MarcGopin.com

James Denselow writes of the horrible conditions of refugees inside and outside Iraq, 4 million of them, including minorities inside Iraq with no militia to protect. This includes Palestinians, of course, who, already living in horrifying camps, have been beaten and tortured by Iraqi police.

As the violence against Palestinians in Iraq continues, the number of refugees in al-Waleed camp has increased to more than 1,700 today. They live in conditions totally unsuited to extended human habitation. Hazards include an extremely harsh physical environment, extreme temperatures (+50 C to sub-zero) outbreaks of fire amongst the tents, accidents caused by passing trucks and infestation of snakes and rats. Residents of this camp are assisted by UNHCR’s Iraqi Operation Unit in Amman and aid agencies such as Medical Aid for Palestinians (MAP). Unlike the Palestinians in the al-Tanf no-man’s land camp they suffer of a severe lack of protection as they are still located in Iraqi territory.

Between the 22nd and the 24th of May, 15 Palestinian men from al-Waleed refugee camp were tortured by the local Iraqi police in their police station after having been arrested by the police with help of the Multinational forces (MNF). Photos taken by MAP’s doctors show injuries from beatings, knife cuts and spots of cigarette burns all over their bodies, including around their genitals. Such an incident underscored the extremely vulnerable situation these particular refugees face. Urgent resettlement is needed. Whilst the Syrian government is saturated with refugees and the Iraqi government too weak to ensure safe return, the onus lies with the international community, and in particular the United States and United Kingdom, to provide safe haven.

In the midst of all of this, there are some interesting statistics that emerge. The abysmal failure of the American war in Iraq has led to the biggest exodus of refugees in Middle East history. Now these millions of refugees are displaced everywhere. Pakistan has taken in 2 million for example, whereas Syria has taken in 1.5 million. But there is a difference. Relative to its population 1.5 million people is 7.5% of its population, as reported in the discussion at joshualandis.com. Now let’s see where the United States comes out, the land whose Statue of Liberty asks for everyone’s poor and tired, the country that displaced all of these refugees with a terribly fought war. Denselow also reports in the same article that Ambassador Foley is trying to reach the Bush Administration’s goal of accepting 12,000 refugees. That comes to approximately .00004% of the American population. So .00004% of a population represents the largesse of the greatest democracy in the world, and 7.5% of the population represents the largesse of the last remaining Ba’athist regime of the world. What is going on here? What has happened to the United States? I want democracy globally as much as the next person, but if you were living in Syria or Iraq right now, if you were Palestinian with nowhere to go, beaten by the police that are being armed by the United States, what would you think of who deserves a humanitarian award and who deserves censure. We are in a dark time for the reputation of Western democracy.

David Ignatius, always well informed, outlines the ‘surprise’ in the West about the renewal of Israeli-Syrian negotiations, and presents the interesting puzzles that still surround the process. He writes:

What’s going on between Syria and Israel? Are the indirect peace negotiations through Turkish mediators that were announced last month for real? I’ve been talking with sources on all sides, and they present an upbeat view of a peace process that has taken many people (including top Bush administration officials) by surprise.

But of course it was a surprise, due to the foolishness of American isolationism and neoconservative ideology of the past eight years that we will pay heavily for well into the future. I have been on the ground inside Syria working on peace since 2005. I can say without a doubt that anyone with intelligence would have discovered how consistent the drumbeat was from Syrians at the highest levels that they were eager for talks with Israel, and interested in cooperating with the United States. Their relationship with Iran is strong but they were driven much farther into Iran’s camp by the utter ignorance of Syria on the part of the United States. Syria has allies in the region who many of us may found to be horrible. But everything is negotiable, and as relationships develop one finds that adversaries can become crucial linkages to others, like Hezbollah, Hamas, and Iran, who have a very problematic record. This is what human intelligence, on the ground, and respectful relations produces, possibilities, new relationships, all the ingredients of pre-negotiations that lead to negotiations. The more of a bridge Syria becomes, the more that it feels safer from American or Israeli attack the greater will be its moderating role in the Middle East. This is the only hope for a more mature and decent American foreign policy.

An important conversation on mepeace.org between Palestinians and Jews is developing on Israeli military waste on the West Bank and its destruction of a child’s leg. In response to this shocking tragedy people inside Israel, abroad, and in Palestine are trying to draw attention to this by working together.

Yesterday (Monday) we went with Iyad to search for and photograph evidence to document the military waste and dangerous materials that the IOF leaves in the area of the Jahalin Bedouin in the south Hebron hills. Iyad took us to visit a family whose child’s leg was badly burnt a month ago when he was playing in the desert with ammunition remains left behind by the Israeli military. Nothing could have prepared us for our meeting with the boy, whose name is Jabar, even though he had received medical attention at Yata [a nearby city]. The condition of his leg is shocking, and it will be a miracle if he does not lose his leg. This resulted from his playing with some sort of acid that resembles salt (who knows what the implications are). Jabar, who is 13 years old, is urgently in need of medical treatment.

