274 E. WEIZMAN this determination to have the last move up to the front [. . .] can only succeed by resorting to every means, including, of course, violence. [. . .] The colonized who have made up their mind to make such an agenda into a driving force, have been prepared for violence from time immortal (ibid., 3). Fanon thus considers violence as integral to the anticolonial struggle, to the material alteration of the colonial structure and to the creation of new, liberated people. Fanon is precise about the dangers posed by the exercise of violence as an end in itself – and emphasises the importance of a clear political strategy to accompany it. Therefore, despite the fact that decolonisation can take different forms, historical experience shows one must accept violence might be part of such processes. As we have seen the privileges of the settler-citizen are constituted by the violence of the settler colonial project, violence that is formalised in and by the law, and in the institution of citizenship in the state. And yet, among anti-colonial settler activists there is a consistent refrain in which violence is deemed beyond the pale of legitimate struggle. It is important to interrogate and problematise this issue, as I see it as part of my unravelling of the paradoxes (and inherent limitations) of settler citizen activists. Indeed, we can easily distinguish between Jewish-Israeli anticolonial activists and Palestinians based on their use/approach to violence. Palestinians, both historically and contemporarily, have used armed resistance in their struggle. By contrast, (nearly17) all anticolonial colonisers adhere to ‘nonviolence’, avoiding actions that might support Palestinian armed resistance, such as trading and concealing arms, or ‘spying’.18 Nonviolent action seems to be a guiding principle among numerous proPalestinian organisations and individuals and is considered the sole and most effective strategy of struggle.19 This is an important observation worthy of consideration. In the extensive literature addressing ‘nonviolence’ in resistance a distinction is commonly made between ‘principled nonviolence’ (Gandhi) and ‘strategic nonviolence’ (Sharp 1973). While the former is motivated by the need to win people’s hearts and belief that the opponent cannot respond with violence to nonviolence for long, the latter considers nonviolence as the most effective way to exert political and social power over more powerful opponents, expose the asymmetric nature of the conflict and topple the opponent’s internal and external support (Scruggs 2011, 72–73). As with violence, nonviolence can take different forms, such as civil disobedience, boycotts and demonstrations. I argue that in the case of the anticolonial settler nonviolence is more than a tactic or a moral choice. Resort to and support for nonviolent resistance strategies and practices helps solve the anticolonial settlers’ dilemma, torn as they are between their wish to be part of the resistance to injustice and their own privileges and the safety of their loved ones, themselves and their homes. This is not a dilemma facing Palestinians. Adherence to ‘nonviolence’ should be understood as a strategy that seeks to overcome the paradoxical position of being anticolonial while remaining settlers and maintaining the material status quo. They cannot struggle without nonviolence, and they cannot be (anticolonial) without struggling. Put differently, ’nonviolence’ here serves more than the struggle itself, but the anticolonial coloniser self. It is, as Owen suggests, an ‘aspect of selfpreservation, the unwillingness to accept Fanon’s prediction in that [. . .] the idea of