by Beth René Roepnack

1998

Violence, like the barbarian hordes of yesteryear, invades our daily lives. Every day we are bombarded with reports of increased violence in our world: we see blood baths on the evening news, hear stories of violence and destruction. We often try to block it out because we fear that there is little we can do about it. We know that humans are violent by nature and that we have always been violent. The only difference between violence of the past and that of today is that now we simply have more efficient tools.

The foregoing view of violence as innate is a misperception that is common in our society that has been promulgated by history books and our common culture. Recent anthropological findings show that our Paleolithic and Neolithic ancestors honored the principles of peace, nurturance, and sustenance of life-giving forces for over 200,000 years (Zur, 1987). This research suggests that we are not ‘violent by nature,’ that we do have peaceful and more effective alternatives for dealing with change and conflicting needs. If violence was learned through cultural conditioning as a means to deal with conflict and unmet needs, then it can be unlearned.

To explore means for finding these more peaceful alternatives, I first review research describing cultures in which peace flourished, noting similar societal institutions that appear to promote peace. Then I explore models of nonviolent means of conflict resolution with a special emphasis on the interaction of culture and communication. Finally, I briefly describe how culture and tradition impact the opportunities for nonviolence in Israel and Palestine, where violent conflict has ruled for thousands of years.

HISTORY & CULTURE

Our belief that we are and always have been violent creatures is based on paradigms of human development formed hundreds of years ago. Hobbes, a philosopher, is best known for his quote describing the natural state of man as "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short" (Palmer, 1988, p.161). Will Durant, a noted historian, also promotes this view when he quotes Voltaire in the beginning of Durant’s series, The Story of Civilization  "I want to know what were the steps by which man passed from barbarism to civilization." Historians and anthropologists have placed the beginning of civilization during that time period in which violence, in the form of war, began even though this is well after written language was developed (Durant, 1954, Fagan, 1985, Adams, 1966). During this time, 4000 - 3000 BCE, barbarous Kurgan raiders came slaughtering, raping, and pillaging as they invaded Europe and the Near and Middle East (Eisler, 1987).

However, we now have evidence that our ancient ancestors were a peace loving people. These people had the technology available to build weapons, but chose not to (Eisler, 1987, Zur, 1987). These are the peaceful societies that spawned such myths as the Garden of Eden, the golden race of Atlantis, and the oriental ideal of a time when the yin forces were not dominated by those of the yang (Eisler, 1987). The research described below may provide a map for a return to those idyllic times.

Riane Eisler (1987) offers an alternative, comprehensive view of early civilization opposed to that described by Hobbes, Durant, and others. Eisler, unlike earlier researchers, examines research from anthropologists, zoologists, paleontologists, and archaeologists to provide a more complete picture of what excavations of historic settlements can tell us. Early archeologists often worked alone, their beliefs in the possible were often dictated by their (narrow) religious beliefs, and thus were extremely biased in their interpretation of the evidence. Dating of items was dependent on subjective estimates of how ‘advanced’ an artifact appeared. New techniques (C-14, radiocarbon, dendrochronological) now offer verifiable evidence of the age of an artifact and show that many artifacts that were assumed to be advanced, and thus evidence of "civilized" peoples were actually from Paleolithic Goddess-based cultures, considered ‘uncivilized.’ Here I summarize that work of Eisler’s that is relevant to the development of nonviolent societies.

Eisler believes that our Paleolithic ancestors were Goddess worshippers. The earliest sculptures and cave paintings attest to the central role of the feminine force in the lives of the Paleolithic. All across Europe there are the remains of stone sculptures of exaggerated female forms with distended bellies and large breasts. Female figures in cave drawings were centrally placed, whereas male figures were drawn toward the periphery or occasionally as surrounding the central feminine figure depicted as a goddess or priestess. Burial sites (of the earliest remains found of Upper Paleolithic ancestors) attest to the fact that Paleolithic humans associated the feminine with the power of life. The skeletons of these ancestors had cowrie shells placed on them in the form of vaginas. Furthermore, in imitation of the life-giving force of blood, the skeletons were covered with red ocher. Archeologists believe that this is evidence of the belief in rebirth and the recognition of the feminine force as life giver and life sustainer. The central place given to women in the art of the Paleolithic and the role in which she is depicted, as priestess, indicates that they recognized the life-giving force of the feminine. Given that Paleolithic humans were hunter-gatherers, it would seem natural that they would form a strong association between woman as creator of their young and the earth as creator of their food source. It would be natural for them to assume that the earth was also feminine.

What is missing in the art of the Paleolithic is any depiction of violence. There are no drawings of great wars, shields, heroes of war, or the use of weapons used against other humans. There is only the veneration of that which they recognized as giving life - woman, vegetation, and animal.

Although our knowledge about Paleolithic humans comes from a scarcity of remains, our knowledge of the lives of our Neolithic ancestors is based on numerous sites. The sites that have provided the clearest picture of Neolithic life are found in the Anatolia region of Turkey in the towns of Catal Huyuk and Hacilar.

The most potent aspect of Catal Huyuk and Hacilar is their seeming stability over a period of thousands of years, suggesting an atmosphere of non-violence. Theirs was an agrarian economy with flourishing trade, well-planned cities, and great advancements in the arts, religion, and culture. Eisler credits Goddess-based religion as the factor that allowed these and other great cities of the Neolithic Age to flourish without violence and to make such great progress culturally and technically.

Eisler states that Goddess-based religions are based on a partnership model rather than the patriarchal or dominator model of today’s major western religions (Judaism, Christianity, Al-Islam). Goddess religions were not matriarchal, as we might suppose, nor were they patriarchal. Women were the priestesses and heads of clans, in the main, but there is evidence of male priests. These cultures were matrilocal and matrilineal, but in Goddess-based societies, people - women and men, were partners. Although women were often depicted at the center of scenes suggesting greater importance, there is no evidence that men were oppressed, subjugated, or belittled. Burial sites do not show any difference between males and females (nor were the ‘courts’ of clan heads or priestesses sacrificed and buried in lavish graves as in the patriarchal societies that followed). Also, there is no evidence of the richness of some burial sites indicating higher status.

Architecturally, there is little evidence that some people lived a much higher or lower status than others. Instead, the architecture suggests that these people lived communally, rather than hierarchically as they do in a dominator-structured society.

