 (emails, blog)

 Doug Pritchard – Canada/Mennonite/Steering Committee member 1994-1996, Canada

Coordinator 1997-2004, Co-Director 2004-2011, Reservist since 2011 (telephone interview and

emails)

 Greg Rollins – Canada/Mennonite/member of Palestine Team 2001-2003 until denied entry, Iraq

Team 2004-2006, and currently Reservist (telephone interview and emails)

 Carol Rose – Chicago/Mennonite and Church of Brethren/member of Colombia Project the Co-

Director 2004-2013, currently Acting Program Director (telephone interview and emails)

 Melissa Snarr – Ohio/Quaker/CPT delegate to Palestine Project January 2009 (email and personal

communication)

 Michael Snarr – Ohio/Quaker/Steering Committee for Friends United Meeting 2008-2009 and

delegate to Palestine Project January 2011 (emails and personal communication)

19

 Sarah Thompson – Chicago/Mennonite/Steering Committee member 2010-2012, Interim

Outreach Coordinator 2012-2013, Executive Director 2014 (in-person interview)

 Terra Winston – Chicago/Delegations Coordinator since 2012 (emails and personal

communication)

CPTers selected for interviews and/or email correspondence have both current and historical knowledge of the Palestine Project. Few questions were uniform. Instead, each respondent answered questions designed to elicit information pertaining to his or her personal role(s) and expertise within the organization. Several CPT members declined interview requests because of timing, and a few did not respond to requests for information.

The author of this dissertation gained personal field experience at CPT project sites in Hebron and At-Tuwani in the West Bank as part of a two-week CPT delegation to Israel/Palestine in January

2011. This experience serves as an important source of information for this study, as does post-delegation communication with CPTers and fellow delegates. The author’s participation in CPT’s Peacemaker

Congress in celebration of the organization’s 25th anniversary in October 2011 also provided the opportunity to gather information from the workshops and public speeches given by CPTers, including the first Palestinian Muslim associate member serving on the CPT Palestine Project team, and CPT partners in Palestine. Photographs relevant to the Palestine Project provide additional documentation for this qualitative case study. (See Appendix A: Photographs – CPT’s Palestine Project.)

Data Analysis

Overall, this study seeks to test the hypothesis that CPT’s Palestine Project has effectively developed nonviolent institutions, skills, and training for intervention in the conflict between Israelis and

Palestinians. It does so through a case study entailing an iterative process of analyzing data and empirical findings by employing the primary and secondary sources detailed above. Findings are based on an examination of primarily qualitative, but also some quantitative, evidence. Sources including CPT documents and publications, communication with members of the organization, and field experience reveal specific resources available in support of the Palestine Project. They also divulge empirical

20 evidence of efforts and outcomes in the development of institutions, skills, and training. The self- assessment of CPT members provides further evidence for or against the organization’s effectiveness in achieving its own objectives. More limited observations of CPT’s activities in the West Bank from individuals served and those outside the conflict offer an additional set of independent sources to corroborate or contradict the finding from CPT materials.

Trustworthiness

A number of steps have been taken to ensure the credibility of this study. The author of this study has spent over three years examining CPT through establishing a rapport with members of the organization and their NGO partners, regularly reading CPTNet articles and other information released by

CPT, and participation in both the delegation and CPT congress. This prolonged engagement has offered abundant opportunities to observe events and patterns of behavior significant to this case study. In addition, much of the information has been corroborated through multiple sources or interviewer corroboration. Furthermore, extensive dialogues during interviews as well as multiple emails by themselves or following interviews have allowed for member check.

Delimitations and Limitations

This case study of Christian Peacemaker Teams is limited in its scope in that research findings are intended primarily to assess CPT’s performance in its Palestine Project based on the goals the organization set for itself. Findings are not generalizable beyond the organization. However, knowledge gained from this study of CPT’s operations may be considered a valuable supplement to broader theorizing in areas of political science that cover interest group theory, third-party intervention, or faith- based peacemaking. Alexander L. George and Andrew Bennett point out the validity of case study research in the social sciences and assert that “almost half the articles published in the top political science journals in recent years used case studies” (George and Bennett 2004, 10).

There are several limitations to this study. First, the University of Cincinnati’s Institutional

Review Board has granted permission for interviews with individuals affiliated directly with Christian

Peacemaker Teams. This work therefore draws far more from CPT members than others whose

21 viewpoints are deemed valuable in assessment of CPT’s effectiveness. However, this study does ultimately incorporate three of the four points of view Welch (2001) identifies as necessary for a fully balanced assessment of a human rights organization’s effectiveness. To the extent possible, it includes the observations and opinions of some of the Palestinians served (either anonymously or through published accounts) as well as those of scholars or other outside observers who have published work regarding CPT.

In addition, the author has approached inquiry into CPT’s work as a “disinterested outside observer.” It lacks the perspective of providers of resources to the organization due to inaccessibility.

The information-gathering process is also imperfect. Beyond personal accounts, other sources of information and data come predominantly from within CPT. The CPT Support Team and Palestine Team members shared information very generously. However, in a few cases, CPTers were selective in what they provided, limiting access to some of documents deemed for internal use only or reserving comment on what might have been an unresolved issue. In addition, information obtained through interviews with members of CPT may contain flaws as activists’ recollection of past events may fade or the appraisal of their work may be colored by bias or emotion. A language barrier presents an additional impediment to collecting information about CPT’s work in the West Bank from different perspectives. Outside observations examined include only those in English and Italian. Due to foreign language limitations,

Hebrew and Arabic sources are not considered.

Overview of Chapters

The work that follows begins in Chapter 2 with an examination of the theoretical and theological framework for the case study on CPT. Chapter 3 provides an overview of Christian Peacemaker Teams.

Chapter 4 then focuses on the establishment of CPT’s Palestine Project in Hebron and At-Tuwani and

CPT’s collaboration with partners. Chapters 5-7 cover CPT’s functions or strategies for intervention in

Palestine. Chapter 5 examines CPT’s public witness or nonviolent direct intervention strategies. Chapter 6 looks at CPT’s information politics or strategies to inform and educate and mobilize support. Chapter 7 concentrates on CPT’s institution-building. Chapter 8 presents the study’s overall assessment and examines CPT’s contributions to the nonviolence movement.

22

Chapter 2

Theoretical and Theological Frameworks (Rival Worldviews)

“Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.” [Matthew 26:52 NIV]

Introduction

The following chapter provides the theoretical and theological framework for the case study on

Christian Peacemaker Teams in Palestine. The framework draws from two sets of competing worldviews.

In the theoretical realm, realist thought emphasizes the human quest for security and power, which ultimately leads to conflict. Similarly, Samuel Huntington’s “Clash of Civilizations” identifies modern fault-lines resulting in conflict arranged along religious divisions. Global civil society arguments and interest group theories counter realism by focusing on transnational cooperation among like-minded actors, predominantly within nongovernmental organizations, many of which are public interest groups.

Within the theological sphere, religious fundamentalism is rooted in conflict as uncompromising religious militancy arises in reaction to perceived threats from secular forces. In juxtaposition, the ideas of cosmopolitanism promote ecumenical and interfaith collaboration through overlapping values and shared humanity connecting people everywhere. Pacifism stands in contrast to realism’s view of violence as a means to an end and religious fundamentalists’ tendency to use force in their battle against an evil threat.

Conservative Theories

Realism

Realists in the tradition of E.H. Carr and Hans Morgenthau regard power primarily in terms of inter-state conflict involving military force instead of persuasion, nonviolent action, or collaboration influenced by nongovernmental organizations. In fact, “classical realists view conflict as a natural state of affairs rather than as a consequence that can be attributed to historical circumstances, evil leaders, flawed sociopolitical systems, or inadequate international understanding and education” (Holsti 2004, 54). St.

Augustine, Machiavelli, Hobbes, Niebuhr and other classical realists hold a pessimistic view of human

23 nature, which is central to their explanations of war and conflict. Classical realism “emphasizes the flaws in human nature, the natural prevalence of conflicts of interest, power-seeking motives, [and] the dominance of material interests over legal or moral norms in determining the actions of political units, mainly nation-states, but within fractured polities,…[also] contending groups” (Betts 2007).

Realists explain international relations with reference to prudence, self-interest and the search for power. Realist theory has an explanatory focus on the pursuit of power, especially military power, as a means of providing security to ensure survival. The saying “Might makes right” epitomizes the approach.

Realists view the pursuit of military power as necessary in an effort to survive. The highest goal is that of survival. Force is not the first instrument chosen to resolve a conflict, but it becomes necessary when other instruments fail. “Realism focuses on military power because it determines [whose] claims prevail when disagreements can’t be resolved by negotiations” (Betts 2007). Machiavelli, for example, advises leaders to act out of political necessity rather than morality in line with Christian or other religious values.

Violence, deception, and fear are all necessary tools in the acquisition and maintenance of power and safe-guarding the state. Leaders who are loved (or hated) are at greater risk of losing power than those who are feared (Machiavelli [1532] 2005). For realists, ensuring the security of the state might require the elimination of rivals or intimidation of a resistant population. It might require the use of military force in a way to send a message to an adversary that any future attacks will produce devastating retaliation that will be regretted. Realists posit that the use of force may act as a deterrent to threats or provide security through the defeat of an enemy. In these cases, realists may claim that “the ends justify the means.”

This case study examines the work of Christian Peacemaker Teams. In direct contrast to realism, the organization envisions “[a] world of communities that together embrace the diversity of the human family and live justly and peaceably with all creation” (CPT 2013d). CPT operates under the assumption that “violence can be disarmed with the witness to peace, truth, love and justice” (CPT 2010e). Contrary to realism, CPT is grounded in Christian virtue. “The willingness to give life instead of taking life has immense transforming power, as Jesus Christ has demonstrated when he sacrificed himself for others”

(CPT 2010e).

24

The Clash of Civilizations

In his 1993 Foreign Affairs article “The Clash of Civilizations?” Samuel Huntington predicts that the most important conflicts of global politics in the coming years will be those between civilizations.

Expanding on this idea in his book, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, he identifies the contemporary civilizations as Sinic, Japanese, Hindu, Islamic, Orthodox, Western, Latin

American, and possibly African (2003, 45-47). Similar to realists, Huntington stresses the “us” versus

“them” mentality that leads to clashes on two levels:

At the micro-level, adjacent groups along the fault lines between civilizations struggle, often violently, over the control of territory and each other. At the macro level, states from different civilizations compete for relative military and economic power, struggle over the control of international institutions and third parties, and competitively promote their particular political and religious values (1993, 29).

Huntington argues that religion is “possibly the most profound difference that can exist between two people” (2003, 254). Religious differences lead to more frequent, intense, and violent fault line wars, he asserts. Huntington criticizes scholars who underestimate the significance of religious differences

(2003, 253-254). He goes on to note that the vast majority of fault line conflicts since the start of the Cold

War have occurred between Muslims and non-Muslims (2003, 255). This includes the ongoing conflict between predominantly Muslim Palestinian Arabs and Israeli Jews. “While at the macro or global level of world politics the primary clash of civilizations is between the West and the rest, at the micro or local level it is between Islam and the others” (2003, 255). In addition, Huntington argues that fault line wars rarely get resolved, but rather go through “processes of intensification, expansion, containment, [and] interruption” (2003, 266).

This paints a bleak picture for those enmeshed in the conflict in the West Bank. The inhabitants of this region appear doomed to inescapable savagery and suffering because of unyielding religious identities and beliefs. Moderates among them can only gain ground temporarily as they appeal to those reeling from the senselessness of the violence. Reason and negotiations will fail. Radicals will then supplant the moderates. In the Israeli-Palestinian case, Huntington points out that this cycle did indeed

25 occur after the 1993 Oslo Accords were finally negotiated between the two belligerent parties to create a two-state solution to the ongoing conflict. “[A]s the mainstream Palestine Liberation Organization moved toward negotiations with the Israeli government, the [more radical] Muslim Brotherhood’s Hamas challenged it for the loyalty of Palestinians. Simultaneously the engagement of the Israeli government in negotiations generated protests and violence from extremist religious groups in Israel” (2003, 267).

However, Huntington does not see an end to the conflict even through violence. “The victory of the extremists is not necessarily permanent. Extremist violence is no more likely than moderate compromise to end a fault line war” (2003, 267). Those willing to engage in discourse might again briefly interrupt the violence until radicals silence them once more.

This case study examines ways in which Christian Peacemaker Teams applies theories of nonviolent conflict resolution5 and interfaith collaboration that challenge Huntington’s notion of an unending clash of civilizations. CPT aspires to create ecumenical, interfaith, and cross-cultural partnerships and employ tools of nonviolence to transform oppressive systems. Chapter 4 introduces the subject of CPT’s partnership and cooperation with other Christians, Muslims, and Jews in

Israel/Palestine.

Religious Fundamentalism

Religious fundamentalism exists as both a religious and sociopolitical phenomenon. It has become important in the cultural dynamics of modern societies. Fundamentalist movements “emerge from Christianity, Judaism, Sunni and Shi’ite Islam, Hinduism, Sikhism, Buddhism, and neo-

Confucianism” (Almond, Appleby, and Sivan 2003, 9). Expressions of religious fundamentalism are oppositional by nature but vary widely based on differences in context. “While the rise of fundamentalism can be characterized as a global trend, comprising responses to far-reaching processes of social change, it manifests itself through groups and movements that are embedded in specific places and shaped by local circumstances” (Stump 2000, 15).

5 In this instance, “conflict resolution” refers to the use of strategies of nonviolent direct action in an attempt to promote effective resolution to a conflict.

26

Widespread use of the term “fundamentalism” arose in the 1920s in the US. It emerged as a

“subspecies” of Protestant evangelicalism. These early fundamentalists believed their paramount

Christian duty was to mount uncompromising opposition, in the form of organized militancy, to both

“modernist” theology calling into question accepted evangelical principles and a cultural crisis brought on by the spread of Darwinism, the decadence of the Jazz Age, and the bolshevism and atheism of the “red scare” (Marsden and Svelmoe 2005, 2887-2890).

In more recent years, the term has broadened to include examples from diverse religious traditions. Religious fundamentalism, as it is used today, “refers not to a specific set of beliefs but to the response of religious traditionalists in general to contemporary social trends. In this context, scholars do not always agree on who should be considered a fundamentalist” (Stump 2000, 5). Some commonly accepted examples include the Shi’ite fundamentalists in Iran, Taliban in Afghanistan, Hindu militants responsible for the demolition of the Babri mosque in Ayodhya in India, Jewish extremist settlers in the

West Bank, and Christian cultural warriors in US. In Strong Religion: The Rise of Fundamentalism around the World, Almond, Appleby, and Sivan (2003) have carefully constructed a definition of religious fundamentalism for use in making cross-cultural, “structured comparisons of movements and groups” (17). They define the phenomenon as “a discernible pattern of religious militance by which self- styled ‘true believers’ attempt to arrest the erosion of religious identity, fortify the borders of the religious community, and create viable alternatives to secular institutions and behaviors” (17).

In Boundaries of Faith: Geographical Perspectives on Religious Fundamentalism, Roger W.

Stump (2000) begins an examination of fundamentalism by specifying what it is not:

…[F]undamentalism does not refer to a particular set of doctrines, such as belief in the literal truth of the Bible. Although biblical inerrancy represents a central tenet of Christian fundamentalism, it clearly has no relevance to Hindu or Buddhist versions of the phenomenon. Fundamentalism also involves more than adherence to traditional beliefs, whatever they might be. For example the Old Order Amish [Anabaptists] practice a demanding, traditional form of Christianity that leads them to reject most modern innovations – from automobiles to zippers – and yet they are not generally considered to be fundamentalists. Likewise, fundamentalism does not refer simply to strongly held religious beliefs. Although most fundamentalists are devout practitioners of their faith, so are many nonfundamentalists. Religious belief obviously plays a central role in fundamentalism, but other concerns are also involved.

27

The most important of these concerns is the impact of social change on religious belief. More specifically, fundamentalists are distinguished in part by their conviction that contemporary social forces threaten the survival of traditional values and beliefs and that only their religion can halt the degeneration of society and restore it to a more principled state (5).

“[R]esistance to modern forms of secularization is a defining common feature of religious fundamentalism” (Almond, Appleby, and Sivan 2003, 20). Secular modernity may come about endogenously, such as with the industrial and technological revolutions of Europe and the US. It may result from exploitative imperialism, as seen in Africa, Asia, and Latin America (20). Fundamentalists also resist cultural pluralism, which “eliminates any preference in society for one religion over another”

(Stump 2000, 8). Fundamentalist movements oppose secularization, modernization, imperialism, colonialism and/or pluralism as encroachments on religion or erosions of the integrity of particular faith traditions. “Indeed, most scholars agree that the oppositional quality of fundamentalism represents one of its most important defining characteristics. Fundamentalism exists only within a context of conflict” (9).

Fundamentalist movements share other traits, as well, that set them apart from other social protest movements. Fundamentalists tend to emerge from groups of religious conservatives within a faith tradition. They “separate from their orthodox or traditionalist communities and…redefine the sacred community in terms of its opposition to nonbelievers and ‘lukewarm’ believers” (Almond, Appleby, and

Sivan 2003, 10). Their commitment is absolute, and they draw clear, almost impenetrable boundaries between insiders and outsiders. Truth for fundamentalists is based on a narrow and selective reading of holy texts or understanding of sacred traditions. Authoritarian or charismatic male leaders typically emerge and claim the right to choose or reject any previous interpretations or teachings within the faith.

They employ a strategy of “retrieving and restoring politically useful doctrines and practices and creating others in an effort to construct a religiopolitical ideology capable of mobilizing disgruntled youth into political cadres or into grassroots political organizations” (10). They emphasize “a few select issues...[r]ather than espousing a wholesale return to a traditional past…. Certain traditions thus take on profound significance for a fundamentalist group because they unequivocally repudiate the trends by which the group feels threatened” (Stump 2000, 11). Thus, the acceptance of the biblical account of

28 creation as the literal truth became a distinguishing feature of Christian fundamentalism in the 1920s as a reaction to the teaching of Darwin’s theory of evolution in public schools in the US. Islamic fundamentalists more recently insist on the strict adherence to sharia law in opposition to the spread of

Western social and political ideas and practices (11).

Almond, Appleby, and Sivans (2003) identify other commonly shared traits among fundamentalists. Although they preach in defense of tradition, fundamentalists selectively adopt secular science and technology. These include widespread use of communications and computer technology.

They are selective in both their interpretation of the sacred past and acceptance of modern science and technology that might serve their purposes. Fundamentalists also share a defense of patriarchy as “the divine plan for the moral ordering of society” (11). Women within these movements often support the ideas and structures that maintain these male-dominated systems (11).

Extremist violence is not a necessary part of religious fundamentalism. Terrorism and fundamentalism are not synonymous (Almond, Appleby, and Sivan 2003, 14). Fundamentalist groups may work militantly in nonviolent ways to transform society’s institutions and laws or create alternative structures. However, resort to violence, “while not inevitable, is a strong tendency in fundamentalist movements. They seek to protect and deepen religious identity – to promote a formidable religious presence – by competing with other religious movements and with secular institutions and philosophies for resources and allegiances” (17). This competition coupled with the group’s monopoly on the truth, which is divine truth, no less, can reach violent proportions in the face of what is perceived as an evil threat.

CPT’s faith practices challenge those of religious fundamentalists in a number of ways. CPT identifies as a Christian organization with deeply held beliefs but accepts cultural and religious pluralism within the organization as seen in the organizational overview in Chapter 3. CPT embraces the ideas of diversity and equality, also presented in Chapter 3. In addition, the NGO actively seeks collaboration with, not competition from, other religious groups. Within the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, however, CPT experiences both interfaith cooperation from like-minded organizations and confrontation

29 from predominantly Jewish fundamentalists. An examination of both of these relationships begins in

Chapter 4.

Liberal Theories

Liberal Internationalism

Global Civil Society. Political scientists analyze and debate the increasingly important role of non-state global actors such as NGOs in creating awareness of key issues, influencing changes in international norms and behavior, monitoring governments and industries, and democratizing global politics. Global

Civil Society (GCS) action and advocacy have emerged in human rights, human security and peace building, women’s rights, indigenous rights, economic rights and corporate responsibility, and environmentalism, among others. Scholars have examined global civil society under a variety of labels over the past couple of decades. These include “international civil society” (Colas 2002), “transnational civil society” (Florini 2000), “transnational advocacy networks” (Keck and Sikkink 1998), and more common derivations such as “non-state actors” and “nonprofit sector” (Icelandic Human Rights Centre

2013).

As varied as the labels are, so too are conceptualizations of global civil society (Berry and Gabay

2009; Omelicheva 2009). The analytical approach may focus on the like-minded actors working transnationally on an issue, such as when NGO networks in the human rights or development field are examined. The focus may instead be on the novel space occupied by nongovernmental groups, a space which John Keane describes as interconnected “ecosystems of global civil society” (2001, 24), or perhaps on the distinct type of transnational political activity emerging out of this space. Peter Levine (2013) characterizes civil society as “the human scale of politics” and argues that, at this level, “deliberate human action has significant impact” (26).

“Civil society” is the name for that scale of human action where the minuscule powers of an individual obtain enough leverage to count but are not lost entirely in the mass. It is the world of “we,” but not such a huge or abstract “we” that “I” no longer matters. It is politics at the human scale (Levine 2013, 24).

30

Civil society’s “institutional forms are distinct from those of the state, family, and market, although the boundaries between the state, civil society, family, and market are often complicated and blurred” (Xu

2011, 2). Mariya Omelicheva (2009, 111) points out that some scholars define GCS as a “bounded” concept, such as Paul Wapner’s (1995) portrayal of it as “embodying everything between the state and the individual or family.”

Others recognize the complexities and ambiguous boundaries of GCS. James Rosenau refers to

“two worlds of world politics – a multi-centric world comprised of diverse non-governmental actors who are independent of the state-centric world and who frequently conflict, cooperate or otherwise interact with counterparts in the state-centric world” (1998, 257). M.J. Peterson identifies various categories of relations among transnationally-oriented societal actors and states. Societal actors in different countries may interact cooperatively and independently of any state. They may, however, provide assistance to or seek assistance from their own or a foreign state in order to further a set of goals. Transnationally-oriented societal groups may also compete with one another for the same sources of support or in an attempt to influence the same actors (Peterson 1992, 380-382). Margaret Keck and Kathryn Sikkink go a step farther and incorporate parts of the state and international intergovernmental organizations into their conceptualization of transnational advocacy networks, which they define as “those relevant actors working internationally on an issue, who are bound together by shared values, a common discourse, and dense exchanges of information and services” (1998, 2).

Whether or not global civil society is defined as “bounded” or the boundaries between the volunteer sector and the state are blurred, GCS “is almost universally presented as a domain in which associative relations constitute the dominant mode of social organization” (Omelicheva 2009, 112).

NGOs are most often the focus of research in this area, but GCS actors range from formal organizations to informal social and political networks. Other GCS actors include parties, lobbies, churches and other faith-based organizations, professional associations and trade unions (although some perspectives exclude economic activity), universities, mass media, community groups, women’s organizations, registered charities, think tanks, self-help groups, dot.causes, diaspora networks, social forums, ad hoc activist

31 coalitions, advocacy groups and networks, principled issue networks, ideologically integrated networks, and internationally coordinated social movements (Omelicheva 2009, 112; Xu 2011, 2). The uniting characteristics of the primary GCS associations are that they are nongovernmental, not-for-profit, and voluntary. In addition, whereas some transnational actors resort to criminal activity or violence to reach their goals, GCS organizations typically do not (Omelicheva 2009, 112).

Craig Berry and Clive Gabay illustrate how the normative objectives of cosmopolitanism are embedded in the dominant approach to GCS:

Proponents of global civil society have conceptualized it as something that both promotes and embodies the conduct of social relations ‘with a minimum of violence and a maximum of respect for the principle of civilized power-sharing among different ways of life’ (Keane 2001: 24). Indeed, according to Mary Kaldor, “global civil society… is about ‘civilizing’ or democratizing globalization, about the process through which groups, movements, and individuals can demand a global rule of law, global justice and global empowerment” (Kaldor 2005: 20). These features presuppose a set of shared norms and values among ideologically and culturally diverse actors, which Donatella Della Porta (2005) has attributed to global civil society’s ability to house a variety and multiplicity of different identities, what she has called a ‘movement of movements.’ From this perspective, global civil society is positive not despite its differences but because of them (2009, 341).

Global civil society associations and networks typically seek policy changes through advocacy and the exchange and dissemination of information relevant to global issues. GCS activists frequently endeavor to give a voice to those who are marginalized or too weak politically to promote change by themselves. Omelicheva points out that various studies of GCS organizations provide evidence of their assistance “in the realization of citizens’ political rights through active involvement at virtually every stage of global policy making” (2009, 119). They may set agendas, solve problems, and/or monitor behavior and compliance to agreements. GCS action targets national governments, international organizations, as well as industries and corporations (Omelicheva 2009, 118-119). Keck and Sikkink

(1998) contend that transnational advocacy networks commonly serve as “alternatives to mass action.

This is especially true when the groups on whose behalf advocates organize are blocked from making demands at home – either because the rights violator is the state itself or because their voices are too weak to be heard domestically” (217). Keane (2008) also argues that NGOs have assumed a monitoring role over governments to provide accountability to disenfranchised groups within society.

32

Alan Hudson highlights the link created by NGOs between “Southern grassroots communities

[and] Northern policy arenas” (2001, 331). NGOs from more economically developed countries dominate numerous networks but seek to promote the interests of the impoverished and marginalized communities of the developing world (Hudson 2001, 331). “Of the 1,650 NGOs registered with the United Nations, only 261 are in developing countries” (Xu 2011, 7). Lisa Jordan and Peter Van Tuijl assert that NGO advocacy goes beyond information flows and efforts to change public policy and includes attempts to change the reality on the ground by strengthening the self-respect and self-confidence of and creating integrity and mutual trust within the weaker community. “It is often overlooked that NGO advocacy also entails a fight against cynicism and despair to which powerless communities tend to fall victim, in the face of massive political and practical obstacles impairing them to improve their lot” (Jordan and Van

Tuijl 2000, 1052)

Relationships among GCS actors may take various forms. Transnationally-oriented societal groups may work cooperatively together within networks in coordinated campaigns. They may, however, compete with one another for the same sources of support or in an attempt to influence the same actors

(Peterson 1992, 380-382). Jordan and Van Tuijl posit four typologies of NGO relationships in transnational advocacy. These include cooperative, concurrent, disassociated, and competitive. They categorize NGO campaigns on the basis of the level of political responsibility. They define political responsibility as “a commitment to embrace not only goals in a campaign but to conduct the campaign with democratic principles in the forefront” (Jordan and Van Tuijl 2000, 2053). In a cooperative campaign, NGOs work together in an interlocking fashion. They share information freely and continuously review and jointly manage strategies.

[T]he level of political responsibility toward the most vulnerable actors is optimal. For the most part, advocacy agendas and strategies are set in close consultation with the groups who are supposed to benefit from the campaign and risks are assumed only in regard to the burden that can be born by the most vulnerable (Jordan and Van Tuijl 2000, 2056).

In a concurrent campaign, the various NGOs have different but compatible objectives. They freely share information, and the varying combinations of NGOs involved at different levels frequently review and provide coexisting management of strategies. Political responsibility in a concurrent campaign is at a medium level (Jordan and Van Tuijl 2000, 2058).

33

Jordan and Van Tuijl characterize a disassociated campaign as one in which NGOs’ objectives are conflicting; there are infrequent reviews of strategies and sharing of information, which takes place largely from South to North; and political responsibility is low (2000, 2059). In the case of a competitive campaign, advocacy at one level – international, national, or local – “may actually have an adverse or counterproductive impact at another level. There is a serious lack of information exchange and coordination among the NGOs involved, resulting in an absence of accountability and a failure to embrace political responsibilities” (Jordan and Van Tuijl 2000, 2060-2061). Berry and Gabay acknowledge that competition among groups may exist not only due to the desire to achieve different outcomes, but also as some groups “define what are supposedly fellow members of global civil society as obstacles to the achievement of these outcomes” (2009, 342). They suggest that global civil society may be “reconceived as the emergence of new sites and forms of struggle, as well as cooperation,” a view incompatible with the dominant liberal-cosmopolitan approach (2009, 342). This is similar to what Keane refers to as the “old argument” of the “potentially self-destructive or wreckable quality of modern forms of civil society,”… “a restless battlefield where interest meets interest” (1998, 50).

Critics note the overall predominance of NGOs and other civic groups from developed countries in global civil society. Xu writes,

…[GCS] has shown a pronounced class bias. The initiative in worldwide civic activity has lain disproportionately with urban-based, high-earning, well-educated, and English-speaking peoples. Few initiatives have been taken to address the issue of class inequalities in civil society. It even reproduces or enlarges structural inequalities with regard to class, gender, nationality, race, and religion. Many worldwide civil groups in their current condition are regarded as predominantly Western enterprises….Generally speaking, worldwide civic activity has drawn much more from Western Judeo-Christian traditions than from African, Buddhist, Confucian, Eastern Orthodox, Hindu, and Islamic traditions, although there is the International Network of Engaged Buddhists (2011, 7-8).

In addition to Xu’s reference to the organization connecting engaged Buddhists in about 20 countries in the world, Zeynep Atalay argues there is “a growing engagement with global civil society in

Muslim societies” based on an examination of the Union of NGOs of the Islamic World (2009, 4). Keane made a similar observation 11 years earlier based on different evidence (1998, 27).

34

In his article “NGOs’ Transnational Advocacy Networks: from ‘Legitimacy’ to ‘Political

Responsibility’,” Hudson (2001) contends that Northern NGOs should strengthen their relationships with their Southern partners. He states that for those NGOs claiming “to represent Southern communities’ issues, interests, values or concerns - however carefully worded the claim is – there is a need to back up their legitimacy claims with appropriate systems of accountability” (338). He points out that many NGOs lack the “downward accountability” to the Southern communities and partners for whom they are advocating. Hudson also explores Jordan and Van Tuijl’s notion of political responsibility, which differs from any idea of accountability, a term containing “formal obligations embedded in its definition” (Jordan and Van Tuijl 2000, 2053). Hudson maintains that:

As NGOs claim to be value-driven they can expect to be scrutinized to see whether they adhere to their stated values of empowerment of, and partnership with, poor and marginalized communities. It is argued that when NGOs seek to balance and prioritize their relationships with different stakeholders, it is their relationships with Southern partners that ought to take precedence. In this vein, Jordan and Van Tuijl’s concept of ‘political responsibility’ is introduced as a useful, realistic and pragmatic way of conceptualizing power relations as they arise in transnational advocacy networks and campaigns(Jordan and Van Tuijl 1999). In embracing their political responsibilities to their Southern partners, NGOs operating through transnational advocacy networks may indeed come to be more widely regarded as rightful participants in the shaping of global governance.(2001, 332).

Hudson (2001) recognizes that NGOs are not universally perceived as legitimate because different global actors or “stakeholders” hold different notions of legitimacy (332). For example, an

NGO’s Southern partners may view an NGO’s work as legitimate and welcome it, whereas states which are stakeholders may regard it as illegitimate and an intrusion.

Gerald Steinberg’s view of the role NGOs play in “Israel’s growing international isolation”

(2011, 41) over human rights issues may well mirror a concern shared by some within the Israeli government. Steinberg identifies CPT as a participant in a network specifically promoting “a campaign of boycotts, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) [against Israeli interests] modeled on the South African experience” (2011, 36; CPTNet 2010). Table 1 below lists the NGOs that Steinberg identifies as being in this network. Within his article “The Politics of NGOs, Human Rights and the Arab-Israel Conflict,”

Steinberg (2011) examines aspects of the much broader TAN to which CPT and the other activists

35 supporting the BDS belong. His overall examination encompasses numerous NGOs as well as the United

Nations, academics, and, at times, foreign governments engaging in what he labels “the delegitimization of Israel” with the use of “soft power” tools. These include BDS, “lawfare” campaigns leading to court cases against Israeli actions (37), “and UN condemnations and diplomatic scoldings” (41). Steinberg claims that the ultimate objective of these efforts is “the dismantling of Israel as an apartheid state,” as suggested by Irwin Cotler (2011, 41), and “the powerful NGO transnational network plays a leading role”

(Steinberg 2011, 41).

Finally, both Steinberg (2011) and Hudson (2001) bring up important questions about the legitimacy, accountability, and responsibility of NGOs, albeit from different perspectives. Hudson is interested in seeing NGOs improve their relations with the Southern communities for whom they advocate. Steinberg’s concerns rest on the growing influence of NGOs in the Arab-Israeli conflict and their portrayal of Israel as an aggressor and human rights violator. He argues that NGOs in this arena

“lack transparency, accountability, and checks and balances designed to mitigate and redress abuse” (26).

He expresses alarm about NGOs’ ability to raise funds and avoid scrutiny because of a “halo effect,” which allows an NGO to project an unchallenged “image of objectivity and morality” while at the same time giving one-sided “preference to ‘victims’ of Western imperialism and capitalism”(26). Steinberg calls for greater transparency regarding NGO funding as “money translates into power, influence, and the ability to manipulate the public debate” (45). He also wants greater transparency involving NGO internal processes such as decision making, hiring, and agenda-setting (44-45). Xu echoes this call for greater transparency within civic organizations, in which the leadership is often “self-selected, raising troubling questions of accountability and potential conflicts of interest” (2011, 8). In addition, Steinberg prescribes systems of accountability such as regular independent investigations, “mechanisms to ensure a balanced debate and critical exchanges,” and regulation of powerful NGOs to ensure the implementation of checks and balances (2011, 45). Steinberg echoes concerns of the Israeli state about what he perceives as NGOs’

“role in manipulating the marketplace of ideas in the context of the Arab-Israeli conflict” (45).

36

Table 1

Steinberg’s Perspective: A Transnational Advocacy Network of NGOs Promoting A Campaign of Boycotts, Divestment, and Sanctions

Home Region Transnational Advocacy Network NGO

North American and European NGOs

Mennonite Central Committee (US/Canada) Ecumenical Accompaniment Programme in Palestine and Israel (based in Geneva) War on Want (UK) Coalition for Women for Peace (Scandanavia) Center for Constitutional Rights (US) Human Rights Watch (Helsinki, Finland) Amnesty International (England) FIDH (France) The International Commission of Jurists (based in Geneva) Christian Peacemaker Teams (US) Palestinian NGOs

Palestinian Center for Human Rights Al Haq Al Mezan WI’AM (Palestinian Conflict Resolution Center) BADIL (Resource Center for Palestinian Residency and Refugee Rights) Sabeel Ecumenical Liberation Theology Centre Youth Against Settlements Palestinian Centre for Rapprochement Between People Israeli NGOs

Rabbis for Human Rights Israeli Coalition Against Home Demolitions (ICAHD) Breaking the Silence B’Tselem

Note: Adapted from Steinberg, Gerald M. 2011. “The Politics of NGOs, Human Rights and the Arab- Israel Conflict.” Israel Studies 16 (2): 24 – 54. DOI: 10.2979/israelstudies.16.2.24.

37

CPT fits into the discussion about GCS in multiple ways. CPT actively participates in and seeks to expand the network of organizations engaged in a cooperative campaign to promote policy changes to end the violence and oppression of the Occupation. Chapter 7 covers CPT’s contributions to expanding the network through institution-building. The organization carries out advocacy through nonviolent direct action and participation in the BDS, which are examined in Chapter 5. Chapter 6 looks at ways in which

CPT activists employ information politics to give a voice to politically weak Palestinians under occupation in order to help them promote change. CPT’s political responsibility toward the Palestinians, legitimacy from multiple actors in the West Bank, transparency, and motives emerge as topics of consideration in this study.

Interest Group Theories. Interest groups include public interest groups, which seek “…a collective good, the achievement of which will not selectively and materially benefit the membership or activists of the organization” (Berry 1977, 7). Nonprofits are specifically those “organizations that …are neither part of government nor part of the private sector,” according to Berry (2005, 26). In the US, they are also tax exempt. In the literature, the terms “nonprofit organization” and “nongovernmental organization” are used interchangeably at times. Berry points out that “…the study of nonprofits has traditionally occupied a tiny sliver of the political science profession. Interest group specialists have done their absolute best to ignore nonprofits” (2005, 26). Earlier he wrote a similar critique on the attention given to public interest groups by interest group theorists (Berry 1977). Scholars increasingly recognize, however, the need to explore these organizations within the framework of developing interest group theory (Berry 1977 and 2005).

They also see the need to examine international NGOs instead of concentrating on only those operating solely in the US as well as the efficacy of agreeing on terminology and classification systems related to

NGOs (Tolley 1994; Vakil 1997).

In a broad sense, an interest group can refer to “any group that, on the basis of one or more shared attitudes, makes certain claims on other groups in the society for the establishment, maintenance, or enhancement of forms of behavior that are implied by the shared attitudes” (Truman 1951, 33). Interest groups are organizations that represent the interests of their members and donors. In order to achieve their

38 goals or mission, interest groups must be able to mobilize and maintain sufficient funds and members or supporters. Why do people join and support interest groups? Competing theories seek to explain interest group mobilization. David Truman offers a pluralist vision of interest group formation in The

Governmental Process (1951). A “disturbance,” such as an economic downturn, altering the

“equilibrium” of society will create new interests. Individuals will organize to correct the situation. They organize because they have a stake in the outcome of their collective action. Clearly, not all interests organize because of a disturbance, however.

Scholars including Mancur Olson (1971) have challenged pluralist notions. Olson’s rational interest theory posits that people will generally contribute to a group only if they receive selective benefits in return. These are benefits received exclusively by group members. Without these selective benefits, it is rational for individuals to become “free riders” who receive the advantages of the group’s work without the cost of membership. Robert Salisbury (2006) also challenges pluralist ideas while emphasizing the role of leaders or “entrepreneurs” in the mobilization of interest groups. In order to attract members,

“…the group entrepreneur invests his capital to create a set of benefits, composed of some combination or mix of [material, solidarity, and purposive benefits]” (133). Material benefits have concrete value such as the improvement of economic conditions. Solidarity benefits are the social rewards gained through the association such as a sense of group identity or social status from membership. Purposive benefits are incentives related to the pursuit of ideological or “supranational” goals and offering no tangible rewards to members. Salisbury refers to “peace” and “civil liberties” as examples of purposive benefit (2006,

133).

In The Interest Group Society, Jeffrey Berry (1997) recognizes that organizations must raise money “…on an ongoing basis so that they may continue to operate….Although organizations can go under if fundraising drops dramatically, the more common problem is keeping funding up to avert project or staff cutbacks” (1997, 80). In his work, Jack Walker identifies the importance of “patrons” in the interest groups’ fundraising. Patronage may come in the form of grants from government, gifts from foundations, or individual contributions. Walker’s research found that “[o]nce groups have been brought

39 into being with the aid of a patron, in most cases the patron continues to support the group once it is a going concern” (Walker 2006, 160).

Also regarding financial support of NGOs operating in the developing world, Thomas H. Fox points out a link between an NGO’s source of funding and the level of trust it receives from local populations. In his article “NGOs from the United States,” Fox (1987) posits that those organizations receiving little or no money from the US government are better trusted and “may, therefore, have access to more groups of people than those NGOs with identifiable ties with the US government, which – unfortunately – is viewed with varying degrees of distrust or skepticism by people around the world”

(14). He mentions OXFAM America and the American Friends Service Committee as NGOs that do not accept US government support.

Social scientists have done more work on interest group formation and funding and less on how interest groups govern themselves. An organization’s ability to carry out its mission and accomplish its goals is also affected by its authority structure and the dynamics of decision making surrounding resource allocation and setting priorities. The role of staffers in maintaining the organization is also of importance

(Berry 1997).

Finally, factors identified by Fox (1987) as affecting the operations of NGOs operating in developing nations include the NGO’s relationship with the host government. Fox looks further at NGOs’ relationship with other local NGOs as significant. He notes that Lutheran World Relief and Church World

Service are among those organizations that view their main function as strengthening the capacity of local

NGOs. “This institution-building and institution-strengthening function is at the very core of their purpose” (Fox 1987, 14).

Melvin G. Blase (1986) also recognizes institution-building as a function of NGOs. Other researchers examine this and other roles of international human rights NGOs. In The International

Commission of Jurists: Global Advocates for Human Rights, Howard B. Tolley, Jr. (1994) breaks down the functions of international human rights NGOs into three broad categories: 1) promotion, including education, communication and recruitment/mobilization; 2) standard setting, involving agenda building,

40 coalition building/lobbying, and policy making; and 3) protection, comprising monitoring/rule supervision and protection/advocacy/litigation (9). Similarly, Claude E. Welch, Jr. (2001) identifies four main areas in which human rights organizations have concentrated most of their efforts: 1) standard setting, 2) providing information, 3) lobbying officials and media, and 4) providing assistance to victims

(3-6). Throughout the literature, variations in categories of NGO activities exist. International human rights organizations are highly individual and complex, and scholars in this field of inquiry have not established a common taxonomy of functions (Edwards 2010, 174; Tolley 1994, 9).

Christian Peacemaker Teams fits into the general study of NGOs, nonprofit organizations, and interest groups. The study of interest groups within the social sciences has largely overlooked the type of interest group represented by CPT. CPT fits the criteria of both a public interest group and a nonprofit organization. This case study adds to this limited field by examining CPT’s formation, governance, and funding in Chapter 3 and functions in Chapters 5, 6, and 7.

Soft Power. Today’s NGOs and NGO networks possess power. In his article “The Rising Power of

NGO’s,” Joseph Nye asserts, “NGO’s do not have coercive ‘hard’ power, but they often enjoy considerable ‘soft’ power – the ability to get the outcomes they want through attraction rather than compulsion” (2004). Soft power includes but goes beyond mere influence, as influence can be exerted through military threats or other coercion, and encompasses the ability to persuade and attract. Soft power cannot be “reduced to measurable, tangible resources,” however, in contrast to the way in which some realists quantitatively measure hard power in terms of concrete military assets, population size, and economic indicators (Nye 2011, 83).

The work of NGO networks tends to pluralize global politics by creating awareness around issues that governments prefer to conceal or ignore.

[T]he reduced cost of communication in the Internet era has opened up the field to loosely structured network organizations with little headquarters staff and even to individuals. These flexible groups are particularly effective in penetrating states without regard to borders. Because they often involve citizens who are well placed in the domestic politics of several countries, they can focus the attention of media and governments onto their issues, creating new international political coalitions (Nye 2004).

41

NGOs exert soft power when they mobilize demonstrations that gain international attention or use reporting or media campaigns to “point the finger of shame” at governments and transnational corporations. “[G]overnments can no longer maintain the barriers to information flows that historically protected officials from outside scrutiny” (Nye 2004). Nye contends that because of the soft power wielded by these organizations today, governments can ignore NGOs only at their peril (2004).

This case study examines CPT’s strategies for intervention in the Israel-Palestinian conflict that illustrate the concept of soft power. Chapter 5 explores CPT’s public witness efforts, which include advocacy and mobilization of support for Palestinians under occupation. Chapter 6 assesses CPT’s information politics, the organization’s reporting and public outreach. The intention of many of these efforts is to produce changes in Israeli policy through the use of soft power assets.

Cosmopolitanism, Communitarianism, and Ecumenical Idealism

Challengers to pessimistic realist theories have emerged in a variety of disciplines. Some contenders also dispute Huntington’s clash of civilizations theory and instead envision interfaith collaboration. Opposing views include Ghanaian philosopher Kwame Appiah’s work on cosmopolitanism, Nobel Prize winning Indian economist Amartya Sen’s version of multiculturalism, and

Jewish sociologist Amitai Etzioni’s communitarian arguments.

Appiah (2006) challenges Huntington’s premise of the inevitable clash of civilizations by theorizing about our shared humanity in Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers. Appiah subscribes to the philosophical notion of cosmopolitanism. He argues that people around the world are connected by overlapping values and shared humanity. In its most basic form, Appiah’s cosmopolitanism links together two ideas. First, people have obligations to other human beings. These obligations transcend kinship, citizenship, and religion and are based on concern for human life. Second, there is respect for legitimate differences between people. Cosmopolitanism is committed to pluralism, but not relativism. “Cosmopolitans think that there are many values worth living by and that you cannot live by all of them. So we hope and expect that different people and different societies will embody different values” (Appiah 2006, 144). Showing respect for those who see the world differently does not mean

42 agreement with or acceptance of their ideas or practices. In fact, there are limits to cosmopolitan tolerance. These stem from the first tenet of cosmopolitanism – that human beings have obligations to one another because everyone’s life matters. Practices such as genocide and slavery, therefore, are intolerable.

Whereas Huntington’s work stresses the separatist tendencies of civilizations, Appiah does not believe that the segregation and seclusion of entire communities is a real option in today’s world. He argues that innumerable points of contact between cultures have long existed (2006, 111-113). “We do not need, have never needed, settled community, a homogenous system of values, in order to have a home. Cultural purity is an oxymoron” (Appiah 2006, 113). Members of the human community therefore

“need to develop habits of coexistence” (Appiah 2006, xix). Individuals begin this process with cross- cultural encounters and conversations and by discovering common interests and learning from each other’s differences. “Conversation…helps people get used to one another” (Appiah 2006, 85), and this is the first step enabling them to live peacefully together.

In another challenge to the clash of civilizations, Amartya Sen stresses that individuals possess multiple identities that overlap with those of others. Shared identities exist around gender, religion, nationality, occupation, interests, and beliefs, for example. In his book Identity and Violence: The Illusion of Destiny, Sen (2006) argues that one’s religion, culture, or civilization is not the only relevant way to classify people. “In fact, a major source of potential conflict in the contemporary world is the presumption that people can be uniquely categorized based on religion or culture” (Sen 2006, xv). On the other hand, stability more often arises out of a plurality of identities. People are in fact multi-dimensional, and within certain constraints, they can make choices about the relative importance of different identities. Individuals from different societies find points of contact from which to begin positive engagement. They might share interests in similar music or art, practice the same profession, or be moved to action by the same causes.

Amitai Etzioni (2006), founder of the Institute for Communitarian Policy Studies at The George

Washington University, presents a further challenge to Huntington’s work:

The fault line that defines the clash of moral cultures and powers in the post-Cold-War era does not run between civilizations, but within them. It divides the beliefs of those who hold that they are justified in advancing their values and interests by the use of force (…‘violent beliefs’) and

43

the beliefs held by those who seek to rely on persuasion, education and leadership (‘persuasive beliefs’) (369).

Etzioni (2006) argues that this struggle between those adhering to violence and those holding persuasive beliefs is present in every major civilization. He provides illustrative evidence from various belief systems, including Islam, Judaism, and Christianity. He contends that moderates who disavow the use of force to promote their values and interests can have either a liberal or an illiberal, even fundamentalist, orientation. Etzioni recognizes the possibility and the importance of the convergence of those who rely on persuasion, and he points to the danger of treating all people within one religious faith as if they were all of the same mind (383). In particular, he is critical of Huntington’s portrayal of Islam as a monolithic culture of extremism in centuries-long conflict with the West (383).

In a separate work, Marwan Muasher, Jordan’s first ambassador to Israel, adds support to

Etzioni’s division within rather than between civilizations. In The Arab Center: The Promise of

Moderation, Muasher (2008) points to a moderate “Arab Center” that condemns violence and is critical to a successful Middle East peace process. Muasher argues that, in order to prevail, this moderate Arab voice is in dire need of active United States support, a shift in Israeli policies away from militarism, and a commitment beyond the peace process to other governing and economic concerns important to the Arab public (259-269).

Based on Etzioni’s framework of division between violent and persuasive beliefs within each society and Muasher’s evidence of this in the Middle East as well as his argument that the West plays a key role in the peace process, moderate Palestinians, Israelis, and Westerners can and must work together to bring about peace in the region. CPT serves as a conduit for this network of nonviolent moderates from the three societies. This North American Christian organization is already partnering with like-minded

Muslims and Jews in the area to find alternatives and solutions to the violence and injustice through nonviolent direct action and support for local peace initiatives and institutions. This capacity for collaboration and evidence of overlapping values support the different ideas of Appiah, Sen, and Etzioni

44 and challenge Huntington’s view that there are irreconcilable differences between these religious cultures.

The discussion on CPT’s partnerships begins in Chapter 4 and is illustrated throughout this study.

Pacifism

Theologians from the historic peace churches – Quaker, Mennonite, and Brethren – embrace pacifism, which is in direct opposition to realism, which does not ascribe a moral value to the use of force. Pacifist traditions also exist within non-Christian religions such as Buddhism, Hinduism, and

Jainism. Realists argue for or against the use of military force based on its perceived effectiveness as a tool for acquiring a particular end. Pacifism, in contrast, covers a variety of views based on the rejection of violence and war under any circumstances. Christian pacifists base their beliefs on the example of

Jesus Christ, who chose crucifixion over vengeance. Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount directs their rejection of violence, even in self-defense, and leads many to adhere strictly to nonresistance (Horsch 1927). Peace church theologians believe that Jesus has ushered in a new covenant, calling His followers to a higher standard. In the Bible, Jesus preaches, “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’

But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also….Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you…” (Matthew 5:38-44, NIV).

In recent years, historic peace church theologians have engaged in dialogue with Catholics embracing the just war doctrine in order to adapt peace advocacy arguments to contemporary situations such as genocide, mass killings in failed states, and the search for justice after the 9/11 attacks. The destruction of unarmed civilian populations concerns them greatly. Civilians comprised 5% of war casualties at the beginning of the twentieth century. By the start of the twenty-first century, however, the

United Nations reported civilian casualties to be 90% of war deaths, half of these being children

(Schlabach 2007, 4). In addition, pacifist humanitarian relief workers in conflict areas have become targets. These facts have led some traditional pacifists to support the use of force in self-defense and others to explore the idea of “just policing” in response to international conflicts rather than abandon those in desperate need.

45

Mennonites and Catholics have worked together in developing a police model instead of a conventional military model to address problems of violence. Roman Catholic Gerald Schlabach envisions “just policing” as a proactive way to “preserve community order and secure the safety of all citizens with only rare, minimal, and judicious use of violence” (Schlabach 2007, 81). The development of institutions to prevent violent conflict and enforce international law will change the focus to one of achieving justice rather than merely reacting to war.

Christianity has produced a variety of responses to violent conflict including pacifism. CPT was born of the historic peace churches with Mennonite, Brethren, and Quaker members and adheres to the tenets of traditional pacifism in its work toward peace and justice in the West Bank. Chapter 3 explores

CPT’s Anabaptist and Quaker roots and their pacifist conviction. CPTers are Christians who have committed themselves to a form of “peace-building” (Schlabach 2007, 41-42) and a search for alternatives to violence that will provide security and justice to vulnerable people in Palestine. This peace- building across religious lines presents itself in direct opposition not only to the realist perspective, but also to religious fundamentalism, which share the “us” versus “them” construct.

