Common Ground News Service

Using Qur�anic narratives in pursuit of peace

by Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 00:00:00 -0500

NEW YORK - I consider the Israeli-Palestinian conflict the single biggest obstacle to eliminating Muslim-Jewish antipathy. Although this dispute is fundamentally about the distribution of assets and the power to control decisions, it is frequently portrayed as a religious conflict. And too often, opposing sides have used erroneous or out-of-context interpretations of their scriptures to demonise the other and to provide justification for not striving towards a just peace.

From an Islamic perspective, this could not be more misguided, as we are given a number of powerful principles and narratives in the Qur�an that propel us towards justice, peace and communal harmony. It is my belief, therefore, that while religion is not the primary problem in Israel-Palestine, it is a primary part of the solution.

Scripturally, Muslims and Jews are united by the Prophet Abraham�s legacy embodied in the �Abrahamic ethic�, which is at its core a monotheism which asserts human liberty, equality, and fraternity. The Qur�an never tires of repeating that its task is to re-establish this ethic and that Muhammad and all the prior prophets came to do just that: �The nearest of people to Abraham are those who follow him, and this Prophet [Muhammad] and those who believe,� (The Qur�an, 3:68).

Islam defines itself not so much as the religion of Muhammad, but the religion of God, originally established by Abraham. Stemming from this shared heritage, Jews (as well as Christians) are described by a special name in the Qur�an: �People of the Book�, ahl al-kitab, or a �scriptured people�. Muslims believe that God sent the Jewish people scriptures containing the divine teachings of God�s message through their prophets. As such, they have the true religion. To deny this is to contradict the Qur�an, which does not merely recognise the similarity of Jews to Muslims; it identifies Islam with them. ��Say [to the People of the Book]: We believe in that which was revealed to us as well as that which was revealed to you. Our God and your God is One and the same. We all submit to Him,� (The Qur�an, 29:46). This unity means that although disagreements between us certainly exist, these are no more than family disputes.

The Qur�an does criticise Jews for failure to uphold the Torah and for excessive legalism and exaggerated authoritarianism by some rabbis. These passages and others have been manipulated to typecast Jews and unfairly implicate them in contemporary problems. However, there is no criticism that the Qur�an has addressed to Jews that Jews have not addressed to themselves or to their tradition. Furthermore, no Muslim can deny that many of these faults are universal ones, shortcomings that are present in any religious community, including our Muslim community. In fact, the Qur�an never totally condemns any people, since the critical verses stand side by side with those verses that justify the righteous.

Our mandate, therefore, is to not divide our communities into hostile factions on account of religion, precisely as some have done. God�s call in the Qur�an to Jews and Christians, as well as to Muslims, still stands as proper, relevant and necessary today as it was when it was first revealed some fourteen centuries ago: �O People of the Book! Let us now come together under a fair principle common to all of us�that we worship none but God, that we associate nothing with Him, and that we take not one another as lords beside God,� (The Qur�an, 3:64). This passage and others provide profound inspiration for dialogue, collaboration and, ultimately, peace.

Dialogue, the first step, offers the opportunity for uncovering the common ground of the shared values and goals that resonate in each of our faiths and forge personal bonds and relationships of trust, which carry the potential to enable collaborative efforts. I advocate for such an action-oriented dialogue that moves beyond talk.

Muslim and Jewish organisations and institutions must build coalitions to partner in peace. Although this should take place within numerous sectors, it is especially critical at the level of religious leadership�between rabbis and imams and among faith-based activists. It is these friendships and partnerships that can help bring a just peace to Israel, Palestine and the broader region and, furthermore, they can transform the relationship between Muslims and Jews globally.

Such work towards transformation could draw its inspiration from the remarkable period of the Cordoba Caliphate in present-day Spain. During its peak in the tenth and eleventh centuries, Cordoba was the most enlightened, pluralistic and tolerant society on earth, one where Muslims and Jews enjoyed a special relationship. My own organisation, the Cordoba Initiative, draws upon this legacy to once again shift Jewish-Muslim relations towards collaboration around our common values and interests. We are utilising a powerful model of action-oriented and faith-based partnership to create a tipping point in Muslim World-West relations within the next decade, including in the context of Israel and Palestine. I believe that this is our Abrahamic mandate.

###

* Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf is the chairman of the Cordoba Initiative which works to improve Muslim-West relations. This article is part of a special series on Jews and Muslims in each other�s narratives and was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).  

Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 04 March 2010
www.commongroundnews.org  
Copyright permission is granted for publication.

Can Muslim and Jewish narratives co-exist?

by Deborah Weissman — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 00:00:00 -0500

JERUSALEM - In his book, Longitudes & Attitudes (2002), journalist Thomas Friedman, citing Middle East expert Stephen P. Cohen, suggests that the true clash in today�s world is not �between civilisations� (as argued by Samuel Huntington) but within each civilisation or religion�a clash between the forces of extremism and those of moderation, tolerance, or what might be called �religious humanism�.

One of the challenges to all of our traditions is to find within them those resources that can help us make room for the Other. There are several strategies for dealing with problematic texts that include de-emphasising them contextualising them historically, putting them in dialogue with other texts and re-interpreting them. Thus we can and must develop a narrative or even a theology of our relationship with members of other communities.

Traditional Jews have often found it easier to relate to Islam than to Christianity. One reason is historical�Jewish communities have suffered more in Christian settings than in Muslim ones. The great scholar Menachem ben Solomon HaMeiri of Provence (1249-1316) maintained that both Christians and Muslims were �peoples disciplined by religion�. But most medieval (and even many modern) rabbis see in Islam a �true� faith, non-idolatrous and radically monotheistic.

Islam and Judaism are close not only theologically but also structurally. Both religious cultures emphasise a legal system for the regulation of everyday life. That system, called in Judaism Halakha (from the root �to walk�) is like a path which Jews are summoned to walk on a daily basis, the Muslim equivalent being Sharia. The laws govern everything from eating to marital relations to business or medical ethics, so that theological and Prophetic ideals are concretised through incremental steps on a day-to-day basis.

Theoretically, there are at least two religious issues around which Jews and Muslims could make common cause: One involves the availability of kosher/halal food. Both Jews and Muslims are affected by government bans�for example, in Sweden�on kosher meat slaughtering. There are several North American universities that have opened special dining halls to accommodate the dietary needs of Jews and Muslims together. Sitting over a shared meal may facilitate friendly dialogue. The second issue involves circumcision, practiced by both groups and sometimes in jeopardy in some Western societies, where it is perceived as cruel. How interesting�and symbolic�that two religious issues around which Jews and Muslims could unite both involve knives. Would that we could beat our knives into ploughshares�

Among Israelis and Palestinians who engage in dialogue and represent two nations but also three religions�Judaism, Christianity and Islam�our experience has often been that people who identify with their respective religions and traditions can find a common language and establish rapport on that basis. There must be some kind of mutual acknowledgement of narratives as a basis for understanding and dialogue.

The Palestinian and Jewish/Zionist narratives must eventually exist side-by-side; less difficult, I believe, would be to reconcile the Jewish and Muslim narratives. In both traditions there are texts that support the idea of religious diversity. Perhaps best-known is Sura 46, 13 in the Qu�ran, in which Allah states that he has created humankind in various groups and tribes, �so that you may know one another�.

One of the challenges is that in both Jewish and Muslim traditions, some of the interpretations call for a more monolithic future in which all people will eventually be converted to that particular faith. There are, I would suggest, at least three ways of confronting this challenge. The first is to locate and emphasise alternate texts within the same tradition�texts that allow for diversity even in the �End-Times�. Such a text, from the Jewish tradition, might be Micah 4:5: �All the nations may walk in the name of their gods; we will walk in the name of the LORD our God for ever and ever.� The second would be to engage in a serious process of re-interpretation of the more exclusivist texts. Israeli Bible scholar Moshe Greenberg has written, �Even the choicest vine needs seasonal pruning to ensure more fruitful growth.�

A third strategy, that has been employed in Catholic-Jewish dialogue, is to postpone the fulfilment of the conversionary impulse to the distant future and conduct open dialogue in the here and now. This path is perhaps less satisfactory on some levels but may be more pragmatic.
In any case, it is imperative that Jews and Muslims engage in dialogue, overcome fears and stereotypes and work together for a more peaceful and just world.

###

* Dr. Deborah Weissman, a Jewish educator based in Jerusalem, is President of the International Council of Christians and Jews (www.iccj.org). The verse from Sura 46, 13 in the Qu�ran quoted above has been adopted by The International Council of Christians and Jews as the theme for its 2010 annual conference, to be held in Turkey. This article is part of a special series on Jews and Muslims in each other�s narratives and was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).

Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 04 March 2010, www.commongroundnews.org
Copyright permission is granted for publication.

The language of leaders: Lincoln as a model

by Michael Lame — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 00:00:00 -0500

WASHINGTON, DC - Angry rhetoric now characterises the relationship between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. The Tomb of Rachel in Bethlehem and the Cave of the Patriarchs/Ibrahimi Mosque in Hebron, two West Bank burial sites revered by Jews and Muslims alike, were added by Netanyahu to Israel�s new national heritage list. Abbas responded by charging that �Israel�s attempt to steal the Palestinian heritage is part of a larger scheme to take over religious Muslim sites�. Netanyahu countered by issuing a statement accusing Abbas of engaging in a �campaign of lies and hypocrisy�.

What�s wrong with this picture? Such militant language from each leader may be received with approval by his respective domestic audience, but it temporarily poisons the well of reconciliation from which both peoples must eventually drink.

One consequence is heightened tensions and increased distrust between Palestinians and Israelis. Another is a decreased likelihood that the two sides will do a deal in the foreseeable future.

Being a statesman, and not merely a successful politician, requires viewing the future strategically. In the long run, Israelis and Palestinians must find a way to live together, without violence, terror, oppression or provocative language. This is true regardless of what shape the final settlement takes.

Must a leader who wishes to protect his base of support by exhibiting strength use demeaning rhetoric against his or her adversary? One could examine the language of Sadat, Hussein or Rabin for examples of strong Middle Eastern leaders who at crucial moments were willing to speak in a conciliatory fashion.

For an inspiring perspective on the language of leaders, let�s look back to America�s greatest president, Abraham Lincoln�a war leader and a man of peace.

Lincoln was uncompromisingly aggressive in wartime, refusing to consider any negotiated settlement that would not restore the Union. Yet his language was always amicable and temperate towards the people of the South. Even though he thought slavery was �an unqualified evil�, he did not speak abusively of slave owners. .

Lincoln�s exemplary magnanimity is most evident in the closing passage of the Second Inaugural Address, delivered while the war still raged: �With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God give us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation�s wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan�to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations.�

Can you imagine any Israeli prime minister or PA president speaking thus?

Of course, no analogy is exact. Southerners were citizens of the United States before they seceded and Lincoln always considered them to be Americans who would one day be welcomed back into the Union. In contrast, Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza speak a different language than do the Jews of Israel, both literally and figuratively. Neither people has ever wanted the other, let alone wanted them back.

Despite profound differences between the two situations, Israelis and Palestinians can learn from Lincoln. The president�s determination to defeat a wartime enemy did not lead him to vilify that enemy. On more than one occasion, Lincoln visited and comforted wounded confederate soldiers who had fought against his own troops. His mollifying words and deeds looked past the immediate conflict to a time when the warring parties would live alongside each other in peace.

As this example suggests, one way to change the dynamics of a conflict is to change the language employed. Provocative words can be replaced by words of moderation, respect and compassion. Of course, words alone will not transform the Middle East. But the habits of thinking that shape and are shaped by moderate language can also produce moderate action. Use of a new vocabulary can begin to create a context more conducive to resolving the conflict.

Returning immediately to the negotiating table won�t produce this effect. Negotiations must be preceded by a profound change, perhaps beginning with a shift in the language used by the leadership to address the other side.

Obviously this is a difficult process. Despite cooperation at many levels, Israelis and Palestinians remain in an adversarial, occupier-occupied relationship. Yet it�s possible for them to pursue a policy which serves their interests without impugning their opponents� motives or character and without disparaging their national aspirations.

The words of leaders matter and the specific words that leaders speak can be of critical importance to their constituents and to their opponents. Now is the time for Israeli and Palestinian leaders to choose words that can help create a new reality in the Middle East.

###

* Michael Lame is the founder of �Re-Think the Middle East�, a new organisation whose purpose is to help elevate the quality of public discourse regarding the future of the Middle East and the roles played by the United States and the international community in creating that future. He blogs at www.rethinkme.org. This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).

Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 04 March 2010, www.commongroundnews.org
Copyright permission is granted for publication.

Muslim right to the Jewish past

by Yonathan Mizrachi — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 00:00:00 -0500

JERUSALEM - The decision to include the Cave of the Patriarchs and Rachel�s Tomb on the list of National Heritage Sites would, at first glance, appear to be one about which every Jew should be pleased. And, in fact, many Israelis believe that historical sites identified with the Jewish past should be under Jewish-Israeli control. They tend to ignore the fact that the past uncovered by the archaeologist comprises dozens of strata which recount the histories of a variety of nations and cultures that lived in the country. Instead, they focus on a particular layer, identified as Jewish, and use it as proof of, and justification for, ownership.

This phenomenon is especially evident in the case of religious holy sites, where belief trumps archaeology. So, for example, almost no one refers to the Cave of the Patriarchs as a structure dating from the first century BCE, as demonstrated by archaeological analysis. The site is referred to as one of the Jews� most holy places, and most holy to other religions as well. The sanctity of the Cave of the Patriarchs and Rachel�s Tomb prevents us from seeing the whole, complex story, instead of which we�re bogged down with the biblical accounts of events that, according to tradition, occurred there. The Cave of the Patriarchs is one of the few structures in the country which have stood for more than 2000 years. Rachel�s Tomb was built in the 19th century, a focus of sacred traditions of Christians, Muslims and Jews. The site�s identification as the location of Rachel�s tomb is attributed to Helena, the mother of Emperor Constantine, who came to Palestine after the Byzantine Empire accepted Christianity and �discovered� the sites where events recounted in the bible had occurred. Whether or not she identified the correct site is irrelevant today, because millions of the faithful believe it to be a holy place, and no amount of research will convince a believer to abandon his faith. But the two principal religious sites in the occupied territories are also those testifying to the country�s complexity and cultural richness.

