MarcGopin.com

©Aziz Abu Sarah and Marc Gopin

Two years ago, Aziz joined a panel of Palestinians speaking to Jewish rabbinical students about the Palestinian point of view. Among the speakers was a Palestinian-American businessman who moved to the West Bank after Oslo, hoping to invest in a developing area. He shared his experience working with the Palestinian telecommunications company Jawal, and his job with the new Al-Wataniyah Company that was to compete with Jawal in the mobile market.

Just recently Al-Wataniyah sent a letter to the Palestinian Authority, asking the government to pay back the company’s registration fees plus 200 million dollars in investment damages. The company is demanding these remunerations because Israel has not given them the airwaves to start the company, even though in 2007 the Israeli government agreed to allow the company to operate after long negotiations and the interference of former British Prime Minister Blair, the World Bank, and American officials.

The cost of this failure is hundreds of millions of dollars and over 3000 potential jobs in the West Bank. This is a lost opportunity for Palestinians, but it is just one example of the Palestinian Authority’s lack of control over its own air waves, water and other national resources. All projects must be approved by the Israeli Administration, which makes it look as though the Palestinian government is operating as an arm of the Israeli occupation. This lowers the credibility of the PA in the eyes of the Palestinian public.

After Mr. Netanyahu won the elections in February, he promised to work to improve the Palestinian economy. However, so far there are no indications that there will be any changes in Israel’s policy in the near future. This is crippling to the PA, as economic development is a critical aspect of national stability and is intertwined with the success of a viable Palestinian state. The lack of growth in the Palestinian private sector is quickly crushing Palestinians’ hope for the future. As a whole, this damages the PA’s effectiveness, since the Palestinian government will never be able to enforce the rule of law if there is no prospect of prosperity for its citizens.

These economic policies and the continuation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are mutually detrimental to both the Israeli and Palestinian communities, and are creating a perfect nest for future extremists. Unemployment in the Palestinian Territories is increasing and is often over 30%; the poverty rate is at 68%, according to the UNDP. Educated and successful Palestinians often find themselves forced to leave the Palestinian territories, leaving behind poorer and more frustrated communities.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict also stunts economic growth in Israel’s industries. Consider that Egypt had 12.8 million tourists last year, while Israel had only 3 million tourists. This is only one of many examples. In addition, Many investors are still hesitant to invest in Israel because of the political instability in the region.

Although economic hardship threatens to exacerbate the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, economics can also speed the end of the conflict. Business cooperation on an equal and empowering basis, that focuses on businesses, such as tourism, that employ thousands of people, not just enriching a few, can be a catalyst for further collaboration between Israelis and Palestinians.

We propose to the Obama Administration that, in addition to pressuring the sides for rapid progress at the political level, they also strong encourage, even insist upon popular, people to people, business initiatives between the two sides. A synergy will be created that will naturally create grassroots pressure from private businesses in support of peace. Also, once a peace agreement is reached, economics will continue to play a large role in maintaining peace. Any peace agreement between Israeli Jews and Palestinians must maximize equal business cooperation between the two sides, and should not bring a total divorce between the two communities. We have witnessed business partnerships become the key to new friendships at a profound cultural level, in addition to creating prosperity for everyone.

An Israeli friend of Aziz used to be strongly right wing, and they often disagreed on politics. However one thing he always said, “If there is peace we will be eating with golden spoons as a sign of our prosperity.” The reality is business opportunities and financial growth speaks to everyone and presents an appealing future even to those currently opposing the peace process.

I continue to be haunted, almost fixated on President Obama’s simple words about the joke around the White House.  It is in my opinion, a stunning formula for presidentially-led social change. After four decades of watching American presidents, supposedly the most powerful agents of change in the Arab/Israeli conflict, fail to make any change. Now Obama is coming along at a good time for change, in that so much of the world knows that Israel must change, including most American Jews, finally, finally. But he could be still failing miserably at this. No, it really is his genius. The fact is the most passionate president on peace and justice for Palestinians is Jimmy Carter, but he is not believed at all by most Jews or trusted. Why? Because he has a nasty habit of saying in public things that are so overly optimistic about seasoned enemies and militant groups with blood on their hands  that he loses frightened Jews on the question of truth and trust. (Every administration and every regime in the Middle East loses the trust of the Palestinian people, but that is another subject. Here I am dealing with American power systems and shifting them.) In other words, when people are frightened about their future, they will not change anything unless they have to. But presidents have enormous psychological power to make people change, but only if they can trust or feel that the president is telling them absolute and simple truths. Bush and Cheney did that, but they told lies, about weapons of mass destruction, about enemies, about torture. So they were believed but then not believed and shunned by many. Mr. Carter says too many nice things about Hamas and Hezbollah. He should just say simple truths. And that is what President Obama has hit upon on as he navigates the rocky shores of Middle East peace that have sunk a thousand political ships. There are many unscrupulous ultra-nationalists that will try everything in the coming months to make Obama and Mitchell crash on those shores, but they will fail. Here are the President’s simple and stunning words, delivered without anger or disquiet but with confidence. All the most brilliant shifts in history appear to be simple and obvious once they are absorbed, but they are not simple or obvious. We may be witnessing an entirely new model of presidential leadership.

