violence

Digg This
Reddit This
Stumble Now!
Buzz This
Share on Facebook
Bookmark this on Delicious
Share on LinkedIn
Bookmark this on Technorati
Post on Twitter
Google Buzz (aka. Google Reader)

Reflecting on 2010, it’s clear that racism in Israel has reared its ugly head. A recent poll published by the Israel Democracy Institute found that only 51 percent of Israelis support equal rights between Jews and Arabs, while 53 percent think the state should encourage Arabs to emigrate from the country. Thepoll also established that Jewish Israelis find the idea of living next to an Arab more troubling than any other minority, and that in the event of war, 33 percent of Israelis support the idea of putting Arabs into internment camps.

In the last few months, these findings were given concrete expression in a number of incidents. These include:

A religious ruling signed and endorsed by 50 state-appointed rabbis forbidding Jews from renting or selling apartments to non-Jews. “Racism originated in the Torah,” said Rabbi Yosef Scheinen, head of the Yeshiva in Ashdod and one of the endorsers of the ruling. “The land of Israel is designated for the people of Israel. This is what the Holy One Blessed Be He intended and that is what the [sage] Rashi interpreted.”

A letter signed by 27 rabbi’s wives stating that Jewish women should not date Arab men, work where Arabs are employed, nor volunteer in National Service with Arabs. The letter stated, “They [Arabs] ask to be close to you, try to find favor with you, and give you all the attention in world, they are actually here knowing to act with courtesy, acting as if they really care for you, say a good word, but their behavior is only temporary. The moment you are in their hands, in their village, under their control, everything changes.”

A protest against Arab presence in the city of Bat Yam. Demonstrators shouted and held signs that read: “Keeping Bat Yam Jewish. Arabs are taking over Bat Yam, buying and renting apartments from Jews, taking and ruining Bat Yam girls! Around 15,000 Jewish girls have been taken to villages! Jews, come on, let’s win!”

Incidents of intimidation and violence including accounts of a burning tire thrown into an apartment of five Sudanese refugees living in Ashdod. And five Israeli Arabs fled their homes in Tel-Aviv after people from their neighborhood harassed and threatened to harm them.

Gangs of Jewish youths who targeted and assaulted Arabs in Jerusalem. Using a girl to attract their victims, the youths, who coordinated some of their attacks via Facebook, would pounce on their targets with sticks, stones, bottles and tear gas. Police believe the gang was responsible for more than ten attacks.

We cannot afford to ignore these signs as a marginal phenomenon or passing phase. History has shown that when racist attitudes, perceptions and behaviors are not addressed, they fester and spread — eroding the body politic like an acid.

Prime Minister Netanyahu has spoken out against the rabbinic prohibition on renting or selling property to non-Jews, and in a short address on his YouTube channel he warned citizens against incitement and violence against foreigners while assuring them that the government is on the case. But his efforts fall far short of what needs to be done.

Israel’s intellectual community has taken its own stand against the rise of racism. Refusing to become bystanders who passively watch as their society crumbles, these individuals, armed with the power of the keyboard, have opted to become witnesses-exposing and decrying with the hopes of jolting their society out of their moral slumber. Leading the charge have been a number of writers for the Israelidaily Haaretz, as well as the up-and-coming online publication +972.

But acknowledgment is only a first step. After recognizing the issue (which is not the same as recognizing the root(s) of the problem), we must think of creative and effective ways of addressing it. Many people believe the government needs to step in and simply “fix” the problem. However, a top-down intervention, valuable as it may be, does not take into account the nested nature of racism: the influential role of family, school, media, religion and community, in either exacerbating, constraining or ameliorating the problem.

Keeping this in mind, here are three steps that we think are essential to counteract the deleterious influence of racism, and help create a more inclusive Israeli consciousness.

Unite: Research has shown that “qualitative contact” between conflicting groups is a meaningful way to reduce hostility and prejudice, as well as cultivate more positive attitudes between group members. By “qualitative contact” we mean direct and consistent interpersonal relations between individuals of equal status who pursue common goals with the help of institutional support.

