adobe photoshop help bottons Cheap Adobe Contribute CS4 adobe photoshop nonprofit software adobe photoshop grunge brush download Cheap Adobe Creative Suite 5 Master Collection for Mac adobe photoshop cs8 mac osx adobe photoshop tips paths Cheap Adobe Dreamweaver CS5 adobe photoshop product license has expired adobe creative suite standard full Cheap Adobe Photoshop CS5 adobe photoshop c2 download adobe photoshop professional download Cheap Adobe Dreamweaver CS4 for Mac crack adobe photoshop free adobe creative suite test bank Cheap Adobe Dreamweaver CS3 adobe creative suite crack activation adobe photoshop cs3 activation code Cheap Adobe Creative Suite 4 Web Premium for Mac adobe contribute 4 torrent adobe photoshop 7.0 tutorial Cheap Adobe Creative Suite 4 Web Standard for Mac free adobe photoshop elements download legal adobe photoshop magazine Cheap Adobe Creative Suite 4 Production Premium for Mac photoshop adobe kids adobe photoshop cs2 user manual Cheap Adobe Creative Suite 4 Production Premium adobe photoshop cs3 key digital filmtools 55mm for adobe photoshop Cheap Adobe Creative Suite 4 Design Standard for Mac adobe creative suite photoshop illustrator free adobe photoshop cs3 trial Cheap Adobe Creative Suite 4 Design Premium for Mac adobe photoshop registration numbers 5.0 le adobe photoshop cs key Cheap Adobe Creative Suite 4 Design Premium tutor for adobe dreamweaver adobe photoshop for ubuntu Cheap Adobe Creative Suite 3 Web Premium free download adobe photoshop album adobe photoshop elements 4.0 trial Cheap Adobe Creative Suite 3 Design Premium what is adobe creative suites

Archive for the 'peace process' Category

Sep 02 2010

Clinton Opens New Round of Mideast Peace Talks

From Fox Five News today.  See the film clip.

via Clinton Opens New Round of Mideast Peace Talks

WASHINGTON – Marc Gopin from the Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution at George Mason University joined us with more.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton formally opened the first direct peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians in nearly two years on Thursday, imploring the parties to ignore the long history of failed negotiations and make needed compromises to forge an agreement.

At a ceremony in the State Department’s ornate Benjamin Franklin room, Clinton said the Obama administration was committed to forging a settlement in a year’s time. But, she stressed that the heavy lifting must be done by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.

“We will be an active and sustained partner,” she said. “But we cannot and we will not impose a solution. Only you can make the decisions necessary to reach an agreement and secure a peaceful future for the Israeli and Palestinian people.”

Netanyahu and Abbas pledged their seriousness to securing an agreement and overcoming decades of mutual hostility and suspicion.

“This will not be easy,” Netanyahu said. “True peace, a lasting peace, will be achieved only with mutual and painful concessions from both sides.”

“We do know how hard are the hurdles and obstacles we face during these negotiations — negotiations that within a year should result in an agreement that will bring peace,” Abbas said.

Abbas called on Israel to end Jewish settlements in the West Bank and other areas that the Palestinians want to be part off their own state. Netanyahu insisted that any agreement must assure Israel’s security.

Thursday’s negotiations are the first since the last effort broke down in December 2008 and are fraught with complications, including recent violence in the West Bank and Israeli settlement activity. Expectations are low and U.S. officials have said success may be only an agreement to hold a second round of negotiations.

Officials say they are hoping to arrange that meeting for Sept. 15 in the Egyptian Red Sea resort of Sharm el-Sheik and top aides to the leaders are expected to meet later Thursday to iron out final details of the next step.

Sitting at the top of a U-shaped table between Netanyahu and Abbas, Clinton congratulated the two for agreeing to resume negotiations but warned of difficult days to come in the effort to create an independent Palestinian state.

“I know the decision to sit at this table was not easy,” Clinton added. “We understand the suspicion and skepticism that so many feel borne out of years of conflict and frustrated hopes.”

She noted two recent attacks on Israelis in the West Bank claimed by the militant Hamas movement underscored the difficulties facing the two leaders.

“But, by being here today, you each have taken an important set toward freeing your peoples from the shackles of a history we cannot change and moving toward a future of peace and dignity that only you can create.”

Hamas gunmen killed four Israeli residents of a West Bank settlement on Tuesday as Netanyahu, Abbas and the leaders of Egypt and Jordan convened in Washington. And on Wednesday, hours before the leaders ate dinner at the White House, Hamas gunmen wounded two Israelis as they drove in their car in another part of the West Bank.

The talks will face their first test within weeks, at the end of September, when the Israeli government’s declared slowdown in settlement construction is slated to end.

Palestinians have said that a renewal of settlement construction will torpedo the talks. The Israeli government is divided over the future of the slowdown, and a decision to extend it could split Netanyahu’s hawkish coalition. Netanyahu has given no indication so far that it will continue beyond the deadline.

Direct Israeli-Palestinian negotiations broke off nearly two years ago, in December 2008, and the Obama administration spent its first 20 months in office coaxing the two sides back to the bargaining table. Despite the success in launching the talks, gaps between the sides are wide, distrust remains after years of violence and deadlock, and expectations are low.

After listening to the Mideast leaders he convened Wednesday night, Obama pronounced himself carefully optimistic. “I am hopeful, cautiously hopeful, but hopeful,” he said.

No responses yet

Aug 22 2010

A Practical Path to Justice and an Independent Palestine

Folks, I published this with Common Ground News Service. Here is a version of it from the Bali Times.

A Practical Path to Justice and an Independent PalestineAugust 16, 2010

By Rabbi Marc Gopin

The creation of an independent Palestine has been a dream dashed many times, but there may be a practical path forward emerging from a surprising place. I often heard the phrase “business is business” growing up in the 1960s among gritty American Jewish immigrants; my father said it all the time. It reflected old Jewish instincts to do whatever it takes to survive and feed “the family,” even when it meant dealing with people who disliked you – a lot.

What floored me is when my Palestinian partner, Aziz Abu Sarah, with whom I recently founded MEJDI, a social enterprise (business designed for a social goal), told me exactly the same words from his father! Aziz’s family and mine are not involved in our new business venture, but every innovation has implications for the political situation in Palestine, and we seek advice and reactions. I have been shocked by the positive reception in my right wing family to the idea of honest business as a bridge. And every time I asked Aziz, “Are you sure your family is ok with Jews and Arabs doing business given their terrible troubles? They know how Jewish I am?” The answer came, “Business is business.”

I feel very much at home with people who love their families, who see the virtue of work, who when facing an unjust situation recognise that practical and ethical people sometimes prevail. Sometimes honest work eases the way to a sane political vision that overwhelms self-destructive patterns of enemy systems and wounded peoples.

There is a lot of good news on the business front. There is a Palestinian prime minister, increasingly popular, who is revolutionising the infrastructure of Palestine, preparing for prosperity and statehood. Saudi Arabia, the most conservative state in the region, has just announced a US$400-million project for Ramallah. Many Western countries are pouring in huge funds for the private sector.

Will these investments benefit most Palestinians? We are all haunted by “the last time,” by the Oslo years of large funds – and large corruption. But thankfully a recent economic conference in Palestine, which included an American presidential delegation headed by Senator George Mitchell, slated $950 million for small- and medium-sized businesses.

