July/August 2005 The Decade Challenge For Your Own Safety “Those taking part in demonstrations, non-violent resistance, and
Sometimes you’re not sure whether to laugh or cry. Such was the case when I went to the State Department website. I wanted to read any travel warnings for Israel/Palestine in preparation for the upcoming FOR delegation, which includes a few of us who are nonviolence trainers. It’s not that I was surprised to read that the situation was dangerous. For years I have watched news reports and read stories describing the danger and terror of living in Israel/Palestine. What shocked me was how “demonstrations, non-violent resistance, and direct action” have become the latest casualty of our obsessive need for “safety.” Safety has become the be-all and end-all for our life in this world, especially in this country. It has led, over the last five years, to legitimizing an extensive assault on our rights and liberties in the name of security, which is just another word for safety. Not only are we discouraged from becoming actively involved in advocacy and dissent in our own country—now we are exporting our paranoia and asking US citizens to carry it with them when they travel. But the very fact that the words “non-violent resistance” are included in a State Department travel warning may be cause for celebration, even if we are asked to avoid participating in it for our own safety. I realized after reading this State Department warning that at last nonviolence is being recognized as a force that can have a powerful impact on a conflict situation. Direct action and nonviolence have entered mainstream consciousness: now they must be actively discouraged because they destabilize the “safety” of those in power. Nonviolence changes the status quo without resorting to violence; nevertheless, it cannot be considered safe. There is power in active nonviolence, and practicing it can make you the focus of more violence or even get you killed. It takes more courage to face a gun without a gun than with one. It takes more courage to sit in front of a house threatened with demolition and to risk being killed by the bulldozer than to strike out at the driver. Nonviolent resistance in places of war and conflict is dangerous work, but what is the alternative? In 1968, the night before he was assassinated, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., spoke in Memphis, Tennessee: “For years now we have been talking about war and peace. But now, no longer can we just talk about it. It is no longer a choice between violence and nonviolence. It is the choice between nonviolence and nonexistence.” And there are two ways leading to nonexistence in the struggle for peace. One is to turn to violence in the name of a greater good, and then to be destroyed by the ensuing cycle of violence. Another is to do nothing in support of justice, to merely accept what is happening passively, and to stay “safe” by not getting involved. Dr. King’s principles of nonviolence hold that “Nonviolence is a way of life for courageous people.” Courageous people stand in the face of injustice, understanding that their safety and security are intimately related to peace and justice all over the world and that they do not exist in isolation from conflict and destruction. Courageous people understand that solidarity with the dispossessed and violated places them in the line of fire when they challenge those who hold power. They do not intend to “cease such activities,” even for their own safety.
The Rev. Jeremy Lucas is an Episcopal priest in Alabama. A former attorney, he is a trainer/ consultant in the FOR-USA Creating a Culture of Peace Nonviolence Training Program. |