Usually groups that support this type of togetherness are centered on peace work (e.g. Seeds of Peace, Sulha project), but sometimes qualitative contact is most effective when it circumvents the issues that divide people all together. Israeli hospitals, for example, are places where Jewish and Arab doctors, nurses and patients cooperatively interact as equals on a daily basis. They are environments in which the shared goal of saving and healing lives transcend the narrow confines of religious and political identity.

Our colleague, Palestinian writer and activist, Aziz Abu Sarah has written the following about his experience with cancer and getting operated on by both Jewish and Arab surgeons in an Israeli hospital.

In the midst of the hatred, anger and bitterness of the conflict, you can still find glimpses of goodness. Unfortunately, this light often passes unnoticed. Yet it offers a practical example of the dream we all share, of a future where we can live safe and full lives without fear of injury… I have many criticisms of Israeli policies and politics, but the functioning universal health care system in Israel and its ability to separate politics from medicine earns my praise.

We need to support and create more opportunity for Israeli Jews and Arabs to interact and work together as equals with common goals and values. There are many organizations and projects that are dedicated to this type of work, and much will be gained by diverting our financial and political resources towards aiding their efforts.

Perhaps the most important of all in this regard is the Israeli educational system. Next to families, schools are the most important spaces in which our values are shaped. Here the state has a very important role to play- not only in constructing a curriculum that addresses racism, but also in reconstructing the makeup of the student body. Currently, only five primary schools in Israel are integrated. At the level of the university, Palestinian citizens of Israel make up only 7% of the student body. When it comes to education “separate but equal” has proven itself a sham, and if we are to provide more economic and social opportunity for Israel’s minorities, if we are to reduce the level of overt racism in society, the educational system in Israel must have its “Brown vs. Board of Education” moment.

Confuse: Religion has become a handmaiden of racism in Israel. The poll published by Israel Democracy Institute found that the greatest objectors to equality between Jews and Arabs were religious Jews. A breakdown of the Jewish public showed that 33.5 percent of secular Jews were against equal rights, in distinction to 51 percent of traditional Jews, 65 percent of religious Jews, and 72 percent of ultra-Orthodox Jews.

Religious people are by definition far more insulated from non-Jewish neighbors, and they are easily manipulated by a couple of rules that some rabbis can pull out of a hat. We believe that one of the best responses to such worldviews is to create constructive confusion: Confuse people by justifying every progressive action of human rights and gestures of good will to immigrants, to Arabs, to people of color, with quotes from Torah. Experience demonstrates that confusion is often good for conflict resolution, as it opens up the mind and casts doubt on the certainties of prejudice or self-righteousness.

Faced with an alternative religious interpretation of human rights, for example, the religious Israeli cannot just dismiss such thinking as merely the rantings of leftists. They have to think about it and make a moral choice, as many Israeli rabbis who oppose racism do. For example, if the Right trots out a text, “You shall have no mercy (on idolaters),” as the justification for not allowing housing in Israel, then the response at demonstrations, in op-eds and advertisements, should be signs and texts that read, “Love your neighbor as yourself!” [Leviticus 19:18]; “What is hateful to you (eviction, exile, discrimination) do not do to your neighbor,” [Rabbi Hillel]; “Love the stranger for you were strangers… and you know the heart of the stranger.”; ‘The Torah forbids persecution of strangers thirty seven times, but milk in meat only three times! Remember the priorities! Choose life!’

Another source of creative confusion is interfaith gestures with the use of Jewish rituals or mitzvot. We would like to see immigrants and Arab citizens of Israel, for example, at thousands of Passover Seders in Israel this spring-and it should be reported heavily. That will confuse everyone and stimulate a deeper understanding of the Seder as a three thousand year old Jewish protest against tyranny, and as a testimonial to freedom, justice, and the embrace of vulnerable strangers.

Inspire: The fire that raged and ravaged the north of Israel could not be put out by the Israeli government alone. Neither can the flames of racism that are beginning to engulf the country. Dousing this fire will be a team effort — it will require harnessing the intelligence, creativity and wisdom of the Israeli people.

This may seem like a strange strategy given the disturbing findings published by the Israel Democracy Institute cited above. We believe, however, that despite a turn for the worse, Israeli society is composed of some of the most dynamic, imaginative and compassionate people around. Here are some ideas.

