MarcGopin.com

kharroubi at Sharif University

It is  very important that we blog about the Iranian elections and expose to the world the Iranian choices. Read here on Karroubi’s platform to open up the universities. There are conflicting polls on who is ahead, with state polls putting Ahmedinijad ahead, obviously. Ahmadinijad controls all the public television stations, which is what the vast majority of the country has access to. But the youth are with the reform candidates so they are trying to utilize every social media possible to reach the voters anyway. Therefore, Ahmadinijad is blocking Facebook as much as he can. Karroubi, like Obama, is focused on the internet, the youth, the disenfranchised. This is an unfair fight for the future of the people of Iran, and I believe it is the deciding factor for the future of peace and war in the Middle East. Candidate Moussavi is saying more what Westerners want to hear, and he is favored to win or face off the President according to some polls. But democratic elections are not and should not be about what Westerners want to hear, it is about human needs, and which candidate do they believe will fulfill those needs. Unfortunately, whether the candidate espouses violence against others is less important to most people than their basic needs. But democratic elections that lead to peaceful international relations must be about candidates that most successfully appeal to basic human needs, and the future of a country, while simultaneously refraining from building those promises on the basis of hatred of foreigners. The current president has chosen this latter path, and we should study carefully these reformist candidates and support whoever can provide the most democracy and economic rights together with a nonviolent approach to diplomacy and international relations.  Karroubi is embracing much more basic human needs, economic justice, and basic freedoms, and he is rising fast. This intimates a much more enlightened foreign polcy, even though he is wisely not making that the center of his campaing.

But this is not an even fight with the State doing everything it can to suppress the reform candidates. They all support the development of nuclear technology–but that has never been the problem. It is not the technology, it is the intent of its use, and it is clear that Moussavi and especially Karroubi are trying to steer the country in a completely opposite direction than the demagogue who runs it now.  So please learn more and spread more about these candidates.

Mahdi Karroubi

Excellent article by Joseph Nye, godfather of ‘soft power’,  on a re-assessment of democracy promotion with a gentle critique of the Obama Administration.  Well argued, and what most people in non-democracies would like to hear.

Oil grown by Jews, Druze, Arabs and Bedouin together

Shlomo is right, that the only tangible successes in Palestine in recent years have been the local, mayor-based projects of safety and security. He also knows well that without the political, endgame progress, that these local successes are just ways to make the Palestinian open-air prison of the West Bank into a nicer showcase of Bantustans. It can only be the prelude to nation building if President Obama rhetorically crushes the last vestiges of neoconservative tactics, this time in Jerusalem, that insists on driving Palestinians out of any place to live in their ancient city. This cannot continue, because it must be a home for two peoples.

The “bottom” that Shlomo points to, security and infrastructure projects, are not ‘bottom’ enough for me. The real ‘bottom’ of peacebuilding is the heart of these two peoples, the searing rage, anger, humiliation, fear and paranoia that must be responded to by effective on the ground changes. The overriding need is to push for policy changes regarding the IDF and its behavior. But this may not come any time soon. At the very least we need aggressive people to people work in which the United States insists that the parties allow progressives on both sides to freely, without being shot or threatened, plant uprooted trees together, build housing together, oppose nonviolently the location of the horrific wall, and many other activities of innumerable good groups and people of good will on both sides. Shlomo, tell the leaders, who you used to serve with, to get out of our way, so we can build the heart as well as the body and the head of a new reality.

Tomb of Cyrus II of Persia

(Originally published at Sh’ma: A Journal of Jewish Responsibility, in a very good issue dedicated to Iran. It will give you a good overview of thinking in the American Jewish community right now on the slowly moving crisis with Iran)

Over the past 25 years I’ve developed relationships across the Middle East; in Syria, specifically, over the past five years. While I traveled as a peacemaker, to be cautious I would emphasize my role as a professor and only reveal my role as a rabbi when it felt safe. I never experienced any negative comments because I am a rabbi; rather I heard from some a longing to meet with old Jewish friends. Experiences with Syrians have given me confidence that similar inroads can be made in Iran. What Iran shares with Syria, most importantly, is a historical tradition of religious pluralism and progressive religious thinking. There is still severe prejudice against Baha’is and overt secularists, but Iran does have a historical tradition of interfaith tolerance. This may shock readers who look at Iran through the lens of Ayatollah Khomeini’s seizure of power in 1979. But that oversimplifies Iran – its problems, its dangers, and also its potential promise for the region and the world.

As I read Abdolkarim Soroush, a great contemporary religious philosopher, I find an Iranian who is pioneering an understanding of how Orthodox religion could (and must) coexist with a secular state. Now, he is on the far left and quite suspect by the government, but his writings suggest that this is a country rich in religious thought, art, poetry, mysticism, and higher learning; once the radical revolution of 1979 runs its course, Iran may become a beacon of modern Islamic civilization.