Conclusion

Chapter 2 has presented areas of thought from rival worldviews regarding human and societal capacity to interact without conflict and violence. On the right, realism, Huntington’s “clash of civilizations,” and religious fundamentalism emerge out of and perpetuate conflict. Realism begins with a pessimistic view of human nature. Selfishness and insecurity result in the quest for military power in the unending struggle to survive. It is the “might makes right” argument. The “clash of civilizations” refers to the path to global conflict in the coming years along predominantly religious fault-lines. Religious fundamentalism has arisen as a global phenomenon characterized by conflict. Those believing themselves to be sole heir to divine truth react militantly, often violently, against forces of secularization, modernization, imperialism, and pluralism. It is the “God is on our side” argument.

On the left, theories of transnational cooperation are represented by liberal internationalists advocating global civil society, interest group theories, and NGOs’ use of soft power, as well as Appiah’s

46 cosmopolitanism and Etzioni’s communitarianism. GCS examines the efforts of NGOs to create awareness and change in issue areas such as human rights, monitor governments and industries, and promote democracy. Interest group theories look at the rationale behind individuals’ commitment to cooperation within NGOs, which is not always self-serving, and the functions of human rights nonprofits, among other things. Nye indicates NGOs’ soft power to influence and persuade other international actors.

Cosmopolitanism puts forth arguments for cross-cultural, interfaith collaboration stemming from overlapping values and shared humanity. Communitarianism argues directly against the idea of entrenched religious fault-line inevitably leading to conflict and war as human beings have multiple identities that serve as points in common with others from other societies. Pacifism, also on the left, rejects violence in direct opposition to realism. These areas of thought envision endless possibilities for positive human interaction and cooperation.

CPT as an organization finds its origins in the liberal notions of cosmopolitanism and communitarianism and a peace-building form of pacifism. Within the framework of GCS, CPT seeks to carry out its mission in Palestine based on its commitments to international and interfaith collaboration.

Does CPT’s example add enough support to the liberal paradigm to create a fissure in realism’s tough exterior? One of the goals of this case study is to add to the understanding of the theories presented in this chapter. This begins in the next chapter with an examination of the origins and an organizational overview of CPT.

47

Chapter 3 Christian Peacemaker Teams

Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God. [Matthew 5:9 NIV]

Introduction

Faced with conflict or a perceived threat from the outside, religious fundamentalists may create greater adversity by subscribing to extremist violence or a militaristic holy war as explored in Chapter 2.

Even religious adherents who are non-fundamentalists may engage in “just war” to end injustices or oppression. How, then, does religion inspire activists to embrace an ecumenical pacifist doctrine – a doctrine that preaches that love conquers all - rather than accepting violence as a legitimate response?

Christian Peacemaker Teams (CPT) embodies such activism. Born of the traditional Christian peace churches, the organization adheres to the vision of “a world of communities that together embrace the diversity of the human family and live justly and peaceably with all creation” (CPT 2013b, 9). Its mission is “building partnerships to transform violence and oppression.” In its statement of values, CPT professes to be “[c]ommitted to work and relationships that: honor and reflect the presence of faith and spirituality; strengthen grassroots initiatives; transform structures of domination and oppression; [and] embody creative non-violence and liberating love” (CPT 2013b, 9). How was this organization of religious activists seeking to make a political difference formed? How is it governed, funded, and administered?

These questions represent areas of interest to interest group scholars. With what skills are these pacifists sent out into the world? What is their contribution to global civil society?

Origins of Christian Peacemaker Teams

Organizational Timeline:

Precursors to CPT: 1970s- Mennonite delegations in Central America 1981- Peace Brigades International 1983- Witness for Peace, Nicaragua

Christian Peacemaker Teams: 1984- Ron Sider’s call for a new nonviolent peacekeeping force at the Mennonite World Council in Strasbourg, France

48

1986- Study document based on Sider’s idea, commissioned by the Council of Moderators and Secretaries and created by the Mennonite Central Committee; “Techny meeting” of Council of Moderators and Secretaries and appointment of CPT Steering Committee 1988- CPT’s Steering Committee hires founding director Gene Stoltzfus, who begins work in Chicago 1990- CPT’s first delegation (to Iraq) 1991-92- Delegations to the West Bank and Israel 1993- Short-term project in Gaza refugee camps; first training of Christian Peacemaker Corps and reservists in Chicago

Call to Action

“What would happen if we in the Christian church developed a new nonviolent peacekeeping force of 100,000 persons ready to move into violent conflicts and stand peacefully between warring parties in Central America, Northern Ireland, Poland, Southern Africa, the Middle East, and

Afghanistan?” Ron Sider6 asked this question in 1984 at the Mennonite World Council in Strasbourg,

France. His commanding speech to the council challenged Anabaptists and inspired the creation of

Christian Peacemaker Teams (CPT 2010d; Kern 2009, 1-2; Pritchard 2005, 9-10; Stoltzfus 2001, 9). Sider called upon Anabaptists to “risk everything for [the] belief that Jesus is the way to peace” (1984). They were to remember that God desires peace and justice together (Psalm 85: 10) and that Jesus Himself was a

“disturber of an unjust peace” and “engaged in aggressive [but nonviolent] resistance to evil” while offering “costly love even to enemies.” Sider challenged them to move from “isolationist pacifism” to an active form of “nonviolent peacemaking” and to be prepared to die by the thousands doing so. Sider envisioned a peace army of thousands of faithful Christians as Anabaptists courageously summoned “the entire church to forsake the way of violence.” Although there is considerable difference between this sizeable peace army envisaged by Sider and the reality of a handful of CPTers on the ground in conflict zones today, the underlying ideas contained in the following excerpts from his speech continue to shape the essence of CPT today:

Over our past 450 years of martyrdom, migration and missionary proclamation, the God of shalom has been preparing us Anabaptists for a late twentieth-century rendezvous with history. …This could be our finest hour. Never has the world needed our message more.

6 Ron Sider earned his Ph.D. in History from Yale in 1969. He is Professor of Theology, Holistic Ministry and Public Policy and Director of the Sider Center on Ministry and Public Policy at Palmer (formerly Eastern Baptist) Theological Seminary, Wynnewood, Pennsylvania, and President of Evangelicals for Social Action.

49

Never has it been more open. Now is the time to risk everything for our belief that Jesus is the way to peace. If we still believe it, now is the time to live what we have spoken.

…Too often we fall into an isolationist pacifism which silently ignores or perhaps profits from injustice and war as long as our boys don't have to fight. Provided conscientious objector status protects our purity and safety, our neighbors need not fear that we will raise troubling questions about the injustice their armies reinforce or the civilians they maim and kill. The most famous advocate of our time, Mahatma Gandhi, once said that if the only two choices are to kill or to stand quietly by doing nothing while the weak are oppressed and killed, then, of course, we must kill. I agree.

But there is always a third option. We can always prayerfully and nonviolently place ourselves between the weak and the oppressor. Do we have the courage to move from the back lines of isolationist pacifism to the front lines of nonviolent peacemaking? …[L]iving models impact history. Even small groups of people practicing what they preach, laying down their lives for what they believe, influence society all out of proportion to their numbers. I believe the Lord of history wants to use the small family of Anabaptists scattered across the globe to help shape history in the next two decades. But to do that…[w]e must take up our cross and follow Jesus to Golgotha. We must be prepared to die by the thousands.

Those who have believed in peace through the sword have not hesitated to die. Proudly, courageously, they gave their lives. Again and again, they sacrificed bright futures to the tragic illusion that one more righteous crusade would bring peace in their time. For their loved ones, for justice, and for peace, they have laid down their lives by the millions. Why do we pacifists think that our way -- Jesus' way -- to peace will be less costly? Unless we Mennonites and Brethren in Christ are ready to start to die by the thousands in dramatic vigorous new exploits for peace and justice, we should sadly confess that we really never meant what we said.

Unless comfortable North American and European Mennonites and Brethren in Christ are prepared to risk injury and death in nonviolent opposition to the injustice our societies foster and assist in Central America, the Philippines, and South Africa, we dare never whisper another word about pacifism to our sisters and brothers in those desperate lands. Unless we are ready to die developing new nonviolent attempts to reduce international conflict, we should confess that we never really meant the cross was an alternative to the sword. … Making peace is as costly as waging war. Unless we are prepared to pay the cost of peacemaking, we have no right to claim the label or preach the message (Sider 1984).

Sider’s address posed important questions. It spurred conversations among Mennonite and Brethren congregations and Quaker meetings across North America. These historic peace churches had embraced nonviolence since their inceptions in Europe centuries earlier. Sider intended to light a new fire under the

Anabaptists and inspire them to discover a more meaningful and active use of their pacifism.

50

Anabaptist Roots

Similar in beliefs and practices, Mennonites and the Church of the Brethren share not only a commitment to peace and reconciliation, but to other principles central to their obedience and discipleship to Jesus Christ. These include an acceptance of the Bible as the authoritative Word of God and an emphasis on the New Testament; separation of church and state; the necessity of a believers’ church supported by the practices of adult baptism and voluntary church membership; democratic church governance without racial, class, or gender distinctions; holy living patterned after the life of Jesus; and service to others.

Anabaptism, which spawned the Mennonite movement, embraced nonviolence, as evidenced by one of the seven articles adopted by Anabaptist leaders in 1527, stating that “the sword is ‘outside of the perfection of Christ’” (Durnbaugh 1983, 29). “[T]he conviction that Christians must love their enemies, even to the point of laying down their own lives, has served as a ruling idea in the Mennonite churches for nearly five centuries” (Stutzman 2011, 32). Enemies within the Catholic and Protestant Reform churches actually gave the Anabaptists their name disparagingly, as it means “re-baptizers,” because of their practice of baptizing adults on the confession of faith, which began among the Swiss Brethren in Zurich on January 21, 1525 (Jones 2005, 304). Anabaptist teachings spread. In the Low Countries in 1536, Dutch priest Menno Simons risked his life when he renounced Catholicism and shortly thereafter took on the leadership of Anabaptists thenceforth known as “Mennonites” (Dyke 1993; Dyke and Martin, 1990).

Menno Simons acted intentionally to return the Anabaptist movement to its original commitment to peace and nonresistance after misguided Anabaptists had met tragic and brutal ends during the violent Munster

Rebellion of 1534-1535 in an attempt to usher in a “New Jerusalem.” The Anabaptist-Mennonite movement survived in Europe and spread to the New World. Some Mennonites escaped extreme persecution in Europe by immigrating to North America, beginning in 1663 (Jones 2005, 5860). They established the first permanent Mennonite settlement in what is now the United States in Germantown,

Pennsylvania. Stultzman (2011) points out that “[a]lthough the early Anabaptist movement was marked by missionary fervor and intense engagement with both church and state authorities, subsequent

51 generations withdrew into quiet communities over the three centuries that followed” (36). Across generations, some have expressed the denomination’s general antithesis to the state through their refusal to vote or by living under the poverty line so as not to have to pay taxes used for military spending.

Looking at the past century from 1908 to 2008, Stultzman (2011) explores the Mennonites’ transformation from a commitment to the apolitical nonresistance of their forebears to nonviolent resistance and justice in the face of violence and oppression. Ron Sider was espousing this new

Anabaptist nonviolent activism at the Mennonite World Council in Strasbourg.

The ideas of the early Mennonites would also eventually find sway among the group of Christians who founded the Brethren movement near the German town of Schwarzenau, where they performed eight believers’ baptisms in the Eder River in August 1708. These Brethren had been raised primarily in the

Reform Church but were influenced by Radical German Pietists and “Mennonites, with whom they had close contact” (Durnbaugh 1983, 174). Within three decades after the group’s inception, several hundred

Brethren migrated to North America in 1719 and 1720, mainly to Pennsylvania, with very few Brethren remaining in Europe. Their devotion to nonviolence would continue to the present day.

Also heeding Sider’s 1984 call to action were individual Friends, also known as Quakers. The

Religious Society of Friends arose in the middle of the seventeenth century in England and, within a few years, in the American colonies as a result of the work of Quaker missionaries and the influx of Quaker immigrants.

The major pacifist sects that were transplanted to America had begun as outgrowths of the great religious movements that transformed the intellectual climate of large parts of northern and central Europe in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Mennonitism and its offshoots formed the radical wing of the Protestant Reformation, which at the beginning was collectively known as Anabaptism, and the Quaker Society of Friends, for all the differences that set it apart from the parent movement, was a genuine child of mid-seventeenth-century English Puritanism (Brock 1970, xi).

Since the inception of the Religious Society of Friends under George Fox, Quakers have devoted themselves to uncompromising honesty, nonviolent resistance, justice, toleration, political and legal rights for all individuals, and simplicity. The Quaker peace testimony is an early cornerstone of the faith laid by

Fox and 11 other leaders in a 1660/1661 “document eschewing ‘carnal’ warfare with outward weapons”

52

(Abbott et al. 2012, 135). The Quaker peace testimony “derived essentially from their view that, in the grand crusade against evil they had been called by God to wage, only inner spiritual weapons were consistent with the leadings of the Spirit” (Brock 1970, xiii). Unlike Anabaptist-Mennonites who lent their influence, Quakers did not insist that governments and those who served in them were outside the true Christian community (Brock 1970, xii), and Quaker governments were set up in America in West

New Jersey in 1675 and Pennsylvania in 1682. Spiritually, Quakers differed from their predecessors in their “ideas on the purely inward nature of true baptism and Communion, on the ministry of all laymen and women, on God’s power working within hearts and history, and on the need for biblical events to be fulfilled within each person’s life story...” (Jones 2005, 7547). The source of worship, insight, and power is the Light or Spirit of Christ found within each person, the same that guided the apostles. Each person has the ability “to recognize and respond to truth and to obey the Light perfectly through the leading of an inner witness, or ‘Seed,’ called by some Quakers ‘Christ reborn in us’ and by others ‘that of God in every

[h]uman,’ out of which transformed personalities can grow” (Jones 2005, 7546). Quakers have gained a reputation over time for their often silent worship, commitment to integrity and excellence in business, creative programs to end social evils, and pacifism.

Precursors

In the last decades of the twentieth century, Ron Sider’s was not a lone voice on nonviolent action, as Kathleen Kern points out (2009, 2). Some members of the Mennonite Church had already been

“exploring the possibility [of] nonviolent Christian peace teams” because of the systematic oppression they had witnessed during their international development work (Kern 2009, 3). Gene Stoltzfus, CPT’s founding director from 1988 to 2004, joined others within the Mennonite Church during the 1970s to advocate a more active role for the church on peace and social justice issues (Kern 2009, 2). Their attention was also turning toward the “low intensity” wars breaking out in the 1980s in Central America and elsewhere, and they felt concerned about the support that the US government was giving to some of

“the elite groups and oppressive systems in these conflicts. Also emerging in that period was a

53 consciousness that by the creative energy of organized nonviolence, ordinary people could stand in front of the weapons and encourage less violent ways for change to happen” (CPT 2010d).

Some Mennonites and Brethren had actually been gaining “valuable learning experience” with nonviolent direct action techniques as participants in the Witness for Peace program (Mennonite Central

Committee Peace Section 1986, 5). In his speech, Sider made reference to Witness for Peace as a model for Christians to emulate. This faith-based organization was founded in 1983 in the face of the US government’s support for the Contras in Nicaragua. Gene Stoltzfus went to Nicaragua with other

American Christians on a fact-finding delegation to investigate atrocities committed by these US-backed paramilitaries against villagers. This experience led to the creation of Witness for Peace in order to provide international accompaniment for Nicaraguan civilians and the documentation of human rights abuses (Kern 2009, 3-4; Witness for Peace 2012).

Influenced by religious and humanitarian values, Gandhi’s example and the peace army in India, and the work of Civil Rights activists in the US, Christians and non-Christians alike experimented with nonviolent solutions to twentieth-century, international conflicts. Peace Brigades International, a secular organization predating Witness for Peace, helped to pioneer nonpartisan protective accompaniment from its founding in 1981. The Mennonite Central Committee Peace Section recognized the important work done by Peace Brigades International in the area of nonviolent direct action in their 1986 “Christian

Peacemaker Teams: A Study Document.”

“Thus,” as Kern (2009) notes, “Sider’s proposal for a nonviolent army did not cover completely new ground….Nevertheless, he brought the principles of Nonviolent Direct Action to the notice of all

Mennonite and Brethren in Christ churches – not just the ones inclined toward social action” (4). The

Council of Moderators and Secretaries of the Mennonite and Brethren in Christ churches requested that a proposal based on Sider’s ideas be created. The Council of Moderators and Secretaries (CMS) is the association of North American Mennonite and Brethren church leaders, who operate independently but work together to organize the Mennonite World Council every six years (Doug Pritchard, telephone interview, March 28, 2013). The CMS “comes closest to a regional organization in North America and

54 serves officially as the most representative, continuing, cooperative group…[intended] to function as an oversight body for North American inter-Mennonite organizations” (Regional Mennonite Conferences

2014). The Council requested that the Mennonite Central Committee (MCC) Peace Section craft the proposal. The Mennonite Central Committee is a “worldwide ministry of Anabaptist churches…responding to basic human needs and working for peace and justice” (Mennonite Central

Committee). It is the arm of the church for North American Mennonites and Brethren in Christ extending relief and tools of reconciliation to communities around the globe. The Peace Section of the MCC drafted the “Christian Peacemaker Teams: A Study Document,” which was then disseminated to Mennonite and

Brethren churches in North America to elicit written responses to the idea of CPT. This proposal represents the first concrete step in the formation of this new NGO.

Birth of CPT

Ron Sider served as one of the members of the committee appointed by the CMS to oversee this

“year-long process of prayerful discussion and dialogue in the churches” (Mennonite Central Committee

Peace Section 1986, 1). Kern (2009) notes that more than 400 congregations and 700 individuals joined the discussion and submitted responses as the 1986 study document circulated (8). This discussion process culminated in a gathering of the council and other interested people – approximately 100 in total

– at a retreat center in the Chicago suburb of Techny in December 1986. The representatives of the peace churches present at the conference issued a call to church conferences and congregations for the formation of Christian Peacemaker Teams. “Representative denominations appointed a steering committee to hammer out basic directions and invited Gene Stoltzfus to begin work as the first staff person in 1988” (CPT 2010d). Individual Quakers, supportive of the creation of CPT, were among those present at the “Techny meeting,” and in 1996, the Friends United Meeting, a branch of the Religious

Society of Friends, joined the Mennonites and Brethren in officially sponsoring CPT. Despite historical differences in their perception of the state and interpretation of the manifestations of God, Mennonites and Quakers within CPT have capitalized on their similarities and have avoided tensions in contemporary coordination of their efforts.

55

The initial Steering Committee selected Stolzfus because of his energy and long history of peace and justice work. A Mennonite from Ohio, Stoltzfus had worked on development projects in Vietnam through the International Voluntary Services nonprofit organization until he resigned in protest of the

Vietnam War in 1967. He spent the next four years lobbying against the war in Washington, D.C.

(Friesen and Abesamis 2010; Gene Stoltzfus Papers, 1940-2012).

From 1976-1979, Stoltzfus and his wife [Dorothy Friesen] co-directed the Mennonite Central Committee (MCC) program in the Philippines. They settled in Chicago when they returned to the United States. Stoltzfus served as Director of the Urban Life Center from 1981 to 1986. He cofounded Synapses, a grass-roots peace, justice, and spirituality organization, in 1981, and served on the staff of that organization from 1986 to 1988.

In 1988 Stoltzfus became the founding director of Christian Peacemaker Teams (CPT). He held this position until his retirement in 2004 (Gene Stoltzfus Papers, 1940-2012).

CPT’s initial efforts sponsored nonviolent initiatives, conferences, political advocacy, and individuals traveling to conflict zones to document violence and intervene in confrontations. Fact-finding delegations would follow. The earliest CPT delegations went to Iraq in 1990, Israel and the West Bank in 1991 and

1992, Miami to work with Haitian refugees awaiting deportation in 1993, and Haiti in 1993 (Kern 2009,

11-13). The delegation experiences “helped to clarify the need for a trained full-time corps to work toward violence reduction in crisis situations” (Stoltzfus 2001, 10). By the end of 1992, the CPT staff was making plans for 12 full-time volunteers serving in what would be called the Christian Peacemaker Corps.

The idea was for full-time CPTers to undergo training and then live in two-, four-, or six-member teams.

They would spend two-thirds of their time on assignment and one-third of their time in their home communities speaking, training, or volunteering in other peace projects (Kern 2009, 16). A larger number of CPT reservists would alternate in working with these full-time volunteers “for up to two months each year” (Stoltzfus 2001, 10). The first training of the Christian Peacemaker Corps and reservists began in

September 1993 under the newly-hired, part-time training coordinator, Kryss Chupp, who was recruited directly by Stoltzfus. Some had already served earlier in the year on a short-term project inside refugee camps in Gaza, a pre-cursor to the Palestine Project set up in Hebron in the West Bank two years later.

56

Organizational Overview of Christian Peacemaker Teams

Organizational Structure

How is this faith-based, nonviolence organization governed and administered? CPT’s inclusive culture shapes the communitarian structure of the NGO and informs its governance and administration.

This pluralistic culture is expressed in CPT’s statement of identity:

Christian Peacemaker Teams (CPT) is an organization gathered in the reconciling love of God, identified with Jesus of Nazareth and led by the Spirit. Renouncing violence and dominative power, CPT seeks the Gospel liberation of all people through the power of forgiveness and nonviolence. This Gospel identity is embodied in our struggle to build an organizational culture of justice, inclusion, mutual respect and welcome. We are committed to building organizational structures that reflect the rich diversity of the human family in ability, age, class, ethnicity, gender identity, language, national origin, race and sexual orientation. On project sites, CPT works with local partners from a variety of faith traditions. CPT encourages the formation and development of other faith-based, nonviolent peace teams and desires to work cooperatively with them (CPT 2010t).

“Christian Peacemaker Teams Organizational Chart” (Figure 1) provides an illustration of the structure of the organization. CPT operates as a non-hierarchical organization, in which there is shared responsibility for decision making in a consensus model, which is discussed later in this chapter. Within this structure, project teams on the ground possess the greatest autonomy in order to respond quickly to changing circumstances and imminent threats. CPT’s anti-authoritarian and inclusive culture precludes it from adopting the top-down configuration that exists in many for-profit organizations. Its decision- making structures are also much more decentralized than those of larger non-profit organizations. CARE and World Vision, for example, developed out of more centralized decision-making arrangements. “With less of a decentralized history, and making use of public appeals through television, these organizations were better able to coordinate and secure major funding for their global activities” (Lux and Bruno-van

Vijkeijken 2013, 2). Amnesty International offers another example (Amnesty International 2013). Save the Children, too, has moved recently in the direction of retracting “operational control and direction of programs that occur in the field” from the dispersed member organizations on the ground in an attempt to more coherently coordinate these efforts within this sizeable organization (Lux and Bruno-van Vijkeijken

2013, 11).

57

Figure 1

Christian Peacemaker Teams Organizational Chart

Source: CPT Chicago Office (Illinois).

58

CPT’s structure reflects a stricter adherence to its peace church roots than other organizations arising from the same traditions. Mennonites and Quakers operate the Mennonite Central Committee and the American Friends Service Committee, NGOs working toward peace and development (MCC 2006,

2014b; AFSC 2014). These denominations also founded Bluffton University and Wilmington College in

Ohio. These charitable and educational institutions employ the hierarchical model of modern organizations with a governing board, CEO and management team, and subordinate staff (American

Friends Service Committee 2013, 2014; Mennonite Central Committee 2006, 2014a, 2014b).

The Peacemaker Corps consists of trained full-time and part-time Corps members and reservists, who serve on teams in the field at the different project sites or on the Support Team. CPT refers to all

Peacemaker Corps members as “CPTers.” The needs and judgment of the teams in the field drive much of the decision making of the organization. Everyone in CPT works toward the success of the projects in order to support the partners on the ground to transform violence and oppression (CPT 2010l). The

CPTers entering the field receive assignments to project teams serving in “emergency situations of conflict and areas of militarization in partnership with local peacemakers” (CPT 2004, 2005, 2010g).

CPTers have set up numerous short-term, seasonal, or intermittent projects such as the Gaza project in

Palestinian refugee camps in 1993 and the Borderland project to protect migrant workers along the US-

Mexico border. However, most CPTers serve on teams for the longer-term projects: the Colombia Project,

Iraqi Kurdistan Project, Aboriginal Justice Projects in the US and Canada, and the Palestine Project.

CPTers in the field accompany threatened populations, document and report human rights abuses, educate the public, help to create and strengthen institutions, and work in solidarity to end oppression with partners on the ground. With the advice of local partners, project teams determine how to spend their time and resources to best serve the vulnerable populations and bring about change through nonviolent direct action. Project teams have the autonomy that allows them to react quickly to circumstances in each conflict zone. However, decisions with ramifications for the organization as a whole require input and deliberation from other parts of CPT.

59

Between two and 12 CPTers, 21 years or older, serve at project sites at one time. The CPT website stipulates the required commitment for CPTers in the field after they have served on a short-term delegation and undergone Peacemaker Corps training:

Stipend Eligible: Full-time Corps members commit initially to a three-year term of service on CPT projects when serving on the CPT Iraqi Kurdistan, Aboriginal Justice, and Colombia Projects; and a two-year term of service when serving on the CPT Palestine project. Part-Time Corps members commit initially to a three-year term of service when serving on any CPT Project. Full-time is a minimum average of nine months a year on a CPT project. This time might be split up in 3-6 month chunks depending on the particular CPT project. Part-time is a minimum of 4.5 months per year in a CPT project. This can also be split into two service periods on-project. When not serving on-project, stipend eligible CPTers live in their home communities participating in advocacy, fundraising and personal time-off. Reserve Corps: The Reserve Corps members reinforce the work of every Christian Peacemaker team by providing a larger pool of trained peacemakers who commit to working with CPT (2 to 16 weeks each year) for three years (CPT 2010g).

In 2014, CPT’s Peacemaker Corps includes 29 members receiving stipends and 172 reservists from Afghanistan, Australia, Brazil, seven Canadian provinces, six Colombian departments, the Czech

Republic, Egypt, England, Germany, India, Iraqi Kurdistan, Italy, Netherlands, New Zealand, Palestine,

Philippines, Scotland, Sweden, Taiwan, Wales and 27 US states plus the District of Columbia (Kryss

Chupp, email, June 8, 2014). The majority of CPTers originate from North America and other parts of the developed world. However, CPT opens its doors to activists from around the world in an attempt to overcome the Western and even class bias of most NGOs. This effort includes a strong emphasis on

Spanish language ability for CPTers serving on the Colombia Team, and a number of these team members are actually native Colombians.

Until 2011, CPT invited only Christians to become members of the organization. However, the

Steering Committee passed a measure to change the membership policy to include people of other religions. The Palestine Team drove this decision with the inclusion of Fatiyeh Gainey, a Palestinian

Muslim (a British citizen), as an intern on the team until the decision was made to create a non-Christian associate member, which is described in the following membership policy of NGO:

Christian Peacemaker Teams (CPT) welcomes peacemakers who are committed to the nonviolent community of Christ and seek God's will in their work, worship, and decision-making. CPT seeks individuals who are capable, responsible and rooted in faith to work for peace in lethal conflict zones as members of violence-reduction teams trained in the disciplines of nonviolence. We are

60

committed to building a Peacemaker Corps that reflects the rich diversity of the human family in ability, age, class, ethnicity, gender identity, language, national origin, race and sexual orientation. Those who have experienced systemic marginalization bring essential perspectives and distinctive gifts to the work of peacemaking. Associate members, being full members of the organization, abide by the values and commitments above, but adhere to other faiths/spiritualities (CPT 2010t).

Since 2011, CPT’s Palestine Team has had two associate members, both Palestinian Muslim women. This was not an easy decision for the organization, as some members felt that it would signify a break with the Christian identity of CPT (Rick Polhamus, interview, February 11, 2013, Wilmington,

Ohio). However, Kryss Chupp points out, the prevailing thought has been that “the work of CPT is fundamentally about nonviolence, and anyone can do nonviolence” (interview, June 28, 2013, Chicago).

Apart from the valuable linguistic skills and social and cultural insight the two associate members have brought to the team, their presence has raised the recognition among CPTers of commonalities between

Christians and Muslims (Chupp). Muslims, for example have a high regard for Jesus, whom they believe was one of God’s prophets. In addition, both Christians and Muslims have scriptural bases for the pursuit of peace and the practice of nonviolence.

CPT’s Support Team, “what most organizations call staff, provides administrative and program support for teams in the field” (CPT 2014e). Director Gene Stoltzfus “grew the organization” (Kryss

Chupp, interview, June 28, 2013, Chicago). Chupp credits Stoltzfus with managing programs and administrative work for the teams, the strategic overview of the organization, and the promotion of CPT with donors. With the growth in the size and complexity of CPT, the director’s position transitioned into two co-directors upon Stoltzfus’ retirement in 2004. Carol Rose and Doug Pritchard, both Mennonites7, served together in this capacity until Pritchard retired in 2011. Rose had attended the Techny Towers meeting in 1986 and later joined the CPT Corps as a reservist with the Colombia Team in 2001 before shifting to full-time in 2004 (Carol Rose, email, March 17, 2014). Pritchard became affiliated with CPT as a member of the Steering Committee from 1994 to 1996, after which time he took on the position of

7 Carol Rose claims both the Mennonite Church and Church of the Brethren as her religious affiliations (email, March 17, 2014).

61

Canada coordinator until becoming co-director in 2004 (Doug Pritchard, telephone interview, March 28,

2013).

As co-director for operations, Rose handled administration, finances, recruitment, training, and personnel. As co-director for programs, Pritchard dealt more with project sites, project support coordinators, and personnel issues on the teams on the ground. Rose and Pritchard worked together frequently, though, to the extent that there was not always a “clean” division of labor between the two.

Pritchard’s retirement in August 2011 left an opening. In January 2012, Merwyn DeMello came in from outside CPT to fill the position. Lack of clarity in the responsibilities and his recognition of his need to be in the field led DeMello to resign in July 2012, after only half a year on the job. This provided an opportunity for CPT to examine the co-director model and ask if it was still as effectual for the organization. After Support Team discussions and recommendations, the Steering Committee decided to adopt a new executive director model in October 2012.

A search committee hired Sarah Thompson as CPT’s new executive director beginning in January

2014 (CPTNet 2013b). Thompson, a Mennonite, had served as CPT’s interim outreach coordinator in

2013 and as a Steering Committee member from 2010 to 2012 (Sarah Thompson, interview, June 28,

2013, Chicago). The new executive director model differs from the original one under Gene Stoltzfus, however. With a fledgling organization, Stoltzfus juggled many of the tasks that now require more staff members. A new program director and communication and engagement director will join and be accountable to the executive director in order to carry out the re-organized and expanded responsibilities

(Carol Rose, telephone interview, March 5, 2014). “The focus of the Executive Director role will be on strategic directions for organizational development, undoing oppressions, and fund- and friend-raising”

(CPTNet 2013b). CPT has created positions for program director and communication and engagement director. Currently, CPT is conducting a job search for these Support Team positions. Until these posts are filled, outgoing director Carol Rose has stepped in to work as acting program director. Tim Nafziger currently serves as acting communications and engagement director (CPT 2014e). The program director’s role is to “[o]versee current projects and support of Peacemaker and Reserve Corps with attention to team

62 and partner needs, direction, budget, sustainability, personnel processes and health…[as well as the] development of proposals for new project work (CPT 2014d). The communications and engagement director’s responsibility is to “[c]oordinate, [develop] and implement a new overall CPT communications strategy that shares CPT’s story in a way that honors the voices of CPT’s partners, undoes oppression and furthers CPT’s mission, vision and values” (CPT 2014b).

The CPT website provides the following list of Support Team members, including the new directors’ positions (2014e):

 Palestine Project Support Coordinator - Tarek Abuata  Personnel Coordinator - Adriana Cabrera Velásquez  Training Coordinator / Newsletter Editor - Kryss Chupp  Administrative Coordinator - Mark Frey  Canada Administrative Coordinator - Esther Kern  CPTNet Editor - Kathy Kern  Undoing Racism Coordinator - Sylvia Morrison  Acting Communications and Engagement Director - Tim Nafziger  Colombia and Iraqi Kurdistan Project Support Coordinator - Sandra Milena Rincon  Acting Program Director - Carol Rose  Executive Director - Sarah Thompson  Aboriginal Justice Project Support Coordinator - John Vallely  Delegations Coordinator - Terra Winston

The Support Team is somewhat decentralized. Only five of them – the executive director, training coordinator, administrative coordinator, acting program director, and delegations coordinator – work out of the Chicago office. This office provides not only work space, but it also serves as a training center for

CPTers. CPT’s Toronto office houses one other part-time support staff member, the Canada administrative coordinator. The rest of the support staff is spread out from California to Maryland, from

Ontario, Canada to Madrid, Colombia (Carol Rose, telephone interview, March 5, 2014). The administrative coordinator handles the finances of the organization and lends technical support as needed

(Mark Frey, telephone interview, March 14, 2014). The training coordinator provides general training programs offered to all CPTers. The personnel coordinator’s work deals predominantly with personnel issues concerning the field-based CPTers (CPT 2007b). The undoing racism coordinator, a position created in 2007, has the responsibility of developing and implementing a strategic plan for undoing

63 racism work within CPT (Mark Frey, email, March 5, 2014). The delegations coordinator organizes and supports short-term delegations traveling to project sites to learn about CPT work in the field and the issues surrounding it. The CPTNet editor edits and distributes news reports from CPT’s project sites to subscribers via the organization’s email news service. The three project support coordinators offer direct support to the teams in the field at the specific project sites.

CPT’s Steering Committee functions as the board of directors and has general [oversight] of

CPT's programs and operations (CPT 2014f). It serves as a governing body and does not manage CPT’s operations. The body generally meets twice a year. As the organization’s governing board, the Steering

Committee also makes decisions regarding the opening and closing of projects, approves budgets, and determines overall policy. The CPT website states, “It is composed of: Representatives from CPT's officially sponsoring groups and denominations; Representatives from CPT's Peacemaker Corps; [and]

Supporters who bring a group balance of skills and voice from their communities” (CPT 2014f). In March

2014, the Steering Committee comprises 13 members, including three representatives of the Peacemaker

Corps and four at-large members. At-large members may number up to five at any one time. Open seats are not necessarily filled upon vacancy. Carol Rose explains how current at-large members include individuals who bring “voices to the table that would be able to speak clearly from some positions of systemic resistance to marginalization,” such as an openly gay pastor and a Palestinian Christian

(telephone interview, March 5, 2014).

The other Steering Committee members represent CPT’s official sponsoring groups and denominations. These sponsors consist of the following:

Denominations Mennonite Church USA Mennonite Church Canada Church of the Brethren Friends United Meeting (Quakers)

Organizations Baptist Peace Fellowship of North America (a network of Baptist peacemakers in the US, Canada, Mexico, and Puerto Rico) Congregation of St. Basil (Basilians) Presbyterian Peace Fellowship

64

“Representatives of sponsors on the Steering Committee are responsible to be ‘bridges’ between CPT and that body” (Carol Rose, telephone interview, March 5, 2014). Members of the Steering Committee receive reports regarding CPT’s finances, personnel, projects, and more. They then share this information to a greater or lesser extent with the sponsoring groups they represent, depending on the desires of the individual denomination or organization (Rose).

The Mennonite Church Canada requires greater oversight due to its unique relationship with CPT.

Rose explains that CPT does not have “charitable status in Canada, which is equivalent to that of the

501C3 status in the US” and, therefore, has a joint ministry agreement with the Mennonite Church

Canada (telephone interview, March 5, 2014). This agreement “allows them to claim and be involved in

CPT’s project work and to receive donations on behalf of CPT [to fund] that project work” (Rose). The denomination is connected to CPT’s project work and passes along contributions to finance the work. It

“can give tax receipts for donations from Canadians and, through their Steering Committee representative, has some power over decisions in relation to the programs” (Rose).

Rose discusses the support offered by sponsoring bodies (telephone interview, March 5, 2014).

She only recalls one sponsor, the Basilians, having come in after she and Pritchard took on the co- directors positions in 2004. The others joined as sponsors during Stoltzfus’ tenure. CPT has not recently devoted time or resources to the recruitment of new sponsors other than offering an invitation on the CPT website. Rose offers reasons for this. In part, finding official sponsors becomes more difficult because of the fact that they must have a stance of nonviolence as a denomination or organization. CPT’s “sea of support” comes from a broad range of Christians and beyond, many of whom are affiliated with groups with no official stance on nonviolence. In addition, CPT’s lack of effort in this area results from the fact that most sponsors do not offer significant financial support, although the NGO has not tracked donations consistently. The Mennonite Church Canada funnels donations to CPT through the joint ministry agreement. The Congregation of St. Basil offers a grant of approximately $8,000 a year (Mark Frey, telephone interview, March 14, 2014). However, according to Rose, sponsors do not have to offer financial contributions to CPT. Instead, they may help disseminate information or provide access to their

65 membership. They must also have at least one CPTer serving as a Corps member to serve as another

“bridge” between CPT and the sponsor (telephone interview, March 5, 2014).

Finances

How is CPT funded, and how are the finances administered? CPT does not have a financial department. Instead, CPT’s Administrative Coordinator Mark Frey oversees the budgetary process for the organization. Frey, a Mennonite, did his CPT training in 1997 and spent two and a half years on the

Palestine team and another year in Chiapas, Mexico, where CPT had a project at the time. He then did his graduate studies in International Peace Studies at the University of Notre Dame. In 2002, he began an administrative role in the CPT office in Chicago. As administrative coordinator, the largest part of Frey’s work is with CPT’s finances, but he also offers technical support, assists with website issues, maintains email lists, and conducts training sessions (Mark Frey, telephone interview, March 14, 2014).

Frey receives assistance from an outside accountant, who looks over his work and produces an annual report that goes to the Steering Committee. CPT does not have a regular audit, however. The

Internal Revenue Service (IRS) requires most non-profit organizations having 501(c)(3) to file the 990 form and perform an audit. CPT does not submit the 990 form because it is considered by the IRS to be an “integrated auxiliary of a church.” As such, it is afforded less scrutiny from the government (Mark

Frey, telephone interview, March 14, 2014).

Frey characterizes his role as coordinating, rather than supervising, the budgeting process

(telephone interview, March 14, 2014). He works collaboratively with CPT’s other coordinators, who provide him with expense proposals for the upcoming year. Frey examines the figures and conducts what he calls “reality testing” with each of them to determine if their proposals are realistic. He provides the coordination for the full Support Team to offer input and pull together a budget proposal that they then send to the Steering Committee. The Administration and Development Subcommittee reviews the information and asks questions. They then put it before the full Steering Committee once they affirm it.

There is space for comments and questions and, at any step along the way, the possibility that the

66 committee asks for revision of the proposal. The Steering Committee reviews the overall financial framework of the organization, and the annual budget is a piece of that (Frey).

An adjustment made in 2010 aimed to improve the annual budgeting process. CPT’s Year in

Review 2010b states,

CPT changed the dates of our fiscal year (previously 1 February - 31 January) in order to improve our financial planning and budgeting processes. Since we receive 45% of our income in the months of November, December and January, changing our fiscal year to begin 1 November allows us to make budgeting decisions based on more accurate information (2010z).

In addition to the annual budgets, which are proposed six months before the fiscal year even begins, Frey does “rolling projections” every six months in September and February with more updated information to assess the progress of the fiscal year. The organization also attempts to identify and work toward longer- term goals such as the recent proposal to the Steering Committee for a framework for reducing the deficit.

Annual budget proposals typically include projection for the following year as well (Mark Frey, telephone interview, March 14, 2014).

Figure 2 with graph and Table 2 both entitled “CPT Financial Summary of Income/Expenditures

(1994-2012)” present financial data for the overall organization from CPT’s Annual Reports from 1994 to

2002 (2013a) and the re-titled Year in Review (2012f) from 2003 to 2012, except 2004 and 2005, for which data was not obtained. A review of the financial summaries indicates that CPT maintained a spending level below their income during the 10 years from 1994 to 2003, for which data has been incorporated (CPT 2011). However, the organization has operated at a deficit for five of the seven years between 2006 and 2012. Mark Frey reports that CPT “broke even” in 2013. The ongoing deficit has been offset by cash in the bank. This surplus exists in large part due to a bequest of approximately $250,000 from Dwight Stoltzfus, brother of Gene Stoltzfus, CPT’s founding director (Mark Frey, telephone interview, March 14, 2014). Dwight Stoltzfus died in 2005 (“Dwight L. Stoltzfus” 2005).

67

Mark Frey purports that CPT was not only drawing down this surplus, but had also hoped to increase income, but this did not materialize due, in some part, to the economic downturn beginning in

2008. The organization has instead “trimmed staffing” through attrition (telephone interview, March 14,

2014). They did not replace the Chicago office coordinator, for example, after her term was up and she left to have a child in 2012. Projects, too, have implemented these cost-saving measures. At the project sites, they have relied more on reservists, who numbered 163 in 2013 (CPT 2013b). Reservists raise funds to cover airfare and do not receive stipends. Overall, in a cost-cutting effort, CPT has moved from 35

“full-time equivalent” Peacemaker Corps members in 2008 to 30 in 2014 by not replacing some full- and part-time vacancies (Mark Frey, telephone interview, March 14, 2014).

Figure 2

CPT Financial Summary of Income/Expenditures (1994-2012)

Sources: CPT’s Annual Reports from 1994 to 2002 (2013a) and CPT Year in Review (2012f) from 2003 to 2012, except 2004 and 2005, for which data was not obtained.

68

Table 2

______

CPT Financial Summary of Income/Expenditures (1994 - 2012)

______

Year Income Expenditures

1994 $207,000 $201,000

1995 $218,000 $217,000

1996 $221,000 $201,000

1997 $265,000 $235,000

1998 $323,000 $270,000

1999 $403,176 $332,721

2000 $476,243 $432,172

2001 $648,824 $522,261

2002 $873,200 $721,500

2003* $893,000 $842,000

2006 $1,040,425 $1,045,700

2007 $1,026,600 $947,400

2008 $999,200 $1,035,400

2009 $936,480 $1,245,500

2010 $1,039,900 $944,500

2011 $1,011,300 $1,078,700

2012 $976,300 $998,200

______

* Sources: CPT’s Annual Reports from 1994 to 2002 (2013a) and CPT Year in Review (2012f) from 2003 to 2012, except 2004 and 2005, for which data was not obtained.

69

Mark Frey purports that CPT was not only drawing down this surplus, but had also hoped to increase income, but this did not materialize due, in some part, to the economic downturn beginning in

2008. The organization has instead “trimmed staffing” through attrition (telephone interview, March 14,

2014). They did not replace the Chicago office coordinator, for example, after her term was up and she left to have a child in 2012. Projects, too, have implemented these cost-saving measures. At the project sites, they have relied more on reservists, who numbered 163 in 2013 (CPT 2013b). Reservists raise funds to cover airfare and do not receive stipends. Overall, in a cost-cutting effort, CPT has moved from 35

“full-time equivalent” Peacemaker Corps members in 2008 to 30 in 2014 by not replacing some full- and part-time vacancies (Mark Frey, telephone interview, March 14, 2014).

The “CPT Palestine Project Annual Expenses” Figure 3 and Table 3 paint a general picture of expenses incurred by the Palestine Team from 2005 to 2013. Expenditure for the team has declined each year since 2008, at which time they spent $161,455. Spending diminished to under $100,000 in 2012

($94,442) and 2013 ($78,187). (Note that the figures for 2010 represent only nine months due to the change in CPT’s fiscal year described above.) The costs for the work on the ground have stayed constant.

Variations in expenditures, therefore, reflect changes in staffing levels, according to Frey (telephone interview, March 14, 2014). The staffing is composed of a combination of full- and part-time Peacemaker

Corps members, who are supported by stipends, and reservists. The reservists serve for much shorter periods of time and are asked to do fundraising to cover the “average amount of what it costs to support somebody serving on a project for a couple of weeks long.” (All CPTers are asked to do fundraising, but full- and part-time CPTers do not have required or targeted amounts to raise like the reservists do.)

70

Figure 3

Table 3 ______CPT Palestine Project Annual Expenses ______

551 · 551a · 551b · PRPJ - PROS - PRTR - Year Palestine Total Palestine Palestine Project – Support Travel Other 2005 $56,550 $70,813 $0 $127,364 2006 $50,858 $66,551 $0 $117,409 2007 $49,129 $77,826 $1,392 $128,347 2008 $84,061 $68,471 $8,922 $161,455

2009 $64,310 $56,155 $5,210 $125,675

2010* $41,045 $42,225 $7,274 $90,544 2011 $65,205 $51,850 $8,380 $125,437 2012 $58,176 $32,897 $3,369 $94,442 2013 $52,136 $23,860 $2,191 $78,187

______

* Represents only nine months due to the change in CPT’s fiscal year

71

Official tracking of staffing levels for the Palestine Team began in 2012. Taking into account time spent by full- and part-time Corps members and reservists, staffing in 2012 averaged out to 4.7 members on the ground at one time and in 2013, to 4.5 members, according to Frey (telephone interview,

March 14, 2014). The projection for the fiscal year 2014 is also 4.5 average staff members. Frey concedes, however, that this level of staffing for the Palestine Project is too low. CPTers on the Palestine

Team are more likely to experience “burn out” when they consistently number below six people. Ideally, they need “six to eight people on the ground at any given time to respond to the work that is put in front of them in a healthy and sustainable way” (Frey).

CPTer Laura Ciaghi (2014, 14), who served first as a member of the Italian NGO Operation Dove and then moved to CPT’s Palestine Team in the village of At-Tuwani, argues in favor of a light but stable international presence of three to eight people living among the vulnerable population. Ciaghi contends that a smaller team of internationals has a more limited social and economic effect on the community. It also proves more sustainable given the scarcity of resources generally available for this type of endeavor

(Ciaghi 2014, 14). A limited number of internationals can sufficiently provide enough of a protective presence to create a space in which the local society can develop its own nonviolent initiatives and leadership to resist oppression. Large teams on the ground could impede the growth of local civil society, creating undue dependency on the international group and a new relationship akin to colonialism (Ciaghi

2014, 12).

On the other hand, real challenges exist when the team of internationals is too small. CPTer

Jonathan Brenneman, who has served in Hebron, relates how a shortage of team members recently led to the peril of one Palestinian, who they routinely accompany on his school “bus” route (public address,

February 27, 2014, Wilmington, Ohio). During times when CPTers were not available for accompaniment, in October and November 2013, Israeli Security Forces detained the driver for

Palestinian students who live in the South Hebron Hills area designated “Firing Zone 918” by the Israeli military. On October 27, eight soldiers not only detained him, but also “verbally abused him, and then beat him on his abdomen, face, and back. Afterwards, they forced him to drive over spikes used to stop

72 vehicles at army checkpoints to puncture the SUV’s tires” (CPTNet 2013g). (See Chapter 6 for more details on CPT’s work in Firing Zone 918.)

Funding for the Palestine Project comes primarily from CPT’s general operating funds. Funds are not restricted. Most funds come through donations by individuals, groups, and denominations. However,

CPT has not yet thoroughly tracked contributors. The organization’s analysis of donors lags behind, but both Carol Rose and Mark Frey refer to a transition to a new data base designed to track donors (Rose, telephone interview, March 5, 2014; Frey, telephone interview, March 14, 2014). Currently, a number of mechanisms exist for individuals to donate to CPT. Kryss Chupp and Mark Frey mention the donation envelopes sent out with the quarterly newsletters, the bi-annual fundraising letters, and the yearly calendar

(Chupp, interview, June 28, 2013, Chicago; Frey, March 14, 2014). Frey expresses satisfaction with the direct mail returns, which he characterizes as two to three times the cost of sending them out. In addition, reservists and individuals traveling with CPT on short-term delegations have fundraising requirements.

There are occasional grants written to underwrite specific projects, and the Palestine Project has received most of those. Over the last two years, for example, CPT has received grant money from

UNICEF specifically to fund accompaniment of Palestinian school children. CPT must submit regular reports to UNICEF and account for how that money is spent. This source of funds is new to CPT. Unlike that of the Mennonite Central Committee (MCC), which accepts millions of dollars in government grants,

CPT’s organizational culture has precluded it from accepting monies from government or government- sponsored sources until recently (MCC 2014a). Funds offered by UNICEF originate from donor governments as well as private institutions and individuals (UNICEF 2014). Frey suggests that a shift in the culture has taken place as more people from different denominations have joined in the CPT

“experiment” over the years; greater diversity has prompted more dialogue in certain areas, including over this type of funding issue (telephone interview, March 14, 2014). He explains how the Palestine

Team’s request to procure funding through UNICEF “fostered a pretty big discussion within the CPT internal listserve” over CPT’s acceptance of money from government entities. Thompson shares a specific concern expressed by some CPTers during these exchanges (interview, June 28, 2013, Chicago):

73

We want to have integrity, and we want to be pure. We don’t want to accommodate violence. This is a big question around our including government funding. Is this going to be an accommodation to violence, and if so, how? And what does that mean for our integrity and our work?

The dialogue resulted in the Steering Committee’s decision to adopt a list of questions or criteria to consider before applying for or accepting money from a government or quasi-government entity. These include questions regarding the funding source’s agenda and interests in the region as well as an examination of CPT’s capacity to track and report according to the requirements of the donor (Mark Frey, telephone interview, March 14, 2014).

Consensus Decision Making

The issue of accepting funds from governments or government-funded entities can be used to illustrate the consensus decision making used within CPT. Consensus decision making is a defining characteristic of CPT’s governance and administration. According to Kryss Chupp, CPT practices a

“modified consensus decision making” based on the model put forth in C. T. Lawrence Butler and Amy

Rothstein’s 2007 book On Conflict and Consensus: A Handbook on Formal Consensus Decisionmaking

(interview, June 28, 2013, Chicago). Teams use this book as a resource, and trainers present the model during Peacemaker Corps training. Chupp explains that the book codifies the formal consensus decision- making model used by a faith-based movement, the Pledge of Resistance, protesting the US threat to invade Nicaragua in the 1980s. Consensus decision making is a natural fit for CPT, as well, as it is a process used by Quakers and at times borrowed by Mennonites.

Butler and Rothstein (2007) outline important general points about consensus decision making.

The consensus process, unlike majority rule and parliamentary procedure, creates a cooperative rather than competitive dynamic.

Only one proposal is considered at a time. Everyone works together to make it the best possible decision for the group. Any concerns are raised and resolved, sometimes one by one, until all voices are heard. Since proposals are no longer the property of the presenter, a solution can be created more cooperatively (5).

The model is therefore “based on the principles of the group” (7). The authors characterize consensus as

“the most democratic decision-making process” (6). It is an inclusive process that “encourages

74 participation, allows equal access to power, develops cooperation, promotes empowerment, and creates a sense of individual responsibility.” They also refer to it as “the least violent decisionmaking process.”

They write,

Traditional nonviolence theory holds that the use of power to dominate is violent and undesirable. Nonviolence expects people to use their power to persuade without deception, coercion, or malice, using truth, creativity, logic, respect, and love. Majority rule voting process and Parliamentary Procedure both accept, and even encourage, the use of power to dominate others. The goal is the winning of the vote, often regardless of another choice which might be in the best interest of the whole group. The will of the majority supersedes the concerns and desires of the minority. This is inherently violent. Consensus strives to take into account everyone's concerns and resolve them before any decision is made. Most importantly, this process encourages an environment in which everyone is respected and all contributions are valued (6).

