MarcGopin.com

Gershon Baskin’s provocative title is absolutely right, it does not appear to matter anymore which coalition will rule Israel next. The fact is that Olmert had a bigger mandate than Livni or Netanyahu to pursue the peace process, freeze the settlements, and uphold all the commitments Israel made in Annapolis. And he failed at all of them, and instead unleashed a horrifying set of wars in Lebanon and Gaza that have left Palestinians utterly shell shocked. So why not add fuel to the fire with a Lieberman-inclusive government that traumatizes the rest of the Palestinian people who have resided in Israel since 1948, who never left the land, and who have been isolated by everyone ever since, despite their absolutely peaceful resistance to injustice? Despite the fact that by a vast majority of 75% the Arabs of Israel would support a democratic constitution for Israel that also kept it a Jewish state?!

This is a dark time for Jewish behavior in Israel. Racism is quickly replacing any positive notion of Jewish identity as a unifier of Jews. We may be witnessing the slow demise of Israeli democracy, and who better to kill it than a scion of a Russian totalitarian society that has veered from Communist autocrats to Mafia autocrats.

But there is poetic justice in this demise. After all, Israel was desperate to welcome in millions of Russians, but really any Russian with remotely Jewish blood in order to fight the Arabs demographically. Now they have swastikas on Jewish graves in Israel and a Russian who will undo the hoped for combination of Jewishness and democracy. I know fabulous Russian Jewish peacemakers in Israel, but the votes go to fear and hatred.

As I have said here before, I think there is little evidence throughout the world of viable states that are both democratic and ethnic, the so-called nation-state. The logic of history and the pressure of politics will always sacrifice democracy on the altar of ethnicity. That is not to say that Judaism and Jews cannot thrive in a state on the ancient land of Israel. They can and they will when everyone eventually comes to their senses through absolute separation of state, ethnicity and religion. But if they don’t, if they continue to build Israel on the basis of fear and hatred of Arabs they will get an Israel that will not be recognizable from the vantage point of a Jewish history that has been largely nonviolent for almost two thousand years. It will become a land of Jewish racism and violence against fellow Jews.  It is already not recognizable to Jews in Iran, and increasingly it is losing the support of a key group of Americans, Jewish liberals. Some will dismiss these liberals, but they just were key in electing the most liberal president in decades of American history. Any honest analyst sees that subtly, quietly, Israel is headed for a slow train wreck of a clash with its last staunch ally, the United States.

Of course Israel has security challenges, of course it has difficult compromises it must make to live in peace, of course Hamas and Hizbullah must be prevented from aggression. But what is preventing any real progress is the insidious relationship between voting and fear in Israel, the easy way that votes can be bought with fear and hatred. This is far from a uniquely Jewish problem, but it is killing Israeli democracy, a fact that every Jew and every pro-Israel person should wake up to and fight like hell against.

This is not about Hamas, or Hezbollah, or Iran, this is about the Jewish soul, and the choice is clear. Just like Abu Ghraib was not about Islamists, about Al Qaeda, about Syria. Abu Ghraib was about the American soul. The Americans have now spoken, from the military to the pulpit, and they have made their choice against Abu Ghraib.

What choice will Jews make? If Israel keeps going on this path the Jewish people are eventually going to split into two groups that are completely divorced: one with a Zionist religion, and one with a Jewish religion, one that will be welcome in the democratic world, and one that will be a pariah among democrats and welcome in the un-free world. This may seem odd historically, but it is coming. The vast majority of Jewish establishment programming, from synagogues to college campuses, is already secular, political, and ethnic in nature. It is effectively a state-based form of worship. There are alternatives that exist quietly but they will emerge more clearly as a Judaism different from Zionist religion–if Israel continues its downward ethical spiral.

I wish I could say that this is all the fault of a few unscrupulous politicians in Israel but it is not. These are the unfortunate choices that most people make for ethnicity over ethics, fear over courage, when states mistakenly base their political system and parliamentary constructs on ethnicity. I wish i could wave a magic wand and help the Arab world understand clearly and unequivocally that no matter how pitiful Hamas and Hizbollah resistance to Israel may be that violence has never paid off in forcing Israelis and Jews to face the crimes of 1948. By contrast, it seems clear to many of us that the time is ripe for a much greater global consensus on a reasonable solution to Palestinian national aspiration and reparation. But the Achilles Heal of such an eventuality is the Western world’s loathing of violence that has come from the Muslim and Arab world in the form of terrorism that Al Jazeera calls resistance. This moral standoff between Middle East and West is just not working for Palestine. A democratically elected Hamas that is devoted to suicide terrorism is destroying a potential global consensus on Palestine. I am in favor of recognizing Hamas, I am in favor of radical Fatah reform, but the Arab world must recognize how toxic it is to the cause of challenging Israeli policy if they continue to turn a blind eye to the methods of Hamas or the ugly rhetoric of Iran.

It is time for the Arab world, in other words, to get behind a systematic campaign of Palestinian national liberation that will be utterly and completely nonviolent. This is the formula to win the day, to win Palestinian independence, to save Israel from its dark shadows, and to allow the Middle East to finally join the world of authentic international development and democratization.

Gaza

Read this important story about United States Representatives Keith Ellison and Dr. Brian Baird. In an American Congress that is utterly silenced about Palestinian needs and concerns, these two congressmen should be commended for going to Gaza. They will be punished by the Lobby and it is important for them to be supported. I hope that the Jewish alternative lobby, J Street , will do so. If there were a serious non-Jewish lobby for Palestine in Washington that really wanted to change things for Palestine it too would support every positive act coming out of Congress–with votes and cold hard cash. Alas, progressives don’t get it.

