MarcGopin.com

I have tried to concentrate on putting the finishing touches on my book manuscript to hand into the publisher. I was looking forward to the exquisitely quiet isolation of writing days when I got a phone call from a young person at Al Jazeera English here in DC on Wednesday. “We need you to talk about the violence in India tonight.” I thought that she meant the ongoing issues between Hindu militants and Christians and so I said, “Sure.” I was just on their station about that subject a few weeks ago. I had no idea. Then I got a call two minutes later, voice agitated, “We need you sooner, like in two hours.” I said, “Sure, send me what you have in the latest updates to my email.” Another phone call, “How fast can you get here?!” I started to smell the horror of something terrible.

I stayed at Al Jazeera English for three hours Wednesday night, sifting through the shocking revelations from Mumbai, trying to make sense of it all together with the fabulous anchors. I immediately sensed that this was like nothing else India had experienced, that it was a new stage of terrorism and that it was from beyond the borders of India. There was no way, as soon as I heard about the Jewish center, that native Muslims of India would have wanted to kill Jewish women and children. No way. Never an incident in centuries. But I also knew what Pakistani graduates of madrassas had taught me about rampant antisemitism that was being taught among the Sunni Jihadis. Then there were all the hallmarks of Al Qaeda-type targets, Westerners, financial centers, modern secular icons, train stations.  We had to be cautious, of course, with any claims. As usual, I tried to insert a voice of sanity into what could easily become a causus beli between India and Pakistan. I tried to emphasize the words of President Obama that a response requires collaboration and coordination between countries first and foremost. This is the most important response, the one that distinguishes between, on the one side, the rule of law, police actions, a search for global commitments, and, on the other, a ‘war on terror’, which has no meaning and is easily a tool for a war of civilizations. I am heartened today that the head of Pakistan’s horrible ISI intelligence service is on his way to India. Maybe he can see the handiwork of decades of playing around with extremists as instruments of foreign policy from Afghanistan to Kashmir. I do not excuse the problems of India itself with its treatment of Muslims, especially by the police and the courts. Major change is needed, as Dileep Padgaonka points out in detail. But Pakistan is on the verge of becoming a threat to all of its neighbors, in addition to descending into anarchy. Major attention is needed, and it must involve a maturation in the use of force and the rule of law by the whole Indian subcontinent. It is the home of the largest population of Muslims in the world, a population experiencing far too much poverty and deprivation. What better place for Al Qaeda to make another front of their global efforts. The more that India prospers the more they become a hated target. There is an Israeli playbook that India can follow, investing heavily in the the most sophisticated training in counter-terrorism, while allowing the hatreds of a minority to fester. It will be very tempting. But there is another way that includes self-defense to be sure, but also an embrace of their Muslim population as partners against this scourge. This is the true path of human security in this century. I hope they choose wisely.

Meanwhile, after the night had ended, I could not stop the emotional connection to what happened. I was in Mumbai in those places. And we all have our ethnic attachments, and I just can’t help thinking about the rabbi and his wife. Al Jazeera English had called me back the next night searching for information about a Chabad prayer vigil for the hostages in the Chabad house. I was honored to make the connection. But there was no time for a vigil. They were dead, along with scores of others, Christians, Hindus, and no doubt Muslims too. I have always thought about India as a microcosm of humanity in all of its colorful variety and beauty. Now it included, among its victims, a young pale Jewish rabbi and his wife. Bombings have a way of setting up stark choices about our humanity, who we are, how easily destroyed we are, and what is to be gained when we see each other as precious and irreplaceable.

Rabbi Holtzberg and his wife, of blessed memory, performing a wedding

Aaron Miller writes an extremely pessimistic piece of advice for President elect Obama on the impossibility of Israeli/Palestinian peace right now. I think that it is a very well written piece, and that anything Aaron writes should be studied carefully. But there are two responses that should soften his pessimism.

There is a myth out there driven by the Clinton parameters of December 2000, the Taba talks in 2001, the Geneva accord a year later, and the hundreds of hours of post Annapolis talks between Israelis and Palestinians that the two sides are “this close” (thumb and index finger a sixteenth of an inch apart) to an agreement. The gaps have now narrowed, perhaps impressively, but closing them, particularly on the identity issues such as Jerusalem and refugees, is still beyond the reach of negotiators and leaders.