CPT embraces consultation and consensus in every realm of decision making. The organizational culture is one of inclusion and openness. Chupp states that “one of the guidelines is that if the decision impacts you, you get to have a voice in it” (interview, June 28, 2013, Chicago). The internal listserve allows those interested to participate in policy discussions. CPTers also intentionally form “circles” to provide “face-to-face” time for certain decisions because body language, facial expressions, and tone of voice are important aspects of communication not captured through the technology. Project coordinators put policy issues on their team agendas to promote discourse and input. Multiple mechanisms and channels exist through which CPTers have a voice. The consensus model becomes less formal in practice than on paper, but it provides a framework for decision making.

The question regarding the acceptance of funds from UNICEF arose from the Palestine Team, which had been working with UNICEF on children’s issues. However, it had broad implications for the organization as a whole and prompted a wide discussion on CPT’s funding sources. All circles of the organization conducted conversations around this issue – the Support Team, Project Teams, and the

Steering Committee. A small task force emerged with the goal of examining those conversations and developing the criteria for government funding sources (Kryss Chupp, interview, June 28, 2013,

Chicago). The opportunity for input continued throughout this process, and ultimately the Steering

Committee would adopt the recommended criteria (Mark Frey, telephone interview, March 14, 2014).

75

Chupp relates how this “modified consensus decision-making process” was the most formal during the three and a half years of the “Mission and Presentation Re-visioning” (MAPR) process

(interview, June 28, 2014, Chicago). This decision to develop a new logo and redefine the mission, vision, and values of the organization carried tremendous importance for CPT (CPT 2013b).

Representatives from all the different teams participated in the development of these ideas. Some individuals provided expertise and put together activities, questions, and even entire retreats for CPTers to have “face-to-face” encounters so that everyone from the project teams to the support staff had opportunities to feed the process of evaluating, discerning, and discovering “who we are as an organization” (Kryss Chupp, interview, June 28, 2013, Chicago). CPT does not do that with every decision, but one of this magnitude required greater structure and intentionality. The framework is in place through the formal consensus decision-making model, and the CPT culture molds itself easily to this ideal.

Recruitment and Training of CPTers

How does CPT recruit members? What is the training process? What skills do CPT activists acquire during training that they then contribute to the work of the global civil society network of actors in Israel/Palestine? Although CPTers are recruited increasingly through the CPT website, Training

Coordinator Kryss Chupp estimates that over 50% of them have been recruited through CPTers making public appearances (interview, June 28, 2013, Chicago). Up to now (2013), CPT has not collected hard data on this, but Chupp’s estimate is based on anecdotal evidence and her experience with the organization. An example of this pattern of recruitment comes from Sarah Thompson. Thompson relates how Rich Meyers, Palestine Project Coordinator at the time, came to speak at her Goshen, Indiana high school in 2001, sparking her interest in CPT’s work in nonviolence and undoing oppression (interview,

June 28, 2013, Chicago). Thompson not only accepted Meyer’s invitation to attend the CPT Peacemaker

Congress that year, but she also went on to serve as a member of CPT’s Steering Committee from 2010 to

2012 before becoming CPT’s outreach coordinator and, in 2014, executive director.

76

CPT also uses short-term peacemaker delegation trips as a recruiting tool. Delegations provide an introduction to CPT’s work in Colombia, Israel/Palestine, Iraqi Kurdistan, and elsewhere. Everyone who signs up for CPT training must first have attended a delegation trip with the organization in order to gain an understanding of CPT’s mission and operations through the experience. Delegates spend one to two weeks at one of the project site and in the surrounding area to learn about the conflict and experience

CPT’s work on the ground. Chapter 6 provides a more in-depth examination of CPT delegations.

Kryss Chupp has been the training coordinator for CPT since 1993. She came to CPT through her work with Gene Stoltzfuz, who had directed the Urban Life Center, where Chupp began her work with peace and justice issues. Chupp’s initial experience in these areas also included work with Synapses in

Chicago and on the ground in Central America with the Mennonite Central Committee, the church agency dedicated to relief services and peace and justice issues. After four years in Nicaragua, Costa Rica, and

Guatemala, Chupp returned to Chicago to become the last director of Synapses. (The transition from

Synapses to CPT is discussed earlier in this chapter in the section on “Origins of Christian Peacemaker

Teams.”) Stoltzfuz brought Chupp into CPT to coordinate the first training of the Christian Peacemakers

Corps.

When she joined CPT, Chupp did not have experience as a trainer or a training coordinator.

However, she brought with her both organizational and life experiences that were important to the organization. Chupp had “been part of the Urban Life Center, Urban studies program, which is a very experiential learning adult education model, where their motto is the city is the classroom” (Kryss Chupp, interview, June 28, 2013, Chicago). In Central America, she also participated in work and training involving “popular education”, which is a “grassroots, participant-engaged learning model” in which participants bring their skills and “expertise to the table.” CPT was looking for these types of skills for their own training model. Chupp had participated extensively in these types of models.

Chupp developed an advisory committee to design the curriculum for the first training. A model was then created that she calls a “create -your-own-manual system” for which trainers bring their personal handouts and resources based on their particular experiences and skills (Kryss Chupp, interview, June 28,

77

2013, Chicago). CPT training combines instruction led by seasoned activists and active participation by trainees. Trainers share their experiences and knowledge with newcomers, lead conversations in discussion circles, and model actions. Trainees take part in role plays. They take turns leading worship, and they participate in actual public witness actions.

Training for CPTers is a month-long process typically in Chicago, where CPT’s main office is located. From the first CPT training in October 1993 until the end of 2012, 30 of the 40 trainings have been held in Chicago. Of the other 10, three were conducted in Ontario, and one training was held in each of the following cities: Bogota, Colombia; Boulder, Colorado; Cleveland, Ohio; Goshen, Indiana;

London, England; Washington DC; and Winnipeg, Canada. By 2013, 456 people had participated in the

CPT trainings, and 410 of them, or 90%, “completed the training with a commitment to serve” (CPT

2013f). These are general trainings for all CPTers regardless of their team destination. Separate orientations are conducted on site by each team, and the content for these is determined by the team on the ground. For the general training in Chicago, Chupp conducts some of the individual training modules.

However, other facilitators conduct most of the training, and she coordinates their efforts (Kryss Chupp, interview, June 28, 2013, Chicago).

A training document lists the primary objectives for the general CPT training conducted in

Chicago:

CPT understands violence to be rooted in systemic structures of oppression. We are committed to undoing oppression in our own lives and in the practices of our organization. Within that framework, participants in CPT’s Peacemaking Training will:

1) Practice peacemaking skills in three core areas:  Public Witness & Nonviolent Direct Action  Conflict Transformation & Negotiation  Presence Ministry & Human Rights Reporting

2) Connect and nourish Biblical faith, Anabaptist/Peace Church experience, and spiritual centeredness as roots for active nonviolence and CPT’s mission.

3) Explore issues of team life and skills for leadership, decision making and communication in cross-cultural crisis settings (CPT 2010v).

78

Initially, Chupp brought in trainers from within the Mennonite Church because of her connections to this community. The pool of trainers expanded, however, as more denominations lent their support to

CPT. Over the years, as they developed greater expertise, CPT began to draw from their own “in-house trainers.” Today, CPTers conduct the training, drawing from their own anecdotes, skills, and resources from their work on teams. Among these, Personnel Coordinator Adriana Cabrera Velásquez, a Quaker from Colombia, leads a number of sessions. Undoing Racism Coordinator Sylvia Morrison is also part of the training team. Chupp brings in other CPTers who have developed conflict resolution and other skills as needed to conduct sessions during the trainings (Kryss Chupp, interview, June 28, 2013, Chicago).

The 2013 “CPT Training Curriculum” (see Figure 4) presents a breakdown of the training program into modules (CPT 2010u, v). CPT training focuses significant attention on spirituality and nonviolent direct action. Other activists in the West Bank have recognized the value of CPT’s methods of nonviolent direct action, which CPT calls “public witness,” and have even adopted training methods taught by CPTers (CPT 1995a, b) (see Chapter 7). CPT trainers conduct at least 40 hours of “Public

Witness and Nonviolent Direct Action” training, which includes two opportunities for trainees to participate in actual public witness activities in Chicago or other host cities. They introduce trainees to the

Christian origins and goals of public witness (CPT 2010r). As stated on the CPT website:

We believe Jesus witnessed publically in a prophetic critique of the social, political, religious and economic structures of his time. In this tradition of Jesus - a tradition carried on by Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., Badshan Khan [Pashtun leader and nonviolent activist], and many, many others - CPT organizes and encourages nonviolent public witness, sometimes called nonviolent direct action, as a method of social transformation towards an envisioned Kin-dom of God. We believe we must take our Christian faith from the pews to the public space. Public witness is an intentional way of offering our peace perspective to the wider community.

We recommend To Wake the Nation: nonviolent action for personal and social transformation, by Tom Cordaro. He describes public witness - what he calls nonviolent direct action - as much more than protest. It is "any public act done for the purpose of influencing public policy and/or articulating or challenging social, religious and political values (CPT 2010q).

Trainees become familiar with Gandhi’s and Martin Luther King Jr.’s principles of nonviolence

(CPT 2010j; CPT 2010m). They also learn how to make use of and carry out methods of nonviolent action. These include “methods of nonviolent protest and persuasion” such as letters of opposition or

79 support, banners and posters, communications through newspapers and television, public prayer and worship, vigils, public marches, teach-ins, and assemblies of protest or support. “Methods of noncooperation” encompass boycotts, strikes, popular nonobedience, noncooperation, civil disobedience, and stalling and obstruction. “Methods of nonviolent intervention” include fasting and hunger strikes, sit- ins, defiance of blockades, and seeking imprisonment (CPT 2010a).

Another area covered during training is that of “Biblical Nonviolence” (CPT 2010h). They devote

48 hours to biblical nonviolence, worship, and spiritual disciplines (see “CPT training curriculum,”

Figure 4). Jesus’ example and teachings are central to the biblical foundations of nonviolence. Jesus engaged in nonviolent confrontation by “publically healing on the Sabbath, violating the rules in his [day] relating to women, upsetting the tables of the money changers in the temple, and organizing a nonviolent march on a donkey into Jerusalem” (Gish 2001, 18). CPT trainees study scriptures in order to illuminate the messages of resistance and nonviolence. One of the training resources available on the CPT website is

“Jesus’ Third Way” by Walter Wink (1998). Wink’s ideas in this piece are very much in line with CPT’s work. He examines Jesus’ way of opposing evil neither through submission or “flight” nor violence or

“fight,” but rather through seizing the moral initiative and creating an alternative to violence. Wink’s argument through scriptural examples is that “Jesus abhors both passivity and violence.” Trainees learn that

Jesus is not advocating nonviolence merely as a technique for outwitting the enemy, but as a just means of opposing the enemy in a way that holds open the possibility of the enemy’s becoming just also. Both sides must win. We are summoned to pray for our enemies’ transformation, and to respond to ill treatment with a love that is not only godly but also from God (Wink 1998).

An additional training document dealing with spirituality, “Faith, Education, and Action” by

Gene Stoltzfus (1989), identifies three critical elements to Christian peacemaking in the face of injustices.

In this document, CPT’s first director envisioned peacemaking work as beginning with “a genuine appreciation of all the elements of faith building [through] Bible study, worship, [and] spiritual disciplines….” This must be followed by learning about a given situation through fact finding and education. Bible study and investigation into the world must lead to action, contends Stoltzfus, in order to

80 avoid paralysis and lethargy. Direct action – the use of civil disobedience but divine obedience – is the third crucial element, and these “attempts to incarnate peace by action lead us to deeper levels of faithfulness” (Stoltzfus, 1989).

The training program allows the flexibility to make changes, which are often based on needs perceived by CPTers serving on site. For example, through feedback from the field, it became clear that more tools for dealing with trauma and greater structure for managing self-care were needed (CPT 2010s;

Holmes 2005). The “Preparing for Presence” module addresses these issues far more today than in the past (CPT 2010p). The Palestine Team, along with the Columbia Team, has driven this shift towards greater pastoral and psycho/social care. In the West Bank, the intensity of the work during the Second

Intifada drove CPT’s recognition of these needs (Kryss Chupp, interview, June 28, 2013, Chicago).

“Undoing Oppressions” also has expanded and become one of the frameworks for training (CPT

2010w). This module focuses primarily on the racism, sexism, and heterosexism components (Rose

2009). However, addressing religious preconceptions and intolerance is also an area that has great importance within the Israel/Palestine context, especially as CPTers are often confronted by Jewish soldiers and ideological settlers during their work with Palestinians. Chupp writes that CPT has also “had an anti-Semitism section during most trainings. It’s been different with different trainers, but currently it’s about a 1 ½-hour session based on a reading that [Acting Communications and Engagement Director]

Tim Nafziger leads” (email, March 11, 2014). Chupp supplies two articles used by Nafziger “as a launching point for the discussion on Christian Anti-Semitism” (Chupp, email March 12, 2014). The article “Jewish Nationalism, Christian Theology and the Demise of Interfaith Dialogue” (Cohen 2013) contains a brief foreword written by CPT Reservist Christopher Hatton. Hatton expresses the concern that

CPTers face “charges of anti-Jewish sentiments via the accusation of Christian replacements/successionist theology.” He offers the article to other CPTers and encourages dialogue between Christians and Jews.

81

Figure 4

CPT TRAINING CURRICULUM

CPT Trainings are 33 days long and include 3 to 3 ½ free days. Each day generally begins at 8:00am, ends at 9:00pm, and includes a 1 hour break after lunch and 2 hours for supper (including preparation and clean-up). Training Modules include:

Undoing Oppression  Time: 24 hours of workshop sessions  Covers: racism, sexism, heterosexism and ally building Biblical Nonviolence and Spirituality for Peacemaking  Time: 48 hours of workshop sessions, daily worship, practice of spiritual disciplines and worshipping with local churches.  Covers: Biblical basis for nonviolent peacemaking, Leading Worship, Using Inclusive Language, A variety of spiritual disciplines (silence, fasting, centering prayer, yoga, etc. Public Witness and Nonviolent Direct Action  Time: 40 hours includes sessions and 2 public witness/civil disobedience actions  Covers: foundations and principles of nonviolence; enemy loving; creative public witness (symbols, signs, leaflets); music as a tool of nonviolence; campaigns; civil disobedience; arrest, jail, court; action planning. Preparing for Presence  Time: 40 hours of workshop sessions, role plays and self-care practice  Covers: trauma, healing & self-care; human rights reporting; preparing for crisis, torture, death; observation & defusing hostility; truth-telling; working with local partners; project briefings; CPT history, mandate, structure; personnel matters. Conflict Transformation and Team Building  Time: 25 hours of workshop sessions  Covers: communication skills; power and culture dynamics in conflict; group development; personal styles; sharing life stories. Organizing Skills  Time: 17 hours of workshop sessions plus individual work time on projects  Covers: technology (basic video filming/editing, basic digital photography, social media); writing; public speaking; consensus decision-making; facilitation skills, team organization; working with the media; fundraising. Orientation  Time 6 hours  Covers: introductions, orientations to housing, city, facilities, meal teams, transportation, security, etc. . Total: 200 hours

[Handout unpublished, obtained from CPT Office in Chicago in 2013 (2013f)]

82

The second article, “Christian Anti-Semitism: A Window into Anti-Semitism and Nazism among

Mennonites in North America, Part 1,” was written in 2007 by Nafziger himself. Nafziger uses the articles during the Chicago trainings to promote discourse and reflection about anti-Semitism.

After the general training, CPTers receive an orientation when they arrive on site. CPTer

Jonathan Brenneman arrived in Hebron to join the Palestine Team in 2012. His training in Chicago included the segment on anti-Semitism (Jonathan Brenneman, email, March 11, 2014). However, he asserts that, in his orientation experience, anti-Semitism was not dealt with “in any formal way. I remember having informal conversations about it, but there was no structured element to it,” he writes in an email (March 12, 2014).

Training modules are added or expanded based on the needs of CPTers in the field. Up to this point, there have not been any formal evaluations of the Peacemaker Corps training. The most valuable feedback on training needs has been given by CPTers once they are on team. Chupp says that evaluation of training takes place through an “organic feedback-based system” (interview, June 28, 2013, Chicago).

CPTers in the field offer their reflections in an ongoing way as they carry out their duties. CPTers might give feedback through their project support coordinator, and that then reaches Chupp as the training coordinator. They might also have conversations with other staff such as the personnel coordinator and relevant information is then fed back to Chupp and the training team. This “organic, non-systematic way of getting the feedback and integrating it” reflects the overall culture of the organization (Chupp).

Chupp admits that the organization needs a more systematic system for evaluating the training.

The Support Team has put together a three-year strategic plan to begin to look at the structure and content of training. This includes identifying the core content for the Chicago training and what can be offered on the ground during orientation at the different project sites. They are also looking at ways to evaluate and improve the training that CPTers receive (interview, June 28, 2013, Chicago). Chupp has no predictions for what changes might be made in the structure or content of the trainings or in the mechanisms for providing feedback. In 2013, CPT is just beginning this process. “What is clear is that training

83 matters….[It]is key to…the organizational culture and how we do our work together. [It] distinguishes us and clarifies our mandate as an organization” (Chupp).

CPTers on the Palestine Team have recently evaluated their orientation program on the ground.

Beginning in 2012, they began identifying and implementing major changes to make orientation more systematic and precise. The Palestine Team has included these changes in their three-year strategic plan from October 2014 (CPTNet 2013d). Jonathan Brenneman served on the Al-Khalil Team from 2012 to

2013, when he was denied entry back into Israel. During his time in Hebron, he not only went through the orientation, but he also oriented new CPTers to the team. The team coordinator, one of the Palestinian

Muslim associate members, conducted Brenneman’s orientation when he arrived. Brenneman points to improvements since he arrived (email, February 12, 2014). The team has since created a checklist of things to be covered during orientation. They have also identified and listed the primary skills to be developed during each CPTer’s first stint on the ground.

For the vast majority of CPTers serving on the Palestine Team, there is a need for language training. Although many Palestinians and Israelis speak English, Fathiyeh Gainey of the Palestine Team has called for much greater linguistic and cultural fluency among CPTers serving in the West Bank

(Miller 2011). Knowledge of Arabic, in particular, helps CPTers to better understand and serve the target population. CPTer Jonathan Brenneman describes language training for CPTers in the following way:

“the individual CPTer is told that s/he has 2 months and $1000 of CPT support for language study. The rest is left up to the CPTer to arrange with the team and the individual’s schedules.” Each CPTer must arrange to study Arabic around the team’s and his or her own personal schedule. Brenneman himself went to Jordan for a three-week intensive Arabic course and then returned to the Hebron, were he took weekly classes while on team. He admits that there has been a challenge in this area. First, although some CPTers would like to participate in classes meeting more than once a week, their unpredictable schedules make this difficult. Second, CPT has had difficulty keeping personnel in Israel/Palestine for multiple reasons, and this interferes with language training and the goal of developing a level of fluency in Arabic

(Jonathan Brenneman, email, February 12, 2014).

84

CONCLUSION

This chapter has demonstrated how the theological foundations of the Mennonite and other traditional peace churches have inspired and shaped the structure, decision-making process, and training of Christian Peacemaker Teams. CPT’s organizational culture derives from Anabaptist values, an anti- authoritarian, egalitarian, pacifist, altruistic tradition originating in the Reformation.

Christian Peacemaker Teams developed out of Ron Sider’s 1984 challenge to Anabaptists to follow the example of Jesus and adopt active forms of nonviolent resistance to injustice and oppression around the world. A small number of Christian pacifists, supported by the traditional peace churches, took up Sider’s call to be prepared to die for peace if necessary and demonstrate Christ’s love even to enemies.

Over the years, support for CPT has moved beyond the Mennonites, Brethren, and Quakers to encompass a broader range of Christians and now Muslims. Nevertheless, the original Christian peace church values are the clear underpinnings of the organization.

The Mennonites and Friends have established educational and charitable institutions that employ the hierarchical model of modern organizations with a governing board, CEO, and subordinate staff.

Those who founded CPT rejected that approach, adopting instead a more communitarian model. In this way, the founders of CPT adhered more strictly to the Anabaptist principles of anti-authoritarianism and egalitarianism. CPT activists have avoided using power within the organization in a way that would compromise their deep religious commitment to equality and nonviolence. As Lord Acton warned,

“Power tends to corrupt….” CPTers, valuing self-sacrifice in Jesus’ name, generously contribute their own time, talents, and money and ask little by way of financial compensation.

Unlike those of larger, better funded NGOs working for political change, CPT’s non-hierarchical organizational structure and consensus decision-making process manifest its stated commitment to

“relationships that transform structures of domination and oppression,” reflecting the organization’s mission (CPT 2013d). They allow for broad collegial participation in decision making and give significant autonomy to project teams in support of local project partners. The configuration, however, is at odds with established models of effective organizational governance.

85

CPT’s flat, informal structure has impeded its growth because it has lacked strong administrative focus on financial controls, fundraising, and recruitment. The administrative coordinator, working with other coordinators throughout the organization, has facilitated a static annual CPT budget process of about $1 million since 2006, burdened with a deficit in most recent years. The Palestine Project experienced a 38% budget decline between 2006 and 2012.

The need for more funds for CPT is urgent. Fundraising has presented challenges, however, as

CPT has not employed a dedicated fundraiser or sophisticated methods of tracking donors, for example.

The NGO’s decision to allow grant monies from UNICEF and perhaps other government-funded sources on a case-by-case basis appears to be a positive strategy to acquire more funds for valued projects without compromising integrity. However, CPT’s organizational culture, which eschews hierarchical power relationships and state funding, constrains the organization’s ability to raise funds to support and extend their altruistic work.

The UNICEF grant may represent one of CPT’s few occasions to receive evaluations from external funders. CPT provides financial reports to their official sponsoring churches and groups, but there appears to be limited response from these sponsors. In addition, without an outside audit due to

CPT’s status with the IRS, critics have cause to claim that the NGO lacks financial transparency.

Sider’s 1984 vision of “a peace army of thousands of faithful Christians” clearly has not come to pass. Even though CPT extended its recruitment of members and its fundraising to Christian denominations outside of the traditional peace churches, it has not succeeded in building a large, financially stable organization. In 2014, CPT’s Peacemaker Corps included 30 full-time equivalent members, far fewer committed individuals than originally envisaged (Mark Frey, telephone interview,

March 14, 2014). Small international teams provide advantages such as limited social and economic impact on the local community, the provision of a protective presence that allows for the growth and development of local leadership and nonviolent initiatives, and a sustainable third-party presence (Ciaghi

2014). However, due to budget constraints, CPT has understaffed its Palestine Project, resulting in reduced efficiency and capability of the team to meet objectives. The team also has experienced undue

86 stress, putting local Palestinians in greater jeopardy when there are not enough CPTers to meet critical accompaniment needs.

The overall shortage of committed individuals translates into fewer projects worldwide and consequently a large number of threatened populations left without the protective presence of international third-party intervention. After almost three decades of existence, CPT still has limited capacity with a force of approximately 200 peacemakers in 2014, the vast majority serving only two to 16 weeks each year as reservists. These low numbers allow the organization to maintain only four long-term projects in the world, including the understaffed Palestine Project.

CPT training sustains the organization’s commitment to “transforming violence and oppression” by imparting the organizational culture to each new wave of CPTers (CPT 2013d). The training program, which fosters a high level of trainee participation, has successful processes and flexible curricula to equip

CPTers with essential skills for nonviolent direct action and other activities in the field. Chapter 7 will demonstrate how CPT’s nonviolence skills have served as a model for other organizations. Another aspect of training, “Undoing Oppressions,” focusing on sexism, heterosexism, and racism, has emerged as a more prominent aspect of training. This module is a significant step in the organization’s promotion of the values of cosmopolitanism. However, the hour and a half of training on anti-Semitism within this module is inadequate for CPTers who will be in Israel/Palestine. The Palestine Team has reported difficulty reaching out to some Jews because of perceived anti-Semitism. CPTers have recognized this dilemma, but more time devoted to intentional training in Chicago or on site in Hebron seems prudent.

The Palestine Team needs greater attention to language training as well. Resources are limited and there are other challenges outside of CPT’s control. Nevertheless, it is essential for CPTers on the

Palestine Team to develop the level of Arabic needed to communicate effectively with all the Palestinians they assist. It also would be beneficial for at least some of the CPTers to learn Hebrew in order to promote good will toward Israelis and to promote a greater understanding of Israel’s people and culture.

Christian Peacemaker Teams, 28 years after its founding, remains a small organization with a non-hierarchical structure that is well-aligned with its Christian values and cosmopolitan mission. In

87 contrast, its administrative structure has failed to control finances and develop fundraising capacity sufficient to grow, or even maintain, the organization in recent years. For the Palestine Project, CPT needs to develop more rigorous training strategies on anti-Semitism and Arabic and Hebrew language training for those CPTers serving in Israel/Palestine.

Is the CPT communitarian organizational model workable in the struggle for power contested by hierarchical groups willing to employ violence? In order to answer that question, the following chapters examine CPT’s efforts in Palestine to collaborate and build partnerships, empower individuals through their involvement in nonviolent direct action, educate and mobilize supporters, and create and strengthen other nonviolence NGOs.

88

Chapter 4 CPT’s Palestine Project

The fruit of that righteousness will be peace… [Isaiah 32:17 NIV]

Introduction

CPT has had multiple short-term and intermittent projects around the world. The Palestine Project is one of the few long-term projects - along with the Colombia, Iraqi Kurdistan, and Aboriginal Justice

Projects – and is the longest-running of the four. This chapter explores the origins of the Palestine Project.

In doing so, it examines CPT’s cosmopolitan claims that the organization respects all lives without distinction. Did CPT make Palestine a priority because of the violent nature of the conflict and threat to human life or because of a religious interest in the Christian holy land? Has CPT been equally concerned about violations of international law by Israeli soldiers and settlers and Palestinian Muslim extremists?

This chapter also delves into questions relevant to both scholars and practitioners of third-party nonviolent intervention. Was CPT’s choice of Hebron in the West Bank as a base for the Palestine Project appropriate? What factors contributed to the decision to choose this particular location? Did CPT make an appropriate choice by locating its operations within the community at risk? In addition, relevant to those interested in interfaith peacebuilding, was CPT appropriately ecumenical and inclusive in establishing critical relationships with essential partners?

Timeline of CPT’s work in Israel/Palestine:

1991-92- Exploratory delegations to the West Bank and Israel 1993- Short-term project in Gaza refugee camps; Oslo Accords 1994- Exploratory delegation to Hebron 1995- January-February- Delegation to Hebron to investigate the possibility of a long-term project - April- invitation to CPT from the mayor of Hebron - June- CPT’s Palestine Project begins with the establishment of the Hebron Team 2004- Establishment of At-Tuwani Team 2011- Conclusion of At-Tuwani Team

89

Figure 5

Map of West Bank and Gaza under Israeli Occupation Since 1967

http://dabrownstein.wordpress.com/category/mapping-palestine/ (accessed February 28, 2014)

Early CPT Work in Palestine

Even prior to the existence of a trained Christian Peacemaker Corps, CPT became involved in

Palestine through exploratory delegations to the West Bank and a short-term project in Gaza (see Figure

5, “Map of West Bank and Gaza” above). Several of CPT’s founders had an interest in the Israeli-

Palestinian conflict. Among these, Hedy Sawadsky and Gene Stoltzfus led the first delegation to Israel and the West Bank (and Jordan) in June 1991. A second CPT delegation went to Israel and the West Bank

90 in 1992. Early delegates learned about the conflict and the conditions of the Palestinian communities under occupation through their first-hand experience. They stayed in the region for up to two weeks and promoted active nonviolence. Both delegations participated in peace walks. The 1992 peace walk led to the arrest and two-day imprisonment of six of the members of the CPT delegation for crossing the border of Israel into the West Bank. Anne Montgomery and Diane Roe were among those arrested by the Israeli authorities. These two women went on to complete Christian Peacemaker Corps training and serve for years on the Hebron Team (Kern 2010, 5).

Also arrested was Duane Ediger. As a result, the Israeli authorities would deny Ediger entry into

Israel in July 1993, when he and David Weaver arrived to set up a CPT project in refugee camps in Gaza.

Weaver went through and set up the project alone, soon to be joined by other team members Phyllis Butt,

Cliff Kindy, and Elayne King. “For the next two months, the team members stayed with more than twenty families in five of the eight refugee camps in the Gaza Strip. Four times, they were present in homes when Israeli soldiers raided them” (Kern 2009, 500-501). Kern (2009) recounts Cliff Kindy’s experiences during some of these raids. The Israeli military governor entered one home several times and told the mother of a son shot and killed by troops three days earlier, “Keep out your mourning clothes: We’re going to kill your other son, too.” Soldiers destroyed furniture, plumbing, and the roof in the home during another raid, while one soldier “ground his heel” into a sleeping baby’s hand (501).

CPT’s Gaza Project was drawing to an end when the negotiations between Israel’s Labor government and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) concluded with the signing of the

Declaration of Principles, or Oslo Accord, on September 13, 1993. Oslo promised a peaceful resolution to the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians. Under the provisions of the accord, the Israeli government recognized the PLO as the legitimate representatives of the Palestinian people. The PLO renounced terrorism and recognized Israel’s right to exist. Oslo created an agenda for negotiations toward a two-state solution. An interim government, the Palestinian Authority was established for Palestinian autonomous rule over Gaza and Jericho, and Israeli troops were to be withdrawn from these areas. Other West Bank areas would follow suit. Israel would continue to exercise control over external security and foreign

91 affairs, but Palestinians would assume responsibility over internal security and municipal affairs. “Final- status negotiations were scheduled to start within two years and were due to be completed within five years” (Berry and Philo 2006, 91). The agenda reserved the final phase of the process for negotiations over the most contentious issues such as borders, refugees, settlements, and the status of Jerusalem. Kern

(2009) points out that “the Oslo Accords seemed to call for a ‘wait and see’ approach” for further CPT work in Gaza. In addition, the organization would now be concentrating on the first training in Chicago beginning on September 25, 1993 and setting up the Haiti project in November of that year. In any case,

“CPTers [later] serving on the Hebron Project would visit Gaza over the years,” but the organization would never set up another project there” (501-503).

CPTers’ early experiences in Palestine served as a foundation for the idea of a longer-term project in the West Bank as they learned about the issues and forged relationships with Palestinians and Israelis seeking to challenge the Occupation through nonviolent means. CPTers Wendy Lehman and Kathleen

Kern spent several months in early 1995 investigating the possibility of a long-term project in the West

Bank’s largest city of Hebron, a predominantly Muslim city in an explosive situation as extremist Jewish settlers took up residence in the city’s downtown. Palestinians and Israeli activists expressed a need for third-party internationals in Hebron. At this point, significant peacekeeping or human rights efforts were largely absent from the scene (Stoltzfus 2001, 11).

Hebron and the Establishment of CPT’s Hebron Team

Hebron: A City Divided

Hebron is among the holiest of cities to both Jews and Muslims. Some believe that Adam was buried there, but this is not written in the Bible (Karmi 1999, 175). More compelling is the city’s connection to Abraham, father of monotheism. In particular, it is Abraham’s burial site at the Ibrahimi

Mosque (to Muslims)/Tomb of the Patriarchs (to Jews) that is at the center of the dispute over the ancient city.

92

The city is currently divided – very contentiously – into two parts. An estimated 170,000

Palestinian Muslims and between 500 and 800 Jews live in Hebron today.8 Hebron was slated as one of the West Bank cities to be evacuated by the Israeli military and handed over to the newly formed

Palestinian Authority (PA) by the Oslo Accord II of September 1995. However, the Oslo agreements unraveled, and Israel did not withdraw. Instead, a later agreement, the 1997 Hebron Protocol, partitioned the city into two zones – H1 and H2. (See Figure 6, “Map of Hebron in West Bank” below.) H1, which consists of approximately 80% of the city’s area and most of Hebron’s Palestinian population, falls under the jurisdiction of the Palestinian Authority, including security control.

On the eastern side of Hebron, H2 is under Israeli control through military rule. This puts all of the Jewish settlers and the Ibrahimi Mosque/Tomb of the Patriarchs under exclusive Israeli control. H2 is home to approximately 30,000 Palestinians (TIPH 2014), who are also subject to Israeli security control.

On the ground, this means that Palestinians in H2 routinely experience checkpoints, street closures, house and body searches, the seizure of their possessions and homes, detentions, and other measures that disrupt the flow of their daily lives. The H2 area of Hebron, including the Old City, has suffered a tremendous economic decline, leaving 77% of the Palestinian population there under the poverty line in an overall economy that is the commercial and industrial center of the region, accounting for one-third of the West

Bank’s GDP (TIPH 2014). H2 grew out of the Israeli desire to provide security for the several hundred

Jewish settlers in Hebron. These 50 or more families are some of most extreme of Israeli settlers and, in recent decades, have seized four spots in the center of the historic part of the city and established small settlements in the old Jewish Quarter. Israeli soldiers protect and well outnumber this comparatively small group of settlers. In addition, there is a much larger settlement, Kiryat Arba, of some 7,000 Israeli settlers on the outskirts of the eastern side of the city. Relations between the Muslims and Jews in Hebron have been among the most volatile in the region, prompting one reporter to characterize the city as a “magnet for trouble on the West Bank” (Patterson 2002, 6).

8 The TIPH website (2014) gives the current estimate of 170,000 Palestinians and puts the Jewish settler population of Hebron at 500 people. Freeland (2012) writes that there are 800 settlers.

93

Hebron is one of the oldest continually inhabited cities on earth and was founded in the eighteenth century B.C. by the Hittites. Jews call the city Chevron, and Arabs refer to it as al-Khalil al

Rahman (a friend of the merciful –reference to Abraham) or simply al-Khalil. Biblical references to the city include the names Kiryat Arba (Four Towns) and Mamre. Abraham and his family lived in Hebron, and it is here where they are buried. Today, the Ibrahimi Mosque/Tomb of the Patriarchs marks the site of the tombs. King David was anointed in Hebron and chose the city as his first capital.

Both Arabs and Jews lived in peace in Hebron for centuries until Arabs brutally murdered 67 of the city’s 700 Jews during the 1929 massacre. The 1929 wave of riots throughout Palestine and the massacre in Hebron were fueled by the tensions ensuing from the influx of Jewish Zionists into Palestine in the early twentieth century, in particular new reports that riots had broken out in Jerusalem and that

Jews were getting ready to seize the Temple Mount (TIPH 2012). A rumor spread that Jews had murdered thousands of Arabs in Jerusalem, and this prompted Arabs to pour into Hebron from the villages to hunt down, kill, rape, torture, and mutilate Jews there. The rest of the Jewish population fled the city. The 1929 massacre would affect relations between Jews and Muslims in the region to this day and become a rationale for the reclamation of the Jewish quarters by future generations of Jews.

The British controlled Palestine after World War I and endorsed unprecedented Jewish immigration into the region. After World War II, the United Nations planned to partition Palestine into a

Jewish state and an Arab state. However, the Arabs emphatically rejected the plan, and Egypt, Syria,

Lebanon, Jordan, and Iraq waged war against the new state of Israel in 1948. Israel defeated the Arabs and incorporated into its borders much of the land originally designated for the Arab state. Jordan took control of Hebron and the rest of the West Bank of the Jordan River following this first Arab-Israeli war in 1948. Jordan then lost the West Bank to Israel during the 1967 Six-Day War. The Israeli military began its occupation of the West Bank at this time.

94

Figure 6

Map of Hebron in West Bank (Broken down by H1 and H2 Sectors)

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/tiph5.html

 H1 – Palestinian control  H2 – Israeli control through military rule  Abraham Sanctuary – Ibrahimi Mosque/Tomb of the Patriarchs  Kiryat Arba – Jewish settlement

In April 1968, less than a year after the West Bank fell to Israel in the Six-Day War, Rabbi

Moshe Levinger led over 40 militant Orthodox Jews into Hebron to reclaim the city for Jews.9 This was the first step in an attempt to reclaim all of the biblical land of Israel, known as Eretz Israel, for the

9 Accounts vary as to the number of people accompanying Levinger. Gorenberg (2006, 145) says at least 40; Patterson (2002) puts the number at 66; Freedland (2012, 22) says 88.

95

Jewish people. These settlers represent religious Jewish fundamentalists for whom reclamation of the

“promised land in which the Jewish people once lived in accordance with divine law…signifies an essential step in the fulfillment of Jewish sacred history” (Stump 2000, 167). Unable to obtain the approval of the Israeli government to establish a settlement in Hebron, but motivated by a potent combination of messianism and nationalism, Levinger went privately to the city with an aging survivor of the pre-1929 Jewish community. After finding no available apartments, the two presented themselves as

Swiss tourists in Hebron’s Park Hotel, and rented out all the rooms for the upcoming Passover holiday.

Once installed, Levinger and many of the others refused to leave the hotel. The response from the Israeli government was anything but uniform. After holding out for a month, Levinger’s group, which now consisted of 100 people, received news that a ministerial committee of the Israeli government had authorized the defense minister to move them safely to an Israeli military outpost on the outskirts of

Hebron and gave permission for them to establish a yeshivah for religious study.

Gershom Gorenberg identifies the monumental implications of this decision. First, the Israeli government’s accommodation of the settlers, referred to as “volunteers” by the Israeli government, was confirmation to Levinger (and many others who followed) that “direct, defiant action was an effective means of holding the Whole Land10” (2006, 151). In addition, it provided “evidence that the government was unwilling to enforce the law against those who broke it in the name of nationalism” (2006, 159). This episode is one of many victories for settlers, whose illegal means justify their ends of acquiring territory to fulfill biblical prophecy. The theological implication for those who shared Levinger’s fundamentalist beliefs “was that settling in Hebron had cosmic significance, even beyond settling elsewhere: David’s kingdom was a model for the messianic kingdom, David began in Hebron, so settling Hebron would lead to final redemption” (2006, 151). These would all provide a powerful impetus for future Jewish settlers in and around Hebron and beyond. From the beginning, the settler movement in this part of the West Bank

10 The Whole Land advocates want the ancient Land of Israel to fall under Jewish sovereignty once again (Gorenberg 2006, 106-107).

96 embraced the fundamentalist teachings of messianic leader Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook touting the superiority of Jews over non-Jews, their souls included (Shahak and Mezvinsky 1999).

Levinger and the other settlers found support from individuals within the Israeli government who would advocate on their behalf to allow them to settle outside the military compound and even help them set up businesses and procure work to sustain themselves. Deputy Prime Minister Yigal Allon, for example, offered fervent support. In 1971, the Israeli government gave permission to build on confiscated

Palestinian land (Human Rights Watch 2001, 15), and settlers moved into the new apartments in

September. In a fundamentalist tactic of drawing selectively from the religious past, they named this new

Jewish neighborhood on the eastern outskirts of Hebron “Kiryat Arba, a synonym for Hebron from the

Book of Genesis, as if to make the place instantly ancient” (Gorenberg 2006, 219). Almost immediately, the settlers demanded the construction of another 200 more apartment units. Kiryat Arba has expanded to accommodate over 7,000 Jewish residents, including newly arrived immigrants.11

Gorenberg assesses the Israeli government’s initial role in establishing the first permanent settlement in the West Bank:

In allowing settlement at Hebron, Israel's leaders were swayed by ancient and recent history — by the biblical power of the city's name and by their consistent impulse to return to places from which Jews had been pushed out in their own memory. More than deciding on settlement, the government drifted into permitting it. Doing so contradicted the efforts of the same months to negotiate with Jordan or to create limited self-rule in the West Bank. It defied the fears of territorial minimalists in the cabinet, and of [Prime Minister Levi] Eshkol himself about the dangers of annexation. It blatantly violated [Defense Minister Moshe] Dayan’s declared intent of low-profile occupation. It resulted not from strategy, but from a lack of it (2006, 160).

In any case, by design or lack thereof, the building of Kiryat Arba went counter to the advice given by internationally acclaimed jurist, Theodor Meron, who was the legal advisor to Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs at the time. In September 1967, he counseled the Israeli government that from the point of view of international law, settlements in the newly occupied territory were prohibited by Article 49 of

11 The Bnei Menashe from India are an example of one such immigrant community. The 7,000 members of this community claim to be descendants of one of the 10 lost tribes mentioned in the Old Testament, and over 2,000 have become Israeli citizens. Approximately 800 Bnei Menashe have settled in Kiryat Arba after undergoing conversion to Judaism by Orthodox standards. Shavei Israel, a conservative private organization, has funded their immigration, conversion, and settlement albeit the controversy surrounding their claim (Kiryat Arba Hebron Foundation 2014; Sales 2013).

97 the Fourth Geneva Convention, to which Israel was a party. The last paragraph of Article 49 stipulates that “The occupying power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into territory it occupies.” In his memorandum to the minister of foreign affairs, Meron cautioned:

The prohibition therefore is categorical and not conditional upon the motives for the transfer or its objectives. Its purpose is to prevent settlement in occupied territory of citizens of the occupying state. If it is decided to go ahead with Jewish settlement in the administered territories, it seems to me vital, therefore, that settlement is carried out by military and not civilian entities. It is also important, in my view, that such settlement is in the framework of camps and is, on the face of it, of a temporary rather than permanent nature (Meron 1967).

In 1979, Levinger’s wife, Miriam, 14 other women, and 45 children from Kiryat Arba stole into the Haddasah Clinic in Hebron during the night. The location was symbolic as the initial site of the 1929 riots leading to the massacre and expulsion of Hebron’s Jews. The settlers refused to leave despite the

Israeli government’s disapproval and even the entreaties of Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin

(Patterson 2002, 6), who had actually gone to Hebron in 1968, when he was a cabinet minister, to back

Levinger’s plan for the initial settlement. The impasse between the government and the settlers was finally broken in May 1980, when members of the Palestine Liberation Organization ambushed and killed six young yeshivah students on their way to visit the women and children during Shabbat. “[I]n the ensuing anger, the Israeli government sanctioned the construction of a settlement within the city itself”

(Clarke 2000, 12).

…[B]y the mid-1980s, Jewish settlers had established four compounds within the Old City area of Hebron: Beit Hadassah, Avraham Avinu, Beit Romano, and Tel Rumeida….Once established in these buildings, they made lives unbearable for their Palestinian neighbors by vandalizing their homes, throwing garbage and dirty diapers into their yards, destroying their property, and physically assaulting them. When settlers took over buildings, soldiers set up checkpoints to protect them and created hardships for Palestinian families, many of whom felt they had no choice but to lock up their homes and leave. Settlers would then move families into the vacated buildings (CPT 2012, Hebron Media Package, slide #11).

Militant settlers seizing property in Hebron have made headway and have attracted additional support by using two main arguments to justify their actions. The bases for the settlers’ claims in Hebron, writes Ghada Karmi, are “first, the Biblical association and second, the reclamation of previously owned

Jewish property” (1999, 179). In defense of the settler movement into the Hebron area he initiated, Rabbi

98

Levinger once said “All my ideas are from the Torah….It’s not complex. This land is ours. God gave it to us” (Auerbach 2009, 166). Levinger and his followers’ views and tactics may be perceived as extreme by many. However, Karmi points out that there indeed exists a “pervasive view that Palestine’s only historical importance lies in its function as a repository of Biblical events” (Karmi 1999, 173). This fundamentalist approach fails to take into account the rights of non-Jews or the long and rich history of the region outside of biblical mention as well as the rights of the non-Jews who have resided there for centuries. In response to the second argument that Jewish settlers in Hebron are reclaiming Jewish property, Karmi writes:

There are two objections to this claim to Hebron. In the first place, the area appropriated to date by the Hebron settlers far exceeds the previous recorded Jewish holdings in the city. In the second place and more importantly, the present Jews who are claiming this right have no connection whatsoever with the Jews who used to own property in Hebron. Neither the settlers nor indeed the government of Israel has rights over this property, but only its previous owners or their legal heirs. Fostering the illusion of a connection between the old Hebron Jewish community and the modern settlers is not only false, it is also dangerous (1999, 180).

In his 1967 memorandum, Meron had also addressed property issues. He determined that only

Gush Etzion, purchased and inhabited by Jews in the Judean Mountains (not Hebron) until it fell to the

Arabs in 1948, might be able to claim a return to settlers’ homes. As for the territory within the Jordan

Valley, there was no such Israeli claim. In addition, even if Israel chose to create only temporary military camps, the country was still bound by the Hague Regulations regarding the ownership of the land thus settled.

Article 46 of the Hague Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land (Annexes to the Hague Convention (IV) of 1907), regulations that are regarded as a true expression of customary international law that is binding on all countries, states in relation to occupied territory that:

“private property ... must be respected. Private property cannot be confiscated”.

As regards state lands, Article 55 of the Hague Regulations stipulates that an occupying state is permitted to administer the property and enjoy the fruits of the property of the occupied state. Even here there are certain limitations on the occupying state’s freedom of action, which derive from the occupying state not being the owner of the property but having merely enjoyment of it.

In relation to the property of charitable, religious or educational institutions or

99

municipalities, they are treated under Article 56 of the Hague Regulations as private property (Meron 1967).

These property rights have not been respected in Hebron as the Israeli government has assisted the settlers with the creation, protection, and expansion of permanent settlements on property to which neither had a claim under international law.

Extremist Violence

Violent Palestinian reaction has also acted to bolster Israeli resolve to protect the settlers in

Hebron and other parts of the West Bank and advance their claims. Although there is a long history of nonviolent resistance to the Occupation among Palestinians, many have instead adopted the violent tactics of asymmetric (guerrilla) warfare, which have provoked Israeli backlash and Western hostility. In the early decades after Israel’s inception, these included armed attacks on military installations, bombings, plane hijackings, hostage-taking, and assassinations (StandWithUs 2007, 25). More recently, extremists have also resorted to suicide bombings. The primary political objectives have been Palestinian self- determination and the establishment of a Palestinian state, either alongside or in place of Israel.

Modern Palestinian nationalism grew largely out of the ideology of Fatah in reaction to their encounter with Zionism and the establishment of the state of Israel. Fatah championed the “liberation of

Palestine” and “Palestinianism” over the pan-Arab goal of creating Arab unity throughout the region

(Schultz 1999, 158). Founded in 1959 by Yasser Arafat, Fatah was among the first organized Palestinian groups to use systematic violence against Israel. In 1968, it would become the largest faction in the PLO, which became synonymous with Palestinian terrorism in Israeli and Western eyes. Arafat would serve as chairman of this umbrella organization from 1969 to 2004 and was instrumental in transitioning the organization away from its violent methods. (Arafat would also be elected as the first president of the PA in 1994.) Embracing Marxist/Leninist revolutionary nationalism, the Popular Front for the Liberation of

Palestine (PFLP) also carried out high-profile hijackings and other acts of violence in the 1970s and

1980s. Today it is relegated to a “minor player” status (StandWithUs 2007, 27). In addition to these secular organizations, Islamic fundamentalists using violent means operate through the Palestinian

100

Islamic Jihad, which finds support from Iran and Syria, and Hamas (discussed below). The premeditated, politically-motivated, targeted attacks against civilians perpetrated by the aforementioned Palestinian groups are in line with accepted definitions of terrorism, including that of the US State Department. Of these groups, in 2014, the US Department of State (2014), the Government of Canada (2013), and the EU

(2005) officially list the PFLP, Hamas, and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad as foreign terrorist organizations.

Palestinians and other supporters have attempted to justify the violence of these groups by arguing that they are in response, perhaps brought on by trauma, to Israeli actions – torture, killing of civilians, the illegal occupation (Berry and Philo 2006, 95). A myriad of non-binding UN General

Assembly resolutions reflective of “the views of the majority of the world’s sovereign states” affirm a people’s, even specifically the Palestinian people’s, right to resort to violence in the struggle for

“liberation from colonial and foreign domination”12 (Sigler 2004; Assembly Resolution A/RES/33/24 of

29 November 1978). However, this right does not extend to terrorist methods. Amnesty International (AI) and other human rights groups argue that these indiscriminate attacks on civilians cannot be justified under international law regardless of the circumstances or provocation:

The obligation to protect civilians is absolute and cannot be set aside because Israel has failed to respect its obligations. The attacks against civilians by Palestinian armed groups are widespread, systematic and in pursuit of an explicit policy to attack civilians. They therefore constitute crimes against humanity under international law (AI 2002).

During the First Intifada 13 (1987-1993), the already poor relations between the settlers and

Palestinians went downhill (Kern 2010, 8). This Palestinian uprising in the Occupied Territories persisted for five years until the signing of the Oslo I Accord and consisted predominantly of a large-scale campaign of civil disobedience and an economic boycott. Palestinians adopted an overall strategy of nonviolence, but there were also violent confrontations between civilians wielding knives and throwing

12 Sigler (2004) lists the following UN General Assembly resolutions recognizing the right to armed struggle: UNGA Resolution A/RES/33/24 of 29 November 1978; UNGA Resolution A/RES/3246 (XXIX) of 29 November 1974; UNGA Resolution A/RES/3246 (XXIX; 29 November 1974), UNGA Resolution A/RES/33/24 (29 November 1978), UNGA Resolution A/RES/34/44 (23 November 1979), UNGA Resolution A/RES/35/35 (14 November 1980), UNGA Resolution A/RES/36/9 (28 October 1981).

13 The term Intifada is translated more literally from Arabic as the “shaking off,” but the words “uprising” and “rebellion” are often used in English to describe or refer to either the First or Second Intifada.

101 stones or Molotov cocktails at Israeli military forces and settlers (Salem 2008, 190). In the end, the First

Intifada had resulted in 160 Israeli and 1,162 Palestinian deaths, according to Israeli human rights group

B’Tselem (2014).

With the advent of Oslo, a rift developed among the Palestinians. The “Arab Center” grew as

Arafat’s PLO and Fatah evolved into legitimate players, who wanted to participate in the process of what looked like unfolding statehood for the PA. However, some Palestinians, such as Hamas and PFLP, emphatically rejected the Declaration of Principles, regarding the agreement as a “textbook case of

Bantustanisation” reducing Palestinian areas to a weak and subservient series of statelets (Rabbani 1993).

The ideological settlers of Hebron also rejected Oslo because it would severely impede their ability to attain Eretz Israel. By the time Christian Peacemaker Teams came to Hebron in 1995, the conflict between the Jewish settlers and Palestinians in the area was intense. “In the two years of 1994-1996,” writes CPT’s Arthur Gish, “settlers and soldiers killed seventy Palestinians in Hebron. Palestinians also killed several Israelis. Both sides were throwing stones” (2001, 23).

The worst violence in Hebron took place on February 25, 1994, perpetrated by a Jewish fundamentalist of the Chabad movement, one of the most extreme groups. Baruch Goldstein, a New

York-born settler from Kiryat Arba, walked into the Ibrahimi Mosque during Muslim prayer and opened fire. He killed 29 Muslim men and boys and injured over 125 more before he was taken down and beaten to death by worshippers. In the confusion, the Israeli army killed and wounded even more as desperate people tried to escape the carnage in the mosque (Hedges 1994) and others stood in line to donate blood to massacre victims. The Israeli Defense Forces then killed another 76 Palestinians, stone-throwing youths and others who took to the streets in protest or broke curfew following the massacre (Marshall

1994). “In an effort to buy cooling-off time, Israel put most of the 1.8 million Palestinians in the West

Bank and Gaza under curfew” (Haberman 1994a). Palestinians in Hebron remained under curfew for approximately 40 days, while the settlers moved around unrestricted. During these weeks, Palestinian businesses were disrupted beyond repair as produce and other perishables rotted; chickens and other animals died from neglect; and Palestinians ran out of food and medicine and risked being shot in the

102 streets for breaking curfew to search for such items. “By the time Wendy Lehman and Kathy Kern arrived a year later [to look into setting up a CPT project in the West Bank,] people expressed about as much bitterness about the collective punishment imposed upon them as they did about the massacre” (Kern

2009, 96-97).