My partners and I at MEJDI want more, however. We argue that more is needed to place justice at the centre of Palestine’s future, and to discourage an investor tendency to make a few wealthy and most miserable. All the incoming funds are good but we should explicitly support socially responsible business in Palestine.

Although there is no ultimate solution for Palestine without an end to the Occupation, small businesses are needed to form the backbone of a viable state. Small businesses generate a middle class that depends on the rule of law and democratic values, whereas countries supported only through large corporations and government control rarely emerge as democracies. Palestinians deserve a democracy at the end of their long struggle.

Here is an example of what we are doing as a social enterprise. We are pioneering both tours and academic seminars where almost every dollar spent is going to support and patronize businesses with a clear reputation for fair wages. Profits are also re-invested in lecturers and tour guides who are well known activists for positive social change.

This is just one example of the intersection of small business empowerment and social change. Our other major innovation is the distribution in the West of products made by poor but innovative Palestinian small businesses paying only fair wages. I have learned after 27 years of peace activism that ignoring inequality and poverty is disastrous and it violates every tenet of the region’s religious traditions and values. The un-sustainability of the average Palestinian family makes old ways of coexistence work inadequate. Serious attention to fair wages, however, and financial support for Palestine’s social change activists help engender support for Palestine’s nascent non-violent struggle.

Generations, even centuries, of Muslims and Jews, built mutually prosperous and equal relationships; we are merely recovering their legacy. There have been many times of misery in the long history of the Christian, Jewish, Muslim relationship, but there were also many good times, golden ages. Honest business based on good wages and equal relationships may be one glue that has bonded Middle Eastern cultures before, and may help make inevitable the political path forward towards a just and equal two-state solution.

Rabbi Dr. Marc Gopin, author of To Make the Earth Whole, is a principal of MEJDI LLC (www.mejdi.net).

via A Practical Path to Justice and an Independent Palestine.

No responses yet

Aug 20 2010

Are Direct Negotiations Good or Bad for Palestinians?

Below is a translation from the Arabic article published by Alquds Newspaper on Tuesday 17th of August 2010 Click here for the Arabic

By:Aziz Abu Sarah

A year ago, the Palestinians encountered unprecedented change in the U.S. and international community toward the Palestinian issue, as the international community noticeably increased pressure on the Israeli government to freeze settlements and accept the principle of a two-state solution for final settlement. However, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was able to evade the pressure by throwing the ball into the Palestinian court, demanding that the Palestinians return to direct negotiations.

The Palestinian side rejected the demand for direct negotiations, citing a lack of progress in indirect negotiations and the absence of any trust building with the Israeli side. This decision led the international community to exercise pressure on the Palestinians, and interpret their decision as a lack of interest in negotiations. Netanyahu took this opportunity to present himself as a peace seeker and renew his allegations that there is no partner for peace on the Palestinian side.

The Palestinians’ fear of direct negotiations with Netanyahu comes from painful memories and experiences that Palestinian negotiators have repeatedly gone through. Such negotiations normally began with never ending talks, and ended with the Palestinians being blamed after every round of unsuccessful negotiations.

The Palestinians also have not forgotten the results of direct negotiations with Netanyahu in his first premiership in the nineties.

However, the international community has gone through many changes and is different today, and therefore we must be aware of how these changes may affect Palestinian-Israeli negotiations.

There are voices in the Palestinian community which insist that engaging in direct talks would weaken the Palestinian position, and therefore we should reject the demand for negotiations. However, the opposite is true. Nothing weakens the Palestinians more than appearing to oppose negotiations, leaving them open to be labeled obstructionists of the peace process.

On the other hand, entering into direct negotiations with the Israelis could strengthen the Palestinian position. Last year Palestinians succeeded in winning the confidence and trust of the international community by demonstrating their ability to build infrastructure and institutions for the future Palestinian state. The Palestinians have also been able to foster strong international support for the establishment of a Palestinian state in the near future by highlighting the deteriorating conditions on the ground that could lead to the death of the unborn Palestinian state.

Moreover, the current U.S. administration is more sympathetic to Palestinian suffering and more attentive to their hopes than any other U.S. administration in the past.  President Obama announced that he would like to see a Palestinian state before the end of his term, which expires in two and a half years. He demonstrated his commitment by choosing George Mitchell to serve as the U.S. envoy to the Middle East, a former U.S. senator known for fairness and directness in facilitating negotiations and for his experience in dealing with complicated negotiations, such as those in Northern Ireland.

Perhaps one of the most important changes in the current U.S. administration is their willingness to confront the Israeli government publicly. Several times over the past year, the administration has challenged Israel on the construction of settlements, which the former U.S. administration avoided.

For the first time ever, the Palestinians have a possible advantage over their Israeli counterparts in negotiations. While the current Israeli government has been unable to provide any serious offers for a final settlement, it seems that the Palestinians are ready to offer a comprehensive settlement for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

As result, the Palestinians must initiate by presenting their offer, rather than waiting for an Israeli offer. This will throw the ball back in the Israeli court and put Netanyahu in a position to reveal whether he is serious about reaching an agreement. Also, engaging in direct negotiations before the end of the partial settlement freeze may give Palestinians leverage to pressure Israel to continue the freeze. Rejecting the direct negations, however, would give Netanyahu an excuse to resume building settlements.

That said, the return to direct negotiations must avoid past mistakes. It is important that negotiations be tied to a clear framework and timetable. The passage of time without any progress in the peace process will only kill a two state solution. We can take Netanyahu’s recent statement about the possibility of achieving a peace agreement within one year as a timetable for the declaration of a Palestinian state.

The Palestinian decision to return to direct negotiations with Israeli should not happen as a result of international pressure. Instead, the Palestinian side should make a diplomatic and strategic decision to enter direct negotiations, with the knowledge that it is in the best interest of the Palestinian people.

No responses yet

Apr 19 2010

“Proximity talks”: an element in a change strategy.

“Proximity talks”: an element in a change strategy.
By Neri Bar-On

In this article I wish to point out a systemic-perspective suggesting the “proximity talks” as a tactical move through which Israeli, Palestinian and American leadership can work within one strategy to reduce the power of the radical elements in their society. While many question the content-value of the “Proximity talks,” many neglect the power structure it creates as an opportunity to put pressure on the radical elements within these societies and open the gate to agreement between Israel and Palestine.
The concern should be the drift of the moderate elements in these societies toward radical reaction that will block opportunity for change. The inner conflicts within Israel and Palestine are blocking the progress and need to be contained for the establishment of a Palestinian state in near future.

“Proximity talks”:
“Proximity talks” are neither negotiations nor “talks”. In the current situation, “Proximity talks” can be a useful element in a change strategy. They can be used by Palestinians and Israelis as a method to defuse the radicals’ influence within each of their societies. “Proximity talks” are a signal of commitment to end this conflict beyond negotiation rituals: Natanyahu, Abbas and Obama can open a gate for change by maintaining these “proximity talks,” regardless of the reactive violence that erupted lately, as this violence actually shows what a great potential hides behind this gesture.

What we see:
Since Netanyahu’s return from the US, the tension between Israel and the US is more visible. The visit also exposed the internal tensions within Israel, where Pro-settlement agents in the Israeli governance organizations and government manage to sabotage the opportunity to start the “Proximity talks”; the announcement of new Jewish building in east Jerusalem provided justification for Palestinian radicalization calling for “rage day”. Qassams from Gaza strengthen the Israeli radicalization fear that this will be repeated when a Palestinian state will be established and Israeli armed reactions prove to the Palestinians how violent occupation is.
There is a natural collaboration between Israelis and Palestinian radicals. These reactions already claimed death in an effort to block change that may close the options for the radical’s view of the future.