Here are excerpts written by veteran Post writer Tovah Lazaroff:

“When have lentil bombs been going off lately? Is someone going to kill you with a piece of macaroni?” asked Rep. Brian Baird (D-Washington).

He and Keith Ellison (D-Minnesota) called on Israel to end the economic isolation of Gaza and to open the crossings into the area, which have been closed since Hamas’s coup there in June 2007.

Their call came two days after the cabinet agreed to link the full opening of the crossings to the release of kidnapped soldier Gilad Schalit, who has been held in Gaza since June 2006.

Ellison said he had taken the efforts to free Schalit to heart and had a copy of his dog tags in his office.

“I have met with his family and prayed for his release. But you know he is not going to get out any faster by inflicting pain and punishment on 1.5 million Palestinians [in Gaza]. It is not going to happen that way,” he said.

Israel’s policy toward Gaza “is not designed for success or to win the release of Gilad Schalit.”

The congressmen visited Gaza Thursday, the same day as Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, who made a separate visit. Both marked the first time in over five years, since the 2003 killing of three US security contractors, that American politicians had entered the Strip.

“We are not emissaries for the Obama administration,” Baird said. “Keith and I are simply two American citizens, members of the US Congress, who wanted to understand the situation and to see what can be done to help.”

They did not meet with any members of Hamas while in Gaza, he said. “It was strictly a humanitarian visit.”

The two men described themselves as supporters of Israel.

They said they were struck both by the destruction Israel had leveled in Gaza during its recent 22-day military operation, as well as the harmed caused by the closure of the crossings to all but basic humanitarian aid.

The ban on lentils and pasta was symbolic of a policy that was “idiosyncratic and arbitrary. You look stupid and petty and over-controlling when you this,” Baird said.

This kind of action only fostered extremism, he said.

Maj. Peter Lerner, a spokesman for the IDF Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories, told the Post that lentils and pasta would be allowed into Gaza as of Sunday.

Some 100,000 tons of supplies had been allowed into Gaza since the end of Operation Cast Lead, but the list of items deemed to be essential had not included lentils and pasta, he said.

Baird told the Post already on Friday that even if the IDF changed its stance on those two items, the issue was much larger.

“Let’s not get hung upon lentils and macaroni,” he said.

The crossings needed to be open to provide Gaza with more aid, traffic of people and the construction material and other goods necessary to the economy. Baird said.

“It is not just bringing in material, it is building up the domestic capacity so people can have real jobs and make their own things,” he said.

The two men spoke in advance of their visit to Sderot later on Friday to see the damage caused to the people who live in the western Negev, who have endured eight years of rocket attacks from Gaza.

Israel’s policy toward Gaza was not helping stop the rockets, Baird said.

“What you are doing now is going to create more rockets in the long run,” he said.

Ellison added, “When people have been deprived and feel beat down long enough, you cannot make them do what you want by beating on them more. They are used to that. They know that. They have been without and they can be without,” he said.

“The children [in Gaza] did not abduct that soldier, neither can they release that soldier, and neither can children stop a rocket from going off,” Baird said.

As Americans, they were acutely aware while in Gaza that the IDF had used American-made weapons to attack the Palestinians, they said.

Ellison, who is the first Muslim to be elected to Congress, recalled how they had walked on a road where a number of the homes had been flattened by the IDF.

“We came upon a temporary shelter, it was just cinder blocks that were set up in an eight by 10 square, and they had some kind of a tarp and a sheet over it to stop the rain. They were making tea and we walked up and said, ‘Salaam aleikum,” Ellison said.

The people in the shelter welcomed them and made them tea.

“We asked them how are you coping with all of this, and they talked to us,” he said. “They told us their stories. I will admit and I was a little reluctant to say that I was an American congressmen. Quite frankly, it might have been the IDF launching the bombs, but they all said made in America.”

Still, “no treated us with anything but the greatest respect and kindness,” Ellison said.

Baird said he was particularly troubled by the “apparent targeting” of hospitals, schools and relief centers.

It would be a “remarkable coincidence if the rounds accidentally fell” on those institutions, he said.

As a licensed neuropsychologist and the father of twin four-year-old boys, he was particularly struck by the remains of what had been a play area for children in a treatment center at Al-Quds Hospital, which had Disney characters painted on the walls.

“It is very disconcerting to say the least,” he said.

Similarly, he said, it was upsetting to see that an American school had also been bombed, “of all the iconic things you could destroy,” he said.

The bombing had not only killed people, but also “an institution that taught core American values like tolerance,” Baird said.

At the school, he found a little book on baseball with a question the teacher had asked about legendary first baseman Jackie Robinson, who broke the color line in the major leagues.

“They are trying to teach Israel about tolerance using baseball, for goodness sakes, and that is now destroyed,” Baird said. Continue here.

US Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., left and US Rep. Brian Baird, D-Wash., right, take photos of the rubble of the American International school in Beit Lahiya in the northern Gaza Strip, Thursday.

A REPORT BY DR. KATRIEN HERTOG

International Women’s Conference Celebrates Women’s Leadership

Bangalore, 6-8 February 2009

“If the Lehman Brothers would have been ‘Lehman Sisters’, would we be in the same mess as the one we are in now?” This provocative question characterizes the lively atmosphere of the Third International Women’s Conference, organised by the International Association for Human Values (IAHV) in Bangalore at the beginning of February. The Conference was dedicated to ‘The Light of Leadership: Integrating Global Perspectives’ and brought together 700 women from 68 countries and the most diverse cultures. All these women have taken up a leadership role in the world, whether on grassroots level or at the top, and this in the most diverse areas, such as health, politics, business, media, education, art or science. A top manager of the World Bank was sitting next to the first elected aboriginal woman, Miss Universe was sitting next to a renowned scientist, and all were sharing their experiences, motivation and challenges as a woman to make a difference in this world. The conference highlighted the daily, often invisible contribution of women to the wellbeing of our world and served as a platform to inspire and be inspired.