This does not mean that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and the president of the country are not problematic. And because the country is staking its defense and even national pride on the development of nuclear power and a nuclear bomb, it’s all the more reason to aggressively engage Iran now. If the U.S. were to engage Iran in serious, “grand bargain” negotiations to culminate in embassies, full recognition, and an end to all covert efforts to overthrow the government, Iran would likely join the table. This is exactly what happened with Libya and also with the former Soviet Union. It did not turn these countries into allies, but these gestures avoided the destructive course of war and saved countless lives.

President Barack Obama delivered a brilliant three-minute New Year’s greeting to the Iranian people and to the Islamic Republic of Iran. He has wisely acknowledged the state’s existence as a way to befriend the population and to perhaps encourage the elections in the direction of reform. Timing is everything in politics and conflict management. The Reformists were in power before, but not at a time when the U.S. was ready to acknowledge past mistakes and to bargain honestly about a new Iranian-American relationship.

Iran must deliver, as part of a “grand bargain” with the West, a serious commitment to move its clients globally in the direction of defense rather than offense, statecraft rather than militancy, participation rather than subversion. Its clients and allies, for example, must refrain from calling for the destruction of whole countries, and focus instead on the substance of their conflicts and policy differences with adversaries. Iran must distance itself and its clients from the language of total war and the covert terrorism that accompanies such language.

The Iranian people are among the most pro-American Muslims in the Middle East, and their government is the most democratic to a degree. But, until now the U.S. has mistakenly aligned itself only with Saudi Arabia, the least democratic. No one needs to abandon the Saudis, but neither does one need be held hostage to centuries of rivalry, hostility, and Wahabi prejudice toward Persians and Shi`ites. The Saudis have legitimate fears of Iranian uses of Shi`ite populations in the Gulf to destabilize regimes, but all factions of the Saudi family must acknowledge and accept the permanent presence of alternative forms of Islamic power and culture in the region and the world. The King of Saudi Arabia has moved in this direction, and with a decisive Western intention to weave together rather than drive a wedge between Sunni and Shi`ite, we may see a new beginning in the Middle East.

No matter how balanced a relationship the U.S. maintains with the Northern and Southern Belts of the Middle East, or with Shi`ites and Sunnis, Israel will not be accepted in the Middle East until it embraces the Palestinian people as equals, as peace partners. Both Iran and Syria could help by discontinuing to prop up Palestinian rejectionist elements. An effective peace process is completely interrelated.

All of this is possible; leaders across the Middle East and the U.S. are seeking a new relationship. We are living in an unprecedented historical moment of openness of both the Syrian and Saudi leadership to the possibility of normalizing relations with Israel. Serious plans have been offered but not responded to. The next crucial step is to elicit peaceful overtures from Iran toward a new Israeli-Palestinian peace process. The Jewish community must do everything in their power, for the sake of their fellow Jews in Israel and Iran, to invite all parties to a table of peace. They must embrace all possibilities of peace at this rare moment of enlightened American leadership.

I spent almost an hour on the phone with this excellent reporter, Manya A. Brachear, who wrote the Los Angeles Times story. The more I studied the pictures the more horrified I became that this man was running the United States military, and that our country was actually engaged in a Christian crusade in the eyes of so many of its soldiers. I am so glad the reporter gathered the responses of the Christian community and I do hope that, as I said in the article, there is a bipartisan Christian effort to put this dark period behind us in the United States.

Here is an excerpt:

One passage plucked from the New Testament’s Epistle to the Ephesians instructs believers to “put on the full armor of God.”

An excerpt from the Old Testament’s Isaiah directs them to “open the gates that the righteous nation may enter.”

As American troops fought in Iraq in 2003, these biblical verses and others reportedly prefaced intelligence reports approved by then-Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld.

Disclosed last week on the website of GQ magazine, the hawkish use of scripture has prompted many faithful to ask whether Americans lost their lives in Iraq defending democracy or fighting a religious crusade.

Read more here.

One picture has the gate of swords below from Iraq with American soldiers marching triumphantly through, accompanied by a quote from Isaiah 26: Open the gates that the righteous nation may enter, the nation that keeps faith.

One final note. It amazes me, in light of this evidence,  that there is a single Jew, Muslim, or non-fundamentalist Christian left in this country that feels safe voting Republican ever again. The Republican Party needs a major overhaul, and it needs to put the Bill of Rights and Constitution back at the front and center of its political ethos, and then we should be happy to argue about abortions, and guns, foreign policy, and taxes. Until the Bill of Rights is back at the center nothing is safe.