Israelis placed more permanent restrictions on the Palestinians in the aftermath of the massacre, including the closure of markets and the ban on Palestinian vehicles on al Shuhada Street, the main street through Hebron. Al Shuhada Street would actually become a “sterile road” in 2000, closed even to

Palestinian pedestrians (Freedland 2012, 21). Goldstein’s attack also resulted in the Ibrahimi Mosque being closed for months while a steel wall was built to partition the interior, carving out a synagogue on one side while leaving the diminished mosque on the other side (Halpern 1999). An Israeli military checkpoint now controls the entrance into each side of the building. Even the road leading to the site is partitioned with the help of concrete barriers. Three quarters of the street is reserved for Jews and their vehicles, and the other much narrower strip is available to Palestinians, who are not permitted to drive on this road (Freedland 2012, 21).

Many Palestinians felt incensed by what they perceived to be insufficient measures taken by the

Israeli government in the settler communities after the massacre. The government condemned Goldstein’s actions immediately and set up a commission of inquiry, which ultimately determined that Goldstein had acted alone. Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin denounced Goldstein as a “degenerate murderer” and addressed militant settlers by saying:

You are not part of the community of Israel….You are not part of the national democratic camp which we all belong to in this house, and many of the people despise you. You are not partners in the Zionist enterprise. You are a foreign implant.14 You are an errant weed. Sensible Judaism spits you out. You placed yourself outside the wall of Jewish law. You are a shame on Zionism and an embarrassment to Judaism (Haberman 1994a).

14 This reference to “foreign implant” expresses the view of many native-born Israelis that, like Baruch Goldstein from Brooklyn, many American Jews arriving in Israel and taking up settlements were extremists. Many were followers of Rabbi Meir Kahane, who started the Kach movement, which perceived Arabs as akin to Nazis and the Israeli government and military as among their sometimes tolerated enemies. See also Haberman’s New York Times March 2, 1994 article “West Bank Massacre: Rabin is Tough, Maybe” (1994b).

103

However, Rabin’s government denied Palestinian demands that the settlers be disarmed (Berry and Philo 2006, 94). Many settlers walk and drive around freely with weapons. As one New York Times reporter puts it, “To the Palestinians, settlers are gun-toting menaces. But settlers argue that stripping all of them of their guns would put them in mortal peril. In particular, many feel they must travel armed on roads in the territories, where the risk of ambushes is greatest” (Haberman 1994a). The Israeli government also refused to dismantle “flashpoint settlements” like those in Hebron (Haberman 1994a).

Instead, the government confiscated weapons from several extremists and put them under administrative detention. The Kach party, to which Goldstein was affiliated, was banned. This extremist group espoused violence against both Arabs and the Israeli government and sought to restore the biblical land of Israel

(National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism 2010).

In the aftermath of the massacre, the Israeli government did acquiesce to the Palestinian demand for an international presence, which was reiterated by the UN Security Council Resolution 904 condemning the massacre. The Israeli government signed an agreement with the PLO a month after the attack to establish the Temporary International Presence in Hebron (TIPH) “to assist in promoting stability and restoring normal life in the city” (TIPH 2012). International observers from TIPH’s member countries15 initially served in Hebron for a brief three months from May to August 1994. They did not return again until 1997, from which time they have provided a continuous presence (TIPH 2012).

The Islamic Resistance Movement, popularly known as Hamas, “vowed revenge for the Hebron killings” (Berry and Philo 2006, 94). Founded in 1987, this Islamic fundamentalist organization deemed a terrorist organization by the US State Department and the European Union, professes the goals of obliterating Israel and resolving the Palestinian question through jihad or holy war (Hamas Covenant

1988). Article 13 of the Hamas Covenant states,

[Peace] initiatives, the so-called peaceful solutions, and the international conferences to resolve the Palestinian problem, are all contrary to the beliefs of the Islamic Resistance Movement. For renouncing any part of Palestine means renouncing part of the religion; the nationalism of the Islamic Resistance Movement is part of its faith, the movement educates its members to adhere to its principles and to raise the banner of Allah over their homeland as they fight their Jihad....

15 Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Switzerland, Italy, and Turkey provide TIPH personnel.

104

Those conferences are no more than a means to appoint the nonbelievers as arbitrators in the lands of Islam….There is no solution to the Palestinian problem except by Jihad. The initiatives, proposals and International Conferences are but a waste of time, an exercise in futility.

In May 1994, Hamas killed eight people in a car bombing in Afula and then killed five more in “the first- ever suicide bombing in Israel” (Berry and Philo 2006, 94). By 2005, Hamas had carried out 99 suicide bombings, the majority as part of its campaign during the Second or Al-Aqsa Intifada (2000-2005), which followed the breakdown of the Oslo process (StandWithUs 2007, 24). Palestinian suicide bombers targeted both Israeli security forces and civilians “in restaurants, dance clubs, synagogues, Bar Mitzvah parties and public buses” (24). Suicide bombings caused 47% of the 950 Israeli casualties and became the

“signature tactic” of the Second Intifada (24). Berry and Philo describe how this indiscriminate weapon - explosives, nails, and ball bearings strapped to and detonated from one person’s body – “left those who survived permanently scarred or disabled and significantly intensified security fears among Israelis (2006,

94). Palestinian deaths during this far more violent Second Intifada rose to 3,223, according to B’Tselem

(BBC News 2005).

The Establishment of CPT’s Hebron Team 1995

Although Palestinian violence is an important factor in the overall conflict and CPT opposes violence from any source, in CPTers’ accounts of the establishment of the Palestine Project, they focus almost exclusively on the repression of Israeli soldiers and encroachments and violence of the settlers, which present daily challenges for the Palestinian civilian population in and around Hebron (Gish 2001;

Kern 2009 and 2010; Levin 2004). In January 1995, a CPT delegation, which included Kathleen Kern and

Wendy Lehman, traveled to Palestine “to document a burst of settlement expansion around Jerusalem.

Since the Oslo Accords were signed in 1993, Israeli confiscation of Palestinian lands around settlements had increased dramatically” (Kern 2009, 97). This land grab around settlements close to Israel appeared to be another case of Israelis creating facts on the ground, this time before the final status talks associated with the Oslo Accords. The request for a delegation to document the process came from Palestinian

Christians and NGOs, including Zoughbi Zoughbi of the Wi’am Center in Bethlehem and Naim Ateek of

Sabeel Liberation Theology Center. CPTers first met these two men during the 1992 delegation to the

105

West Bank (Kern 2009, 499). Their NGOs have worked to build the global civil society network around the issues of the Occupation and the rights of Palestinians.

Kern and Lehman would stay on after the rest of the delegation returned home to North America in order to study the possibility of setting up a CPT project in Palestine. They stayed in the Zoughbis’ home in Bethlehem and traveled throughout Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza gathering information and making contacts until April. In the end, they would choose Hebron for CPT’s first project in the West

Bank. Kern chronicles the reasons for their various visits to the city. First, they went to Hebron during the

January/February 1995 delegation trip. During that time, the women witnessed the “hysterical outrage of

Hebron settlers” when the Palestinian driver escorting their CPT delegation tried to enter the Ibrahimi

Mosque. Kern also recalls reports and slides brought back by an earlier delegation that visited Hebron in

May 1994. They “reported on the reign of terror that settlers there imposed on their Palestinian neighbors” (2010, 14). Second, Zoughbi Zoughbi put Kern and Lehman in contact with his friend,

Hisham Sharabati, a journalist with experience organizing grassroots efforts against the Occupation.

When the CPTers met him at his home in Hebron, Sharabati was recovering from a gunshot wound shattering his leg. An Israeli soldier had shot him while he was filming a demonstration in protest of the

Goldstein massacre. Kern recounts how “he understood precisely how a small group of internationals could work in Hebron to deter and document violence. Sharabati would become CPT Hebron’s earliest friend and most trusted advisor” (2010, 15). Third, Kern and Lehman went back to Hebron for a demonstration held in February 1995 by the Hebron Solidarity Committee (HSC). Israeli and other international Jewish activists of the HSC were holding a vigil to commemorate the massacre in the

Ibrahimi the year before. “The fact that they were publicizing the systemic brutality imposed on the

Palestinians in Hebron and trying to organize solidarity visits seemed in line with much of CPT’s mandate” (2010, 15).

CPT sets up projects only after receiving an invitation from the local people affected by the conflict. Typically, this is from a “grassroots” source, but the official invitation for CPT to establish a project in Hebron actually came from the mayor of the city. In this example of unbounded global civil

106 society, a state actor from the PA interacted cooperatively with an NGO. Prior to receiving the invitation,

Kathleen Kern and Wendy Lehman met with Ahlam Muhtasib, Public Relations Director of the Hebron municipality. She was very excited about the prospects of American observers living in the Old City of

Hebron. Muhtasib would put the CPTers in contact with many Palestinians who faced settler or soldier violence or whose lands were being confiscated for settlement expansion (Kern 2010, 19-20).

The meeting with Muhtasib would also lead to an official invitation to Hebron. Kern (2009, 98-

99; 2010, 19) writes that the Mayor of Hebron, Mustafa Al-Natshe, faxed a letter to CPT’s Chicago office on April 3, 1995. It read:

April 3, 1995 Dear Sir,

As mayor of Hebron city, I’d like to express the wish of our citizens to receive a team of you [illegible] to accompany the people here as they struggle with the daily violence caused by the Israeli occupation. We hope that the team will report the truth of what it sees to the people in Canada and the United States. Thank you for your cooperation and understanding.

Yours Sincerely Mayor of Hebron Mustafa Natshe

In spring 1995, Kern and Lehman wrote a proposal for the Hebron project. Initially, they recommended that CPT send a team of four to Hebron for five months from June to October 1995. They anticipated that the team would be on the ground to deter violence up to and shortly after the time of the

Israeli military withdrawal from Hebron as agreed upon during the Oslo peace process. It was unclear at this point whether or not the Israeli government would remove the settlements. The initial Hebron Team included Kathleen Kern, Wendy Lehman, Cliff Kindy, who had served on the team in Gaza, and Jeff

Heie. Kathy Kamphoefner and Carmen Pauls, both of whom spoke some Arabic, joined the team later in the summer (Kern 2010, 20).

The team set up the project in a bustling area, where many Palestinians lived above their shops and markets, in the Old City. Unlike many other international NGOs, which position their bases of operation on the outskirts of conflicts, CPT intentionally places its teams inside the conflict zone, living among the community at greatest risk. CPT’s mission of “Getting in the Way” of violence led naturally to

107 this choice of immersion within vulnerable communities. CPTers intentionally adopt a lifestyle - in terms of lodging, transportation, and food choices - similar to that of the population they accompany. CPT’s

Palestine Team chose to rent two communal apartments (one for male and the other for female CPTers) on al Shuhada Street in the Old City of Hebron in order to provide an ongoing international presence in the area. They selected this location because it was “central… to the settlements, military bases and places where conflicts occurred” (Rick Polhamus, email, May 14, 2014).

In the end, the peace process unraveled and the redeployment of Israeli forces did not occur, and the Palestine Project’s estimated five months has turned into almost two decades and counting. CPT has maintained an ongoing presence in Hebron since 1995 with a brief absence for part of 2008 and 2009. In addition, as the rationale for the Palestine Project persisted in Hebron, the team also began to see a critical need for CPTers’ skills outside of the city. In 2004, therefore, CPT placed another team in At-Tuwani, a village in the southern West Bank. Together, the At-Tuwani and the Al-Khalil/Hebron teams would serve as the two branches of the “Palestine Project” until October 2011. At that time, CPT’s At-Tuwani team ended its long-term presence in the village in what was billed a success story. CPT’s presence in At-

Tuwani is not as critical any more, as the shepherds of the village are now “part of a large nonviolent resistant network encompassing various regions of Palestine” and they have the support of other Israeli and international groups (CPTNet 2011b). (See also discussion on CPT’s withdrawal from At-Tuwani in

Chapter 5.)

At-Tuwani and the Establishment of CPT’s At-Tuwani Team

The village of At-Tuwani lies approximately 15 miles south of Hebron (See Figure 7, “Map of

Southern West Bank” below). It is not mentioned by name in the Bible, but residents believe that David spent time here and other places in the South Hebron Hills. Sometimes called Twaneh, At-Tuwani is a rustic, pastoral village built on a rugged and somewhat unforgiving hillside. It has provided enough for this community, which has existed in some form for millennia.

The current inhabitants of this village are Palestinians who live off of the land as shepherds and farmers. Conjuring up images from the biblical times, some of At-Tuwani’s shepherds live in caves

108 carved into the mountain as their ancestors did. The village also has some ancient stone homes for residents as well as very simple concrete homes. (See photos in Appendix A.) The rough appearance of many of these structures cannot be overstated. In 2010, the CPT website estimated that At-Tuwani was home to between 250 and 300 people. Most residents belong to one of the extended families living there for generations. The village boasts of an elementary school, a mosque, and a clinic that brings in a visiting doctor once a week. These facilities serve At-Tuwani and nearby communities. Also notable are the one- room museum documenting recent decades of settler violence and the small women’s cooperative put in place to sell handmade items to fund the university education of village girls.

After Israel’s capture of the West Bank from Jordan in 1967, life for the families in At-Tuwani became difficult, uncertain, and at times brutal. Initially, as the Israeli army advanced, people hid in their caves. Because At-Tuwani and neighboring villages lie near the Green Line, the border between Israel and the West Bank, “Israeli governments over the years have sought to evacuate the villagers, so that they could unilaterally move the border in by several kilometers and use the area for military training (Kern

2010, 253-254). Arthur Gish adds, “Since the 1970s, every decision and action of the Israeli government and military affecting the South Hebron Hills must be understood in light of the Israeli determination to cleanse this area of all its Palestinian residents” (2008, 22). He notes that forcible transfers or deportations of residents of an occupied territory, regardless of the motive, defies Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva

Convention (2008, 22). The targets have included 17 Palestinian villages, with a combined population of approximately 1,100 people, in the South Hebron Hills, which fall within Area C under full Israeli military and civil control (CPT 2012d). The objective of creating a corridor was advanced with the establishment of strategically located Israeli settlements beginning in the 1980s. The village of At-Tuwani now finds itself surrounded by the Ma’on settlement to the northeast, the Havat Ma’on outpost (Hill 833) to the east, and the Avi Gail outpost to the southwest (See Figure 8, “Map of South Hebron Hills” below).

109

Figure 7

Map of Southern West Bank including Hebron and At-Tuwani

The South Hebron Hills is located in the white area below the bold line toward the bottom of the map. This area includes At-Tuwani (circled) and the villages designated “Firing Zone 918” (enclosed in bold at the lower right of map). The Green Line (lowest bold line) separates the West Bank from Israel. Figure 8 below is a detailed section of Figure 7.

Figure 8

Map of South Hebron Hills Including At-Tuwani, Ma’on Settlement, Outposts, and Firing Zone 918

http://apjp.org/idf-settler-vandalism-escalat/

110

The Israeli government has authorized the settlements in the area, but not the outposts. The flood of settlements and outposts in the area has resulted in severe disruption of the Palestinians’ daily lives, economic productivity, and territorial continuity. The Ma’on settlement alone, wrote Gish in 2008, “now includes over 400 acres, with the settlers claiming the whole surrounding area to be theirs. In addition to the land taken to build the settlement, settlers are now farming much of the Palestinian farmland in the area” (2008, 23).

Since 1984, settlers have perpetrated many acts of violence and unrelenting harassment in an attempt to push the people of At-Tuwani and surrounding villages off the rest of their land. They have attacked the Palestinian shepherds, farmers, and even pregnant women and school children with clubs (at times baseball bats), rocks, chains, and guns. They have uprooted their olive trees, overturned tractors, stolen and killed flocks of sheep, and poisoned their water supply. At night, settlers have attempted to frighten Palestinian families into leaving by shooting or throwing stones at the windows of outlying homes. CPTer, and former CNN Middle East bureau chief, Jerry Levin notes:

The scare tactics worked perfectly at two other villages, much closer to Ma’on than At-Tuwani. In 1997 the frightened residents of Kharruba and Serora, after fifteen years of constant and often violent pressure, finally abandoned their homes and their long-standing way of life. There is a law on the Israeli books that allows the state to take over agricultural land, which has not been worked in three years. Recently settlers from Ma’on began plowing some of Kharruba’s abandoned fields (2004).

The Israeli military, too, has been complicit in the disruption of life in the South Hebron Hills, according to a member of the Popular Committee for Nonviolent Resistance and a member of Operation

Dove (pers. comm. with CPT delegation, January 2011, At-Tuwani). Not only have they stood by during episodes of settler violence, they have also participated in them at times. In addition, the military is responsible for home demolitions, including ancient caves that were used as dwellings for perhaps four millennia. “In 1987, Israeli soldiers demolished the mosque in At-Tuwani because it had no building permit….The present school building, built in 1998, was built without permission from the Israeli government and has a demolition order, as does practically every home in At-Tuwani” (Gish 2008, 24).

The clinic also has a demolition order. (Until recently, that order was only for the first floor of the

111 building, so the clinic operated on the second floor, while the first remained vacant!) The military has also destroyed wells, confiscated the meager set of belongings of some families, and killed the wheat and barley fields by spraying them with herbicide. They have also prevented Palestinians from entering their own olive groves to harvest the olives. Instead, the soldiers have acted to support the settlers, who have stolen entire harvests at times, especially from 2002 to 2004 in the Humra valley (Gish 2008).

Some Jews have found motivation from cosmopolitan, and at times, religious values to advocate for Palestinians in the Occupied Territories. CPT has partnered with many of these Jewish activists to promote shared values and to strengthen support for its mission. Both Kern (2009; 2010) and Gish (2008) assert that it was Israelis concerned with the safety of the Palestinian families in the South Hebron Hills who brought CPT to At-Tuwani. Kern points out that because of the remote location, the Israeli military could drive them out relatively easily. Rabbis for Human Rights and Ta’ayush, an Israeli-Palestinian peace group formed at the beginning of the First Intifada, invited CPTers to join solidarity actions they initiated there. Kern points to Palestinian Abdel Hadi Hantash, the chief cartographer of the Hebron

District, as being “the most instrumental in getting CPTers to the area” (2010, 254). Gish writes that it was Ezra Nawi, an Iraqi Jew with Ta’ayush, who actually brought the team to At-Tuwani (2008, 26). In

2003, CPTers helped members of Ta’ayush to accompany school children and farmers in At-Tuwani on several occasions.

Ta’ayush also approached the Italian peace organization Operation Dove (Operazione Colomba in Italian), which began looking into the possibility of setting up a project in the South Hebron Hills in the summer of 2004 (Operation Dove 2012). Operation Dove is an outgrowth of the Catholic Community of

Pope John XXIII in Italy. They operate on the ground in a similar way to CPT, living among the oppressed and vulnerable populations, providing accompaniment, and participating in nonviolent acts of solidarity. The Doves began their work in the South Hebron Hills in the villages of Jinba and Susiya and discovered that they had too much to handle alone. They therefore asked CPT to join them in establishing an ongoing nonviolent presence in the area. In true global civil society fashion, the organizations decided to begin their joint operations in the village of At-Tuwani, where the residents were in need of

112 accompaniment as they built the new medical clinic. “The plan was to have at least four international volunteers living in the village at all times” (Gish 2008, 29). CPT members and Doves moved into At-

Tuwani to begin their joint team on Saturday, September 20, 2004. Almost immediately they realized the importance of daily accompaniment of the school children to and from school. (See Chapter 5 for information about CPT’s school patrol in At-Tuwani.)

Partners

To assist in its mission of “Getting in the Way” of violence, CPT in Israel/Palestine joined with partners on the ground during the initial stages of its work in the region in the 1990s. Cliff Kindy

(interview, July 1, 2013, North Manchester, Indiana), who served on the Palestine Team in the early years of 1995-1998, speaks of the Palestinian Authority as an early partner to the team. The official invitation for CPT to set up its Palestine Project came from the mayor of Hebron. Following the 1997 “Fast for

Rebuilding” (see Chapter 7) in solidarity with Palestinians whose homes were being demolished by the

Israeli military, the PA also provided equipment for CPTers and other activists to rebuild one such home.

In her 2009 book In Harm’s Way, Kern writes about the team’s early friendships with people in the West Bank, some of whom continue to work with and advise the current team. Kern identifies members of the Abu Haikel family as some of the earliest friends of the team. Hani Abu Haikel and his family had been subjected to assaults and humiliations “since the settlement of Tel Rumeida moved in next door in the mid-1980s.” Through the “Fast for Rebuilding,” the team met Atta Jaber and his family, who would later experience multiple home demolitions by the IDF and stoning and the uprooting of their trees by settlers. “Zleekah Muhtasib, a teacher who spoke nearly fluent English, and Abdel Hadi Hantash, the cartographer of the Hebron district, turned from casual acquaintances of the team into friends and co- workers” (124-125).

Kindy (interview, July 1, 2013, North Manchester, Indiana) also recalls the team’s work with individual Israeli activists such as Amos Gvirtz and Harriet Lewis and Palestinian professors and students of Hebron University. He acknowledges that in the early years there were different ways of talking about

“partners.” The notion of partnership was broader to include both individuals and organizations. He

113 identifies the Applied Research Institute Jerusalem (ARIJ), the Land Defense Committee, and Rabbis for

Human Rights as among the initial NGO partners coordinating nonviolent actions with CPT. From the beginning of the Palestine Project, CPT collaborated with both Palestinian Christians and Muslims. In and around Hebron, Palestinian partners are exclusively Muslim reflecting the overwhelming predominance of Muslims in the area.16 Palestinian Christians partner with CPT through organizations such as Holy

Land Trust, WI’AM, and Sabeel, located in Bethlehem and Jerusalem, where Christians comprise more of the population. CPT also “welcomed the involvement of Israeli Jews in various activities and built significant partnerships with Israeli NGOs to the point that CPT was instrumental in the formation of an

Israeli NGO dealing with house demolitions” (Lyke and Bock 2000, 18). (See Chapter 7.)

Over the years, CPT has cultivated new partnerships and worked collaboratively with a number of organizations. CPTers today limit the term “partner” to a number of NGOs only. Beyond insisting on a commitment to nonviolence, CPT has not formally identified characteristics or conditions for what constitutes a nongovernmental project “partner.” Jonathan Brenneman writes, “Our working definition of a partner organization is any organization we work with through information sharing, visiting with delegates, sharing workloads” (email June 28, 2013).

We plan things with them. We are informed when they’re doing something, or if we do something, we would inform them. We would also look to them for advice and discernment [and support] in any action we were planning (Rick Polhamus interview, February 11, 2013, Wilmington, Ohio).

Polhamus also explains that “partner” relationships may be short term as a result of CPTers rotation on the team. An organization considered a partner by one team might no longer work as closely with another team due to the composition of the team or the changing circumstances on the ground

(interview, February 11, 2013, Wilmington, Ohio). In addition, Lyke and Bock point out examples in which “other groups shouldered more of the violence deterring” in certain areas, and “CPT moved away from those efforts” (2000, 15). Handing over more responsibilities to other organizations may also translate into shifting partnerships.

16 According to Procon.org (2014), only three Palestinian Christians live in Hebron, and these are the caretakers of the city’s Russian Orthodox church.

114

Table 4 below, “CPT’s Partners and Other Collaborating Organizations,” lists the NGOs and

IGOs with which CPT’s Palestine Team cooperates directly. Together, these organizations comprise the core of CPT’s global civil society network. These organizations work with CPT in seeking policy changes through advocacy, action, and the exchange and dissemination of information relevant to the abuses emerging from the Occupation. These global civil society activists endeavor to give a voice to the

Palestinians in the Occupied Territories who are marginalized or too weak politically to promote change by themselves.

Table 4

CPT’s Partners and Other Collaborating Organizations

Primary Year Relationship Organization Operational Issues / Campaigns Est’d to CPT* Location

Palestinian NGOs 1. Al-Haq 1979 Ramallah Partner Documenting and Reporting 2. Al-Watan Center 1988 Hebron Community Building; Photography and Media Programs; Nonviolent Direct Action; Hosts Informational Sessions for CPT Delegates; 3. Applied Research 1990 Bethlehem Partner Reporting, Advocacy, BDS Institute Jerusalem (ARIJ)

4. BADIL 1998 Bethlehem Palestinian Refugees and Internally Displaced Persons; Education and Advocacy; Hosts Informational Sessions for CPT Delegates 5. Hebron 1996 Hebron Partner Rajabi Building; Home Restoration Rehabilitation Nonviolent Direct Action; Periodical Committee Meetings with CPT to Coordinate Efforts

6. Holy Land Trust 1996 Bethlehem Partner Nonviolent Direct Action; Leadership Development; Home Rebuilding Hosts Informational Sessions for CPT Delegates 7. International 2001 Ramallah Partner Nonviolent Direct Action including Civil Solidarity Disobedience; Accompaniment; Movement (ISM) Documentation; Regular Meetings with CPT to Coordinate Efforts 8. Palestine Land Hebron Partner Reporting; Legal challenges; Monitors Defense Committee settlement expansion

115

9. Palestinian Center 1988 Bethlehem Partner Nonviolent Direct Action; Hosts for Rapprochement Informational Sessions for CPT Delegates between People

10. Palestinian Conflict 1995 Bethlehem Community Development; Hosts Resolution Center Informational Sessions for CPT Delegates (WI'AM)

11. Popular Committee 1988 South Hebron Coordinates nonviolent resistance in the for Nonviolent Hills region, connected to other popular Resistance resistance committees in other regions of the West Bank. 12. Sabeel 1989 Jerusalem Partner Empowerment of Palestinians, especially Christians 13. Tent of Nations 2000 Bethlehem Partner Cultural Bridges; Youth; Reconciliation; Advocacy 14. Youth Against 2010 Hebron Partner Dismantling of Settlements; Nonviolent Settlements Direct Action including Civil Disobedience

Israeli NGOs 15. Breaking the 2000 Jerusalem and Partner Testimonies by Israeli veterans serving in Silence Hebron the Occupied Territories; Lectures and Tours for CPT Delegates 16. B’Tselem 1989 West Bank Partner Documenting and Reporting

17. Israeli Committee 1997 Jerusalem Partner Home Rebuilding; Tours for CPT Against House Delegates Demolitions: ICAHD

18. Machsom 2001 Tel Aviv Israeli women who oppose the Occupation; (Checkpoint) monitor checkpoints in the West Bank and Watch the military courts

19. Rabbis for Human 1988 Jerusalem Partner Nonviolent Direct Action including Civil Rights Disobedience

20. Ta’ayush 2000 Timrat, Israel Joint Israeli-Palestinian organization; South Hebron Nonviolent Direct Action including Civil Hills Disobedience 21. Women in Black 1988 Jerusalem Partner Nonviolent Protest

International NGOs 22. Ecumenical 2001 Jerusalem; Partner Accompaniment; Nonviolent Direct Action Accompaniment Hebron; including Civil Disobedience; Regular Programme in Bethlehem; Meetings with CPT to Coordinate Efforts Palestine & Israel Nablus (EAPPI)

116

23. Operation Dove 1992 At-Tuwani Partner Accompaniment; Nonviolent Direct Action including Civil Disobedience

24. Red Crescent 1968 West Bank Humanitarian Aid

25. Red Cross 1881 West Bank Humanitarian Aid

IGOs 26. OCHA (UN Office 2002 E. Jerusalem Coordinate coherent humanitarian for the agencies’ responses to emergencies, Coordination of preparedness, advocate for those in need, Humanitarian seek sustainable solutions Affairs) – Occupied Territories

27. OHCHR (Office of Ramallah Monitor and report publicly on the human the UN High rights situation in the occupied Palestinian Commissioner for 2009 territory; the official United Nations voice Human Rights) – on human rights in the Occupied Occupied Territories. Territories

28. TIPH (Temporary 1994 Hebron Documenting and Reporting International Presence in Hebron)

29. UNICEF (UN 1946 West Bank Financial Children’s Issues Children’s Support Emergency Fund)

*The NGOs listed as partners were identified as such by CPTers Jonathan Brenneman based on his 2012-2013 experience on the Palestine Team (email, June 28, 2013) and Rick Polhamus based on his ongoing work with the Palestine Team as a full-time member from 2000-2005 and reservist from 2006-2011 and leading CPT delegations to Israel/Palestine from 2003-2012 (interview, February 11, 2013, Wilmington, Ohio).

Jonathan Brenneman (email, June 28, 2013) identifies EAPPI and ISM as the two organizations with which CPT currently coordinates the most work. CPT was instrumental in the establishment of these

NGOs (See chapter 7), and today their work within Hebron’s Old City is very similar to that of CPT. “We hold a coordinating meeting with them every 2 weeks where we share information and split up work”

(email, June 28, 2013). The Hebron Rehabilitation Committee is also another important Palestinian partner organization. “We look to them for guidance about what the major issues are, and coordinate with them on that work” (email, June 28, 2013). CPT has worked very closely with HRC to stop the expansion

117 of settlements in Hebron, for example. CPT does not meet regularly with all partners, however.

Brenneman acknowledges that the Palestine Team and some of the partner organizations provide mutual support, “although we may go long periods of time without ‘overlapping’ work” (email, June 28, 2013).

Brenneman also notes that CPT works with international humanitarian aid organizations such as the Red

Cross and Red Crescent from time to time, but that these NGOs are not “partner organizations.” CPTers might assist them with advice, directions, or other help with distribution, but their work and mandate keep them separate (email, June 28, 2013).

CPT collaborates with IGOs, too, but does not use the term “partners” to describe these organizations. CPTer Rick Polhamus notes that CPT has worked very closely with TIPH. Polhamus asserts that CPT does not consider TIPH a partner because of restrictions in TIPH’s own charter, but that the two organizations share information on the ground. While leading a delegation in January 2011, he pointed out that there had been occasions when TIPH personnel witnessed violence or the threat of violence, into which they were prohibited to intervene. Instead, they informed CPTers of the situation, knowing that they would have the ability to respond (Leppert-Wahl, CPT delegation experience, 2011).17

CPT also works with UN agencies, but CPT does not classify these as “partners” either (Brenneman, email, June 28, 2013).

Over the past two decades, the mission of the Palestine Project has evolved. The work began as a limited violence-deterring project fitting with CPT’s motto “Getting in the Way.” Now entrenched in

Palestine, the Hebron Team has recently developed a mission statement that declares its opposition to the

Occupation and a commitment to local NGOs and other nonviolence partners.

CPT Palestine is a faith-based organization that supports Palestinian-led, nonviolent, grassroots resistance to the Israeli occupation and the unjust structures that uphold it. By collaborating with local Palestinian and Israeli peacemakers and educating people in our home communities, we help create a space for justice and peace (CPT 2014d).

17 The author traveled to Israel/Palestine as a member of a CPT delegation led by Rick Polhamus in January 4-17, 2011.This experience will be referenced throughout this dissertation as (Leppert-Wahl, CPT delegation experience, 2011).

118

This is distinct from but in keeping with the overall organization’s new 2013 mission/motto

“Building partnerships to transform violence and oppression” which replaced the long-time motto

“Getting in the Way.” While core strategies for nonviolent intervention on the ground have remained in place (See Chapter 5), the new motto or “mission” focuses on the importance of CPT’s partnerships with local nonviolence groups as well as the international network of peace activists in transforming conflict and oppression into peace and liberation (CPT 2013b, 8-9). This shows an evolution in the thinking about

CPT’s role within conflicts. As CPT becomes more entrenched within communities, the organization is seen more as a partner in nonviolence (Kryss Chupp interview 6-28-13). This mission speaks even more to CPT’s overarching and mounting purpose of acting in solidarity with oppressed but resilient populations than the slogan “Getting in the Way.” The old motto stated a more limited goal of deterring violence and implied the presence of a foreign barrier between the two conflicting parties. The new wording reveals the larger purpose of getting to the root of the problems through the development of a community of partners.

Together, CPT’s and the Palestine Team’s new mission statements exude a robust commitment to partnership as a framework and a tool for their work in the West Bank. They articulate CPT’s intent to follow the lead of Palestinian partners in determining goals and actions. The Palestine Team engages in few actions without the invitation or advice from its partners on the ground. In this way, and in the broader discussion of global civil society, CPT practices a high level of accountability to its Southern partners. CPT also commits to equipping more members of the underrepresented Southern communities in their struggle for human rights and justice. The new mission statements reflect this goal of empowering

CPT’s local partners. CPT’s ongoing presence in Hebron and the South Hebron Hills creates a space in which Palestinian organizations can develop. CPT empowers partners through modeling nonviolent actions, conducting nonviolence training, and offering other support. In the South Hebron Hills, “CPT has helped organize the outlying community around At-Tuwani,” (Rick Polhamus interview, February 8,

2013, Wilmington, Ohio). The mission statements also embrace CPT’s role in forging connections among

Palestinian, Israeli, and international peace activists. The empowerment of Palestinian partners does not

119 entail the exclusion or demonization of Israelis. CPTers work side-by-side with Israeli peace activists and serve to connect them with Palestinians.

In addition to its mission statement, the Palestine Team further expresses its commitment to partnership in its 2013-2014 “Strategic Plan.” (See Appendix B.) Goal 7 and the ensuing objectives state:

Goal 7: To network with other organizations for information sharing and for supporting CPT goals.

Objectives: 1. To meet with other organizations so that: a. CPT will be informed about issues in the West Bank. b. CPT will have a broader coalition through which to pursue its goals. 2. To support a “Palestinian Facilitated Gathering Link” with Palestinian Partners from the Palestinian members of CPT team. 3. To maintain a healthy relationship with partners, advisors and Palestinian community members. 4. To build links with Palestinian communities for the purpose of raising awareness around the world for CPT and for recruitment for delegations. 5. To nurture our relationships with Israeli peace activists, in order that we provide each other with mutual support and information, and so that CPT will be able to do their work in Palestine more effectively (CPT 2013c).

The second objective of the partnership goal in the Strategic Plan intentionally creates links between Palestinian CPTers and CPT’s Palestinian partners, which include both Christian and Muslim members. CPT has expanded well beyond its original peace church membership to include other

Protestants, Catholics, and non-denominational Christians on the Palestine Team. As of May 2014, two

Palestinian Muslims also have served as associate members on the team (See Chapter 3). The Palestinian

CPTers have cultural and linguistic knowledge that is very beneficial for forging new and stronger relationships with local organizations and community members. In addition, the Palestinian CPTers offer a stronger connection between CPT and Palestinian Muslims within partner organizations. The

Palestinian CPTers have not only served as a link to the local community but have also been instrumental in informally training other CPTers in some of the subtleties of local customs and Islamic ideas and practices, which in turn allows the non-Palestinian team members to relate better to the population they serve.

120

CPTers are still “getting in the way” of violence, willing to step between the barrel of a gun and an unarmed civilian. They employ nonviolent direct action as a strategy for “getting in the way” of institutions, groups, and individuals who intimidate, dominate, and violate basic human rights. However, the evolving emphasis on partners underscores “the broader international network of peacemakers that we bring with us wherever we go”18 (CPT 2013b, 9). Alongside and in consultation with its partners and other collaborative organizations, CPT in Israel/Palestine provides accompaniment, solidarity, and advocacy for a vulnerable people.

Conclusion

CPT has devoted more time and resources to its Palestine Project than to any other initiative. Did

CPT make Palestine a priority because of the violent nature of the conflict and threat to human life or because of a religious interest in the Christian holy land? CPT has demonstrated a genuine commitment to peace and to reducing violence no matter where conflicts occur. Rather than driven by a Christian attachment to the holy land, CPT finds its motivation in the foundational pacifist values of the traditional peace churches. The organization set up its Palestine Project in response to concern about the intractable violence between Israelis and Palestinians in the Occupied Territories. The project became long-term with the breakdown of the Oslo Accords (Thomas 2004). The original decision to open a project and the subsequent ones to stay and expand stemmed from CPTers’ cosmopolitan sense of responsibility for other human beings regardless of differences.

Has CPT been equally concerned about violations of international law by Israeli soldiers and settlers and Palestinian Muslim extremists? From the beginning, CPT’s Palestine Team has partnered with both Palestinians and Israelis but comes down clearly in support of Palestinians. In alignment with its cosmopolitan stance, which does not tolerate repressive systems, CPT established its Palestine Project in order to work with the politically powerless Palestinian community. The organization focuses its attention on the unfolding system of oppression embodied by the Israeli occupation and the regular

18 CPT’s Interim Assistant Director Tim Nafziger made this comment about CPT’s new logo, but it applies to the 2013 motto as well.

121 violence and intimidation perpetrated by Israeli soldiers and extremist settlers rather than on the sporadic, less predictable terrorist attacks of Hamas and Islamic Jihad in reaction to the oppression.

Was CPT’s choice of Hebron in the West Bank as a base for the Palestine Project appropriate?

What factors contributed to the decision to choose this particular location? After CPT’s thorough investigation of the conflict and different locations for possible intervention within Gaza and the West

Bank, they chose the city of Hebron for their Palestine Project. Hebron proved to be an ideal fit for

CPTers to offer nonviolent support to a marginalized Palestinian community in a city characterized by an overwhelming imbalance of power and an absence of international monitoring. Hebron provided a focal point for CPTers to confront ongoing violence as settlements expanded and Israeli military presence intensified. Secondarily, CPT made a productive choice to set up the joint At-Tuwani Team with the

Italian Doves in the more rural and isolated South Hebron Hills village, where Palestinians faced daily harassment and danger from settlers. CPT’s accompaniment skills could prove invaluable to a population looking for assistance because of the risk of bodily harm, property damage, and displacement.

Did CPT make an appropriate choice by locating its operations within the community at risk?

Unlike other NGOs at the time that positioned themselves on the outskirts of conflict zones, CPT embedded its activists within the vulnerable community. CPT’s deliberate choice to live and work out of two apartments in the Old City of Hebron and out of a village home in At-Tuwani has allowed them to maintain an ongoing presence in the heart of the conflict. This choice to live among the Palestinian population that they serve provides opportunities for accompaniment and other actions in response to immediate needs. It also builds trust among the Palestinians, adding legitimacy to CPT’s efforts.

Was CPT appropriately ecumenical and inclusive in establishing critical relationships with essential partners? CPT in Israel/Palestine successfully bridged sectarian differences and established interfaith working relationships that could maximize the impact of its limited resources. CPTers have always been interested in values beyond the promotion of their own Christian denominations. The

Palestine Team itself has been composed of members of CPT’s founding peace churches along with other

Protestants, Catholics, and now Muslims. The team collaborates with nonviolence organizations and

122 individuals representing multiple faiths – Christians, Muslims, Jews, and non-religious – for the purposes of greater effectiveness through combined strengths and resources. For example, CPT originally collaborated with both Palestinian Christians and Muslims in establishing the initial project in Hebron.

CPTers have worked alongside Jewish activists to accompany Palestinians. The organization also set up a joint project in At-Tuwani with the secular Italian NGO Operation Dove. Without this partnership, neither organization would have been able to provide enough personnel to meet the need. As a result of CPT’s willingness to work with other faith groups, the local populations have not perceived CPT as just another interest group pursuing a sectarian agenda but rather as a more legitimate communitarian organization motivated by universal religious ideals.

Supported by interfaith partners and as part of the global civil society, CPT in Israel/Palestine has taken on three of the strategies employed by human rights NGOs. It works toward the protection and enforcement of rights, education and the recruitment of public support, and institution-building. Chapters

5, 6, and 7 contain a three-part examination and analysis of these three distinct areas in an endeavor to assess CPT’s ability to empower individuals in nonviolent conflict resolution and develop nonviolence institutions.

123

Chapter 5 CPT’s Public Witness

The more we sweat in peace, the less we bleed in war. - Vijaya Lakshmi Pandit19

Introduction

CPT partners with local and international NGOs to carry out strategies to protect victims and enforce international norms through on-the-ground intervention in Palestine. These activities, designed to reduce violence against and bring justice to Palestinians, consist of accompaniment of vulnerable civilians; nonviolent resistance and advocacy for Palestinians; and participation in the Boycott,

Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) campaign. CPT refers to all of these tactics as forms of public witness.20

An evaluation of the Palestine Team’s intervention tactics attempts to elicit answers to the following questions: Which of CPT’s Palestine Team’s strategies for protection and enforcement of rights are most effective? Are there any on which they should focus less? How, if at all, have CPT’s public witness tactics evolved based on experience? How do CPT‘s activities compare to those of other international human rights NGOs?

Accompaniment

“CPT maintains an active nonviolent presence in the H2 (Old City) zone of Hebron/Al-Khalil

[which has facilitated] accompaniment to various communities in the greater Hebron/Al-Khalil region”

(CPT 2012a). The Palestine Team chose their apartments on al Shuhada Street in a part of Hebron central to the conflict at a time when there was no ongoing international presence. Their early arrival on the scene has allowed them to develop their own brand of involvement following the lead of local partners. Over the years, CPTers have experienced the drastic transformation of the neighborhood as a result of settler expansion and the imposition of “security measures” by the Israeli authorities in 2000. With the 1997

19 Indian ambassador to the US (1949-1952) and first female president of the UN General Assembly (1953).

20 Some activists use the term “public witness” narrowly to describe silent vigils held in protest over an issue. However, CPT employs it, and it is used throughout this work, as synonymous with all forms of nonviolent direct action.

124

Hebron Protocol dividing the city between control by the Palestinian Authority (H1) and Israel (H2),

CPTers found themselves living within the boundaries of H2 (Rick Polhamus, email, May 22, 2014).

Today, the roof of the building across the street from CPT’s apartments serves as a watchtower for IDF snipers. The entrance to the apartments literally sits next to an Israeli security fence composed of barbed wire and razor wire. (See photos in Appendix A.) The fence effectively closes off a major thoroughfare that had previously enjoyed bustling commerce. Israeli Defense Forces have welded most shop doors shut, but there are a few merchants who have managed to keep their shops open and choose to do so as a form of nonviolent protest more than anything as all traffic has been forcibly diverted elsewhere. When the Second Intifada broke out in 2001, the Israeli authorities placed crippling restrictions on the Palestinian population living on al Shuhada Street, adding to limitations already in place since the aftermath of the 1994 massacre at the mosque. B’Tselem (2011) reports,

Now Palestinians are forbidden to drive along the entire length of the street, and even to walk along the section between the Avraham Avinu settlement compound and the Bet Hadassah settlement compound. The army also prohibits Palestinian traffic on adjacent streets, thereby creating a contiguous strip of land in the center of Hebron, from the Kiryat Arba settlement in the east to the Jewish cemetery in the west, in which Palestinian vehicles are completely forbidden.

As a result of these severe restrictions, 304 shops and warehouses along Shuhada Street closed down….Israel also took control of the central bus station that had been on the street, turning it into an army base. In 2006, B’Tselem’s investigation revealed that most of the properties on or adjacent to Shuhada Street, including homes and businesses, had been abandoned or had been closed by military order. The army forces the few Palestinian families that continue to live on the street to enter their homes via side entrances, since they are not allowed to use the main entrances on Shuhada Street. Where side entrances are not available, the Palestinian residents have no choice but to climb on ladders leading to the roofs of the buildings.

Living among Palestinians in the H2 part of Hebron allows CPTers to experience some of the challenges faced by the population on a daily basis, witness the often devastating results, and lend support as situations arise. They even helped their next-door neighbors create an opening in their wall to give them access to the CPTers’ stairwell so that they could get in and out of their home without using the restricted front entrance onto al Shuhada Street. As internationals, CPTers have not had the same restrictions placed on them as their Palestinian neighbors, and this privileged position has allowed them to be of assistance to people who have been seriously debilitated by Israeli actions and are not always able to help themselves.

125

Over the years, CPTers have made use of their third-party status to “get in the way” of violent threats in order to protect their Palestinian neighbors and others. In an early outside account of the

Palestine Team’s work, the director of the Middle East Peace Program of the American Friends Service

Committee office in San Francisco writes,

Last January, as tension mounted during a demonstration, Israeli soldiers prepared to shoot towards the Palestinian demonstrators. The CPT team walked in front of the soldiers. The soldiers stood down. It happened quickly; those in the area were astounded. Palestinians cried at first and then cheered and the CPT, already an important presence, became nonviolent heroes (Solomonow 1999).

CPT’s ongoing nonviolent presence allows them to be close to the inhabitants in case they are needed for accompaniment or other forms of protection at any time of the day and night. In January 2011, for example, frightened Palestinian neighbors came to the CPT apartments to alert CPTers that Israeli soldiers were pulling young Palestinian men from shops in the Old City to check their documents and ask them questions. The CPTers were able to arrive at the site of the detention within several minutes to monitor and record the situation and speak to the soldiers about their motives. A couple of the soldiers were visibly perturbed by the CPT presence, especially the use of camcorders, but they finished quickly and did not enter other businesses (Leppert-Wahl, CPT delegation experience, 2011).

CPTers who live among the Palestinian population not only gain the trust of the residents but are also able to respond much more quickly in times of need than if they lived outside the zone (Rick

Polhamus, public address at Wilmington College, February 8, 2013, Wilmington, Ohio). This 24-hour presence is intentional “in an effort to deter violence and to decrease… harassment and mistreatment.

CPT [also] conducts daily patrols in areas in and around the Old City where there is a heavy presence of the Israeli military and Israeli settlers” (CPT 2010c).

Accompaniment is a vital part of CPT work in the West Bank. The Palestine Team has identified it as such in their 2013 “Strategic Plan.” (See Appendix B for Goals and Objectives in 2013 Strategic

Plan.) Goal 5 is “to provide accompaniment and support to Palestinians who may be in a vulnerable position with respect to Israeli security forces and settlers and to respond to emergency requests” (CPT

2013c). Through the objectives emanating from CPT’s accompaniment activities, the team endeavors to

126 provide Palestinian children with safe movement, protect their right to education, and reduce harassment by Israeli settlers and security forces. An additional objective is “to reduce the risk of violence to

Palestinian farmers and shepherds by security forces and settlers in the wider Hebron district area” (CPT

2013c).

In addition to a continuous presence in the H2 (Old City) area of Hebron/Al-Khalil, CPT also provides accompaniment for communities in the Hebron Governate, such as the neighborhood of Al-Bweireh and Al-Beqa'a Valley, among others. CPT provides accompaniment to schoolchildren in H2 and Al-Bweireh who are subject to searches and harassment as they pass through Israeli checkpoints and walk near Israeli settlements. CPT also accompanies farmers in outlying areas who face land confiscation, harassment, and property damage (CPT 2010c).

CPTers accompany students and teachers to and from school on a daily basis. Palestinians in

Hebron and the South Hebron Hills have faced major obstacles to securing the uninterrupted education of their children. This is despite the mandate within Article 50 of the Fourth Geneva Convention that “[t]he

Occupying Power shall, with the cooperation of the national and local authorities, facilitate the proper working of all institutions devoted to the care and education of children” (International Committee of the

Red Cross 1949). A particularly difficult time for Palestinians in the West Bank was during the Second

Intifada, which began in September 2000. Due to security concerns, the Israelis imposed curfews that disrupted the education of thousands of Palestinian students living in Hebron’s Old City and near the

Jewish settlements of Kiryat Arba and Givat Ha Harsina (Kern 2009, 187).

The Hebron District Minister of Education told a November 2000 CPT delegation that of the 170 schools and 80,000 students in the Hebron district, 32 schools and 15,000 students were under curfew. Three schools had been turned into military camps, leading to impossible overcrowding in other, unoccupied schools….

Under pressure from TIPH and the Palestinian Ministry of Education, the Israeli military acknowledged its obligation under international humanitarian law to allow children to attend school even under curfew.

For some reason, however, these orders often did not filter down to the soldiers in the street – even on September 1, 2001, the first day of school. Thus a big part of the team’s work for the rest of 2001 involved accompanying children on their morning and afternoon trips to school and convincing soldiers to confirm this understanding with their commanding officers. Sometimes the soldiers would let the CPTers and students from H-2 pass and sometimes they would not (Kern 2009, 187).

127

Kern points out that getting the children to school each day was not the end of the battle. She reveals that between 2002 and 2003, Israeli soldiers frequently entered the schools and forced the teachers and students to evacuate. She lists abuses perpetrated by the soldiers against the school children. These included the use of teargas, percussion grenades, and rubber bullets on the students; aiming rifles at young girls; charging at children with military jeeps; and abusive and obscene language. B’Tselem and CPT documented physical assaults by both soldiers and settlers on Palestinian students and teachers. During this period, schools were closed for days at a time, and many were vandalized. Teachers and students were detained regularly, and some were arrested (Kern 2009, 188-190).

Since 2001, school patrols have been a principal undertaking of CPTers in Hebron and later in

At-Tuwani in the South Hebron Hills. The Palestine Team employs various strategies to offer accompaniment to as many students and teachers as possible. These include direct accompaniment, general school patrol, and checkpoint watch. The children from the South Hebron Hills village of Tuba who walked several kilometers to and from their primary school building in neighboring At-Tuwani warranted direct accompaniment. By far, the shortest route to the school from this village passed between the Ma’on settlement and an outpost settlement, Hill 833, which the settlers called Havat Ma’on (Kern

2010, 258). (See Figure 8 map in Chapter 4.) Settlers frequently came down to the path travelled by the children and attacked them. Initially invited by activists from Ta’ayush, CPT and this joint Israeli-

Palestinian organization worked together to accompany the children on a few occasions in 2003. From

2004 to 2011, two CPTers at a time from the Palestine Team lived in At-Tuwani. One of their primary goals was to ensure the children’s safe passage along this path so that they could continue their education without the intimidation and violence that might lead to their withdrawal from school or even forced migration out of the area. During this time, the CPTers shared this task with Italian volunteers of

Operation Dove, who also took up residence in At-Tuwani for this project. On September 29, 2004, two days after the official joint CPT/Operation Dove At-Tuwani Team was established, masked settlers staged a morning attack against the schoolchildren and the CPTers accompanying them. They threw stones at the children. They beat CPTer Kim Lamberty, giving her a broken elbow and injuring her head and knee.

128

They used chains and baseball bats to beat CPTer Chris Brown and left him with a punctured lung and head injuries (Kern 2010, 258-260). This attack prompted both an Israeli and an international outcry.