Elise M. Boulding, the great Quaker Sociologist, working with prison inmates, developed an empowering technique of conflict resolution called “remembering the future.” This technique calls on participants to imagine what a world of peace 10 years into the future would look like, “remember” how they got there, and make a commitment to bring that potential reality to fruition.

We would like to see the ministry of education or an independent organization launch a competition of narrative and visual art entitled, “Remembering the Future: How Israel Became a Non-Racist Society.” This could be an open competition or one that is tailored for a particular group(s) (though diversity of contestants is essential for the success of this project). The winner will get a significant grant in addition to something more original such as getting their work displayed on a stamp or studied in classrooms across the country.

Another possibility is to make the challenge, as serious as it is, a little more entertaining. Create a reality TV show (Israelis love reality TV) focusing on creative and nonviolent ideas and solutions to the problems that plague Israeli society. The panel of judges could be comprised of notable Israeli intellectuals, writers and artists (representing diverse worldviews), and the people at home get to vote for their favorite idea. As utopian as this sounds, it is not outside the realm of possibility. As the founder of Zionism once said, “If you will it, it’s no dream.”

Still another possibility is to harness the knowledge and insights of the people through the use of wiki-technology. As business columnist James Surowiecki has argued in his best-selling book, The Wisdom of Crowds, under the right circumstances groups are more intelligent than individuals-even the smartest individuals within the group. Today, organizations, businesses and even governments are using wiki-technology to improve their knowledge base, findings, profits and activities. Perhaps the Israeli government, should it choose to initiate a campaign to constructively transform the problem of racism, ought to do likewise. After all, this is the same government that believes that the future of peace between Israel and its neighbors should be subject to a nation-wide referendum.

A final point. As conflicts become protracted and complex there is a tendency to experience them in simplified terms: to bundle many interrelated and complex problems into one reaction-in this case, racism. There is also a tendency to see the problem originating from people’s personalities or dispositions, as opposed to particular situations. Thus we speak of racist people as opposed to racist behavior. Since dealing with this conflict involves dialogue, we can go a long way by improving the way we communicate with one another. As Hip-Hop blogger Jay Smooth put it, in talking to people about racism we need to differentiate between a “what they did conversation” and a “what they are conversation.” Doing so will not only improve our arguments, but also increase the possibility of a real and potentially transformative change in relationships to take place.

How To Tell People They Sound Racist

Originally posted in the Huffington Post:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marc-gopin/unite-confuse-and-inspire_b_802582.html

{ 0 comments }

Digg This
Reddit This
Stumble Now!
Buzz This
Share on Facebook
Bookmark this on Delicious
Share on LinkedIn
Bookmark this on Technorati
Post on Twitter
Google Buzz (aka. Google Reader)

This is a wonderful article, very important timing. Ria is absolutely right on, except I suspect strongly that Petreaus is much more of an ally than she thinks. But there are other problems with the American military and political system that are preventing the rational approach that she is recommending. The ideology of killing, hard conquest, is in the way, and it still afflicts enough people at various levels of authority that moving quickly now is hard. But that is where progressives need to step up and lobby hard, with money, to do the right thing.

A role for the US in Afghan national reconciliation? by Shukria Dellawar – Common Ground News Service.


A role for the US in Afghan national reconciliation?
by Shukria Dellawar

05 August 2010

Washington, DC – In June, at the latest loya jirga (a grand assembly comprised of tribal leaders) meeting in Kabul, 1,600 local Afghan leaders endorsed a social reintegration programme for low-level Taliban insurgents willing to renounce violence, accept the Afghan Constitution and return to their homes with potential incentives, such as employment, vocational training or development projects for their communities.

The jirga was a significant step forward in consensus building and national reconciliation among Afghans. The programme is designed to attract Taliban insurgents who have no ideological commitment to the Taliban and are part of the insurgency for monetary compensation. However, reintegrating Taliban foot soldiers is only one dimension of a broader reconciliation process.