Radicals:
Radicals usually advocate that their ideas of the future and of reality are the only valid ones and act to make them politically dominant. The Settlers will push announcements of building in disputed east Jerusalem in the Obama administration’s face, forcing the internal Israeli politicians to claim again that building in Jerusalem is unquestionable. In parallel, Palestinian radical factions flame aggression and fire Qassams into Israel that lead automatically to Israeli armed reaction that force the Palestinian leaders to avoid any talks.

Naturally, we have radical elements in any society; “radical factions” are normal social elements strengthening through the continuation of conflict. These people clearly become dominant actors and manage to block progress in the development of the relationship between Jews and Arabs. Their target is to be recognized as the “voice of the whole” in each society and they are pointed to as the “voice of the whole” by the other side’s radicals.
The radicals may succeed as they succeeded in the past unless we replace “negotiation” that pushes each side to the extreme with “proximity talks” that force Israel to halt the settlements and push the Palestinians to end their political divide.

Many focus on blame of Netanyahu, Ishay, Obama or Abbas for a hidden agenda to jeopardize “proximity talks” that play too into the radicalization – no solution – claims.
Sadly we see many practical moderates fall into this trap, attracted by the opportunity to blame their political opponents and try to convince us that Netanyahu, Abbas or Obama cannot partner for the peace so needed in our societies.
These activists are ignoring that Netanyhu, Abbas and even Obama are playing within a complex aggressive system of inner-politic, within their societies, and outer-politic, between nations. With that, confusing information is channeled to the public through a mass media driven by strong aversion to dramatize our reality. This brings many people to radicalization missing the opportunity that can be created by commitment to “proximity talks” to reduce the radicals’ influence and power.

How “Proximity talks” work:
What gives these radicals power? There is no majority for radical views, but they manage to shape the public sphere. Some criticize them for loud voices and harmful acts. I want to suggest that one very influential factor for their strength and influence comes today from the “moderate” belief in negotiation as a way to end the conflict.
Negotiations as zero sum games make each side try to get the maximum for itself; hence it usually ends with the radicalization in both sides and dissatisfaction of the weaker side. This is where the radicals get their power, as within each society the question of what we will get and how we get it translates into political claims in inner conflict.

“Proximity talks” as Talks are important for building trust, but they do not necessarily create the change, as they do not influence the social factions that do not take part in the talks. Some radical elements that are left out are using media, demonstrations and violence to claim their position.

When we step out from this paradigm and suggest “proximity talks” not as negotiation, we reflect that the Palestinians and the Israelis with the support of the US and EU know today where we are going. It is a two state solution where a Palestinian state with valid borders will emerge and enable the Palestinians to self govern and become a full member nation. Negotiation is the last thing we need. System wide planning is what we need and that cannot start till both societies engage their inner conflict: In Israel the conflict is about the settlements and in Palestine the conflict is about political cohesion.

In Israel, the inner conflict is about the settlements. One group within the Israeli society claims that Jews/Israel has a right to enlarge its territory for their historic/religious rights or for the opportunity that since a Palestinian national state never existed the international law is confusing. This group within the Israeli society has today the power to influence the governments and create Jewish settlements that blur the 1967 lines that planned to be used as a basis of the border for the Palestinian state.

Netanyahu, as an Israeli politician, cannot ignore these people as they are part of the Party electoral, but while we have these “Proximity talks,” Israel is forced to freeze the settlements. The longer we freeze the settlement the more we weaken this group and enable Israeli government to agree on valid borders for the Palestinian state and to find a solution for the settlements’ population.

In Palestine, the inner conflict is about the governance legitimacy, the group within the Palestinian society that thinks that Palestinian has a right to get back to the original pre-1948 condition. Their claim is that their historic/religious Arab rights are justified by international law. This group within the Palestinian society split itself from the Fatah agreement and is, in general, supporting Hamas factions or other radicals. This split created violent war within the Palestinian society. This is a Palestinian internal conflict for power domination; its outcome is the ability of Hamas group to hold Gaza and disable the Palestinians Authority as a representative of the whole Palestinians to sign any agreement.

Abbas cannot ignore these people as they use force and do not accept PA, but while we have these “Proximity talks” Palestinians can see freeze settlements and improvement in West Bank. The longer we freeze the settlements, the more we weaken this group and enable Palestinians to shape social agreement toward the Palestinian state and enable Fayyad to build Palestine governance, social, economic capacities.

Both internal challenges need to be resolved in order to enable progress toward the next stage of signing agreements and mapping and declaring Palestinian state.

This is why “proximity talks” serve us. They can lead to the entrance of Kadima to the Israeli coalition, creating a government that can make courageous decisions for Israel while Fayyad also creates major changes in the West Bank and the PA manages to provide more and more needed social services as education, improved economy and security that weaken the Hamas position.

So what we can get from “proximity talks”:
The more we hold “proximity talks” we will see settlements in Israel defused and Palestinian acceptance for Palestinian national unity agreement. This will come after some violent eruption; we cannot avoid it. The more potent the change is, the more it attracts reactions from radicals. For the long-term, this is what it takes for cooling down the flames that the radicals create. Cooling down the radicals will enable us, as one system of Palestinians and Israelis, to end the settlement activity, creating new political structure in Palestine. This internal transformation in our societies will open a new gate for a new era in Palestine, Israel and the Middle East.

No responses yet

Jan 29 2010

The Lonely Man of Peace: An In-depth Interview

Folks, many of you may have seen this, but we have friends in the world who cannot directly access the Jerusalem Post piece. So here it is. Lauren is an amazing interviewer. She interviewed me for nine hours, longest interview of my life:

The lonely man of peace

lonelymanofpeace

By LAUREN GELFOND FELDINGER

21/01/2010

This week, Orthodox American rabbi Marc Gopin saw his coexistence work in Syria bear fruit. What turns a Soloveitchik disciple into an unofficial diplomat to the Arab…Somewhere between the shtetls of Eastern Europe and sites across the Levant, Rabbi Dr. Marc Gopin, 52, has found his calling.

Heading the George Mason University Center for World Religions, Diplomacy and Conflict Resolution in Arlington, Virginia, he is not waiting for a peace treaty to cause change. Gopin gets on a plane and heads for trouble spots wherever he can find openings. He meets with sheikhs, heads of state and business people across the Arab world, especially in Syria.

In the US, he consults on conflict resolution for international intelligence officers and trains Pentagon officials and army chaplains on their way to Afghanistan. In 27 years studying conflict resolution and meeting as an unpaid ambassador with Jews and Arabs, he has discovered that enemies can often be quickly made into allies. Issues of respect, civility, honor, tolerance and respecting cultural norms can have transformative and sometimes immediate effects, he says.

The offspring of Eastern European hassidim, he grew up in Boston in the 1960s. During his youth, he rarely met non-Jews or non-Orthodox Jews and studied Torah seven days a week. Shabbat was spent in synagogue, praying in the shadow of Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik, the scholar and leader of American Modern Orthodoxy who believed that Jews should be pious and learned in rabbinic studies, science, math and secular philosophy. At Gopin’s bar mitzva, Soloveitchik publicly declared his adoration of the boy. Gopin replied that he hoped to live the rest of his life studying at the heels of his great, holy and beloved master. Their friendship continued until Soloveitchik died in 1993.