Although the initial official Israeli reaction was for the military to meet with the villagers and try to persuade them to get CPT and Operation Dove to pull out of the area, Arab community members instead made a list of demands to be met in order for them to stop their own public outcry. These included permission to finish building their clinic in At-Tuwani, which had a stop-work order against it by the

Israeli Civil Administration; safe passage for the children of Tuba to and from the At-Tuwani school; and access to water, electricity, and the road to the larger Palestinian population center of Karmil, which had been obstructed by the Israelis. An official assured villagers that Israeli soldiers would accompany the school children and that they could resume building the clinic. In the end, and after being urged by the

Israeli NGO Machsom (Checkpoint) Watch, the Israeli Knesset Committee for the Rights of the Child held hearings and ordered the army to accompany the children. At-Tuwani leadership attributed these successful concessions to the presence of CPT and Operation Dove and the international attention brought by these organizations (Kern 2010, 200-201). The Palestinian children of Tuba have now walked to and from school with an Israeli military escort since 2004. However, the condition for this was that internationals stop accompanying these children. So, instead, CPTers and Doves set up a daily “patrol from a distance at each end of the route…[to observe and document]…whether the soldiers arrived on time, whether they walked with the children instead of making them run behind the jeep, and whether they protected them from settlers” (Kern 2009, 200-201). (See photos in Appendix A.) The conduct of the military accompaniers has varied. CPT then regularly submitted their findings about the operation to

Ta’ayush and Machsom Watch, who in turn submitted the information to the Israeli Knesset Committee on the Rights of the Child (Kern 2009, 201). CPT was part of this constant school patrol for at-Tuwani until 2011, when the team brought to a close its ongoing presence in the village. The school patrol continues today under Operation Dove.

129

CPT touted this move as a success because of increased help for the villagers among other NGOs

(CPTNet 2011b). However, the decision to transfer the At-Tuwani Team back to Hebron also stemmed from a reduction in the number of CPTers serving on the overall Palestine Project.

It was lack of personnel....The Doves took responsibility with the understanding that CPT was only a phone call and an hour away. And CPTers would and still do periodically come down and stay a few days to maintain relationships and keep current when team responsibilities in Hebron allow that. While the Doves and CPT cover the school patrols and other accompaniment, there are other organizations that help with schools and buildings, etc. Also others have partnered in different ways, like the Israeli organization Arij (http://www.arij.org/) has worked with people in Tuwani to document and help protect their land and water resources. The Association For Civil Rights in Israel (http://www.acri.org.il/en/) has worked with people in Tuwani to try and get them connected to running water and electricity (Rick Polhamus, email, May 17, 2014).

Today in the South Hebron Hills, CPTers provide direct accompaniment to school children and their “bus” driver on the way to and from the Al-Fakheit School in their all-terrain jeep. Israeli authorities designated a live-ammunition firing zone in this Palestinian-populated area now known as Firing Zone

918. (See Figures 7 and 8 in Chapter 4 for maps including villages of Firing Zone 918.) CPTers rotate throughout the week with volunteers of Operation Dove, ISM, and EAPPI to provide daily accompaniment for these children due to the fear of Israeli soldiers (Jonathan Brenneman, email, October

28, 2013). CPT and their partners have met with success with this operation. However, as Chapter 3 points out in greater detail, soldiers detained and harassed this driver on two occasions and destroyed the tires on the jeep when CPT was short-staffed and unable to provide accompaniment.

As the number of CPTers is limited, they also supplement direct accompaniment with a general school patrol. CPTers patrol the streets at specific times of the day when students are walking to and from school. They watch for concerns and interact with the children in appropriate ways to build their trust. In this way, CPTers are not accompanying specific students on a regular basis, but rather are creating a consistent international presence along the school route.

Another tactic is to situate CPTers at strategic checkpoints during the same times to monitor the behavior of the soldiers. (See photos in Appendix A.) In March 2013, CPTNet reported that

Two of the schools attended by children living in and around the Old City lie within the “H2” area of Hebron, which is under the control of Israeli soldiers and police. In order to reach their

130

schools, children and teachers must pass through metal detectors. Soldiers frequently search their backpacks and briefcases. High school students and teachers are sometimes subject to body searches, and frequent ID checks often make both teachers and students late for school….CPT monitors two of the checkpoints used each school day by children and teachers attending school in H2 ( CPTNet 2013e).

Again, CPT’s presence is in an effort to deter violence and guard against harassment and abuses.

They count the number of schoolchildren passing through the checkpoints and observe and document their treatment. CPT reports human rights abuses against the children at these checkpoints to organizations such as Save the Children and UNICEF (Jonathan Brenneman, public address, February 27,

2014, Wilmington, Ohio). If CPTers witness mistreatment, they also intervene with inquiries or appropriate forms of nonviolent intervention, and they document the incident. In their 2013 “Strategic

Plan,” the Palestine Team identified intervention during human rights violations as one of their objectives within the accompaniment goal. CPTers also actively engage Israeli soldiers at the checkpoints in conversation whenever possible in an effort to build relationships with Israelis who are doing their military service in the Occupied West Bank.

Although school children in Hebron and the South Hebron Hills villages are a major focus of

CPT work, CPTers also accompany adults in many situations. Over the years, farmers and shepherds in

At-Tuwani have been among the most vulnerable. CPTers experienced firsthand a settler attack during one of their early acts of accompaniment in At-Tuwani in January 2003. They went to the village with members of Ta’ayush to accompany a Palestinian farmer so he could safely plow his field. However, settlers began shooting at the farmer from an outpost overlooking the field. Around 12 of them then ran down the hill, still shooting and using slingshots to hurl rocks. The settlers knocked CPTer Lorne Friesen to the ground, smashed his camera, destroyed the film, and hit him in the head. The settlers also punched

CPTer Greg Rollins. “Settler security personnel arrived at the scene, detained a Palestinian who had thrown stones at the settlers, shifted the tractors into neutral, and pushed them down the hill so they flipped over” (Kern 2009, 199).

From 2004 to 2011, the joint team of CPT and Operation Dove regularly accompanied the farmers and shepherds of At-Tuwani. One of the worst threats for the shepherds occurred in 2005, when

131 settlers from the Havat Ma’on outpost laid poison-covered barley and later poison pellets in the hills and valleys around Ma’on where the sheep grazed and near a Palestinian water source. “Since the villagers’ flocks not only represented their main source of income, but was also a staple of their diet, the loss was catastrophic….[I]n the end, the villagers from At-Tuwani and Mufakara lost more than one hundred animals” (Kern 2009, 203). CPTers worked with the villagers, the Doves, and Israeli groups to pick up the pellets in an effort to clean up the countryside for the sheep and goats. When not on school patrol,

CPTers and Doves accompanied shepherds as they grazed their flocks near the settlements and farmers as they prepared the land and planted and harvested crops. “Regaining grazing and farmland, from which settlers had driven them, sometimes for years, became one of the key goals of the…campaign waged by the South Hebron Hills villagers” (Kern 2009, 202). Joint CPT-Dove accompaniment over the years has contributed to the success of this effort.

Laura Ciaghi (2014) believes that the experience during these years suggests that an international civilian presence positively impacts the behavior of violent actors (9). During a January 2011 delegation visit to At-Tuwani, delegates joined a CPTer in accompanying a Palestinian farmer from At-Tuwani in his tiered fields on the rugged hillside below the settlement. (See photos in Appendix A.) On this day, he plowed two of the fields undisturbed, but a third field, which was higher up and closest to the settlement, lay fallow. The farmer had previously abandoned this field because of the overwhelming challenges. Not only had he experienced harassment while working that land, but settlers had repeatedly either destroyed or stolen large amounts of the crops. Without the international presence, he may well have been forced to abandon all of his land and even move from the area, as was the pattern emerging prior to the international presence. Speaking through a translator, a spokesperson for the At-Tuwani villagers and member of the Popular Committee for Nonviolent Resistance told the delegation group that the work done by CPT and Operation Dove allowed the local farmers to reclaim much of their land through nonviolence (Leppert-Wahl, CPT delegation experience, 2011).

In addition, CPT has had occasion to offer accompaniment and other forms of assistance to

Israelis, although these are much less frequent. The most touted example is CPT’s accompaniment of

132

Israeli bus #18 in Jerusalem in 1996. After the Palestinian militant group Hamas bombed the #18 bus twice on two successive Sunday mornings, CPTers accompanied Israeli riders in the morning on the following Sunday. Prior to this action, the team condemned the bombings and announced their intentions to ride bus #18 to Israeli police and all Palestinian political movements. CPTNet also carried the announcement and included the following statement:

“Unlike many of the somewhat predictable acts of violence to which we have responded in Hebron, such as house demolitions by the Israeli army and harassment of Palestinians by Israeli settlers, acts of violence by the Islamic Resistance Movement have generally been unannounced, making it difficult for CPT Hebron to try to prevent them,” wrote the CPT Team in announcing its plan to the local media. “In this instance, however, we feel that the repeated attacks on bus #18 constitute an implied threat for next Sunday morning. Therefore we feel called to respond to this threat by stating publicly that if bus #18 is attacked next Sunday, CPT Hebron will be on it” (CPTNet 1996, 52-53).

CPTer Greg Rollins recalls a number of incidents in which he stepped in to protect Israelis and their property during his three years in Palestine beginning in 2001. His examples include a time he stood in the way of a Palestinian woman attempting to stab Israeli soldiers and another occasion when he stepped in to stop Palestinians from damaging Israeli vehicles (Rollins, pers. comm., October 15, 2011,

Chicago). CPT’s ability to come to the aid of Israelis, however, is hampered by CPT’s relationship with most settlers in Hebron and the South Hebron Hills. These settlers do not turn to CPTers for help. Instead they view the presence of CPT and other internationals with hostility. It has been very difficult for CPTers to develop a rapport with settlers, despite their best efforts (Polhamus, pers. comm., February 8, 2013,

Wilmington, Ohio). Patrick Coy (2012) argues that this distrust also stems from CPT’s partisanship in favor of the Palestinians and the direct threat the activists pose to the settlers’ quality of life.

Nonviolent Resistance and Advocacy

“…CPT activists become intimately involved in the activities of those they accompany. In many ways,…CPT is a ‘solidarity’ organisation” (Coy 2012, 9). The work of CPT in Palestine includes

“supporting Palestinian nonviolent resistance to the occupation in coordination with Israeli and international organizations” (CPT 2014a). By design, the work of CPT crosses the threshold from neutral

133 accompaniment to overt solidarity with the Palestinians under occupation. CPT’s Training Coordinator

Kryss Chupp asserts that CPT’s work is much broader than mere accompaniment.

CPT has never defined its work as strictly accompaniment. It’s more a description of some of the aspects of our work….The work of nonviolence has really been the guiding force, and that often takes the form of accompaniment…. But as distinct from groups like Peace Brigades International, who do define their mission very strictly as an accompaniment,... CPT’s mandate and way of working is broader than that direct understanding of accompaniment (interview, June 28, 2013, Chicago).

In addition, CPT has a history of lending a voice to the oppressed and disenfranchised and those with disproportionately less power and less access to media. An article shared at the Peacemaker Corps trainings and echoed by many CPTers states, “we take sides, just as the God of peace, justice and nonviolence takes side” (Dear 2006). From its roots in the historic peace churches, the organization professes,

We believe Jesus witnessed publically in a prophetic critique of the social, political, religious and economic structures of his time. In this tradition of Jesus - a tradition carried on by Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., Badshan Khan [Pashtun leader and nonviolent activist], and many, many others - CPT organizes and encourages nonviolent public witness, sometimes called nonviolent direct action, as a method of social transformation towards an envisioned Kin-dom of God. (CPT 2010r).

In many ways, CPT practices solidarity with Palestinians through public witness. Following the lead of Palestinian partners, and at times in conjunction with Israeli and international peace activists,

CPTers have helped to plant and harvest crops, replaced olive trees destroyed by settlers, rebuilt homes demolished by the IDF, dismantled barricades and roadblocks, conducted nonviolence training, and helped organize and participated in demonstrations and acts of civil disobedience to support Palestinians’ nonviolent efforts. Tricia Gates Brown (2005) points out CPT’s practice of “challenging structural violence and domination” (14). This challenge has often involved the organization’s use of nonviolent direct action to support Palestinian rights.

CPTers engaged in an early act of civil disobedience at Hebron University in 1996. The bus bombings in Jerusalem and others in Ashkelon and Tel Aviv resulted in general reprisals against the

Palestinian population, including the closure of Palestinian universities in the West Bank.

134

Despite the fact that no faculty, staff, or students from Hebron University were ever implicated in the bombings, the Israeli government sealed the university on March 5, 1996, forcing students to meet in schools and other buildings scattered throughout the city of Hebron. CPT began meeting regularly with students and faculty in spring 1996 to discuss strategies for re-opening the university (Kern 2010, 55).

On December 9, 1996, nine months after its closure, CPTers physically removed barricades placed by Israeli soldiers to a pedestrian gate and a vehicle entrance to Hebron University. CPTers originally suggested the action. University officials approved it but stipulated that Israeli peace activists also be invited to participate (Lyke and Bock 2000, 10). CPTers then accompanied approximately 200 students onto the campus in violation of the university’s closure. “During the two weeks that followed, students held ‘sit-ins’ near the front gate in the mornings. Finally on December 28 the University was reopened, perhaps due in part to CPT’s urgent action alerts that fostered international pressure” (Lyke and

Bock, 2000, 10-12). CPTer Cliff Kindy, who participated in removing the barriers, concluded that CPT’s actions to reopen Hebron University also put Palestinian education in the Occupied Territories higher up on the agenda between Israelis and Palestinians (interview, July 1, 2013, North Manchester, Indiana). In addition, during the “sit-ins,” CPTers conducted informal nonviolence training for the students to empower them to continue their resistance against the injustices of the Occupation. They referred to these sessions as “English lessons” (since they were taught in English and there was new vocabulary being introduced) in case Israeli soldiers questioned the activities (Kindy).

Kindy also describes how in the early years of CPT’s work in Palestine, CPTers would often spontaneously get involved and then spend days helping Palestinians with projects already underway such as rebuilding houses demolished by the IDF or removing road blocks. There was less planning and structure to the work at that time. He observes that he has seen CPT move from “a movement to an institution” in terms of policies, organizational structures, and institutional mechanisms (interview, July 1,

2013, North Manchester, Indiana). For the past several years, the Palestine Team has met with a professional facilitator, who is also a CPT reservist, to determine what shape their solidarity and other activities will take.

135

In September 2013, the Palestine Team met in facilitated sessions to systemize the specific goals and objectives for the team. Portions of the 2013 “Strategic Plan” express CPT’s aim to provide solidarity, specifically Goal 4, “[t]o encourage and support Israeli and Palestinian nonviolent resistance to the occupation so that we empower grassroots development.” In addition, Goal 6 calls for the team to

“develop Short-Term projects resulting from the identification of needs,” which include projects such as

Firing Zone 918 and the Rajabi Building. (See Appendix B for Goals and Objectives in the 2013-2014

Strategic Plan.)

On September 1, 2013, “CPT attended a demonstration in solidarity with the families from the

Wadi al-Hussein area of Hebron, where the al-Rajabi house is located. Demonstrators shouted in Arabic,

‘No to settlements!’ highlighting the possible future of the Rajabi building” (CPTNet 2013f). The building lies between the Kiryat Arba settlement and Hebron’s Old City, and Israeli settlers have been attempting to take it over since 2007. The Hebron Rehabilitation Committee (HRC), a Palestinian organization, organized the demonstration. CPT joined the HRC, Youth Against Settlements and the

Hebron Defense Committee, both also Palestinian organizations, as well as the International Solidarity

Movement (ISM) and the Ecumenical Accompaniment Programme for Palestine and Israel (EAPPI) to offer their voice of condemnation against the establishment of a new illegal settlement outpost that would further interfere with Palestinian mobility.

Far beyond participation in this single demonstration, CPT is involved in a larger campaign to prevent settlers from taking control of the Rajabi Building. Settlers claiming to have purchased the building occupied it in 2007. The settlers were evicted in 2008, when police determined that some of the documents of the sale were forgeries, and the Israeli Supreme Court denied the settlers’ petition to appeal the eviction. On September 13, 2012, however, the Jerusalem Magistrate’s Court ruled that the house belonged to the settlers. As of December 27, 2013, there is in place an “injunction to freeze the implementation of the 13 September ruling that the Israeli military and police must allow the settlers to move in within thirty days, until a final decision regarding the appeal at the Supreme Court” (CPTNet

2012b). “The CPT Palestine Team “believes that the settlers' intention to occupy the Al Rajabi building is

136 motivated by this ideology which would create territorial continuity between the Kiryat Arba settlement and settlements in the center of the Old City. [They] fear this will lead to more detentions and greater restrictions of movement for Palestinians living in the area” (CPTNet, 2012b). They are concerned that the IDF will conduct more house searches if settlers permanently move in. They also fear that there will be an increase in settler violence against Palestinians, which is what occurred during the 2007-2008 occupation of the building.

For these reasons and because the settlement would be illegal under international law, CPT has engaged in a campaign in solidarity with and of advocacy for the Palestinians who would be affected by the establishment of a settlement in the Al Rajabi building. CPT has worked “closely with UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), the Hebron Rehabilitation Committee (HRC) and others to stop settlers from occupying the building and to show the consequences for Palestinians the last time the settlers occupied the house” (CPTNet 2012b). Specifically, CPTers conducted and made public interviews with Palestinian families living by the Al Rajabi building and Kiryat Arba settlement to learn about their experiences and gauge their fears under the circumstances. CPT worked with HRC to issue a statement condemning the court decision to allow settlers to take possession of the building and to offer a legal analysis of the proceedings (CPTNet 2012b). In addition, CPT has called on supporters to contact their members of Congress or Parliament about the issue. These efforts are in line with the Palestine

Team’s goal (Goal 9) of “advocate[ing] and lobby[ing] for change in order to create a space for justice and peace for Palestinians” stated within the 2013 “Strategic Plan.”

Working jointly with Operation Dove, Ta’ayush, and Machsom Watch, CPT successfully advocated for the protection of the Palestinian population of At-Tuwani in the face of a threat from the

Ma’on settlers in 2005. According to Ciaghi (2014, 10), The Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade killed three young

Israeli settlers from the Ma’on and Karmel settlements in a drive-by shooting at Gush Etzion, 35 miles from At-Tuwani, on October 16, 2005. Three days later, the person responsible for security at Ma’on advised the internationals to leave At-Tuwani because settlers from Ma’on were planning a retaliatory attack on the village even though “[n]o At-Tuwani resident was involved” (CPTNet 2005). CPTers

137 contacted a spokesperson for the Israeli army, who confirmed the military’s intention not to intervene in the matter. CPTers including Diana Zimmerman, Jenny Elliot, and Rich Meyer asked appropriate support groups to contact specific individuals within the Israeli military administration and demand the protection of the Palestinian civilian population in the face of this threat. This included the use of an “action alert,” a tool used regularly to mobilize CPT supporters. “Urgent Actions & Prayer Alerts urge supporters to take specific action on behalf of threatened individuals and communities” (CPT 2010x). “Action alerts” are released through CPTNet and emailed to supporters. In an update, Rich Meyer wrote,

We are grateful for all the calls you made. We believe that the critical message that your calls conveyed is that the world is watching and people are aware of events in the South Hebron Hills, and this attention helped convince the Israeli authorities to respond to the threat of violence (CPTNet 2005).

In response to the pressure from international and Israeli peace activists, the military decided to post soldiers and military vehicles between the Ma’on outpost and At-Tuwani, which proved to be enough to dissuade the settlers from attacking the village. Laura Ciaghi contends that this episode demonstrates the influence that even this small sector of the international community can have on the

Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The scenario also demonstrates the level of soft power wielded by CPT and its

NGO network in the region. The international presence and actions provided effective protection for

Palestinian villagers in this case (2014, 10). CPT also worked in conjunction with Israeli partner organizations for both information and outreach to their supporters throughout the incident.

In a further example of advocacy, CPT circulated a petition via another “action alert” to persuade

“U.S. Secretary of State, John Kerry…to demand that the Israeli military cease its ongoing live fire training in the South Hebron Hills and stop trying to expel the more than 1,000 Palestinian shepherd families from their villages” (CPTNet 2013h). CPTers and Israeli peace activists have used the petition, aimed at US policy makers, to pressure Israeli courts deciding the fate of these Palestinians, including 452 children, whose families have lived on this land for generations. These 12 Palestinian communities fall within “Area C,” under full Israeli administrative and military control, and have been designated “Firing

Zone 918” by the Israeli administration. The Palestinian residents within eight of these villages face

138 eviction orders, and many of the structures within their communities have demolition orders against them.

“The Israeli military wants to force the villagers off their land so they can use the land for live fire training, which is in absolute contravention of international humanitarian law, including the Fourth

Geneva Convention, Article 49, and the Hague Regulations, Articles 46 and 52” (CPTNet 2013f). CPT not only offers regular accompaniment to the Palestinian villagers, such as the school children and their bus driver, but also sponsored the petition on behalf of them along with other NGOs such as Ta’ayush,

ISM, and Operation Dove. Thus far, the pressure from CPT and other global civil society actors has contributed to a court-ordered mediation process between the Israeli military and the villages within the firing zone, development benefitting the schools in the villages of al-Fakheit and Jinba, and “access to the area by international humanitarian organizations” (CPTNet 2014b).

CPT’s solidarity with Palestinians under Occupation is not without criticism. Patrick Coy (2012) argues that CPT’s use of nonviolent direct action in solidarity with Palestinians seems to create reprisals from Israeli security forces and even more from Israeli settlers, whose quality of life is threatened by

CPT’s work. “CPT’s actions likely represent real economic risks to the settlers whose settling apparently includes an intention to push the Palestinians out of these newly settled and now contested areas through consistent intimidation” (13-14). In contrast, the work of Peace Brigades International (PBI) in conflict zones does not elicit punitive responses from bellicose parties because of their commitment to “the principles of non-partisanship and non-interference in the internal affairs of the organisations [they] accompany” (Peace Brigades International 2014). PBI practices strict third-party accompaniment of human rights defenders and communities at risk for political violence without taking part in any of the work of the organizations they accompany. They maintain that their “objectivity increases [their] credibility with all parties to the conflict and gives [them] access to authorities nationally and internationally” (Peace Brigades International 2014).

CPT chooses instead to work cooperatively with the vulnerable communities and other human rights activists in an effort to give not only moral, but also physical, support to their efforts to transform oppressive systems. CPT’s choice of partisan work to strengthen the grassroots initiatives creates greater

139 bonds and trust between CPTers and the local population at risk and offers CPT opportunities to mentor to and advocate on behalf of the weaker party in the conflict. However, this choice does come with a cost.

Kern (2010) has expressed concern that CPT’s nonviolent direct action could potentially lead settlers to retaliate against Palestinians. This was clearly the thinking in 1995 when, after more intense settler threats, the headmistress for the Qurtuba School asked CPT and Hebron Solidarity Committee to stop accompanying the school girls into the school (Kern 2010, 33). Settlers are also more likely to respond violently toward CPTers than the Israeli soldiers or police. Israeli security forces have not ignored CPT, however. Coy argues that unlike PBI, “Christian Peacemakers have frequently been directly singled out and detained by police” (2012, 9). The Israeli authorities have also denied some CPTers entry into Israel

(and by extension the West Bank) including Michael Good, Kurtis Unger, and Kathleen Kerns in 2002;

Wendy Lehman, Cliff Kindy, Robert Laiman in earlier years; and Jonathan Brenneman and two CPT reservists in 2013 (Kern 2010, 190-191; CPTNet 2014a).

However, there has already been evidence presented in this work that CPT’s presence and actions have offered some protection to the Palestinian population in specific cases. In the cases of villagers in and around At-Tuwani and the students and faculty of Hebron University, CPT has also empowered these

Palestinians to pressure the Israeli authorities to substantially improve their situations. The organization continues to provide the world community with footage and accounts of human rights violations under the

Occupation and nonviolent resistance in the face of these. As one Palestinian man expressed to CPT delegates in January 2011, “Prior to the internationals, brutality and oppression took place, so CPTers and other internationals are not the problem. Internationals are important not only for protection but also education of the outside world” (Leppert-Wahl, CPT delegation experience, 2011). In addition, nonviolent Palestinians draw strength from their partnership with CPT. Nobel Peace Laureate Mairead

Corrigan Maguire writes,

[T]he presence of Christian Peacemaking Teams in the occupied territories is very important. I have visited members of CPT in Hebron and stayed in orphanages with them. I know how courageous they are, and how much Palestinian communities appreciate their work of peacemaking and friendship (2008).

140

Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions

Palestinian civil society initiated the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement in order to pressure Israel into honoring human rights and complying with international law by:

1. Ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands and dismantling the Wall; 2. Recognizing the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality; and 3. Respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN resolution 194 (Palestinian BDS National Committee 2005).

Over 170 Palestinian NGOs endorsed the call for the BDS on July 9, 2005, “a year after the International

Court of Justice’s historic advisory opinion on the illegality of Israel’s Wall in the Occupied Palestinian

Territories” (Palestinian BDS National Committee 2005). These NGOs, representing Palestinians under occupation, Palestinian citizens of Israel, and Palestinian refugees, called upon people “all over the world to launch broad boycotts, implement divestment initiatives, and…demand sanctions against Israel, until

Palestinian rights are recognized in full compliance with international law” (Palestinian BDS National

Committee 2005). International and even Israeli NGOs such as Rabbis for Human Rights, Breaking the

Silence, and the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions have since lent their support to the movement.

In February 2010, CPT formally endorsed the global BDS movement as part of their expression of solidarity with Palestinians and advocacy for the reduction of foreign support for the Occupation. On

August 10, 2010, the Palestine Team released an “action alert” urging CPT’s constituencies to participate in the BDS movement:

On 23 February 2010, CPT-Palestine endorsed the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement (see complete statement) “because sixty years of negotiations and diplomacy have only enabled Israel to solidify its military occupation of Palestine. The international community has long called for Palestinian society to resist the violence of the Occupation nonviolently, so we, as members of an international peace organization, believe that when Palestinians mount nonviolent campaigns against the Occupation, we are morally obligated to support them.” Our endorsement followed the KAIROS Palestine document, a statement from Palestinian Christians, who wrote: “These advocacy campaigns must be carried out with courage, openly and sincerely proclaiming that their object is not revenge but rather to put an end to the existing evil, liberating both the perpetrators and the victims of injustice. The aim is to free both peoples from extremist

141

positions of the different Israeli governments, bringing both to justice and reconciliation. In this spirit and with this dedication we will eventually reach the longed-for resolution to our problems, as indeed happened in South Africa and with many other liberation movements in the world” (CPTNet 2010).

CPTers use ongoing “action alerts,” public speaking opportunities, and workshops to continue to educate and encourage others to support the BDS and to provide suggestions for concrete action steps.

Gerald Steinberg claims that the transnational advocacy network supporting the BDS aims to isolate and dismantle Israel “as an apartheid state” (2011, 41). In an interview on National Public Radio

(NPR), Steinberg made the assertion that the BDS movement is an industry creating Palestinian victimization and denying the Jewish right to self-determination (Olney 2014). Steinberg’s criticism of the BDS and those NGOs in support of it find company among many Israelis and Jewish Americans, among others. Even some of those who oppose the Occupation do not agree with the BDS strategy as it does not clearly affirm Israel’s right to exist and it targets all of Israel and not just companies and individuals contributing to the expansion of settlements. Peter Beinart points out that the BDS movement’s demand for full equality can be interpreted as denying any Jewish public character to the state of Israel and the right of return for Jews in distress (Olney 2014).

CPT has aligned itself with an NGO network drawing criticism from a growing number of Jews and supporters of Israel. The Israeli government and public could perceive CPT’s endorsement of the

BDS as a direct threat to Israel. Gerald Steinberg (2011) portrays CPT and others supporting the BDS as anti-Israeli. These perceptions may form even more with the recent acceleration of the BDS movement.

Scandinavian, Dutch, and German banks, pension funds, and companies have begun divesting from

Israeli banks and companies (Olney 2014). The Presbyterian Church (USA) also voted to divest $21 million from occupation-linked multinational corporations. The American Jewish Committee, for example, called the Presbyterian Church’s divestment “a set-back for Israeli-Palestinian peace and a breach with [the] Jewish community” (Weiss and Kane 2014). Even though CPT professes to support the

BDS in response to Israel’s repressive policies, the organization’s support for the movement draws valid

142 criticism for its censuring of one of the parties to the conflict while publically limiting criticism of

Palestinians.

Conclusion

After 20 years in Hebron, CPT has become firmly entrenched in the Palestinian community.

Since the early years of the Palestine Project, CPTers have engaged in all the forms of public witness examined in this chapter with the exception of the BDS movement, which they endorsed in 2010. CPTers still provide accompaniment on a daily basis, especially for school children. Their time and attention have shifted to include new forms of civil disobedience, nonviolent resistance, and advocacy, and now some

BDS work.

CPT has created a niche within the nonviolence movement in Palestine for itself and other newer nonviolence organizations, some of which will be discussed in Chapter 7. CPT’s presence in the heart of the conflict zone in H2 has fostered a great deal of trust from the Palestinian community in and around

Hebron. CPTers’ willingness to sacrifice their comfort and put their lives on the line for the people they accompany has earned them acceptance and the confidence of the local population. For almost two decades, CPTers have accompanied Palestinian school children to and from school. Their accompaniment work in this area has undoubtedly resulted in safer passages for many of the children. Their work has enabled Palestinian children to continue an education over the years with less fear and fewer interruptions. There is also ample evidence that the presence of internationals including CPT’s long-term team in At-Tuwani created a space for the farmers and shepherds to continue working on their land and maintaining their homes in the face of settlers’ threats. Palestinians in Hebron and the South Hebron Hills have given testimonials of the direct impact CPT has had in their lives. CPT’s accompaniment, which has created a long-term quality of life and “normalcy” enabling Palestinians to remain in their communities, has provided the most successful outcome from its work in Israel/Palestine.

A shortage of personnel, however, has forced the Palestine Team to sacrifice some accompaniment opportunities. Whereas there might be other NGOs in place to continue this service, as is the case in At-Tuwani, breakdowns in accompaniment can and do put Palestinians at risk. The team either

143 needs to reduce its workload with less attention to some of the other public witness strategies or increase the number of CPTers on site.

CPT has employed tactics involving civil disobedience, nonviolent resistance, and advocacy.

These methods have fostered a great sense of solidarity with Palestinians. Active solidarity with the

Palestinians enables CPTers to build trust and transmit nonviolence skills (through both modeling and training) more easily to the oppressed population. CPT’s accompaniment and solidarity work supports the development and empowerment of its local partners. However, CPT’s civil disobedience and lack of neutrality has antagonized Israeli settlers, soldiers, and government authorities in some cases making it more difficult to create a bridge between the adversaries. Organizations such as Peace Brigades

International and Amnesty International, which do not engage in civil disobedience or nonviolent resistance, are in better positions to reach out to the mainstream populations and actors on both sides of a conflict. CPT may also hamper peace-building efforts by consistently focusing on Israeli causes for

Palestinian suffering without openly scrutinizing Palestinians’ culpability.

In recent years, CPT has deepened its solidarity with the Palestinian cause by endorsing the global BDS movement. CPTs’ participation in the BDS movement – its promotion of an anti-Israeli boycott and divestment campaign among its individual and church supporters - has tremendous potential for creating greater hostility to the organization. The Israeli authorities as well as Israeli citizens and

Jewish Americans may find this broader and more aggressive action more threatening and even liken it

(mistakenly) to anti-Semitism. In 2013 alone, for example, the Israeli authorities refused to allow three

CPTers into Israel, although no one has claimed that this was a direct result of CPT’s support for the

BDS. It is in fact too early to tell what impact, if any, CPT’s endorsement for the Palestinian-led BDS will have, but CPT’s commitment to following the lead of its local partners almost necessitated this form of cooperation. This choice illustrates a potential tension between liberal values. Sometimes an important global civil society goal, that of developing greater solidarity with the local, in this case Palestinian, populations comes into conflict with the cosmopolitan goal of cultivating cross-cultural understanding, in

144 this case between Palestinians and Jews. Working on behalf of one population can potentially estrange even some of the more moderate members of the other community.

Chapter 5 has focused on CPT’s public witness strategies on the ground in Palestine. They are directed toward reducing violence against and bringing justice to the Palestinians under occupation.

Chapter 6 will examine CPT’s information politics, those strategies to inform and educate an outside public and mobilize support for their mission in the occupied West Bank.

145

Chapter 6 CPT’s Information Politics

Do you bring in a lamp to put it under a bowl or a bed? Instead, don’t you put it on its stand? …[W]hatever is concealed is meant to be brought out into the open. [Mark 4:21-22 NIV]

Introduction

CPT’s public witness activities in Palestine allow the activists to observe and document what is occurring on the ground. They then employ writing and other media skills to convey these accounts to people outside the area in order to inform and educate. These accounts take the form of reports destined for government officials or reporting agencies and stories and alerts designed to raise international public awareness. CPT also uses short-term delegation trips to Israel/Palestine as an educational tool. This range of activities receives the label “information politics.”21 Ultimately, CPT aspires to motivate individuals to take action in support of the Palestine Team’s mission and partners through these endeavors.

This chapter examines how CPT engages in information politics as it informs and educates, using three types of communication tools: reporting, public outreach, and delegations. It addresses the following questions: Have the communication tools effectively achieved the desired goals? In its public outreach efforts, which tools have met with the greatest success?

Reporting Human Rights Violations

Italian CPTer Laura Ciaghi writes, “During accompaniment, it is important to document possible human rights violations either by compiling a brief report or using a camcorder or camera” (2014, 9).

Documenting abuses is an integral part of the CPT accompaniment experience. “Photos and videos are often used in legal sessions, requested by media interested in covering an incident, and used to produce independent press releases,” explains Ciaghi (2014, 9-10). CPT is part of a larger global civil society network of organizations and institutions documenting and reporting on the violation of human rights and international humanitarian law under the Occupation.

21 Keck and Sikkink define “information politics” as “the ability to quickly and credibly generate politically usable information and move it to where it will have the most impact” (1998, 16).

146

The collection of records about human rights violations in the area and nonviolent resistance, the creation of reports, and their distribution are part of the strategy of disseminating as widely as possible accurate information about events in the area. This information, cross-checked with those of other sources used to verify accuracy, is used by local and international NGOs and institutions in the compilation of databases and reports at a national level” (Ciaghi 2014, 10).

Monitoring and documenting abuses often, but not always, involves accompaniment. Goal 8 of the Palestine Team’s 2013 “Strategic Plan” is “[t]o monitor and document the treatment of Palestinians with respect to human rights abuses and violations and to disseminate this information so that harassment

[or] overt physical violence can be reduced.” CPTers purposefully monitor the treatment of Palestinians at roadblocks and checkpoints, as described in Chapter 5. This monitoring also occurs during attacks, home or market invasions by IDF soldiers, and arrests and detentions (CPT 2013c). The detention and arrest of

Palestinian children, who are often confined for hours or months before trial or release, is a growing area of international concern and one that CPT has been monitoring and reporting for years. Other objectives for the Palestine Team are “[t]o document soldier and settler violence and harassment for advocacy purposes [and to] document and respond to Palestinian Authority breaches of human rights” (CPT 2013c).

CPT shares documentation with NGOs such as B’Tselem, the Israeli Information Center for

Human Rights in the Occupied Territories, and its Palestinian counterpart, al-Haq. United Nations agencies also receive CPT reports. For example, CPT apprises UNICEF of violations against Palestinian children’s right to get an education (Kryss Chupp, interview, June 28, 2013, Chicago). CPT also works closely with the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs on the illegal expansion of settlements (CPTNet 2012b). When CPTers like Laura Ciaghi were stationed in At-Tuwani until 2011, their reports concerning the treatment of school children escorted by soldiers to and from school reached the Israeli Knesset through Israeli NGOs Ta’ayush and Machsom Watch. CPT contributed greatly to the international coverage of the 2004 settler violence against CPTers accompanying the children. CPT reports reached the Israeli Knesset Committee for the Rights of the Child, which then acted to protect the children with the provision of a military escort. (See Chapter 5 for details.) CPTers also frequently write letters and statements to American, Canadian, and other government officials describing systematic human rights violations against the Palestinian population and imploring them to take action.

147

Among the training materials used for the general Peacemaker Corps training and available on the

CPT website is “Documenting Human Rights Abuses” (2006), excerpts from “The Human Rights

Information Manual: Tools for Grassroots Action,” kept at every project site. “Every CPTer is encouraged to become thoroughly acquainted with this resource from cover to cover” (CPT 2006, 7). The training document states, “Effective first hand reporting on incidents of human rights abuses at the grassroots level is one way CPT works to reduce violence. Sometimes lives can be saved when violations are flushed from the shadows into the international spotlight” (1). CPTers learn how to collect information through photography and interviews. Training materials include sample interview questions for investigating human rights violations in situations such as torture, arrest and detention, and execution (CPT 2006). CPT instruction also includes how to identify and gather sufficient evidence to demonstrate patterns of abuse that are being carried out.

CPTers must make tough choices at times in order to gather convincing evidence of abuses. For example, one evening in May 2002, CPTer Rick Polhamus joined representatives of B’Tselem to clandestinely observe and document a game of torture that Israeli soldiers stationed at a Hebron checkpoint had allegedly been playing. Some community members had given accounts that the soldiers were forcing individual Palestinians travelling alone at night to draw a piece of paper out of a helmet. On each of the folded papers in the helmet, the soldiers had written the name of a body part, and the one that was chosen was the one they would break. From a dark room in an adjacent building, the activists witnessed the soldiers carry out this macabre game, as they broke the arm of a Palestinian man forced to participate. Rick Polhamus has described this as one of the most difficult situations he would have to endure as a CPTer because he was quite certain of the outcome of what they were witnessing. However, he and the B’Tselem representatives felt that they could not intervene because they needed to provide independent corroboration that this torture was in fact occurring in order to work toward stopping it

(public address at Wilmington College, February 8, 2013, Wilmington, Ohio; email, April 30, 2014).

CPTers also have the opportunity to observe and then report human rights abuses that occur during some of their solidarity activities with Palestinians. The concern with CPT reports, however, is

148 that others have questioned the veracity of reports documented by activists intervening on behalf of one side of the conflict. NGOs such as B’Tselem and Amnesty International, which do not engage in partisan activities, provide reports of violations that are more likely to be accepted as objective and accurate.

CPT’s solidarity with Palestinians colors others’ perception of the organization’s ability to report fairly in any situation.

Public Outreach

CPT selects stories from the field to inform an international public and foster support for the work of the organization and its partners. CPT employs multiple tools to communicate these stories and keep supporters apprised of what is happening within the organization. These tools include the official CPT website, the “Signs of the Times” newsletter, traditional print media sources, “CPTNet” news emails and

CPT.D email forum, and individual CPTers’ blogs and public speaking engagements. In 1996, CPT sponsored the video Dead, Buried, and Living in Hebron.

Media and advocacy campaigns often make use of more than one communication tool at a time.

The goals of these campaigns are to create awareness, mobilize supporters to lobby governments, build financial support for CPT’s work, recruit CPTers, and ultimately change policy on the ground. CPT points to some success through its media campaigns. Gaining recognition for the plight of the school children in At-Tuwani and procuring military accompaniment for them serves as one example. Also, the

Palestine Team launched a media campaign to attempt to stop abuses when the notorious Golani Brigade of the Israeli military arrived in Hebron in December 2011. CPT documented a sharp increase in harassment and violent human rights violations against Palestinian civilians, especially youth and children. CPT credits its media and advocacy campaigns at least in part with the military’s decision to move the Golani Brigade out of Hebron a month ahead of schedule (CPTNet 2012c; CPT 2012f).

In recent years, CPT has begun using more digital media sources and social media. The organization has lessened its dependence on traditional print media sources, for which there is much greater competition for coverage. CPT has a press email list, but the organization does not generally release articles directly to US newspapers anymore unless “Hebron is in the middle of an international

149 news cycle” (Kathleen Kern, email, May 1, 2014). CPTers issue some press releases to Haaretz and other

Israeli outlets and are able to “point the finger of shame” in Israeli print media on occasion.

CPT still maintains a print version of its quarterly newsletter “Signs of the Times.” CPT first developed the newsletter in 1990 and mailed it out to subscribers. The Support Team still mails the print version of “Signs of the Times” but now also makes it available digitally via email. “[The newsletter] includes a digest of the most relevant news and photos from…project sites, plus selected letters and discussions about CPT's work” (CPT 2013c). Kryss Chupp, CPT’s Training Coordinator, also wears the hat of the Publication Coordinator/Newsletter Editor. She edits and does the layouts for the “Signs of the

Times” and other printed materials such as brochures and calendars (Chupp, interview, June 28, 2013,

Chicago). The newsletter was the primary way of communicating these accounts to supporters before the use of the Internet. It remains a central vehicle for communicating the stories of nonviolence from the field. When Chupp joined CPT In 1993, the printed version of “Signs of the Times” had between 2,500-

3,000 readers (Chupp, interview, June 2013, Chicago). In March 2014, 12,661 subscribers receive the print version – 10,431 in the US, 1,860 in Canada, and 370 in other countries – and 3,078 more subscribe to the digital version (Mark Frey, email, March 6, 2014).

A second function of the newsletter has evolved over time. CPT now uses “The Signs of the

Times” as a fundraising tool with an envelope for pledging enclosed in every edition. Some subscribers follow up the receipt of their newsletter with a financial donation to CPT. However, the organization does not yet have a firm sense of how many donations are in direct response to their informational newsletter.

We're still tracking this data. In 2012, in a three month period following a mailing, we received between 70-80 donations in the color-coded envelope [from the most recent newsletter]. But we also received 150-200 donations in regular donor-provided envelopes in that three month period. And to complicate it, we get donations in the remaining 9-month period in color-coded envelopes that went out much earlier in the year; some people save the envelopes and then use them much later. In 2012, the average in a three-month period following a newsletter mailing was: 252 donations, total donated $45,950 (Mark Frey, email, March 6, 2014).

CPT has produced some prolific writers, not only as regular contributors to the newsletter and

CPTNet, but a handful have also written or contributed to books about the organization. CPTers have written 10 books and one play over the years to document and share the work of CPT. Some of these deal

150 more broadly with the work of CPT or draw from multiple sites of operation such as Tricia Gates

Brown’s 2005 edited book Getting in the Way: Stories from Christian Peacemaker Teams and Kathleen

Kern’s 2009 volume In Harm’s Way: A History of Christian Peacemakers Teams. There are also works specifically written about CPT’s experiences in Palestine. These include Kern’s 2010 book As Resident

Aliens: Christian Peacemaker Teams in the West Bank, 1995-2005 and Arthur Gish’s earlier Hebron

Journal (2001) and At-Tuwani Journal (2008). In addition to individual sales, readers can borrow these titles from at least 16022 academic or public libraries primarily in the US and Canada (OCLC WorldCat database 2014). While modest, this number indicates some interest because libraries must proactively seek out these books from the small publishers used by CPT authors.

Kryss Chupp asserts that there is no specific requirement within CPT for articles or other writings. The emphasis is always on getting the stories out as this is the way that people connect with

CPT’s work and become willing to provide funding. More and more CPTers are adopting digital technology in their writing for the organization. Chupp notes that younger CPTers find it a particularly useful tool in their work, and blogging is now encouraged (interview, June 28 2013, Chicago). The

Palestine Team now also maintains a twitter account (https://twitter.com/cptpalestine), which connects to their blog. New CPTer Carole Powell joined the Palestine Team for a month in June 2013, and she posted almost daily on her blog “Checkpoints, Challenges, and Chai” (2013). Friends, family, and others followed the work of CPT in Hebron through Powell’s “journaling” and photos on her blog. Upon returning to the West Bank in May 2014, Powell also used Facebook to post photos and brief commentaries about her CPT work and events on the ground to her network of Facebook friends around the globe.

CPT uses the Internet for disseminating most of its stories and eliciting support for the mission and its partners. Most human rights NGOs now use the Internet to conduct “information politics” designed to expose human rights violations and pressure for change. Recent research suggests, however,

22 Based on library holdings for Arthur Gish’s Hebron Journal. Fewer libraries have copies of each of the other titles.

151 that most of these NGOs lack the resources to compete for either traditional news coverage or public attention on the Internet. “NGOs that manage to establish a leading reputation enjoy advantages (funding, membership) that make it difficult for other NGOs to compete” (Thrall, Stecula, and Sweet 2014, 135). In addition, technology has brought about the fragmentation of the audience as well as greater individual choice over what information is consumed, which creates new challenges for organizations with fewer organizational resources (150).

Today, CPT maintains a website at www.cpt.org. The website provides detailed information about the organization, the work at its Projects, and ways for individuals and ecumenical groups to become involved. It promotes media and advocacy campaigns to combat challenges on the ground and directs viewers to resources. For the Palestine Project, the website features the current “al-Rajabi

Building” campaign to stop the establishment of a new settlement in Hebron (see Chapter 5) and the

“Firing Zone 918/Stand with Masafer Yatta” campaign. The website offers an explanation of the situation in Masafer Yatta, home to 12 Palestinian villages in the South Hebron Hills, eight of which face eviction by the Israeli government, which wants to reserve this area for military training as “Firing Zone 918.” The

CPT website also provides an interactive report about the campaign to safeguard Masafer Yatta, links to published articles, reports by B’Tselem and OCHA, a petition to the Israeli ambassador, and more.

Table 5

CPT’s Website Visitors

2010-2011 2012-2013

Total # of visits 217,483 195,348

Unique visitors 152,753 143,513

New visitors (%) 69.4% 72.7% Source: CPT Office, Chicago, Illinois (2014).

152

CPT tracks website visits using Google Analytics, which breaks the data down into two-year periods. Table 5 above displays the figures for 2010-2013. The total number of visits and number of unique visitors declined in 2012-1013. The average number of daily visits for 2012-1013 was 267, down from 299 during 2010-2011.

CPT emails “action alerts” (see Chapter 5), “Prayers for Peacemakers” and CPTNet news articles.

CPT’s “Prayers for Peacemakers” are brief prayer requests for those doing the work of nonviolence, emailed to CPT supporters each Wednesday. “Prayers for Peacemakers,” are intended for church bulletins and use by congregations. Prayer and worship are “central to CPT’s identity” (CPT 2010y). The prayer requests have the goal of enlisting the body of believers in support of CPTers, their partners, and the victims of oppression. The email itself also provides links to relevant articles offering details about the people and situation for which the prayer request is made. In this way, it is designed to create a greater awareness of CPT’s work among subscribers, who include those from CPT’s sponsoring churches and ecumenical groups. Grounded in Christian faith, CPT promotes prayer as a tool for building resilience as teams and the people they serve face the violence of the world (CPT 2010y). For faith-driven pacifists, prayer serves as a nonviolent weapon in the struggle against violence and oppression.

CPTNet is the organization’s email news service, which delivers current stories from the project sites to 3,438 recipients (Mark Frey, email, March 6, 2014). Each story is approximately 400 words long, brief enough to keep the readers’ attention. In the training handout “Guidelines for Writing,” CPTNet is described in the following way:

CPTNet is the primary tool for reporting on CPT’s work in the field. Releases are distributed daily to a growing network [of] e-mail recipients….CPTNet reports on CPT work. Its purpose is to tell the stories of the people to whom we are connected and interpret the situation of violence we encounter from a grassroots perspective. Your firsthand, eyewitness accounts give CPT credibility and authority among our constituency (CPT 2007a).

Team members in the field contribute articles as events unfold. Through CPTNet articles, CPTers amplify the voices of Palestinians under occupation. These articles focus not only on newsworthy events affecting the local population and on the team’s involvement. CPTNet Editor Kathleen Kern has prepared new releases over the years. “[Kerns] is an excellent copy editor, but also she knows the audience

153 and…the projects, so she’s been a valuable bridge between those” (Sarah Thompson, interview, June 28,

2013, Chicago).

“[CPTNet] materials are often re-posted to other networks reaching thousands of people around the globe” (CPT 2007a). Numerous online news aggregators and bloggers re-post CPTNet stories. Those picking up and redistributing CPTNet news feeds dealing with Firing Zone 918, for example, include the

Church of the Brethren Newsline; Mondoweiss, a website providing American foreign policy news from a progressive Jewish perspective; Chicago Activism, an online source for news from activist organizations located in Illinois; and partner organizations. Many of CPT’s partners not only re-post

CPTNet releases, but also share the direct link to the CPT website so that readers can follow up with more information about the organization or issue. Partners that re-post CPTNet articles include Operation

Dove, the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions, International Solidarity Movement, Palestinian

Centre for Rapprochement, and the Hebron Rehabilitation Committee. The ability to freely and quickly re-post stories in digital form to people around the world is an advantage over the expense of distributing printed materials. Re-posting and sharing links may also offset, if even in a small way, some of the challenges of competition for audiences in this technological era, as individual consumers of information are directed by one organization of interest to another like-minded organization, in this case CPT.

Since 2012, CPT’s website, CPTNet releases, “Prayers for the Peacemakers,” and “action alerts” have been available in Spanish as well as English. Spanish-language information and articles benefit supporters of the Colombia Team in particular. However, Spanish speakers throughout Latin America now have access to all of these CPT sources and the information on all of the organization’s projects, including the Palestine Project. This is a step toward fostering support and activism among these Southern populations, which reflects CPT’s multicultural and communitarian vision.

CPT also offers CPT.D, an open email forum for CPTers and others. Subscribers use this for discussion about CPT’s work and vision. The organization encourages CPTers “to follow and participate in this forum to help keep the discussion grounded in CPT’s direct experience” (CPT 2007a).

154

Sarah Thompson, Interim Outreach Coordinator in 2013, points out that the organization itself has not been hesitant about adopting technology, although there has been ambivalence about the use of technology within the traditional peace churches supporting CPT. However, although CPT has adopted cutting edge technology as media and communication tools, Thompson recognizes the value in connecting with people in a more personal way.

We do not want to sacrifice the deep one-on-one conversations that it takes to form people’s [views]. We are not trying to become “clicktivists”23 saving the world by signing a change.org petition. And yes, it helps, but you’ve got to get out there and really put yourself on the line with everyone else. That’s what CPT promotes, not just armchair activism (interview, June 28, 2013, Chicago).

The organization also recognizes the need for the development of a cohesive social media strategy. CPT is searching for a director of communications and engagement to be hired in 2014. This person will take responsibility for developing this aspect of CPT’s information politics. With the addition of this director, CPT will have a comprehensive communication staff for the first time in its history

(Thompson, interview, June 28, 2013, Chicago).

In addition to print and digital forms of communication, CPT also relies heavily on public forums for creating awareness and support. Between their stints on team, CPTers often arrange public speaking engagements for themselves in order to share information about the issues and the nonviolence work of

CPT. The organization’s website provides a list of 24 speakers from Canada, the United Kingdom, and nine states and Washington, D.C. within the United States. Others are available to speak upon request.

CPTers often address classes at universities and other schools, civic groups, churches and other faith communities. Many return home to share experiences with their home congregations. Others have formed institutional relationships. For example, CPTer Rick Polhamus has been addressing classes and community groups at Quaker-founded Wilmington College in Wilmington, Ohio for over two decades.

Newer CPTer Jonathan Brenneman began sharing his experiences from work with the Palestine Team on the same college campus in 2013 and returned in early 2014. Their presentations not only tend to describe

23 Clictivism refers to the use of social media and the Internet to advance social causes.

155 the general challenges faced by the Palestinians under occupation and CPT’s work on the ground, but also through photos and stories, they bring a human dimension to the conflict.