Prior to the research of Catal Huyuk and other cities of its time, it was believed that any peaceful people must have been technologically underdeveloped and culturally stagnant. Instead there is much evidence of great technological leaps such as irrigation, jewelry making, stone and wood carving, and city planning (populations increased as more stable food supplies were developed). The move to an agrarian society is the first significant advance in our civilization. These agrarian, Goddess-based societies were the first to use hammered copper (in jewelry and items used in rituals) and were the first to use clay bricks. These were not cultural backwaters.

Although these societies were technologically advanced, there are no sign of applying this technology to weapons and armaments. There are no depictions of weapons, conquerors, or wars in the art of these societies. There are no depictions of slaves, gods or goddesses with thunderbolts, or evidence of sacrificial killings reminiscent of the dominator religions that were soon to invade these places of peace. Neither are their any military fortifications. In the European, Goddess-based civilizations of this age, the sites of towns were not chosen for their ability to be defended (such as hilltops), but were chosen for their idyllic beauty reminiscent of the Garden of Eden stories in many myths.

Although the worship of the goddess from the Paleolithic endured, it now evolved into a more complex system complete with abstract symbolism and myths. There is strong evidence of a direct lineage from the Goddesses of the Neolithic Age to the Goddesses or feminine deities of the Egyptians, Cretes, Greeks, Romans, and Judeo-Christians. Shrines, vases, sculptures, and bas reliefs portray the goddess being worshipped in many forms. Bulls, hedgehogs, snakes, does, and eggs are all associated with the power of rebirth of the goddess and are depicted often in their art. These people were not strongly religious, as one might think from the great number of shrines, etc, dedicated to the goddess. Rather their daily life was a constant meditation of the goddess ethic. Eisler writes:

"Indeed, this theme of the unity of all things in nature, as personified by the Goddess, seems to permeate Neolithic art. For here the supreme power governing the universe is a divine Mother who gives her people life, provides them with the material and spiritual nurturance, and who even in death can be counted on to take her children back into her cosmic womb" (p. 19).

Eisler reports that evidence for Goddess-based cultures and the beginnings of agricultural societies can be found across Europe (the great builders of Stonehenge were goddess worshippers), the Near and Middle East, in Asia Minor, Southeast Asia, and in Middle America. We now know that there was not just the cradle of civilization of Mesopotamia, but several ‘cradles’ spread across a wide area.

Another of these great cradles is found on the island of Crete. Crete, long known for the Minotaur, King Minos, and the great labyrinth, has much more to offer civilization. Whereas most Goddess cultures were wiped out by 4000 - 3000 BCE, the Cretan culture survived until 1500 BCE and the advances they made show what might have been achieved by other Goddess-based cultures.

The Cretan culture was highly evolved. There were complex villas, palaces, farmsteads, and harbors. Cities were well planned with sanitary installations, water pipes, fountains and irrigation works. Cities and towns were connected with an organized network of roads, many of which were paved. Their literature (in four different scripts) and art portrayed a well-developed culture that historians describe as enchanted, most inspired, graceful, and a celebration of life.

One of the most unique features of Cretan life, for its time, was the remarkable equality of all people. The Cretans were quite wealthy, but the wealth was evenly distributed so that there were no signs of great differences in living conditions. Even when Crete centralized its governing powers, it did not become hierarchical or autocratic. Crete had the first developed bureaucracy and a democratic form of government (long before the Greeks). The Cretes, rather than using the power they had to dominate others, recognized that power carried responsibility. Eisler notes that "The assertion that the city-state, or what some modern scholars call ‘statism,’ structurally requires warfare, hierarchism, and the subjugation of women is not borne out" (p. 38). Instead, as Crete culture became more complex, increased in wealth, and became more technologically specialized, the status of women remained equal. Males and females participated equally in religious functions, especially the sacred bull ceremonies. Unlike dominator type religions which "often views sex as more sinful than violence (Eisler, 1987, p. 39), males and females seemed to have "diverted their aggressiveness through a free and well-balanced sexual life (Hawkes, 1968, p. 156 as quoted in Eisler, 1987, p.39).

The Cretans had a very well developed technology and used bronze, but, again, did not use this technology in the development of weapons. Instead, technology was used to beautify their lives. Elaborate gardens and architecture were the rule for most homes. The Cretans did eventually develop simple weapons, but these were only used on the trading ships, which frequently ran into violent, dominator type civilizations on the high seas. The vulnerable coast of Crete was never fortified. There is evidence of an attempt late in their history, but by that time it was too late - they were overrun by societies that had a dominator mentality. Thus came the end of a great egalitarian civilization.

In sum, these Goddess-based cultures were peace loving, nonviolent cultures. The feminine principles of life giving, life sustaining, and life nurturing were revered. Females and males, clan leaders and clan members, priestesses and priests were all treated equally. Wealth was evenly distributed. The sick and the weak were placed in the center of circles during religious ceremonies (Fox, 1988) in an honored position. Those powers that were viewed as giving life were worshipped and held sacred as were the four elements, earth, water, fire, and air (Starhawk, 1987). Crete was literally the last island of peace and nonviolence that this world would see for a couple of millennia. It, like the other Goddess-based societies, was invaded by dominator societies that stockpiled wealth, killed and maimed, and subjugated women and the weak.

The peaceful egalitarian way of life of Goddess-based societies stands in sharp contrast to the violent nomadic hordes that invaded Old Europe, beginning around 4300 BCE and Crete around 1500 BCE. These hordes, called Kurgans, plundered, raped, murdered and stole. Although the many nomadic invaders were of differing cultural origins, "The one thing they had in common was a dominator model of social organization: - a generally hierarchic and authoritarian social structure was the norm" (Eisler, 1987, p. 45, italics in original).

Suddenly, technology was developed to support the powers of destruction. Weapons and war are suddenly immortalized in art and story. The glorification of the powers that take life, rather than give life, became standard. Kurgan men took the women of these peaceful people of the Goddess for their use as concubines and slaves (after the men and children had been massacred) and females became male possessions. Burial sites are now filled with weapons of war and the sacrificed bodies of women and slaves. Power is now derived from possessions and the strength of the lethal blade. Durant (1954) argues that "the struggle for life encouraged communalism, but the struggle for property intensifies individualism" (p. 54) and that dishonesty increases with ‘civilization’ because the stakes are higher now that there is a sense of personal property (p. 52). However, as we have seen from Eisler, the struggle for property was not part of the ideology of Goddess-based religions, nor was it necessary for societies to develop.