His mentor is remembered as “The Lonely Man of Faith,” the title of one of his major essays on the ontological struggle to mix duties of religious piety with observing Jewish law in a modern world. Gopin feels he is walking in Soloveitchik’s footsteps as he travels the region, connecting with people many in the West would consider his enemy.

One such “enemy” is Syria’s grand mufti, Sheikh Ahmed Hassoun, who on Tuesday addressed a “delegation of American academics” (read: Gopin and his cohorts) and was quoted by Army Radio as stating, “… Before you got American citizenship, and I got Syrian citizenship, we were all brothers under the dome of God.”

Gopin has met with the mufti on several occasions, which perhaps paved the way for these ground-breaking words from Syria’s foremost religious leader. But Gopin’s ideas and practices have isolated him in the Orthodox world and in the conflict resolution world.

While visiting Israel to teach classes on religion and conflict resolution, on his way to Syria with 20 citizen diplomacy doctoral and master’s students who have since met with the mufti, Gopin told The Jerusalem Post how to improve prospects for peace and what that has to do with Judaism.

What takes an Orthodox rabbi to Syria?

I met [Syrian lawyer] Hind Kabawat at the World Economic Forum in 2002 in Jordan. She is this tall woman in a room full of mostly Arab [men] and raises her hand and wants to know what can be done so that all people and regimes will commit to human rights for all people in the region. I was shocked because I expected her to say something against Israel. So I said to myself, [maybe] she was a partner that I had been looking for in the Arab world. We met later and talked a long time.

A few months later I sent her an e-mail that I was going to be in the region. She invited me. I went because I had an opportunity to do something in citizen diplomacy. Since 2003, I have been to Syria six or seven times. Hind and I now have a partnership. We are training professionals in conflict resolution and negotiations. Tens of millions in the Arab world saw televised debates that gathered the grand mufti of Syria [and] secular representatives to model a culture of debate – a way for civil society to grow while addressing difficult issues.

How did you feel when you first stepped foot on Syrian soil?

I was absolutely terrified. I had no idea that things were safer in Syria than Jordan or Egypt because the government is much more in control. Hind drove four hours from Damascus to pick me up in Jordan. I crossed the border in the middle of vast plains at midnight. It was very dark and I could [imagine] all the armies and prophets [of history] passing through, back and forth.

I went to the VIP lounge on the border. A wonderful young man from the government came to drink bitter coffee with me and I saw that as a good sign. He said, “Our president has been trying to contact the Israeli prime minister for three years to talk about peace. He is wondering when there may be a reply.” I was in shock and clarified that I am not an Israeli ambassador, but that I would tell everybody.

My life was never in danger and I was treated like an honored guest everywhere I went. For me, going to Syria is a straight line between rabbinic texts that were part of my soul, to ancestral lands important to Abraham, such as Aram, 3,000 years later. It felt like I was coming home. I told the Syrians that on my first visit, when they honored me by having me speak at the Assad Library. They were very moved.

When you go to places and you make yourself vulnerable and listen, you learn much more than you can learn in books.

What was the most dramatic moment during your Syria trips?

Two or three years into my work in Syria in 2006, during the Second Lebanon War and while the US was weighing an attack against Syria, it was a terrible time to be there, and all the refugees from Iraq were outraged at the US for creating four million refugees and 1.5 million orphans, which could have been avoided.

I sat with the grand mufti of Syria on several panels and there were amazing public ceremonies and conversations, but the war in Iraq was so close and the mufti was beside himself about the number of Shi’ites and Sunnis killing each other. He invited me to Aleppo, a four-hour trip from Damascus. It was nerve-racking driving around the country. He brings me to a room in a mosque with a few hundred people – one was in Abu Ghraib for four months [and had been tortured].

Suddenly I stood up and interrupted the mufti’s speech. I could not help myself. The whole room goes silent; everyone gets uncomfortable. My translator rises and comes with me and I ask the man what his name is, and he tells me his brother is still missing and where they were taken from by the American forces. I say that I want to apologize in the name of the American people. I held his hand and asked for his info and his brother’s info to send it to anyone I know. The mufti was very moved and continued his sermon.

Then he goes to the main ceremony and has me go to the balcony. I see 3,000 people. The mufti does his ceremony and prayers and then he starts crying. “Politicians and leaders are going to destroy the world,” he says. And then he announces, “Now we will hear from a man of God from America. This man apologized, why can’t we apologize when we do something wrong?” He puts me up front and I speak for two minutes about how grateful I am for their saintly mufti and I quoted from the Torah about forgiveness and nonviolence; I said it was from “the Bible.” The crowd – half were refugees from Iraq – objected, asking, “Why did you bring him here? He voted for Bush.” I was shaking like a leaf. I said, “I didn’t vote for torture.”

The mufti said, “Tell the people what we’ve done here today,” and about 10 people took out their cellphones and took snapshots. It headlined the news across the country – “American apologizes for Abu Ghraib.”

I was told through indirect means that [President Bashar] Assad said: “What happened in the mosque means more to me than anything the American president can say.” I went back to Damascus but heard that the mufti was very happy and later told the crowd that I was a Jewish rabbi. The mufti is not a pacifist, but is against the jihadis and all people who always want war – he demonstrated that apology is a way forward and not just war and revenge.

Is it okay to say sorry if you don’t think you are the only one to blame?

In Judaism, the capacity to say sorry is a supreme mitzva. It doesn’t say only if you are the only one who has done anything wrong.

Are you ever introduced or embraced as a Jewish person or rabbi?

I’ve been introduced as a rabbi many times, depending on the environment. On a panel with a Sunni, a Shi’ite, and a Protestant, I was “the rabbi.” It meant a lot to them.

[On the first trip, Hind and I] met with Shi’ite Sheikh Shehadeh Jahdai. She didn’t tell him I was Jewish, but we had such a [good] conversation, we were finishing each other’s sentences. I felt close enough in the end and said, “I have to tell you that I am a rabbi.” His eyes lit up. “There is no peace without rabbis,” he said. Since then I’ve learned that rabbis and imams used to work together on legal disputes all over the region.

People ask, do you know this family from Brooklyn? At the same time as being anti-Zionist, they felt a deep sense of loss of the Syrian Jewish community that was part of a brighter time when things were more pluralistic.

How did Yasser Arafat, in his day, react to your citizen diplomacy efforts?

Rabbi Menahem Froman had been trying to persuade the sides that religious clerics could be helpful in the peace process and he wanted Arafat’s blessing. After 20 minutes talking about the spiritual and beauty and the future of Jerusalem, I said, “I know how many children have died since the intifada and I wanted to apologize, because in Judaism it is a halachic obligation to comfort mourners.” His eyes moistened.

In traditional cultures you speak through text; this is true in Islam and traditional Judaism. So I told Arafat, “I want to share from my tradition, which says that the world stands on three things – truth, peace and justice. [But] without justice, there is no peace; and where there is no peace there can be no justice.”

He was very sharp; he knew that the Jewish community talked about peace, not justice. He also knew I was commenting on his choice of using violence by how I phrased the rabbinic text and how I looked into his eyes. We were practically eyeball to eyeball. He was silent and then said: “When I was a young man, I used to pray at the Wall with the old men.”