The dysfunction and confusion in Palestine make a conflict-ending agreement almost impossible. The divisions between Hamas (itself divided) and Fatah (even more divided) are now geographic, political and hard to bridge. Until the Palestinian national movement finds a way to impose a monopoly over the forces of violence in Palestinian society, it cannot move to statehood. The hallmark of any state’s credibility (from Sweden, to Egypt, to Poland) is its control over all the guns. Criminal activity is one thing; allowing political groups to challenge the state, or its neighbors, with violence is quite another.

Third, there is serious dysfunction at the political level in Israel as well. Israel has its own leadership crisis. The state is in transition from a generation of founding leaders with moral authority, historic legitimacy and competency to a younger generation of middle age pols who have not quite measured up to their predecessors or to the challenges their nation faces.

He recommends instead:

Instead, go all-out for an Israeli-Syrian agreement which is doable and will enhance American credibility to confront Hamas, Hizbullah and Iran over time with tough choices, and improve America’s regional standing. Then, perhaps, your chances on the Israeli-Palestinian track may be better. In the interim, I’m afraid sadly that the bottom line for Israelis and Palestinians is not a good one: Israelis will have their state, but Palestinians will never let them completely enjoy it.

I agree with this recommendation but I think that movement on the Palestinian front can occur much more quickly than Aaron thinks IF the Syrians become part of the peace seeking of the Middle East. Aaron is overestimating as a negotiator the importance of negotiation, and that is why he is so pessimistic. Negotiations can only do what people on all sides really want them to do, and there is not enough political will right now to make difficult compromises. These compromises could actually cause major civil conflict among Jews as well as obviously among Palestinians (they already have) and therefore require much more political will. But if increasingly the Arab states of the region are part of the solution the entire psychological and social dynamic of the conflict will change. Furthermore, it is essential that working with the people and their basic rights be at the core of the efforts now. Only by focusing intervention on human rights, empowerment, deescalation, can we move to a broader consensus among Jews and Palestinians of a real deal that they can all live with. This focus will lessen Hamas’ justification of violence, the less violence the more Israelis will have to look at themselves and the occupation, the more freedom of movement in Palestine the more enticing the two-state formula will become and the more Hamas will be forced to accept it completely. The more embraced Syria becomes, the more it receives what it wants, the more pressure it will place on Hamas and Hezbollah to moderate, which in turn will force Israelis to introspect.

The cycle begins with Syria, continues with aggressive intervention to challenge the worst and most unjustifiable elements of the occupation, and ends with a broader consensus of Jews and Palestinians for a real future together. We all have to start thinking about relationships ten steps down the chess board, not the way things look and feel now. That is the difference between optimists and pessimists. But Aaron Miller is required reading for any sober, serious peacemaker.

Aaron Miller

Jewish and Arab Teenagers in Israel: Do they have a future together?

Foreign Minister of Israel Tzipi Livni is in a fight she is likely to lose to become the next prime minister of Israel. Reports coming in indicate that Likud, and therefore its head Benjamin Netanyahu, will be able to put together the next Israeli government. So it is not surprising that Livni, who has advocated a peace process vociferously, would now be appealing to the right wing in the American Jewish community and in Israel by emphasizing her Jewish allegiances. She said recently:

“The world is willing to defend the right of the state of Israel to exist, this is the part of the requirement that the [Mideast] Quartet demands [of] Hamas. But I would like to add two more words to this demand of the quartet: They need to accept the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state,” Livni told delegates at the closing ceremony of the United Jewish Communities General Assembly on Wednesday.

Livni told the crowd of Jews from around the world that Israel’s survival was dependent first and foremost on Israel remaining a Jewish state, saying “a Jewish state is a matter of values, it’s is not a matter of religion, it is more a matter of nationality. And a Jewish state is not a monopoly of rabbis, it’s what each and everyone feels inside, it’s about the nature of the state of Israel.