“We have a joke around the White House,” the president said. “We’re just going to keep on telling the truth until it stops working — and nowhere is truth-telling more important than the Middle East.”

A key part of his message, he said, will be: “Stop saying one thing behind closed doors and saying something else publicly.” He then explained: “There are a lot of Arab countries more concerned about Iran developing a nuclear weapon than the ‘threat’ from Israel, but won’t admit it.” There are a lot of Israelis, “who recognize that their current path is unsustainable, and they need to make some tough choices on settlements to achieve a two-state solution — that is in their long-term interest — but not enough folks are willing to recognize that publicly.”

There are a lot of Palestinians who “recognize that the constant incitement and negative rhetoric with respect to Israel” has not delivered a single “benefit to their people and had they taken a more constructive approach and sought the moral high ground” they would be much better off today — but they won’t say it aloud.

“There are a lot of Arab states that have not been particularly helpful to the Palestinian cause beyond a bunch of demagoguery,” and when it comes to “ponying up” money to actually help the Palestinian people, they are “not forthcoming.”

When it comes to dealing with the Middle East, the president noted, “there is a Kabuki dance going on constantly. That is what I would like to see broken down. I am going to be holding up a mirror and saying: ‘Here is the situation, and the U.S. is prepared to work with all of you to deal with these problems. But we can’t impose a solution. You are all going to have to make some tough decisions.’ Leaders have to lead, and, hopefully, they will get supported by their people.”

By Kobi Skolnick
In the last few weeks, there have been many developments in the Middle East conflict. People around the world have been following the speeches of President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu, as well as Hosni Mubarak’s essay in the Wall Street Journal. This high-level discussion signals a shift in policy and progress toward peace. However, some skeptics wonder if this is just another phase in a cycle of false hope. After all, it is not difficult to imagine another suicide bombing in one of Israel’s cities, or an ill-timed Israeli Defense Force operation in the Palestinian Territories, both of which would immediately make peace look like a mere fantasy.

This danger has always existed in peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians. Even when top leaders sign treaties, on the ground there remains a deep enmity between Israelis, Palestinians, and the Arab world. With this in mind, it should be clear that the situation on the ground must change in order to transform the conflict, and pressure must come from the people as well as from leaders. Yet, for years there has been a vast disinterest in supporting peace-building efforts on the grassroots level.

Changing the reality on the ground is not an easy task. As a former Israeli settler, I have spent many years working with grassroots peace initiatives, and at times I have found the obstacles overwhelming. Between Israelis and Palestinians is a dynamic of extreme stereotyping and skewed perspectives. For many Israelis, a Palestinian is seen as someone who would kill them if he had the chance. For Palestinians, a Jewish-Israeli is either a settler with a gun or a soldier at a checkpoint. This fear and paranoia have created a vicious cycle of self-fulfilling prophecies and violence, and in the last six years the two communities have become increasingly radicalized. On both sides, a new generation of young people is being raised up to espouse the belief that killing is the only way to solve differences.

I understand these feelings of passion and hate. Growing up, I experienced violent trauma when a group of students were killed near me, and this trauma left me with overwhelming hatred and the awful desire to take revenge. This desire was directed against an enemy that had no face and no name. When I imagined the Palestinians I would kill, I imagined only cruel expressions and fiery eyes filled with hate toward me and my family. Now I realize that this image was closer to that of an animal than to a human being.

Interestingly enough, it was not speeches that gave me a new perspective. Although great speeches are important, it requires planning to create the mechanisms by which Israelis and Palestinians can meet and work together. For me, I only changed my perspective when I realized that Israelis and Palestinians could relate as humans, regardless of our divergent narratives. This realization came when I met with Palestinians in a safe setting, where I could share my pain and ask the questions I had always wanted to ask. Even in my work, I have found these meetings are the single-most effective tool for neutralizing radicalization. People need a place to express the trauma of loss and grief, in a forum where they can share the injustices they have suffered. Through this process, old perceptions erode and it becomes possible to see the human on the other side.

Because I have been involved in many projects like this, I have learned how to break down the image of Palestinians as a homogeneous enemy entity. I am aware that there are Palestinians who still want to kill me just because I am Jewish-Israeli, but I also know there are many more with whom I can share my thoughts, ideas, and dreams. Today I have many dear Palestinian friends who I feel delighted to share moments in life with, and for me this makes the prospect for peace more palpable.