Although the United States supports and funds reintegration of foot soldiers, it still refuses to endorse talks with senior Taliban leadership, in essence creating a major roadblock towards Afghan-led reconciliation efforts. This strategy continues despite the fact that the majority of NATO allies, and senior Afghan and US officials, have publicly acknowledged that this war cannot be won by military means alone. If Afghanistan is to move towards lasting peace, the United States’ overall strategy must be changed.

The United States and the Taliban leadership continue to place opposing preconditions on the Kabul government which prevent a national reconciliation process from going forward. For example, the United States wants the Taliban to stop fighting and accept the Afghan Constitution. The Taliban, meanwhile, wants foreign forces out of Afghanistan as a precondition to joining the government’s political process. Furthermore, senior Taliban leadership is open to dialogue with the United States, but only under the condition that there are no other preconditions for holding talks.

To break this stalemate, build trust between both sides and facilitate reconciliation, Karzai’s administration has pushed the United Nations in recent months to remove certain Taliban commanders from its terror list. And Kabul and Islamabad are rumoured to be luring top Taliban leadership into Afghanistan’s political process. However, US Army General David Petraeus’s recent decision to blacklist the Haqqani Network – an insurgency group in Afghanistan and Pakistan closely allied with the Taliban – as a terrorist organisation may jeopardise these initiatives.

US President Barack Obama has declared that his country’s objective in Afghanistan is to “disrupt, dismantle, and defeat Al Qaeda” while breaking the “momentum” of the Taliban. The counter-insurgency strategy pursued by the United States seeks to weaken the Taliban insurgency before endorsing formal dialogue between the Karzai Administration and insurgent commanders. The strategy to meet this goal needs to be reassessed.

First, there are only 50 to 100 active Al Qaeda operatives in Afghanistan, according to Afghan and US officials, which means that a huge military force to deal with this number of operatives is wholly disproportionate. Second, the only way to break the “momentum” of the Taliban lies in assisting an Afghan-centric reconciliation process, which heavily supports talks with senior Taliban commanders.

After all, there have been nine years of fighting an insurgency without serious engagement in dialogue to bring these elements into the political fold – and the Taliban have only become stronger, not weaker. Thus, the stability of Afghanistan rests on re-examining the ineffectiveness of a hard power approach and an eventual transition towards the robust use of soft power in meeting long-term policy objectives. The best way to help the Kabul government stabilise the country is to support their full reconciliation strategy, which includes reaching out to senior Taliban commanders.

Third, all major players – including the governments of Afghanistan, Pakistan, the United States, and NATO allies, amongst others – need to put an emphasis on socio-economic development, reconstruction, institution building, education and human rights in Afghanistan.

Finally, the exploitation of ethnic divisions for political interests by regional players and internal actors must be contained by the United States. Both Afghan majority and minority leaders must work together to bring peace to their war-torn nation.

Continued violence and long-term military engagement will only lead to further destruction of Afghan society. Supporting Afghan efforts to reconcile differences among themselves and strengthening Afghan state institutions will pave the way for long-term stability. Neither the Afghans nor the international community can allow Afghanistan to become a safer haven for terrorists.

###

* Shukria Dellawar (rdellawar@gmail.com) is an independent analyst based in the Washington, DC area. This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).

Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 3 August 2010, www.commongroundnews.org
Copyright permission is granted for publication.

{ 0 comments }

Digg This
Reddit This
Stumble Now!
Buzz This
Share on Facebook
Bookmark this on Delicious
Share on LinkedIn
Bookmark this on Technorati
Post on Twitter
Google Buzz (aka. Google Reader)

From Fox Five News today.  See the film clip.

via Clinton Opens New Round of Mideast Peace Talks

WASHINGTON – Marc Gopin from the Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution at George Mason University joined us with more.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton formally opened the first direct peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians in nearly two years on Thursday, imploring the parties to ignore the long history of failed negotiations and make needed compromises to forge an agreement.

At a ceremony in the State Department’s ornate Benjamin Franklin room, Clinton said the Obama administration was committed to forging a settlement in a year’s time. But, she stressed that the heavy lifting must be done by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.

“We will be an active and sustained partner,” she said. “But we cannot and we will not impose a solution. Only you can make the decisions necessary to reach an agreement and secure a peaceful future for the Israeli and Palestinian people.”