Soldiers kneeling in prayer accompanied by triumphant Biblical quotes also appeared in the top secret document

Abu Ghraib Prisoners

This is a must read for those who want to follow the steadily unfolding truths behind Cheney’s commitment to torture and violence. That it comes from a commtted fellow Republican in a very senior position makes it even more credible. Read the whole article by Laurence Wilkerson here. The essential lie that Cheney keeps telling is that President Obama is endangering the country by not following Cheney’s commitment to torture. Below are excerpts:

First, more Americans were killed by terrorists on Cheney’s watch than on any other leader’s watch in US history. So his constant claim that no Americans were killed in the “seven and a half years” after 9/11 of his vice presidency takes on a new texture when one considers that fact. And it is a fact.

There was absolutely no policy priority attributed to al-Qa’ida by the Cheney-Bush administration in the months before 9/11. Counterterrorism czar Dick Clarke’s position was downgraded, al-Qa’ida was put in the background so as to emphasize Iraq, and the policy priorities were lowering taxes, abrogating the ABM Treaty and building ballistic missile defenses.

Second, the fact no attack has occurred on U.S. soil since 9/11–much touted by Cheney–is due almost entirely to the nation’s having deployed over 200,000 U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and not to “the Cheney method of interrogation.”

Those troops have kept al-Qa’ida at bay, killed many of them, and certainly “fixed” them, as we say in military jargon. Plus, sadly enough, those 200,000 troops present a far more lucrative and close proximity target for al-Qa’ida than the United States homeland. Testimony to that fact is clear: almost 5,000 American troops have died, more Americans than died on 9/11. Of course, they are the type of Americans for whom Cheney hasn’t much use as he declared rather dramatically when he achieved no less than five draft deferments during the Vietnam War.

Third–and here comes the blistering fact–when Cheney claims that if President Obama stops “the Cheney method of interrogation and torture”, the nation will be in danger, he is perverting the facts once again. But in a very ironic way.

My investigations have revealed to me–vividly and clearly–that once the Abu Ghraib photographs were made public in the Spring of 2004, the CIA, its contractors, and everyone else involved in administering “the Cheney methods of interrogation”, simply shut down. Nada. Nothing. No torture or harsh techniques were employed by any U.S. interrogator. Period. People were too frightened by what might happen to them if they continued.

What I am saying is that no torture or harsh interrogation techniques were employed by any U.S. interrogator for the entire second term of Cheney-Bush, 2005-2009. So, if we are to believe the protestations of Dick Cheney, that Obama’s having shut down the “Cheney interrogation methods” will endanger the nation, what are we to say to Dick Cheney for having endangered the nation for the last four years of his vice presidency?

Likewise, what I have learned is that as the administration authorized harsh interrogation in April and May of 2002–well before the Justice Department had rendered any legal opinion–its principal priority for intelligence was not aimed at pre-empting another terrorist attack on the U.S. but discovering a smoking gun linking Iraq and al-Qa’ida.

So furious was this effort that on one particular detainee, even when the interrogation team had reported to Cheney’s office that their detainee “was compliant” (meaning the team recommended no more torture), the VP’s office ordered them to continue the enhanced methods. The detainee had not revealed any al-Qa’ida-Baghdad contacts yet. This ceased only after Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, under waterboarding in Egypt, “revealed” such contacts. Of course later we learned that al-Libi revealed these contacts only to get the torture to stop.

It is so important, in the wake of these astonishing realities, that Americans of both parties try to find a bipartisan way to cleanse the office of the presidency from the war crime stains that have cast a pall over our country. I don’t know whether ultimately President Obama will allow investigations to proceed or not, but I do know that the world needs from us a bipartisan commitment to a different future, replete with apologies, repentance, regret. I touched the arm of a man tortured in Abu Ghraib, as those of you who know me are well aware of. I apologized to him in Syria in front of three thousand Muslim worshippers and cameras, as I will recount in my forthcoming book. But it is the American people that must touch the hands of these thousands of young men who were tortured, and who we now know were mostly swept off the streets with absolutely not a shred of evidence against them, but under pressure to meet quotas for interrogation. We must do this as a people in order to cleanse our government and our way of life, amd in order to set an example for other countries with violent pasts.

President Obama and Senator Mitchell

I was concerned by a recent description in the New York Times of the inner workings of Fatah, and the questions facing the United States and Israel. The author writes as if he accepts everything that Israeli leaders tell him at face value.  Speaking about the question of a Fatah meeting in order to reform the movement and thus present a better challenge to Hamas at the polls, he writes:

For Israel and the United States, the problem is equally vexing. They have an interest in helping the nationalists to reform and hold their congress. But they also have to decide how much to help the new leaders, some of whom may end up becoming opponents if the peace negotiating process fails.