As the Israelis and Palestinians seem poised on the edge of entering peace talks yet again, I find myself fearful that the talks will end as they have before, with a major violence incident reinforcing false assumptions, and with extremist factions celebrating the continued bloodshed. We cannot let that happen. Our generation can choose to change our ways and in turn change our future. We need to go beyond government negotiation and political tradition, and increase our support for people-to-people efforts on the grassroots level.

In response to current events, people sometimes ask me “Is peace really possible?” The unspoken question is “Is peace practical? Isn’t it just chasing after the wind?” Although years ago I might have answered differently, today I can truly say yes, peace is possible. It is not magic, and it is not an empty fantasy. When people meet with each other and break down preconceptions, peace becomes as palpable and real as any stone or wall, and just as lasting.

Aziz Abu Sarah, leading Palestinian peacemaker

Marc, Aziz , and Scott will be speaking Tuesday night in Boston. See the details below. Please come, or send others who you know in New England!
“Positive Change: Peace Steps that Can Make a Difference in the Middle East”

Come Tuesday night and get first hand inside information on the situation both in Syria and Palestine from two leading experts on the practice of citizen diplomacy and peacebuilding in the region. The Center for World Religions, Diplomacy and Conflict Resolution, GMU, is engaged in vital work from Damascus to Jerusalem, but we need you to participate in developing a social network for positive change domestically and globally. The speakers: Aziz Abu Sarah, CRDC’s new director of Middle East Projects and a native of Jerusalem and Hebron, is one of the most important pioneers of nonviolent resistance and peacebuilding in Palestine who has received warm responses from hundreds of Jewish audiences, and Dr. Marc Gopin has just published To Make the Earth Whole: The Art of Citizen Diplomacy in An Age of Religious Militancy, http://www.marcgopin.com/?page_id=2027 , that will give you an exclusive look into five years of work inside Syria, Washington, and Jerusalem. CRDC’s Managing Director Scott Cooper will be on hand to introduce you to how you can participate in CRDC’s work of developing a social network of positive cultural peacebuilding in and between the countries of the region and the United States, especially through training, curricular development, virtual social network building, and the encouragement of peace partners and citizen diplomats.

Where: Temple Beth Zion, 1566 Beacon Street, Brookline, MA 02446

When: 7pm, Tuesday June 30

Information: Scott, 5712360380

This piece is worth reading and debating. I don’t agree with many of its assumptions about blame and the causal chain of connections, but I do think that jumping to final status on land swaps may be a way out of the current impasses. The problem I have is where they will get the rest of the land inside Israel for the swap, and will it play into Lieberman’s anti-democratic plans to give away the Arabs in Israel’s triangle area in order to disempower an Arab voice in Israel. It is very important that every affected community have a stake in these negotiations, and Israel’s domestic relations with the Arab community of Israel is going in the opposite direction right now of disenfranchisement of Israel’s Arab citizens. I think David’s focus on land is a good idea because it could do an end run around all ideological opponents of a two state solution, and would be a powerful step. But it should not be a the expense of Palestinian Israelis, and Jerusalem has to be shared as a part of the assumptions about percentages.

Mideast Peace Can Start with a Land Swap
David Makovsky

The White House publicly welcomed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech yesterday giving qualified support to a two-state solution with the Palestinians. Nonetheless, there remains a gap between Mr. Netanyahu and the Obama administration over the expansion of settlements. Fortunately, there is a way to bridge that gap.

The issue of settlements highlights broad philosophical differences about how to approach Arab-Israeli peace. Neoconservatives such as Norman Podhoretz have favored a hands-off approach. In contrast, foreign-policy “realists,” including Zbigniew Brzezinski and Brent Scowcroft, favor imposing a peace plan.

The problem with the neoconservative approach is that it assumes the status quo can be sustained. The problem with the realist approach is that it assumes the status quo can be instantly transformed. Neither approach can be applied to a complex reality on the ground.

It is foolish to believe that Israel can continue to build settlements for decades without considering the impact that has on the lives of the Palestinians. It is also implausible that successive Israeli governments will view the settler population as mere bargaining chips in a final peace agreement. One cannot disregard the needs of either the Palestinians or of the Israelis.

Israel has been unable to freeze settlement construction since the enterprise began in 1968, and it is hard to see how it could do so now. How would the government justify the new policy to its voters?

The only way to deal with the settlement issue is to render it moot by widening it to peacemaking and heading straight into the final negotiations on territory.

Those negotiations are hung up on four issues: the rights of refugees, control of Jerusalem, security and settlements. The first two are impossible to solve when neither side has much trust in the other. The third has become more complex since Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip in 2005 and was subsequently barraged with over 3,000 rockets. Ironically, then, the issue with the narrowest gap between Israelis and Palestinians is land.