The position of women in the world today shows that a lot has become possible, but that many challenges still remain. Yes, there are indeed women ministers in Muslim countries in the Middle East, but the role of women in the film industry in India remains very limited and stereotypical, for example. During her breath-taking performance the celebrated Sufi artist Zila Khan sang about the many doors which have been opened for women, but also about the responsibility to walk skilfully through these open doors and not trample them. A constant theme throughout the speeches was the call among and upon the women present to take their responsibility and their rights as women instead of waiting for them till they are given. If you do not like the role of a silly beauty queen, then start writing your own scripts, it was argued. Instead of silently submitting to the ruling norms and limitations and avoiding conflicts as much as possible, women should apply their strength and talents to create “intelligent and constructive conflict”, according to Barbara Etter, as senior police woman from West-Australia. “If we keep doing what we always did, we will get what we always got. We have to do things differently. Business as unusual!”

On the basis of personal experiences, historical facts and modern statistics it was argued that women have special talents and possibilities for leadership. Some said that women have a natural inclination towards ethical values such as integrity, transparency, listening, courage and compassion, with a few exceptions. Mothers told about their fundamental concern for the wellbeing of their children as a motivation for their service to society, since their children “could not be seen in isolation from all the other children in the world”. Their deep longing for harmony would make them natural negotiators who are creative in finding win-win solutions, just like managing a household can never be or-or, but always and-and. “Men inspire to fight, women to unite”, it was said. According to Sister Concilia from Sri Lanka there is a big need in her country for spiritual women, who are courageous and compassionate, in order to reconcile the people where the religions of Sri Lanka have failed due to a lack of spirituality. Women were also seen as natural long-term visionaries, for whom addressing immediate, concrete needs is self-evident. Their intuition and flexibility help them in both crisis situations and daily routine to be of service to the present moment. In short, women have an inherent talent for leadership. You can see this, according to H.H. Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, the founder of IAHV, when in peaceful times you put several women together: immediately there is work for conflict resolution practitioners!

Also from Belgium the conference was attended by some special women. Sister Jeanne Devos spoke about her work of 25-years in India to give domestic workers rights and dignity: “It is a mystery why in the Indian culture today there is so much reverence for an airhostess, but no respect at all for domestic workers, while they are doing the same work after all? The only difference is that one works in a plane and the other in a house.” She left a strong impression through her inspiration and her perseverance, which have made a big difference for millions of women and children in India. Katrien Beeckman, working for the Red Cross in Geneva, shared some keys for successful leadership, such as transparency and honesty, belongingness, a spiritual way of living and a long-term vision. Special Guest at the conference was Mrs. Hennicot-Schoepges, Member of the European Parliament and Rapporteur for the European Year of Intercultural Dialogue. She was deeply touched by the warm and authentic atmosphere, the strength of the women who were present and the intercultural experience “compared to which Europe stands nowhere”. In her speech she emphasized the role of music and culture to bring people together.

But maybe most special about the whole conference was the spirituality from which it was conceived and in which it was embedded. What else is spirituality if not dancing together from the heart, celebrating diversity in all colours of the rainbow, empathizing with the mother who lost her son in the fighting for the Taj Hotel in Mumbai and being touched by the compassion of the woman who survived, being inspired by the enthusiasm to make a difference in this world, or meditating together? Or like Lara Dutta, Miss Universe 2000, said about the questions she was asked why for God’s sake she would waste her time somewhere in an ashram, not even in the city but somewhere in the hills, for some women’s conference: “I am happy it is in this place, because spirituality is the basis of everything. If you are centered and peaceful in yourself, then you also have the strength to stand up against your boss.” This is also the vision of Sri Sri Ravi Shankar: “Only through spirituality can holistic change be brought about, since spirituality touches on each and every aspect of life.”

The whole event was bursting with enthusiasm, energy and possibilities for women’s leadership.

Uri Avnery

Uri Avnery, in his regular column for Gush Shalom, has an important analysis of the Israeli elections that is well worth reading. I will react to his comments in the coming days. Here are excerpts:

The results of the elections are not as clear as they might seem. The victory of the Right is not so unambiguous.

Central to the election campaign was the personal competition between the two contenders for the Prime Minister’s office: Livni and Netanyahu (or, as they call themselves, as if they were still at kindergarten, Tzipi and Bibi.)

Contrary to all expectations and all polls, Livni beat Netanyahu. Several factors were involved in this. Among others: the masses of the Left were terrified by the possibility of Netanyahu winning, and flocked to Livni’s camp in order to “Stop Bibi!” Also, Livni – who was never identified with feminism – remembered at the last moment to call Israel’s women to her banner, and they hearkened to her call.

But it is impossible to ignore the main significance of this choice: Netanyahu symbolizes total opposition to peace, opposition to giving back the occupied territories, to the freezing of the settlements and to a Palestinian state. Livni, on the other hand, has declared more than once her total support for the “Two-Nation-States” solution. Her voters opted for the more moderate line.

True, the big winner in the elections was Avigdor Liberman. But his triumph is far from the fateful breakthrough everyone foresaw. He did not win the 20 seats he had promised. His ascent from 11 to 15 seats is not so dramatic. His party is indeed now the third largest in the Knesset, but that is less due to its own rise than to the collapse of Labor, which fell from 19 to 13. By the way, not one of the parties won even 25% of the vote. Israeli democracy is now very fragile indeed.

The Liberman phenomenon is ominous, but not (yet?) disastrous.

HOWEVER, THERE is no way to deny the most significant message of these elections: the Israeli public has moved to the right. From Likud to the right there are now 65 seats, from Kadima to the left only 55. One cannot argue with numbers.