Public presentations serve not only as an important tool for educating the public, but also for recruitment. Polhamus, Brenneman, and other CPTers typically issue an invitation for a delegation trip to those in their listening audience. A number of Wilmington College faculty and students as well as area residents, for example, have joined CPT delegations as a direct result of an invitation from Polhamus.

These delegates have shared their experiences with hundreds of other people, and delegate Michael Snarr actually served on CPT’s Steering Committee representing the Friends United Meeting after learning about CPT work through Rick Polhamus. However, none from this group has gone on to become a

CPTer. CPT’s Executive Director Sarah Thompson, on the other hand, credits her entry into the organization to CPTer Rich Meyers, who visited her school in 2001 and invited students to attend a CPT

Peacemaker Congress (interview, June 28, 2013, Chicago).

Whether presented orally, in print, or digitally, the stories themselves are important for creating a greater understanding about the challenges faced by the oppressed people and empathy toward them as fellow human beings. CPTers receive training to shape their personal accounts to focus on the individuals or the families affected by a conflict. They often introduce them by name and tell a little bit about their lives. It is a communitarian goal to search for common threads between peoples. The audience learns about individual injustices to which they can relate as opposed to overwhelming statistics about the broader conflict. For example, stories from Israel/Palestine might detail the trauma and other affects faced by a Palestinian family whose home is demolished by the IDF or the loss of livelihood that a man suffers whose olive trees have been uprooted by settlers. In Hebron and the South Hebron Hills, “school accompaniment proved to be an affective entry issue into the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for the CPT constituency,” writes Kern in her book In Harm’s Way (2009, 190).

People might feel confusion about the borders of Israel and Palestine; they might not know what to think about the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homeland, or whether Israeli military reprisals against a civilian population for acts of Palestinian terrorism where justified. However, just as almost no one thought demolishing Palestinian homes so settlements could

156

expand was a good idea, almost everyone thought that Palestinian children and teachers should be able to attend school without fear of assault or harassment (2009, 190-191).

By personalizing the stories on the ground in their writings and presentations, CPTers more effectively

“give voice” to the oppressed and create support for their mission.

Special Role of Delegations

One strategy used for both educating the public and recruiting support for CPT’s mission is the use of delegations. CPT offers a number of delegation trips each year to Israel/Palestine to those who are interested. Delegations provide individuals the opportunity to spend two weeks in the West Bank learning about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, experiencing the work and lifestyle of CPTers, and being introduced to CPT’s network of partners. After their establishment in 1995, the Palestine Team hosted the first CPT delegates in 1996. Delegation trips to Israel/Palestine are conducted in English, with the exception of a

German-language delegation in 2011 (CPTNet 2011a). CPT Delegations Coordinator Terra Winston also points out that a Swedish-language delegation was scheduled for 2013, but later cancelled due to a lack of participants (email, February 11, 2014).

A CPTer with experience on the Palestine Team often leads and is responsible for the delegation.

Rick Polhamus, who served full-time on the Palestine Team from 2000 to 2005, is currently a CPT reservist living in the US. Polhamus has led approximately a dozen delegations to Israel/Palestine over the years. Polhamus writes,

The delegation leaders are usually reservists who will only be with the team a short time before and after the delegation. In the past there used to be as many as 12 [regular and special] delegations a year and sometimes in addition to the delegation leader, a team member would be selected (by the team) to travel with the delegation and provide commentary and help with travel arrangements. This was usually when the delegation leader didn't have lots of experience or when the situation was more unpredictable (email, January 30, 2014).

In recent years, there have been between four to six regular delegations to Israel/Palestine offered each year (CPT 2014c). (See Table 6 below.) From time to time, the CPT Palestine Team also hosts special delegations arranged by other organizations. Polhamus comments that he has helped lead special delegations “organized by the Presbyterian Peace Fellowship, Sojourners…and The World Council of

Churches.” A member of the Church of the Brethren himself, Polhamus also has led special delegations

157 organized by On Earth Peace, a Church of the Brethren agency for which he works (email, January 30,

2014). In addition, between 1997 and 1999, during a time of increased house demolitions by the IDF,

CPT organized and hosted Rebuilders Against Bulldozers (RAB) delegations to the West Bank. RAB delegates spent their “first week touring Israel and Palestine and the second week in Hebron, meeting people facing demolition or whose homes were already demolished. When possible, these delegations assisted families in rebuilding the homes or agricultural terraces destroyed by the Israeli military (Kern

2009, 125).

Table 6

Christian Peacemaker Teams Regular Delegations to Israel/Palestine 1996-2013 ______

Year Number of Regular CPT Delegations ______

2013 4 2012 4 2011 6 2010 5 2009 6 2008 6 2007 5 2006 7 2005 6 2004 6 2003 7 2002 5 2001 4 2000 4 1999 4 1998 3 1997 1 1996 1 ______Sources: Information from 2008-2013 (CPT 2014, January 22, 2014). Information from 1996- 2007 from an email from CPT Delegations Coordinator Terra Winston, February 21, 2014.

Delegates are typically from the West – from the United States, Canada, Europe, and Australia.

Delegates must be at least 18 years of age, but range widely from young adults to senior citizens.

Delegates come out of different situations. Supporting denominations habitually send representatives on

158 delegations to be able to get first-hand accounts of the situation on the ground and the work being done by

CPT in the conflict zones. Other delegates are among CPT supporters who have developed an interest from hearing CPTers or former delegates speak about their experiences and/or receiving CPTNet or other form of communication from the organization. Some delegates are individuals interested in nonviolent activism in Israel/Palestine and have researched organizations providing nonviolent direct action in the area and have found CPT. On the January 2011 delegation led by Rick Polhamus, for example, there were nine Americans, two Australians, and a Dutch citizen. One of the delegates represented the Church of the

Brethren, a supporting denomination. Several had experience as activists in other settings and were looking for a way to plug into the nonviolence movement in Israel/Palestine. One of the delegates,

Michael Snarr, had actually been on an earlier delegation with CPT in Canada looking into indigenous population issues. In addition, a CPT Support Team member from the Chicago office served as one of the delegates on this trip (Leppert-Wahl, CPT delegation experience, 2011).

CPT’s delegations coordinator is responsible for arranging flights and communicating with delegates before and after the trip. Prior to the delegation trip, the delegations coordinator sends out a brief history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and information about the situation in and around Hebron and the work of the Palestine Team. The delegations coordinator also encourages participants to “spread the word” about the delegation experience. She offers suggestions for publicizing information about

CPT’s mission in Israel/Palestine and resources such as CPT brochures, newsletters, and delegation flyers to be distributed to the public upon the delegates’ return. The delegations coordinator also follows up with delegates after the trip to gather feedback about the experience and send out new “action alerts.”

CPT uses delegations as a tool to educate and to gain support for the nonviolence work done by the organization. Each delegation spends almost two weeks in the West Bank learning about the conflict, meeting with Palestinians and Israelis, living with CPTers, and participating in accompaniment activities and nonviolent actions alongside CPTers and their partners. The January 2011 delegation trip serves as an example. Delegates spent time in Jerusalem, Bethlehem, Hebron, and At-Tuwani. CPT’s Palestine Team maintained project sites in both Hebron and At-Tuwani at the time. Delegation leader Rick Polhamus

159 arranged for delegates to tour various areas to witness the challenges of the Occupation. During the two weeks, delegates spent a few nights in the homes of local Palestinians, including one inside a refugee camp in Bethlehem.

Representatives from many of CPT’s partner organizations met with the January 2011 delegates to describe their missions and the circumstances surrounding them. (See photos in Appendix A.)

Together, they effectively build a picture of the evils of the Occupation and elicit support for the nonviolence movement against it. Breaking the Silence founder, Yehuda Shaul, spoke to delegates in

Jerusalem. He, like other Breaking the Silence members, is an Israeli veteran. Through the organization, these soldiers have taken on the difficult and controversial task of revealing to the Israeli public the reality of daily life in the Occupied Territories, not only of the Palestinians under occupation, but also of the

Israelis who serve there. To this end, they share testimonies and photos from their personal experiences serving in the Occupied Territories. Shaul shared his own testimony with delegates during his visit.

On the same day, delegates went to the office of B’Tselem, the Israeli Information Center for

Human Rights in the Occupied Territories. There they learned about violations of human rights and breaches of international law under the Occupation. The presentation included facts and figures regarding illegal Israeli settlement expansion, land confiscation, and control over aquifers and other sources of water.

A young Jewish woman representing the Israeli Committee Against Home Demolitions (ICAHD) took delegates through neighborhoods in Jerusalem to point out Palestinian homes that had been demolished by the IDF or had demolition orders pending (IDAHD 2014). ICAHD targets Israel’s policy of demolishing Palestinian homes in the Occupied Territories and Israel and rebuilds homes bulldozed by the IDF. This tour also included a visit to the separation wall and to one of the Israeli settlements to look at the unequal allocation of resources between Israeli settlers and Palestinians and a look at Israeli-only bypass roads.

Palestinian Christian Sami Awad, Executive Director of CPT’s partner Holy Land Trust (HLT), hosted the January 2011 delegates in the HLT office in Bethlehem. Awad described his family’s

160 experiences since the 1948 war establishing the state of Israel and their commitment to nonviolence. He spoke of healing and reconciliation between Palestinians and Jews and looking for ways to address core issues that impede the creation of just political structures. He outlined Holy Land Trust’s programs to empower the Palestinian community in their quest for peace, justice, and equality. These programs include HLT’s nonviolence project with training in nonviolent direct action techniques, leadership development for Palestinian men and women, the Palestine News Network, and an alternative travel and encounter program offering tours to groups visiting the Holy Land. This final program is labelled an

“alternative” travel and encounter program because it represents Palestinians in the light in which they want to be shown and not as they are portrayed by official Israeli tourism.

Participants in the January 2011 delegation trip also visited with Palestinian Nayef Hashlamoun in his home in Hebron. Hashlamoun is a world-renown photo journalist and founder of the Al-Watan

Center. Al-Watan, which means “the Homeland” in Arabic, promotes nonviolent resistance to the

Occupation through workshops, seminars, roundtable discussions, and nonviolent direct action campaigns. Hashlamoun shared information about Al-Watan’s work, his personal story, and his powerful photographs of Palestinian life. He noted that the first CPT Palestine Team in the West Bank made a connection with Al-Watan that has continued over the years.

Another early partner of CPT was the Palestinian Centre for Rapprochement Between People

(PCR 2013). Delegates met with PCR Director George Rishmawi, who was also one of the founders of the International Solidarity Movement (discussed in detail in Chapter 7). Rishmawi offered many examples of Palestinians’ efforts to employ nonviolent resistance. These included illustrations that would resonate with Americans such as their refusal to pay taxes (“no taxation without representation”) and planting vegetable gardens (“victory gardens”) in their backyards as a food source during Israeli-imposed curfews. Rishmawi then spoke about the Rapprochement Centre’s four departments: advocacy, media, community service, and alternative tourism.

Palestinian Zoughbi Zoughbi, Director of Wi’am, Palestinian Conflict Resolution and

Transformation Center, addressed delegates in his Bethlehem office. He explained the role of Wi’am in

161 promoting conflict resolution, trauma relief, and community development among Palestinians living under occupation. Wi’am teaches the traditional Arab mediation as well as conflict resolution techniques borrowed from Western cultures and reaches out to women, youth, and children through various programs.

CPT delegates also met with representatives of BADIL to learn about Palestinian refugees. They learned specifically about the situation and nonviolence work being done in Hebron from members of the

Hebron Rehabilitation Committee and the Land Defense Committee. In At-Tuwani, delegates toured the village with a Palestinian villager and activist from the Popular Committee for Nonviolent Resistance and an Italian Dove. They witnessed the proximity of the Ma’on settlement outpost and villagers’ fields that lay fallow because of that proximity. They visited the hillsides where settlers had scattered pellets to poison the shepherds’ flocks and saw the photos documenting the attack. They walked from building to building to see those with demolition orders against them, including the school, the mosque, and some of the homes.

Alongside activists from Operation Dove, CPT delegates carried out the school patrol for the children walking to the At-Tuwani school escorted by Israeli soldiers on the path beside the settlement outpost (for details on this situation, see Chapter 5). They also accompanied a Palestinian farmer as he plowed his fields below the outpost. In Hebron, CPTers took delegates on school patrol at different times and had them participate in checkpoint watches as well (these are also explained in Chapter 5). Delegates also joined CPTers in a quick response for an international presence in the Old City of Hebron when IDF soldiers began entering Palestinian shops and rounding up young men indiscriminately to check their documentation. Some delegates used camcorders to document the exchange between Israeli soldiers and

Palestinian youth as the experienced CPTers began questioning the soldiers. In Jerusalem, CPT delegates joined Israeli activists from Women in Black and internationals from EAPPI to picket against the

Occupation during the weekly Women in Black protest (Women in Black 2014). (See photos in Appendix

A.)

162

Delegates shared the CPT apartments with Palestine Team members in Hebron. They carried out daily activities that CPTers customarily do. They divided up shopping and cooking, conducted Christian worship, patrolled the Old City, and met for debriefing and self-reflection. Throughout the stay, delegates got a taste of one of the things CPTers do best – building relationships with the people they serve and others committed to the same cause. Delegates interacted repeatedly with what Jonathan Brenneman calls

“friends” of CPT, “individual Palestinians who have worked in nonviolence and have a good relationship with [CPT]” (email, June 28, 2013). These are often individuals who reach out in friendship to CPTers and delegates because their lives have been touched by the work of CPT. In addition, the appreciation expressed suggests that the presence of new internationals boosts the morale of those who must live daily as nonviolent resisters. There is limited financial support, too, as delegates make purchases from local shops or women’s co-ops. (Rich Polhamus, for example, pointed out to his 2011 delegates which merchants cooperated with CPT and were committed to nonviolence so as to encourage support for their businesses.) Connections forged between delegates and Palestinians or Israeli activists can be long- lasting, too, as email, Facebook, and other forms of social media can provide the opportunity for ongoing communication. By 2014, for example, at least half of the January 2011 delegates have at minimum maintained regular Facebook contact with CPT’s friends and partners and respond to updates on the conflict.

Delegations are an effective way to educate the dozens of people who participate each year in these trips. Over the years, delegates to Israel/Palestine have only numbered in the hundreds (Claire

Evans, email, July, 29, 2011). However, delegations are also designed to reach a broader audience indirectly. The delegations coordinator instructs delegates to pass on what they have learned to their network of friends, families, church members, colleagues, and others back in their home countries. This actually begins during the delegation trip itself. Some of the delegates take turns writing articles for a delegation blog. Others create their own blogs, which are important for sharing the experiences, while they are fresh, with others back home. CPT’s website provides a link to these blogs.

163

After the experience, the CPT delegations coordinator (and perhaps the delegation leader) continues to communicate with delegates to encourage them to share their experiences and knowledge about CPT’s work with new people. After the January 2011 delegation trip, Delegations Coordinator

Claire Evans sent out a “Media Summary Sheet” requesting that delegates arrange media coverage within the first four weeks after returning. CPT staff wanted feedback on the ways in which delegates were spreading the word. Suggestions for delegates included articles for newspapers, magazines, or newsletters; television interviews on news stations or talk shows; radio interviews; blogs or webmedia; and public presentations. Armed not only with new facts from being on the ground and meeting with activists, but also with an emotional attachment to some of the people living under occupation, some delegates will share information with new audiences. Their presentations will often describe personal experiences and observations that have a humanizing effect, important to moving others to take an interest and ultimately to take action.

Michael Snarr served as a delegate on the January 2011 trip to Israel/Palestine. He not only contributed two articles to the delegation blog, but he also blogged about his experiences for Evangelicals for Social Action while in the West Bank. After returning to his home in Ohio, he wrote about the Israeli-

Palestinian conflict in a letter to editor in the Wilmington News Journal. He also put together

Powerpoint™ presentations highlighting the issues and the work of nonviolence from his experiences on delegation. He presented these for numerous classes at Wilmington College, Wilmington High School,

Wilmington Middle School, Wooster College, Malone College, and Miami University. Snarr also shared information learned on delegation to an audience at Hiram College, where he served on a panel (Michael

Snarr, email, February 3, 2014). In addition, he did a joint presentation on CPT’s mission and the delegation experience for Quaker sponsors of the Isaac Harvey Fund, which provided some of the financial support for two of the delegates on the January 2011 trip.

Michael’s wife, Melissa Snarr, had gone on a CPT delegation trip led by Rick Polhamus to

Israel/Palestine two years before in January 2009. Upon returning home to Wilmington, Ohio, she shared her experiences with other groups in and around her hometown. She not only addressed students and

164 faculty at Wilmington College and Miami University, but she presented to Christian groups including the

Wilmington Friends Meeting, United Society of Friends Women, and the First Baptist Church. In addition, she shared her stories at the Quaker Knoll summer camp (Michael Snarr, email, February 3,

2014). As a mother, many of the stories Melissa Snarr told involved the Palestinian children she encountered and the struggles they faced and how CPT’s work was affecting their lives.

CPT also uses delegation trips as a recruiting tool. All people who go through CPT training must have first attended a delegation trip with the organization in order to obtain a first-hand understanding of

CPT’s mission and operations. Of the 12 delegates who were part of the January 2011 delegation, one of them went on to become a CPT reservist. Australian Carole Powell decided to undergo CPT training, and she first served on the Palestine Team in Hebron in the summer of 2013. Her delegation experience had been her introduction to CPT’s work in Israel/Palestine.

CPT does not maintain figures on the percentage of delegates who then become CPTers. A simple equation does not exist due to the fact that some delegates join multiple delegations and Support Team members also go on delegations. Terra Winston has worked as delegations coordinator since 2012 and does not yet have a sense of those numbers as her predecessor, Claire Evans, might have. Evans served in that capacity for 14 years before she passed away in February 2012 (CPT 2012e). No other formal assessment of the delegation experiences exists in terms of ongoing support they might generate.

Conclusion

CPT employs information politics intending to inform and educate people about the conflict on the ground in the West Bank and the work of the Palestine Team and its partners. This serves as a pacifist tool for raising consciousness and mobilizing others to action. CPT works within global civil society to share information destined for official use and public consumption. The Palestine Team communicates information through reports of human rights violations to governments, NGOs, and IGOs as well as stories giving voice to Palestinians under occupation circulated through public media and CPT channels.

CPT makes use of its own quarterly newsletter, CPTNet and other digital tools, authors, and public speakers to communicate with supporters and beyond. CPT also uses short-term delegations to offer on-

165 site education to individuals about CPT’s and partners’ work. Have the communication tools effectively achieved CPT’s goals of attracting financial donations in support of the mission, recruiting CPTers, broadening the chain of communication for increased awareness, and changing Israeli policy?

CPT’s reporting efforts coupled with media campaigns illustrate how an NGO can use soft power to bring about changes in government policy (Nye 2004). As a result of CPT’s efforts, Israel provided a military escort for children going to school in At-Tuwani and engaged in the early withdrawal of the

Golani Brigade from Hebron. In the early years of the Palestine Project, CPT represented the lone international voice for the Palestinians in Hebron and brought greater attention to what was happening.

Today, however, there are a number of international and Israeli organizations “pointing the finger of shame” against Israeli authorities and settlers in this and other West Bank cities. CPT is part of an NGO network with mounting soft power within the Israel-Palestinian conflict. CPT’s reports help to corroborate the documentation efforts of others.

CPT’s reporting does not escape criticism, however. As a result of CPT’s solidarity with

Palestinians under occupation, detractors see a distorted perspective. Reports from B’Tselem and other nonpartisan organizations might garner greater credibility than reports from CPT, a source with a clear agenda.

One pro-Israeli skeptic, Gerald Steinberg, political scientist and president of NGO Monitor, notes the “halo effect” surrounding the work of CPT and other NGOs. He argues that human rights organizations operating in the West Bank enjoy an unchallenged image of virtue which allows them to avoid critical examination of their claims against the Israeli government (2011, 26). However, CPT, other

NGOs – Israeli, Palestinian, and international – IGOs, and individual reporters offer corroborating reports of systematic human rights abuses and illegal settlement activity. These are often supported with photographs or videos. Steinberg, who is among the most vocal in his criticism of human rights NGOs in the West Bank, is himself suspect based on his right-wing ideological associations. “NGO Monitor’s partner in the latest phase of the campaign to suppress Israeli human rights groups is the Institute for

Zionist Strategies (IZS), chaired by Israel Harel, a founder of the fundamentalist Gush Emunim settler

166 movement” (Remez 2009). Despite the critics, CPT’s efforts have contributed directly to the growing global awareness of the plight of Palestinians in Hebron. CPT and like-minded NGOs have successfully employed soft power in campaigns to expose, condemn and in limited ways to alter the unjust Israeli policies in the Occupied Territories.

CPT employs multiple communication strategies in its public outreach efforts. Which of these public outreach tools have met with the greatest success? As communication technology has advanced,

CPT has shifted from traditional print media to adopting digital forms of communication. The organization no longer actively seeks coverage in US newspapers on a regular basis. CPTNet releases and the CPT website afford the organization the greatest success for reaching the largest number of people on a regular basis. CPT still prints the “Signs of the Times” newsletter. Combined, the print and electronic versions of the newsletter reach over four times as many people as each CPTNet email. However,

CPTNet releases represent a constant flow of information, with frequent updates on the issues and CPT’s work as opposed to the information compiled quarterly in the newsletter. In addition, while CPTNet emails reach fewer than 3,500 subscribers, there is exponential outreach through CPT partners and other second-party re-posting online. In this way, CPT’s partnerships in the global civil society allow the organization to have a greater impact than its own resources alone could provide. Additionally, an average of over 70,000 people a year visit CPT’s website at least once. Based on numbers alone, most of these viewers do not subscribe to CPTNet or the newsletter, so the website might serve as their first point of contact with the organization.

Even with the challenges for smaller organizations seeking global public attention through online technology, CPTNet and the CPT website appear to offer the best chance for raising awareness among largest number of people. In addition, with these resources now available in Spanish, there is much greater potential to enlist support and activism from among the populations of Latin America, which would be a step toward creating greater representation of Southern populations in the some of the activities and decisions of global governance. For an organization that values human interaction, the use of public forums and delegation trips offer highly personal ways to communicate CPT’s mission. The

167 delegation experience itself is the most effective way to educate individuals, but it only reaches a dozen people at a time. The delegation trip provides points of contact between cultures and advances cosmopolitanism among those involved. The delegates leave Palestine with not only an understanding of the conflict and CPT’s work informed now by first-hand experience, but also with an emotional attachment to people affected by the conflict. This personal connection motivates many of the delegates to return home and transmit their stories to others relatively more than would be the case with individuals learning about the situation through a news release or on the website or in a newsletter or other impersonal source. The delegation experience seems to have the greatest potential for producing impassioned advocates outside of CPT and for recruiting new CPTers.

Contributors donate money in envelopes tracked back to particular newsletters. New CPTers emerge out of delegations. Information about CPT’s Palestine Project reaches many new people, especially through electronic sources. Empirical evidence supports these statements. However, the overall challenges CPT faces in acquiring new funds and personnel (discussed in Chapter 3) lead to the conclusion that the NGO’s educational efforts are not effectively translating into sufficient growth in these areas. The Support Team has indicated that they recognize a deficiency in CPT’s communication strategy. They have taken action by creating the position of Direct of Communications and Engagement and are conducting a search for a person to fill it and take on the responsibility of a coherent communication strategy for the organization.

Through its efforts to inform and educate, CPT aspires to increase and strengthen its “sea of support” and influence policy-makers to transform the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians. As covered in Chapter 5, CPT also uses multiple forms of public witness to intervene nonviolently on the ground. Chapter 7 will examine CPT’s role in institution-building as another tactic for reducing violence and injustice within the conflict.

168

Chapter 7 CPT’s Institution Building

We build too many walls and not enough bridges. – Isaac Newton

Introduction

This chapter examines how CPT’s Palestine Project has created and strengthened other NGOs operating to reduce violence and bring justice to the Palestinians under occupation. CPT institution- building

. . .in Hebron strengthened local capacities for peace in building and supporting ‘connectors’ between various groups. CPT peacemakers in Hebron began by identifying local peacemakers within both the Israeli and Palestinian communities. Continually, CPT attempted to facilitate the work of other institutions and individuals (Lyke and Bock 2000, 15).

Has CPT successfully created and/or strengthened international and interfaith NGOs operating in the

West Bank? Has CPT’s institution-building increased the international presence in support of

Palestinians? Has CPT served as an effective model for other justice organizations working in

Israel/Palestine?

Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions (ICAHD)

CPT initiatives launched The Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions (ICAHD), a human rights and peace organization established in 1997, to challenge the Israeli policy of demolishing

Palestinian homes and end the Occupation (Lyke and Bock 2000, 15). During a CPT delegation tour of

East Jerusalem in 2011, an ICAHD volunteer said “If Israelis are going to demolish the homes, then

Israelis should be rebuilding them, so this is what ICAHD does” (Leppert-Wahl, CPT delegation experience, 2011).

In spring 1997, the seven members of the Hebron team “initiated the Fast for Rebuilding to impress upon North American churches the urgency of the [home demolition] issue” (Kern 2009, 123-

124). The Israeli government had scheduled the demolition of 700 Palestinian homes in the West Bank.

The CPTers planned to fast for one hour for each of these homes, a total of 700 hours or 29 days. Cliff

169

Kindy, who served on the Hebron Team from 1995 until 1998, remembers the fast as a desperate plea to

God to intervene on behalf of these families (interview, July 1, 2013, North Manchester, Indiana).

Following this fast, Israeli peace activist Harriet Lewis organized a coalition of Israelis to form the Israeli

Committee Against House Demolitions (ICAHD) (Kathleen Kern, telephone interview, June 24, 2013;

Cliff Kindy, interview, July 1, 2013, North Manchester, Indiana).

Israel’s legal justification for targeting most of the dwellings was that the homes or additions to them had been built without permits. The Israeli government has routinely denied building permits to

Palestinians whose land borders Israeli settlements or bypass (Israeli-only) roads. “Overcrowding often forces families to build on land that in most cases has been in their family for generations, despite being denied permission by Israeli authorities. Once Palestinian homes are demolished, Israeli settlements can more easily expand” (CPTNet 1997a). The "Fast for Rebuilding" called for “1) Israel to stop demolishing

Palestinian homes, 2) a rebuilding of already demolished Palestinian homes, 3) a rebuilding of a

Palestinian identity as a people, and 4) a rebuilding of wider Palestinian-Israeli relationships” (CPTNet

1997a).

Supporters erected a tent in the Palestinian-controlled part of Hebron that became a focal point for concerned people of diverse backgrounds adhering to the cosmopolitan view that individuals have obligations to other human beings transcending citizenship and religion. “Palestinian, Israeli, and

International groups began making solidarity visits to the tent. Scores of villagers came to share their own stories of house demolitions, land confiscations, arrests, and raids on their homes by the Israeli military”

(Kern 2009, 124). Kern and Kindy recount how ICAHD co-founder Harriet Lewis joined the team for a week of fasting. During this time, she visited with Palestinians, heard their accounts, and witnessed firsthand the demolition of a Palestinian home (Kern 2009, 124; telephone interview, June 24, 2013; Cliff

Kindy, interview, July 1, 2013, North Manchester, Indiana). Mark Frey (1997) describes how Lewis joined him to visit the home of a Palestinian man whose family members, including his four-year-old granddaughter, were beaten by Israeli soldiers two days before. They watched video footage of the beating at the home. Lewis said that this time with CPT changed her life, according to an article in

170

Nonviolent Activist (Baron 1997). “As a direct result of those experiences,” she and Amos Gvirtz, a member of Israeli War Resisters International, began a campaign to organize ICAHD (Baron 1997).

Israeli co-founder Jeff Halper would become the director of ICAHD, and his efforts would create a strong partnership between the organization and CPT over the years.

During the creation of ICAHD, CPT provided a bridge between Israelis and Palestinians. CPT’s public fast provided an opportunity for Israelis to meet Palestinians and hear their stories of the

Occupation and to observe for themselves a home demolition and other effects. CPT facilitated cross- cultural communication, enhancing cosmopolitanism by promoting contact between members of different cultures. New human connections and the sharing of information planted the seeds for ICAHD. CPT’s action at the end of the fast – a rebuilding project for a demolished Palestinian home – provided a model for the method of nonviolent resistance adopted by the new NGO. Although this was not the first home rebuilding project as an act of resistance in the area, Kindy writes, “I think it is fair to say that this event was helpful in shaping ICAHD’s response as they decided how to stand against the demolition of

Palestinian homes” (email, July 9, 2013).

Toward the end of the fast, which was to be broken on Easter Sunday, Kindy recalls walking to the site of the demolished home of the Zalloum family with fellow CPTer Anne Montgomery (interview,

July 1, 2013, North Manchester, Indiana). The team planned to rebuild this home, which they had been unable to save the previous year. CPTers and “about forty Palestinians, Israelis, and other internationals cleared rubble in preparation for rebuilding” (Kern 2009, 125). The Israeli police appeared on the scene and arrested Kindy, Rabbi Arik Ascherman, who was the co-director of Rabbis for Human Rights, and two 19-year-old Palestinians. The police held Kindy in custody for four days until they escorted him onto a plane leaving the country (Kern 2009, 125; Cliff Kindy, interview, July 1, 2013, North Manchester,

Indiana). They released Rabbi Ascherman on bail on the first evening. They detained the two young

Palestinian men for a week and tortured them (Kern 2009, 125).

The Fast for Rebuilding cemented interfaith and cross-cultural friendships. Upon breaking the fast, Palestinian Atta Jabber said, “I'm so happy tonight to forget my suffering; to see Israeli peace groups

171 and CPT here. To see myself here I would think my suffering is finished” (Kaufman 1999). CPT’s efforts also brought greater awareness of the home demolition issue to Israelis and internationally. At home in the US, CPTer Rich Meyer maintained a vigil outside of the White House while he participated in the

700-hour fast. He and four other CPTers also visited the US State Department during the fast to voice their concerns about unconditional US government support for Israel and American money funding Israeli home demolitions. In the end, CPT urged sponsoring congregations and others to participate in a Holy

Week campaign to “inundate legislative and executive branches with communications urging a sharp cut in U.S. aid to Israel” (CPTNet 1997b).

CPT followed up the spring initiative by a sustained partnership with the more loosely organized

Palestinian Land Defense Committee and the new ICAHD, CPT’s closest partner from 1997 to 2000

(Kathleen Kern, telephone interview, June 24, 2013). Home demolitions became a priority of the Hebron

Team until the start of the Second Intifada in September 2000. CPT, ICAHD, and the Palestinian Land

Defense Committee forged an informal coalition, and CPT coordinated rebuilding efforts in the Hebron area. ICAHD focused on Jerusalem, its headquarters, and the Palestinian Land Defense Committee concentrated on rebuilding to the north. The three organizations shared information and provided labor for the others’ rebuilding projects whenever possible. In 1997, CPT created the Campaign for Secure

Dwellings and brought in Rebuilders Against Bulldozers (RAB) delegations to help carry out rebuilding projects (Kern 2009, 125). In addition, ICAHD regularly funded CPT’s rebuilding efforts within the

Campaign for Secure Dwellings. CPTers began to refer families from Hebron to ICAHD for monetary assistance with rebuilding when needed (Kern 2010, 318; telephone interview June 24, 2013). CPT also began arranging for their delegations to meet with ICAHD volunteers for tours and discussions, a practice that continues today (Kern, telephone interview, June 24, 2013).

By 2000, CPT’s partnership with ICAHD and the Palestinian Land Defense Committee and their labor in this area produced results.

[T]he Israelis destroyed around 350 homes in 1997, 250 in 1998, 175 in 1999, and then demolitions dropped to a handful in 2000, none of which took place in the Hebron district. The

172

downward trend was due to many factors, but we do recognize CPT played a small part in decreasing demolitions (CPT 2010o).

Kern describes the support between CPT and ICAHD over the years as “reciprocal,” and the two

NGO partners collaborate within the larger network of nonviolence organizations on the ground in the

West Bank (telephone interview, June 24, 2013). The Second Intifada brought new challenges, and CPT’s focus shifted away from its rebuilding campaign. “As ICAD [sic] has taken greater responsibility for monitoring and working against housing demolitions and land confiscations, CPT has begun to pull back and to reexamine its role in this area” (Lyke and Bock 2000, 15).

International Solidarity Movement (ISM)

Palestinians direct the International Solidarity Movement’s mission and train international volunteers who commit to working for at least three weeks with the Palestinians under occupation.

The International Solidarity Movement (ISM) is a Palestinian-led movement committed to resisting the long-entrenched and systematic oppression and dispossession of the Palestinian population, using non-violent, direct-action methods and principles. Founded in August 2001, ISM aims to support and strengthen the Palestinian popular resistance by being immediately alongside Palestinians in olive groves, on school runs, at demonstrations, within villages being attacked, by houses being demolished or where Palestinians are subject to consistent harassment or attacks from soldiers and settlers as well as numerous other situations” (ISM 2014).

International volunteers agree to work within ISM’s three guiding principles: Palestinian-led directives, nonviolent actions, and consensus-based decision making. In the early years, CPTers trained

ISM volunteers in both nonviolence and consensus decision making. ISM co-founder Huwaida Arraf notes,

We consider CPT amongst the founding members of the ISM. CPTers did the trainings for our first campaign and continued to help us out with trainings and be an active part of our organizing, especially LeAnne [Clausen]. I would say that the biggest influence the CPT had on the ISM was in the field of training (Kern 2009, 178).

In addition, CPT’s nonviolent direct actions in the West Bank provided examples and experience for the founders of the ISM. CPT also acted as a “bridge” between ISM and other organizations and provided a buffer for those who might view this as a Palestinian-led, anti-Israeli organization. CPT helped ISM leaders to determine where the organization’s actions would be most effective as well (Rick Polhamus, interview, June 17, 2013, Lebanon, Ohio).

173

With the start of the Second Intifada, peace organizations operating in the West Bank coordinated more frequent meetings and actions. Among these were CPT and the Palestinian Centre for

Rapprochement between Peoples (the Rapprochement Center /PCR), directed by Palestinian Christian

Ghassan Andoni. The Rapprochement Centre “organized dialogues between Palestinians and Israelis” and took on more nonviolent direct actions in 2000, with the Second Intifada (Rishmawi 2002). CPTer Rick

Polhamus, Ghassan Andoni and fellow Palestinian Christian George Rishmawi of the PCR, Jeff Halper of

ICAHD, and decision-makers from Rabbis for Human Rights and Holy Land Trust regularly held planning meetings at Rapprochement Centre offices in Beit Sahour in the Bethlehem area.

Representatives of other NGOs such as Gush Shalom, Women in Black, and Peace Now attended the meetings on a more limited basis but often took part in the actions planned by the others (Rick Polhamus, email, June 19, 2013). Neta Golan, an Israeli Jew, and Huwaida Arraf, a Christian Palestinian American, frequently participated in nonviolent direct actions in conjunction with the Rapprochement Centre and joined the planning meetings (Rick Polhamus, interview, June 17, 2013, Lebanon, Ohio).

At these planning meetings, the activists explored ways to attract significantly more participants to the nonviolence movement against the Occupation. They asked, “How do we duplicate Selma? How do we duplicate Gandhi’s [salt] walk to the sea?” (Rick Polhamus, interview, June 17, 2013, Lebanon, Ohio).

As the NGOs worked toward their vision of organizing 100,000 or more activists to carry out this large- scale action, which never actually materialized, they mobilized to increase issue awareness and participation on the ground. Polhamus recalls that CPT responded, in part, by increasing the combined number of regular and special short-term delegations to 10 or more beginning in 2002 (interview, June 17,

2013, Lebanon, Ohio). (See Table 6 in Chapter 6 for data on the number of regular delegations to

Israel/Palestine. No data are available on the number of special delegations over the years.) Both Rabbis for Human Rights and ICAHD began hosting their own form of delegations24 at this time. Polhamus notes, “I don't think they particularly modeled their delegations after CPT, but I think seeing CPT

24 ICAHD offers an 11-day “Extended Study Tour” to people around the world, and Rabbis for Human Rights offers “Rabbinic Human Rights Delegations” to rabbis and cantors.

174 delegations come and take part in actions provided a model for how to draw their own constituents into a more active role rather than just supporting financially” (email, June 2, 2014). Delegation experiences fostered cosmopolitan connections with the goal of inspiring nonviolent activists to work for peace and justice for Palestinians under occupation. The creation of the International Solidarity Movement (ISM) shared that objective.

Ghassan Andoni, George Rishmawi, Neta Golan, Huwaida Arraf, and Adam Shapiro (an

American of Jewish descent who married Arraf in 2002) founded the ISM. Andoni began to encourage

Golan and Arraf to formalize their efforts in the nonviolence movement. These two women not only attended the planning meetings and worked closely with the PCR, but they also spent time with the CPT

Palestine Team socially and as activists and visited with Palestinian families along with the CPTers (Greg

Rollins, telephone interview, July 15, 2013). They brought friends to participate in joint actions such as the removal of Israeli roadblocks or public demonstrations. ISM founders recognized the need for internationals to accompany Palestinians to provide potentially life-saving protection and a voice to the outside (Andoni 2002; Golan 2007; Rishmawi 2002). They created ISM with the goal of “help[ing]

Palestinians do nonviolent resistance because when they do it without international accompaniment they are met with terrible violence” (Rishmawi 2002). CPT’s work served as a model for the ISM. “There were examples of successful nonviolent action, like the Christian Peacemaker Teams in Hebron, so why couldn’t we do the same?” (Rishmawi 2002). Greg Rollins describes how CPT served as an inspiration and a model for the organizers of ISM:

They were very inspired by the way that we lived, by the fact that we lived in the Palestinian community. We didn’t stay in Israel or in West Jerusalem or in hostels. We stayed where the problems were the worst. In Hebron, it was in the Old City, and we ended up experiencing a lot of the difficulties the Palestinians were experiencing. ISM really liked that, and that was one of the things they wanted to model as well. The idea of people just coming and helping, being a nonviolent presence, and being educated by the Palestinian people, and the Israeli people too, about what was going on there that [outsiders] did not get to hear about at home… these things inspired them. And they really liked how we would escort people – escort schoolchildren, escort farmers to their fields….And so I think that those were a lot of the things that inspired them to create ISM (telephone interview, July15, 2013).

175

Rollins points out that there were no other NGOs in Palestine “doing accompaniment as consistently or devotedly as CPT” up to this point. CPT offered international accompaniment on a daily basis year after year, but their numbers were limited. The co-founders of ISM were able to broaden the support for the

Palestinian nonviolence movement by contacting friends and using college connections in the US and

Canada to bring in secular human rights activists from North America and elsewhere (Rick Polhamus, interview, June 17, 2013, Lebanon, Ohio).

ISM consulted CPTers to identify “hotspots” where actions were most needed. As CPT operated primarily in the south in and around Hebron, the ISM began to work farther north at first and in areas where CPT had no presence (Rick Polhamus, interview, February11, 2013, Wilmington, Ohio). The ISM planned a campaign in April 2001,

…targeting the daily problems of Palestinians under occupation. The roadblocks, for example. These were a major problem, dividing the West Bank into 64 separate cantons. They make 15- minute journeys into journeys of 3 or 4 hours. Babies have been born at these roadblocks. People have died in ambulances at them. The roadblocks are for the settlers. The settlers can drive straight through them while Palestinians have to wait. So we did direct actions to take these roadblocks down (Rishmawi 2002).

Initially ISM leaders briefed the international volunteers who joined their efforts in the West

Bank. Without formal training, some internationals stayed on or returned later and carried out actions on their own while still claiming to be working on behalf of the International Solidarity Movement. These independent actions included acts of violence. Kern refers to some of these early ISM volunteers as

“loose cannons with a poor opinion of any kind of authority – even the authority of the ISM organizers”

(2009, 227). ISM leaders therefore became more selective in accepting new members and asked CPT to conduct formal training for their volunteers to avoid such problems (227). “It became mandatory for anyone coming into the country with ISM to go through training with CPT” (Rick Polhamus, interview,

June 17, 2013, Lebanon, Ohio).

Golan and Arraf had originally asked CPT to assist the ISM with cultural orientation and training in nonviolence, but the CPT team decided that it would be more appropriate for local people to introduce internationals to their culture (Rick Polhamus, interview, February11, 2013, Wilmington, Ohio). CPT

176 took on the nonviolence training, whereas the Rapprochement Center and Holy Land Trust, two

Palestinian NGOs, conducted cultural training for ISM’s international volunteers. CPT’s participation in training provided a critical bridge to Israelis. ISM leaders hoped that CPT’s “credentials” with Israeli peace activists would help them from the “stigma” of being perceived as a Palestinian-led organization working against Israeli rights. Polhamus suggests that the ISM has shifted toward more overt solidarity with Palestinians in recent years than in its early years when they sought greater balance with Israelis

(interview, June 17, 2013, Lebanon, Ohio).

CPT began conducting weekend trainings in Beit Sahour twice a month for ISM volunteers, who were committing to 10 days or more with the organization at that time. After their training, ISM activists did field work for the remainder of their two-week commitment. ISM co-founder George Rishmawi told a

Toronto audience, “We have been training people in nonviolence and in action in the Palestinian situation, and we’ve seen great improvements in the performance of our activists as a result. So, today, training is a fundamental part of what ISM does” (2002).

Polhamus led many of the ISM training sessions and describes how he intentionally brought new

CPT arrival LeAnne Clausen along to teach her how to train and ultimately give her the opportunity to take the lead role. According to Polhamus, Clausen came in with conflict resolution skills, such as negotiation and mediation, but limited experience in conflict transformation, which was a critical set of skills for the ISM training (interview, June 17, 2013, Lebanon, Ohio; CPT 2010i). Kindy acknowledges that Polhamus was especially good at this type of mentoring, but it was not something all CPT trainers did when training for other groups (interview, July 1, 2013, North Manchester, Indiana).

The training sessions for the ISM varied based on who conducted them and the immediate needs on the ground. CPTers and ISM leaders did not develop a training manual for the sessions conducted by

CPT, nor did they hand out nonviolence training materials. According to Polhamus, the absence of materials was, in part, due to the fact that international ISM volunteers entered Israel/Palestine with tourist visas and did not want anything with them that might identify them as activists rather than tourists

177

(email, July 13, 2013). Israeli security personnel routinely search visitors’ bags at the airport upon departure from the country. Polhamus also explains,

ISM trainings, because they were weekend trainings, were much different than the month-long CPT training. These [ISM] trainings were set up to cover basic concepts of nonviolence support and resistance as they related directly to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. They were to cover the things like what to expect when confronted by or confronting soldiers, settlers, or police; what are cultural things to be aware of; what if one of your own people start[s] acting inappropriately; etc. There was a general outline that we used for the training but it was flexible in terms that you could ‘wing it’ if there were specific situations going on in the current conflict that needed to be addressed in detail. For example, sometimes it was important to focus on dealing with home demolitions while other times attacks from settlers or soldiers might be the main focus (email July 13, 2013).

CPTers also incorporated into the trainings their knowledge of the cultural and power dynamics when relevant from the perspective of outsiders using nonviolent direct action in Israel/Palestine. For example, protestors in the US might expect a particular response to their actions, which could be very different from the typical response to the same actions in the West Bank (Rick Polhamus, interview, June17, 2013,

Lebanon, Ohio). International ISMers also learned how to use video cameras in conflict situations.

Camcorders both document and potentially deter human rights violations, as some people will not engage in violent or illegal actions if they know they are being filmed.

Canadian Mennonite Greg Rollins served in Hebron on the CPT Palestine Team from 2001 to

2003. In 2004, he was denied entry back into Israel and went instead to Iraqi Kurdistan. He helped conduct the weekend trainings for ISM after working on the ground for CPT for a year and a half.

American CPTer Rick Polhamus had extensive training and experience as a trainer in the Church of the

Brethren organization On Earth Peace and Matthew 18 workshops and under the tutelage of Gene

Sharp.25 For Rollins, however, serving on the CPT Palestine Team was his first experience in conflict transformation situations. Before taking a lead role in an entire weekend training for ISM in fall 2003, he helped Rick Polhamus and Art Gish during a number of sessions. In this way, Rollins says that he learned

25 Highly influential in modern nonviolence movements and nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize in 2009, 2012, and 2013 for his life-long work in nonviolence, Gene Sharp is an emeritus professor of Political Science at the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth and author of 13 books including the practical manual on how to overthrow dictatorships, From Dictatorship to Democracy.

178

“what to do and what not to do,” referring to Gish’s very competent yet, at times, abrasive teaching style

(telephone interview, July 15, 2013).

Rollins (telephone interview, July 15, 2013) reveals that during the ISM trainings, CPTers “did a lot of flying by the seat of our pants…making it up as we went along.” He explains that they each drew from their CPT training and experiences in Hebron and elsewhere, and some also chose to use hard copy training materials (Greg Rollins, email July 8, 2013; telephone interview July 15, 2013). Training sessions led by CPTers varied due to the need for different responses to changing events in the region as well as the general autonomy and composition of the CPT team on the ground. However, CPT trainers focused on conflict transformation skills and decision making. CPTers created an initial checklist of core skills to cover in each training session (Rick Polhamus, interview, June 17, 2013, Lebanon, Ohio; Greg

Rollins, telephone interview, July 15, 2013). Over the course of the weekend, they taught these skills to new international volunteers through discussions, role play, spectrums, and actual participation in a coordinated nonviolent direct action. A spectrum might be used initially to get volunteers to think about their own perceptions of violence. Rollins explains that the trainer designates one end of the room as

“very violent” and the opposite as “not violent,” and the area in the middle would represent the spectrum of violence in between. The trainer would then ask the ISM volunteers where on that spectrum they each felt an act of violence belonged, and they would move to that point in the room. For example, if the trainer says “shooting a gun,” volunteers might move toward the “very violent” end of the room, but

“throwing rocks” would probably elicit a move toward the other end of the spectrum (Rollins).

Conflict transformation includes information on how to be a presence that diffuses a tense or violent situation and specific techniques for deescalating or even absorbing violence. During the trainings,

Rollins and other trainers drew from actual experiences they had had in the West Bank. They discussed these situations and often engaged in role plays on the basis of these scenarios with the new ISMers.

Rollins offered the example of what to do if an angry Israeli soldier is threatening or engaging in some form of violent behavior against a Palestinian. In this situation, trainers instructed the volunteers to attempt to engage the soldier in conversation. This serves as a distraction and also lets the soldier know

179 that he or she is being watched. In the case of settlers, who have lashed out violently more often than anyone else in the areas where CPT and ISM operate, trainers instructed internationals not to show anger, which could intensify the situation. They prioritized keeping the Palestinians who engaged in nonviolence safe from physical harm and arrest. For CPTers, at times, this meant actually “getting in the way” of punches to absorb the blows or standing between a weapon and an unarmed person as a deterrent. ISMers were being trained in these same techniques and would have to choose just how far they would intervene physically in a conflict based on their individual comfort levels (Greg Rollins, telephone interview, July

15, 2013).

New volunteers also needed to learn techniques for both team decision making and split-second decision making. CPTers taught new ISMers how to use brainstorming sessions to share ideas and tackle problems. One of the most important decision making lessons included the mandate that the Palestinian hosts were the “priority.” The internationals with ISM, as with CPT, must follow the Palestinians’ lead in tense or conflict situations and during planned actions. They had to take into consideration the safety and comfort level of these residents, who would be most affected by the repercussions of any encounters

(Greg Rollins, telephone interview, July 15, 2013).

Toward the end of each weekend session, ISM trainees participated in a planned action alongside

CPTers. Actions included protests, home rebuilding projects, dismantling blockades, and accompaniment for Palestinian shepherds tending their flocks on their land near Israeli settlements, among others. CPT trainers and ISM leaders offered each new group of internationals the chance to join an action already scheduled or create their own if a new request or rationale emerged. This allowed the group to practice the skills they had discussed and rehearsed. They had responsibility for dividing the roles among team members during the action and making impromptu decisions as the need arose while still working under a trainer’s guidance. Rollins recalls that CPTers also used the actions to teach new ISMers how to do press releases and form “a liaison with the press.” However, in his experience, CPT trainers spent far less time teaching them how to document and report abuses than on the other skills already mentioned due to time limitations (telephone interview, July 15, 2013).

180

From 2001 to 2003, CPTers not only trained new ISM volunteers but also worked with ISM leaders so that the organization could conduct its own training independently. CPTers modeled the nonviolence training for ISM leaders and collaborated with them as co-trainers during sessions to give them the training experience. Ultimately, ISM leaders adapted the training developed by CPTers and no longer needed the outside help. ISM leaders added their own experiences and teaching styles to the nonviolence training. They also made changes that they felt appropriate. For example, they added basic medical training for volunteers to the overall training program in order to assist Palestinians who were detained at checkpoints while in labor or with other medical emergencies (Greg Rollins, telephone interview, July 15, 2013).

ISM co-founder Neta Golan gives CPT some of the credit for the organization’s adoption of consensus decision making, one of the ISM’s guiding principles that has helped the organization survive for more than a decade. Golan writes,

In the first official ISM campaign in 2001 we had a small group of about 30 activists from around the globe and a forty-person Italian activist delegation organized by the legendary Luisa Morgentini. Among us we were blessed to have Linda Bevis and Ed Mast from Seattle who had been involved in the then flowering global justice movement. Our mentors from the Christian Peace Makers Team that included Le Anne Clausen and Rick Polhamus coached us in the principles of consensus decision making. Linda and Ed made sure to show us how to apply those principles to all levels of our organizing and decisions taken during the campaign.

The flat, non-hierarchical structure that we adopted early on has proven to be key in the movement’s growth and survival. The Israeli authorities have tried to chop off ISM’s head several times by imprisoning, deporting and denying entry to people they consider leaders of our movement. They seem unable to understand that our movement does not have leaders (2012).

From the beginning, CPTers participated in ISM actions. Kathleen Kern points out that CPT

“[r]eleases and updates from 2001 record team members traveling to ISM actions in Rantis, Nablus,

Jerusalem, Bidya, Mashka, Bir Zeit, Ramallah, and Gaza” (2009, 178). In addition, on July 31, 2001,

Golan was “instrumental” in placing a CPT delegation as human shields in Palestinian homes in Beit Jala near Bethlehem during “serious bombardment” from IDF posts in the Israeli settlement of Gilo on the hillside above Beit Jala (178).

The attack followed shots fired by individual Palestinian gunmen after the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) blew up a civilian apartment building earlier that day in Nablus. Eight Palestinians,

181

including two journalists and two young children, were killed during the Israeli mission to assassinate two Hamas activists in Nablus (CPT 2001).

CPT’s support of ISM arose from their shared desire to strengthen the local population and to bring in many more people to engage in nonviolent direct action. Significant differences between the two organizations exist, however, and some of these have presented “difficulties…in CPT’s work with ISM,” according to Kern (2009).

ISM volunteers were told to lie about their intentions when they entered Israel to avoid the authorities denying them entry. ISM as an organization also refused to condemn Palestinian violence against Israelis, viewing it as part of a liberation struggle. Although the organizers insisted that international ISM volunteers make an absolute commitment to nonviolent resistance, the Israeli authorities said they “incited” violence and routinely referred to the ISM as a “pro- Palestinian” group rather than a peace group (2009, 228).