Netanyahu and Abbas pledged their seriousness to securing an agreement and overcoming decades of mutual hostility and suspicion.

“This will not be easy,” Netanyahu said. “True peace, a lasting peace, will be achieved only with mutual and painful concessions from both sides.”

“We do know how hard are the hurdles and obstacles we face during these negotiations — negotiations that within a year should result in an agreement that will bring peace,” Abbas said.

Abbas called on Israel to end Jewish settlements in the West Bank and other areas that the Palestinians want to be part off their own state. Netanyahu insisted that any agreement must assure Israel’s security.

Thursday’s negotiations are the first since the last effort broke down in December 2008 and are fraught with complications, including recent violence in the West Bank and Israeli settlement activity. Expectations are low and U.S. officials have said success may be only an agreement to hold a second round of negotiations.

Officials say they are hoping to arrange that meeting for Sept. 15 in the Egyptian Red Sea resort of Sharm el-Sheik and top aides to the leaders are expected to meet later Thursday to iron out final details of the next step.

Sitting at the top of a U-shaped table between Netanyahu and Abbas, Clinton congratulated the two for agreeing to resume negotiations but warned of difficult days to come in the effort to create an independent Palestinian state.

“I know the decision to sit at this table was not easy,” Clinton added. “We understand the suspicion and skepticism that so many feel borne out of years of conflict and frustrated hopes.”

She noted two recent attacks on Israelis in the West Bank claimed by the militant Hamas movement underscored the difficulties facing the two leaders.

“But, by being here today, you each have taken an important set toward freeing your peoples from the shackles of a history we cannot change and moving toward a future of peace and dignity that only you can create.”

Hamas gunmen killed four Israeli residents of a West Bank settlement on Tuesday as Netanyahu, Abbas and the leaders of Egypt and Jordan convened in Washington. And on Wednesday, hours before the leaders ate dinner at the White House, Hamas gunmen wounded two Israelis as they drove in their car in another part of the West Bank.

The talks will face their first test within weeks, at the end of September, when the Israeli government’s declared slowdown in settlement construction is slated to end.

Palestinians have said that a renewal of settlement construction will torpedo the talks. The Israeli government is divided over the future of the slowdown, and a decision to extend it could split Netanyahu’s hawkish coalition. Netanyahu has given no indication so far that it will continue beyond the deadline.

Direct Israeli-Palestinian negotiations broke off nearly two years ago, in December 2008, and the Obama administration spent its first 20 months in office coaxing the two sides back to the bargaining table. Despite the success in launching the talks, gaps between the sides are wide, distrust remains after years of violence and deadlock, and expectations are low.

After listening to the Mideast leaders he convened Wednesday night, Obama pronounced himself carefully optimistic. “I am hopeful, cautiously hopeful, but hopeful,” he said.

{ 0 comments }

Digg This
Reddit This
Stumble Now!
Buzz This
Share on Facebook
Bookmark this on Delicious
Share on LinkedIn
Bookmark this on Technorati
Post on Twitter
Google Buzz (aka. Google Reader)

Why Afghanistan Matters

by Sophia Rose Shafi

As a parent of a child who is half-Afghan, I am reminded daily of how lucky she is to have shelter, good health, and ample food and clothing. Most Afghan children are not so lucky. 14% of children die before reaching their first birthday. One in five children die before they reach the age of five years old. Afghanistan also has the third highest infant mortality rate in the world, after Angola and Sierra Leone.

Life is also dismal for adults. Only 22% of Afghans have access to safe water. Life expectancy is 44 years old (44.04 for men, 44.21 for women). The maternal death rate hovers at around 50%. And 87% of females are victims of domestic violence.

History has not been kind to Afghans, especially over the past thirty years of unending war. Most know the story well – Soviet invasion, Soviet-Afghan war, civil war, Taliban-Northern Alliance war, U.S. invasion, U.S.-Taliban war.

However, columnists, activists, and politicians leave important details out. The promises made to Afghans that we would stay and rebuild their country when the Soviets left, all of which were broken. The cold shoulder when Afghans warned the United States that something shifty was afoot in the months before September 11th, warnings that were ignored.