Last year, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas discussed the possibility of a land swap between the Palestinian territories and Israel. Mr. Olmert suggested retaining 6.5% of the West Bank in return for equivalent land inside Israel. Mr. Abbas thought the figure should be approximately 2%. The difference is bridgeable. For example, three quarters of all Israeli settlers live in less than 4.5% of the West Bank, largely adjacent to the pre-1967 boundaries. This land could be swapped for an equal amount of land inside Israel. There are three distinct advantages to focusing the negotiations on territory now. First, it allows the Palestinian Authority to tell its people that it has obtained the equivalent of 100% of the land to be part of a contiguous Palestinian state. As such, negotiations and not Hamas terrorism will be vindicated. Second, Israelis will have something to gain and not just give. Until now, no Israeli leader has succeeded in legally annexing a single settler, let alone a large majority of them. So give a large majority of the settlers who live in the major blocs a stake in being part of the solution rather than part of the problem. They would have their legal status normalized as part of Israel. Settlements and security would be decoupled. The Israeli army would not leave until the Palestinian security services demonstrated an ability to root out terror. Finally, after many decades, the settlements issue would no longer be a thorn in U.S.-Israel relations.

This approach alone will not guarantee successful resolution of the Jerusalem and refugee issues. Yet after success on land they will have to be addressed. Over time, Israel will need to make concessions in Jerusalem, and the Palestinians will need to concede that refugees can only return to the Palestinian state and not to Israel.

Stalemate is never a durable strategy, but a proactive approach could shatter old myths and create a better and more permanent reality for both sides.

The tumultuous events of recent days have further confirmed just how destructive militant American thinking about Iran has been. As President Obama understood and said relentlessly in the past year, there are clearly a huge amount of people to engage in Iran, probably the majority. Of course, the overwhelming question will be how to reach them. But the damage has been done to the conservative regime, and events on the ground in Iran, in addition to events in Lebanon, Syria, Turkey, and Gaza, intimate a re-alignment is emerging across the Middle East, a move of Islamic political movements toward the center and away from radicalism, as Dr. Mahdi Abdul Hadi, the Palestinian scholar,  has wisely noted. A wise president, and a wise Congressional leadership, will not squander the opportunity to engage.

Reported in the Washington Post, this Rand study, a bastion of American military thinking, should be read by all who think that attacking Iran is the only option for making the Middle East safe. The vestiges of neoconservative ideology continue to disintegrate.

The video and the article below provide the most important evidence yet that Israel’s occupation forces, especially the border police, need to be disbanded, de-funded, or completely overhauled, and that the United States funds that support such forces need to be re-examined and allocated by the United States Congress. This is not just an exception. These cases have been reported routinely by Palestinians for decades, and no one would believe them because the assumption was that the enemies of Israel just spin endless fabrications and propaganda. But here is the evidence for Americans to see, and to help Congress overhaul this corrupt system.

According to recent polls a whopping 69% of American Jews favoring the United States pressuring Israel into a settlement with the Palestinians!  This suggests an amazing level of courage in the Jewish community that I believe is inspired negatively by the criminal acts perpetrated in Gaza in the winter, and positively by Obama’s courage and determination in recent weeks and months to truly re-make a Middle East that will finally be at peace with a secure and more democratic Israel.

A good place to start right now, however, is re-examining funding for any Israeli agency that is found to be abusive of Palestinians. This should happen immediately. It would also be good if more and more representatives of the Jewish community and the Israeli community actively apologize to the victims of such incidents.

These are necessary steps along the road to a final settlement. Apologies are powerful. They change reality. They restore the dignity of the abused and the abuser at the same time, and they point the way to a new future. Israelis are badly in need of a new future, one in which they are no longer shamed by abusing other people, just as Palestinians are in need of a new future devoid of shame. With those words of encouragement for a new future that may be coming, I now need to subject you to these horrendous images.

Border Police upload videos of their abuse of Palestinians to YouTube
By Uri Blau

Border Policemen have filmed themselves abusing and humiliating Palestinians in videos they have posted on YouTube over the past year.

In one clip uploaded to the video sharing website an Arab youth is shown in arid terrain, slapping himself, while a voice is heard instructing him to say “I love you, Border Police,” and “I will f**k you, Palestine,” in Arabic. The victim is forced to respond to everything he is ordered to do, to the raucous laughter of the cameraman and his friends, all Border Policemen.

In another video, a Palestinian is seen sitting inside a vehicle reciting the words “One Hummus and one ful [cooked broad beans], I love you Border Police” (which rhymes in Hebrew), while applause and shouting is heard in the background.

In most of the videos the faces of Border Policemen are not shown and the locations of where they were filmed is unclear.

Forcing Palestinians to sing is a common occurrence and is perceived by Border Policeman as quite humorous, it has emerged from recent Haaretzinterviews with Border policemen.