The important question in the age of web relations is to what degree citizens of the globe can work together globally to affect a local situation? What is practical and effective and how to go about finding that out? There are simplistic approaches that abound to this sort of thing, like hurling incriminations. But what does this do? I have noticed that the further away from the actual problems the more that Jews and Arabs tend to respond ideologically. But good people, Jewish and Palestinian, closer to the situation look more deeply at how to help. The real answers to violent conflict are always on the ground. Imposed solutions are sometimes necessary but they are never as lasting as the bond that builds between good people on both sides of a conflict who are determined to fight together for justice and peace, to struggle simply and effectively for the life of a child, or even the leg of a child.

Yes We Can

Jim Dobson has this to say about Obama:

I think he’s deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own world view, his own confused theology,” Dobson said, adding that Obama is “dragging biblical understanding through the gutter.” Responding to Dobson’s comments Tuesday evening, Obama sharply disputed the suggestion he was distorting the Bible.

Obama responds:

“Someone would be pretty hard pressed to make that argument,” he told reporters aboard his campaign plane. “It is a speech that affirms the role of faith not just in my life but in the life of the American people, that suggests that we make a mistake by trying to push faith out of the public square.”

“I do make the argument that it’s important for folks like myself, who think faith is important, that we try to translate some of our concerns into universal language so we can have open and vigorous debate rather than having religion divide us,” Obama said. “And I do suggest that the separation of church and state is important. But there’s no, no theological work being done in that speech in terms of the Bible.”

There are those who would accuse Reverend Dobson of doing exactly what he accuses Obama of, distorting traditional understanding to fit a confused theology. But Obama does not go that route. What is extraordinary is how divisive every word is that Dobson utters, and how visionary, inclusive and positive is every word of Obama’s. In many ways this election is going to be about competing visions of religion in the future of global civilization. Will it be a weapon of civilizations or a bond of civilizations?

Published: June 25, 2008

Middle East Times

It is often said in the Arab world that the road to Jerusalem goes through Washington, with the implicit assumption that only the Americans can bring the Israelis to the negotiating table. But there is a distinctly different dynamic emerging from the waning days of the U.S. presidency of George W. Bush. The road to Washington may in fact pass through Jerusalem.

Increasingly, countries in the Middle East are initiating peace talks with Israel directly, without U.S. assistance. The recent Syrian and Israeli negotiations are but one potentially promising model, and this route may be the best hope the Iranians have to prevent a cataclysmic confrontation over their nuclear program.

The Iranian government asserts that its nuclear enrichment program is for peaceful purposes, but suspicions still abound. The rhetoric coming out of Iran, coupled with fears over the nature of its nuclear ambitions, is terrifying the Israeli leadership, and the situation is precipitously headed toward disaster.

Certain Israelis feel rushed to take military action, believing that the current American president is more likely than future presidents to give a green light. There are also forces in Washington that would benefit greatly in the upcoming presidential elections if a war with Iran were to be unleashed in, say, October.

But most experts agree that an Israeli strike will only delay a nuclear Iran while setting in motion a horrific downward spiral in regional violence and in the global economy.

There is only one way to forestall this emerging train wreck, and that is new thinking. There is a way out of the current escalation of threats between Israel and Iran, with the introduction of a new kind of treaty designed specifically for the actors involved.

I call it the “No First Introduction Treaty.” Israel has never agreed to “no first use” of nuclear weapons because it has not admitted it has any. But it has pledged to work for a nuclear-free region, as well as the dismantling of non-nuclear weapons of mass destruction, based on a normalization of relations with all of its neighbors – which in the missile age must include Iran.

This eventuality is rather distant. But Israel has also reiterated that it will not be the first to introduce nuclear weapons into the Middle East conflict. And that is a crucial opening.

It would be wise right now for the Supreme Leader of Iran Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to draft an Iranian-Israeli treaty of “No First Introduction.”

It would deftly demonstrate to the world that Iran does not stand behind the extreme and violent rhetoric of its current president.

It would diffuse global anger toward Iran, just as a seeming warming of relations between Israel and Syria has taken significant pressure off of the Assad regime.

It would undermine the neoconservative desire to attack Iran in the next six months, and the partisan American temptation to shift the elections by introducing a frightening war.

It would help Israel turn a new page in its relationship with its most dangerous adversary – a valuable strategic goal.

Such a treaty would not necessarily stop Iran from pursuing any non-peaceful nuclear ambitions in the future. But perhaps by then we will have an American or Israeli leader more likely to offer the Iranians a tempting carrot of normalization of relations and an end to regime change efforts.