Culturally and morally, society became impoverished. Hybrid cultures of Kurgan men and the people they subjugated no longer had shrines, sculpture or other developed art forms. Pottery was now uniform and inferior. Communities dropped in size to fewer than 40 people. Morally, society fell apart. Women were now sexually and economically enslaved. Raping women and girl children, sacrificing ones own children, destruction of whole cities, and the enslavement of others were now considered acts of the faithful in the religions that developed in these dominator societies. All of these are acts condoned and celebrated by the God of the Judeo-Christian religions, which developed in these dominator societies (e.g. Old and New Testament).

No longer were people treated equally, in life or in death. Punishment, exploitation of the weak, and brutality were now the order of the day. Authoritarian leaders required members of their tribe to accept their edicts or receive a horrible punishment. Eisler summarizes the state of affairs.

"As we have seen, it was not coincidental that everywhere in the ancient world the imposition of male dominance was part of the shift from a peaceful and egalitarian way of organizing human society to a hierarchic and violent order ruled by brutal and greedy men. Nor, looked at from the systems perspective, is it coincidental that in the Old Testament women were excluded from their former role as priestesses, so that religious laws that now governed society were made only by men" (1987, pp. 100-101).

As Zur (1987) notes, earlier humans had the technological ability to create and use weapons of war for over 187,000 years, but they did not. War, Zur states, is a cultural phenomenon that only developed in the last few thousand years. Eisler believes that the difference between those humans who warred and those who did not lies in the predominant ideology of the people - dominator societies celebrate the power of war and destruction, whereas partnership societies celebrate and honor the power of life. I think that, more specifically, partnership societies found that they could meet their needs by working together, whereas in dominator societies, people meet their needs by taking from others with a threat of violence for non-compliance. Most of what is written of human history and in philosophy is based on the dominator models of civilization. The dominator model is viewed as natural and therefore right (e.g. Plato). The history presented by Eisler suggests that our ‘natural’ state might be otherwise. The following evidence of more recent cultural studies suggests that herstory may be more correct.

Johansen (1997) presents an incredible case study of the Islamic Pashtuns’ journey into nonviolence. Currently, there are about 21 million Pashtuns living in Pakistan and Afghanistan in about 60 tribes. The Pashtuns, living as they do on a major thoroughfare between the Eastern and Western worlds, have been subjected to much violence for thousands of years as people fought for control of this land. The Pashtuns have learned to repay in kind and have been known as some of the most barbaric, cruel, bloodthirsty, and vindictive people in the world. When the Pashtuns were under the control of Great Britain, the officers of the British army believed that they were completely justified in killing the women and children of the Pashtuns because the Pashtuns were such brutal, subhuman savages. The British regularly sent troops into the region who killed Pashtuns by the thousands, but the Pashtuns managed to maintain a successful resistance.

The Pashtuns were not only violent against invaders, but were known to be just as bloodthirsty in their treatment of each other. Blood feuds over property (women included) were common between clans or family members and carried on over generations.

Out of this violence was born Abdul Ghaffar Khan in 1890. Ghaffar Khan was a devout Muslim who believed it was his mission to save his people from their propensity for violence. He opened the first non-British school on 1910 and became known as a great social reformer. He walked to local villages, counseled people, educated children, built toilets, and set up schools. He worked for the right of his people to free themselves from British rule and attempted to organize political groups. He was repeatedly imprisoned and tortured by the British for these efforts. Eventually he was successful in organizing a group of social reformers known as Khudai Khidmatgars (Servants of God).

Ghaffar Khan modeled the Khudai Khidmatgars after an army, a notion familiar to the people of this region. He drilled them like a regular army. He expected orders to be followed to the letter and those who did not were quickly dismissed. Within a year the army had grown from only 500 members to over 100,000. However, this was not an army in the regular sense of the term. In this army the people fought with their lives, not with guns or other weapons. Ghaffar Khan believed that nonviolence was the only means by which to reform his people and to obtain their freedom from British rule.

Ghaffar Khan capitalized on two aspects of Pashtun culture to bring his people from violence to peace. First, in Pashtun society there is a powerful moral code to fight. To walk away from a fight was considered the worst offense one could commit in Pashtun society. Ghaffar Khan preached to them the necessity of fighting for their freedom from violence and the British. The second aspect of Pashtun culture that Ghaffar Khan utilized was their strong religious faith - these people were willing to lay down their lives for Allah. Although there are passages in the Qu’ran that celebrate the use of violence against the enemies of Allah, Mohammed had originally prescribed peaceful means, sabr, of resolving disputes. Ghaffar Khan based his philosophy and the foundation of the Servants of God on those passages from the Qu’ran in which Mohammed emphasized compassion and forgiveness for ones enemies. This peaceful aspect of the Islam faith was unknown to most members of the Khudai Khidmatgars and they felt empowered by their new understanding of their sacred religious text.

To become a member of the Servant of God, each recruit was required to sign a pledge that they would practice nonviolence in all their affairs. They took a vow committing themselves to serving Allah, humanity, and all living things through nonviolence. An oath of nonviolence in this strife-ridden land seemed preposterous. Yet, Ghaffar Khan led a growing army of reformers throughout his land. They opened more schools, maintained order, and helped with maintaining sanitation systems in the communities. They educated children through the formation of a Youth League and Ghaffar Khan published a newsletter on Islamic law and social reform. At every turn, they faced the British army. The British banned the newsletter, destroyed the schools and jailed members of the Khudai Khidmatgars. Ghaffar Khan continued to lead his people towards freedom. Members of his army were committed to fight for freedom with only one weapon - their lives.

The British troops were unable to fight an enemy who did not wage the usual type of war. They then sealed off the provinces, spread rumors of the bloodthirsty acts of the Servants of God, and made life miserable for the Pashtuns. The British troops massacred thousands, burned their villages and fields, drove them naked into icy rivers, and committed many other atrocious acts in order to provoke the Pushtans into violence. They even brought in the Garhwal Rifles, the most decorated soldiers in World War I to help them fight these people. When the Garhwals were commanded to fire upon these people, however, they were unable to in the face of such great humanity and courage. The whole platoon of Garhwals was arrested and seventeen were court-martialed.

The Servants of God continued to practice nonviolent resistance with the British and eventually won their freedom. Their most profound effect, however, was in how they changed the daily lives of Pashtun society. Every facet of their life, every interpersonal exchange, was modified as these Servants of God treated each person with respect and dignity. British soldiers, family members, and those on opposite sides of age-old blood feuds were all treated with compassion. Ghaffar Khan knew that this growth of solidarity was the gem of his social reform movement.