A site such as the Cave of the Patriarchs has remained standing for more than 2000 years only because all the nations, religions, cultures and rulers who came to the country recognised its importance, and sometimes its holiness, which had to be preserved on behalf of the believers. Not only for Jews, but also for believers in other religions, particularly Muslims. Had not the Romans, the Byzantines, the Persians, the Muslims, the Crusaders, the Mamluks and others recognised the site�s importance, and desired its preservation, it is possible that it would have been less central to the Jewish religion today, and perhaps even less important.

The state is still obligated today to preserve Byzantine and Crusader sites identified with Christianity, as well as Muslim sites and those of pagan religions and other nations, no less than those associated with Jewish history. Moreover, the idea that Jewish sites must be owned by Jews is misplaced. Hebron�s Jewish past is part of the totality of Hebron�s history. The Muslim residents of Hebron have the right to be responsible for preserving their past, the history of their lands, in Hebron and elsewhere. The ancient synagogue in Jericho (Na�aran), the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem and other religious structures in the occupied territories should be the responsibility of the local residents, just as the city of Nazareth, which is sacred to Christians, is Israel�s responsibility, and Muslim structures in Spain dating from the 8th to the 14th centuries are the responsibility of the Spanish government.

The Cave of the Patriarchs and Rachel�s Tomb are undoubtedly Jewish holy sites, but their power transcends any narrow view of their Jewish past. Their uniqueness is based on the multicultural story of this country over the course of thousands of years. A society which is capable of accepting and respecting the culture and beliefs of another will have immeasurably greater success in maintaining its position in the country than one focused only on its own past, ignoring its complexity, blind to the fact that its own past is also that of others as well. When believers of all faiths worship at their holy places, these sites are strengthened, as are the worshippers themselves. Rather than focusing on its national heritage, it would be better for Israel to focus on the country�s broader cultural heritage and strengthen the unique multicultural nature of this land.

###

* Yonathan Mizrachi is a member of �Emek Shaveh�, and one of the founders of the Alternative Archaeological Tour in Silwan/City of David � www.alt-arch.org. This article is distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) with permission from Ha�aretz.

Source: Ha�aretz, 25 February 2010,
www.haaretz.com
Copyright permission is granted for publication.

Palestinian prime minister to Israeli leaders: We are building a state while under occupation to end the occupation

by Ziad Asali — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 00:00:00 -0500

WASHINGTON, DC - Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad forthrightly brought his case for building a Palestinian state to Israeli political and military leaders, and they applauded. The new Palestinian attitude towards how to end the occupation that began in 1967 was on full display during Fayyad�s speech at the Herzliya conference in Israel earlier this month, and it has had a considerable impact on its Israeli audience.

With reports that �proximity talks� between Israelis and Palestinians will begin soon, attention must be paid to Fayyad�s remarks and their reception.

Fayyad did not hold back in presenting the Palestinian perspective to Israel�s leaders. He firmly called for a settlement freeze, insisted that a Palestinian state must be fully sovereign and viable with East Jerusalem as its capital, and reasserted that the goal of the national movement is the creation of such a state living alongside Israel in peace and security. Although some Palestinians and Arabs criticised Fayyad for taking part in an Israeli conference on security, he received very strong support from many Palestinians based on the content of his remarks.

Standing on a record of performance and credibility, and cognizant of Israeli policy changes such as reaffirmed commitment to a two-state solution, reduction in checkpoints and security cooperation, Fayyad proposed in his speech the literal creation of a state in spite of the occupation, with the understanding that if such a state becomes an undeniable reality, formal recognition of its existence and an end to the occupation will be irresistible.

Fayyad thought he was going to a panel discussion and arrived at the conference without a prepared text. His extemporaneous comments reflected the systematic logic of serious policies meant to end the conflict and not talk about ending it.

Since last August when Fayyad�s cabinet adopted a formal plan for building the institutions of a state, while under occupation, to end the occupation, he has been at the epicentre of a transformation within the Palestinian national movement. With the support of President Mahmoud Abbas and his cabinet colleagues, he has been re-orienting Palestinian energies towards a constructive governmental and social programme aimed at laying the groundwork for establishing a state of Palestine.

Many Israelis seem uncertain how to react to this unanticipated development. The Israeli extreme right wing and settler movement have made their angry objections crystal clear, and denounced Israeli President Shimon Peres for comparing Fayyad to Israel's first Prime Minister, David Ben-Gurion.

The audience that Fayyad was really aiming at was the Israeli national security establishment that understands that a peace agreement with the Palestinians is a strategic imperative for Israel, but had not seen a credible way of achieving it. His approach provides a way for both peoples to exchange a vengeful, tribal clash for a new paradigm that respects each other�s national rights and narratives.

Fayyad�s message was loud and clear: We can and will build our state in preparation for ending the occupation, without asking for permission. Addressing criticisms that his programme is unilateral, he insisted that it must be so, for if Palestinians do not build their own state, �who is going to do it for us?�

The Prime Minister cited numerous examples of what this means in practice, including more than 1,000 community development projects that have already been completed, the creation of the nucleus of a Palestinian central bank and the performance of the new Palestinian security services.

He, President Abbas and his cabinet colleagues have had the vision and courage to push the Palestinian national movement into a new phase that embraces the responsibilities of self-government as it continues to insist on the right of self-determination. In Herzliya, Israel was listening.

However, the Palestinians will not be able to fully realise this ambitious and potentially transformative programme on their own. It will require a sustained global effort to provide the Palestinian Authority with the financial and technical support and the political protection that will be required for it to succeed. The Obama administration, the Quartet, Arab governments and the Israeli government have a state-building plan in Palestine. This is the time for them to act.

By turning their attention to establishing the administrative and infrastructural framework of such a state, responsible Palestinians are doing their part to build the infrastructure of peace. They are paving their own way for the people of the Middle East to live in peace with security and dignity for all.

###

* Ziad Asali is President of the American Task Force on Palestine, and serves on Search for Common Ground's Middle East Advisory Board. This article is distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) with permission from the author.

Source: The Huffington Post, 24 February 2010,
www.huffingtonpost.com
Copyright permission is granted for publication.

Muslim women wage jihad against violence

by Mehnaz M. Afridi — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 00:00:00 -0500

Los Angeles, California - International Women�s Day on 8 March provides an opportunity to raise awareness of the work women are doing to combat gender inequality. Violence and inequality affect women around the world, including women in Muslim societies who, like their non-Muslim counterparts, are engaged on a day-to-day basis to improve their environments for the better.

Travelling back and forth to Muslim-majority countries such as Pakistan, I witness the amazing work that women are doing both for human rights and economic growth firsthand. Women are running companies, shelters and businesses, and countering the images of disenfranchised, illiterate and socially deprived Muslim women so pervasive in Western media.

Bushra Aslam, for example, opened an orphanage in Islamabad for young girls after the 2005 Pakistani earthquake. She provides educators, mentors, counsellors and interfaith activities for the 45 girls living there. Another inspiring figure is Rukhsana Asghar, the president of Fulcrum, a Pakistan-based human resources consulting company that offers scholarships to train girls from poor families in preparation for jobs.

Little is known in the West about the very positive initiatives taking place across the Muslim world. In Morocco, Egypt and Turkey, for example, women are being trained as religious guides, known as murshidat, to provide spiritual guidance for women and children in those countries.

And movements such as the Women�s Islamic Initiative in Spirituality and Equality (WISE), a global social network and grassroots social justice movement, aim to create opportunities for women in the Muslim world. One particular WISE project, Jihad (Struggle) against Violence, aims to end violence toward women to promote women�s advancement both in the Muslim world and beyond.

WISE is based on the idea that �[v]iolence is a human phenomenon that exists across diverse cultures and faith communities. It remains an ever-present reality in the lives of millions of Muslims, preventing entire societies from flourishing in religious, cultural, political and economic spheres. Throughout the world, violence destroys the ability of Muslim women to thrive within their families, communities and nations.�

On 6 February, WISE announced an international day of action against female genital cutting (FGC), a widespread custom across Africa. Since it happens to so many girls regardless of faith, Christian priests and Muslim shaikhs have come together to condemn the practice. To carry their message further, and as part of its ongoing Jihad Against Violence campaign, WISE is collaborating with the Egyptian Association for Society Development (EASD), a non-governmental organisation in Giza, to provide religious education against the practice, as well as financial incentives and replacement economic activities for those currently performing FGC.

For example, in 2008, members of the association reached out to Amin Hussein, a barber who regularly committed FGC illegally (Egypt banned FGC in 1996). After receiving educational training demonstrating that FGC is un-Islamic and harmful to women, Hussein agreed to stop the practice and was provided monetary compensation and new tools for his business through this programme.

It has been well over a year since Hussein committed FGC and he proudly displays in his shop a declaration from Al-Azhar University that FGC is un-Islamic and forbidden.

WISE also works toward the prevention and elimination of domestic violence, which many in the West falsely believe is more prevalent, or even sanctioned, in Muslim communities, due to stereotypes perpetuated by Hollywood and in Western media.

Some Muslims also mistakenly believe that Islam permits domestic violence. An attitude that is the result of cultural norms, tribal practices and a lack of knowledge of scriptural interpretations empowering women.

WISE is working to raise awareness of domestic violence and offer support to victims of abuse through its members and their organisations. WISE member and psychologist Ambreen Ajaib who works at Bedari, a women�s rights organisation in Pakistan, for example, provides psychological counselling to survivors of gender-based violence.

These are the kinds of commitments and transformations that Muslim women have made and continue to make to reduce the gender inequalities that result in FGC and domestic violence. Despite the work of organisations such as WISE to raise awareness of issues that negatively affect women and take real steps to stop it, more such effort is needed: the journey to equality for Muslim women is not yet over.

###

* Mehnaz M. Afridi, Ph.D. (www.mehnazafridi.com) teaches Judaism and Islam and is a human rights activist for women of all faiths, promoting co-existence and peace between Jews and Muslims. For more information about WISE, please visit www.wisemuslimwomen.org. This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).

Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 2 March 2010, www.commongroundnews.org
Copyright permission is granted for publication.

Polygamy in context

by Alia Hogben — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 00:00:00 -0500

Kingston, Canada - Over the centuries, Muslim scholars and men have accepted polygamy, the practice of having multiple wives, but the Qur�anic permission and the context have been lost. In the Qur�an, polygamy is never discussed in terms of men�s rights, but instead in terms of the needs of women and children at the time.

In fact, it is mentioned in verses 4:3, 4:127 and 4:129 of the fourth chapter of the Qur�an, notably entitled An-Nisa' � the Arabic word for women. Much of this chapter was revealed in the fourth year of migration of the fledging Muslim community from Mecca to Medina, circa 627 CE, and marks the start of the Muslim calendar. It builds on the preceding chapter regarding the Battle of Uhud between early Muslims and the inhabitants of Mecca in which many Muslim men were killed, leaving widows and orphans.

This is the context which is crucial to any discussion of polygamy in Islam, as permission was granted to men under these specific conditions. Polygamy was allowed in verse 4:3 because of God�s concern for the welfare of women and orphans who were left without husbands and fathers who died fighting for the Prophet and for Islam.

It is a verse about compassion towards women and their children; it is not about men or their sexuality. It was an instruction to a patriarchal society that these women and their children needed protection and maintenance, which at the time was most effectively achieved through marriage.

When it came to orphans, God suggested, �If you fear that you cannot do justice to orphans, marry such women as seem good to you, two, or three or four, but if you fear that you will not do justice then marry only one�.� This solution was to provide some protection for vulnerable women and children in a patriarchal society, so long as all wives received equal, fair treatment.

But in verse 129, God suggested that the possibility for equal, faire treatment is unlikely: �And it will not be within your power to treat your wives with equal fairness, however much you may desire it��

Incredibly, verse 129 is largely ignored and verse 3 is used by some Muslims to justify plural marriages for men, as if the verses are about men�s sexual needs rather than about the welfare of widows and orphans.

Scholars, such as the 19th century Egyptian jurist Muhammad Abduh and the contemporary Indian Islamic scholar Asghar Ali Engineer, reject the argument that men�s sexual lust should be satisfied by multiple wives, or indeed that men�s and women�s rights to sexual satisfaction differ.

Yet some men use the example of the Prophet�s multiple wives as justification for their own polygamy. But Muhammad had only one wife for 25 years. Only after her death did he enter into concurrent marriages, most of which were political moves to cement relationships with other tribes.

However, one powerful hadith (saying of the Prophet) describes the reaction of the Prophet on hearing that his cousin and son-in-law, Ali � married to his daughter Fatima � was considering taking a second wife. The Prophet was so angered he announced publicly that if Ali wanted a second wife, he would have to divorce Fatima first.

Over the centuries, the Qur�an has been almost exclusively interpreted by male scholars, and though many have been well-meaning and learned, they have reflected their own times, cultures and assumptions.

Fortunately today many scholars, such as Engineer, conclude that �polygamy was contextual, and monogamy is the norm� for our times. Some countries, such as Tunisia, have based their laws on this understanding.

The Qur�an�s message is eternal, but understandably the context has changed, and there are examples of the evolutionary teachings of the Qur�an.

For example, slavery existed for a long time within Muslim communities. It is true that most slaves were those taken in war, but slaves they still were. The Qur�an teaches kind behaviour towards slaves and encouraged freeing slaves as an act of charity, but did not eradicate slavery. Yet today, no Muslim would justify slavery.