Why is that significant? It doesn’t matter if he was really there, but he was saying to me as a rabbi that he considered the Wall a holy place.

How do you square that with when he had said in Camp David a few months later that there was no Temple?

This is how I see it: The reports from Camp David were [that] Arafat and Barak didn’t speak most of the time. I heard that Barak came with a plan, threw it on the table in front of Arafat and said, “Here. This is what I’ll say and this is what you’ll say,” and that Arafat left the room because the behavior was insulting. What Israelis, Americans, must understand is that people take revenge when you don’t give them respect. Arafat lied with ease when he felt there wasn’t respect. I won’t say you could have gotten him to change, but I’m saying that how he was treated influenced how he behaved.

How did your family feel about you visiting Arafat?

One Saturday night, I was at havdala at my sister’s apartment [in Jerusalem], and after she hits the button to play the answering machine. Rabbi Froman had left me a message: Be ready to meet Arafat at 11. A room full of very Orthodox people – their mouths dropped. My cousin said, “I don’t know or understand what you are doing, but I trust you.” He trusted me because I had shown so much respect for their Judaism all those years.

What role does respect play in conflict resolution?

In the Talmud, it says, “Who is honored? He who honors others.” The act of honoring allows people to get past wounds and rage. Issues of civility, patience, respect and honor are at the core of what can go right or wrong in a negotiation. It’s not everything, it can’t replace bargaining, but negotiating without values of cultures and spiritual traditions amounts to nothing. Other respected scholar practitioners, like John Paul Lederach, also came to the same conclusions, and this is what most leaders have not understood when sitting with the Palestinians.

I’m convinced that we must train the Border Police, courts, diplomats – everyone that has to do with Palestinian relations – to figure out respectful ways to deal with complicated situations. I can’t tell you how many officials in the Arab world have told me – ambassadors, former ministers – that everything is about respect. I used to think it sounded like a platitude, but now that I’ve seen it in action, I understand it is a different way of negotiating.

The problem is that everyone in the Jewish and Arab world thinks being soft creates the impression of weakness. The thing is that in the history of human relations, there are different approaches to win over enemies. In the [Far East] being soft is the way to victory, as seen for example in The Art of War by Sun Tsu and the Tao Te Ching. In Eastern philosophy the argument is that what looks weak is strong – water breaks rocks over centuries, but rocks look strong but can easily be broken.

Do these values have a place in a military?

In the late ’90s, general Nasir Yussef was in charge of one of the security services; he was the only one in the PA who was a religious Muslim. We crossed Erez to Gaza City. [Yussef] knew it wasn’t easy for us to come. Woody Allen says 99 percent of life is showing up. That’s true with Arab partners, they know how difficult it is and it creates incredible gratitude. We met to brainstorm how to enforce law with understanding and appreciation of culture and religion, against competing Palestinian forces. [Yussef] was excited. Then the intifada broke out and the opportunity was gone – he was out of power.

Militaries needs to be greater attuned to maximize saving lives, build relations with locals and minimize civilian casualties. I periodically lecture Congress [and] have a lot of students from the Pentagon, intelligence agencies and military, and in turn interesting developments are happening in strategy. Military chaplains are contracted to study in my program and then go to the field and advice military commanders. For example, a senior fellow at my center was a former mujahadin in Afghanistan; now he is on contract with the American military. One American Air Force chaplain asked me, “Why plan to serve ‘American’ interests? Why not say to serve humanity’s interests?”

These people are high up and their level of military strategy is revolutionizing the battlefield in Afghanistan. They will work with local religious leaders to rebuild. [This kind of training is] where my hopes lie for Israeli and Palestinian militaries.

What is your hope for diplomacy?

The real peace work is a chess game; it’s all about moves and countermoves. If Israel wanted to commit to repair and build mosques that have been destroyed, this could be negotiated – first Israel rebuilds two mosques, then Palestine honors or beautifies Jewish spots in Palestine. [Or] you can propose at about five checkpoints, for example, that Palestinians will have oversight and commit to oversee people’s needs, and ask what would you do in return? Israel can ask, for example, for one bus a month to Joseph’s Tomb as a gesture of friendship, as some gestures speak to the Jewish heart and cause people to think differently.

At the same time, Israel has to prepare the people. If we engage, we can guarantee people in the Arab world would try to stop this. There will be casualties and we will respond in turn. We have to expect and prepare for bombers, but discredit them – that’s what happened in Ireland. If George Mitchell was allowed, he would come with a series of steps.

The ambassador from Syria is moving in the right direction by inviting Syrian Jews. If they had taken [Rabbi Eliahu] Bakshi-Doron’s suggestion to visit holy graves in Syria, it would not be official but would be a welcome gesture of tolerance and then we could, for example, welcome Syrians to visit their relatives on the Golan. There are all sorts of possibilities.

[And] if we made peaceful Muslim clerics into partners to build Arab-Israeli society, to create new relations by embracing highest values that mean something to Christians, Muslims and Jews, this would be a remedy.

The big problem is that the culture of diplomacy finds nothing positive or relevant in religious cultures. In Syria, when you outdo people in their customs, they are shocked and amazed; you become allies in a second.

What would prevent Israel from using the diplomatic strategies you suggest?

The right-wing lobby is extremely powerful in Congress to prevent really bold steps and there are forces dead set against a Palestinian state. There was no effective lobby against Irish peace.

You have suggestions for diplomats and military and government officials; any words of wisdom for liberals who support the peace process?

If everybody in Tel Aviv had an Arab person for dinner, we wouldn’t have these problems. These people who voted liberal have not found their way to the Arabs. This is about human relations, and the rabbis understood this 2,000 years ago.

What have you learned about conflict resolution that surprised you?

I was a rabbi in Berkeley when the first intifada broke out. There was a picture in The New York Times of soldiers beating unarmed Palestinian kids. I called a meeting with the Jewish community. Extremists in Brooklyn threatened me six times, with things like “I’ll make your wife a widow.” Clerics in general don’t have the role of being teachers as they used to because they are at the mercy of their congregants. I have learned over the years that peacemaking has to be positive, as Martin Luther King did it. The positive way would have been to build relations between my community and Arabs and Muslims and then if we were attacked, we would be attacked for being loving; not for humiliating.

How would this slow process of giving honor and taking turns making steps work in emergency situations, say Sderot and Gaza?

You can’t say to your people I’m not going to do anything, so if they shoot, you have to shoot too, but there is no escaping Rabbi Soloveitchik’s basic position. You have to calculate what is going to save the most lives; you can’t just say how to return a Grad rocket. You have to consult a wide variety of experts.

The problem with policy is that it is not intelligence that is in charge, but political leaders looking for votes. Really winning involves winning over people, and you cannot do that with brutality. [During the escalation] was not the time to ask why are they bombing; the time to ask if you have outsmarted Hamas is before putting them on the defensive. How to win against Hamas is to ask what is its source of its strength. And the answer is not badly made weapons, but despair of the people [and] that mothers have day care and social services funded by Hamas.

In the Middle East radicalization grows where social services don’t exist. So if you want to win, start city by city creating alternatives and see what happens. I would show Hamas as oppressors [and] make [Palestinians] jealous of the West Bank. What looks hard is actually smart. It’s easier to smash heads but harder to make people love you.

Israel has to compete for Palestinian love?