Eventually, Ghaffar Khan met with Gandhi. In time, the Servants of God became affiliated with India’s National Congress as they worked together for their mutual goal of self-rule. The strong basis for Gandhi’s and Ghaffar Khan’s commitment to nonviolence was based on the teachings of their respective religions - Muslim and Hindu. Another commonality of Ghaffar Khan’s and Gandhi’s work is their integration of women into their movements. Both of these men promoted the spiritual equality and strength of women. As will be noted below, this egalitarian view is one of the critical aspects of nonviolent cultures.

Johansen attributes Ghaffar Khan’s success of integrating nonviolence into the Pashtun culture to the power of the religious beliefs of the Pahtuns. However, many religious leaders believe that they can contribute to the peaceful settlement of the oppression of their people by teaching that salvation will become theirs in heaven if they accept their current state and maintain social stability. However, this passive stance has little to do with the very active nature of nonviolence (Gandhi, 1964). Nonviolence allows people to work for change, but it requires the utmost commitment to the cause, for very often the price to be paid is ones life.

This commitment of sacrificing ones life for a cause can usually only be found within the ideology of religious beliefs. Ghaffar Khan taught a nonviolence that was deeply rooted in the Muslim tradition of his people, as Ghandi did with his Hindu followers. Ghaffar Khan showed his followers how they could remain committed to their cause and to follow the early teachings of Mohammed that encouraged patience, endurance, and nonviolence. This belief system also allowed the Pashtuns to nurture themselves and their cause. They found great strength and eventually freedom from the British through the strength of nonviolence. Their outlook on life was transformed by the ideals of nonviolence. They were able to find dignity, integrity, and nurturance of self and relationships through the principles of tolerance and nonviolence. Nonviolence had offered them an effective alternative for meeting their needs that was unavailable in their previous dominator ideology.

Johansen notes that although there is no evidence of Sufi influence, Ghaffar Khan’s religious views were most similar to that mystical aspect of the Muslim faith. Sufism is noted for its broad tolerance, the direct experience of Allah within every moment of existence, and the recognition that Allah is to be found in everyone (Denny, 1994). Sufism’s ecstatic recognition of Allah in all aspects of being is deeply similar to the joyous rapture engendered by rituals honoring the Goddess within all (Starhawk, 1993). Sufism is now illegal in some Muslim countries because it is believed that Sufism makes people ungovernable with traditional political methods because Sufis recognize no power other than that of God (as the British soon found with the Pashtuns). It should also be noted that Sufis, unlike most of Islamic culture, accept the teachings and knowledge of female Sufis. Thus, although there is no direct evidence of Sufi influence, there is precedence for nonviolence within the faith of Islam.

The above research suggests that the inequality and hierarchical structure of a culture may be inextricably linked to the violence that culture experiences. Billings (1991) in an attempt to resolve this historic question in peace research explored the culture of two Papua New Guinea tribes. The Melanesian Tikana and Lavongai tribes live on two neighboring islands. Both tribes utilize slash and burn horticulture, have had similar experiences with colonial powers, encompass about 7000 people in coastal villages of about 300-400 people, and have about a dozen exogamous matrilinear clans. There the similarities end.

Billings found that the "Tikana culture is group-oriented, institutionalized, and egalitarian; while that of the Lavongai culture is individualistic, non-institutionalized, and peck-ordered" (1991, p. 249). Although the Tikana culture is more institutionalized and is structurally more hierarchical, the hierarchy is not experienced as a dominator structure. The weak and the old are honored and placed in the middle of the circle in most rituals and the structure does not dissociate those of high status from those of low status. Instead the structure allows for a fluid movement of power among those in the village. Conversely, the Lavongai culture, which appears to have little structurally imposed status, is fraught with continual power struggles based on natural human differences. Those who are stronger exploit the poor and the weak.

The Tikana follow a matrilinear residential pattern, in which the extended family serves as the fundamental unit of Tikana life, allowing for cohesive relationships between the children of sisters. Men, women, and children can own property and are treated as equals. Tikana culture is noted for its peaceful, helpful, and nurturing style. Conflicts are solved through peaceful means. The community, especially the extended family of a married couple, bears responsibility for helping couples resolve their differences and disputes.

The Lavongai follow a patrilocal residential pattern in which nuclear families, rather than extended families, are the rule. Thus, women do not have any help raising their children. In fact, no one ever expects help from anyone else - even siblings do not help each other. Disputes and quarrels are considered private matters and the relationship between spouses are often broken with little intervention. Conflicts are often solved with violence in which the violence is valued as a sign of commitment to ones cause. Lavongai boys are taught the art of war by their fathers and are considered men only once they have killed someone else.

These two tribes, one egalitarian and peaceful, the other dominating and violent, exemplify the difference between partnership and dominator style cultures and are reminiscent of the difference between our Goddess-worshipping ancestors and the invaders which currently rule. Can we return to the garden of nonviolence? Ghaffar Khan, Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., and the researchers discussed below think we can. However, there is one caveat - It can only be done through nonviolent means. Violence simply replaces one dominator system with another. Inherent in the character of nonviolence is the necessity of equality. At the level of nonviolence, all are equal. All have but one life to give. Violence requires increasing use of resources to maintain (Starhawk, 1993). Nonviolence is life supporting and requires no additional resources to maintain. 

NONVIOLENCE ACTION & COMMUNICATION

The Carnegie Commission on Preventing Deadly Conflict recently issued a progress report (CCPDC, 1998). The Commission sets out three essential components to their cause: early reaction to signs of trouble, resolve to understand root causes, and an effort to reduce risk factors. Two central and essential elements within these three components are the promotion of using nonviolent action in conflict resolution and the opening and constructive use of sound communication channels. In fact, the Commission’s goal states that they hope that the seeds of cooperation and reconciliation that they plant now will grow into "a system in which mass violence became rare or nonexistent (1998, p.3).

Nonviolent Action

The essence of nonviolent action, according to Gandhi, was a commitment to truth. The truth, as he used the word, refers to the truth about who we are as human beings. Gandhi believed that humans’ spiritual nature is ahimsa, nonviolent. Thus, our way of life should be a commitment to that truth. For Gandhi, this was a sacred truth, a spiritual truth.

To understand the strength and power of nonviolence, we must, for a moment, consider the nature of violence. Violent tyrannies are built upon the premise, and require all to believe, that evil is irreversible (Merton, 1964). All must believe that there is no way to stop violence to oneself except by doing violence to another. This is the real enemy - the belief that only violence can stop violence, that the sin of violence is unforgivable. Merton believes that Hitler was so successful with his regime because he slowly inculcated his troops into violence: To become a member of the Nazi force one had to commit an act of violence. Gandhi believed that when human beings became traitors to the truth of who they were, then humans lost their dignity.