The Border Police said in response: “Over the last few years there has been a drop of dozens of percent in the complaints against Border Policemen over the use of unauthorized force and inappropriate behavior.

“The Border Police has made it a personal mission to uphold values of maintaining respect for people and their rights, and the members of the force are taught to respect those values.”

The Border Police added in the statement that its officer for public complaints continues to deal with the matter of the videos, which it said have been on YouTube since 2008.

The full article appears in Haaretz Magazine [on Friday, June 19, 2009].

Gershom Gorenberg

We stand at a crossroads of Jewish and Israeli attitudes to the United States and especially to its President, and it could lead to an important moral reckoning. Read here this excellent article by Gershom Gorenberg, one of the most insightful voices in Israel. It is one of the best arguments yet that the blind support for settlement expansion is the greatest danger to the Jewish people and to Israel itself. I have always found it ironic that so-called patriots from the United States to China to Russia to Israel to Serbia have always thought that by abusing others they are protecting their country, standing up for their country. But the opposite is true, as Sun Tzu in The Art of War understood over two thousand years ago. The settlements are and always have been an act of theft and abuse. How can they be pro-Jewish? To build a settlement on the homes of ancient Jewish prophets from 2500 years ago who gave to the world immortal words warning against the abuse of strangers, neighbors, the poor and vulnerable,warning that abuse of the vulnerable will lead to loss of the land and exile? How then were settlements ever pro-Jewish or pro-Israel? Here is Gershom’s examination.

Barack the Zionist
Why President Obama’s approach to settlements is better for Israel than Benjamin Netanyahu’s is.
By Gershom Gorenberg

It took Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu 10 days, but he has finally responded to President Barack Obama’s speech in Cairo. On June 4, Obama challenged both Israelis and Palestinians to work toward a two-state solution. On Sunday, Netanyahu responded with an assent wrapped in so many preconditions as to render it virtually meaningless. Obama also demanded that Israel freeze the growth of its settlements in the West Bank. To this Netanyahu responded with defiant rejection.

Diplomatic entreaties over the two-state solution will continue in closed rooms. The dispute over the settlements, however, is likely to remain public. In that dispute, Obama is working for the classic Zionist goal of a thriving democratic state with a Jewish majority. Netanyahu is undercutting that strategic goal by sticking to a Zionist tactic that became obsolete decades ago.

A look at the history of settlement shows why. Before 1948, settling the land was one method used by Zionists in building a new Jewish society and working toward independence. “Settlement” normally referred to an agricultural community. The idea was that Jews must return not only to their homeland, but to the soil itself. The intellectuals sent themselves to the countryside. Most settlements were either communes—kibbutzim—or cooperative farming villages—moshavim. Both were intended to be the foundation of a socialist society.

Settlement was also—perhaps primarily—a tool in the struggle between two national movements, Jewish and Palestinian Arab, over one homeland. Particularly after the first proposal to partition Palestine between a Jewish and an Arab state, in 1937, the placement of new settlements was intended to stake a claim to more of Palestine and to determine the borders of the Jewish state-to-be. In the 1940s, kibbutzim also served as the base for the Palmah, the nascent Jewish army. Settlement was the tactic of a revolutionary movement.

In 1948, the revolution succeeded, and the state of Israel was established. Settlement, like the secret weapons caches under kibbutz cowsheds, became an anachronism. The state had an army. Its borders were set by armistice agreements. Romantic ideals notwithstanding, Israel developed as an urban, industrial society. The elected government set economic policy and eventually left socialism behind. The state’s pressing challenge was not to extend Jewish hegemony over the land but to integrate the Arab national minority into its democracy.

And yet, in the words of Jared Diamond in Collapse: How Societies Choose To Fail or Succeed, “The values to which people cling most stubbornly under inappropriate conditions are those … that were previously the source of their greatest triumphs.” Diamond’s dictum was born out after Israel’s conquests in the unexpected war of June 1967.

Israeli leaders deadlocked on what to do with the newly occupied territories, especially the West Bank. They regarded it as part of the Jewish homeland and valued it for making Israel more defensible. Yet some officials warned from the start that giving citizenship to the Palestinians of the West Bank would turn Israel into a binational state—and that ruling them without giving them rights would be seen as colonialism. “My government has decided not to decide,” Prime Minister Levi Eshkol told President Lyndon Johnson in 1968.

In the absence of considered policy, leaders and activists fell back almost reflexively on the obsolete tactic of settling the land. With no agreed overall plan, each new settlement asserted a permanent claim to rule a bit more territory. Initially, Labor Party governments established kibbutzim and moshavim. When the right-wing Likud party took power in 1977, it jettisoned that approach. Instead, it subsidized bedroom communities in the West Bank.