We created an amazing home for Jewish people but also made terrible mistakes. It doesn’t mean that we know that Arab leaders would not have made the same mistakes; we can think about them and move forward from the tragedies of the past. Is Israel responsible for the Iranian Revolutionary Guards and clerics in Riyadh and al-Qaida? Absolutely not. But 90 percent of the sick suicide bombers are Muslim, so if Israel becomes a champion of Palestinian rights, there is no question where people will affiliate. If the PA builds social services, there is no question where people will affiliate.

What is the hardest part of diplomatic work?

The hardest part of my work is that I meet all these beautiful people in Palestine, Israel and Syria, and every time there is another war, they are under the bombs and I can feel their pain and their children’s pain. During Lebanon, I was getting calls from Rabbi Froman saying, “People from northern Israel are in my house, please help.” He thinks I can talk to the president; holds the phone so I can hear the shooting. Hind, my Syrian partner, calls me from Damascus saying, “I have people in my house from Lebanon, you have to do something.” Sheikh Bhukari’s daughter was caught in her house in Gaza and afraid to close the windows, that the glass will shatter and tear her children apart. Everyone is suffering and I can’t do a thing.

You spent your life studying Jewish law and literature, with respected rabbis and professors. You were ordained as an Orthodox rabbi and observe kashrut and Shabbat and study and teach Torah. But many Jews consider your ideas about Judaism and conflict resolution unorthodox. Why?

I don’t affiliate with movements. I think Judaism’s most important spiritual values involve social justice. I find comfort in texts that show that in halachic Judaism. I have a problem with the people who made the details of ritual and outer symbols the essence. I am concerned with the commandments of love they neighbor, save lives, pursue justice and pursue peace. These are the hardest and most all-consuming life tasks.

So if I have time left over after that to figure out what is the exact ingredient necessary to make the blue thread on a tzitzit, that is interesting, but I don’t have time. How does anyone? How does anyone have time to figure out anything except how Jews can stop killing and be killed?

In 1987, after seven years of studying sources of peace in talmudic Judaism, I was, as an Orthodox rabbi, speaking in Palo Alto about a section in the Jewish laws of civility, that is not studied anymore today, but are the backbone of Pirkei Avot, and that I wanted to revive. I’m talking about rabbinic sources, and an Orthodox Stanford professor there, a PhD, whispers loud enough for me to hear, “He sounds like a Christian.” This was a turning point in my life – I understood that the universe that I’d grown up in was gone and that this was the new universe of militant Orthodoxy.

In DC, with an assimilated Israeli who had written book about Chechnya, I talked about “love your neighbor,” according to Rabbi Akiva, the highest mitzva. He says, “No, that’s in the New Testament.” This proves how successfully this sick culture destroyed the idea that love was a Jewish value, so much so that an intelligent, kind Israeli writer could believe that an idea from Torah, in Leviticus, is not Jewish.

In 1967, mainstream Judaism changed. The word bitahon [security] used to mean trust in God; now in modern parlance it means “national security.”

When Rabbi Soloveitchik embraced – after 1967 – Israel as a sacred thing, it was a real struggle. There were no prayers for Israel when I was growing up. We talked about “the Yishuv,” and “love of the Land of Israel” not “the state” or Jewish sovereignty.

In the 1970s there was pressure, the hermeneutics I had grown up with evolved from Rabbi Soloveitchik, Hermann Cohen, [Samson Raphael] Hirsch and the chief rabbis of England, who make ethics the central component of Judaism. I spent my lifetime figuring out what are the meanings of apology, repentance, forgiveness. How to follow the rabbis’ definition of heroism is how to make someone who hates you love you.

I’ve seen it being done and those who do it are the most disrespected people in Israeli culture and in Orthodox Judaism, so I don’t know what is Orthodox Judaism anymore. Suddenly ethics and piety are translated into the suckers who walked into ovens, the loser Jews. The focus is on the overwhelming power of the Jewish state. The most powerful army overtook Judaism, first the Orthodox, but later also the Reform and Conservative. So much so that when someone wants to be a pacifist, he turns to Buddhism or Unitarianism.

It is written that “he who returns evil for evil, evil will never pass from his house.” That text will disgust [the new Jew] because it sounds like sucker Jews who went to their death. When I say that a strong man can make his enemy love him, he will reply that it’s got to be a quote from Christianity. I became alienated from this increasingly militant Orthodox Judaism and with the secret world of Rabbi Soloveitchik’s ethical humanism disappearing. Judaism has been taken over by a state, and Jews, who after 2,000 years that Judaism was about piety and righteousness, are unprepared for the shocking power of the state to recreate a religion. The point is that considering the military or the state as sacred is idolatry. Only God is supposed to be sacred.

Are there other Orthodox rabbis or leaders who think like you?

There are a number of others, but extremely few of them have made the journey past hate of their Palestinian and Arab neighbors to their enemies to understand the full extent of the tragedy. The vast majority of Jewish liberals have not done it. In the last 10 years there has been a resurgence of interest in social justice, for example at Yeshiva University. I spoke at Stern [College, YU's school for women] last year. But there is no replacing the agony of meeting enemies and then thinking about it. The last 10 years I started collecting texts on peace and war – what does Judaism have to say about anger, love, hate, repentance and thousands of [related] things. People don’t study this anymore or they do and keep it in a racial context of what do we owe to fellow Jews.

Judaism was changing all the time based on how people were behaving and how the community was judging this behavior, which means that everything is dynamic. This realization is hopeful and scary. Judaism can become saintly and heroic or diabolic and genocidal. All religions can be saintly beacons for the world and can produce the best peacemakers or the worst criminals, all of whom believed that what they were doing was right. We have to face this.

What is misunderstood?

In Tosafot, the grandchildren of Rashi, commentary and Ecclesiastes, God seeks those who are chased. It doesn’t say God sides with the righteous or poor, but the persecuted and the pursued. It’s clear: It is better to be among the persecuted than the persecutors.

I knew that the Rambam and Rabbi Soloveitchik intentionally studied math, science and literature to reach the highest understanding of God, but in America I saw this secularized into ambition and materialism. I started becoming more attached to [philosopher] Samuel David Luzzatto. In 1847, [he] trained 50 years of Padua rabbis in Italy, and talks about “love your neighbor,” and the mitzva to teach that all humans are brothers of same family. I’m reading in Italian, and then I read it in Hebrew and oh my God, a 1957 Hebrew translator said “all Jews” not “all humans” are part of one family.

I looked at all the versions in rabbinic Judaism of Aaron the high priest, the supreme peacemaker, according to the midrashim. He was the most beloved and tells neighbors that the other is sorry and apologizes. This is similar to the contemporary theory of “appreciative inquiry” that never says a negative word. I discovered that this is a good way to deal with violent people and situations.

We in conflict resolution find that when you emphasize the positives, you can build something remarkable with even the most difficult people. That’s what Aaron did; he reminded the warring parties that there is something to love about each other. We remind Jews that from Iraq to Morocco, rabbis and imams used to work with each other, take care of each other, even study together.

On one hand this is selective perception, choosing only the good memories. But wars [have been perpetuated] with Arabs by only selecting the worst memories. We need to face the good and bad of history and try to build on the good to restore it. If you study the sources of how humans tick, you can’t get to the reasonable discussion until you face the emotion. Rabbis understand that. It takes a lifetime to realize that 90 percent of conflict resolution is the ability to articulate the different things people have inside – the fancy, intellectual term for this is “reframing.”