This perception of ISM could be one of the reasons why two international ISM volunteers (trained by

CPT trainers), American Rachel Corrie and British Tom Hurndall, were killed by Israeli soldiers during nonviolent direct actions. In a comparative analysis of CPT and ISM, Patrick G. Coy notes that “[o]nly

ISM internationals are regularly deported; only ISM internationals are regularly violently attacked by the state of Israel; and only ISM internationals are killed by the IDF while doing accompaniment work.” He surmises that the “ISM international volunteers are reframed by Israel from outsider to insider, and painted with a partisan brush somewhat similar to that used for the local Palestinian resistance” and they are not always afforded the protections typically given to foreign nationals (2012, 14). When asked whether CPT ever chose not to work with ISM because of the organization’s stance or tactics, Polhamus responded that “there were times when CPT chose to not participate in actions we felt, or our advisors suggested, were too provoking or would cause more repercussions for the local people” (email July 13,

2013).

Polhamus also writes that he and other CPTers engaged in conversations with ISM leaders about the organization’s acceptance of other Palestinians’ use of armed struggle as part of the overall resistance movement. “There were many discussions around these kinds of issues, not only with ISM members but also with Palestinian and Israeli people, other groups, politicians, and almost anyone” (email, July13,

2013). Like CPT, many ISM leaders embrace nonviolence as a strategy because “…violence doesn’t work

182

[as] it gives the military the excuse to use overwhelming violence and it takes the focus away from and discredits the legitimacy of the people’s resistance to the occupation” (Polhamus). Unlike CPT’s unwavering faith-based adoption of pacifism, however, ISM accepts others’ adoption of violence as a legitimate tool against oppression.

Even with the tensions, Kern writes that “as of 2008 the CPT Palestine workers continue to value the presence of ISM volunteers, and consider many of them kindred spirits” (2009, 228). By 2013, the

Palestine Team was in full partnership with ISM again. CPT meets with ISM and EAPPI every two weeks in Hebron to share information and coordinate patrols of the city and other activities (Jonathan

Brenneman, email, June 28, 2013; Powell 2013). CPTers, international volunteers for ISM, and members of Operation Dove also take turns spending the night in villages in the South Hebron Hills, where there are demolition orders against the dwellings and animal shelters (Powell 2013). CPT supports ISM and

EAPPI by helping “new members get acquainted with the area. Both organizations have people [on the ground] for a much shorter term [than] CPT does” (Jonathan Brenneman, email, June 28, 2013).

Ecumenical Accompaniment Programme in Palestine and Israel (EAPPI)

Rick Polhamus describes the years 2001 and 2002 as among the worst CPTers had experienced in the West Bank in terms of clashes between Israeli soldiers and settlers and the Palestinian residents.

Conversations and meetings among peace activists included brainstorming about how to bring over many more internationals. Parts of the discussions focused on what the role of Christian churches should be in attempting to stop the violence and effect change. The World Council of Churches (WCC) took part in some of these conversations through member churches and ecumenical partners inside Israel and the

Occupied Territories and a delegation sent to Jerusalem. The organization began to study this question in relation to the WCC 342 member churches. They responded by creating the Ecumenical Accompaniment

Programme in Palestine and Israel (EAPPI) in February 2002 (Rick Polhamus, interview, February11,

2013, Wilmington, Ohio; WCC 2002b).

On September 14, 2001, the WCC Executive Committee passed a resolution “requesting the

WCC General Secretary and staff to…develop an accompaniment programme that would include

183 international presence based on the experience of the Christian Peacemaker Teams” (WCC 2002b).

Ultimately, this new NGO would not only be faith-based, but would also be “attempting to establish a more permanent presence in the communities [they] work in, following the example of CPT in Hebron”

(EAPPI 2003). EAPPI would adapt CPT’s model to bring volunteers to Israel and the Occupied

Territories for “overlapping sessions of three months to keep a constant presence in the communities” with the same basic goals held by CPTers – to provide protection, monitoring, and advocacy and to develop relationships so as to “expose the humanity and hope of both Israelis and Palestinians, which can be just as important as exposing the evils of the occupation” (EAPPI 2003).

Following the decision by the Executive Committee, the WCC sent working groups to Hebron to observe and learn from the CPT Palestine team (Kern 2010, 188). The WCC then invited CPT to participate in a World Council of Churches Working Group on Accompaniment. Rick Polhamus served as the CPT representative. Rapprochement Centre’s Ghassan Andoni was actually one of the members of the

Steering Committee of the Working Group. At the first meeting of the WCC Working Group on February

1, 2002, in Geneva, the two men served as panelists to articulate the needs and possibilities in Palestine in terms of accompaniment and to advocate for the dispatch of internationals from within the ecumenical movement to the Occupied Territories (Rick Polhamus, interview February 11, 2013, Wilmington, Ohio;

WWC 2002a).

CPTer Rick Polhamus recalls stressing to WCC decision makers throughout the framing process the need to create an organization willing to participate in nonviolent direct action. At the inception of the idea for the new organization, the WCC planned for its focus to be monitoring the conflict. Prior to the

February 2002 organizational meeting in Geneva, Polhamus tried to create a speech and points of discussion designed primarily to convince others of the desperate need for more internationals on the ground in Israel/Palestine. He spent several weeks speaking with Palestinians who had experienced land confiscations, arrests, curfews, the loss of their livelihood, and the other hardships of the Occupation and asking them directly what they might need from the proposed organization. The message was clear and best expressed by Hebronite Yusef Al-Atrash, whose home had been demolished three times by the Israeli

184 authorities, “We don’t need more people to come and tell me my son is being beaten and my home destroyed. We need people to come who will do something.” Polhamus used this as a “call to action” at the meetings to push for a greater activist role for EAPPI, especially when he realized that other WCC participants were church leaders with experience in the Occupied Territories and already committed to the idea of a greater international presence (Rick Polhamus, interview, February 11, 2013, Wilmington,

Ohio).

Polhamus and CPTer Anne Montgomery helped to develop the team structure of EAPPI (CPTNet

2002). The WCC considered the possibility of individual EAPPI volunteers stationed within other organizations but rejected this in favor of a CPT-style team model recommended by Polhamus and

Montgomery (Kern 2010, 189). Polhamus recalls helping to work through various challenges that arose

(interview, February 11, 2013, Wilmington, Ohio). The role of Swedish volunteers within EAPPI serves as an example. The Swedish EAPPI planning group had decided that the Swedish accompaniers would not take an active part in “supporting acts of nonviolent resistance alongside local Christian and Muslim

Palestinians and Israeli peace activists,” which was now within the scope of this new organization.

Instead, the group insisted on a less partisan interpretation of the accompaniment mission (Akerlund,

Berg, and Villanueva 2002, 25). The solution, according to Polhamus, came directly from the CPT model

(interview February 11, 2013, Wilmington, Ohio). In any planned action that could potentially lead to the arrest of CPTers, which is never the goal, there is always at least one team member who is designated as

“non-arrestable.” That is, one of the team members is present to observe but does not participate directly in any activity deemed illegal so that in the event of arrests, there is a CPT witness to return home and communicate the situation with the outside world. For EAPPI, the Swedish volunteers could always take on this more neutral role of observer during any activities perceived as solidarity activities with the

Palestinian population (Polhamus).

Polhamus served on the task force set up by the WCC to prepare the Training Manual for the

Ecumenical Accompaniment Programme in Palestine and Israel. He was the only CPT representative working on creating a common training manual for use by all EAPPI volunteers, known as Ecumenical

185

Accompaniers (EAs). He also conducted the first training sessions for new EAs. Polhamus’ contribution is still recognized and appreciated by those in the organization. In Jerusalem in January 2011, during a weekly Women in Black protest against the Occupation, which was attended by EAs and a CPT delegation, an EA from North Dakota was excited to get to meet Polhamus, “the guy who put together

EAPPI’s training” (Susanne N., pers. comm., January 2011, Jerusalem). The manual included “a historical and political overview of the situation in the Middle East and the Arab-Israeli conflict in particular, geography of the Holy Land, training for non-violence, team work, standards of monitoring and reporting, code of conduct, knowledge of risk factors, [and] basic information on human rights and international humanitarian law including the WCC and church positions on Israel/Palestine” (WCC

2002b, 4).

After receiving an orientation in their home countries, EAs arrive in Jerusalem, for a 10-day training prior to their placement for the remaining three months. According to EAPPI’s website FAQ

(2013), today’s training in Jerusalem includes the following:

 Introduction to WCC, its policies on Israel/Palestine, EAPPI and the Campaign  Basic International, Humanitarian and Human Rights Law, introduction to the present humanitarian situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory  Review and role play situations that EA may encounter in Palestine-Israel, for non-violent practice and response  Review of risks involved, coping with fear and trauma  Introduction to churches and religious community in Jerusalem  Liaison with relevant embassies/representative’s offices of the respective home country  Familiarity with Jerusalem environment, Old City, local transport system, checkpoints  Security & evacuation measures – what can we do in order to minimize the obviously high risks involved in living, traveling and working in Israel-Palestine  Team building, team dynamics, decision making and support  Intercultural communication, cultural norms, gender relations in Israel/Palestine  Introduction to the Arabic and Hebrew Language  Communication/reporting requirements of WCC and sending organization, and training for reporting.

Polhamus was the only CPTer to help formulate EAPPI’s training process. Others on the team, such as Anne Montgomery and Leanne Clausen joined Polhamus to train new EAs for more than a year

186 until EAPPI formalized and assumed responsibility for their own training. Several of the original EAs trained by Polhamus took over as trainers for the organization (Rick Polhamus, interview, February 11,

2013, Wilmington, Ohio).

In addition, CPT Reservist Rebecca Johnson brought her experiences to work for EAPPI when she was selected as WCC/EAPPI Program Coordinator in December 2002. A WCC press release reported, “Johnson, a Canadian, is a member of the Christian Peacemaker Teams (CPT), and has participated in delegations and CPT active duty missions to Hebron in the West Bank” (Lee, 2003).

Johnson worked in Jerusalem with a committee, which included Polhamus as CPT representative and others selected from the original WCC Working Group on Accompaniment, to evaluate the performance of the first group of EAs and make necessary adjustments after they began operating on the ground

(CPTNet 2002; Rick Polhamus, interview, February11, 2013, Wilmington). Polhamus had trained this first group. These EAs from four European countries and the US began work in August 2002 and served in East and West Jerusalem, the West Bank cities of Ramallah, Bethlehem, and Nablus, as well as Gaza

(Lee 2003). As plans were being made for the second group to start work in March 2002, and to bring

EAs to Hebron, where CPT operated, Johnson also worked directly with the CPT Palestine Team, meeting with them to discuss the ways in which CPT would “interface with the WCC ecumenical accompaniment program (EAPPI) in the Hebron area” (CPTNet 2002).

Although EAPPI was modeled largely after CPT’s Palestine Project, Polhamus asserts that much of CPT’s role in the creation of EAPPI has been somewhat lost in history (interview, February11, 2013,

Wilmington, Ohio). He writes,

We tried not [to] take a high profile publically about our role to avoid complications it could cause to our work. Israel at the time had barred 3 CPTers for 10 years from entry back in the country. So it seemed a low profile was wise while continuing to push out in our work (Rick Polhamus, email, June 25, 2013).

Kathleen Kern, one of the three CPTers denied entry into Israel in 2002, writes that the Israeli government was cracking down on international activists at that time due to “high-profile nonviolent interventions that ISM volunteers conducted in Ramallah, Bethlehem, and Nablus” (2010, 190).

187

After EAPPI took over its own nonviolence training, the WCC and EAPPI still reached out to

CPT, especially through Polhamus, but much more informally than before. Polhamus continued to share ideas with and advise WCC representatives and EAs until his departure from the Palestine Team as a full- time CPTer in 2004. Polhamus expresses disappointment that by 2005, CPT and EAPPI became more distant, even though EAPPI was establishing a greater presence in Hebron at this point. There was a breakdown in the continuity of the CPT Palestine Team as full-time CPTers were either denied entry into

Israel or left the team. Reservists with less experience and less time to commit – three or four weeks rather than months – took their places. CPT also established a more permanent presence in At-Tuwani, which now divided the team. In addition, EAPPI did not keep in touch with CPT with the intensity that

“would have been ideal for both organizations,” Polhamus states. The work of CPT is built on the relationships that CPTers make on the ground, but there have not always been systems in place to maintain the relationships as the team changes (interview, February 11, 2013, Wilmington, Ohio).

Even so, CPTer John Lynes recalls in an email to Kathleen Kern that by 2004, the work of EAPPI and ISM lightened CPT’s load.

My impression is that the most important development [affecting the Hebron Team] during that period was that, for the first time, EAPPI and ISM established a significant continuous presence in Hebron. This changed the character of our work. We were no longer the only game in town. ISM took over much of the publicity side. EAPPI looked after Cortuba School (Kern 2010, 250).

In essence, CPT had played an instrumental role in creating NGOs that would generate a greater international presence in the West Bank and would ultimately relieve some of the burden experienced by the local Palestinian population under the Occupation as well as the CPT Al-Khalil Team protecting them.

Further evidence of this came when CPT was able to close the At-Tuwani project in the South

Hebron Hills in 2011 after seven years of providing accompaniment to the village due, in part, to EAPPI’s presence in the area. Since 2004, CPT and Operation Dove had worked together on a daily basis in At-

Tuwani, where the Doves continue to operate. Just as ICAHD’s work had allowed CPT to move some of its focus away from home demolitions, the opening of EAPPI’s “office in Yatta, the urban hub of the

South Hebron Hills,” and the gradual strengthening of the local Palestinian nonviolence network in the

188 area alleviated the pressure for CPT to provide a full-time physical presence in At-Tuwani (CPTNet

2011b).

A 2012 article commemorating EAPPI’s tenth anniversary states that 1,062 EAs from 25 countries had volunteered in Jerusalem and the West Bank over the decade (EAPPI 2012). In comparison,

CPT had produced a total of 410 CPTers serving on various projects around the world since the first training in 1993 (internal CPT training memo 2012). “Since its founding, EAPPI has expanded to cover seven placements: Jerusalem, Bethlehem, Hebron, South Hebron Hills, Tulkarm and Jayyus” (EAPPI

2012). EAPPI’s move into Hebron and the South Hebron Hills has given CPTers more opportunities to collaborate with volunteers from the organization. For example, CPT and EAPPI have partnered on school patrols in Hebron, for which UNICEF Goodwill Ambassador Agnes Chan thanked the two organizations during her visit to the city in November 2012 (CPTNet 2012a).

CPTer Jonathan Brenneman, on the Palestine Team in 2012-2013, writes about how CPT currently coordinates its work in Hebron’s Old City with EAPPI and ISM. They hold coordinating meetings every two weeks. Through information-sharing and division of the workload, support among these three NGOs has evolved into a mutual exchange (email, June 28, 2013).

Since the founding of EAPPI and ISM with CPT’s support, CPT has not been instrumental in the creation of any other NGO. These two organizations emerged out of the circumstances of the Second

Intifada. CPT’s ability to participate so fully in their development depended, in large part, on the composition of the Palestine Team at that time. The CPTers on team were experienced and well established, enabling them to develop ISM and EAPPI from the ground up. CPTers with full-time status, who return for repeat periods of service, are typically in a position to be more effective in the role of launching these new NGOs. It takes time for individual CPTers to get acclimated to a new assignment.

CPTers need time to develop relationships and the skill sets for use on the ground in Palestine, and even more time to be able to offer solid input into and effective training to yet another organization. The greater the turnover and the more reservists on the team, the less ability CPT has to contribute to a deliberate and sustained effort of creating other peace organizations. CPT’s strongest partners today

189 emerged at a time when CPT possessed the human resources to offer sustained support toward building these institutions.

South Hebron Hills Popular Committee

The network of Palestinian villagers organized and committed to nonviolent resistance within the

South Hebron Hills Popular Committee serves as an example of yet another role CPT has had in

“institution-building” in the West Bank. It has not entailed the same deliberate organizing and training that CPT provided to EAPPI or ISM (Rick Polhamus, interview, February 11, 2013, Wilmington, Ohio).

Instead, CPT’s role in At-Tuwani and the surrounding area involved “creating a space” for Palestinians to strengthen their own nonviolence association.

As with other Palestinian nonviolence organizations, CPT offered sustained support to the nonviolent resistance efforts of the Palestinian villagers already under way. Chapters 4 and 5 cover the establishment and work of CPT’s At-Tuwani Team (jointly with Operation Dove) from 2004 to 2011.

CPT not only provided protective accompaniment for shepherds, farmers, and school children in At-

Tuwani and the surrounding area, but was also instrumental in getting the stories of the abuses faced by these villagers to the outside world and helping to apply prolonged pressure to the Israeli government.

A 2011 CPTNet release announcing the closure of CPT’s At-Tuwani project addresses the role

CPT played in supporting the local organizations during its seven years of continuous presence:

At-Tuwani team member Laura Ciaghi writes, “I think we have done a good job of empowering the community in doing nonviolent resistance, mostly by creating a safer space for people in Tuwani and lifting some of the heavy pressure of living under occupation, so that they had the time, the energy and the space to organize themselves” (CPTNet 2011b).

Ultimately, CPT aspires to withdraw from each conflict zone as a result of a significant decrease in the violence or threat and a transformation in the conflict itself. Empowering the population at risk presents itself as an essential step in this process. CPT not only helped in the development of NGOs designed to offer external (Israeli and international) assistance, but has also participated (and continues to participate) in the bolstering the Palestinian nonviolence organizations in the West Bank, too.

190

Conclusion

Unlike religious fundamentalists who reject cultural and religious pluralism, CPT is based on a set of Christian beliefs espousing “the reconciling love of God,” which leads CPTers to work “with local partners from a variety of faith traditions. CPT encourages the formation and development of other faith- based, nonviolent peace teams and desires to work cooperatively with them” (CPT 2010t).

Has CPT successfully created and/or strengthened other NGOs operating in the West Bank? CPT has been instrumental in the creation of ICAHD, ISM, and EAPPI. CPT has been at the center of a cosmopolitan movement and has contributed to the expansion of the global civil society operating in

Palestine. The Palestine Team intentionally serves as a bridge between Israelis and Palestinians, a role which facilitated the creation of ICAHD. CPT also actively involved itself in the shaping and training of

ISM and EAPPI.

CPT has shared information with and provided consultations for the various organizations. It has worked within reciprocal partnership arrangements with ICAHD, ISM, and EAPPI in Hebron, the South

Hebron Hills, and elsewhere in the West Bank. CPT’s ongoing efforts in At-Tuwani have also helped to create a space in which local Palestinian nonviolence organizations, including the South Hebron Hills

Popular Committee, have been able to grow in strength and intensify their nonviolent resistance against the Occupation. CPT’s commitment to following the lead of local partners and empowering Palestinians helps to diminish the class bias in favor of Northern NGOs within global civil society (Xu 2011, 7-8).

Has CPT’s institution-building increased the international presence in support of Palestinians?

CPT has clearly accomplished a level of institution-building that has increased the West Bank presence of internationals and Israelis working to end the injustices of the Occupation and fortifying Palestinian organizations embracing nonviolent resistance. The creation of ICAHD drew in a greater number of

Israeli activists on the ground working with Palestinians to rebuild their homes. ISM and EAPPI have recruited thousands of international volunteers to participate in nonviolent direct action in Palestine, far exceeding the number of CPT Palestine Team members. The number of third-party internationals now on

191 the ground in the West Bank trained directly by CPTers or indirectly through the adoption of their methods far exceeds the number of CPTers and what CPT resources could alone provide.

Has CPT served as an effective model for other justice organizations working in Israel/Palestine?

CPT has served not merely as a passive example of an organization committed to nonviolent direct action.

It has provided the inspiration and impetus for other NGOs in the region. CPT offers reproducible examples of nonviolent direct action responses to the challenges of the Occupation. The organization has served as an overall model for the organizational structure and strategies of EAPPI and, to a more limited extent, ISM. CPTers have provided extensive nonviolence training and have helped to develop the training programs for ISM and EAPPI. In addition, CPT’s short-term delegation trips stimulated the creation of similar group experiences through ICAHD and Rabbis for Human Rights.

The evidence presented in this chapter suggests that the CPT Palestine Team has had an important role in building institutions in the West Bank. As an inspiration for ICAHD, a partner in developing and training for ISM and EAPPI, and an international presence creating a space for the South

Hebron Hills Popular Committee to grow and thrive, the CPT Palestine Team has made a much greater impact in the growth of the nonviolence network than their four- to eight-person teams would otherwise allow. Chapter 8 will assess the CPT Palestine Team’s overall effectiveness and examine plans for its future.

192

Chapter 8 Assessment and Looking Ahead

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has. –Margaret Mead

Assessment

This case study tested the thesis that: Christian Peacemaker Teams in the West Bank has effectively developed nonviolent institutions, skills, and training for intervention in the conflict between

Israelis and Palestinians. This final chapter assesses the academic and practical significance of the research findings for improved understanding of strategies that transform violence and oppression and

NGOs’ role in the global peace movement. Evidence presented in previous chapters supports the claim that despite its very limited resources, CPT has successfully developed institutions, skills, and training in nonviolent efforts to intervene effectively in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. CPT was instrumental in the creation of ICAHD, ISM, and EAPPI. CPT has created a space for Palestinian organizations to develop and operate as exemplified by the South Hebron Hills Popular Committee. CPT’s skills and training have served as models for individuals and organizations throughout the West Bank. With only four to eight

CPTers serving on the Palestine Project at one time, CPT’s impact has been extraordinary, as other activists, including those in ISM and EAPPI, have adopted the organization’s training and skills.

The longevity of the Palestine Project – 20 years of work within the Hebron community and beyond – attests, in part, to CPT’s value to the community that it serves. The Palestine Team, despite changes in members over the years, has maintained many of its initial partners and “friends,” some of whom adopted nonviolence as a direct result of working with CPT. CPT’s network of partners has continued to expand, and CPT has achieved numerous examples of successful nonviolent intervention in conjunction with partners. Accompaniment, media campaigns, and advocacy have all contributed to effective intervention in a variety of hostile situations. CPTers have consistently provided Palestinian civilians physical protection through their third-party presence and a voice to the outside for two decades.

193

CPT has helped to intensify demands on Israel through its role in the development of the network of collaborative NGOs and IGOs on the scene.

One of CPT’s most successful endeavors has been its ongoing strategy for protective accompaniment in the West Bank. Adding to the scholarship in third-party nonviolent intervention and the “toolbox” of like-minded activists, this study uncovers a sophisticated, nuanced strategy for international protective accompaniment that varies based on the challenges on the ground. The Palestine

Team has spent much of its time accompanying school children in Hebron and the South Hebron Hills. In

Hebron, strategies have encompassed direct accompaniment, general school patrol, and checkpoint watch.

In addition, CPT and partners have created a type of “layered” accompaniment in At-Tuwani as they monitor soldiers appointed to accompany the children on their way to and from school.

CPT’s unique identity within the NGO community results in both limitations and strengths for the organization. CPT’s organizational model reflects its anti-authoritarian, egalitarian peace church roots. Its flat structure and consensus decision making have created an inclusive, communitarian organization reflective of its values, but one not conducive to large-scale growth as seen in other NGOs based on hierarchical organizational models. In recent years, lack of growth has led to budget deficits and understaffing of the Palestine Project.

CPT recognizes the challenges it faces in these areas and has made appropriate plans to implement more strategic fundraising. The role of the new executive director focuses on fundraising with a special emphasis on “major donor” fundraising and developing new channels for funding. This position should find support from the newly created communications and engagement director and program director. CPT has also set the goal for a reduction in the deficit starting in 2016, with a balanced budget by 2019-2020. The staffing level on the Palestine Team will increase to six for 2015. The Steering

Committee has already approved the six- to eight-person level of staffing requested by the Palestine Team

(Mark Frey, telephone interview, March 14, 2014). The increase in staffing levels for the team should alleviate some of the stress on team members and prevent missed opportunities for accompaniment and other actions. In addition, in December 2013, CPT launched “its first ever major gift campaign,” the

194

Plowing and Planting Campaign, designed to raise $110,000 by August 2014 for “plowing under debt for the Chicago training center and office” and “planting new seeds of psycho-social care for CPTers,

[including] in-person care for peacemakers in the field ” (CPTNet 2013a).

However, CPT is not willing to relinquish its strongly-held Christian values and unique identity to employ a professional, bureaucratic model of administration and decision making in an effort to promote major growth. Organizations derive power from growing membership and increased financial resources, but CPT appears intrinsically aware of Lord Acton’s dictum that such power tends to corrupt.

CPT has made sound choices regarding administrative and decision-making structures, funding sources, and other forms of outside support with appropriate consideration for maintaining the organization’s integrity. The organization has wielded a moral power that would be compromised by adopting an institutional hierarchy.

In spite of its resource limitations, others have recognized the value of CPT’s contributions to the nonviolence movement and have chosen to imitate them. The non-negotiable adoption of nonviolence in the struggle against oppression, which flows naturally out of CPT’s Christian pacifist roots, serves as a strategy that offers greater protection to activists and vulnerable communities alike than the use of force in the struggle for self-determination and even at times in self-defense. The Israeli authorities have repeatedly employed hawkish prescriptions extrapolated from realist theory such as disproportionate reprisals against Palestinians in retaliation for violent acts. CPT’s nonviolent strategies for intervention have enabled a generation of Palestinian children from Hebron and At-Tuwani to attend school with less fear and interference than before CPT’s accompaniment and advocacy began. Palestinian communities within the South Hebron Hills have remained intact and hopeful due to their alliance with CPT and the network of justice organizations within the region’s global civil society. Palestinian residents and shopkeepers who have remained in the Old City of Hebron despite the overwhelming restrictions to their movement have benefited from the international presence and nonviolent tools provided by CPT.

CPT’s cosmopolitan and communitarian views have led to the NGO’s promotion of interfaith and cross-cultural collaboration. CPT’s work has created bridges between Palestinians and Israelis who desire

195 just treatment for both peoples. The cooperation that CPT advances among local Palestinian Muslims and

Christians and Israeli Jews supports the claim within interfaith and faith-based peacemaking scholarship that “[i]nterethnic and interfaith relations can often be improved at the community level before improvements occur among elites and politicians” (Smock 2001, 8). CPT may serve as a practical example recognized by scholars for creating interfaith alliances with Muslims, Jews, and secular organizations strengthening the impact of the global civil society operating in the West Bank. An

Abrahamic Just Peacemaking paradigm, as suggested by Thistlethwaite and Stassen (2008), may indeed develop around the interfaith alliance in which CPT takes part in the West Bank.

Within the broader Christian community, CPT has not only fostered greater ecumenical cooperation within its own organization but also with Palestinian Christians and those represented within

EAPPI. In addition, CPT’s move toward welcoming Muslim members within the organization demonstrates the extent to which they embrace the Anabaptist and Quaker value of equality. This respect for others has evolved into CPT’s adoption of this form of cosmopolitan pluralism and provides a new way for CPT activists to make and strengthen connections across faith communities in the West Bank.

CPT serves as a model for the human rights NGO community, which aspires to create and maintain cosmopolitan, interfaith, cross-cultural networks engaged in collaborative efforts toward the protection of individuals at risk. Interestingly, this model of ecumenical and interfaith cooperation emanates from an organization whose Anabaptist predecessors were inclined to remain in more isolated, principled communities rather than foster connections with mainstream society. CPT has departed from this practice by promoting ecumenism and interfaith solidarity, but not to the extent of assimilating into global civil society and becoming like other traditional human rights NGOs.

CPT has adopted practices designed to empower Palestinians as well. Following the lead of local partners not only places a high priority on the vulnerable population’s needs and desires, but it also allows for the development of leadership among Palestinians in their movement against oppression. Other CPT efforts create a space in which Palestinian organizations can more freely develop and operate. These efforts include CPT’s accompaniment work, which offers Palestinians physical protection; CPT’s media

196 and reporting, which give Palestinians a voice to the outside; as well as CPT’s practice of embedding its teams within the vulnerable community, which allows CPTers to respond more quickly and effectively in support of the Palestinians. ISM and EAPPI have adopted these approaches from CPT’s example. CPT and now other internationals are committed to developing partnerships that empower Palestinians so that they have the tools to work independently as the risks to them decrease. This represents a conscious recognition on the part of CPT that global civil society is in need of more Southern representatives and that they are best equipped to negotiate their own challenges. The organization has purposefully developed a cooperative campaign with a high level of political responsibility toward local partners. CPT aspires to be in equal partnership with Palestinian NGOs to transform the conflict rather than being perceived as a “savior” from the outside.

In the end, has CPT’s work reduced violence and oppression? Whereas there is evidence of declining numbers of home demolitions and fewer settler attacks on At-Tuwani school children, CPT has not ended settler or soldier violence on a large scale. The BDS network, including CPT, has gained attention for its mounting pressure on Israel, but settlements continue to expand and Palestinians remain under threat of eviction, detention, or physical harm. CPT, even in partnership with a myriad of other justice organizations, has not come close to bringing the Occupation to an end. With the Israeli military still firmly entrenched in the West Bank, the hawkish realist tenet of “Might makes right” seems to have prevailed thus far in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. CPTers and others embracing nonviolence, peaceful coexistence, equal rights, and other liberal internationalist notions have remained resilient, but their victories are relatively few. This limited success mirrors the overall global peace movement against violent and oppressive regimes.

Even the most celebrated peace movements have achieved only short-lived successes. Gandhi’s nonviolence movement liberated India from British rule. However, the partition of the subcontinent along religious lines, a population transfer involving over 10,000,000 people, and bloody inter-communal conflict killing over 1,000,000 people would follow that victory. South Africa’s end to apartheid ushered in the election of unresponsive and unaccountable African National Congress governments, which

197

Desmund Tutu himself likened to the former apartheid regime and those of Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak and

Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi (Smith 2011). Political repression and inequalities continue to grow 20 years later. Even in the United States, many of the gains of Martin Luther King, Jr.’s civil rights movement

“have been undermined by the mass incarceration of black Americans in the war on drugs….[A]lthough

Jim Crow laws are now off the books, millions of blacks arrested for minor crimes remain marginalized and disfranchised, trapped by a criminal justice system that has forever branded them as felons and denied them basic rights and opportunities that would allow them to become productive, law-abiding citizens”

(Alexander 2012). Huntington might refer to the immediate effects of these notable nonviolence movements as mere “interruptions” in the ongoing conflicts.

If CPT has not even approached a large-scale transformation of the violence and injustices within the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, then why have others viewed their efforts as successful and jumped on the bandwagon to adopt some variation of the CPT model? Why would CPTers and other activists take on or continue the “good fight” in the face of the recurring victories of entrenched religious fundamentalism and unwavering nationalism? There is more than one response to these questions.

CPTers point to the individuals, families, and communities on whose lives they are having an impact. This study cannot quantify how many lives have been saved when vulnerable Palestinians have received moral support, accompaniment, and nonviolence support from CPT. For CPTers, other faith- based activists, and even secular cosmopolitans, who understand the intrinsic value of human life, verse

5:32 of the Qur’an resonates: “to save a life would be as great a virtue as to save all of mankind.” For the

Palestinian partners and community members, the mothers and fathers, each of those lives could very well be of a beloved child or family member. The value of each of those lives is immeasurable.

Just as it is not feasible to know the number of lives that might have been saved by CPT’s efforts, it is equally as impossible to know what fruits will be born of seeds planted today. CPTers devote their lives to working toward a more just and secure future for populations at risk. The hope, though not necessarily the expectation even among idealists, is that CPT’s seeds will find fertile ground and create a windfall harvest. Using another metaphor, CPTer Sarah Thompson likens CPT’s effect to rhizomes, the

198 horizontal root system of some plants, which allows new shoots to grow upwards: “Rhizomes that work underground, working under the muck, making connections and then… every once in a while a lily pad pops up – that’s how CPT works” (interview, June 28, 2013, Chicago). The global civil society network of nonviolence partnerships and other relationships fostered by CPT has demonstrated the potential for new lily pad-like oases blossoming in the “muck,” offering hope and comfort in a Hobbesian world full of

“continual fear and danger of violent death, and [in which] the life of man [is] solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” (Hobbes [1651] 1996, 84).

In the Future of Power, Joseph Nye argues against the “concrete fallacy” that reduces power to tangible, measurable resources. Nye notes the critical importance of legitimacy and the information-age struggle waged by NGOs to shame state actors (2011, 83). CPT’s 20-year effort in the West Bank has contributed to global condemnation of Israel’s settlement policy and unjust persecution of innocent

Palestinians.

Nye also argues that nonviolent approaches may be insufficient, but that military and coercive strategies are often ineffective as well (2011). Similarly, CPT asserts,

The human race has had thousands of years and trillions of dollars to develop increasingly destructive forms of warfare in the pursuit of peace and security. This has clearly failed. Now is the time to redirect our energies and resources to alternative ways, to Jesus' way, of achieving peace and security (CPT 2010e).

Indeed, the Israeli military may have the upper hand, but violence has not been any more effective than nonviolent strategies in resolving the intractable conflict between Jewish settlers and Palestinian terrorists. Israel has engaged in a long series of military conflicts with neighboring countries and

Palestinians. The Israeli authorities have remained complicit in the expansion of settlements throughout the West Bank. The Israeli military has made regular use of collective punishment and disproportionate retaliation against Palestinian civilians in attempts to deter acts of violence. Palestinian support for Hamas has grown, and Hamas has engaged in rocket strikes and acts of terrorism against the Israeli population.

After 66 years of independence, Israel and its citizens continue to be consumed with security issues.

Israeli writer and father of a fallen soldier in the 2006 war against Lebanon, David Grossman recalls,

199

An international TV program once interviewed a young Israeli couple and asked how many children they wanted to have. The beautiful bride said immediately: "Three." And the interviewer asked: "Why three?" And she said with a smile: "So that if one of them is killed in a war or in terror we shall still have two left."… We did not have three children out of this calculation, but I must admit that this thought had crossed my mind when we started having children. The option of personal catastrophe is connected to the special fate of this country. As I fear for my children, all my life I lived with this fear of what happens if a catastrophe occurs in Israel. The question of whether we shall exist here in the future, whether we will still live here within a few decades time, prevails subconsciously in the mind of most Israelis (2009).

In addition, a century after the end of World War I, renewed fighting throughout the Middle East illustrates anew how military solutions may be insufficient.

Whatever CPT’s political impact in Palestine, the organization’s work has transformed people’s lives. CPT’s Christian love has not conquered all, but it has enriched the lives of members and participants with whom they have collaborated. The model has inspired Christian and non-Christian activists from North America, Israel, the West Bank and other points around the globe to fulfill their own humanity by reaching out in “brotherly love” to one another. In comparison to secular NGOs, CPT maintains an active spiritual element within its teams, and activists typically draw strength and motivation from their self-sacrificial religious faith that is reinforced daily. Also, in contrast to more impartial NGOs within the conflict, CPT’s model of embeddedness in the Palestinian communities and solidarity activities with Palestinians and Israeli activists fosters strong personal relationships that motivate CPTers to serve persistently alongside their partners and neighbors. CPTers’ example, in turn, inspires others to join forces, adopt nonviolence, and lead more meaningful and better lives than those who have chosen the path of hatred and violence, which always leads to greater pain and misery.

Finally, CPTers remain faithful. Mother Theresa’s reflection “We are not called to be successful, but faithful” embodies a tenet by which CPTers live. Just as Jesus practiced self-sacrificial love and forms of nonviolent resistance against corrupt authority, so too do CPTers. They believe that it is only through

“the nonviolent power of God’s truth” and their willingness to take “bold action” that war and occupation and their own lives ultimately can be transformed (CPT 2010b).

200

Future Research

As with any research, new questions arise from the evidence gathered. Considering the personal sacrifices made by CPTers, what motivates activists to become and remain involved in the nonviolence work of the organization? Do the same factors motivate and inspire activists of both faith-based and secular justice organizations? A comparative study might reveal similarities and differences to assist those

NGOs looking to increase personnel or retain activists already in the field.

A comparative study might also provide a more critical examination of CPT’s organizational model. Ideally, such a study would include not only other larger human rights organizations, but also other NGOs with resources comparable to those of CPT. Has accountability to donors been a significant factor in comparable organizations? For the most part, financial donors have not held CPT accountable.

Anecdotally, CPT’s donors are committed to the principles of the work of the organization and are less concerned with the organization’s financial plan or measurable outcomes linked to spending. Lack of accountability to donors may change over time as the organization explores new fundraising strategies including grants such as the recent UNICEF support.

This case study has concentrated on the effectiveness of CPT’s Palestine Team. CPT also has long-term teams in Colombia and Iraqi Kurdistan where cultural, political, or other factors may make a difference in their operations. In Colombia, what are the specific benefits and challenges resulting from deployment of Colombian members of CPT who are native to the conflict zone?

CPT in Palestine has served as a model for both ISM and EAPPI. Both of these second- generation nonviolence organizations have attracted more volunteers than CPT. What factors account for that success? What parts of the CPT model have these NGOs maintained and what have they done differently? Have they been effective in ways that mirror CPT’s successes or in other ways?

Personal exposure through field work for this study has fostered a new respect for Palestinian and

Israeli peace organizations operating in the West Bank. Palestinians risk loss of property and displacement, incarceration and torture, and even death for engaging in civil disobedience and other nonviolent direct actions. Some choose nonviolent resistance against the Occupation even when they have

201 the opportunity to leave the West Bank and move their families elsewhere. Israeli activists are often mocked, ridiculed, and ostracized from the larger community, sometimes even from family. These men and women choose advocacy for others over silent acceptance of injustices at great personal expense.

These sacrifices alone warrant a closer examination of local nonviolence organizations to determine motivations, strategies, and special challenges of Palestinian and Israeli NGOs. Initial organizations of interest in a comparative case study of this kind include Palestinian NGOs, such as Holy Land Trust, the

Palestinian Center for Rapprochement between People, and Youth Against Settlements, as well as Israeli

NGOs Breaking the Silence, Rabbis for Human Rights, and ICAHD.

CPT’s work in the West Bank represents one set of nonviolent strategies to attempt to reach a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Other instruments of soft power used to create a resolution to the conflict include diplomatic efforts and international legal initiatives. Violent and coercive methods have also been adopted by both sides. Further research comparing the outcomes of violent and nonviolent methods would offer data on the costs and effectiveness of each approach.

Finally, this case study raises questions about international law and US foreign policy that go beyond NGOs. Does international humanitarian law offer any meaningful remedy for Israel’s conduct in the Occupied Territories? Israel has rejected rulings by the International Court of Justice based on its different interpretation of international law regarding settlements. What, if any, legal remedies could

Palestinians and their supporters seek in either international or Israeli tribunals? In addition, what responsibility do international organizations and other states have to resolve the Israeli/Palestinian conflict? The United Nations approved the partition of Palestinian territory to create the state of Israel, and rejected its expansion to the West Bank. The US government has supported Israel without effectively stopping the West Bank settlements it deplores. Other scholars and practitioners examining the legal and moral obligations of others would benefit from research on how NGOs, both pro-Palestinian and pro-

Israeli, have sought to influence both US and UN approaches to ending the conflict.

202

Conclusion

“We are constantly being astonished these days at the amazing discoveries in the field of violence. But I maintain that far more undreamt of and seemingly impossible discoveries will be made in the field of nonviolence” (Gandhi 1940). This case study of CPT has provided an opportunity to discover new possibilities in the field of nonviolence by examining closely an NGO driven by faith. CPT’s example plants the seeds for the seemingly impossible – interfaith partnerships in a region known for its religious divisions, nonviolent strategies for transforming violence in the midst of military occupation, and lives enriched through self-sacrifice and cross-cultural solidarity. “[D]eliberate human action has significant impact. Small groups of thoughtful, committed citizens do make a difference under appropriate circumstances” (Levine 2013, 26). CPT’s Palestine Project demonstrates how a small group of brave, selfless, committed individuals willing to take action against violence and injustice can make a positive difference in the lives of individuals and entire communities and inspire many organizations.

CPT represents hope for a better future for those caught up in the unrelenting cycle of the Occupation.

That hope springs from CPT’s actions and patient resolve. CPTers’ calling is neither to kill as extremist fundamentalists might do nor to sit silently, as other strains of pacifists have done, while the weak face violence and oppression. Instead, they choose the “third option.” These pacifist activists of

Christian Peacemaker Teams have heeded Ron Sider’s original call to “prayerfully and nonviolently place

[themselves] between the weak and the oppressor…. [exhibiting] the courage to move from the back lines of isolationist pacifism to the front lines of nonviolent peacemaking” (1984).

203

Glossary of Terms and Acronyms

Accompaniment – also “international protective accompaniment” is the presence of foreign actors with

local actors to protect those local actors against attack and to encourage them to engage in

democratic civilian activities (Mahoney 1997, 207).

Area C – the part of the South Hebron Hills which falls under full Israeli military and civil control.

Associate member – a member of CPT who abides by the values and commitments of the organization,

but adheres to a non-Christian faith/spirituality; currently (2014) there have been two Muslim

associate members on CPT’s Palestine Team.

BDS – Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions.

Bypass roads - Beginning in the 1970s with the birth and emboldening of the settlement movement,

Israel has gradually created a new transportation grid in the West Bank. The purpose of much of

the new road system is to "bypass" Palestinian towns and villages, connecting Israeli settlements

to each other and to the Israeli transportation grid inside the Green Line. Many of these roads are

thus referred to as "bypass roads" (Etkes and Friedman 2005).

Delegations – CPT offers “short-term delegations” for small groups of individuals to spend two

weeks observing and participating in CPT work on the ground at the different project

sites. There have also been “exploratory delegations” of CPTers visiting conflict zones to

assess the situation and determine if CPT might set up a project in the area.

EAPPI – Ecumenical Accompaniment Programme in Palestine and Israel.

GCS – Global Civil Society.

H1 –the part of Hebron (approximately 80% of the city’s area and most of its Palestinian

population) falling under the jurisdiction of the Palestinian Authority, including security

control.

H2 – the eastern side of Hebron under Israeli control through military rule, including 30,000 Palestinians,

the city’s Jewish settlers, and the Ibrahimi Mosque/Tomb of the Patriarchs.

204

Hebron Protocol (1997) – agreement between the Israeli government and PA for partial redeployment of

Israeli troops from Hebron and the partitioning Hebron into two zones, H1 and H2.

ICAHD – Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions.

Intifada – the First Intifada was a predominantly nonviolent Palestinian uprising in Gaza and the West

Bank characterized by general strikes, boycotts, graffiti, and civil disobedience to protest Israeli

occupation from December 1987 until 1991; the Second Intifada or Al-Aqsa Intifada, also in

protest of the Occupation and characterized by Palestinian suicide bombings and other violence,

began in September 2000 after Ariel Sharon’s provocative visit to the area around the Dome of

the Rock and lasted until 2005.

ISM – International Solidarity Movement.

Kiryat Arba – Jewish settlement, home to some 7,000 Israeli settlers, on the outskirts of the eastern side

of Hebron.

Oslo Accords – failed peace process begun in 1993 between the Israeli government and Palestinians

represented by the Palestine Liberation organization that created the Palestinian Authority with

limited self-governance over parts of the Occupied Territories and an agenda for negotiations

toward a possible two-state solution to the conflict; the set of agreements included the Oslo I

Accord (1993) and the Oslo II Accord (1995).

PA – Palestinian Authority.

Public Witness – used by CPT synonymously with nonviolent direct action, defined by Tom Cordaro “

as any public act done for the purpose of influencing public policy and/or articulating or

challenging social, religious and political values” (CPT 2010, Public Witness What Is).

TIPH – Temporary International Presence in Hebron.

WCC – World Council of Churches.

Yeshivah – Jewish educational institution focusing on the study of the traditional religious texts,

especially the Torah and Talmud.

205

References

"The 14th Dalai Lama - Acceptance Speech." 1989, November 1922. Nobelprize.org. http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1989/lama-acceptance.html (March 15, 2015).

Abbott, Margery Post, Mary Ellen Chijioke, Pink Dandelion, and John William Oliver Jr., eds. 2012. Historical Dictionary of the Friends (Quakers). 2nd ed. Toronto, Canada: Scarecrow.

Akerlund, Anna, Kari Berg, and Eduardo Villanueva. 2002. “A as in Accompaniment.” New Routes: A Journal of Peace Research and Action 7 (2): 20-26. http://www.life-peace.org/wp- content/uploads/2013/06/nr_2002_02.pdf (July 12, 2013).

Alexander, Michelle. 2012. “Legal Scholar: Jim Crow Still Exists in America” [Author interview/book review hosted by Dave Davies: The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness. New York: New Press, 2010], January 16. Fresh Air [National Public Radio program transcript]. http://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=145175694 (June 16, 2014).

Almond, Gabriel A., R. Scott Appleby, and Emmanuel Sivan. 2003. Strong Religion: The Rise of Fundamentalism around the World. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

American Friends Service Committee (AFSC). 2013. Annual Report 2013, http://afsc.org/sites/afsc.civicactions.net/files/documents/2013-annual-report.pdf (March 29, 2014).

---. 2014. “About Us: Staff Leadership.” https://www.afsc.org/office/philadelphia-pa (March 29, 2014).

Amnesty International (AI). 2002. Israel and the Occupied Territories and the Palestinian Authority: Without Distinction - Attacks on Civilians by Palestinian Armed Groups. http://www.amnesty.org/fr/library/asset/mde02/003/2002/fr/ad408511-d821-11dd-9df8- 936c90684588/mde020032002en.html (March 19, 2014).

---. 2013. “About Us.” http://www.amnestyusa.org/about-us (March 2, 2014).

Andoni, Ghassan. 2002. “Interview – Ghassan Andoni – International Solidarity Movement,” September 16. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oz8R2DaamkQ (June 20, 2013).

Andoni, Lamis. 1997. “Redefining Oslo: Negotiating the Hebron Protocol.” Journal of Palestine Studies 26 (3), 17-30.

Appiah, Kwame Anthony. 2006. Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers. New York: W. W. Norton.

Atalay, Zeynep. 2009. “The Blind Spot of Global Civil Society: Religious NGO Networks in the Muslim World.” In American Sociological Association Conference Papers (Annual Meeting): 1–25. EBSCO SocINDEXwith Full Text.

Auerbach, Jerald S. 2009. Hebron Jews. New York: Rowman and Littlefield.

206

Baron, Virginia. 1997. “After the Bulldozers, the Rebuilding.” Nonviolent Activist: the Magazine of the War Resisters League. July-August. http://www.warresisters.org/nva/nva0797-2.htm (July 3, 2013).

BBC News. 2005. “Intifada Toll 2000 – 2005,” February 8. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3694350.stm (March 23, 2014).

---. 2009. “The Geneva Convention,” December 10. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/middle_east/israel_and_the_palestinians/key_documents/168 2640.stm (June 8, 2014).

---. 2014. “Abducted Israeli Teens Found Dead Near Hebron,” June 30. http://www.bbc.com/news/world- middle-east-28097164 (July 21, 2014).

Berry, Craig, and Clive Gabay (2009) “Transnational Political Action and 'Global Civil Society in Practice: The Case of Oxfam,” Global Networks 9 (3), 339–58.

Berry, Jeffrey M. 1977. Lobbying for the People. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

---. 1997. The Interest Group Society. 3rd ed. New York: Longman.

---. 2005. A Voice for Nonprofits. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

Berry, Mike, and Greg Philo. 2006. Israel and Palestine: Competing Histories. Ann Arbor, MI: Pluto.

Betts, Richard. 2007. “Realism,” September 24. Lecture transcript, Columbia University course, Conceptual Foundations of International Politics. http://ivarbakke.blogspot.com/2013/11/richard- betts-on-realism.html (July 3, 2014).

Blase, Melvin G. 1986. Institution Building: A Source Book. Rev. ed. Columbia, MO: University of Missouri Press.

Boothe, Ivan, and Lee A. Smithey. 2007. "Privilege, Empowerment, and Nonviolent Intervention." Peace and Change 32 (1): 39-61.

Brock, Peter. 1970. Pioneers of the Peaceable Kingdom. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Brown, Alison P. 2004. "The Immobile Mass: Movement Restriction in the West Bank." Social and Legal Studies 13 (4): 501-21.

Brown, Tricia Gates, ed. 2005. Getting in the Way: Stories from Christian Peacemaker Teams. Scottdale, PA: Herald.

B’Tselem. 2010. “By Hook and by Crook: Israel’s Settlement Policy in the West Bank,” July. http://www.btselem.org/English/Publications/Summaries/201007 (November 20, 2010).

---. 2011. “17 Years after Goldstein Massacre, Hebron City Center Paralyzed,” March 3. http://www.btselem.org/hebron/20110303_hebron_17_years_after_goldstein_massacre (June 4, 2014).

---. 2014. “Statistics. http://www.btselem.org/statistics/first_intifada_tables (May 21, 2014).

207

Butler, C. T. Lawrence, and Amy Rothstein. 2007. On Conflict and Consensus: A Handbook on Formal Consensus Decisionmaking. Takoma, MD: Food Not Bombs.

Carter, Jimmy. 2010. “President Jimmy Carter: ‘White House Diary’" [transcript, The Diane Rehm Show, November 30]. http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2010-11-30/president-jimmy-carter-white- house-diary/transcript (May 15, 2014).

Church of the Brethren. 2013. “What We Believe.” http://www.brethren.org/about/beliefs.html (March 15, 2014).

Ciaghi, Laura. 2014. "Sostenere la Resistenza Popolare Nonviolenta: l’Esperienza dei Corpi Civili di Pace nelle South Hebron Hills – Palestina.” In Costruire la Pace tra Stato e Territori. Conflitti, Stato e Istituzioni Locali: i Dilemmi del Peacebuilding, AA. VV. Trento, Italy: Erickson. Paging from author’s manuscript prior to publication; English translation by Marlaina Leppert-Wahl.

Clarke, Richard. 2000. “Self-Presentation in a Contested City.” Anthropology Today 16 (October): 12-18.

Cohen, Robert. 2013. “Jewish Nationalism, Christian Theology and the Demise of Interfaith Dialogue.” Tikkun Daily, July 11. https://www.tikkun.org/tikkundaily/2013/07/11/jewish-nationalism- christian-theology-and-the-demise-of-interfaith-dialogue/ (April 5, 2014).

Colas, Alejandro. 2002. International Civil Society: Social Movements in World Politics. Cambridge: Polity/Blackwell.

Cotler, Irwin. 2011. “Footnote 111.” In “The Politics of NGOs, Human Rights and the Arab-Israel Conflict,” Gerald M. Steinberg, Israel Studies 16 (2): 24 – 54. DOI: 10.2979/israelstudies.16.2.24.

Coy, Patrick G.. 2008. “25 Years of Lessons on Nonpartisanship and Nonviolent Intervention: A Comparative Organizational Analysis of International Protective Accompaniment Practices.” Conference Papers -- International Studies Association (2008). Academic Search Complete (June 23, 2010).

--- 2012. “Nonpartisanship, Intervention and Legality in Accompaniment: Comparative Analyses of Peace Brigades International, Christian Peacemaker Teams, and the International Solidarity Movement.” The International Journal of Human Rights 16 (iFirst): 1-19. http://www.kent.edu/cacm/faculty/upload/nonpartisanship-interv-legality-in-accompaniment.pdf (March 16, 2014).