Muslims, both men and women, must understand the restricted contextual permission for polygamy. It is not a God-given right for Muslim men and in today�s context it no longer applies as a means of protecting women or providing for them.

###

*Alia Hogben is Executive Director of the Canadian Council of Muslim Women (CCMW). This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).

Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 2 March 2010, www.commongroundnews.org
Copyright permission is granted for publication.

Pakistani Peace Caravan expresses solidarity with victims of violence

by Shujuaddin Qureshi — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 00:00:00 -0500

Karachi, Pakistan - It was an unusual gathering at Karachi�s Cantt railway station, where over 100 people from civil society organisations and political and trade unions, along with intellectuals and journalists, had gathered for a peaceful cause. Sixty of those gathered, including more than a dozen women, were part of a Peace Caravan that left Karachi on 13 February for Peshawar to express solidarity with the people of Peshawar and the North West Frontier Province (NWFP).

The idea of organising a Peace Caravan emerged at a consultation meeting of the Pakistan Peace Coalition (PPC) at the Karachi Press Club in November 2009. Civil society participants underlined the need to form a delegation to visit terrorist-hit areas of the NWFP. The objective of the caravan was to express solidarity with people of the province; mobilise the working class, civil society and political parties against terrorism; build pressure on the government to fulfil its responsibility of maintaining law and order; raise a voice against the US-led international �war on terror�; and create harmony among working people in these difficult times.

When the train whistle announced the start of the journey, caravan participants and their friends on the platform raised pro-peace slogans. Many people at the station were happy to see civil society organisations expressing solidarity with the working class, which is facing economic hardship due to faulty economic and political policies.

In Hyderabad, the second largest city in the Sindh province and the first stop for the caravan, a large number of civil society activists were anxiously waiting to join. Men, women and children showered flower petals over the caravan members and raised slogans: �We want peace not war� and �We want peace not bombs.� The Joint Action Committee (JAC) Hyderabad issued a statement supporting the initiative, saying that the people of Sindh, the land of Sufis, are against all kinds of terrorism.

The caravan made its way to Khanpur, a small city in Pakistan�s Punjab province, where only two activists joined the caravan. At Multan, another city in Punjab, intellectuals, labour leaders, writers, journalists and residents also joined.

�Silence is criminal and we appreciate those who have broken this silence,� said local leader Saleem Lodhi.

Dr. Alvin Muran pointed out the diversity of those participating: �There are Muslims, Christians and Hindus in this caravan, which depicts a true picture of Pakistan.�

Arriving in Lahore in the evening, the caravan was greeted by hundreds of trade union and civil society activists and workers of the Awami National Party (ANP), a leftist political party, as well as several civil society organisations including the South Asia Partnership (SAP-PK), a civil society movement striving to empower marginalised sections of society and influence policies in favour of the people; Strengthening Participatory Organization, an organisation that supports community organisations and public interest institutions of Pakistan; Bonded Labour Liberation Front, an organisation that aims to eliminate bonded labour and child labour; GIYAN, a foundation in Lahore that works for culture and human rights; and PILER, the Pakistan Institute of Labour Education and Research.

The main purpose of the visit was to celebrate Peshawar and the resilience of those living in the midst of terror. During its two-day stay in Peshawar on 16 and 17 February, more than 100 caravan participants enjoyed a warm welcome. SAP-PK and Aman Tahreek, a representative body of civil society organisations, hosted a lunch for the participants at the city�s Grand Hotel. Aman Tahreek's representative, Dr. Syed Alam Mehsood, lectured on the conflict and the root causes of �Talibanisation�. Later, caravan participants staged a demonstration and raised anti-war and anti-Taliban slogans on the main road.

On the evening of 16 February, the delegation also visited the mausoleum of Rehman Baba, a 17th century Sufi poet, which was bombed by Taliban militants in March 2009. Caretakers of the mausoleum explained the losses sustained by the mausoleum to the delegation. The caravan also participated in a public meeting in Hayatabad, in which more than 1,000 workers participated. The evening was concluded at a Pakistan�s People�s Party-Sherpao reception hosted by Sikandar Hayat Sherpao, an elected member of the NWFP Provincial Assembly who was previously injured in a suicide attack, and Senator Haji Ghufran.

The following day, at a lunch reception, NWFP Governor Owais Ahmed Ghani stated that the visit of the caravan had boosted the morale of the people and would be a major breakthrough in reducing public fear of the Taliban. A similar theme was discussed at the Peshawar Press Club, where the caravan paused to express solidarity with journalists who were targeted in December 2009 by a suicide bomber.

As a final stop, the delegation visited Bacha Khan Markaz in Peshawar, headquarters of the ANP. Senior ANP leaders and representatives of the delegation, including Mian Abdul Qayom, a labour leader from Faisalabad, engaged in discussion. The ANP leadership expressed hope that the peace caravan initiative would bring together people from different parts of the country.

###

* Shujuaddin Qureshi is Senior Research Associate at the Pakistan Institute of Labour Education and Research (PILER). This abridged article is distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews). The full text can be found at www.dawn.com.

Source: Dawn.com, 24 February 2010, www.dawn.com
Copyright permission is granted for publication.

North Africans blog about conflict

by Magda Abu-Fadil — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 00:00:00 -0500

Beirut - Eighteen North African bloggers gathered in Rabat last week for a workshop on constructive and effective writing about conflict and upgrading their social media skills, despite censorship problems and various technical constraints in the Maghreb region.

The training, organised by the Washington, DC [and Brussels] based non-governmental organisation, Search for Common Ground (SFCG), included sessions on the needs and challenges facing bloggers, censorship, blogging and social media as forms of self-expression and activism, the impact of blogs in covering conflicts, the evolution of blogging and online media ethics.

The bloggers and activists from Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia put their newly acquired knowledge and ideas to the test, with participant Naoufel Chaara writing that the workshop had surpassed his expectations: "Admittedly, I was wrong. The SFCG training didn't match my pre-set idea about workshops and conferences where we suffer from boring speakers and doze off," he said. "Today, a lot of things will change."

The dynamic nature of the workshop allowed the bloggers to learn, interact, take pictures, shoot video, tweet and post content as they discussed what they can and can't do in their respective countries.

Morocco enjoys relatively more cyber freedom than its neighbors, with Algeria coming in second and Tunisia maintaining a stranglehold on access to social media vehicles.

The blogs themselves range from political and social forums, to more personal agendas, to strongly worded treatises on freedom of expression.

"We created a group on the Web and decided to pursue our discussions on our common woes: chats on the left, chats on the right, exchanges of photos, solidarity with the weak, and we said in unison: 'No to suppression of freedom,' and 'Yes to freedom of expression,'" wrote Chahida Lakhouaja on her blog, adding that the participants were proud to proclaim they were bloggers.

The workshop was launched with gusto by Leena El-Ali, Director of SFCG's Partners in Humanity programme that works to positively affect how individuals and groups in the West and Muslim world think and feel about cross-cultural issues.

She briefed the bloggers on the common ground approach of highlighting solutions, rather than just dwelling on problems, as well as providing a voice to all stakeholders.

El-Ali encouraged participants to write for the Common Ground News Service and set guidelines to help pave the way.

According to El-Ali, a common ground article provides constructive and solution-oriented perspectives and concrete steps for collaboration and understanding where possible; seeks areas of common ground or common goals and interests; promotes dialogue and cooperation; emphasises positive examples of interaction between Western and Muslim cultures; expresses constructive self-criticism; instills hope and optimism in readers that non-adversarial solutions to conflict are possible; highlights positive experiences between individuals that humanise the other and offer hope; and contributes to understanding between Muslim and Western cultures.

Moroccan journalist/blogger Rachid Jankari, director of MIT Media and publisher of www.maroc-it.ma, kept the charged pace going, introducing participants to the latest in cyber offerings and tutoring them on how to master the use of various Web tools.

The bloggers could hardly keep up with his delivery and enthusiasm about the Web's endless possibilities.

Also on hand was Mohamed Daadaoui, Assistant Professor of Political Science at Oklahoma City University, whose Maghreb Blog focuses on politics, economic trends, and news of the Maghreb region. Daadaoui spoke about how blogs have been used in covering upheavals and conflicts. He also focused on how blogging has been a source of problems, and when blogs have helped in promoting solutions.

The following is a list of North African blogs:

almiraatblog.wordpress.com/about
almiraat2.wordpress.com
kamelmansari.maktoobblog.com
kamelmansari.over-blog.com
kamelmansari.blogspot.com
rachid87.maktoobblog.com
chabakamissour.fr.gd
hindapress.canalblog.com
chaara.net
issaad.net
chahida25.maktoobblog.com
emmabenji.canalblog.com
nawel.guellal.over-blog.com
nightclubbeuse.blogspot.com
fatounar.blogspot.com
courantalternatif.blogspot.com
tiznitoi.blogspot.com
www.jankari.org
maghreblog.blogspot.com

###

* Magda Abu-Fadil is Director of the Journalism Training Program at the American University of Beirut. This article is distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) with permission from the author.

Source: Huffington Post, 24 February 2010, www.huffingtonpost.com
Copyright permission is granted for publication.

Behind the debate on Muslim integration in Germany

by Stephan J. Kramer — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 00:00:00 -0500

Bonn, Germany - The relationship between the popular majority in Germany and the country's Muslim residents is one of the foremost topics of public debate in Germany today, and a discussion that often escalates into a dispute.

One side accuses Muslim immigrants of simply not wanting to assimilate into German society, while the other accuses the majority of Germans of being hostile to Islam and trying to exclude Muslim residents from public life in this country.

The reality is admittedly much more complicated than that, and this complexity must be acknowledged and appreciated.

An important part of this recognition is to illuminate the background against which demands for integration must be met. Historically, German identity has been shaped not only by German language and culture, but also by Christian faith. Anyone whose culture did not fit into these parameters was perceived as alien. The group that experienced the effects of this exclusionism most painfully was the Jews. The tragic culmination of Jewish strivings to be accepted by the German people is only too familiar.

Today, Germany is a liberal democracy. Therefore, any parallels drawn between the Holocaust and the xenophobia that exists today in Germany with regard to Muslims is not only an insult to the victims of Nazi genocide, but also reveals an utter disregard for and ignorance of the democratic achievements of the Federal Republic of Germany since 1945.

Nevertheless, the historically anchored self-image held by German society remains omnipresent and places a burden on the integration of immigrants and their children. This is not meant as a reproach � for it is just as impossible to impose a supra-ethnic national identity from above in Germany as it is in any other country � but it does make it all the more pressing for us to find a better model for coexistence.

For the majority, the key tasks are to spread knowledge of Islam, as well as to consistently inculcate respect and tolerance for others. I would dare to claim that most Germans are not familiar with the basic facts about Islam and Muslim culture.

In debates about Islam, for instance, God is usually referred to using the Arabic word for God, "Allah" � leading to the perception of a different, separate divinity, so to speak, more severe and unyielding than the Christian "God of love". And how many Germans know anything about Islamic social doctrines, jurisprudence or the duty to act charitably?

Hence, it is urgent that a more balanced view of Islamic religion and civilisation be imparted to the larger German population. So long as this does not happen, or does not happen sufficiently, prejudices will proliferate.

This is no easy task. It requires the creation of teaching materials for schools and other institutions, the education of teachers, plenty of time and, of course, funds, which always seem to be scarce. And it is not always popular politically � people are loath to give up their old prejudices, and thus avoid coming to terms with uncomfortable themes.

And yet, without a comprehensive effort at enlightenment on the federal, state and municipal levels, "Islamophobia" and hostility toward Muslims will continue to spread. This is not only immoral, but promotes divisiveness and cements the tendency of some Muslim social strata to set up parallel societies.

On the other hand, we must reject the demand made by hardline Muslim circles that we should compromise our basic liberal, democratic order in Germany to achieve successful integration.

We must likewise refuse to condone replacing the German code of law with Islamic jurisdiction for Muslims.

Naturally, every form of religiously motivated violence, whether directed against other Muslims or non-Muslims, must be combated. In the process, the law-abiding and democracy-affirming majority of German Muslims must stand shoulder to shoulder with the law-abiding and democracy-affirming majority in our country.

In a free society, democrats must dissociate themselves from anti-democrats �not from Muslims, Christians or Jews. Therefore, leading figures in the Muslim community � politicians, religious leaders, community activists, authors and others � are now, as before, called upon to clearly distance themselves from extremists in every way. The more resolutely they do so, the more they contribute to the integration of Muslims.

However, not only prominent members of the majority or minority bear this duty, but rather each and every citizen. All of us should not only advocate respect for others in theory, but should live by this precept in our daily lives.

We must do so not only with our heads, but also with our hearts, in keeping with the Bible's Third Commandment (Leviticus 19:18): "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself". This is the only way to ensure a common future for the good of our country.

###

* Stephan J. Kramer is Secretary General of the Central Council of Jews in Germany. This article is distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) with permission from Qantara.de.

Source: Qantara.de, 19 February 2010, www.qantara.de
Copyright permission is granted for publication.

Learning from the Sadat Years

by Khaled Diab — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 00:00:00 -0500

BRUSSELS - Nearly three decades after his death, the former Egyptian president, Anwar el-Sadat, remains a controversial figure. In Israel and many parts of the West, he is best remembered for his daring trip to Jerusalem, where he became the first and only Arab head of state to address the Israeli Knesset, and his deadlock-breaking peace accord with Israel.

In Egypt and the Arab world, he is celebrated for the victories he scored in the early parts of the 1973 war, the first time an Arab power had shown the titan of Israel�s military might to be vulnerable and so soon after the crushing defeat in 1967. However, Sadat�s subsequent peace deal with Israel was far more controversial. Although many Arab leaders privately accepted that peace with Israel was necessary and inevitable�including Sadat�s predecessor Gamal Abdel-Nasser who conducted promising secret peace contacts with then Israeli Prime Minister Moshe Sharett�none at the time were bold enough to say it publicly. Rather than working with Sadat to create a unified Arab position for negotiations, they turned on him instead.