What was it like growing up in the shadow of Rabbi Soloveitchik?

I miss that Orthodox piety so much, it’s gone. My hassidic family attached itself to a holy man who was a mitnaged. Rabbi Soloveitchik was my life. My father gave me over to him; my father loved me intensely but wasn’t a man of words. The Rav was uncomfortable with the idea of being a holy man. His ideal man was a learned teacher; he did not worship other people or want to be worshiped, but did worship our capacity to think. In the study of the sacred, the irony is that you get attached to people who liberate you and cause you to think for yourself.

We were Eastern European Jews in an isolated community in Boston. Most of the children were children of professors, doctors, lawyers. I came from a simple, pious family. There was tension between the spiritual ideal of study for study’s sake versus ruthless competition to get into Harvard. What Rabbi Soloveitchik’s ethical monotheism was teaching me was not being practiced.

What changed to pull you away from this world?

When Menachem Begin became prime minister, Rabbi Soloveitchik was shocked. He refused to go hear him when he came to speak 100 feet away at Yeshiva University. I asked why? He looked at me cautiously and said, “Why should I listen to a person who blew up people in a hotel?” referring to Menachem Begin’s blowing up the King David Hotel [in 1946].

We had similar values and it was a turning point for me when he said that. It also made me a little crazy. I felt like the word from this inner sanctum was that everything outside was a problem. He and I understood that sometimes war was necessary to defend life. But I also understood at that moment that a man building on the philosophies of Hermann Cohen could not support Lehi.

In 1982, when I heard about Sabra and Shatilla in Lebanon, it was also a turning point. It was right before Yom Kippur. Rabbi Soloveitchik called Menachem Begin and insisted on an investigation. I was still taking care of him. I wrote a poem at the time to this effect: “I looked around everywhere and in the halls of the kollel and saw bullet holes and all were oozing blood.” I couldn’t get it out of my mind. I could always feel [the pain of tragedies] even if I wasn’t physically present. The Holocaust is inside of me all the time. But this is different – [allowed to happen] by a Jewish army. It was a secret place of pain that left me and Rabbi Soloveitchik feeling betrayed.

I also read about Deir Yassin. It started to alienate me that Jews debate these things among themselves as if they are being rational, but it is not rational to talk only with people who were not there. I realized I was hearing only half the story. People think they are scientific because they read newspapers but have never met a survivor. I made a decision to understand the reality of Israel’s wars from more than one perspective. Doing this, I started to lose my community, but all I was doing was fulfilling my obligations to my community by engaging in honest investigation.

Rabbi Soloveitchik said if you are afraid of knowledge, the problem is with you, not with the knowledge. I applied these words to my study of conflict, after deciding there was a black hole in the study of Jewish conflicts with Arabs. From the 1980s until today, I have been on a journey to discover my enemies.

It sounds like a hard path. What are the moments of inspiration?

I sell Palestinian products at fair wages as part of my new business; Palestinians say, oh my God a Jew caring this much about Palestinians? Syrians are in awe that I’m bringing a group from the capital of the United States, when a few years ago there were leaders who wanted to destroy Syria.

In the middle of the suicide bombings period, Jerusalem was a ghost town. At my hotel, a taxi driver says don’t go with the Arab [driver], so I [intentionally] went to the Arab. People say it will take generations to change them, the others. But I’m sitting in the back and I ask myself, how many words do I need to connect with this driver? I say to him, The situation must be very difficult here for you and your family.”
You should have heard what poured out. Not anger at Jews but at Arafat. Do you know how honest and courageous that was? In 30 seconds we had a deeper conversation than I’ve had with some of my Palestinian colleagues. It does take a lot of emotional, physical and spiritual practice, [and] there are criminals and damaged people who are not going to change, but it does not take generations; sometimes it takes seconds.

3 responses so far

Dec 13 2009

QUESTION ON BUILDING A MIDDLE CLASS AS WAY TO BRING PEACE

Folks, I am looking for as much information and links as possible on the question of when and how can building an honest middle class, small businesses leads to societies that are less violent, less corrupt, more just. What is the evidence, actually? I am well aware of political and military factors that will prevent people, no matter how middle class, from actually achieving peace, justice, political liberty. But I am looking at the question of whether building economies from the bottom up actually creates peace. That it has helped millions, that microfinance has changed millions of lives, there is no doubt. But where is the demonstrable linkage to peace, to less polarization, to less extreme ideologies on all sides? Where is the cumulative evidence of any country, region, or city, that build stability in this way and thus supplanted radicalism, and/or that led to government reform and a greater rule of law as a result of building the economy from the bottom?

We talk about this a lot, we assume it ethically, but I would like to gather far more data, simply and clearly presented. Thanks! Please post on the blog, facebook, or send to me at marcgopin@gmail.com.

2 responses so far

Dec 07 2009

A SPEECH WORTH REMEMBERING

Picture 1

I think it bears republishing now, at this time, Jeremy Ben Ami’s speech at J street. It is one of the most powerful and inspiring and pragamatic speeches I can remember on the incredibly complex and disheartening Israeli/Palestinian conflict. I am thinking that now is the time to keep our eye on the ball of pragmatism, shunning despair, and encouraging everyone to take advantage of Obama, Mitchell, a new Turkey, an eager Syria, and a possible prisoner deal, while ignoring the dangers of Iran, the persistence of religious radicals in all the faiths, the sham of the freeze and the outrage of Palestinian dispossession in Jerusalem. Pragmatism and hope, persistence in a forward march. These are the ingredients of victory in history. Marc’s partners of the Arab/Jewish alliance at CRDC and MEJDI are coupling a persistent push for negotiations with very practical expressions of support for and investment in the honest people of Palestine. We must put our voices and pocketbooks behind this march to the future.

Here is an excerpt from Ben-Ami’s speech:

We rally tonight around this simple premise: that the security and very future of the Jewish, democratic homeland in Israel is at risk without an end to the conflict and to the occupation of the Palestinian people.

The work begun in the generations before ours to build a nation in the image of our people to be the home of our people will only be complete when Israel has defined borders, a Palestinian state has been established next door and the rest of the region and the world recognizes Israel and accepts its existence.

Our presence here in such numbers and with such energy demonstrates the powerful base of political support ready to back active pursuit and achievement of comprehensive, regional peace in the Middle East – as an urgent priority not a distant, almost meaningless, aspiration.

We do not want the United States to simply be a passive facilitator of fruitless negotiation. No – as President Obama has said, we have had enough talking about talking.

Be sure to read the whole speech, or watch it on video, at J Street’s website.

No responses yet

Nov 26 2009

American Thanksgiving Reflections on Democracy in Light of 57% of Israelis Supporting a Plan to Talk to Hamas

Published by mgopin under Hamas,Israel,peace process

This is shocking, when  you think about it. Any American Congressman who dared suggest we include Hamas in negotiations would be run out of town by the all-powerful so-called pro-Israel lobby, which is neither pro-Israel nor pro-American but pro-violence. But the Israeli people, who were on the receiving end of Hamas suicide bombs for years, is ready to talk to them. So A. who is controlling American congressional policy and why? B. Why do they have a right to hound so many congressmen into ignorance and silence? C. Who do they speak for and represent? Not me, and apparently not the people of Israel.