What has caused this shift?

There are several explanations, all of them valid.

One can consider it as a passing phase after the war. A war arouses strong emotions – nationalist intoxication, hatred of the enemy, fear of the Other, longing for unity and for revenge,. All these naturally serve the Right – a lesson sometimes forgotten by the left when it starts a war.

Others see in it a continuation of a historical process: the Zionist-Palestinian confrontation is becoming wider and more complex, and such a situation feeds the Right.

And then there is, of course, the demographic factor. The rightist bloc attracts the votes of three sectors: the Oriental Jews (a majority of whom vote for Likud), the religious (who mostly vote for the fundamentalists) and the Russians (most of whom vote for Liberman). This is a group vote, almost automatic.

Two sectors in Israel have an especially high birth-rate: the religious Jews and the Arabs. The religious vote almost unanimously for the Right. True, the Orthodox and the National-Religious parties have not increased their strength in the elections, probably because many of their natural voters chose Likud, Liberman or the even more extreme National Union. The Arab citizens almost completely abstained from voting for Jewish parties, as many of them used to in the past, and the three Arab parties together gained one more seat.

The demographic development is ominous. Kadima, Labor and Meretz are identified with the old-established Ashkenazi sector, whose demographic strength is in steady decline. Also, many young Ashkenazis gave their votes – at least four seats worth – to Liberman, who preaches a secular fascism. They hate the Arabs, but they also hate the religious Jews.

The conclusion is quite clear: if the “center-left” does not succeed in breaking out of its elitist ghetto and striking roots within the Oriental and Russian sectors, its decline will continue from election to election.

NOW MS TANTALUS must choose between two bitter options: to retire to the desert where there is neither water nor fruit, or to serve as a fig-leaf for an obnoxious coalition.

Option No. 1: to refuse to join Netanyahu’s coalition and to go into opposition. That is not so simple. The Kadima party came into being when Ariel Sharon promised its members – refugees from right and left – power. It will be very hard for Livni to hold the lot together in opposition, far from the seat of power, far from the posh ministers’ offices and from luxurious official cars.

That would give us a rightist government which includes open fascists, pupils of Meir Kahane (whose party was banned because of his racist teachings), the advocates of ethnic cleansing, of the expulsion of Israel’s Arab citizens and the liquidation of any chance for peace. Such a government would inevitably find itself in confrontation with the United States and in worldwide isolation.

Some people say: that’s good. Such a government will necessarily fall soon and break apart. Thus the public will be persuaded that there is no viable rightist option. Kadima, Labor and Meretz will stew in opposition, and perhaps a real center-left alternative will come into being.

Others say: too risky. There is no limit to the disasters that a Netanyahu-Liberman-Kahanist government can bring upon the state, from the enlargement of the settlements that will torpedo any future peace, to outright war. We can’t stake everything on one card, when the chip is the State of Israel.

Livni’s option No. 2: to swallow the bitter pill, give in and join the Netanyahu government as a second, third or fourth wheel. In that case, she must decide at once, before Netanyahu establishes a fait accompli with an extreme-right coalition which Livni would then be invited to join as a junior partner.

I shall not be surprised if President Shimon Peres takes the initiative unofficially and promotes this option – before starting, in a week’s time, the official process of consulting with the Knesset factions and entrusting one of the candidates with the task of forming a government.

Could such a government move towards peace? Conduct real negotiations? Agree to the dismantling of settlements? Accept a Palestinian state? Recognize a Palestinian unity government that includes Hamas?

Hard to imagine. In the best case, it will go on with the charade of meaningless negotiations, quietly enlarge the settlements, lead Barack Obama by the nose and mobilize the pro-Israel lobby in order to obstruct any real American moves towards peace. What was will be.

CAN ISRAEL change course? Can a real peace-oriented alternative arise?

The two “Zionist Left” parties have been decisively beaten. Both Labor and Meretz have collapsed. Their two leaders who called for the Gaza War and supported it – Ehud Barak of Labor and Haim Oron of Meretz – have received the punishment they richly deserve. In a normal democracy, both would have resigned the day after the elections. But our democracy is not normal, and both leaders insist on staying on and leading their party to the next disaster.

Labor is a walking corpse – the only “social-democratic” party in the world whose leader’s sole aim is to stay on as war minister. When Barak spread the mantra “there is no one to talk with” he overlooked the logical conclusion “therefore we don’t need anyone to talk with them”.

The Labor Party has no party, no members, no political program, no alternative leadership. It will fail in opposition as it failed in government. Barring a miracle, it will end up in the junkyard of history.

It will find Meretz already there. A socialist party that lost its way a long time ago: a party without any roots in the classes at the foot of the socioeconomic ladder, a party that has supported all our wars.

Some believe in easy solutions: a union of Labor and Meretz, for example. That is a union of the lame and the blind. No reason to expect that they would win the race.

THE REAL task is far more difficult. A completely new building must be erected in place of the one which has collapsed.

The need is for a new Left that will include new leaders from the sectors that have been discriminated against: the Orientals, the Russians and the Arabs. A new Left that will express the ideals of a new generation, people of peace, advocates of social change, feminists and greens, who will all understand that one cannot realize one ideal without realizing all of them. There can be no social justice in a military state; no one is interested in the environment while the cannons are roaring, feminism is incompatible with a society of machos riding on tanks, there can be no respect for Oriental Jews in a society that despises the culture of the Orient.

The Arab citizens will have to leave the ghetto in which they are confined and start to talk with the Jewish public, and the Jewish public must talk with the Arabs on equal terms. The Liberman slogan “No Citizenship Without Loyalty” must be turned around: “No Loyalty Without Real Citizenship”.

As Obama has done in the US, a new language, a new lexicon must be created, to replace the old and tired phrases.