In Egypt, opinion was and remains divided, with many viewing the Camp David Accords as a betrayal. However, most Egyptians, tired of what is widely viewed as the Arab desire to defend the Palestinian cause to �the very last Egyptian�, grudgingly accept the benefits of a cold peace.

Today, with a general Arab consensus on the need for a settlement with Israel, as embodied in the Saudi peace plan, criticism of Sadat has become more muted and nuanced: his vision is accepted, though his unilateral tactics are still widely questioned.

Now, with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict looking as dire and insoluble as ever, what lessons can be learnt from the Sadat experiment?

One important lesson is the importance of symbolism and gesture politics in helping prospective peacemakers scale the walls of paranoia and distrust that separate Israelis and Arabs.

On both sides, many will say that the obstacles to peace�an ultranationalist, right-wing government in Israel, the rise of ultra-conservative Hamas in Gaza, the deadly Israeli siege of the Strip and the disarray and infighting among the Palestinian factions�are insurmountable. But things didn�t look particularly rosy back in the mid-1970s either, when war seemed to be the only show in town.

Then, as now, Israel was led by an ideologically rigid right-wing prime minister who, though he talked of the need for peace, was reluctant to negotiate with the Arabs or give up an inch of the dream of creating Eretz Yisrael. By going to Jerusalem and appealing to the Israeli people directly, Sadat forced Menachem Begin�s hand with a deft masterstroke.

Today�s Arab leaders could do well to learn that, faced with a powerful opponent who nevertheless fears them, a standoffish offer of peace, no matter how attractive, means little when it comes from a great distance. It needs to be delivered in person wrapped in olive branches.

In fact, the need for direct contact and negotiations between politicians from Israel and the frontline Arab states, not to mention the Arab and Israeli peoples, is greater than ever, given the level of mutual dehumanisation and distrust. That does not mean that economic and political ties should be immediately normalised�that will be one of the fruits of eventual peace�but there should be a broad and sincere dialogue and cultural exchange between those on both sides who wish to build an enduring peace.

Israel could also draw similar lessons about the value of direct contact. Separated as they are behind physical and ideological walls, ordinary Israelis have negligible contact with their Palestinian neighbours, the people they most need to understand and coexist with. Israel needs to learn the language of its neighbourhood and start dealing with the Palestinians and Arabs in a way that will win them over�a good start would be to end its destructive and counterproductive blockade of Gaza.

In addition, both Israelis and Palestinians need to learn that violence has failed to resolve the conflict and will continue to do so. Israel needs to learn that its gung-ho �deterrent policy� deters little but the prospect for peace, while the Palestinian factions who advocate and employ violence need to realise that it achieves little beyond provoking the wrath of their powerful neighbour. Both sides would do well to learn from the tactics employed by their non-violent peace movements.

In the end, pragmatism is the only solution. As Sadat said in a 1978 speech in Cairo: �Peace is much more precious than a piece of land� let there be no more wars.�

###

* Egyptian by birth, Khaled Diab is a Brussels-based journalist and writer. He writes on a wide range of subjects, including the EU, the Middle East, Islam and secularism, multiculturalism and human rights. His website is www.chronikler.com. This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).

Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 25 February 2010, www.commongroundnews.org
Copyright permission is granted for publication.

Palestinian civil society in search of an identity

by Maher Issa — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 00:00:00 -0500

GAZA CITY - The changing political situation creates a need for Palestinian civil society to continually reflect on its true identity. It must decide how to approach crucial questions such as its function, relations with government, strategies and tactics, all the while not losing sight of its main raison d��tre of serving the Palestinian community.

The challenge is not simple. Civil society has to tread a fine line in order to avoid the Hamas-Fateh rivalry. Moreover, it has to subsist in an environment where the occupation�and resulting counter-violence�have rendered the language of dialogue and understanding almost non-existent. Yet, a healthy and well functioning civil society is vital for the building of a strong and independent Palestine.

Civil society organisations in the Palestinian territories play a variety of important roles, which make them even more indispensable for Palestinians. Not only do they function as service providers for the population in areas such as psychosocial support for vulnerable groups, re-employment and job creation, capacity building and training, and offering forums for free thinking and free expression, they also serve as watchdogs over government and other official institutions.

Palestinian civil society organisations face internal and external challenges imposed by the unique reality in which Palestinians live. They are required to respond to difficult questions such as: What is their position on the occupation? How can they play an effective role in supporting the steadfastness and perseverance of the Palestinian people without being involved in activities that may be classified as terrorist or violent actions, which negate the innate pacifism for which civil society should in principle stand? What is the position of independent civil society organisations regarding national issues that require them to express a political or legal opinion? How can theydo so without being perceived as aligning themselves with either Hamas or Fateh, which would inevitably create a backlash from the sidelined party?

The internal tensions within Palestinian society are no less challenging than the external ones as decisions carry the risk of undermining the perceived objectivity and the image of civil society organisations. This is particularly true for a community where the political situation is so divisive that stereotyping and rumours abound and often inform consequential decisions.

This situation forces civil society organisations to think twice before carrying out any action that could possibly be seen as unacceptable by the conflicted parties or which is liable to be misunderstood. The resulting choice is either to remain inactive and carry out safe alternatives that would essentially be meaningless or take the risk that a given action would displease certain parties or individuals.

The external circumstances on the ground, imposed by Israel and the international community, present yet another dilemma. If civil society organisations do decide to become involved in anti-occupation activities as their role presumably requires�such as demonstrations against settlements, home demolitions and daily mass arrests and invasions�the risk that they would be branded as terrorist or dangerous organisations could, no doubt, jeopardise their movement and compromise their ability to raise funds, both of which are critical factors for the functioning of these organisations. Reflection on these issues is crucial to gaining community support and popularity amongst Palestinians.

Meanwhile, Palestinian civil society is further impeded by the increasing division between the Islamic and non-Islamic sectors, particularly on issues of women and youth. This division makes it difficult for civil society organisations to unite various segments of Palestinian society around these causes and threatens the cooperation necessary for making progress on political reform and human rights issues.

Facing these dilemmas, civil society organisations can either assume positions in line with their mission to keep up the struggle for the benefit of the community and potentially pay a price for their activities, or decide to remain neutral and thereby accept their fate as an extension of other ineffective components of the regime.

A series of probing debates among civil society organisations is required. Civil society must review and define its role despite the circumstances. Ultimately, we must create a forum that brings together civil society representatives from Gaza and the West Bank with American and European donors. Civil Society must present its agenda both internally as well as to the international community and reach a common understanding about its roles and duties before it can decide what it can or cannot hope to achieve.

###

* Maher Issa is civil society activist in Gaza and a graduate of political studies. This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).

Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 25 February 2010, www.commongroundnews.org
Copyright permission is granted for publication.

Washington�s rapprochement with Syria is welcomed but not enough

by Rawhi Afaghani — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 00:00:00 -0500

WASHINGTON, DC - President Barack Obama nominated diplomat Robert Ford to become the first US ambassador to Syria since 2005. The step is a clear indication of a thawing US-Syrian relationship, and is also seen as a reward to Syria for recent cooperation in Lebanon and Iraq. Growing diplomatic rapprochement between Washington and Damascus comes as part of the ongoing White House effort to loosen Damascus� ties with Tehran. Supporters of closer US-Syrian relations argue that Syria can play an important role in quelling extremists in the region such as Hizbullah and Hamas.

Syria has been pursuing two different approaches with regards to its regional policy, including the peace process. On the one hand, it is encouraging the United States to support Turkish efforts to mediate between Syria and Israel, as attested by Syrian President Bashar Al Assad�s request last week from US Under Secretary for Political Affairs, William Burns. On the other hand, it is also maintaining strong ties with Iran, Hizbullah and Hamas. If the United States is going to achieve a comprehensive peace, it must do more than merely support the Turkish role.

The �soft policy� approach that President Barack Obama utilised in the region during his first year in office might have greatly benefited Syria as it got closer with the United States. But this does not appear to have encouraged Damascus to resolve its standoff with Israel. It has not been translated into the �flip� that the US wants.

Moreover, the recent diplomatic crisis and worsening relations between Israel and Turkey suggest that the latter has lost its credibility as an impartial mediator in the Syrian-Israeli talks. Increasingly more friendly relations between Turkey and hardliners in the region, including Syria, Iran and Hamas, could also be an indication that Turkey does not have what it takes to advance the peace process. While Syria had managed to extricate itself out of its international isolation and mend its relationship with Turkey, Tel Aviv and Ankara have drifted apart.

The recent Turkish shift away from Israel and the West, toward Syria and Iran, is troublesome both for US strategic interests and for peace-making in the region. During the last few years, Turkey has experienced a fundamental transformation with the Islamist Justice and Development party (AKP) at its helm. The new face of Turkey appears to be less committed to Europe and the West than in the past.
Syria sees a bright opportunity to deepen its relationship with Turkey in order to influence regional alliances and enhance its significance in regional politics, while also gaining a strong negotiating position vis-�-vis Washington.
However, Turkey�s growing relationship with Tehran could undermine Washington�s potential efforts in moving forward the peace process and put Ankara�s relationship with the West on a backburner.

Apart from the problematic nature of Turkish mediation, additional obstacles remain for Israeli-Syrian relations. For Syria, any peace negotiation with the Jewish State requires Israel to give up the Golan Heights. It is an issue on which Syria is unwilling to compromise. Nonetheless, Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has made it clear that Israel will not withdraw from the occupied Golan Heights and the Israeli public appears united on this issue.

For Israel, peace requires the Jewish State to reach agreements with all its neighbours, including the Palestinians, a process that has long been stalled. Syrian-Israeli talks should run parallel to a Palestinian-Israeli track as part of a regional comprehensive peace agreement. If Syria and Israel reached a peace plan prior to a regional settlement, the Palestinians would become the weakest link. In this context, the Syrians will be rendered no longer an influential party in the negotiation process. Moreover, the Palestinians would have no cards left vis-�-vis the Israelis should they go at it alone.

A regional process would give the Palestinians a stronger negotiating position with the Israelis, similar to the one they had during the 1991 Madrid process. For Israel, a comprehensive agreement with all its neighbours�perhaps as the Arab Peace Initiative suggests�could reap greater benefits. Mainly, by normalising its relations with the Arab and Muslim world, Israel would be accepted in the region.

On Washington�s part, comprehensive peace requires Damascus to compromise on its relations with hardliners in the region and commit to participating in the peace process. The Obama administration is on the right track in pulling Syria out of the Iranian orbit. However, it seems that there is a missing link in Washington�s efforts: It must not neglect the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, which is the cornerstone of regional unrest.

###

* Rawhi Afaghani is a conflict analysis, resolution specialist and media analyst. The author grew up in a Palestinian refugee camp in the West Bank and now lives and works in Washington, DC. He can be reached by email at rafaghani@gmail.com. This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).

Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 25 February 2010, www.commongroundnews.org
Copyright permission is granted for publication.

Training our boys to be bullies

by Larry Derfner — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 00:00:00 -0500

JERUSALEM - The main thing that drew me to Israel was that here, you put your life on the line in a great political struggle, unlike in the West, where political struggle is something you talk about from a safe distance.

The political struggle for Israelis, as far as I�m concerned, is to find a way to live in a rough neighbourhood without acting like bullies on the one hand, or like pushovers on the other. To be strong enough to deter attack, but not to pick fights. To stand up for your rights, but to know where your rights end and the neighbour�s begins. It�s not easy, but that�s the challenge�to live with both a backbone and a conscience. In short, to be (if I may apply this term to both genders) a mensch.

For Israelis who aren�t pacifists, part of being a mensch is serving in the �citizen�s army�. I was glad for the chance to serve, and I want and expect my sons to do so as well. It�s part of this whole idea of not living a sheltered life, of not letting others fight your battles, of doing your part to protect your country.

But I�m afraid that today, the idea of going into the army is not about becoming a mensch, or about learning to stand up for yourself without pushing others around, but mainly about pushing others around.

In this ultra-nationalistic atmosphere, way too many teenagers see the army as an opportunity to take revenge on the country�s enemies, to show the Arabs and the whole hostile, hypocritical world how strong we are, how fearless, how much greater than any other nation we are.

In Friday�s Ha�aretz there was a story about �Footsteps of the Fighters�, a motivational camp in the Golan Heights for 12th graders being run by Avigdor Kahalani, a Yom Kippur War hero and former �Labor hawk� in the Knesset. Since he started the programme five years ago, some 180,000 12th graders have come to �tour battle sites, meet combat soldiers, watch a live-fire exercise� and listen to Kahalani�s stock motivational lecture.

�I was an MK, I met with Arafat, I hosted Abu Mazen in my home, I did a lot of things for peace. I tell you, the hatred for us cannot be bridged. Peace can be made if tomorrow we all move to New York. Nobody will take us in there anyhow. We can�t stop protecting ourselves. We have no other country,� Kahalani told the young crowd, according to someone there who quoted him back to Ha�aretz, which in turn confirmed the quotes with Kahalani.

He poured out his bile on Israeli draft-dodgers, saying gruffly how he could have �killed� one celebrity who got out of the army and how he would �deal personally� with others who tried.

�Those who don�t serve won�t pay taxes, they�ll bring crime, drugs�don�t accept them! Cast them out!� he said.

But that wasn�t all�he even ridiculed soldiers who ask to do their service close to home, calling them the equivalent of �mama�s boys�. For the big emotional climax, Kahalani held up a large Israeli flag and said, �I want to give you a gift. I want to give you this flag. The whole world has flags. But they�re ugly. Red, black, green. Who has a flag with a Star of David on it? Who has one that is blue and white?�

The note-taker reported that the 12th graders responded to Kahalani�s speech with �stormy applause�. Some 180,000 youngsters have been put through this indoctrination, just before they go into the army. In the last five years, that means a huge proportion of IDF recruits. And if they�re anything like those in the Ha�aretz story, they ate it up.

