A wider war is breaking out with Israel in Lebanon and with Iran. The international community has missed multiple political opportunities since Oct. 7, 2023. For instance, in November 2023 there was a seven-day pause and hostage release of more than one hundred people. In January 2024, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to significantly change military strategy and to prevent genocide. ln September 2024, Israeli society rose up with larger demonstrations (500,000 people) and even a general strike, while U.S. President Joe Biden pushed a phased plan for a permanent ceasefire in Gaza. The U.S. government failed to utilize the necessary leverage and to operate in accord with proven sustainable security practices.
Sustainable security depends in large part on identifying people with credibility for key leaders, building trust across communities, rehumanizing the people impacted by the violence, taking strategic risks without killing, as well as creating space for the root causes to be seen and addressed. This is precisely what the proven practice of unarmed civilian protection and accompaniment (UCP/A) may offer at this moment.
Some may wonder, can this practice work in a war zone? Is there any evidence of impact?
This security practice of unarmed civilian protection and accompaniment has effectively saved lives in major war zones, such as Ukraine, South Sudan, Iraq, Colombia, and the Philippines. More than sixty organizations offer UCP/A in over thirty areas of the world, including Palestine and Israel. Previous research demonstrated the constructive impact of UCP/A in Palestine, such reducing violence by Israeli soldiers and settlers, as well as rehumanizing communities and creating space for nonviolent resistance.
Others may argue that the situation right now in Israel and Palestine is so complex and intense that it seems unlikely UCP/A could shift important dynamics. Some will claim that the power differential is so great that UCP/A will have little effect. The Israeli military is vastly more powerful than armed groups in Palestine and it is unclear who has adequate credibility with the Israeli leaders. Who would be willing to take such risks at this moment? Who would have adequate credibility with the Israeli government or settlers?
Illustrative examples of UCP/A in Palestine are notable and increasing in the present moment, but we can do so much more with a concerted focus and resources. These examples include Ta’ayush, Looking the Occupation in the Eye, the Center for Jewish Nonviolence, Presence in Hard Times, Standing Together, Community Peacemaker Teams, and Meta Peace Team. Waves of religious delegations have also been going to Palestine to accompany those in danger. I participated in a Christians for Ceasefire delegation in August, which included protective presence support, such as stemming the tide of attacks by Israeli settlers toward a Bedouin community. Overall, these UCP groups have provided protective presence and support self-protection in a variety of contexts including in the homes of Palestinians, at checkpoints, and accompanying farmers, shepherds, and nonviolent organizers. UCP groups have also prevented Israeli settlers from blocking humanitarian aid into Gaza.
What if there were additional hundreds professional, well-trained protectors? What else could be done in the West Bank, as well as in and around Gaza?
Specific lines of effort could include: 1) protecting efficient provision of humanitarian assistance and medical care, 2) accompanying people under threat and providing direct protection to civilians, 3) monitoring ceasefires, and 4) monitoring and reporting on compliance with international law. We might also consider how UCP/A could manage risks by mitigating rumors on the ground and creating early warning or early response mechanisms. They may also accompany local leaders for community-based negotiations, create space for trauma mitigation, and rehumanize the dynamics in a zone of rampant dehumanization. All of these can begin to shift the power differential in this context.
Developing lines of communication with all the relevant stakeholders is another strategy to help manage risks. The U.S. government and civil society policy advocates can assist with these efforts, which would serve vital national interests for a just peace in the region as well as contribute to shifting power dynamics. Past and present U.S. government approaches have too often contributed to considerable destruction and trauma, and in many ways incredibly counterproductive to lasting peace. Enabling mass atrocities under the pretense of ‘defense’ and security is heartbreaking to say the least.
The U.S. government and civil society advocates can and must do better. There is significant potential for unarmed civilian protection and accompaniment to contribute to a more sustainable security for the region. Now is the moment.