Thus, as Ghaffar Khan, Gandhi, King and others have found, that when a person commits a nonviolent act, they learn that their former belief in the irreversibility of sin was untruth, they realize that they are human, and their dignity is thereby restored. Once a person commits to nonviolence and experiences its true spiritual power they realize that not only is their true nature that of compassion, dignity, and nonviolence, but that it is also true of all they meet. Starhawk (1993) provides a dramatization of what happens when violence is met with nonviolence. In Starhawk’s novel, a young woman, taking part in a resistance movement, walks up to a National Guardsman who has his gun pointed at her:

"He was young, about my age. His eyes were brown, like mine, and I could see he was scared, like I was scared. We were just the same. All of a sudden I knew that, and he knew it, too. I could see it in his face. His hands were shaking, and he lowered his rifle. I knew, then, what could really end the war" (p.163).

Thus, nonviolence breeds tolerance and compassion for others and develops a "sense of unity and community" (Bond, 1988). Ghaffar Khan transformed the lives of his followers by offering them their humanity (Johansen, 1997). Because nonviolence is inherently more moral than violence, the force of morality is on the side of the nonviolent (Gandhi, 1964).

The commitment to nonviolence requires a leap of faith. As Gandhi noted, "Peace will never come until the great powers are courageous enough to disarm themselves." Bond (1988), in his discourse on nonviolence, states that it is the failure of courage on the part of religious leaders to promote the active, rather than the passive, role of nonviolence. Johansen (1997) notes that it was only the religious beliefs of the Pashtuns that provided them the strength and courage to make the initial commitment to nonviolence. It takes great courage and motivation to be ready to give ones life for the cause of social reform, of breaking the oppression of ones people. Religious belief, or a shared ideology, is commonly the most potent force that makes nonviolence possible. Once the transformation of an individual has taken place, rational beliefs support the process. As Johansen noted, the Pashtuns found that they were able to be more politically effective when they used nonviolence. Ghaffar Khan taught them that there was also an alternate way to interpret their religious teachings, thus opening up more doorways of possibility. Nonviolence offers a potent, viable alternative to violence.

Gandhi was very adamant about the active nature of nonviolence. Nonviolence is not a passive acceptance of the status quo. Gandhi felt that it is an act of courage fueled by purity of spirit and mind. Gandhi believed that to sit by passively while anyone, even your enemy, was being put to death was a failure to be true to the ideals of nonviolence. To be a true satyagrahi, nonviolence must be practiced in all aspects of being.

The Carnegie Commission, in addition to promoting the use of nonviolence also strongly suggests a number of actions that would create, in my mind, a more egalitarian society. For example, they suggest that movements be made to "improve health standards and practices," "minimize literacy," "manage resources and technologies to derive the greatest benefit for the greatest number," "promote the establishment of stable, democratic regimes," "promote accountable governance," "promote the creation and maintenance of a robust civil society to help diverse groups thrive in proximity," and "promote economic development in ways that can be indigenously absorbed and sustained" (CCPDC, 1998, p.5). Gandhi also felt that that the inequalities of the caste system in India must necessarily be abrogated as a part of the practice of nonviolence. To have a hierarchy of power, Gandhi felt, was in itself an act of violence to those who were dominated by others.

Eriksen (1991) in his explorations of how to increase the chances for peace in multi-cultural societies also notes the necessity of treating people equally without having one group dominating others. Specifically, he notes that there should be equal access to the labor market and education, that the state should be sensitive to the differences of the cultures when making state policies, and that all should have the right to participate, or not, in the national society and identity. Bond (1988) in his factor analyses of 72 cases on nonviolence notes that the dominant factor of similarity among cases was the economic and political injustice that existed within the country of each case. He also found that higher degrees of undemocratic conditions led to greater levels of violence. He attributes this to the loss of human dignity and freedom.

Staub (1988) notes that the mere devaluing of one group by another leads to group violence. Similarly, Senghaas-Knobloch and Volmerg (1988) noted that even perceived inequality of power between groups led to a co-opting of power by one group. Axelrod (1997) in mathematical modeling of the dissemination of culture also showed that differences between groups lead to a global polarization of values.

Non Violence Communications

A substantial part of the Carnegie Commission’s work lies in increasing the effectiveness of communication between opposing groups. A significant part of this work occurs within the realm of negotiations. A popular notion of negotiation is producing a win-win situation for all involved. Many people are skeptical that this is even possible. Fortunately, there are many examples of how this may be achieved. Marshall Rosenberg has provided what I think is the most successful form of nonviolent communication, which focuses on "connecting us with ourselves and with each other in a way that allows our natural compassion to flourish" (1999, p. 2).

Rosenberg’s work, while deceptively simple, is more than a set of techniques: its successful employment requires a change in ones consciousness (Longino, 1998). The technique for expressing ourselves focuses on observing concrete actions, noticing the feelings one has, interpreting the internal causes for these feelings, stating ones needs, and then requesting actions that would enrich ones life. (Appendix 1 provides an excerpt of a brief interchange demonstrating these principles in a Palestinian refugee camp.)

Actually implementing the techniques is not so simple. Years of pop psychology have taught us to take ownership of our feelings. Thus we feel justified in saying, "I feel angry when you do that." Rosenberg points out, however, that it is not the other person’s actions which cause us to be angry, it our interpretation of them. When we realize that, we are moved to say, "When you do not call when you are going to be late for dinner, I feel angry because I think that means you do not respect me." Rosenberg sees this language as still inherently violent in that it places the cause for our pain outside ourselves. The central focus of expressing ourselves, then, is taking responsibility for our feelings and our needs. Eleanor Roosevelt captured the essence of this when she noted that no one can make us feel bad without our permission.

Learning to express ones self in a nonviolent manner is an important part of nonviolent communication, but equally or more important is learning how to listen empathically. Rosenberg stresses that in order to really listen, we must receive the information empathically, without hearing accusations or criticism. In order to do this successfully, we need to be in touch with our own feelings. Western culture teaches us to be logical in our communications, which by inference means ignoring our feelings. Rosenberg warns that ignoring our feelings leads to violence in our communication.