It seems unlikely that a better life for Afghans will be the result of a military surge or from abandoning the Afghans as we did in 1989. While I admire the anti-war position, I wonder what would happen should we leave. Would the meddling states stop supporting the warlords and instantaneously decide that Afghanistan should be left alone? Would the Taliban stop receiving support from some of our “allies”? Would Afghans suddenly forget the past thirty years of ethnic and religious massacres that has fractured their society?

The escalation has its own set of grim possibilities of course. More destruction and suffering for a people who have had their share. Over 1 million dead. 1.5 million widows. 1.6 million orphans.

For what it is worth, here is my idea. My naive hope is that the President reads this.

How about a humanitarian surge? Given the fact that we will be in Afghanistan a while, let’s start with the following for every Afghan man, woman, and child: a below-zero grade sleeping bag and tent, a camper stove with fuel rations, food rations, and a medical kit. Can we do this one small thing for Afghans, to keep them from starving and freezing to death over the winter? It doesn’t erase the mistakes of the past, or absolve the tragedy of the present, but it is something.

Ms. Shafi is a doctoral candidate in Religion. Her dissertation is a genealogical study of images of Muslim male monsters in Western discourse.

{ 0 comments }

Digg This
Reddit This
Stumble Now!
Buzz This
Share on Facebook
Bookmark this on Delicious
Share on LinkedIn
Bookmark this on Technorati
Post on Twitter
Google Buzz (aka. Google Reader)

“Proximity talks”: an element in a change strategy.
By Neri Bar-On

In this article I wish to point out a systemic-perspective suggesting the “proximity talks” as a tactical move through which Israeli, Palestinian and American leadership can work within one strategy to reduce the power of the radical elements in their society. While many question the content-value of the “Proximity talks,” many neglect the power structure it creates as an opportunity to put pressure on the radical elements within these societies and open the gate to agreement between Israel and Palestine.
The concern should be the drift of the moderate elements in these societies toward radical reaction that will block opportunity for change. The inner conflicts within Israel and Palestine are blocking the progress and need to be contained for the establishment of a Palestinian state in near future.

“Proximity talks”:
“Proximity talks” are neither negotiations nor “talks”. In the current situation, “Proximity talks” can be a useful element in a change strategy. They can be used by Palestinians and Israelis as a method to defuse the radicals’ influence within each of their societies. “Proximity talks” are a signal of commitment to end this conflict beyond negotiation rituals: Natanyahu, Abbas and Obama can open a gate for change by maintaining these “proximity talks,” regardless of the reactive violence that erupted lately, as this violence actually shows what a great potential hides behind this gesture.

What we see:
Since Netanyahu’s return from the US, the tension between Israel and the US is more visible. The visit also exposed the internal tensions within Israel, where Pro-settlement agents in the Israeli governance organizations and government manage to sabotage the opportunity to start the “Proximity talks”; the announcement of new Jewish building in east Jerusalem provided justification for Palestinian radicalization calling for “rage day”. Qassams from Gaza strengthen the Israeli radicalization fear that this will be repeated when a Palestinian state will be established and Israeli armed reactions prove to the Palestinians how violent occupation is.
There is a natural collaboration between Israelis and Palestinian radicals. These reactions already claimed death in an effort to block change that may close the options for the radical’s view of the future.

Radicals:
Radicals usually advocate that their ideas of the future and of reality are the only valid ones and act to make them politically dominant. The Settlers will push announcements of building in disputed east Jerusalem in the Obama administration’s face, forcing the internal Israeli politicians to claim again that building in Jerusalem is unquestionable. In parallel, Palestinian radical factions flame aggression and fire Qassams into Israel that lead automatically to Israeli armed reaction that force the Palestinian leaders to avoid any talks.

Naturally, we have radical elements in any society; “radical factions” are normal social elements strengthening through the continuation of conflict. These people clearly become dominant actors and manage to block progress in the development of the relationship between Jews and Arabs. Their target is to be recognized as the “voice of the whole” in each society and they are pointed to as the “voice of the whole” by the other side’s radicals.
The radicals may succeed as they succeeded in the past unless we replace “negotiation” that pushes each side to the extreme with “proximity talks” that force Israel to halt the settlements and push the Palestinians to end their political divide.