Thus did the suburban dream replace the socialist dream. Some politicians opposed settling in a particular area, but virtually none rejected settlement as such. It was, after all, a Zionist value.

This time, though, settlement did not build the state. It undermined the state. In October 1967, the government stopped printing maps with the prewar borders. In the countryside portrayed by those maps, settlements blurred the border between Israel and occupied territory. Legal changes allowed settlers to live under Israeli law while Palestinians lived under the law of military occupation. Whatever it is called, this two-tiered legal system undercuts democracy.

The settlements became Israel’s largest ongoing public project. But the costs are scattered through the national budget, woven into outlays for the ministries of Defense, Housing, Education, Interior, and others. There is no overall total available. The lack of transparency not only prevents informed debate of the costs, it is another blow to democracy.

From the start, settlement activists and supportive officials have put their cause above the law. A Cabinet minister funded the very first settlement in occupied territory—in the Golan Heights in 1967—with money designated to give jobs to the unemployed. A recently leaked Israeli army database shows that more than 30 government-approved settlements are built partly on privately owned Palestinian land. Since the mid-1990s, in a massive rogue operation, more than 100 so-called “outpost” settlements have been established without legally required government approval—but with funding and other assistance from multiple government agencies.

Through settlement, the state of Israel has reverted to an acre-by-acre struggle between Jews and Palestinians for control of land. The settlement enterprise has reversed history, turning Israel from a state into a national movement. And the dilemma remains: Israel cannot be a democracy with a Jewish majority and at the same time rule the West Bank. The solution today, as it was when the United Nations debated the Palestine question in 1947, is partitioning the land between two states.

Netanyahu, looking backward, does not see this. Settlers, he said Sunday, are a “pioneering, Zionist community with values.” His choice of language is revealing: It was during the pre-independence struggle that “pioneering” was the highest ideal. Obama, looking forward, recognizes that an end to settlement growth is an essential step toward division of the land. When that division takes place, it will not only bring the establishment of a Palestinian state. It will bring the re-establishment of Israel.

Submitted by David Vyorst

Here is an email newsletter from our friend, peacemaker Eliyahu McLean:

Abrahamic Reunion brings hope to Sderot, Gaza

Hello friends and supporters,

We have been been doing ongoing work to re-build trust and relationships in the Holy Land in the aftermath of the conflict in Gaza and southern Israel.  Here is a highlight of the group events and individual work of members of our family of peacebuilders in the Holy Land, starting with a powerful event that took place in the days soon after the war.

ABRAHAMIC REUNION BRINGS HOPE TO SDEROT AND GAZA, Feb.4

Rabbi Zion Cohen, Chief Rabbi of Shaar HaNegev and Sderot brought together a group of Israeli Jewish students and teachers who hosted the Abrahamic Reunion (AR) in a re-enforced classroom at the high school at Sapir College in Shaar Hanegev, on Israel’s border with Gaza, on Feb. 4th. Deacon Jiries Mansour, principal of the Latin School in Rame, Galilee brought a group of Christian, Druze and Muslim high school students to join the event.

The AR group of religious leaders– Druze, Muslim, Christian, and Jewish — addressed the combined student groups and then the students spoke with each other.  The youth spoke from the heart about their fears during the war, and hopes for a peaceful future.   Rabbi Cohen spoke about the reality of living with rocket attacks in Sderot, Sheikh Bukhari shared how his family, living just a short distance away in Gaza, lived in fear for survival during the war.  The clergy each offered words of wisdom for the youth and then shared prayers for peace on both sides of the border.

The meeting was broadcast on Israeli TV news and re-broadcast on Arab TV, widely viewed within Gaza– bringing hope in both places that perhaps religion could be used not just as incitement for war, but as a tool for peace.

View great pictures from this event here:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jerusalem_peacemakers/sets/

GATHERINGS OF LIGHT AND UNITY AT THE DEAD SEA

After the successful first “Gathering of Light and Unity” on the Dead Sea in January, a second gathering took place at Metzukei Dragot beach, an oasis of beautiful fresh and saltwater pools on the Dead Sea shore, on Feb. 13-14.  Over 200 Israelis and Palestinians came, sharing meals, music, Jewish Shabbat prayers, and their stories, around a campfire. This is a unique area is easily accessible to both Israelis and Palestinians who come from across the West Bank without the need for travel permits.  The third Dead Sea gathering took place over 3 days, June 12-14.

GATHERINGS IN OUR WEST JERUSALEM PEACE CENTER

We host regular peace gatherings at our West Jerusalem Peace Center. Each gathering includes involvement of Jewish, Christian and Muslim religious leaders from Jerusalem,  West Bank Palestinians, internationals and Israelis, including from the “right wing”. Recent celebrations included:  a 40th birthday party for Eliyahu on Feb. 15th, a joint celebration of the Jewish holiday of Purim and the Muslim holiday of Mawlid al-Nabi on March 8th, and an evening of sacred music and poetry, May 18th.