Oh really? Endless interviews with Fatah activists over the years come back to one theme: the leadership of Israel, in order to hold onto Judea and Samaria for as long as possible, and to delay as long as possible a viable Palestinian national movement, has systematically empowered the Hamas leadership to rise, even as moderates and honest and noble people  in Fatah were imprisoned, hunted like Rajoub, hounded like Nusseibeh and Husseini, exiled like Awad, or assassinated like Abu Jihad. This has been the tried and true methodology of no peace, no war, divide and conquer. Now we have a highly divided Fatah, where the corrupt have been allowed and encouraged to flourish, extremists discredit it, and moderates who are honest have been sidelined. This is perfect if you want a war in perpetuity in order to hold on to Judea and Samaria by force, at all costs.

Mr. President I agree with your compassionate approach to all parties to a conflict, and an appreciation of their legitimate needs. Perfect. But don’t believe anything that you hear or read without seeing the facts for yourself, and having George Mitchell continue to interview as wide a spectrum of parties as possible, as he has been doing. Judge the situation by the facts on the ground, and the behavior of all parties, that is all that matters. And beware of manipulations.

The same is true in Afghanistan. I was disturbed also by the timing of your troop surge. I understand your method, and your pressure on the Taliban. But just because the generals say that they can do this or that with increased “pain” does not mean that this is what should occur right now. Send the troops, but do not permit the infliction of pain without making sure you know and understand the latest options on the ground. Things are changing rapidly and opportunities are arising as remarkable fissures occur inside the Taliban–in part due to your revolutionary overtures. Not only are there more parties coming forward for indirect peace talks, there are Taliban who are serious about a new philosophy entirely but are being attacked by the Americans and the Taliban leadership at the same time, as I alluded to in an earlier post. Give this a chance to evolve, at least in Afghanistan. The generals will give you a plan for killing, or at best winning through killing.

In both countries the biggest problem is that the liberal secularism of the United States is associated with corruption and injustice, both in Palestine and in Afghanistan, and that is what emboldens the extremists. We must not impose artificial elections anywhere, but we must stand with the parties that stand for less corruption and more justice, or we must abandon them.

Your job is to win over, not to win, to negotiate a new path for Afghanistan, and that means keeping an ear close to the ground in all hot zones, like Afghanistan–and Palestine/Israel. This way your will continue to inspire a global shift away from violence, which I believe is your destiny.

More interesting information emerging about the New York terrorism case that reconfirms the concerns I raised.

Colm O'Gorman speaks out in the name of Irish abuse victims

The revelations about massive abuse over decades at Catholic religious schools in Ireland continues to call attention to the Church’s need for massive reform of its approach to children and their protection. But this is not a uniquely Catholic problem, and it goes deeper than that in terms of our whole approach to political and military conflicts facing humanity. Too often as we confront the conflicts facing humanity we look for political, economic, security, ethnic and religious roots of conflict. But in one study examining a thousand children who suffered child abuse, over half of those who were followed through to the age of thirty two were arrested for one crime or another. For those who have been victimized or who have witnessed it, just leading a normal life can become a challenge every day, to keep your head straight, to keep yourself from exploding, to keep yourself from being self-destructive in some fit of wishing to finish the destruction wrought in youth. We have to nurture and love such people, even when they act out in crazy ways.

But we also must ask ourselves what may be the underlying roots of cycles of violence that get perpetuated by angry young men in every conflict involving gangs and ethnic groups globally. How many have been abused? If we embrace all of the children at risk among us might it not have a direct effect on our military and international conflicts, let alone domestic crime rates? How to do this one larger conflicts are underway is hard, but it certainly suggests that early war intervention and prevention should include an aggressive international effort to care for and protect children.

This is wonderful news. Michel is a proud Syrian patriot and a pioneer of nonviolent approaches to change in the Middle East. He deserves all the honors that can be bestowed on him for his courageous stances and his reputation as a man of great integrity and generosity. All he did was have the foresight to describe where Syria is going anyway in the age of Obama. I understand the nervousness of the regime in the age of Cheney and Rumsfeld, but our nonviolent citizens are the greatest assets of every civilization, not a danger. This is the lesson of reform that needs to come to every society in the Middle East, including the so-called democracies.

Syrian writer and pro-democracy campaigner Michel Kilo has been released from prison after serving a three-year sentence…While he was in prison, Syria established diplomatic relations with Lebanon and exchanged ambassadors….He said he was in good health and had been treated well in prison, but needed time to recuperate, adding that he would continue his political activism.

The 69-year-old was among seven opposition figures jailed for signing the Beirut-Damascus Declaration, which called for normalising Lebanese-Syrian relations after decades of domination by Syria of its smaller neighbour Lebanon. Read more.

Michel Kilo, Syrian Patriot