I don�t blame the 12th graders, of course; �Footsteps of the Fighters� just reflects the times they�re growing up in: There�s no chance for peace, the Arabs hate us, always have, always will. We have no other country because no other country wants us, and besides, they�re all ugly anyway; only our country is beautiful�blue and white. Listen up, everybody�it�s us against the world. Now go get �em.

I remember when there was an Israeli type called the �soldier for peace�, when it was believed entirely possible, when it was considered no contradiction at all, to be a dedicated IDF soldier and a dedicated opponent of war and conquest. Until this last rotten decade, Israel�s military class, as far as I know, was the world�s only military class that tended to the left side of its country�s political spectrum�that was a voice for peace.

No more. Now the voice of the military establishment comes from the retired generals showing up in the TV newsrooms urging us to war, congratulating the IDF, Shin Bet or Mossad for every reckless bombing and assassination they pull off.

There�s no balance anymore, no tempering of the soldier�s spirit with an urgency to prevent killing and dying. There�s no more attempt to see if we can simply stand up straight and survive�no, it�s either swagger or cringe, and we prefer swagger.

In 21st century Israel, this is what it means to be a man. But it�s nobody�s idea of what it means to be a mensch.

###

* Larry Derfner writes for The Jerusalem Post. This article is distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) with permission from The Jerusalem Post.

Source: The Jerusalem Post, 17 February 2010,
www.jpost.com
Copyright permission is granted for publication.

Pro-MidEast in America: Getting past �pro-Israel� and �pro-Palestine�

by Bradley Burston — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 00:00:00 -0500

JERUSALEM - Let�s face it. Viewed from North America, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a dismal read.

Seen in full context, the confrontation is suffocatingly complex. As literature, it is paralytic, sullenly wordy. The plot, for all its spasms and blood, goes nowhere. As drama, the Israel-Palestine morass is the geopolitical equivalent of James Cameron�s 1997 film �Titanic�: interminable, exorbitant, unwieldy, dumb without just cause. Titanic-like, it tempts the observer to bail out in mid-course, seething under the breath �Sink, already! Just #*%&-ing sink!�

This may explain why it often seems that the only participants left standing�that is to say, still interested�in the debate over the future of Israel and Palestine, are extremists. These are the evangelists of the zero-sum. They are the activists for the One State Solution, that is, One State for My Side Alone. They are the misers of spirit who believe that this land cannot be big enough for the both of us.

The full text of this article can be found at: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1150311.html

###

* Bradley Burnston writes for Ha�aretz. This article is distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) with permission from Ha�aretz.

Source: Ha�artz, 17 February 2010,
www.haaretz.com
Copyright permission is granted for publication.

Can madrasahs bridge the education gap for British Muslims?

by Asim Siddiqui — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 00:00:00 -0500

London - Studies show that poor educational attainment and professional underachievement are prevalent amongst young British Muslims. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation, an independent development and social research charity, found that British Muslims are less upwardly mobile than their Hindu, Christian and Jewish counterparts. This trend appears consistent across Europe, where Muslims are almost three times more likely to be unemployed than non-Muslims.

Because Muslims are one of the most insular and least economically advantaged groups in Europe, there is a real need to raise aspirations, increase opportunity and mainstream the involvement of young Muslims in society. Local mosques and madrasahs can help.

Britain has an estimated 1,600 madrasahs, weekend or after-school religious learning centres, most of which are associated with mosques. As many as 200,000 Muslim children of all ethnic backgrounds � aged four to mid-teens � attend these madrasahs. The schools range from offering rote learning of religious texts to interactive places where Islamic teaching and mainstream school subjects are taught in fun and creative ways.

Mosque-based madrasahs remain popular with British Muslim families, as they are often the only places where basic Islamic education is available to children. As such, it makes them a largely untapped market for exposing young students to professional and aspirational development.

Unfortunately, some madrasahs are disconnected from the real world and the potential for children to achieve their full potential goes largely unrealised. A recent Open Society Institute report, �Muslims in Europe: A Report on 11 EU Cities�, confirmed that teaching methods in many madrasahs, which include rote learning and strict discipline, are often out of tune with contemporary educational thinking and practice, failing to nurture the skills essential for success in the modern workplace.

Another report by the Islamic Foundation�s Policy Research Centre showed a need for more �joined-up thinking� between messages emanating from madrasahs and those from mainstream education providers. The need for greater engagement between mosques and professional sectors is crucial in building confidence and broadening horizons for Muslims in Britain and across Europe.

One such scheme has been launched by CEDAR (www.thecedarnetwork.com), a European Muslim professional network. It has partnered with Young Enterprise, the UK�s leading business and enterprise education charity, to work in collaboration with mosques to provide professional mentoring sessions within mosques themselves. This innovative approach synergises the special connections many young Muslims have with their local mosque with the wealth of professional experience of CEDAR mentors, helping to provide a learning experience that young Muslims can really engage in.

The mentoring programme seeks not only to raise the aspirations of young Muslims, but also to make introductions with Muslim professionals who can act as career role models with whom they can build long-term connections.

For example, a recent event held at Tawhid Mosque in London saw an interactive session consisting of a range of experiential learning activities for the mosque�s madrasah students and other local youth. This included life mapping (tools and techniques to help young people plan for the life they want), skills development and a competition for the best social enterprise business plan involving the building of a community centre. This competition encouraged students to think of the practical needs of their local community � comprised of Muslims and non-Muslims � beyond those of their own faith community.

Unusually, the mosque � considered to be one of the more socially conservative in Britain � allowed a mixed group of boys and girls to work together, and saw the value of a programme which allowed Muslim children to be productive in an environment more akin to the real world.

After the session, 13-year-old Bassim el-Sheikh reflected on what he had learnt: �My confidence is much better now; my teamwork is much better; my listening skills and talking skills are much better.�

Mosques in Britain are slowly trying to make themselves more relevant to youth, women and non-Muslims. The larger mosques are seeking to become more holistic centres, not just places of worship, offering English classes, basic computer courses, gym facilities and regular interfaith events.

The more that mosques and madrasahs can be plugged into mainstream society, raising the aspirations of the young Muslims that attend them and providing key life skills, the greater the chances of preventing the mental and physical ghettoisation which has afflicted some British and European Muslim communities, and of contributing to improved levels of education and professional advancement.

###

* Asim Siddiqui is a founding board member of CEDAR, and a founding trustee of the City Circle. This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).

Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 23 February 2010, www.commongroundnews.org
Copyright permission is granted for publication.

On the road to better Lebanese-Turkish relations

by Mohammad Noureddine — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 00:00:00 -0500

Beirut - Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri�s recent visit to Turkey was a milestone in Lebanese-Turkish affairs.

For the first time, Hariri and a Lebanese delegation of eight ministers met with Turkish Minister of Foreign Affairs Ahmet Davutoğlu, Turkish President Abdullah Gul, Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Recep Erdogan and many other Turkish business leaders and investors. More important than this unprecedented meeting were the meeting�s outcomes, which included eliminating entry visas between the two countries for the first time since the breakup of the Ottoman Empire after the First World War when Lebanon came under French control.

For decades, many Lebanese � both Christian and Muslim � harboured negativity toward the Turkish state. The Christian Lebanese community felt that during the Ottoman Empire the Turks treated Christians as second-class citizens. Christian religious leaders, part of the then Christian majority in Lebanon, were instrumental in attempts to achieve Lebanese independence from the Turkish Sultanate. Add to this the influx of tens of thousands of Ottoman citizens of Christian Armenian origin to Lebanon during the First World War, especially after the mass killings in 1915 when they were perceived as a threat to the Ottoman state.

Muslim sentiment in Lebanon is no less important. The end to the Ottoman caliphate and the establishment of the Republic of Turkey in 1923 generated anger among Muslims in Lebanon and the region who wanted Turkey to remain a leader of the Muslim world. Hence, secular trends within the Turkish government, instituted by Turkish President Kemal Ataturk, negatively influenced the outlook of many Muslim Lebanese toward Turkey.

A third factor limiting positive Lebanese relations with Turkey was the latter�s recognition of Israel in 1950, a country not recognised by Lebanon.

Aside from a brief period in the 1950s when Lebanon and Turkey shared similar interests against Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser's pan-Arab movement and a common political affiliation with the United States, there has been very little positive interaction between the two countries at the government level.

In this context, the Hariri trip could not have taken place at the level at which it did, and with the resultant outcomes, without certain factors in place. First, the new government in Turkey � the Justice and Development Party � has prioritised building better relations with countries in the Middle East. Second, amiable developments between Turkey and Syria have played an important role in Turkey's relationship with Lebanon with Syria has using its influence with the pro-Syrian factions in Lebanon to encourage the country to soften its position toward Turkey.

Regardless of how Turkey practices its secularism, its implementation represents a model in a society formerly divided between the majority Sunnis � numbering 45 million � and the country's 20 million Alawites, who comprise a sect within Shia Islam.

Lebanon still grapples with public calls to modify its confessional political system, where political and institutional power is distributed proportionally among religious communities. And secularism represents one possible solution for societies comprised of diverse cultures and faiths. As such, multi-religious, multi-cultural Lebanon may have something to learn from the secular Turkish experience, and closer ties with Turkey could prove beneficial in this regard.

However, the Turkish example is not perfect. Turkey still grapples with the existence of laws that when practically interpreted have been considered discriminatory against its religious minority � limiting the personal and religious freedoms of the Alawites. And there is still an ongoing debate on the right to wear the hijab, or headscarf, in public buildings and institutions like universities.

Therefore, the Turkish experience may represent a model for Lebanon in principle, if not always in practice. And in this sense, perhaps Lebanon � with the religious and political freedoms it affords its citizens � could also serve as an example to Turkey, introducing mutual benefits for both countries through a closer relationship based on political, as well as social and cultural interests.

###

* Dr. Mohammad Noureddine is a professor at the Lebanese University, Director of the Center for Strategic Studies in Beirut, and Editor-in-Chief of Choo'un al Awssat magazine in Lebanon. This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).

Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 23 February 2010, www.commongroundnews.org
Copyright permission is granted for publication.

Partnership for Middle East peace, here in America

by Ziad Asali — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 00:00:00 -0500

Washington, DC - With the turbulence surrounding diplomacy and the Middle East peace process, it is more urgent than ever for civil society to unite around the obvious reality that a conflict-ending solution can only be attained through the creation of a Palestinian state living side-by-side with Israel in peace and security.

The two-state solution became official US policy under US President George W. Bush, and it is today seen as a national security priority under US President Barack Obama. It has been adopted internationally by the Middle East Quartet (comprised of the United States, Russia, the European Union and the United Nations), the Palestine Liberation Organisation, the Arab League and by successive Israeli governments.

This solution has also now come to define all mainstream American thinking about this issue, including the positions of the majority of both Arab and Jewish American organisations.

In the region, this policy is only opposed by the Iranian government, Hamas and Hizbullah, and by ideological extremists on the Israeli far right. In the West, opposition is restricted to activists on the extreme left and right political fringes.

However, too much of our politics has not yet come into harmony with this policy consensus.

On the positive side, recent months have witnessed an unprecedented consensus between the Obama Administration and US Congress. Longstanding supporters of Israel in Congress have clearly stated that the two-state solution serves American and Israeli strategic interests, and have accordingly supported the Administration�s early efforts to lay the foundations for renewed peace talks and to build the institutions of a Palestinian state.

On the other hand, the old zero-sum attitudes � in which a gain for one side is seen as an inevitable loss for the other, and more energy is spent on scoring debating points than on reaching solutions � continue to dominate the relationship between the Palestinian and Israeli governments, and also between Arab and Jewish communities and organisations in America.

This dissonance between stated goals and actual behaviour is at the heart of the difficulties facing the Administration�s effort to resolve this conflict, and it must be overcome.

While professing a common objective, America�s Arab and Jewish communities have thus far avoided creating a cooperative dynamic. Cross-community cooperation has only been established among a fraction of organisations, while the centre of gravity remains largely adversarial. The language of de-legitimisation and the constant search for �proof� of the other�s bad faith still define most rhetoric about the Arab-Israeli conflict, to the detriment of accomplishing what both communities say they want.

This might be an understandable (albeit profoundly destructive) dynamic between two foreign parties that are struggling to find a way out of a painful, active conflict. But it has no place in the American domestic political scene, in which the national interest in resolving this conflict must be paramount.

As the Obama Administration forges ahead with building an international coalition for peace, a domestic coalition for a two-state solution needs to be created in this country.

Its core purpose must be to communicate to political leaders, especially in Congress, the breadth of the coalition in favour of peace based on two states and the depth of commitment that it embodies. Members of Congress and other public figures need to be provided with sufficient support to truly embrace this approach, and to be confident that it comes at a political benefit and not a cost.

Such a coalition needs to crystallise around a nucleus of Arab and Jewish organisations. These two communities have the highest emotional and political stakes in the resolution of this conflict and the most detailed knowledge of the Middle East. Other Americans naturally look to them for leadership.

In addition, because of their deep personal and political relationships with Palestinians and Israelis respectively, these two communities are best positioned to support the administration�s efforts to bring the parties together for peace talks to ultimately end both the conflict and the occupation. A Jewish- and Arab-led coalition for peace can also demonstrate the commitment of the closest friends of the parties in the region to achieving a two-state agreement and show that these two communities � both here and in the Middle East � can work together to further their mutual interests.

Differences in nuance and emphasis � both within and between these two communities � are natural and healthy, as they foster debate and encourage new, creative ideas. The aim should not be to stifle such diversity, but rather to create the largest possible constituency for a peace agreement.