SEVENTH OF PASSOVER, MESSIAH MEAL,  April 15th

For the Seventh Day of Passover, Hasidic tradition is to hold a ‘Seudat Moshiach’- Messiah Meal, at the closing moments of the Passover holiday. Hosted by Lutheran Pastor Uwe Grabe, we held an inter-faith meal and peace gathering in a meeting room of the Lutheran Redeemer Church in the Old City, next to the Holy Sepulchre church.  Over 200 Jews, Muslims and Christians gathered for a powerful evening of teachings about redemption and peace, songs, chants and shared prayer.

IBTISAM MAHAMID RECEIVES AWARD FROM THE DALAI LAMA, April 26

Ibtisam Mahamid, a Muslim woman peacemaker from Faradis, was nominated for and received an award from the Dalai Lama, among other special guests for: “Unsung Heroes of Compassion” in San Francisco on April 26. See this interview with Ibtisam here:

http://www.globalonenessproject.org/videos/ibtisammahameedcomplete

RABBI FROMAN AND SHEIKH MANASRA MEET WITH GEORGE MITCHELL

Rabbi Menachem Froman and Sheikh Ghassan Manasra met recently with George Mitchell, the Middle East peace process envoy, in Washington, DC. Froman and Manasra offered to set up a working group of Israeli and Palestinian religious leaders to help come up with creative solutions for the most challenging issues of the peace process: the status of Jerusalem and holy places and settlements. Rabbi Froman and Sheikh Manasra also met with members of Congress, and Ghassan spoke at a press conference of the Middle East Civic Forum.

Here Rabbi Froman speaks on the role of religion in supporting a new dialogue between Islam and the West:

http://www.globalonenessproject.org/videos/rabbifromancomplete

ABRAHAMIC REUNION MEMBERS COMMENT ON POPE’S  JERUSALEM VISIT ON PBS TELEVISION

Elana Rozenman, Ibrahim Abuelhawa and Eliyahu reflect on inter-religious work in light of the pope’s visit, on the ‘Religion and Ethics’ program of PBS TV in the USA, watch the program and interviews here:

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/episodes/may-15-2009/popes-mid-east-trip-wrap-up/2962/

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/episodes/by-topic/middle-east/may-22-2009-voices-from-the-holy-land/3040/

SHEIKH BUKHARI AND ELIYAHU COMMENT ON OBAMA CAIRO SPEECH ON BBC WORLD RADIO, ‘Outlook’ program June 2nd

Following on a speaking tour of England, organized by Jerusalem Peacemakers UK and Campusalam, from March 12-24, we were interviewed on BBC radio about inter-faith work in light of Obama’s speech in Cairo.

See interviews of Sheikh Bukhari and Eliyahu on the Global Oneness Project website:

http://www.globalonenessproject.org/search/node/bukhari
http://www.globalonenessproject.org/search/node/eliyahu

With the global financial crisis, donations have completely dried up.  Please make a contribution, small or large, to help us– this inspired network of peacebuilders — continue our work.  We count on your support, in its different forms– prayer and financial support –to empower us to continue this work in the Holy Land.

In the USA, in order to make a tax-deductible contribution, write a check to:

‘Center for Religious Tolerance, make a note on the memo line: ‘for Jerusalem Peacemakers’ and send it to:

Center for Religious Tolerance, 520 Ralph St. Sarasota, FL 34242

To make a donation by check in the UK,

AND to make a donation by credit card with Paypal from anywhere, click this link of Jerusalem Peacemakers UK. Calculate your donation in its equivalent in British pounds:

http://www.spiritofpeace.co.uk/jerusalempeacema.html

To send support directly and to contact us by mail:

Jerusalem Peacemakers, PO Box 31894, Jerusalem, 91316 Israel

Shalom, Salaam,
Eliyahu McLean,

Jerusalem Peacemakers, co-director
www.jerusalempeacemakers.org

Ross Aden

Ross Aden, an Associate Professor of Religious studies has the following detailed review of the book:

In my investigation of religious violence, I discovered a religious peacemaker whose work exemplifies a constructive religious response to the religious aggression of our century. Rabbi Marc Gopin has shared his peacekeeping vision and methods in a new book, TO MAKE THE EARTH WHOLE: THE ART OF CITIZEN DIPLOMACY IN AN AGE OF RELIGIOUS MILTANCY (Rowman and Littlefield, 2009). This is a book of practical wisdom about the critical role of religion in the politics of war and peace in our time. Gopin shows how the theory and practice of religious peacemaking can be integrated and how that integration can contribute to a more just and peaceful world.