Research by Staub (1988) and Sendhaas-Knobloch and Volberg (1988) supports this notion that disconnection from our feelings causes communication difficulties and leads to the proliferation of violence. Sendhaas-Knobloch and Volberg examined the decision-making process of Kennedy during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Sendhaas-Knobloch and Volberg noticed that as long as Kennedy suppressed his own human needs and feelings, he was able to play the power game, which almost cost the United States the lives of many of our children. They noted that it was only after the matter was out of Kennedy’s hands that he allowed himself to connect with his feelings and realize the deadly implications of a war with Russia. Sendhaas-Knobloch and Volberg provide evidence that the suppressed subjectivity of feelings in a variety of international negotiations lead to an increased possibility of pathological armament. Most people believe that acknowledging personal feelings in such a situation is risky, but in fact, Sendhaas-Knobloch and Volberg show that not acknowledging them is far more dangerous. They found that even in personal negotiations, the suppression of ones own feelings leads to the use of psychological defense mechanisms in which we project our fears onto the other party.

Frankel (1994), in his description of Yitzhak Shamir’s leadership of Israel, states that Shamir believed that showing emotions showed vulnerability (p. 27), and was thus an unaffordable luxury in negotiations with Palestinian leaders or even members of his own staff. We associate emotions and vulnerability with weakness, yet there we find great strength in our humanity, in our emotions. Our emotions are what move us and they give us strength. Rosenberg (1999) cites numerous examples of how people are able to use nonviolent communication in what appear to be situations that call for force.

A school teacher, working late in her inner city school, found herself confronted by a very large, angry man who commanded her to remove all her clothing. She empathized with his anger and fear and asked if there were some other way of working this out. He repeated his command. She shared her feelings of being frightened and told him she would appreciate it if he would leave without hurting her. He asked for her purse, which she turned over to him, and he left.

A police officer, after arresting a man in a block of public housing, found his car surrounded by an angry mob. He knew that he could use his gun, but wasn’t sure what they were carrying. He started empathizing with their anger and their fear. He found that they thought his apprehension of the man was racially motivated. He empathized with how that would make them feel, and eventually they cleared a way to his car.

These examples may seem like strange anomalies or coincidence, yet there are scores of examples in the nonviolent literature that support Rosenberg’s claim that when people are able to form a heart or emotional connection, the apparent conflict is soon resolved. The schoolteacher merely shared her feelings of fright and connected to his feelings of anger. The police officer addressed the fears of the crowd that they were perhaps being treated differently because of the color of their skin. Carl Rogers is often quoted as saying that what people want, more than anything else, is to feel heard and understood. Once we are able to empathize with another, that person will know that they have been heard.

Thus, the change in consciousness that is required to work is that must stop seeing other people as ‘other,’ as separate, or as different. When we are able to empathize with another, when we form a compassionate connection with them, we are seeing them as we see ourselves. We are realizing that they, too, have similar fears and concerns. This change in consciousness engendered by the use of nonviolent communication is similar to that described by Johansen (1997) in his description of the Pashtuns when they became committed to the use of nonviolence. We need to honor our true nature and trust in the humanity of men and women, in order for this process to work. When we become aware of and unlearn the assumptions of violence, we open ourselves to a more effective way of meeting our needs and resolving apparent conflicts. Although we must have a change in consciousness to effectively practice nonviolence, often we must practice nonviolence to effect that change. However, once we begin to experiment with nonviolence we find that we have more choices when we are faced with a conflict than were offered by violent means.

Communication and culture

As we have all experienced, it is often difficult to communicate clearly with those we know quite well. Even with our shared language and culture, confusion often develops over what was communicated and what was received. It is easy to understand how those difficulties would increase logarithmically when two groups from different cultures are trying to communicate.

In international relations, Westerners (North America, Europe, Israel, Australia, and New Zealand) often view their cultural assumptions as correct, valid, and universal (Puchala, 1997). Puchala notes that non-Westerners (Africans, Asians, Arabs, Caribbeans, Latins) view the West as imperialist nations that enslave and exploit others for their personal gain. Westerners are viewed as incredibly racist, arrogant, and selfish. Given this popular view, one can see the difficulties that would arise in negotiations.

Besides the broad generalizations noted by Puchala, there are differences at the negotiation table as well. Kimmel (1994) notes that Westerners view negotiations as tasks that need to be taken care of in an efficient manner. Non-Westerners are more likely to want to take their time in developing relationships between the principal players and to spend time with the negotiators away from the negotiating table. They are likely to extend the length of time spent negotiating in order to get these needs met. Westerners, with their direct, no-nonsense approach are likely to be viewed as cold, overly competitive, and imperialistic (Puchala, 1997, Kimmel, 1994).

Even though these are only a few of the many possible differences that may exist in any negotiation, it is easy to see the great possibility for the generation of misunderstanding. In the negotiations between the U.S. and Iraq in 1991, the U.S. appointed a female ambassador, sent an impersonal, task oriented letter from the president to be given to Hussein, and sent a message through the foreign minister demanding specific actions on the part of Hussein within specific (short) time limits (Kimmel, 1994). Hussein rejected the letter and the Americans were shocked. Kimmel (1994) attributes Iraq’s refusal to negotiate with the US’s failure to understand even the most basic aspects of Iraq’s culture. Arabs, in general do not view women with respect, want to develop personal relationships with the negotiators over a long period of time, and want more interaction before they are willing to make any commitments to requests, not demands (Kimmel, 1994).

Besides the cultural specifics that can arise during negotiations, there are also differences between the cognitive structures of people from different cultures. Bonham, Sergeev, and Parshin (1997) explored the cognitive structures used by Kennedy and Khrushchev during negotiations on the nuclear test ban treaty (Treaty Banning Nuclear Weapons Test in the Atmosphere, in Outer Space, and Under Water). Bonham et al. found that President Kennedy used a procedural structure, whereas Khrushchev used a processual structure. In a procedural structure, actors cause events and "Change is the result of structured and deliberate actions" (Bonham et al., 1997, p. 219). In a processual cognitive structure, there are no deliberate actions causing events, there are no "points of influence" (p. 218), rather a holistic view is taken in which actors merely contribute to a final state. It is immediately apparent how these differences could cause many misunderstandings, as were evident in the Cuban Missile Crisis. Bonahm et al., however, after examining the transcripts of the treaty negotiations, found that Khrushchev was able to adapt his cognitive structure to be more in line with the thought process of Kennedy. Bonham et al. contribute the success of these talks (signed in 1963) to Khrushchev’s willingness to connect with Kennedy by temporarily adapting a more similar cognitive structure to the talks.

USE OF NONVIOLENCE IN THE MIDDLE EAST

The conflict in the Middle East has been going on for thousands of years. Many people believe that the violence has become so ingrained into the culture across so many generations that it can never be eradicated. Arabs and Israelis often hold the view of the other as evil, violent, and responsible for any of their problems. Those who are optimistic about finding a peaceful resolution to the ownership of the land are viewed as unrealistic Pollyannas. If violence has always been here, thus it will ever be.