Such a coalition needs to be wide enough to encompass all organisations advocating a two-state solution, even if they have differences over why they support it, how to best reach this goal or even how to define it with precision. What is needed is a vehicle through which Arabs, Jews and other interested Americans can ensure that the sum-total of their efforts supports the overriding national security issue at stake.

All of us who want to end this conflict must now band together in common cause, shed outmoded and counterproductive attitudes, and give the necessary political support to leaders on all sides who are serious about achieving a solution. The time has come for our politics to finally be aligned with our shared policy goals.

###

* Ziad Asali is President of the American Task Force on Palestine, and serves on Search for Common Ground's Middle East Advisory Board. This article is distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) with permission from The Forward.

Source: The Forward, 3 February 2010, www.forward.com
Copyright permission is granted for publication.

The origins of sectarian tension in Egypt

by Osama Al-Ghazali Harb — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 00:00:00 -0500

Cairo - A complex and rampant phenomenon in Egyptian society, sectarian violence has been infesting Egypt for a long time, spawned as a result of a host of economic, social and cultural woes.

There is a direct and undeniable link between the emergence of these tensions on the Egyptian political landscape and the political system in place since the 1952 military coup. Sectarian tensions have blighted Egyptian society because of the ill-advised policies pursued by the ensuing regimes, such as former Egyptian President Anwar El Sadat�s unwise and inflammatory decision to label himself �The Muslim President of a Muslim state�, the constitutional amendments he made to Article 2 (which states that Islam is one of the principle sources of legislation) of the Constitution, as well as his moves to bolster the presence of Islamic political groups.

A reading of the Egyptian political scene during the time of the 1952 July coup may also help draw significant conclusions. Many of the Free Officers, members of the army who orchestrated the coup, had ties to or were even members of the Muslim Brotherhood, including Nasser. And there was not a single Christian among them.

And despite the fact that the regime launched an attack on the Brotherhood after former Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser's attempted assassination, believed to be by other Brotherhood leaders, it was itself extremely reticent about including Christians within its ranks, evidence that the basic make-up of the regime has helped fuel Egypt's sectarian tensions.

In addition, some observers allege that Christians in Egypt have been subjected to systematic forms of discrimination that have alienated them and left them so disgruntled that some became radicalised. This sorry state of affairs can be attributed to the lack of true democracy, which in turn undermines tolerance and harmony and fuels fanaticism and bigotry.

This bleak picture dominating Egypt's domestic front today is in stark contrast with the peaceful coexistence that used to mark the harmonious relations between the Muslim majority and the Christian minority in the years between the 1919 revolution against the British occupation and the 1952 coup.

There is no doubt that the political debacle experienced by Egypt in the wake of the 1952 coup � which manifested itself through the strict censorship of the media, the abolition of political parties and an iron grip imposed on civil society � took its toll on Muslims and Christians alike. However, Christians were further deprived of assuming any posts in intelligence or security agencies. This blatant injustice inflicted on the Christian minority played a crucial role in compounding the Coptic predicament of political dissatisfaction.

Moreover, political and cultural awareness has considerably deteriorated because of the absence of intellectual enlightenment in Nasser�s era, eroding the basic values of citizenship, equality and national unity.

Today we are in dire need of launching an awareness campaign to lead people to embrace the lofty values of religious tolerance and to renounce bigotry. The mass media and educational institutions can take this message far and wide.

We must also bear in mind that the current deplorable economic and social conditions that have led to more than 30 per cent of the Egyptian population living under the poverty line, has easily made Egypt a breeding ground for social ills like extremism and religious fanaticism.

Some religious facilities, whether Muslim or Christian, have been embroiled in vicious campaigns inciting hatred and stoking extremism on both sides. The houses of God mustn�t be used as strongholds to disseminate erroneous and slanderous ideas, further entrenching divisions between Muslim and Christian communities.

We are facing real threats to our social cohesion and our future as a nation. We must live up to this challenge and be keenly alert to this looming danger that jeopardises our national unity.

###

* Osama El-Ghazali Harb is Editor-in-Chief of the monthly Al Siyasa Al Dawliya published by Al-Ahram and is one of the founders of the Democratic Front Party. This abridged article is distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) with permission from the Daily News Egypt. The full text can be found at www.thedailynewsegypt.com.

Source: Daily News Egypt, 2 February 2010, www.thedailynewsegypt.com
Copyright permission is granted for publication.

Islam in Bosnia: an interview with Armina Omerika

by Claudia Mende — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 00:00:00 -0500

Bonn, Germany - Islam has been practiced in Bosnia for centuries. Freelance writer Claudia Mende asks Armina Omerika, an expert in Islamic studies at the University of Erfurt in Germany, whether the Bosnian Islamic tradition could serve as a model for the integration of Muslims in other European societies.

How has Bosnian Islam come to terms with the non-Muslim Bosnian state?

Armina Omerika: This question arose for the first time in 1878, when Bosnia came under Austro-Hungarian rule. One could say that Bosnian Muslims have been living under "foreign rule" ever since. Even then, there were heated debates as to whether Muslims could live in a non-Islamic state. Reformers like Dzemaludin Causevic, leader of Bosnian Muslims from 1914 to 1930, were in favour of a modus vivendi [a temporary agreement between disputing parties allowing for peaceful coexistence until a formal settlement can be reached]. Naturally, this modus vivendi has changed through the years.

What issues were particularly controversial?

Omerika: There were fierce debates between Muslim intellectuals and scholars about the secularisation of education, the status of women in society and the reform of Islamic law. Since the Austro-Hungarian occupation, Islamic law has been restricted to family and inheritance laws.

One particularly controversial issue was the extent to which women could operate in public. The question of Islamic banks and interest rates was also discussed, as was the way in which the community should come to terms with non-Islamic administrative structures and systems of rule. Many areas of life were secularised � bit-by-bit. However, the impetus to reform Islamic law and to secularise society also came from within the Bosnian Muslim community, not from outside.

In other words, nothing can be achieved by applying pressure from the outside alone?

Omerika: Nothing much can be achieved without an intra-Muslim debate. In Europe in particular, Muslim communities are very diverse. They frequently disagree with one another and are poorly linked. Dialogue within the Muslim community is the first prerequisite for solving integration problems in European societies.

What was the situation during the period of Communist rule?

Omerika: Secularisation in Bosnia peaked during the period of Communist rule [beginning in the 1940s]. Although the roots of secularisation reach back to Muslim groups and debates in the early 20th century, the Communists enforced secularisation from above and coupled it with repressive measures against the Muslim community. Secularisation was implemented in a way that is out of the question for contemporary democratic states.

Did this forced secularisation lead to a religious revival?

Omerika: From the mid-1960s onwards, there was a phase of liberalisation and a hint of religious freedom, which led to a religious revival. Semi-legal movements and informal networks that had continued to exist underground were now able to speak out in the Communist state.

Is there an overlap between Islam and Bosnian nationalism?

Omerika: Ever since the Bosnian War [from 1992 to 1995], the Muslim community has supported a form of political nationalism in which ethnic national identity is equated with religious and political identity. Accordingly, alliances are repeatedly formed between the Muslim community and the various Bosniak (i.e. Bosnian Muslim) parties in Bosnia and Herzegovina that have a nationalist outlook.

Muslim communities in Western Europe, on the other hand, are made up largely of Muslims who have migrated there since the 1950s. Since then, Muslim life of an unprecedented diversity has developed. This diversity is not only of an ethnic, but also of a theological nature. There are linguistic, ethnic and doctrinal barriers amongst the Muslims of Western Europe which make it impossible to transfer aspects of Bosnia's Muslim community to other regions of Europe.

And what about the theological aspects? Could they act as a model?

Omerika: In Bosnia, the tradition of open Muslim discourse is as old as the Muslim community itself. While there are conservative currents, they are part of an ongoing debate.

A milestone in Bosnian Islam was the re-establishment of the Faculty of Islamic Studies in Sarajevo in 1977. Islamic scholars such as Enes Karic and Fikret Karcic, who work at Europe's only Muslim faculty at a state university, have developed groundbreaking concepts for the integration of Islam into a secular state.

Is the status of Islam a topical issue in Bosnia?

Omerika: Mufti Mustafa Ceric is particularly controversial. Many accuse him of positioning himself as a political player and overstepping the bounds of his role as a religious leader. They also say that he is mixing Islam and politics and poses a threat to the secular character of the state.

In addition, Salafism [a conservative Sunni movement originating in Saudi Arabia] and its missionary efforts are a regular theme in the Bosnian press. In contrast, hardly anything is said about conservative Christians from the United States acting as missionaries to Muslim, Catholic and Orthodox youth. The same holds true for the close ties between the Serbian Orthodox Church and the state structures. The debate about Islam and its role in society has become a kind of ersatz discourse for debates about religion in general.

###

* Claudia Mende is a freelance writer. Armina Omerika is Assistant Professor at the University of Erfurt, Germany. This abridged article is distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) with permission from Qantara.de. The full text can be found at www.qantara.de.

Source: Qantara.de, 12 February 2010, www.qantara.de
Copyright permission is granted for publication.

Young Palestinian leadership at the helm of state building

by Hussam Ezzedine — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 00:00:00 -0500

RAMALLAH - In January 2009 I was standing with dozens of Palestinian youth who were jostling in front of the Palestinian Presidential Guard offices in Ramallah, hoping for a chance to work for the Guard. Some of them left quickly looking disappointed, evidently rejected for not meeting the basic requirements such as height or weight.

The young generation of Palestinians are playing an increasingly important part in building the institutions of a future state. This desire to participate stems largely from a sense that the ministries, the security apparatuses and other institutions, would not have come into being had it not been for the five year struggle of the first Intifada which they had spearheaded.

Nowadays the young generation has significant representation in Palestinian institutions. This was evident in the latest elections within the Fateh movement last summer, an election which was in fact won by the younger generation. The result is that the average age within the Fateh leadership has dropped significantly. Many of these younger leaders hold high positions within government ministries and some are ministers, like the Minister of Prisoner Affairs Eesa Qaraqe who has spent ten years in Israeli prisons.

The initial shift to political participation among the young generation took place in 1994, after the Oslo agreement, when the Palestinian leadership returned to the West Bank and Gaza. In the early days of the Palestinian Authority (PA), large numbers of young Palestinians joined the 120,000 strong civil and security sectors. Today, the employees in the nascent Palestinian institutions number 160,000, most of them young people. The PA has been encouraging youth participation as a strategic element in the process of reconstruction.

The importance of the youth to the leadership, both in terms of its role in politics and the armed struggle, was also evident following the collapse of political negotiations between the Israeli and Palestinian sides at Camp David in 2000. At that point, the leadership used the youth working in the civil institutions to launch new political acts against the occupation. These initially took the form of rallies, but then the focus turned to those working in the security sectors who were clearly ready for armed resistance and were therefore receptive to instructions from the political leadership to launch the second Intifada.

Compared with the first intifada, this uprising was more violent and represented an even stronger desire for independence. Since the political leadership had now returned to Palestinian land, a union emerged between young people who had previously been deported and now returned from abroad, and those inside. The violent nature of this intifada was, perhaps, not anticipated by the older generation. Again, it catapulted the youth to the forefront and contributed to the emergence of a new, younger, leadership, composed of people previously without a voice, such as Marwan Barghouti whom Israel accuses of leading the second Intifada.

The level of counter violence used by the Israeli army to quell the second Intifada, however, surpassed the level of violence used by the Palestinians. The high numbers of fatalities, injuries and prisoners led the younger leadership to re-evaluate their methods and prioritise preservation of the young political leaders.

That subsequent shift away from armed struggle and back to political means was clearly apparent in 2006 when the young leaders of the second Intifada who were now imprisoned in Israeli jails drafted a political document known as the �Prisoners� Document�. The document, which was presented to the Palestinian leadership (both Hamas and Fateh), was aimed at promoting internal reconciliation and continued peace negotiations. It represented the beginning of a serious attempt by the young Palestinian leadership to change the approaches assumed by the older leaders.

More recently, the results of the internal elections in Fateh�s Sixth Congress last summer, when the younger cadre took over the Central Committee of the movement and its Revolutionary Council, were an additional indication of the decision by the younger sector to drive the struggle for independence by political means.

Alongside the emergence of the young leadership in Fateh, which has taken place over several phases, the growing importance of the younger generation has been even more apparent within Hamas. Their rise to important positions within the party occurred at a faster pace, as is evident after the party�s victory in 2006 in the Gaza Strip. Since then, Hamas has been using young faces to communicate the movement�s political position to the world. Sami Abou Zuhri, the official spokesman of the movement, is now well-known across most satellite channels alongside Musheer El Masri, both of whom are familiar faces to those following the political situation in the Palestinian territories.

In both parties, the younger generation has substantial representation in the Legislative Council, which explains the presence of a clear trend to allow younger people to have a say particularly if it is in line with party policy.

For the last 16 years, the younger generation has oscillated between political participation and violent resistance to the occupation. The choice depends on whether or not there is a sense of progress in the political realm. If there is progress and given the chance, young Palestinians of today will choose the political path to establish their leadership and build a government.

###

* Hussam Ezzeddin is a Palestinian journalist, social researcher and parliamentarian.. This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).

Source: Common Ground News (CGNews), 18 February 2010,
www.commongroundnews.org
Copyright permission is granted for publication.

Policing and the Arab minority: from alienation to cooperation

by Guy Ben-Porat and Fany Yuval — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 00:00:00 -0500

LEHAVIM, Israel - Relations between the Israeli police and the Arab citizens of Israel have been a major concern in recent years, especially following the events of October 2000 when during demonstrations the police gunned down 13 Arab citizens. A commission of inquiry formed after the events placed the blame not only upon the police but also on the inflammatory rhetoric used by some Arab leaders. It also underlined the role of long-term discrimination in generating frustrations among the Arab citizens of Israel.