Gopin’s is book contains sections on
• Foundations of a Global Community through Citizen Diplomacy
• Global Diplomacy and Incremental Change…
• Diplomacy with a Conscience…
• Conclusions about Our Future

Gopin is a practitioner as well as a theorist. He is an ordained rabbi, professor at Georg Mason University and Director of its Center on Religion, Diplomacy, and Conflict Resolution. (See “About Marc Gopin”) The book is an inspiring condensation of his extensive experience as a global peacemaker. It especially draws on his role in the midst of the complex, volatile relationships among Syria, Israel, and the United States from 2003 to the present.

The strength of TO MAKE THE EARTH WHOLE lies in Gopin’s reflections on his motives and methods. The book is crammed with insights that share a depth of experience comparable to another of my favorite books, THE MIGHTY AND THE ALMIGHTY: REFLECTIONS ON AMERICA, GOD, AND WORLD AFFAIRS by Madeleine Albright (HarperCollines: 2006).

Here are some kernels of Gopin’s good sense that I gleaned from the book. Gopin identifies the key role of “religious exemplars” whose influence in conflict surpasses their actual numbers. Increasingly, they are key players that make the difference between violent conflict or peaceful co-existence in our global society.
This is an important insight. Common assumptions inherited from the Enlightenment hold that we have a choice between religion and its inherent violence or secularism and its possibilities of peace.

When I say that this is a false choice, some of my colleagues at my college react vigorously. Like Gopin, I respond that religion will not just go away any time soon. The response is something like, “But it SHOULD go away.”

Why does religion persist to the distress of some of my colleagues? Gopin suggests that religion has incredible power over people’s lives and world affairs because it offers the masses a vision of a better future. Religion teaches the attitudes and actions that will realize a brighter day. In doing so, religions construct realities that go beyond any rational calculation of survival. They inspire dedication to transcending values beyond self-interest. They bring people together with a sense of belonging, meaning, and shared hope. To summarize Gopin’s view, religion is growing because it answers the discontent of millions with the exploitation of global capitalism and the dislocations of worldwide urbanism.
I tell my colleagues that the rise of religion in this century is not necessary a cause for alarm. If religion can be exploited for violence, it can also be employed for peace. That is the message that Gopin’s book demonstrates. Simplistically, the key to peace or war is what transcendent vision we will choose for ourselves and our children.

Gopin is a pragmatic visionary. His vision for our planet combines secular social contract theory with religious covenant theology. He calls for the building of a new global social contract that centers of human rights. He subscribes to democracy. But in his view, human rights, not constitutions or free elections, are the basis of democracy and a just and peaceful world.

The only thing I would like to have seen in the book is an elaboration of the religious version of this social contract theory. As Gopin states, the parallel to the social contract is the biblical idea of covenant. Covenant theology is the basis of the prophetic movement in the scriptures and so it provides the religious foundation of concepts of justice and human rights. Gopin observes that religion has emotive power much greater than the influence of Western rationalism. A more extensive explanation of the symbols and rituals of the covenant would add to the force of Gopin’s articulation of his vision. It would speak especially to religious people. It would also balance his secular theory and show how it might be integrated with a religious ideal.

The goal of a new social contract/covenant seems so lofty that you might write off Gopin as a dreamer. The book proves how realistic, even calculating, Gopin is in practice. Gopin has his limits. But in his practice of negotiation, he will not let ideology get in the way of a good deal.

What then keeps him on a moral path? One of Gopin’s favorite words to describe his role in conflict meidation is “intuition.” He relies on a feel for what is right in the concrete situation. This moral intuition is based what many scholars call “virtue ethics.”

Gopin advises the religious peacemaker to act out of the virtue of compassion to save the most human beings he can. He refers to the Buddhist principle of compassion for all sentient beings. (In an uncharacteristic and unnecessary aside, he labels the teaching of sunyatta or “emptiness,” the conceptual basis of compassion, “odd.”) One powerful expression of this ideal of compassion refers to the covenant theology of Judaism without naming it. He says that the biblical litmus test for the right to possess the land is the just treatment of the stranger. We show our true motivation (our “good will”) not by how we relate to those who are like us but to the “other.”

In this regard Gopin’s story of how he embraced Yasser Arafat, gave him gifts for his children, shared a text of the Talmud with him, and blessed him is touching. It seems to me that as practical as it is in practice, Gopin’s ethic can be summarized in the seemingly impractical “love of the enemy.”

As an activist, Gopin engages in negotiation, compromise, problem-solving, and conflict resolution. But he believes they cannot be the foundation of the work of peacemaking. To solve conflict and to get along together in our global village, we have to learn something deeper—the wisdom and virtue that the rabbi teaches in his book. Most important, we need to learn how to afford the alien, the outsider, and even the enemy, the same rights we want to secure for ourselves.

Link to blog post here.