Obstacles to Peace in the Middle East

There are many issues that contribute to the violent nature of the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians. As with the Pashtuns, the conflict has been going on for centuries and there is a blood feud nature to the conflict. Palestinians and Israelis live in close quarters to each other and most people have intimate knowledge of the ‘wrongs’ done by the ‘other.’ No one, on either side, has not lost a friend or family member.

Both cultures are hierarchically based. Their religious structures denigrate the position of women to varying degrees. In the atmosphere created by these dominator ideologies, those that feel oppressed view their oppressors as exploiting them. Both tribes claim ownership of the same land based on their respective religious traditions (Rubin, 1998). Both sides have extremely polarized views of the other. Interviews with spiritual leaders of the Palestinians show little room for compromise (Soueid, 1995; Elmusa, 1995). Until recently, Palestine was committed to the complete destruction of the Israeli state (Rubin, 1998). Furthermore, even though there are great similarities between the two cultures, Palestinians view Israelis as part of the Western Empire (Soueid, 1995) and view them as arrogant and violent (Puchala, 1997).

Application of Nonviolent Practices in the Middle East

As Johansen (1997) described, Ghaffar Khan’s experience with the Pashtuns showed in a dramatic fashion that nonviolence works not only for those who are already peaceful, but also by those who have been violent for centuries. Violence can be unlearned. Palestinians and Israelis have created many programs to develop dialogue between their people.

Marshal Rosenberg (1999) spent time talking with two groups of Israelis who had strongly opposing views on settlement in the West Bank. One side viewed settlement on the West Bank as their religious duty. The others wanted to allow Palestinian settlement in the name of creating peace. After the two sides had practiced nonviolent communication for an afternoon, a woman who had believed that settling on the West Bank was her duty spoke up. She said that she would now be willing to leave the West Bank if others could hear her in the way that she had been heard during the workshop. Just being heard had allowed her to change her incredibly strong views. In a similar experience, Rosenberg, when talking to a group of men in a Palestinian refugee camp, was able to create an equally dramatic change (see Appendix 1). When he first came on stage, the crowd began calling him a murderer when they realized he was an American. He listened empathically, trying to understand the unmet needs of these men that they were expressing by their anger. By establishing a heartfelt connection with these men, they were soon communicating in a meaningful way. At the end of the exchange, the man who had been screaming the loudest was inviting Rosenberg to a Ramadan dinner. This is an extremely rare privilege for a non-Muslim.

Besides the practice of nonviolent communication, there are other activities that can promote nonviolence. For example, Neve Shalom Wahat Al-Salam is a village school in Israel for Palestinian and Israeli children. Children learn that other children, although they may have different cultural practices, are more similar to them than different. They believe that by creating a demographic mass of just 10% of the population that understands this concept, that they will be able to create a lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians. The Neve Shalom Wahat Al-Salam school also sponsors other programs to build unity between these two peoples. Recently, Eric Akbar Manolson, a leader of The Dances of Universal Peace led a dance at the school in which Palestinian and Israeli men danced with each other as part of a weekend workshop. In the dances, people sing and dance chants from various spiritual traditions to experience the compassionate nature of all peoples. Everyone present at this dance workshop noted a significant difference in the quality of the rapport that was established by the simple and beautiful act of singing and dancing together. The American Friends Service Committee, a Quaker organization dedicated to the use of nonviolence, has established a Middle East Peace Program to create more opportunities for communication and community in this area. The Van Leer Jerusalem Institute has also created a program on Human Dignity through their Center for Tolerance Education. Even Benetton, the popular clothier of people young and old, has gotten into the act. They recently published a magazine filled with images of Israelis and Palestinians from all walks of life sharing friendship and life.

These programs, and others like them, work to establish solidarity and familiarity between people of differing beliefs and cultures. These programs focus on the common humanity and equality of all people. By sharing our deepest feelings with another, by becoming vulnerable with each other, it is believed that compassion can overcome violence. It is not always easy. It often takes months or years of meeting with each other before the anger can be replaced with compassion. Rosenberg had to work with one village for months before two families, one Israeli and one Palestinian, could find it in their hearts to forgive each other for the deaths, murders, committed by the other. It is a testament to their commitment to peace that they should continue in this painful dialogue for so long. If it is possible to teach nonviolent alternatives to people at war for generations, who have seen neighbors kill their children, then it must be possible anywhere.

CONCLUSION

We have found, through Eisler’s research on the culture of our Paleolithic and Neolithic ancestors, that humans are not innately violent. Her research shows that people lived in advanced agrarian societies for close to 200,000 years without violence and war. Billings’ work on Melanesian tribes living in Papua New Guinea today provides further evidence that violence is predominant in societies with a dominator ideology, whereas in cultures with an egalitarian or partnership based society, peacefulness prevails. Johanson’s research on Ghaffar Khan and the Pashtuns demonstrated that the most intense violent responses can be unlearned, just as they were once learned. The examples set by Ghaffar Khan, Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., and others also reveal that nonviolence is more effective than violence. Finally, Rosenberg’s work shows us that nonviolent communication offers a means for bridging misunderstandings between families, friends or people of widely divergent cultures. Nonviolence simply offers us more effective opportunities for dealing with conflict and meeting the needs of self and others than are offered through violent means.

Nonviolence does require greater courage than violence. In every confrontation, the strength of our humanity is put on the line again and again. Nonviolence is an activity which requires a change in consciousness in order to practice it, and, paradoxically, that change in consciousness comes about only through the practice of nonviolence. Will we choose violent or nonviolent means for meeting our needs? May we find that we are strong, compassionate, and courageous enough to continue choose nonviolence - our very survival in this time of advanced weaponry may depend on it.

Adam, Robert (1966). The evolution of urban society. Chicago: Aldine.

Axelrod, R. (1997). The dissemination of culture: A model with local convergence and global polarization. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 41:2, 203-226.

Bar-Tal, D. (1998). The rocky road toward peace: Beliefs on conflict in Israeli textbooks. Journal of Peace Research, 35:6, 723-742.

Billings, D.K. (1991). Cultural style and solutions to conflict. Journal of Peace Research, 28:3, 249-262.

Bond, Douglas (1988). The nature and meaning of nonviolent direct action: An exploratory study. Journal of Peace Research, 25:1, 81-90.

Bonham, G.M., Sergeev, V.M. & Parshin, P.B. (1997). The limited test ban agreement: Emergence of new knowledge structures in international negotiation. International Studies Quarterly, 41, 215-240.