“Its about the Jewish tradition, it’s about Jewish history. – But we need to keep the nature, the character of the state of Israel as a Jewish state because this is – excuse me for using French – the raison d’etre of the state of Israel,” she added.

I have tried for a long time to wrap my head around the idea of an Islamic state, a Jewish state, or a Christian state, that can also be democratic, but I just can’t get it. I can get states that cater to longstanding ethnic, religious, or cultural values, that minister to special needs of particular populations. But I cannot get identifying a country by definition as a state that exists for 70% of its citizens only, or even 98%. Imagine the hue and cry of the Jewish community if the President of the United States systematically introduced legislation to ensure that this country be a Christian country.

I think—I know–that the Jewish community of Israel and the world will eventually come up with a formula for a state that is truly democratic but that caters to the special needs of the Jewish people. This is doable, one sees such formulas in many countries. But I do not see a viable formula yet that is a prescription for living in the Middle East, living with history, and living with justice and equality. So far it is a success from the narrow perspective of Jewish ethnocentric interests and a catastrophe from the perspective of Jewish moral values that its prophets proclaimed over two thousand years ago. This is not sustainable, neither from a realist perspective nor from an internal Jewish spiritual point of view. Judaism and Jewish culture can and will flourish in Israel for centuries to come, but only if its core values survive. Someday it will be seen that giving dignity and honor to neighbors and strangers is not just a good way to survive in the Middle East, it is the only way for Judaism to survive.

It is not easy to be a nation that advocates and indeed missionizes on democracy and the rule of law. It is the missionizing that causes the conflict with those who may want democracy and the rule of law in their own country but are blind-sided by the glaring American hypocrisies of recent years. Plans are already underway by President elect Obama’s team as to how to end the illegal imprisonment of combatants at Guantanomo, and to return the United States to a nation of laws. Why was this so hard? Was revenge that important? This remains a mystery to me.

An abomination that must end

I stood next to this family in the final moments when Obama was elected, right as they were announcing California and the West Coast. My Ruthie was capturing everything on film. We were in a room of over a thousand people all of whom had worked on the Washington regional campaign.

Look at the eyes, look at the faces. I think I have waited forty years to see these eyes, these looks of wonder, pain and joy, all mixed, as if it were a hundred generations of ancestors in their eyes.

I came of age and into political consciousness with the assassinations of Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King. The tragedy has weighed on me ever since, pretty heavily, for family reasons. It is they who were on my mind at that moment standing next to this lovely family all of us screaming at the top of our lungs!! I felt finally that Martin and Bobby did not die in vain.

Then the mother, the lady on the left, turned to her tall lanky son, a teenager who seemed bewildered by what was happening, and she held his face in her two hands, and she looked up into his eyes, and said slowly, lovingly, and passionately “You can be anybody you want to be!”

Barack Obama, my new president, has ushered in a new era of American history, on many levels. But we are quickly moving to the question of how President Obama’s leadership and governance will operate, what will it look like in practice. Everyone is looking for clues, and Dan Balz has an excellent article on deciphering those hints of the future, based on Tom Mann’s insights at the Brookings Institution.

His voting record and the platform upon which he ran certainly suggest that his beliefs put him left of center. But Obama allies point to his pledge to govern inclusively as a counter to those who say his real purpose is to drive through the liberals’ agenda.

“He is genuinely a progressive, but he’s not an ideologue,” argued Tom Mann of the Brookings Institution. “He’s a broadly pragmatic person who, when confronted with new situations, is prepared to take a new approach or new strategy.”

I cannot imagine a more constructive approach to all the conflicts that will face us, and there are so many. Two words: pragmatic and progressive. These are the two words to watch for as defining our future. The conflicts facing humanity, the name of this blog, just got a big boost from a man who understands the importance of moral vision of what is right, combined seamlessly with the moral and pragmatic practice of conflict management, inclusivity, and the healthy process of compromise to approximate and inch toward high moral goals. Balz continues:

One of his senior advisers, speaking before the election on the condition that he not be identified, said Obama is determined to live up to that pledge to reach out to independents, Republicans and critics in an effort to demonstrate his commitment to trying to unify the country and change the tone of political discourse in Washington.