Equality for Arab citizens is a significant challenge Israel has yet to commit to and fair and effective policing is a central aspect of this challenge. Even though some attempts were made since October 2000, they have been too few and with little impact.

One of the main problems the commission identifies is that the police force is not perceived as a service provider by the Arab population but as a hostile element serving a hostile government. The commission was right when it outlined the need to expand community police services in order to improve the general services to this sector.

Improvement of police services will not only contribute to the everyday life of Arab citizens but also signal the commitment of the state and its institutions to this public. From the point of view of the police, successful reforms could yield trust and the required legitimacy to work effectively in Arab neighbourhoods.

A study that we conducted on behalf of the Abraham Fund Initiatives, sheds light on the challenges and potential for future reforms. Like minorities elsewhere, Arab citizens feel they are both over policed; stopped and arrested more than others, and under policed; receiving low quality police services inside their neighbourhoods. Thus, while the vast majority of the participants (74 percent) have not personally encountered police discrimination, the fact that a majority (77 percent) believes that Jews are treated better than Arabs by the police shows that negative perceptions run deep.

In spite of this lack of trust, however, our study shows that Arab citizens are unwilling to give up on police services, and are willing to cooperate with the police. The majority of the respondents in the study (60 percent) rejected the statement that �it is unlikely that Arab citizens will collaborate with police forces in any matter�, a fact that strongly suggests that reforms aimed at providing fair and effective police services would be welcomed by the Arab-Israeli public and that they would be willing to cooperate with the police to promote reforms.

Effective policing in a multicultural setting requires cultural sensitivity and a familiarity with the needs of ethnic minorities. A majority of the participants agreed that �a police officer who is not familiar with Arab culture and customs cannot perform well when working in the Arab community�.

Training of police officers and channels of communication between police and the Arab community are two potential areas for reform. Many respondents agreed that Arab citizens could and should take an active role in training police officers. Similarly, a significant majority agree that police work within Arab communities is much more likely to be successful if it would involve the community leaders.

Recruiting Arab police officers could be a step towards changing the police from within. Political and psychological obstacles resulting from existing tensions and suspicions still prevent many Arab citizens from joining the police. Yet, our findings indicate that a majority of Arab citizens support the recruitment of Arabs to the police forces and that 30 percent would join the police if they were looking for a job.

Interestingly, while 45 percent of the respondents believe that the recruitment of Arab citizens could have a positive impact, this does not necessarily mean that they want to be policed by Arab police officers. Rather, respondents indicated they were more concerned with the fairness and quality of service than with the ethnicity of the police officer.

Experiences from different countries point to the difficulties of adjusting police services to a dynamic multicultural reality and even more so where ethnic tensions underscore many aspects of public life. But while the police are often part of the problem in relations between minorities and the state, they also has the potential to be part of the solution, providing minorities with equality and a voice in policy making.

Arab citizens demand a police force that is both fair and effective in providing security to Arab neighbourhoods suffering from high levels of crime. Moreover, they are also willing to cooperate with the police to achieve this goal. To get there we need good will and a determined leadership, both within Arab society and the police.

###

* Fany Yuval is a lecturer at the department of Public Policy and Administration at Ben-Gurion University. Guy Ben-Porat is a senior lecturer at the department of Public Policy and Administration at Ben-Gurion University. This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).

Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 18 February 2010,
www.commonground news.org
Copyright permission is granted for publication.

Europe, the missing key to Mideast peace

by Ghassan Michel Rubeiz — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 00:00:00 -0500

PALM BEACH GARDENS, Florida - The latest American Middle East peace initiative has been launched in the absence of change in the attitudes of the protagonists or in the political landscape. Is America gambling with a new round of dead-end diplomacy by packaging old wine in new bottles?

The United States urgently needs Europe to take additional responsibility for resolving the conflict if it wants to break the deadlocked peace negotiations. Indeed, Israel may also need to reassess Europe�s relevance for its future.

The problem is that the White House has been working with the wrong assumption. The current deadlock does not stem from a dispute over the order of topics to negotiate, for example the place of a settlement freeze in relation to other controversial subjects. Rather, it lies in the predisposition of the stakeholders in the conflict: America has too close a relationship to Israel to be able to twist its partner�s arm to take a risk for peace. Israel is too comfortable with the occupation and the Palestinians are divided. Moreover, Arab rulers do not convey credibility.

Strong international pressure is needed to break the deadlock. But Washington alone is losing political muscle. Close coordination between the United States and Europe could both strengthen the power of mediation and provide international security to enforce a peace agreement.

To better understand Europe's credentials for peace promotion, consider some historical facts: Europe played a major role in the formation of the state of Israel. The British government authorised the �Homeland for the Jews�. The apocalyptic tragedy of the Holocaust, a central factor in the promotion of a Jewish state, was a Nazi German undertaking. Indeed, Jews who fled from Europe formed an essential backbone of the early state of Israel. And the first peace mission to the region after the 1967 occupation was undertaken by a European�Gunnar Jarring� the Swedish envoy to the United Nations.

Over the years, Europe�s role as a mediator receded, giving way to an expanding US role in the region. But in more recent decades, European states have achieved excellence in policing peace in many places: in the Middle East, the Balkans, West Africa and elsewhere. Given the opportunity, Europe could provide the Israelis and Palestinians with the necessary international security that is crucial for enforcing a two-state solution.

This international security is necessary, as most Palestinians strongly feel that a future Palestine would require a national army (albeit, possibly a symbolic one). Palestinian skies and borders must be free. But Israel considers an armed, independent Palestinian state, including armed movements such as Hamas within it, a threat to its current and future security.

Stationing international peace-keeping forces on the borders between Israel and an envisioned Palestine state backed by Europe would simultaneously give Palestinians the independence they need and Israel the security for which it yearns.

Despite its limitations, a peace-keeping model is already on the ground in the region in the shape of UNIFIL, the UN force in Southern Lebanon, which largely consists of, and has been led by, European states. This force could be modified, strengthened and broadened to cover the West Bank, Gaza and possibly the Syrian Golan borders. Currently, the EU itself has a policing force, EUBAM, along the border with Egypt, and despite its observer status, it could further contribute through an expansion to the 1967 borders. Indeed, Palestinians are more likely to be tolerant of a European force, bearing in mind Europe�s perceived balance in Israeli-Palestinian relations.

Europe, or rather, the EU can further contribute to a future agreement by offering as an incentive to Israel and future Palestine, a �special status� similar to the EU�s recent offer to Morocco. Also, Europe is urging the two factions of Cyprus to make peace in order to qualify as a united country for EU membership. Why not link the resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict to the prospects of securing Israel and establishing a viable Palestinian state within a protective, suitable regional framework? If Cyprus is a candidate for the EU, why not Israel and Palestine?

The long-term future of Israel could depend more on Europe than on the United States.
Hopefully, one day, should Israel decide to withdraw from the 1967 territories, it might discover that Europe could be its bridge to the Arab world.

###

* Dr. Ghassan Rubeiz (grubeiz@comcast.net) is former Secretary of the Middle East for the Geneva-based World Council of Churches. This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).

Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 18 February 2010, www.commongroundnews.org
Copyright permission is granted for publication.

Hard Mideast truths

by Roger Cohen — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 00:00:00 -0500

NEW YORK - For over a century now, Zionism and Arab nationalism have failed to find an accommodation in the Holy Land. Both movements attempted to fill the space left by collapsed empire, and it has been left to the quasi-empire, the United States, to try to coax them to peaceful coexistence. The attempt has failed.

President Barack Obama came to office more than a year ago promising new thinking, outreach to the Muslim world, and relentless focus on Israel-Palestine. But nice speeches have given way to sullen stalemate. I am told Obama and the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, have a zero-chemistry relationship.

Domestic US politics constrain innovative thought�even open debate�on the process without end that is the peace search. As Aaron David Miller, who long laboured in the trenches of that process, once observed, the United States ends up as �Israel�s lawyer� rather than an honest broker. The upside for an American congressman in speaking out for Palestine is nonexistent.

I don�t see these constraints shifting much, but the need for Obama to honour his election promise grows. The conflict gnaws at US security, eats away at whatever remote possibility of a two-state solution is left, clouds Israel�s future, scatters Palestinians and devours every attempt to bridge the West and Islam.

Here�s what I believe. Centuries of persecution culminating in the Holocaust created a moral imperative for a Jewish homeland, Israel, and demand of America that it safeguard that nation in the breach.

But past persecution of the Jews cannot be a license to subjugate another people, the Palestinians. Nor can the solemn US promise to stand by Israel be a blank check to the Jewish state when its policies undermine stated American aims.

One such Israeli policy is the relentless settlement of the West Bank. Two decades ago, James Baker, then secretary of state, declared, �Forswear annexation; stop settlement activity.� Fast-forward 20 years to Barack Obama in Cairo: �The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements.� In the interim the number of settlers almost quadrupled from about 78,000 in 1990 to around 300,000 last year.

Since Obama spoke, Netanyahu, while promising an almost-freeze, has been planting saplings in settlements and declaring them part of Israel for �eternity�. In a normal relationship between allies�of the kind I think America and Israel should have�there would be consequences for such defiance. In the special relationship between the United States and Israel there are none.

The US objective is a two-state peace. But day by day, square metre by square metre, the physical space for the second state, Palestine, is disappearing. Can the Gaza sardine can and fractured labyrinth of the West Bank now be seen as anything but a grotesque caricature of a putative state? America has allowed this self-defeating process to advance to near irreversibility.

In fact, it has helped fund it. The settlements are expensive, as is the security fence (hated �separation wall� to the Palestinians) that is itself an annexation mechanism. According to a recent report by the Congressional Research Service, US aid to Israel totalled $28.9 billion over the past decade, a sum that dwarfs aid to any other nation and amounts to four times the total gross domestic product of Haiti.

It makes sense for America to assure Israel�s security. It does not make sense for America to bankroll Israeli policies that undermine US strategic objectives.

This, too, I believe: Through violence, anti-Semitic incitation, and annihilationist threats, Palestinian factions have contributed mightily to the absence of peace and made it harder for America to adopt the balance required. But the impressive recent work of Prime Minister Salam Fayyad in the West Bank shows that Palestinian responsibility is no oxymoron and demands of Israel a response less abject than creeping annexation.

And this: the �existential threat� to Israel is overplayed. It is no feeble David facing an Arab (or Arab-Persian) Goliath. Armed with a formidable nuclear deterrent, Israel is by far the strongest state in the region. Room exists for America to step back and apply pressure without compromising Israeli security.

And this: Obama needs to work harder on overcoming Palestinian division, a prerequisite for peace, rather than playing the no-credible-interlocutor Israeli game. The Hamas charter is vile. But the breakthrough Oslo accords were negotiated in 1993, three years before the Palestine Liberation Organization revoked the annihilationist clauses in its charter. When Arafat and Rabin shook hands on the White House lawn, that destroy-Israel charter was intact. Things change through negotiation, not otherwise. If there are Taliban elements worth engaging, are there really no such elements in the broad movements that are Hamas and Hizbullah?

If there are not two states there will be one state between the river and the sea and very soon there will be more Palestinian Arabs in it than Jews. What then will become of the Zionist dream?

It�s time for Obama to ask such tough questions in public and demand of Israel that it work in practice to share the land rather than divide and rule it.

###

* Roger Cohen writes for the New York Times. This article is distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) with permission from the International Herald Tribune.

Source: International Herald Tribune, 11 February 2010,
www.iht.com
Copyright permission is granted for publication.

Syria must be a top priority

by Alon Ben-Meir — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 00:00:00 -0500

JERUSALEM - Recently, Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman caused yet another blunder for Israel�s image in a series of hawkish comments and threats toward Syria. Following the diplomatic breech with Turkey by Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon, Israel has allowed its foreign policy to be poorly misrepresented by ideologues that differ greatly from the majority of Israelis who want peace.

As the US finally announced that it is reinstating an ambassador to Syria, Israel needs to consider some gestures to ease the negative attention it has received and start looking to the North to resolve its own disputes with its neighbour.

Turkey has recently reiterated its interest in resuming its mediating role between Israel and Syria. Israel should embrace the Turkish efforts and commit itself to a negotiated peace agreement with Syria, as the effects of this would reverberate throughout the region, especially as Iran continues to strengthen its ties to proxies Hizbullah and Hamas. Though the recent rift between Turkey and Israel over Israel�s handling of Gaza has put a strain on the countries� bilateral relations, Turkey remains Israel�s most important strategic ally in the region and is still in the best position to mediate between the two. Israeli concerns over Turkey�s ability to remain neutral in its mediating efforts do not take into account the progress that Turkish mediators were able to achieve in the last round of negotiations that collapsed with Operation Cast Lead.

Israel can benefit from a Turkish ally who is close to the Arab world. Turkey seeks Israeli-Syrian peace not merely for self-aggrandisement, but because regional peace would have a tremendous effect on its national security and economic developments and will certainly have even greater impact on Israel�s national security and economic interests.

Looming beyond the benefits of direct Israeli-Syrian land-for-peace negotiations are the long-term implications for Syria�s ties with Iran and its proxies. If Syria feels it is within reach of getting the Golan Heights and normal relations with the US, it takes no special acumen to understand that an Israeli-Syrian peace will fundamentally change Damascus� strategic interests and the geopolitical condition in the Middle East. Changing Syria�s strategic interests will have a direct impact on Iran, Hamas and Hizbullah�s behaviour. Syria has served as the linchpin between the three and by removing Syria�s logistical and political backing, which will inadvertently result from an Israeli-Syrian peace, Hamas and Hizbullah will be critically weakened. Both are direct by-products of the Israeli occupation, and only by ending its hold on the Golan will Israel be in a position to begin effectively dealing with Arab extremism.