Many focus on blame of Netanyahu, Ishay, Obama or Abbas for a hidden agenda to jeopardize “proximity talks” that play too into the radicalization – no solution – claims.
Sadly we see many practical moderates fall into this trap, attracted by the opportunity to blame their political opponents and try to convince us that Netanyahu, Abbas or Obama cannot partner for the peace so needed in our societies.
These activists are ignoring that Netanyhu, Abbas and even Obama are playing within a complex aggressive system of inner-politic, within their societies, and outer-politic, between nations. With that, confusing information is channeled to the public through a mass media driven by strong aversion to dramatize our reality. This brings many people to radicalization missing the opportunity that can be created by commitment to “proximity talks” to reduce the radicals’ influence and power.

How “Proximity talks” work:
What gives these radicals power? There is no majority for radical views, but they manage to shape the public sphere. Some criticize them for loud voices and harmful acts. I want to suggest that one very influential factor for their strength and influence comes today from the “moderate” belief in negotiation as a way to end the conflict.
Negotiations as zero sum games make each side try to get the maximum for itself; hence it usually ends with the radicalization in both sides and dissatisfaction of the weaker side. This is where the radicals get their power, as within each society the question of what we will get and how we get it translates into political claims in inner conflict.

“Proximity talks” as Talks are important for building trust, but they do not necessarily create the change, as they do not influence the social factions that do not take part in the talks. Some radical elements that are left out are using media, demonstrations and violence to claim their position.

When we step out from this paradigm and suggest “proximity talks” not as negotiation, we reflect that the Palestinians and the Israelis with the support of the US and EU know today where we are going. It is a two state solution where a Palestinian state with valid borders will emerge and enable the Palestinians to self govern and become a full member nation. Negotiation is the last thing we need. System wide planning is what we need and that cannot start till both societies engage their inner conflict: In Israel the conflict is about the settlements and in Palestine the conflict is about political cohesion.

In Israel, the inner conflict is about the settlements. One group within the Israeli society claims that Jews/Israel has a right to enlarge its territory for their historic/religious rights or for the opportunity that since a Palestinian national state never existed the international law is confusing. This group within the Israeli society has today the power to influence the governments and create Jewish settlements that blur the 1967 lines that planned to be used as a basis of the border for the Palestinian state.

Netanyahu, as an Israeli politician, cannot ignore these people as they are part of the Party electoral, but while we have these “Proximity talks,” Israel is forced to freeze the settlements. The longer we freeze the settlement the more we weaken this group and enable Israeli government to agree on valid borders for the Palestinian state and to find a solution for the settlements’ population.

In Palestine, the inner conflict is about the governance legitimacy, the group within the Palestinian society that thinks that Palestinian has a right to get back to the original pre-1948 condition. Their claim is that their historic/religious Arab rights are justified by international law. This group within the Palestinian society split itself from the Fatah agreement and is, in general, supporting Hamas factions or other radicals. This split created violent war within the Palestinian society. This is a Palestinian internal conflict for power domination; its outcome is the ability of Hamas group to hold Gaza and disable the Palestinians Authority as a representative of the whole Palestinians to sign any agreement.

Abbas cannot ignore these people as they use force and do not accept PA, but while we have these “Proximity talks” Palestinians can see freeze settlements and improvement in West Bank. The longer we freeze the settlements, the more we weaken this group and enable Palestinians to shape social agreement toward the Palestinian state and enable Fayyad to build Palestine governance, social, economic capacities.

Both internal challenges need to be resolved in order to enable progress toward the next stage of signing agreements and mapping and declaring Palestinian state.

This is why “proximity talks” serve us. They can lead to the entrance of Kadima to the Israeli coalition, creating a government that can make courageous decisions for Israel while Fayyad also creates major changes in the West Bank and the PA manages to provide more and more needed social services as education, improved economy and security that weaken the Hamas position.