CPT (Christian Peacemaker Teams). 1995a.”Affinity Groups,” October. www.cpt.org/files/public_witness/AffinityGroups.pdf (March 22 2014).

---. 1995b. “Public Witness Checklist.” December. www.cpt.org/files/public_witness/WitnessCheck.pdf (March 22, 2014).

---. 2001. “Bethlehem District: CPT Delegation Under Fire in Beit Jala.” http://www.cpt.org/es/cptnet/2001/08/19/bethlehem-district-cpt-delegation-under-fire-beit-jala (June 2, 2014).

208

---. 2004. “Gender Roles on Team. September. http://www.cpt.org/resources/training/undoing_oppression (March 21, 2014).

---. 2005. “Identifying a Support Community.” http://www.cpt.org/files/PP%20- %20Support%20Community.pdf (March 2, 2014).

---. 2006. “Documenting Human Rights Abuses.” July. http://www.cpt.org/files/PP%20- %20Human%20Rights%20Reporting.pdf (May 1, 2014).

---. 2007a. “Guidelines for Writing.” July. http://www.cpt.org/files/OS%20- %20Guidelines%20for%20Writing.pdf (February 6, 2013).

---. 2007b. “What Women in CPT Want Men in CPT to Know,” January 23. http://www.cpt.org/resources/training/undoing_oppression (March 21, 2014).

---. 2010a. “198 Methods of Nonviolent Action.” http://www.cpt.org/files/PW%20- %20198%20Methods.pdf (July 4, 2014).

---. 2010b. “About CPT.” http://www.cpt.org/about_cpt (June 20, 2014).

---. 2010c. “About CPT Hebron.” http://www.cpt.org/work/palestine/hebron/about (May 1, 2014).

---. 2010d. “About/History.” http://www.cpt.org/about/history. (March 20, 2014).

---. 2010e. “About/Frequent Questions.” http://www.cpt.org/about/faq (March 20, 2014).

---. 2010f. “About/Mission.” http://www.cpt.org/about/mission (June 30, 2011).

---. 2010g. “Become a CPTer.” http://www.cpt.org/participate/peacemaker (March 21, 2014).

---. 2010h. “Biblical Nonviolence.” http://www.cpt.org/resources/training/bibical_nonviolence (March 22, 2014).

---. 2010i. “Conflict Transformation.” http://www.cpt.org/resources/training/conflict_transformation (March 22, 2014).

---. 2010j. “Gandhi’s Nonviolence Principles” http://www.cpt.org/files/PW%20-%20Principles%20- %20Gandhi.pdf (April 2, 2014).

---. 2010k. “Hebron” (brochure). Chicago, IL: Christian Peacemaker Teams. (Distributed 2010).

---. 2010l. “I Can Fix It.” http://www.cpt.org/resources/training/undoing_oppression (March 2, 2014.

---. 2010m. “Martin Luther King, Jr.’s Principles of Nonviolence.” http://www.cpt.org/files/PW%20- %20Principles%20-%20King.pdf (April 2, 2014).

---. 2010n. “Mission, Vision, Values.” http://www.cpt.org/about/mission (May 2, 2011).

---. 2010o. “Palestine: Campaign for Secure Dwellings.” http://www.cpt.org/participate/campaigns/past/dwellings (May 15, 2013).

209

---. 2010p. “Preparing for Presence.” http://www.cpt.org/resources/training/preparing_presence (March 21, 2014).

---. 2010q. “Public Witness.” http://www.cpt.org/resources/training/public_witness (March 21, 2014).

---. 2010r. “Public Witness: What Is Public Witness?” http://www.cpt.org/resources/witness (March 21, 2014).

---. 2010s. “Self-Care Plan.” http://www.cpt.org/files/PP%20-%20Self-Care%20Plan.pdf (March 21, 2014).

---. 2010t. “Statement on Identity and Membership.” http://www.cpt.org/participate/peacemaker/membership (March 21, 2014).

---. 2010u. “Training.” http://www.cpt.org/resources/training (March 21, 2014).

---. 2010v. “Training Objectives.” http://www.cpt.org/resources/training/general_orientation (March 21, 2014).

---. 2010w. “Undoing Oppression.” http://www.cpt.org/resources/training/undoing_oppression (March 21, 2014).

---. 2010x. “Urgent Actions & Prayer Alerts,” October [brochure]. Chicago, Illinois.

---. 2010y. “Worship.” http://www.cpt.org/resources/worship (March 14, 2014).

---. 2010z. “Year in Review FYE 2010b, 1 February 2010 – 31 October 2010.” http://www.cpt.org/files/Annual%20Report%202010b.pdf (March 20, 2014).

---. 2011. “Financial Statement, Fiscal Years 2011 and 2012.” http://www.cpt.org/participate/donate/ statement (August 18, 2011).

---. 2012a. “Al-Bowereh Media Package” [slide presentation]. http://www.cpt.org/files/Al%20Bowereh%20Media%20Kit_0.pdf (March 15, 2014).

---. 2012b. Hebron Media Package [slide presentation]. http://www.cpt.org/files/palestine/hebron-media- package.pdf (July 17, 2012).

---. 2012c. Home Page. http://www.cpt.org (March 15, 2014).

---. 2012. “Introduction to At-Tuwani and South Hebron Hills.” http://www.cpt.org/work/palestine/tuwani/introduction (August 17, 2012).

---. 2012d. “Remembering Claire Evans,” February 15. http://www.cpt.org/cptnet/2012/02/15/chicago- remembering-claire-evans (May 22, 2014).

---. 2012e. Year in Review. http://www.cpt.org/files/Annual%20Report%202012.pdf (May 9, 2014).

---. 2013a. Annual Reports / Years in Review [FY 2007 – 2012]. http://www.cpt.org/news/year_in_review (March 20, 2014).

210

---. 2013b. “CPT launches New Logo.” Signs of the Times [newsletter]. April-June, 8-9. http://www.cpt.org/cptnet/2013/07/09/cpt-international-christian-peacemaker-teams-launches- new-logo (May 9, 2014).

---. 2013c. Christian Peacemaker Teams Palestine: Strategic Plan, September 2013 to September 2013 [excerpts from the internally-distributed document]. Jerusalem: O’Sullivan Solutions.

---. 2013d. “Mission, Vision, Values.” http://www.cpt.org/about/mission (May 2, 2014).

---. 2013e. “Newsletters: Signs of the Times.” http://www.cpt.org/news/sott (May 1, 2014).

---. 2013f. “Training Curriculum.” [2-page hand-out for trainees, unpublished]. Chicago, IL: CPT.

---. 2014a. “About Palestine Projects.” http://www.cpt.org/work/palestine (May 1, 2014).

---. 2014b. “Communications and Engagement Director Job Description and Requirements.” http://www.cpt.org/openings/ced (March 20, 2014).

---. 2014c. “Palestine/Israel.” http://cpt.org/es/taxonomy/term/101 (January 22, 2014).

---. 2014d. “Program Director Job Description and Requirements.” http://www.cpt.org/openings/pd (March 20, 2014).

---. 2014e. “Staff Support Team.” http://www.cpt.org/about/people/staff (March 20, 2014).

---. 2014f. “Steering Committee.” http://www.cpt.org/about/people/steering_committee (March 20, 2014).

CPTNet. 1996. “CPT Hebron Vows to Ride Bus #18 in Jerusalem Next Sunday,” March 6. In As Resident Aliens: Christian Peacemaker Teams in the West Bank, 1995-2005, Kathleen Kern, 2010. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 52-53.

---. 1997a. “Hebron CPTers to Begin 700 Hour ‘Fast for Rebuilding,’” February 25. http://www.al- bushra.org/peaceteam/700_hours.htm (March 15, 2014).

---. 1997b. “Washington DC: CPT Delegation Goes to State Department,” March. http://www.al- bushra.org/peaceteam/delegate.htm (March 15, 2014).

---. 2002. “Curfew lifted from 6:00-10:00 am.” December 5. http://www.cpt.org/cptnet/2002/12/10/hebron-update-november-30-december-5-2002 (March 15, 2014).

---. 2005. “Update on Tuwani Urgent Action,” October 19. http://www.cpt.org/cptnet/2005/10/20/tuwani- update-tuwani-urgent-action (May 1, 2014).

---. 2010. “Ongoing action alert: Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions,” August 10. http://www.cpt.org/cptnet/2010/08/10/palestine-ongoing-action-alert-boycott-divestment- sanctions (May 1, 2014).

---. 2011a. “Autumn 2011 through 2012 delegations announced,” July 27. http://www.cpt.org/cptnet/2011/07/27/cpt-international-autumn-2011-through-2012-delegations- announced (May 22, 2014).

211

---. 2011b. “At-Tuwani: CPT-Palestine Closes at-Tuwani Project,” October 21. http://cpt.org/cptnet/2011/10/21/tuwani-cpt-palestine-closes-tuwani-project (July 20, 2013).

---. 2012a “Al-Khalil (Hebron): UNICEF Ambassador Visits Hebron,” November 6. http://cpt.org/cptnet/2012/11/06/al-khalil-hebron-unicef-ambassador-visits-hebron (July 3, 2013).

---. 2012b. “Al-Khalil (Hebron) Urgent Action: Prevent New Settlement Outpost, Increased Settler Violence in Hebron,” October 24. http://www.cpt.org/es/node/9936 (May 1, 2014).

---. 2012c. “Report: Under Attack…,” February 16. http://www.cpt.org/cptnet/2012/02/16/al-khalil- hebron-under-attack-golani-brigades-war-palestinian-population-al-khalih (May 9, 2014).

---. 2013a. “CPT International: CPT launches Plowing and Planting Campaign,” December 13. http://www.cpt.org/cptnet/2013/12/10/cpt-international-cpt-launches-plowing-and-planting- campaign-director-carol-rose-a (July 14, 2014).

---. 2013b. “CPT International: Sarah Thompson Appointed CPT Executive Director,” December 17. (March 20, 2014).

---. 2013c. “Newsletters.” http://www.cpt.org/news/sott (March 25, 2014).

---. 2013d. “Palestine: CPT Palestine Plans New Direction for Its Work,” October 17. http://www.cpt.org/cptnet/2013/10/17/palestine-cpt-palestine-plans-new-direction-its-work (March 22, 2014).

---. 2013e. “Pedagogy of the Occupied,” March 7. http://www.cpt.org/cptnet/2013/03/07/palestine- pedagogy-occupied (May 1, 2014).

---. 2013f. “Solidarity Demonstration Held at al-Rajabi Building,” Sept. 2. http://www.cpt.org/cptnet/2013/09/02/al-khalil-hebron-solidarity-demonstration-held-al-rajabi- building (May 1, 2014).

---. 2013g. “South Hebron Hills: Israeli military detains driver, confiscates vehicle donated for transport of schoolchildren in South Hebron Hills,” November 19. http://www.cpt.org/cptnet/2013/11/19/south-hebron-hills-israeli-military-detains-driver- confiscates-vehicle-donated-tra (March 22, 2014).

--- .2013h. “South Hebron Hills Urgent Action: Ask U.S. Secretary of State Kerry to Heed Israeli Jurists’ and Writers’ Petitions Against Forced Evacuation of People in Firing Zone 918,” August 3. http://www.cpt.org/cptnet/2013/08/03/south-hebron-hills-urgent-action-ask-us-secretary-state- kerry-heed-israeli-jurists (May 9, 2014).

---. 2014a. “Al-Khalil (Hebron): Israeli military denies entry to third CPTer in three months,” September 14. http://www.cpt.org/cptnet/2013/09/19/al-khalil-hebron-israeli-military-denies-entry-third- cpter-three-months (May 15, 2014).

---. 2014b. “South Hebron Hills: Pressure on Firing Zone 918 Residents Continues,” June 23. http://www.cpt.org/cptnet/2014/06/23/south-hebron-hills-pressure-firing-zone-918-residents- continues (June 26, 2014).

212

Dead, Buried, and Living in Hebron. 1996. [video] Christian Peacemaker Teams.

Dear, John. 2006. “Don’t Give Up, Keep the Movement Moving,” May 21. http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0521-20.htm (May 1, 2014).

Della Porta, Dontella. 2005. “Multiple Belongings, Tolerant Identities, and the Construction of ‘Another Politics’: Between the European Social Forum and Local Social Fora.” In. Transnational Protest and Global Activism, eds. Donatella Della Porta and Sidney Tarrow. Boulder, CO: Rowman and Littlefield, 175-202.

Durnbaugh, Donald F., ed. 1983. Vol.1 of Brethren Encyclopedia. Philadelphia: The Brethren Encyclopedia.

DW (Deutsche Welle). 2014. “Israel Indicts Suspects in Abu Khdeir Revenge Killing,” July 17. http://dw.de/p/1Ceej (July 21, 2014).

“Dwight L. Stoltzfus.” 2005. Goshen News, May 21 [obituary]. Ancestry.com (March 22, 2014).

Dyck, Cornelius J. 1993. An Introduction to Mennonite History. Scottdale, PA: Herald.

Dyck, Cornelius J., and Dennis D. Martin, eds. 1990. Vol. 3 of The Mennonite Encyclopedia. Scottdale, PA: Mennonite Publishing House.

EAPPI (Ecumenical Accompaniment Programme for Palestine and Israel). 2003. Newsletter, May 14. http://eappi.org/en/resources/newsletter.html (June 2, 2014).

---. 2012. “EAPPI 10th Anniversary News.” EAPPI direct mail news release. http://eappi.org/du/news/eappi-news/eappi-direct-mail/eappi-10th-anniversary-news.html (June 2, 2014).

---. 2013. “Frequently Asked Questions.” http://eappi.org/en/about/faq.html (June 21, 2013).

Edwards, George E. 2010. Assessing the Effectiveness of Human Rights Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) from the Birth of the United Nations to the 21st Century: Ten Attributes of Highly Successful Human Rights NGOs. Michigan State Journal of International Law 18 (2): 165-228.

Etzioni, Amitai. 2006. “The Global Importance of Illiberal Moderates.” Cambridge Review of International Affairs 19 (3): 369-385.

European Union. 2005. “Council Decision …on Specific Restrictive Measures Directed Against Certain Persons and Entities with a View to Combating Terrorism …,” December 21. Official Journal of the European Union. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri= CELEX:32005D0930&qid=1398374936957&from=EN (April 23, 2014).

Florini, Ann M. 2000. The Third Force: The Rise of Transnational Civil Society. Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

Fox, Thomas H. 1987. “NGOs from the United States.” World Development 15 (1, supplement): S11-S19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0305-750X(87)90138-0

213

Freedland, Jonathan. 2012. “An Exclusive Corner of Hebron.” New York Review, February 23, 21-23.

Frey, Mark. 1997. “Fast for Rebuilding, Day 12: A Sign of Hope by Mark Frey.” CPTNet, March 13. http://www.al-bushra.org/peaceteam/fast_12.htm (March 5,2014).

Friesen, Dorothy, and Marilen Abesamis, eds. 2010. Create Space for Peace: Forty Years of Peacemaking, Gene Stoltzfus 1940-2010. Deerfield Beach, FL: TriMark.

Gandhi, Mohandas. 1940. Harijan, August 25. In Mohit Chakrabarti, Gandhian Aesthetics. New Delhi, India: Atlantic, 23.

George, Alexander L., and Andrew Bennett. 2004. Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences. Cambridge, MA: Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs.

Gish, Arthur G. 2001. Hebron Journal: Stories of Nonviolent Peacemaking. Scottdale, PA: Herald.

--- 2008. Al-Tuwani Journal : Hope and Nonviolent Action in a Palestinian Village. Scottdale, PA: Herald.

Golan, Neta. 2007. “Neta Golan on the Beginning of ISM” (recorded interview, July 18) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcrnIFufGsE (June 18, 2013).

---. 2012. “ISM Turns Ten.” January 7. http://palsolidarity.org/2012/01/ism-turns-ten/ (March 15, 2014).

Gorenberg, Gershom. 2006. The Accidental Empire: Israel and the Birth of the Settlements, 1967-1977. New York: Time Books.

Government of Canada. Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. 2013, August 7. Public Safety Canada: National Security. “Currently Listed Entities.” http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/ntnl-scrt/cntr-trrrsm/lstd-ntts/crrnt-lstd-ntts-eng.aspx (April 23, 2014).

Grossman, David. 2009. “Spiegel Interview: Foreigners Cannot Understand the Israelis' Vulnerability,” August 10. Spiegle Online International. http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/spiegel- interview-with-author-david-grossman-foreigners-cannot-understand-the-israelis-vulnerability-a- 641437.html (July 3, 2014).

Haberman, Clyde. 1994a. “West Bank Massacre: Overview; Rabin Urges the Palestinians To Put Aside Anger and Talk.” New York Times, March 1. http://www.nytimes.com.1994/03/01/world/west- bank-massacre-overview-rabin-urges-palestinians-put-aside-anger- talk.html?pagewanted=print&src=pm (August 3, 2012).

---. 1994b. “West Bank Massacre: Rabin Is Tough, Maybe.” New York Times, March 2. http://www.nytimes.com.1994/03/02/world/wew-bank-massacre-rabin-is-tough- maybe.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm (August 3, 2012).

Halpern, Jake. 1999. “The Promised Land,” September 24. http://www.jakehalpern.com/article.php?id=26 (July 29,2012).

214

Hamas Covenant: The Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement, 18 August 1988. 2014. Yale Law School, Lillian Goldman Law Library Avalon Project, Documents in Law, History, and Diplomacy. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp (April 21, 2014).

Hedges, Chris. 1994. “That Day in Hebron – A Special Report; Soldier Fired at Crowd, Survivors of Massacre Say.” New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/1994/03/16/world/that - say-hebron- special-report-soldier-fired-crowd-survivors-massacre-say.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm (August 3, 2012).

Hobbes, Thomas. [1651] 1996. Leviathan. New York: Oxford University Press.

Holmes, Bob. 2005. “Personal Well-Being of Peacemakers.” Christian Peacemaker Teams. http://www.cpt.org/files/PP%20-%20Personal%20Well-being.pdf (March 21, 2014).

Holsti, Ole R. 2004. “Theories of International Relations.” In Explaining the History of American Foreign Relations 2nd ed., eds. Michael J. Hogan and Thomas G. Paterson. New York: Cambridge University Press, 51-90.

Horsch, John. 1927. The Principle of Nonresistance as Held by the Mennonite Church. http://www.bibleviews.com/Nonresistance-Horsch.html (August 5, 2010).

Hudson, Alan. 2001. “NGOs’ Transnational Advocacy Networks: From ‘Legitimacy’ to ‘Political Responsibility’?” Global Networks 1 (4), 331-52.

Human Rights Watch. 2001. Center of the Storm: A Case Study of Human Rights Abuses in Hebron District. New York: Human Rights Watch.

Huntington, Samuel. 1993. “The Clash of Civilizations?” Foreign Affairs 72 (September): 22-49.

--- 2003. The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. New York: Simon and Schuster.

ICAHD (Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions). 2014. http://www.icahd.org/ (March 15, 2014).

Icelandic Human Rights Centre. 2013. “The Role of Non-State Entities.” http://www.humanrights.is/the- human-rights-project/humanrightscasesandmaterials/humanrightsconceptsideasandfora/ humanrightsactors/theroleofnonstateentities/ (May 6, 2014).

International Committee of the Red Cross. 1949. “The Geneva Conventions of August 12, 1949.” http://www.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Treaty.xsp?action=openDocument&documentId=AE2D398 352C5B028C12563CD002D6B5C (May 1, 2014).

ISM (International Solidarity Movement). 2014. “About ISM.” http://palsolidarity.org/about/ (March 15, 2014).

Jones, Lindsay, ed. 2005. Vol. 11 of Encyclopedia of Religion. 2nd ed. New York: Thomson Gale.

Jordan, Lisa, and Peter Van Tuijl. 2000. “Political Responsibility in Transitional NGO Advocacy.” World Development 28 (12): 2051–66.

Kaldor, Mary. 2005. “The Idea of Global Civil Society.” In Global Civil Society: Contested Futures, eds. Gideon Baker and David Chandler. New York: Routledge, 103-112.

215

Karmi, Ghada. 1999. “Re-Writing History: The Jewish Claim to Hebron.” In The June 1967 War After Three Decades, eds.William W. Haddad, Ghada H. Talhami, and Janice J. Terry. Washington, DC: Association of Arab-American University Graduates, 169-82.

Kaufman, Joanne. 1999. “Hebron: Breaking Fast, Building Hope,” February 16. CPTNet. http://www.cpt.org/cptnet/1999/02/16/hebron-breaking-fast-building-hope (July 6, 2014).

Keane, John. 1998. Civil Society: Old Images, New Visions. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

---. 2001. “Global Civil Society? A New Cosmology.” In Global Civil Society, eds. Helmut Anheier, Marlies Glasius and Mary Kaldor. New York: Oxford University Press, 23–47.

---. 2008. “Monitory Democracy.” [paper] ESRC Seminar Series, ‘Emergent Publics,’ The Open University, Milton Keynes, 13th-14th March. http://www.open.ac.uk/socialsciences/emergentpublics/seminar1/keane_monitory_democracy.pdf (April 22, 2014).

Keck, Margaret E., and Kathryn Sikkink. 1998. “Transnational Advocacy Networks in the Movement Society.” In The Social Movement Society: Contentious Politics for a New Century, eds. David S. Meyer and Sidney Tarrow. Lanham, MD: Roman and Littlefield, 217–38.

Kern, Kathleen. 2009. In Harm's Way: A History of Christian Peacemaker Teams. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books.

--- 2010. As Resident Aliens: Christian Peacemaker Teams in the West Bank, 1995-2005. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books.

Kiryat Arba Hebron Foundation. 2014. Website. http://www.kiryatarbahebron.org/iproject.php?id=12

Lee, Albert H. 2003. “Second Group of Ecumenical Accompaniers to Start Work in 2003.” CP World, The Christian Post, January 21. http://www.christianpost.com/news/second-group-of-ecumenical- accompaniers-to-start-work-in-march-2003-738/ (March 15, 2014).

Levin, Jerry. 2004. “At-Tuwani: Havat Ma’on – A Perfect Cover for Bullies.” CPTNet, December 22. http://www.cpt.org/cptnet/2004/12/22/tuwani-havat-ma039on-perfect-cover-bullies (August 18, 2012).

Levine, Peter. 2013. We Are the Ones We have Been Waiting For: The Promise of Civic Renewal in America. New York: Oxford University Press.

Lux, Steven J., and Tosca Bruno-van Vijkeijken. 2013. “From Alliance to International: The Global Transformation of Save the Children, Case Study.” E-PARCC Collaborative Governance Initiative, Syracuse University. https://www.maxwell.syr.edu/uploadedFiles/parcc/eparcc/cases/2013-1A-Case- LuxBrunovanVijfeijken.pdf (March 22, 2014).

Lyke, Susan A., and Joseph G. Bock. 2000. “Reflecting on the Christian Peacemaker Team in Hebron.” October 1. Cambridge, MA: Collaborative for Development Action (CDA) Collaborative Learning Projects. http://cdacollaborative.org/publications/reflecting-on-peace-practice/rpp-case- studies-and-field-visit-reports/reflecting-on-the-christian-peacemaker-team-in-hebron/ (March 15, 2014).

216

Machiavelli, Niccolo. [1532] 2005. The Prince. Boston, MA: Bedford.

Maguire, Mairead Corrigan. 2008. “Nobel Peace Laureate Letter to Us of Encouragement,” October 20. In Pace e Bene blog, ed. Jarrod McKenna. http://paceebene.org/blog/jarrod-mckenna/nobel- peace-laureate-letter-us-encouragement (June 29, 2014).

Mahoney, Liam. 1997. “Unarmed Bodyguards.” Peace Review 9(June): 207-13. SocINDEX, March 15, 2014.

Marsden, George M., and William L. Svelmoe. 2005. “Evangelical and Fundamental Christianity.” In Vol. 5 of Encyclopedia of Religion, 2nd ed., ed. Lindsay Jones. Detroit: Thomson Gale, 2887–91.

Marshall, Rachelle. 1994. “The Washington Declaration, Two Views: The Palestinians – Who Needs Them?” Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, September/October, 16-17, 69. http://www.wrmea.org/wrmea-archives/157-washington-report-archives-1994-1999/september- october-1994/7607-the-palestinianswho-needs-them.html (April 22, 2014).

Mead, Margaret. 1970. In Margaret Mead: The Making of an American Icon, Nancy C. Lutkehaus. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2008, 261.

Mennonite Central Committee. 2006. “Principles and Practices.” http://www.mcc.org/system/files/MCCPrinciplesAndPractices_web_0.pdf. (February 24, 2014).

Mennonite Central Committee. 2014a. Annual Report 2013. http://www.mcc.org/system/files/AnnualReport_2013.pdf (March 29, 2014).

Mennonite Central Committee. 2014b. “Leadership & Board.” http://www.mcc.org/about/leadership (March 29, 2014).

Mennonite Central Committee. Peace Section. 1986. Christian Peacemaker Teams: A Study Document. Akron, PA: Council of Moderators and Secretaries of the Mennonite and Brethren in Christ Churches.

Meron, Theodor. 1967. “Settlement in the Administered Territories [Israel, internal memoradum].” September 18. http://www.soas.ac.uk/lawpeacemideast/ resources/file48485.pdf (March 15, 2014).

Miller, Susan. 2011. “CPT Marks 25 Years: Peacemaker Congress.” Signs of the Times [CPT online newsletter], October - December 11. http://www.cpt.org/book/export/html/9451 (March 22, 2014).

Muasher, Marwan. 2008. The Arab Center: The Promise of Moderation. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Mughrabi, Nidal al-, and Allyn Fisher-Ilan. 2014. “Hamas Says Israeli Soldier Captured; Gaza Death Toll Jumps,” July 20. Reuters. http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/20/us-palestinians-israel- idUSKBN0FP00U20140720 (July 21, 2014).

Munnayyer, Yousef. 2011. “Palestine’s Hidden History of Nonviolence.” Foreign Policy. May 18. http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/05/18/palestines_hidden_history_ of_nonviolence (August 12, 2011).

217

Nafziger, Tim. 2007. “Christian Anti-Semitism: A Window into Anti-Semitism and Nazism among Mennonites in North America, Part 1.” Blog, July 30. http://www.themennonite.org/bloggers/timjn/posts/A_window_into_Antisemitism_and_Nazism_ among_Mennonite_in_North_America_Part_1 (April 24, 2014).

National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism. 2010. “Terrorist Organization Profiles (TOPs) [database search interface]. http://www.start.umd.edu/tops (March 15, 2014).

Nye, Joseph S. 2004. The Rising Power of NGO’s,” June 24. Project Syndicate. https://www.project- syndicate.org/print/the-rising-power-of-ngo-s (July 1, 2014).

---. 2011. The Future of Power. New York: Public Affairs.

Olney, Warren, interviewer. 2014. “Is a Boycott against Israel Reaching a 'Tipping Point?'” KCRW Santa Monica/PRI, To the Point radio program, February 5. [Interviews with Calev Ben-David, Bloomberg News; Omar Barghouti, Palestinian human rights activist; Bradley Burston, Ha'aretz; Gerald Steinberg, Bar Ilan University; and Peter Beinart, New America Foundation on the BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) Movement.]. http://youtu.be/qw5tVGwHciw (March 15, 2014).

Olson, Mancur. 1971. The Logic of Collective Action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Omelicheva, Mariya Y. 2009. “Global Civil Society and Democratization of World Politics: A Bona Fide Relationship or Illusory Liaison?” International Studies Review 11 (1): 109–132. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2486.2008.01827.x

Operation Dove. 2012. “Operazione Colomba.” http://www.operazionecolomba.it/. (March 15, 2014).

Palestinian BDS National Committee. 2005. “Palestinian Civil Society Call for BDS,” July 9. http://www.bdsmovement.net/call (May 7, 2014).

Palestinian Centre for Rapprochement between People. 2013. http://www.rapprochement.org/ (June 18, 2013).

Patterson, Margot. 2002. “Hebron: A West Bank Magnet for Trouble.” National Catholic Reporter, October 18. http://natcath.org/NCR_Online/archives/101802/101802f.htm (July 17, 2012).

Peace Brigades International. 2014. “About PBI.” http://www.peacebrigades.org/about-pbi/ (June 26, 2014).

Peterson, M.J. 1992. ‘Transnational Activity, International Society and World Politics.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 21 (3): 371–88.

Powell, Carole. 2013. Blog. “Checkpoints, Challenges, and Chai.” http://checkpointschallengeschai.wordpress.com/?blogsub=subscribed#blog_subscription-3 (May 1, 2014).

Pritchard, Doug. 2005. “Forward.” In Getting in the Way: Stories from Christian Peacemaker Teams, ed, Patricia Gates Brown. Scottdale, PA: Herald, 9-10.

218

ProCon.org. 2013. “Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: Did You Know?” May 15. http://israelipalestinian.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000634 (June 9, 2014).

---. 2014. “Where Is Hebron, and What Is Its Religious Significance to Jews and Muslims?” http://israelipalestinian.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000987#answer-id-005556 (June 25, 2014).

Rabbani, Mouin. 1993. “Gaza-Jericho First: the Palestinian Debate.” Middle East International No. 459, (24 September 1993).

“Regional Mennonite Conferences.” 2014. Global Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia Online. http://gameo.org/index.php?title=Regional_Mennonite_Conferences (February 24, 2014).

Remez, Didi. 2009. “Exposing Gerald Steinberg and NGO Monitor, ctd. — Dimming the ‘Halo Effect,’” December 6. Coteret. http://coteret.com/2009/12/06/exposing-gerald-steinberg-and-ngo-monitor-ctd-dimming-the-halo- effect/ (July 14, 2014).

Rishmawi, George. 2002. “International Solidarity Movement.” ZNet. December 10, posting of November 20 interview. http://zcomm.org/znetarticle/international-solidarity-movement-by- george-rishmawi/ (March 15, 2014).

Rose, Carol. 2009. “The Bible and Queerness.” Christian Peacemaker Teams. http://www.cpt.org/resources/training/undoing_oppression (March 21, 2014).

Rosenau, James N. 1998. “Powerful Tendencies, Enduring Tensions and Glaring Contradictions: The United Nations in a Turbulent World.” In Between Sovereignty and Global Governance: The United Nations, the State, and Civil Society, eds. Albert Paolini, Anthony Jarvis, and Christian Reus-Smit. New York: St. Martin’s, 252-73.

RT (Russia Today). 2014. “Israel Launches 12 Air Strikes on Gaza,” June 29. RT Question More. http://rt.com/news/line/2014-06-29/ (July 21, 2014).

Salem, Walid. 2008. “Human Security from Below: Palestinian Citizens Protection Strategies, 1988- 2005.” In The Viability of Human Security, eds. Monica den Boer and Jaap de Wilde. Amsterdam University Press, 179-201.

Sales, Ben. 2013. “'Lost’ Indian Jews Come to Israel Despite Skepticism over Ties to Faith,” October 17. Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA). http://www.jta.org/2013/10/17/news-opinion/israel-middle- east/lost-indian-jews-immigration-continues-despite-skepticism-over-their-claims (July 14, 2014).

Salisbury, Robert. 2006. “An Exchange Theory of Interest Groups.” In The Classics of Interest Group Behavior, ed. Robert M. Alexander. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth, 124-46.

Schlabach, Gerald W, ed. 2007. Just Policing, Not War. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press.

Schultz, Helena Lindholm. 1999. The Reconstruction of Palestinian Nationalism: Between Revolution and Statehood. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press.

Sen, Amartya. 2006. Identity and Violence: The Illusion of Destiny. New York: W. W. Norton.

219

Shahak, Israel and Norton Mezvinsky. 1999. Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel. London: Pluto Press.

Shlaim, Avi. 2001. The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World. New York: W.W. Norton.

Sigler, John. 2004. “Palestine: Legitimate Armed Resistance vs. Terrorism,” May 17. The Electronic Intifada blog. http://electronicintifada.net/content/palestine-legitimate-armed-resistance-vs- terrorism/5084 (May 12, 2014).

Sider, Ronald J. 1984. “God’s People Reconciling.” Speech, Mennonite World Conference, Strasbourg, France. http://www.cpt.org/resources/writings/sider (March 15, 2014).

Smith, David. 2011. “Desmond Tutu Attacks South African Government over Dalai Lama Ban,” October 4. The Guardian. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/oct/04/tutu-attacks-anc-dalai-lama- visa (June 16, 2014).

Smock, David. 2001. Faith-Based NGOs and International Peacebuilding. Special Report 76, October. Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace.

Solomonow, Alan. 1999. “A Generation Later: Nonviolence in the Middle East,” May-June. NonViolent Activist. http://www.warresisters.org/nva/nva0599-1.htm (July 6, 2014).

StandWithUs. 2007. Israel 101. Los Angeles, CA: StandWithUs.

Steinberg, Gerald M. 2011. “The Politics of NGOs, Human Rights and the Arab-Israel Conflict.” Israel Studies 16 (2): 24 – 54. DOI: 10.2979/israelstudies.16.2.24.

Stoltzfus, Gene. 1989. “Faith, Education, and Action: The Three Step Process to Conversion and Peacemaking.” May. http://www.cpt.org/files/WS%20-%20Faith,%20Education,%20Action.pdf (March 22, 2014).

---. 2001. “Forward.” In Hebron Journal: Stories of Nonviolent Peacemaking, ed. Arthur G. Gish. Scottdale, PA: Herald, 9-12.

---. Gene Stoltzfus Papers, 1940-2012. HM1-101. Mennonite Church USA Archives - Goshen. Goshen, Indiana.

Stump, Roger W. 2000. Boundaries of Faith: Geographical Perspectives on Religious Fundamentalism. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

Stutzman, Ervin R. 2011. From NonResistance to Justice. Scottdale, PA: Herald.

Temporary International Presence in Hebron (TIPH). 2012. “About Hebron.” http://www.tiph.org/en/About_TIPH/ (March 26, 2014).

--- 2014. Website. http://www.tiph.org. (March 15, 2014).

Thistlethwaite, Susan, and Glen Stassen. 2008. Abrahamic Alternatives to War. Special Report 214, October. Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace. http://www.usip.org/sites/default/files/sr214.pdf (March 15, 2014).

220

Thomas, Baylis. 2004. “The Oslo Accords Fail to Bring Peace.” In The Palestinians and the Disputed Territories, ed. Neil Alger. San Diego, CA: Greenhaven, 46-55.

Thrall, A. Trevor, Domink Stecula, and Diana Sweet. 2014. “May We Have Your Attention Please? Human Rights NGOs and the Problem of Global Communication.” The International Journal of Press/Politics, April, 135-159. doi:10.1177/1940161213519132

Tolley, Howard B. Jr. 1994. The International Commission of Jurists: Global Advocates for Human Rights. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Truman, David B. 1951. The Governmental Process: Political Interest and Public Opinion. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

UNICEF. 2014. “Types of Funding.” http://www.unicef.org/parmo/66662_66849.html (May 21, 2014).

United Nations. General Assembly. 1978. Assembly Resolution A/RES/33/24 of 29, November 29. “The Situation in the Middle East.” http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/33/ares33r29.pdf (June 1, 2014).

United Nations. Security Council. 1967. “Resolution 242 of 22 November 1967.” http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/242(1967) (February 15, 2014).

U.S. Department of State. Bureau of Counterterrorism. 2014. “Foreign Terrorist Organizations.” http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/other/des/123085.htm (April 23, 2014).

U.S. Department of State. Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. 2010. “2010 Human Rights Report: Israel and the Occupied Territories.” http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2010/nea/154463.htm (August 10, 2011).

Vakil, Anna C. 1997. “Confronting the Classification Problem: Toward a Taxonomy of NGOs.” World Development 25 (12): 2057-70.

Walker, Jack. 2006. “The Origin and Maintenance of Interest Groups in America.” In The Classics of Interest Group Behavior, ed. Robert M. Alexander. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth, 147-69.

Wapner, Paul. 1995. “Politics Beyond the State: Environmental Activism and World Civic Politics.” World Politics 47 (3), 311-40.

Weiss, Philip, and Alex Kane. 2014. “In ‘Turning-Point’ Vote, Presbyterians Divest from Occupation- Linked Corporations,” June 20. http://mondoweiss.net/2014/06/in-turning-point-vote- presbyterians-divest-from-occupation-linked-corporations.html (June 26, 2014).

Welch, Claude ed. 2001. NGOs and Human Rights: Promise and Performance. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Wink, Walter. 1998. “Jesus’ Third Way.” www.cpt.org/files/BN%20-%20Jesus'%20Third%20Way.pdf (March 22, 2014).

Witness for Peace. 2012. http://witnessforpeace.org (March 15, 2014).

221

Women in Black. 2014. “A Short History of Women in Black.” http://www.womeninblack.org/en/history (May 1, 2014).

WCC (World Council of Churches). 2002a. “Ecumenical Efforts towards Peace in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict,” February 11. Geneva Switzerland: WCC Press Release, PR-02-06. http://www.oikoumene.org/en/press-centre/news/ecumenical-efforts-towards-peace-in-the-israeli- palestinian-conflict (May 21, 2014).

---. 2002b. “Proposed Framework for the Ecumenical Accompaniment Programme in Palestine and Israel (EAPPI), February 1-2.” Geneva, Switzerland: Ecumenical Centre, Working Group on Accompaniment. https://web.archive.org/web/20020806143750/http://www.wcc- coe.org/wcc/what/international/palestine/framework.html (June 2, 2014).

---. 2003. “World Council of Churches,” 2003, January 17. http://www2.wcc-coe.org/ pressreleasesen.nsf/index/pr-03-01.html (March 15, 2014).

Xu, Guang-qiu. 2011.”Global Governance: The Rise of Global Civil Society and China.” Fudan Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences 4 (1): 1-21.

222

APPENDICES

223

Appendix A

Photographs – CPT’s Palestine Project

The photographs contained in this section were taken in January 2011 during the CPT delegation trip to Israel/Palestine unless otherwise indicated. The identity of non-CPTers photographed has been withheld except in the case of those activists who are already recognized, public figures within the nonviolence movement in Israel/Palestine.

CPTer Art Gish “gets in the way” of an Israeli army tank in the West Bank city of Hebron on January 30, 2003. Gish is wearing the signature red ball cap identifying CPTers in the field. (Photo by Lefteris Pitarakis, AP)

224

Marlaina Leppert-Wahl (above) outside the front entrance of the CPT apartments on al Shuhada Street in Hebron (H2) in January 2011. The Israeli authorities have put up the fence and razor wire to stop the flow of traffic at this point in the road. Below is the Old City of Hebron (H2), where many Palestinian shops have been shut down by forced closures and long interruptions imposed by the Israeli military.

225

Israeli soldiers (above) pull young Palestinian men from shops in the Old City of Hebron to check their documents and ask them questions. The CPTer (below) engages the soldiers in conversation about the situation as others record the events (January 2011).

226

Checkpoint watch (part of CPT’s school accompaniment strategy). Marlaina Leppert-Wahl (above) and fellow CPT delegate enjoy conversation and morning coffee with an Israeli soldier as Palestinian children walk to school through the contained checkpoint in the background. Below, CPTer Rick Polhamus talks with the soldiers as other CPTers and delegates in background monitor and record the children’s passage through the checkpoint (Hebron, January 2011).

227

Stone homes in At-Tuwani (above). Israeli soldiers (below) accompanying Palestinian children from the South Hebron Hills village of Tuba to their school in At-Tuwani. Prior to accompaniment, Israeli settlers from the Ma’on settlement (top left of photo) frequently came down to the path travelled by the children and attacked them (January 2011).

228

“Layered” accompaniment (part of CPT’s school accompaniment strategy). Marlaina Leppert-Wahl and other CPT delegates (above) join CPTers and activists from CPT’s partner Operation Dove (not shown) to monitor the Israeli soldiers assigned to accompany the Palestinian children on their way to school in At- Tuwani. The soldiers (below) escort the children along the path from Tuba (January 2011).

229

Accompaniment in At-Tuwani (January 2011). CPTers and delegates (above) accompany the Palestinian farmer plowing his fields. He and his wife (below) plowed two of the fields undisturbed, but a third field, which was higher up and closest to the settlement outpost (top of photo), lay fallow. The farmer had previously abandoned this field (toward top right of photo) because of the settler violence.

230

A representative from CPT’s partner organization Israeli Committee Against the House Demolitions with CPTer Rick Polhamus (above) addressing the CPT delegates in Jerusalem (January 2011). Below is the rubble from a Palestinian home demolished by the Israeli Defense Forces.

231

Office of CPT’s Palestinian partner Holy Land Trust in Bethlehem (above). Below are Holy Land Trust Director Sami Awad (Palestinian Christian) and Marlaina Leppert-Wahl (January 2011).

232

CPT’s Israeli partners: Breaking the Silence founder Yehuda Shaul (above left) shares firsthand experiences as a soldier in the Occupied Territories with CPT delegates in Jerusalem. Activists from Women in Black (below) protest the Occupation every Friday in Jerusalem (January 2011).

233

Appendix B Christian Peacemaker Teams –Palestine Strategic Plan 2013-2014: Goals and Objectives

O’SULLIVAN SOLUTIONS

MEDIATION, TRAINING AND RESEARCH

Christian Peacemakers Team – Palestine Strategic Plan

September 2013 to September 2014

234

The “Strategic Plan ‐ September 2013 to September 2014” ‐ was developed at four facilitated sessions for CPT – Palestine in October 2012.

Abbreviations referred to in this document are explained as follows:

Team CPT‐Palestine P.S.C. Project Support Coordinator W.C. Work Coordinator P.C. Process Coordinator A.O.C. Advocacy Outreach Coordinator A.S.P. Advocacy Support Person A.W.C. Assistant Work Coordinator S.T.P.L. Short term project leader S.I.L. Serious Incident Log

My thanks and gratitude to all of you who generously participated in the sessions, to those who helped with the documentation and to Bob Holmes for his creativity and patience in doing the graphics for this document.

Gerry O’Sullivan, O’Sullivan Solutions

235

VISION AND MISSION OF CHRISTIAN PEACEMAKERS TEAM

CPT Vision “A world of communities that together embrace the diversity of the human family and live justly and Statement peaceably with all creation.”

CPT ‐ Palestine “CPT Palestine is a faith‐based organization that Mission supports Palestinian‐led, non‐violent, grassroots Statement resistance to the Israeli occupation and the unjust structures that uphold it. By collaborating with local Palestinian and Israeli peacemakers and educating people in our home communities, we help create a space for justice and peace.”

Goals of CPT – Palestine (September 2013 to September 2014)

Goal 1: 1. That CPT – Palestine management structures and work processes will result in the work tasks of the project being completed, whilst also ensuring that the processes used are respectful and result in team members developing their capacity and becoming empowered.

236

Goal 2: 2. That the CPT – Palestine team members will be healthy and will feel supported, without unnecessary team induced stress and conflict.

Goal 3: 3. To give faith‐based witness to non‐violent peacemaking.

Goal 4: 4. To encourage and support Israeli and Palestinian non‐violent resistance to the occupation so that we empower grassroots development

Goal 5: 5. To provide accompaniment and support to Palestinians who may be in a vulnerable position with respect to Israeli security forces and settlers and to respond to emergency requests.

Goal 6: 6. To develop Short‐Term Projects resulting from the identification of needs

Goal 7: 7. To network with other organizations for information sharing and for supporting CPT goals.

Goal 8: 8. To monitor and document the treatment of Palestinians with respect to human rights abuses and violations and to disseminate this information so that harassment /overt physical violence can be reduced.

Goal 9: 9. To advocate and lobby for change in order to create a space for justice and peace for Palestinians

Goal 10: 10. To implement the Strategic Plan September 2012 to September 2013

Goal 1: That CPT – Palestine management structures and work processes will result in the work tasks of the project being completed, whilst also ensuring that the processes used are respectful and result in team members developing their capacity and becoming empowered.

Objectives:

1. To create new project structures to ensure that the knowledge of CPT work is known to all its members so that they will develop ownership of the work and will feel empowered, and so that the capacity and skills of CPTers is developed. 2. Create direct contact links between the Advocacy Coordinator and the CPT team members so that there is a direct connection between the work done on the ground and the advocacy work. 3. Ensure that there is clarity for team members about each of the roles of the newly created posts in order that conflict will not develop between team members. 4. Ensure that team members feel included in the work of CPT and can participate and contribute effectively at team meetings.

237

5. To develop decision‐making structures, procedures and processes that are effective and efficient, that allow for ownership of decisions by CPTers and that will reduce the level of conflict between members. 6. To ensure that the dynamic within the team remains healthy and motivating, and that any conflict regarding the process of communication and of decision‐making will be addressed appropriately. 7. Provide training for CPT members so that they will be empowered to communicate assertively and to address conflict issues appropriately and effectively. 8. Ensure that all CPTers are aware of CPT policies and procedures and of the roles of personnel.

Goal 2: That the CPT – Palestine team members will be healthy.

Objectives:

1. To provide supervision and support for team members so that they can function well as individuals and as team members. 2. To ensure that time, staffing and resources are appropriate to the work that needs to be implemented. 3. Ensure that staff has adequate time off and opportunities for rest. 4. Provide training for CPT members so they are equipped to work well on team and to carry out CPT work. 5. Provide opportunities and resources for team members so that they remain healthy and are supportive of each other and the team.

Goal 3: To give faith‐based witness to non‐violent peacemaking.

Objectives

1. To foster and strengthen a faith based commitment to non‐violent peace‐making. 2. Provide pastoral support for team members so they can work with any issues that are personal or that are relevant to the team dynamic.

Goal 4: To become more strategic in the use of the available resources to increase the impact of CPT work on the lives of Palestinians.

Objectives

1. To adjust the direction of work of CPT Palestine to ensure that CPT’s work is strategic and is done in a manner that has an impact on the wider Palestinian context.

By meeting this objective, CPT’s Palestine team will influence the broader context in which Palestinians live:

238

‐Their imprisonment by Israeli structures and barriers such as the barrier wall, checkpoints and the blocking of their freedom of movement

‐The inequalities between Palestinians and Israelis and the contrasts in their lives, resulting in their marginalization and oppression

‐Palestinian home demolitions

‐The fragmentation of their land, with its attending impact

‐The impact on their lives resulting from the presence of settlements and settlers

‐The presence of the Israeli military and Israeli police among Palestinian civilian society resulting in shootings, tear gas, sound bombs, arrests, imprisonment, abuse and torture (particularly of children)

Goal 4: To encourage and support Israeli and Palestinian non‐violent resistance to the occupation so that we empower grassroots development

Objectives:

1. Ensure that the work undertaken by CPT in non‐violence in Hebron is based on research and best practice so that it is appropriate and successful. 2. Create a city of non‐violence in Hebron that will be a model for other areas supporting non‐violence. 3. To empower the local Palestinian community in Hebron to organize and take part in non‐violent actions so they feel less powerless and so that the work is sustainable. 4. Design and implement specific actions of non‐violence so that there is community involvement and wide media attention.

Goal 5: To provide accompaniment and support to Palestinians who may be in a vulnerable position with respect to Israeli security forces and settlers.

Objectives:

1. To provide (daily?)accompaniment for Palestinian children walking to and from school so that :

a. They can have safe movement and access. b. Their right to education is supported. c. Harassment by settlers and security forces to Palestinians is reduced. 2. To strive to reduce the risk of violence to farmers and shepherds by Israeli Security Forces and settlers in the wider Hebron district area. 3. To respond to emergency calls and to intervene when appropriate during human rights abuses and violations, including Israeli military invasions of Palestinian homes and markets, so that the violence and physical/sexual abuse is reduced.

239

4. To monitor the treatment of Palestinians so that harassment and violence are reduced at:

‐Home demolitions

‐Attacks

‐Home/market invasions

Goal 6: To develop Short‐Term Projects resulting from the identification of needs

Objectives:

1. To ensure that all projects are strategically planned and are reviewed. 2. (i) Settlers’ Tour Project‐ a. To research, monitor and document the effects on Palestinians of the Israeli Settlers’ Tour in Hebron so that this information can be disseminated and used to influence the termination of this tour. b. Use the findings from the research study on the impact of the Israeli settlers’ so that information can be disseminated and can influence the termination of this tour.

PS: Videos with locals we already did two interviews

(ii) Rajabi Building‐

Ensure that the Rajabi Building does not become a settlement outpost thereby expanding the settlements area.

(iii) Firing Zone 518

To support the Palestinians by working towards stopping the plan to make this area a firing zone.

(iv) Barriers for Palestinians

To research and highlight through advocacy the barriers Palestinians face

a. Barriers for CPTers

(v) Settlers and Settlements

Goal 7: To network with other organizations for information sharing and for supporting CPT goals.

Objectives:

240

1. To meet with other organizations so that:

a. CPT will be informed about issues in the West Bank. b. CPT will have a broader coalition through which to pursue its goals.

2. To support a “Palestinian Facilitated Information Gathering Link” with Palestinian Partners from the Palestinian members of CPT team.

3. To maintain healthy relationships with partners, advisors and Palestinian community members. 4. To build links with Palestinian communities for the purpose of raising awareness around the work of CPT and for recruitment for delegations. 5. To nurture our relationships with Israeli peace activists, in order that we provide each other with mutual support and information, and so that CPT will be able to do their work in Palestine more effectively.

Goal 8: To monitor and document the treatment of Palestinians with respect to human rights abuses and violations, and to disseminate this information so that harassment /overt physical violence can be reduced.

Objectives

1. To monitor the treatment of Palestinians so that harassment and violence are reduced at:

‐ Roadblocks

‐ Checkpoints

‐ Home demolitions

‐ Attacks

‐ Home/market invasions

‐ Arrests and detentions

‐ Other real or potential abuses

2. To document soldier and settler violence and harassment for advocacy purposes. 3. To document and respond to Palestinian Authority breaches of Human Rights.

Goal 9: To advocate and lobby for change in order to create a space for justice and peace for Palestinians

Objectives:

241

1. Focus advocacy work to ensure that it will have an influence and an impact on the wider Palestinian context. 2. To establish and maintain structures for the professional and efficient support of CPT advocacy work. 3. To build links and structures between the Advocacy team, the CPT team on the ground, and the team off the ground, so that actions and incidents are monitored and recorded and are then fed into the advocacy channels. 4. To develop and maintain relationships with external organizations for joint information and resource sharing that will: a. assist in the advocacy work of CPT b. contribute to the advocacy work of the external organization. 5. To host international delegations and other visiting groups and connect these groups with local peacemakers and organizations. 6. To build on existing CPT links and to research possible new links so that the advocacy output from CPT – Palestine is increased. 7. To lobby for the reduction of foreign support for the occupation, through raising and increasing peoples’ awareness of the occupation’s realities. 8. To make links with media outlets for the purposes of advocacy. 9. To monitor and review advocacy work that has been done to ensure that goals and objectives are being met and are amended appropriately.

Goal 10: Full implementation of “Strategic Plan ‐ September 2012 to September 2013”

Objectives:

1. Ensure that the Strategic Plan will be implemented in the areas driven by the thematic projects, and in the whole of the West Bank as appropriate to this strategic plan. 2. To ensure that the Strategic Plan remains relevant to CPT‐Palestine.

242