Capra, Fritjof (1982). The turning point: Science, society, and the rising culture. New York: Bantam

Carnegie Commission on Preventing Deadly Conflict, (1998). A Report on work in progress. http:/www.ccpdc.org/pubs/rept2/rept2a.html. [Accessed December 1, 1998.]

Denny, F.M. (1994). An Introduction to Islam. New York: Macmillan.

Desivilya, H.S. (1998). Jewish-Arab coexistence in Israel: The role of joint professional teams. Journal of Peace Research, 35:4, 429-452.

Durant, Will (1954). Our oriental heritage, in The Story of Civilization, volume I. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Eisler, R. & Loye, D. (1990). The partnership way: New tools for living and learning, healing our families, our communities, and our world. San Francisco: Harper.

Eisler, Riane (1987). The chalice and the blade: Our history, our future. San Francisco: Harper Collins.

Elmusa, S. (1995). Moving beyond Oslo: An interview with Haydar ‘Abd al-Shafi. Journal of Palestine Studies, 25:1, 76-85.

Eriksen, T.H. (1991). Ethnicity versus nationalism. Journal of Peace Research, 28:3, 263-278.

Fagan, B.M. (1986). People of the Earth: An introduction to world prehistory. Boston: Little Brown and Company.

Faltering Peace (1994, Jan. 8). The Economist, p. 17.

Frankel, Glenn (1994). Beyond the Promised Land: Jews and Arabs on the hard road to a new Israel. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Hawkes, J. (1968). Dawn of the Gods: Minoan and Mycenean Origins of Greece. New York: Random House.

Johansen, R.C. (1997). Radical Islam and nonviolence: A case study of religious empowerment and constraint among Pashtuns. Journal of Peace Research, 34:1, 53-71.

Kimmel, P.R. (1994). Cultural perspectives on international negotiations. The Journal of Social Issues, 50:1, 179-196.

Longino, C.L. (1998, Dec 17). Personal communication.

McKenzie, Colin (1995). Environment, culture, and conflict: The clash of methodologies. http:/www.cmgonline.org/pubs/winter96/cmgonline3.htm. [Accessed December 1, 1998.]

McKenzie, Colin (1995). Exploring assumptions about intercultural negotiations. http:/www.cmgonline.org/pubs/winter96/cmgonline3.htm. [Accessed December 1, 1998.]

Mor, Ben (1997). Peace initiatives and public opinion: The domestic context of conflict resolution. Journal of Peace Research, 34:2, 197-215.

Palmer, Donald (1988). Looking at Philosophy. Mountain View, California: Mountain View.

Puchala, D.J. (1997). Some non-western perspectives on international relations. Journal of Peace Research, 34:2, 129-134.

Rosenberg, Marshall (1999) Nonviolent communication: A language of compassion. Del Mar, CA: PuddleDancer Press.

Rubin, Barry (1998). Israel, the Palestinian Authority, and the Arab States. Mideast Security and Policy Studies, 36. http:/www.biu.ac.il/SOC/besa/books/36pub.html. [Accessed December 1, 1998.]

Senghaas-Knobloch, E. & Volmerg, B. (1988). Towards a psychology of peace. Journal of Peace Research, 25:3, 245-256.

Soueid, M. (1995). Islamic unity and political change. Journal of Palestine Studies, 25:1, 61-75.

Starhawk (1993). The Fifth Sacred Thing. New York: Bantam.

Stone, Merlin (1976). When God was a woman. New York: Harvest Books.

Straub, Ervin (1988). The evolution of caring and nonaggressive persons and societies. The Journal of Social Issues, 44, 81-100.

Tehranian, K.K. (1998). Global communication and pluralization of identities. Futures, 30:2/3, 211-217.

Zur, O. (1987). The psychohistory of warfare: The cultural co-evolution of culture, psyche, and enemy. Journal of Peace Research, 24:2, 125-134.

 

Appendix 1.

From Marshal Rosenberg’s 1999 book, Nonviolent Communication: A language of compassion.

"I was presenting Nonviolent Communication in a mosque at Deheisha Refugee Camp in Bethlehem to about 170 Palestinian Moslem men. Attitudes toward Americans at that time were not favorable. As I was speaking, I suddenly noticed a wave of muffled commotion fluttering through the audience. They're whispering that you are American! my translator alerted me, just as a gentleman in the audience leapt to his feet. Facing me squarely, he hollered at the top of his lungs, Murderer! Immediately a dozen other voices joined him in chorus: Assassin! Child-killer! Murderer!

Fortunately, I was able to focus my attention on what the man was feeling and needing. In this case, I had some cues. On the way into the refugee camp, I had seen several empty tear gas canisters that had been shot into the camp the night before. Clearly marked on each canister were the words Made in U.S.A. I knew that the refugees harbored a lot of anger toward the U.S. for supplying tear gas and other weapons to Israel.

I addressed the man who had called me a murderer:

I: Are you angry because you would like my government to use its resources differently? (I didn't know whether my guess was correct, but what is critical is my sincere effort to connect with his feeling and need.)

He: Damn right I'm angry! You think we need tear gas? We need sewers, not your tear gas! We need housing! We need to have our own country!

I: So you're furious and would appreciate some support in improving your living conditions and gaining political independence?

He: Do you know what it’s like to live here for twenty-seven years the way I have with my family - children and all? Have you got the faintest idea what that's been like for us?

I: Sounds like you're feeling very desperate and you're wondering whether I or anybody else can really understand what it’s like to be living under these conditions.

He: You want to understand? Tell me, do you have children? Do they go to school? Do they have playgrounds? My son is sick! He plays in open sewage! His classroom has no books! Have you seen a school that has no books?

I: I hear how painful it is for you to raise your children here; you'd like me to know that what you want is what all parents want for their children - a good education, opportunity to play and grow in a healthy environment...

He: That's right, the basics! Human rights - isn’t that what you Americans call it? Why don't more of you come here and see what kind of human rights you're bringing here!

I: You'd like more Americans to be aware of the enormity of the suffering here and to look more deeply at the consequences of our political actions?

Our dialogue continued, with him expressing his pain for nearly twenty more minutes, and I listening for the feeling and need behind each statement. I didn't agree or disagree. I received his words, not as attacks, but as gifts from a fellow human willing to share his soul and deep vulnerabilities with me.

Once the gentleman felt understood, he was able to hear me as I explained my purpose for being at the camp. An hour later, the same man who had called me a murderer was inviting me to his home for a Ramadan dinner." *

*Note (br): This is an extreme and rare honor for a non-Muslim.