So what we can get from “proximity talks”:
The more we hold “proximity talks” we will see settlements in Israel defused and Palestinian acceptance for Palestinian national unity agreement. This will come after some violent eruption; we cannot avoid it. The more potent the change is, the more it attracts reactions from radicals. For the long-term, this is what it takes for cooling down the flames that the radicals create. Cooling down the radicals will enable us, as one system of Palestinians and Israelis, to end the settlement activity, creating new political structure in Palestine. This internal transformation in our societies will open a new gate for a new era in Palestine, Israel and the Middle East.

{ 0 comments }

Radical Cleric Calls for Peace in Germany

by Agatha Glowacki on November 4, 2009 · 0 comments

Digg This
Reddit This
Stumble Now!
Buzz This
Share on Facebook
Bookmark this on Delicious
Share on LinkedIn
Bookmark this on Technorati
Post on Twitter
Google Buzz (aka. Google Reader)

Mohammed El Fazazi has written an open letter to the Muslims of Germany calling for peaceful means of protest. Fazazi was one of the preachers who previously radicalized three of the 911 hijackers in a Hamburg mosque and is currently imprisoned for his role in radicalizing the group responsible for the Casablanca attacks of 2003.

He writes that his time in prison has made him reflect on his beliefs and see how violence doesn’t work.

  • He calls for Muslims in Germany to seek change through civilian, peaceful methods of resistance, “means of peaceful demonstrations, strikes and protests that are far removed from indiscriminate attacks, the killing of innocent people with the argument of killing kuffar, or non believers.”
  • He says “the strength of the argument lies not in a rifle bullet, in violence or in explosive belts. Those won’t bring about change.”
  • “As for those in the streets of Hamburg who think about jihad in the path of God, they should think about life, because this is the true jihad.”

Spiegel has published parts of his letter and they can be found here:  “Germany is  No Battle Zone” – Mohammed El Fazazi’s Letter

{ 0 comments }

adobe premiere free download

buy cheap creative suite adobe reader download portable adobe flash direct download cheap adobe reader download 5 download adobe flash 9 for h264

adobe rider download

buy cheap adobe illustrator CS5 adobe page maker full download download and install adobe flash onto my computer cheapest free download adobe rea adobe in design 2 download

adobe photoshop 8 free download full version

buy cheap adobe after effects adobe pagemaker trial version download adobe photoshop cs3 extended download for free buy cheap adobe photodeluxe download adobe photoshop cs download osx

adobe 8 crack download

adobe acrobat x cheap can i download adobe filter factory adobe golive cs2 download buy cheap adobe nine flash player download free adobe photoshop 6 download

adobe flash player 9 cannot download to internet explorer 7

cs5 master collection cheapest free adobe pdf maker download adobe creative suite 3 download cheap download adobe cs3 free p2p adobe photoshop tutorial download

adobe acrobat pdf download free

buy cheap creative suite 5 adobe after effects cs2 download adobe flash psp download buy cheap adobe illustrator 8 download adobe illustrator cs3 crack download

adobe acrobat 6 free download

buy online creative suite 5 download adobe illustrator cs2 trial adobe live motion download buy online adobe cs3 free download pdf and adobe and download

download adobe photoshop elements 5tutorial

adobe incopy buy online free download adobe acrobat professional 6 free adobe illustrator cs2 download cheapest adobe photoshop trial download free adobe photoshop elements download

adobe photoshop 8 free download adobe photoshop cs3

adobe creative suite 5 cheap adobe download site adobe indesign download cheapest download adobe photoshop 8 cs adobe acrobat download warez

free download able adobe

cheap photoshop lightroom 3 download adobe pdf writer 4 adobe after effects demo download cheapest adobe photoshop 8 free download pdf and adobe and download

adobe flash player download for vista 32 bit os

cheapest cs5 master collection adobe flash offline download iran download adobe photoshop buy online download adobe photoshop download cracker adobe acrobat

download adobe reader 5

buy online adobe premiere pro adobe acrobat writer download adobe premiere free download buy online is download for adobe flash player free adobe file converter download

free adobe illustrator cs3 download full version

adobe web premium cheapest download add on error with adobe acrobat download adobe after effects 5 buy online free adobe photoshop elements download free download of adobe photoshop cs2