Much, much must be changed if we want to save the state.

Hello readers, welcome to my first videoblog. Please excuse the moon-like effect. I appear to be on the other side of the galaxy because I used a webcam. My lips catch up with the sound usually in few minutes. Pretend this is a podcast and give me your feedback!

This article by Marc Gopin was featured on Syria Comment Tuesday, February 10th, 2009:

The key to the future of the Middle East is a revolution in the Syrian/American relationship that will help to re-balance the American historical bias in favor of reactionary forces in Israel. The shift of Syria towards an alliance with the United States will signal a significant shift away from a geographical and religious divide between the Northern and Southern Belt of the Middle East, between Sunni and Shi’ite, and between pro-Western and anti-Western divides, that have all plagued the region for decades. It will also usher in the possibility for Iran to follow, especially now that Khatami, smelling the tea leaves from the Obama Administration, has thrown his hat into the presidential race.

Syria’s friendship with Turkey and its alliance with Hezbollah and Hamas also have the potential to usher in an era of Islamist empowerment that will be based for the first time not on force, threats, violence and revolution but on power sharing. From Turkey to Lebanon to Palestine the potential exists for the tolerant forms of Islam that are indigenous to Syria and Turkey to form the basis for a new approach to politics in the Middle East.

This sounds odd, considering the track record of Hamas and Hezbollah, but that track record of violence is largely related to the Arab/Israeli wars. That is precisely where Syria’s alliance with America could lead us in an utterly new direction. If the United States embraces Syria, then it will set the stage for a greater place of leverage for Syria to play in surrounding the Israeli leadership with states and movements that are unambiguously offering Israel full peace for full return of the occupied territories and full engagement in the establishment of a viable Palestinian state.

Not only should the United States remove permanently the threat of regime change in Syria, it should promote a strategic and military alliance with Syria and Turkey. This will have the effect of encouraging moderate nonviolent Islamic ideologies in the region, pulling it back from radicalization and splits along Sunni/Shiite and secular/extremist lines. Syria, Turkey and even Lebanon can be helpful in this regard. Syria has a history of deliberate religious pluralism and moderate, Sufi Islam, and it is the same with Turkey. The key is an ideological shift toward an economic and military alliance with the West.

If Syria moves in this direction it will make it that much harder for the Israeli hardliners to make the case in Washington that ‘there is no one to talk to’. This myth needs to be put to rest once and for all, but it cannot happen without significant efforts on the part of the new generation of excellent Syrian policy makers and their supporters. Let me explain.

The extremists in the pro-Israel camp will see a Syrian/American rapprochement as a setback for Israel. Not so. With America in the middle, guaranteeing everyone’s security, there is a far better chance of reaching a deal that includes Syria, Israel and Palestine, with Saudi, Egypt, and Jordan acquiescing to a Palestinian democracy that will surely include Islamists.
In this regard, Turkey is paving the way for the de-militarization of Islamism. With coaxing this may be the necessary transition for Egypt as well. Ironically enough the secular Syrian regime is leading the way to a new Middle East with Islamist parties like Hamas as part of the ruling elite. Religious commitments to nonviolence, such as are embodied in the philosophy of the Grand Mufti of Syria, are the key to these peaceful transitions. Islamist politics will be eliminated as an existential threat to all regimes, and will instead become just another Arab experiment with politics and governance, in a similar way that it is being handled by Jordan. The key is that Islamist political empowerment does not come through subterfuge, force and revolution, the terrible mistake of the Brotherhood in Syria over thirty years ago. Turkey is the key model, and it must lead to serious discussions on the demilitarization of Hezbollah or its nationalization.

The problem of demilitarization of Hamas and Hezbollah is that they are the key focal point to resistance of Israel and the continuation of a military approach to the Palestinian/Israeli conflict of almost a century. This can only be addressed through aggressive U.S. mediation and satisfaction of all parties, especially the full gamut of Palestinians, as to their needs and interests in developing an independent Palestinian state. And certainly a very tough negotiation will be Iran’s nuclear weapons program, but this too can be managed with full normalization of American/Iranian relations.

Here is the most important point. If all tracks are pursued vigorously and simultaneously then the nonviolent wagons of diplomacy will start to circle around Israel with the Arab Peace Plan in hand, with the United States, and the Quartet, at the helm.

Here is the big caveat, however. The American people, their agents in Congress, need to be on board with this process, or at least confused by it. They cannot be a fifth column, a stealth weapon of radical Republicans, to demonize the White House as anti-Semitic, a nightmare which would set the stage for a bitter battle in America over anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism; this will only benefit Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh and Karl Rove as they seek some raw issues that could divide America from the White House. And Netanyahu is not beneath stimulating a Lobby-induced war on the White House as antisemitic.

The United States is a far more pro-Jewish, philo-semitic country than the Arab world wants to face, for a variety of historical and ethical reasons. But it is also a country that likes to see itself standing for justice and freedom for all peoples.

An emotional war over anti-Semitism and Israel’s fate could be spawned in the United States, a war that will take down this President from his ambitious and idealistic agenda. That is why Mitchell and Obama will not move aggressively unless there is a counter-strategy in place that comes from outside the White House, a lobbying strategy that has yet to receive serious backing from the progressive or the Arab worlds.

In this regard there has emerged in the last few years a significant progressive Jewish strategy in Washington, which is dovetailed by an important resurgence of realist thinking of the variety of Brzezinski and Scowcroft. The Jewish community voted by over 83% for Obama, in addition to over 70% of them expressing a clear commitment to a two-state solution. The Jewish establishment and the Lobby do not represent these people and they have not had a voice until now. The same problem pertains among evangelicals. 50% agree with a two-state solution according to Pew polls, but their lobbyists will vote for or against whatever the so-called pro-Israel Lobby tells them to do.