I had in my office a long time very senior member of Congress, who said to me that for twenty years he was threatened and badgered about Israel, forced to go there numerous times, silenced from any position of conscience. This is anti-Israel, anti-American and anti-democratic. Congressmen are regularly silenced not only about Middle Eastern policies but a host of other policies on health care and military spending, and energy policy, all because our loopholes around lobbying and campaign financing have undermined the moral fabric of our representatives. This must change. Thanksgiving is a good day to celebrate what Americans have achieved in their democracy, but also reflect on where we must go to make this a more perfect union.

An excerpt from the article “Haaretz poll: 57% of Israelis support plan to talk to Hamas,” by Yossi Verter:

The attitude of Israelis to Hamas, a terrorist organization that still holds Gilad Shalit, is quite pragmatic. It turns out that the majority of the public – 57% – supports the view of MK Shaul Mofaz of Kadima, who published a plan earlier this week, in which he called for dialogue with Hamas under certain conditions. Inside Kadima the idea has tremendous support by some 72 percent of the party’s voters.

But even 53 percent of Likud supporters back the idea. The left is breaking apart and Likud is moving to the center. It seems that Mofaz knew that he was marching on solid political ground when he included this radical article in his plan.

The Haaretz survey was carried out toward the end of Netanyahu’s visit to Washington this week. The lessons the Prime Minister experienced at the hands of the White House left no scars in the hearts of the average Israeli. The vast majority of those asked said that the White House’s attitude toward Netanyahu was “reasonable.” Just a quarter of those asked claimed that the attitude of the White House toward Netanyahu was humiliating.

There are two possible ways of interpreting this: either that the emotional way with which the politicians and the media received the fact that Netanyahu went to the White House late in the evening in a van does not affect the general public, or that the public believes that Netanyahu deserves what he got.

The former is probably correct: The emotional discussion over the circumstances of the meeting between Netanyahu and U.S. President Barack Obama stayed in the political-media world’s court and the street did not form its opinions apart from that.

One response so far

Nov 13 2009

What can Palestinians learn from the American civil rights movement? Appealing to the Jewish conscience

The struggle for civil rights, freedom and independence is not unique to the Palestinian people. Many nations have travelled the same road. Palestinians today have the advantage of looking back and learning from those who succeeded in their struggles.

The American civil rights movement in particular has important lessons for those working to forge peace between Israelis and Palestinians. It succeeded in using non-violent strategies to bring about the end of legally sanctioned segregation in the United States. What principles can the Palestinians learn from the movement?

The civil rights movement in the United States based its struggle on messages that were hard to disagree with, even for those who did not identify with its aims and objectives. Prominent civil rights leader Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., for instance, reminded the American people of one of the most basic principles in their constitution: “all men are created equal”. He highlighted the law of humanity and lifted it above man-made laws. He called any law or practice that denigrates human dignity or limits freedom unnatural and immoral, and said these laws shouldn’t be obeyed because they inspire a false sense of superiority in one race against another. He touched people’s hearts by reasoning with them and speaking their own language.

Dr. King appealed to the deepest consciousness of the American people. He invoked the highest standard of American values: the constitution and the writings of the founding fathers. Thus, his appeals reached millions of American people and resonated within their hearts and minds.

In the same way, Palestinians can reach the hearts and minds of the Jewish citizens of Israel by appealing to their hopes and fears, ideals and principles. But as Israel has no constitution, this means calling on the Hebrew Scriptures and Jewish traditions.

By presenting Jewish morals, standards and beliefs in a new light, Palestinians can make their arguments more salient to Israelis. For example, the words of the prophet Isaiah are particularly resonant, especially as they are read during the Yom Kippur service: “Is not this the kind of fasting I have chosen: to loose the chains of injustice and untie the cords of the yoke, to set the oppressed free and break every yoke?”

Moses’ cry to Pharaoh is also powerful: “Let my people go”. Moses was asking for freedom, and his words are sharper than any sword. It is a phrase that can reach the hearts of the Jewish community far more effectively than any angry slogan or threat.

Palestinians should also appeal to Israel’s democratic ideals. As Israel maintains a belief in liberty and self-determination, so should Palestinians insist that Israel live up to its own ideals. This means highlighting that true democracy cannot allow for the occupation and oppression of others.

In recent years, many Palestinians have chosen non-violence as a form of resistance, from weekly demonstrations against the Israeli separation barrier to economic and cultural boycotts. However the majority of activities have been unilateral or have failed to reach the mainstream Israeli public.

In America, the civil rights movement geared its campaign toward the large silent majority of white Christians. It is time for Palestinians and Jews who support freedom to do something similar, and call on Israel to uphold the principles it claims to espouse. This appeal should not just be made with words, but through non-violent actions aimed at evoking symbols that will reach every Israeli and Jew, from the soldiers at the checkpoints and the settlers in the West Bank to the businesspeople in Tel Aviv.

The Palestinian struggle shares many similarities with Jewish history. From its fight for existence to the Diaspora experience, Jews and Palestinians have both desired a secure and free homeland.

These struggles have been burdened by disappointment. Here we can also learn from the American Civil Rights Movement. Martin Luther King wrote in his letter from Birmingham Jail about his own disappointment, but he did not let his frustration distract him from his ultimate goal. Instead, he kept building bridges between people who were divided by walls of fear, racism and even hatred. He was sustained by a belief that he was not fighting a war that would be won or lost by conventional weapons, but a struggle for the triumph of humanity over extremism.

Palestinians, like King, should fight not only for freedom, but also for humanity to defeat separation and prejudice.

* * *

Aziz Abu Sarah is the Director of Middle East Projects at Center for World Religions, Diplomacy and Conflict Resolution at George Mason University at George Mason University. His blog can be found at http://azizabusarah.wordpress.com. Email: azizabusarah@gmail.com. This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).

One response so far

Oct 29 2009

Chinese President Calls for Building Harmonious World

Published by mgopin under China,overseas aid,peace process

I found this fascinating in this little noticed speech. The Chinese president repeatedly used the words harmonious, common, mutual. Everything was about one integrated world operating together. We all know the problem with Chinese repression of the Tibetan people, and of their own best writers and journalists. The flip side of an emphasis on the positive idea of harmony is the negative reality of tyranny. The flip side of freedom is chaos and anarchy. Nevertheless, I think it is interesting that there is a kind of outgoing new emphasis in the rhetoric, a conscious decision to at least rhetorically move beyond the Wall of China. This is good, and it provides an opening to discuss the ethics of harmony and mutuality, especially in Confucian terms, which always requires MUTUAL respect between governors and the governed. I hope there is more open debate as time goes on with Chinese leaders in order to set the stage for a more ethical authentically Confucian approach to Chinese rule over 1 billion people.

Chinese president calls for building harmonious world

chinese president

Chinese President Hu Jintao put forward a four-point proposal on building a harmonious world on Wednesday, calling on the international community to work together for world peace and development.

During his speech at the general debate of the 64th session of the UN General Assembly, Hu said the trend towards peace, development and cooperation has grown stronger than ever in the world.

Meanwhile, he noted that the instability and uncertainties in the international landscape pose “severe challenges” to world peace and development.

In the face of unprecedented opportunities and challenges, members of the international community should continue the joint endeavor “to build a harmonious world of enduring peace and common prosperity and contribute to the noble cause of peace and development of mankind,” he said.

Read the rest of the article from China View here.

No responses yet

Next »