These rewards would be in exchange for a mutually agreed upon nuclear inspection regime that would put an end to the fears of Iran’s neighbors in the Middle East as to its military intentions as well as stop the ongoing proxy warfare against Israel.

Iran need not change its current ideological opposition to Israel in order to pursue a path of de-escalation. It merely has to distance itself from the destructive rhetoric of its president and make a commitment not to meddle in the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian peace process.

Having Iran engaged in any kind of constructive conversation with Israel would also undermine talk of regime change in Washington and, as a result, could enable a path toward peace between the countries.

A “No First Introduction” treaty would benefit everyone involved, both the leadership in Iran and Israel and the 50 million people across the region who would stand to be personally and horrifically impacted by a nuclear war between the two countries.

–

Marc Gopin is the James Laue Professor at the Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution, George Mason University. This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).

WASHINGTON – The American Israel Public Affairs Committee, one of the most powerful lobby groups in the United States, just concluded its annual Washington conference. It drew a long line of administration officials and the presidential candidates to its doorsteps, all touting orthodox lines on what it means to be pro-Israel – messages carefully crafted to please the lobby. Now is a good time to ask, what exactly does “pro-Israel” mean, and who is pro-Israel in the United States today? The ones who twist every arm in Congress to be silent, to suppress what they know is right to do in terms of a fair Israeli-Palestinian deal? We have before us now a hair-trigger set of confrontations from Lebanon to the Persian Gulf, with long-range missiles, chemical and nuclear capable, aimed at Israel from a country in the Persian Gulf that has no business in Gaza. And yet, due to the unending festering of the Palestinian tragedy, Shiite Iran has stepped into Sunni Gaza, in addition to Iraq and Lebanon, primarily because the United States failed to engage fairly or at all in the last eight years. Have our actions made Israel safer, and do they reflect a pro-Israel position? Or is this in fact an anti-Israel position that is sacrificing Jewish and Palestinian children on an altar of self-destructive fears and hatreds? In the end, American politicians are going to say and do what the most effective lobbyists tell them to do regarding Israel. And that translates back to the American people and their voice. The American people must decide what is pro-Israel and what is anti-Israel. Some interesting lessons learned come from Northern Ireland. On March 26, 2007 Ian Paisley, co-founder of the DUP party of Northern Ireland, sat side by side with Gerry Adams of Sinn Fein, his most reviled enemy, and the two of them pledged their full participation in an Irish government. This is the same Ian Paisley who had consistently been the voice of Protestant opposition and demonization of Catholics. This is the same Sinn Fein that had represented the Irish Republican Army as it carried out decades of violence against Protestants. How did these enemies get to 2007? There was a little stop along the way in 1998, in which the United States and one George Mitchell played a central role. In 1998, former Senator George Mitchell, of Irish descent, oversaw the completion of the historic Good Friday Accord that led eventually to the power sharing arrangements which Northern Ireland now enjoys. He was supported by another man of partial Irish descent, President Bill Clinton. Senator Mitchell once told me in person exactly how he managed to successfully outmaneuver the spoilers in the Irish/Protestant conflict. He explained to me: I had a pad of paper with my handwritten notes. I had the only copy. On it I placed what each side pledged to do, and exactly when and in what sequence they would do it. I let them know that if either side failed in the sequence, then the President of the United States would publicly lay the blame for the failure of the entire accord on the side that had broken their word. These words were so simple, so remarkable, so pristine in their understanding of negotiation and arbitration. And this is precisely what has been missing from Palestinian/Israeli peace processes from the very beginning. It is not as if the American road to Irish peacemaking was easy. There were spoilers in America, just as there are now regarding the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. There were people on both sides who thought they were pro-Irish. But were they pro-Irish all those decades or anti-Irish? In the end, it was Mitchell and Clinton who were the most pro-Irish, because they stopped the killing of Irish children once and for all. It goes without saying that the issues were exceedingly complex, that it took years to identify the compromises, and that Mitchell’s charisma and skills added up to much more than a pad of paper. However, what was irreplaceable was the American political will to authorise Mr. Mitchell to boil it all down to that pad of paper and its conditions. Perhaps it is time to finally tell our congressmen to tell George Mitchell to go to the Holy Land, with a single pad of paper in hand, armed with the only weapon necessary: the American will to write on that pad of paper what needs to be written, what everyone knows must be written. How many more Palestinian and Jewish children have to die before the American people find the willpower to send a brilliant negotiator to the Middle East with a single pad of paper?

* Marc Gopin is the James Laue Professor of World Religions, Diplomacy and Conflict Resolution at George Mason University in Washington D.C. He can be reached at mgopin@gmu.edu. This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) and can be accessed at www.commongroundnews.org. Source: Common Ground News Service, 12 June 2008, commongroundnews.org Copyright permission is granted for publication.