J Street and Brit Tsedek are beginning to change this. They are still woefully underfunded by comparison to the Lobby, but they are setting a precedent for a contest with the Lobby for money and votes. Money and votes are the two elements of a Washington strategy. They are expressed by contributions, by promise of votes. But mostly it is about attention to congressional offices which is targeted, specific, and constant. Brit Tsedek now has 40,000 Jewish members and a thousand rabbis ( a third of American rabbis!), the largest ever number for Jewish progressive voices in Washington, and J Street’s favorite candidates won overwhelmingly on November 4. J Street has a mailing list of over 100,000, and more importantly they understand the Obama strategy of empowerment of average people through the technical wizardry of social networking and ‘click-friendly’ contributions. The central and contagious message of these groups is that they are pro-Israel and pro-Peace.
If they truly care about the Palestinians then the Arab world and the Muslim world, and Syria in particular, need to enter the fray in Washington with a level of investment never seen before.

There must emerge a parallel strategy between the progressive Jewish world embodied in J Street and Brit Tsedek, and the Arab world. Syria must play an essential world in this capture of the imagination of Americans, including Jews and evangelicals. This will take a concerted campaign with serious money, media, extensive international visits and exchanges of all sectors of the populations, and the coaxing of many Arab states into an allied strategy for the heart and soul of Washington and the American people.

It is essential for this public relations campaign to be accompanied by public and citizen diplomacy that will help more and more of the American electorate, including Jews and evangelicals, to envision the possibility of new Middle East. It would be enormously helpful if this public relations blitz included very highly publicized alliances and exchanges between serious Israeli peacemakers who the Syrians know are substantive–of which there are hundreds–and their Arab counterparts. This will be the real emotional glue that cements a new Jewish and American attitude to the region. The key with public relations is creating a compelling and utterly new vision of future possibility, but in this case the product is not a vacuum cleaner or a car, it is coexistence, tolerance, a region at peace, a region worth investing in and engaging, in the deepest sense.

All of this is in the long-term interests of Israel and the future state of Palestine. All parties may not know this yet, but this is the only way for them to live securely in the Middle East. They just don’t know that yet, and the hard line of Israel will wring everything they can from fear and violence at the ballot box. They have to be outfoxed politically by the Arab world, but not militarily, and the answer is in America. The race must begin for the soul of America.

Everything in this struggle is about persuasion, the persuasion of millions of people in the Middle East to take a chance on peace, but the most important constituency is in the United States. Most Jews and Arabs want a viable two state solution but their way of dealing with each other is presently out of control, especially these days from Israel’s side. But the real spoilers here are unwittingly the people of the United States. They have been conned, sold a ‘bill of goods’ as to what will keep Israel safe–force and violence. Shifting their opinions even slightly is what Obama, Mitchell and Clinton, need in order to finally be the honest brokers in this conflict. The more of the American public that is calling and visiting congressmen the bolder they can be. This is power. The Arab Peace Initiative should be plastered on every bus, in every journal, just as the environmental movement is doing now to finally create the necessary paradigm shift. Boycott and anti-apartheid paradigms are not the answer, media and congressional blitz is the answer, votes, contributions. This is how Washington works.

This is not undignified. This is not the Syrians or the Arab world proving that they are nice people. This is the way Washington changes, for better and for worse. The Obama election has proved the positive potential of this. The Chinese understand it, the Saudis understand it, the Indians understand it. Now it is time for there to be a clear Arab message in America that is not anti-Israel but pro-Palestinian, and pro-comprehensive peace.

This is the surest path to a prosperous Syria flooded by Western tourists, a Syria at peace, a Syria in a productive relationship with all its neighbors, including the new State of Palestine, a Syria in possession of the Golan, and under no more threats. The path to a new Syria lies in a psychological evolution of the American electorate, and there is no better time for such a change than right now.

_______________________________________
Marc Gopin is the James H. Laue Professor of Religion, Diplomacy and Conflict Resolution, and the Director of the Center on Religion, Diplomacy and Conflict Resolution at George Mason University’s Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution.

 

Dr. Marc Gopin

A report by Dr. Katrien Hertog:

Imams and Rabbis from the USA, Europe and the Middle East, joined by Christians and other religious experts, came together for the third time to move forward on the road to peace in the Middle East. The Congress, under the patronage of UNESCO in Paris, reflected some of the common opportunities and challenges related to religions’ engagement for peacebuilding but also clearly highlighted the distinct added value of a spiritual approach to peacebuilding.

To start with, there were some clearly differing views on the role of religious leaders in peacebuilding, a question which relates to the interrelationship between religion, mysticism and politics. Some clerics were clearly afraid of too much politics. As one rabbi expressed it: “We didn’t come to talk about politics, but about peace.” Others were emphasizing that religious leaders should be concerned with changing the reality on the ground. It was pointed out several times that the peacebuilding potential of religious leaders and communities should reach politicians and decisionmakers. The political and diplomatic world share an overall secular bias, partly because religion is by many considered to be complex and divisive. But, as one rabbi pointed out: “If you don’t want religion to be the problem, you should not ignore it, which is an invitation to extremists, but you should make it part of the solution.” The view was widespread that political leaders had failed to bring peace to the region, partly because they ignored the religious factor. Therefore it was suggested that the new administration in the USA should not just involve secular leaders of both societies but also religious and spiritual leaders in its approach to peace in the Middle East.