But Barack is right, he will never be able to do it without all of us, because if we as Americans go back to our selfish mode, and support all of our lobbyists to run to Washington with all of our selfish needs we will never give the new policy makers the ability to work for the common good in a pragmatic way. On the other hand, if we argue for our needs, and mandate our lobbyists to argue our needs with reason, with compromise and a spirit of the common good, not only the national common good but the global common good, then we may just be able to get this country back on track. We may just be able to provide a model for other countries and peoples struggling to construct a pragmatic way to be both strong, prosperous, but also decent.

Many people I know said that America would never elect a black man President. Some were just plain racist, and some east coast liberal intellectual types who are scared of the other America.  They were all very wrong. Yesterday, 62,443,218 people burried that canard and voted for Barack Obama. This is more than a decisive victory, it is the most votes anyone has ever received in any election in American History.

I was phoning somewhere in the American South for Obama the other day. What an education for me! There were simple, poor families that have been energized by the campaign, volunteering, excited. There were some angry independents, a completely nuts Nader person who hung up on me after screaming about women getting 93 cents on the dollar.

And then there was “Jim Crow” himself, who I have always longed to meet. When I say “Jim Crow” I mean those people in the United States who have actively supported racial segregation their whole lives. They actively ensured through legislation in the late nineteenth century, referred to as the “Jim Crow Laws”, that blacks would remain segregated and unequal in the United States, in a steady reversal of the gains made by victory in the Civil War over slavery. The great President Woodrow Wilson was actually the first Southern Democrat to occupy the White House, and he promptly introduced segregation in 1913 into all Federal offices.

That was then, but this is now, and back to my phone calls. I called an elderly lady, and asked to speak to her. We were calling to inquire who people were voting for. Her husband answered the phone, however, and said she could not come to the phone. So I inquired as to whether he knew if she was going to vote for Obama. Big mistake! The old man said in a thick drawl, an accent that suddenly got thicker as he spoke these memorable words, “anyone who votes for him in my family knows I’ll kill’em.” That was interesting. So I probed further, because such people frighten me, fascinate me, and compel me to understand more deeply human nature–all at the same time. Much of my peace work and citizen diplomacy of twenty five years is driven by meeting the edge of militancy and violence that preoccupies the human soul, all the way from my family to the Middle East. So I asked him why. And he said, “I am white. And I was born white.’ Then he hung up. I wanted so much to talk to him.

I sat there in the calling center, stunned, surrounded by a thousand other people calling at the same time, and I was reminded of not only why I was volunteering in this historic election that will change American history if he wins, when he wins. I was reminded of why I have worked for twenty five years at the edge of war zones. This is something easy to forget in the swirl of Washington, politics and elections. I felt a strange thing for me in the phoning room, surrounded by blacks and whites and American Indians and Arab Americans and Hispanics, senior citizens and children–I felt pride, American pride.

I also felt something else very strange for me of late. I felt safe, perhaps for the first time in eight years, or perhaps since 9/11. I felt surrounded by the diversity of humanity, and they made me feel that things would be ok, that the old man is really old now, and his white racism is disappearing from my America. And with its disappearance we in our diversity might just be able to tackle our global problems in a completely new way.

I felt safe not only because I believe that Senator Obama has restored hope to America and to the world, which I do. The reports are from everywhere in the world how desperately they want us to elect him. But later in the day, watching a news report on the calling stations I was emotionally moved watching McCain supporters in a similar calling station, doing exactly what I was doing. I was moved because there has been an explosion here of democracy, real democracy, participation, and an energy so palpable that I know that the election is just the beginning of a different era here in America.

I was moved because Jim Crow is being laid to rest. We are burying him with every vote, every gesture, every moment that we create community across all lines of color, race, and religion. There will be more setbacks here, but there is some invisible boundary that has been passed over here on our way, finally, to global community. The Jim Crow laws had excluded African Americans from office, from voting even. Senator Obama is peacefully putting Jim Crow in his final resting place, and as he is lowered into his grave, I am starting to breathe, to feel safer, to feel the security of diversity. It is as if a transformed America, truly diverse from top to bottom, may hold the key that unlocks the door to global cooperation, community, and prosperity.