Religious leaders were also called upon to take up their responsibility and make their voice heard among the public opinion so that political leaders would be supported to make the compromises which are necessary for peace. As one rabbi formulated it, religion should be able to provide “the psychological and spiritual glue” to hold the peace process together. Therefore it is important that the Congress really manages to reach out to the masses of believers, a challenge which is typical for these kind of inter-religious conferences. For example, it was suggested that Imams and rabbis, being preachers and teachers, should speak in each sermon 5 minutes on peace. The challenge is not only to reach the masses, but also the violent extremists in one’s own religious group. In this regard the great importance of intra-religious dialogue was emphasized and the ability of religious leaders to overcome the pressures against speaking out.

Another obstacle related not just to religious peacebuilding but to peace initiatives in general and one which was mentioned throughout the meetings, is the lack of attention in the media, which focuses all too eagerly on religions’ contribution to violence. One rabbi ironically suggested to organise a little fight with some blood at the end of meaningful peace initiatives in order to attract the press.

The Congress of Imams and Rabbis was also challenged by the call to include the important contribution of women to peace in society. For predominantly male religious institutions this requires of course a significant shift in mentality and practical organisation.

But through the meetings and the issues discussed, there was another voice present, which I would call the voice of spiritual peacebuilding. It can be heard in some of the words that were spoken, it can be felt in the company of certain people and it can be seen in certain behaviour. For example, His Holiness Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, who was invited to give one of the keynote speeches, shared his vision of a one world family, an ancient idea that goes back thousands of years, in which we will all feel our connectedness and not just tolerate, but celebrate our differences. He advocates a shift in identities so that we identify ourselves in the first place as human beings in this bigger picture of creation, sharing the same universal human values, and only then with a certain nationality or religion, instead of the other way around which creates so much problems. A journey from the head to the heart has to happen. This journey has to reach every corner of the world, because as long as some fanatics remain, there will be no peace. Practically he proposes concrete training programs to manage stress, release frustrations and channel energy towards positive contributions to society.

A similar view was expressed by Abdoulaye Wade, president of Senegal and of the Islamic Conference, who broadened the vision of the religious leaders to the level of global citizenship and planetary consciousness. Putting forward a challenging vision for the future, he said that wars belong to prehistory and that we therefore have not yet begun history as such. He also emphasized the importance of in-depth peacebuilding, such as developing deep interpersonal relationships and kindling peace in the hearts of men, like it is reflected in the UNESCO definition which states that war starts in the minds of men and should therefore be prevented in the minds of men. Also Rosa Guerreiro, representative of UNESCO for Interreligious Dialogue, stressed the attention which is needed for inner reflection on one’s own mind and attitude and on the question what actually hinders one to approach the other. The need for introspection was also emphasized by one rabbi, who, however, also pointed out the difficulties for a traumatized people to be self-critical. Another Jewish representative believes this introspection is possible and said the true barriers are found in our own minds. “If we can destroy our own fears, we can easily destroy the cement wall”, he argued. For him, the peace process is clearly a spiritual process throughout and not just spiritual when it comes to the final pictures. One imam said that, peace coming from the heart, we actually have to take the responsibility to attain that inner peace.

These broader visions and deeper connections are the life-giving juice of this interreligious gathering for peace and of the work for transformation on a deeper level. If not for that, would an Orthodox rabbi discuss issues of the heart with his “enemy” imam from Iran till the early morning hours?

To conclude, one could say that the Congress of Imams and Rabbis has a great potential. Religion is challenged and placed in its responsible position for peace, in a way which is not reactive but pro-active. It is also significant that from now on also Christians and women will be included in the initiatives. The realization of religions’ potential for peace depends however to a large extent on their inner dynamics. One rabbi issued a very strong and clear call: “Let us work for peace, or let us move from this path so that we are not longer a hurdle on the path to peace. Let us repent that we have been an obstacle to peace, but let us commit that we will now pave the way.”

I wonder whether the most significant inner transformation of religions towards peace would not be a shift from religious peacebuilding to spiritual peacebuilding, where the latter is understood as engagement for peace which can be embedded in a religious tradition but is not confined to it and therefore more universal. Then religious leaders can reach out to the depths of the hearts and minds of all people, independent of whether they belong to another religion, no religion, or whether they adhere to a violent interpretation of one’s own religion. Would that not be the unique added value of religions for peacebuilding?

Rabbis and Imams for Peace

Ha’aretz obtained an official report of the Israeli government that reveals for the first time the full details of the Occupation’s illegality. Even major settlements that are not considered illegal outposts turn out to have significant sections that are built on stolen, private Palestinian lands, by the account of the Israeli military that authored the report. This means that tens of thousands of Israelis, many of them actually unaware, are living on private Palestinian lands all over the West Bank. The details will be vital to any future negotiations, should Israel even be capable at this point of reversing the damage that has been done. Many were fooled into believing that these lands were open, available, and public. Read the report and comment. The truth is very painful for everyone to face, but it is only by knowing the whole truth of the situation that third parties can be helpful in moving the conflict in a less violent direction.

The hard question is what is to be done? Does Israel have any stomach for forcibly removing the hard core of the settler movement? As the picture below attests, even minor removals have pit Jew against Jew in ways that this people have not experienced in two thousand years. Yet, if they do not confront the settlers then Israel will have no choice but to become more and more of a fascist state like Avigdor Lieberman , the most powerful up and coming Israeli Russian politician, is pushing for. Alternatively, the Israelis could give up on the two state solution and welcome Palestinians as equal citizens, in a new post-Zionist era, that sees Jewish attachment to the Land of Israel in a secular democratic state as more important than a Jewish-majority state. A third possibility is to welcome a Palestinian state on the occupied lands but to admit a failure to be able to remove its citizens, with the Palestinians offering citizenship or expulsion to the settlers if they refuse to become law abiding citizens. Then it becomes an internal Palestinian and Jewish problem after the state is declared independent, with hopefully enticing packages to the more violent settlers to leave the land.

None of the options will work as long as there is a continued relationship of hatred and animosity between Israel and Palestinians, between Israel and the whole Arab world. But all the options have some merit if there is a renewed effort to struggle over these issues with diplomacy and nonviolent resistance of the variety that Gandhi and King exemplified. We need a moral/political revolution in which the Arab world and the West surround Israel with a nonviolent and enticing vision of the future. Gandhi and King succeeded because their absolute commitment to the welfare of their enemies de-legitimated the spoilers on all sides. We need this badly in the present context, a missing ingredient that is critical to Mitchell’s success. I know that this is a hard pill to swallow given the slaughter of innocents in Gaza. But Gandhi and King had to face outrageous injustices as well, injustices that would go unpunished for the most part. But they both kept their eyes on the prize, which was a way to restore the dignity and the rights of millions of deserving people, but to do so in a way in which they would not lose their souls or create an eternal cycle of revenge. They both succeeded. Surely we need a more balanced American intervention, but we also need the kind of spiritual strength of resistance and love that will see this through to a better world. It is not fair but it is the only way, because just as surely as the majority of Israelis have to learn that killing Arab children is a dastardly crime that will not make their own children any safer, so too those who oppose Israel must see that they cannot be changed by violence.

Jewish settlers in Conflict with the Israeli Army

As usual, Josh Landis is brief, brilliant and right on target. The Obama White House should study every word. It is time for a diplomatic revolution if they want to save themselves a massive upheaval in the Middle East in the next few years. Listening to where the Arab world really is at is going to be the key to a successful American intervention in the region. The rage and shock that has spread across the Arab world could lead to a new regional confrontation with Israel. But if Obama coordinates a systematic engagement with all regional powers and players, including Syria and Turkey, in addition to a new kind of engagement and negotiation with outside powers such as Russia and China, we may see an emerging consensus on both what Israel must do, what Iran must do, and what Hamas must do, in order to step back from the precipice of a regional conflagration. This is in Palestinian long-term interest as well as Israel’s, whether or not the Israeli electorate or Hamas’ constituency feels that way at the present time. Sometimes people need to be brought to a new place, whether they want to go or not, and there is no judge who has not seen these kind of turning point in bitter divorce disputes. We are reaching such a turning point, and we need forceful, well-informed mediation, with the interests of the children front and center.

Professor Josh Landis

Senior Research Associate at the Center for World Religions, Diplomacy and Conflict Resolution and PhD Candidate at ICAR Nemat Nojumi just published this important article on Afghanistan and American policy:

During the campaign, President Barack Obama called the loss of focus in Afghanistan a “grave mistake” and promised that he would refocus from day one of his presidency. The powerful re-emergence of the Taliban and al-Qaida, with cross border capabilities in Afghanistan and Pakistan, after their rout in 2001 turns what Obama has promised into an urgent requirement.

More than $10 billion in U.S. counterterrorism aid to Pakistan has been doled out for expensive weapons at the Indian front, while parts of Pakistan have instead turned into terrorist safe havens for staging insurgent operations in Afghanistan. Islamist militants and al-Qaida marching across borders make the region a global threat.

Before becoming president, Obama astutely took the first step in refocusing on the war in Afghanistan by visiting that country in July. He found the deteriorating security situation very real, and what he heard and saw from Afghan leaders and the U.S. commanders were consistent with the problems that he promised to address. Very soon Obama, his secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, his national security adviser, James Jones, and his secretary of defense, Robert Gates, should craft a comprehensive, cogent strategy and implement it without delay.

The immediate objective is to shift attention from a country-specific approach to one that provides and demands a comprehensive regional view in the first four months of the new administration. To that end, the new administration must work with its partners in the region and construct a new security architecture that can cross borders even as al-Qaeda and the Taliban do. I propose three distinct yet inextricably linked lines of engagement.

First, U.S. policy on Pakistan must demand the accountability of its leaders, and future aid must be tied to truly destroying insurgent networks. Second, the U.S. and the coalition must accelerate the creation of effective governmental institutions within Afghanistan and ensure that they provide service to the people of Afghanistan. Third, the U.S. must effectively engage diplomatically with China and Russia to ensure that these countries will support this comprehensive strategy.

Obama needs to capitalize on his momentum to introduce his vision of a wide-ranging strategy for Afghanistan. Most important within such a strategy is addressing the conflict outside Afghanistan between Pakistan and India.

The Kashmir conflict has led Pakistan to view the Islamists and militants who are involved in the Taliban and support al-Qaeda as tools of foreign policy. The U.S. must induce Pakistan to eliminate reliance on such criminal tools. The U.S. should redirect its assistance toward the survival of Pakistan’s elected civilian government and its law enforcement institutions so that the region can see a sincere effort to destroy insurgent elements through rule of law. The U.S. secretary of defense, with his sterling credentials in the region, must persuade the Pakistani military generals to abandon their traditional anti-Indian stand.

Americans and coalition partners’ blood and treasure have already laid the foundation of a top-down system of checks and balances in Afghanistan. Simultaneously, the World Bank sponsored the National Solidarity Program and crafted a nationwide, village-based, bottom-up development concept. The NSP had already reached 17 million of 33 million Afghans in 34 provinces of the country by engaging 22,000 communities in planning and implementing micro-development projects such as roads, irrigation projects, schools, and public bathhouses. It should be expanded. Additionally, key state institutions must be developed. These improvements will allow the U.S. and coalition militaries to provide the space Afghans need within a new regional security arrangement that will subsequently bring to justice the perpetrators of Sept. 11.

Neamat Nojumi, a Department of Defense adviser and lead author of “After the Taliban: Life and Security in Rural Afghanistan” (2008), fought in the Afghan resistance during the Afghan-Soviet war in the 1980s.

Neamat Nojumi