Whereas Israel�s concerns over Iran�s nuclear programme may not be completely mitigated by an Israeli-Syrian peace, it will certainly force Tehran to rethink its strategy toward Israel. The irony is that while Israel continues to hype up the Iranian nuclear threat, and perhaps for good reason, it has lost focus on how to change the regional geopolitical dynamic and weaken Iran�s influence in the region. Peace with Syria will reduce the prospect of using force against Iran to resolve its nuclear threat, but, under any violent scenario between Israel and Iran, Tehran will no longer be able to count on the almost automatic support of Hamas and Hizbullah because the national interests of these two groups will now be at odds with Syria�s strategic interest.

Israel must seize the opportunity to enter into negotiations with Syria not only because it can now negotiate from a position of strength but also because of the collective Arab will to make peace as enunciated time and again by the Arab Peace Initiative. Israel cannot make the claim that it seeks peace but then fail to seize the opportunity when one is presented.

President Bashar al-Assad, like his father, has prioritised peace with Israel as a strategic option. He has expressed his desire to conclude a deal in exchange for the Golan Heights and a healthy relationship with the US. Israel must make a choice. It cannot continue trying to justify the occupation in the name of security when the whole Arab world is extending its hand to achieve a genuine peace.

Israel must choose between territory and real security; as long as Syria has territorial claims against Israel, Israel will never be secure on its northern borders. If Syria offers peace, normalisation of relations, and meets Israel�s legitimate security concerns and Israel still refuses, the Golan will become a national liability rather than national security asset.

International opposition to Israel�s continued occupation is growing because occupation of Arab land and the settlements are seen as the single source of continued regional strife and instability. Linking the occupation to national security concerns is viewed as nothing more than a pretext to maintaining the occupation and as a recipe not only for self-isolation but a precursor for renewed violence.

It is time for Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to put an end to Lieberman�s reckless statements about Syria and lack of any diplomatic savoir-faire. If Israel is truly focused on national security then it must relinquish the Golan Heights.

The fact that Syria chose a negotiating venue through Turkey to regain the Golan, and may not be in a position to regain it by force, should not be taken by Israel to mean that it can indefinitely maintain the status quo without serious consequences. Syria has shown tremendous capacity to deny Israel peace with Lebanon and the Palestinians and can continue to do so.

The appointment of Robert Ford as the new American ambassador to Syria has potential to open a new chapter in US-Syrian relations. Whereas the Obama administration is fully keen on trying to advance the peace process, it has no illusion that the real game changer in the Middle East in connection with Iran, Iraq, Lebanon and the Palestinians is an Israeli-Syrian peace. The improved relations between the United States and Syria will inadvertently shift Syria�s strategic calculus as the normalisation of relations with the US and the prospect of regaining the Golan Heights will assume national priority over other tactical ties that Syria currently has with Iran, Hizbullah and Hamas.

The United States will have to remain relentless in its efforts to advance the Israeli-Syrian peace and may find Turkey to be the best interlocutor between the two nations.

###

* Alon Ben-Meir is a professor of international relations at the Center for Global Affairs at NYU. He teaches courses on international negotiation and Middle Eastern studies. This article is distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) with permission from the Jerusalem Post.

Source: The Jerusalem Post, 15 February 2010,
www.jpost.com
Copyright permission is granted for publication.

The importance of Kashmir for regional peace

by Riyaz Wani — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 00:00:00 -0500

Srinagar, Kashmir - At long last, a series of conferences and engagements has given us tentative hope for the resolution of the 62-year-old Kashmir dispute between India and Pakistan. If these efforts reach their goal, it could not only transform long-troubled relations between the two nuclear-armed neighbours, but also substantially contribute to peace in nearby Afghanistan.

Kashmir has been at the centre of a long-standing territorial dispute between Pakistan and India, resulting in several wars, as well as ongoing military operations by India against Kashmiri separatist militants. The decades-old rivalry and suspicion between India and Pakistan has persuaded them to act at cross-purposes in Afghanistan. Pakistan wants a pro-Islamabad regime in Kabul to achieve its goal of strategic depth as a cushion against India. India, on the other hand, seeks a pro-New Delhi government to deny Pakistan this advantage.

A solution to Kashmir would considerably reduce the trust deficit between India and Pakistan and most likely promote cooperation on Afghanistan.

Over the past few months, India and Pakistan have engaged in closed-door dialogues on Kashmir in Bangkok, bringing together such individuals as former Pakistani Ambassador to India Aziz Khan and A. S. Dullat, the former chief of India�s external intelligence agency, Research and Analysis Wing (RAW). Simultaneously, the process is being supported by back-channel discussions between New Delhi and Kashmir�s moderate separatist conglomerate, the All Parties Hurriyat [Freedom] Conference, to resolve those issues that are specific to India-Kashmir relations.

Even though not publicly acknowledged by the United States, these efforts are seen as part of the broader remit of the US Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan Richard Holbrooke. Even Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently stated that US interest in the region is served by encouraging all steps that �these important nations [India and Pakistan] take to regenerate their �back-channel� process on Kashmir.�

On the civil society side, several conferences were held between September and December 2009 addressing the controversy over Kashmir, attended by leading intellectuals, politicians and civil society activists from both the countries.

One such conference, �A Roadmap to Peace�, held in December in New Delhi, called for the resumption of stalled dialogue between the two countries. Before this, two intra-Kashmir conferences were held in October in Srinagar and London. The larger aim of these initiatives was to find a way for India and Pakistan to reconcile their differences and focus on jointly tackling terrorism in the region, from Kabul to Kashmir.

Although the cumulative effect of these efforts has helped both countries advance toward peace in South Asia, there is still a long way to go. There is also the constant danger of the entire process unravelling if India and Pakistan�s governments fail to act and build upon the ongoing efforts.

The two countries are now looking towards yet another summit meeting during the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) conference in April in Bhutan. And India has already indicated its readiness to begin a formal dialogue through the Pakistani and Indian foreign secretaries who are meeting later this month.

There are several factors at play in the renewed engagement. One is the larger geo-politics of the region with the war in Afghanistan at its core. The unfolding situation in Kabul, where the Taliban are now being considered as part of the political solution, has suddenly reduced India�s capacity to influence the outcome in the war-torn country.

Accordingly, Pakistan is suddenly in a greater position of leverage, and safeguarding India�s interests in Afghanistan and its role as a party to the ongoing struggle for peace and security may provide incentive for normalised relations between India and Pakistan. On the other hand, Pakistan would benefit from a friendly India to ensure continued stability on its eastern flank.

The challenge before India and Pakistan is not only to address the dispute over Kashmir, their long-standing bitter bone of contention, but also to bring their divergent policies and positions on Afghanistan in line. With stakes in Kabul getting bigger with every passing day, much hinges on this new round of bilateral contact.

###

* Riyaz Wani is a Kashmir-based journalist working for the leading Indian daily, The Indian Express. This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).

Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 16 February 2010, www.commongroundnews.org
Copyright permission is granted for publication.

Interfaith meeting strengthens American-Indonesian understanding

by Lilian Budianto — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 00:00:00 -0500

Jakarta - From 25 to 27 January, Indonesia and the United States took steps to strengthen their socio-cultural ties by co-hosting their first bilateral interfaith dialogue in Jakarta.

The meeting was attended by a 20-member delegation from the United States, which included US government officials, bishops and civil society. From Indonesia, the 30 participants included members of the two largest Indonesian Muslim organisations � Nahdlatul Ulama and Muhammadiyah, as well as Christian, Buddhist and Hindu religious leaders and religious studies scholars from local universities.

Zainal Abidin Bagir, a Muslim scholar at the Center for Religious and Cross-Cultural Studies in Yogyakarta�s Gadjah Mada University � which has sent dozens of students to attend religion courses in the United States and vice versa � said the meeting was also important for Indonesian participants to gain exposure to Americans, which allowed them to learn about the United States and the policies which contribute to upholding the rights of its Muslim minority.

�Greater interaction will allow for better understanding because � certain hardliner groups regard the United States as their number one enemy because they think the country has cracked down on Muslims worldwide,� said Bagir.

Participants in the US-Indonesia interfaith conference agreed to cooperate on four issues � poverty, education, climate change and good governance. However, the joint declaration they produced does not detail specific types of cooperation that need to follow the conference. Without committing to and implementing specific initiatives, the conference risks being just an opportunity for talk without action.

Along these lines, Jean Duff, Executive Director of the Washington, DC-based Center for Interfaith Action on Global Poverty, suggested that the joint declaration could form the basis for enhanced communication and understanding amongst civil society groups in Indonesia or the United States, specifically about the practice of Islam in Indonesia and Southeast Asia, which differs greatly from how Islam is practiced in the Arab world.

Indonesia, home to the world�s largest Muslim population, is often described by Western governments as a model where the Muslim majority can coexist peacefully with people of different religions. The constitution upholds the rights of minorities and the government does not form its national policies on the basis of religious principles.

According to one participant, William F. Vendley, Secretary-General of Religions for Peace, a New York-based non-governmental organisation, �The US government is enormously impressed with both the Indonesian government�s and the people�s commitment to pluralism. They welcome diversity.... They see Indonesia as a model for a religiously diverse society functioning in a harmonious and peaceful fashion.�

Indonesia was among the first countries to promote extensive interfaith dialogue in international forums as a means to root out terrorism triggered by misperception and the absence of constructive interaction among people of different religious backgrounds. The government has initiated bilateral interfaith dialogues with a number of countries, including Austria, Canada, England, Italy, Lebanon, the Netherlands, Russia and Vatican City. Regionally, Indonesia has participated in interfaith dialogues organised by the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) and the Asia Europe Meeting (ASEM).

As part of the meeting, participants also visited a Muslim boarding school � known as a pesantren � for a window into the lives of the students. Many misperceptions exist about these schools, which are often mistaken as institutions generating young terrorists. This is not the case in the vast majority of schools, many of which ensure that students can compete academically with those studying in regular, non-religious schools.

The head of the US delegation, Pradeep Ramamurthy, Senior Director for Global Engagement at the White House National Security Council, said Washington was looking forward to working together with religious groups in Indonesia that have the capacity to mobilise and deliver the necessary action to resolve a wide range of issues. Indonesia�s religious organisations have long-running programmes aimed at improving the livelihoods and living standards of grassroots communities.

The relationships resulting from this workshop just may provide the necessary impetus to shift the public perception of Indonesia from one of bombs and extremism, to that of a peaceful partner with the United States, demonstrating the true face of Islam in Indonesia.

###

* Lilian Budianto is a journalist with The Jakarta Post, a Jakarta-based, English-language newspaper. The views in this article are those of the author and do not represent the views of the Jakarta Post. This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).

Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 16 February 2010, www.commongroundnews.org
Copyright permission is granted for publication.

Free Muslim Americans from collective punishment

by Sahar Aziz — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 00:00:00 -0500

Washington, DC - The recent discovery of attempted terrorist plots by Muslims in America has prompted overreaching accusations of radicalisation of an entire religious group. As a consequence, pressure is mounting on Muslim American leaders to engage in elusively defined counter radicalisation.

But rather than spend limited resources on programmes that assume collective guilt, efforts are better spent redirecting existing grievances towards the exercise of constitutionally protected dissent.

Focusing on counter radicalisation is misguided for two reasons. First, the current discourse on radicalisation comes dangerously close to repeating past mistakes of confusing legal political dissent with illicit activity. Second, there is insufficient evidence of systemic unlawful radicalisation of Muslim Americans.

Most people would agree that adopting violence to propagate a political agenda is radical and warrants punishment. However, in a troubling bout of amnesia, American public discourse has reinvigorated the misuse of the term �radical� to label both criminal activity and unpopular political dissent.

Let�s not repeat past mistakes. During the Red Scare, following the first world war, and McCarthysim in the 1950s, immigrants and religious minorities were scapegoats for fears of communism. After being labelled as radicals, many were deported and imprisoned en masse.

Since the 11 September terrorist attacks, the Muslim American community has been the subject of heightened scrutiny by the government and the public. And with each new allegation of a few individuals� terrorist activity, the collective suspicion of over six million Muslims in America grows.

Take, for example, the case of the Somali American youth who, unbeknownst to their parents, returned to Somalia to fight in the civil war on behalf of a terrorist organisation. These are only 20-some individuals out of nearly 100,000 Somalis in America. Nonetheless, the bad acts of a handful from a minority religious population have led some government officials and members of the public to conclude systemic radicalisation among Muslims.

Consequently, Muslims are experiencing increased profiling at airports and surveillance in their mosques. Some believe their religious leaders are targeted for deportation or coercive tactics by law enforcement and, in the case of Detroit-based Imam Luqman Ameen Abdullah, unlawfully killed.

Many Muslim Americans feel they are treated as a fifth column as their loyalty to America is questioned merely because of the bad acts of a handful of young men. Indeed, their fears are reasonable in light of a new Gallup Poll in which over 50 per cent of Americans held a �not too favorable� or �not favorable at all� view of Islam.

In another unrelated case, five young Muslim men flew to Pakistan to allegedly join a terrorist organisation, again unbeknownst to their families. Their behaviour refuelled charges of radicalisation among Muslims in America.

Putting aside their guilt or innocence, is it fair to impute their acts on six million individuals who also happen to be Muslims?

Of course not.

Such collective punishment undermines the fundamental American principle that individuals should be accountable for their own behaviour and not acts committed by others of the same ethnic, racial or religious background.

This principle was upheld after the uncovering of the Unabomber and the arrest of Timothy McVeigh. All white males were not suddenly suspected of criminal activity. Thus, concluding systemic radicalisation of Muslims based on unrelated bad acts of a handful of individuals demonstrates a glaring double standard.

Moreover, labelling people accused of unlawful activity as radicals, as opposed to criminals, risks confusing unpopular political viewpoints with illegal activity. The First Amendment protects dissent, especially unpopular dissent. Being a radical is not illegal so long as one does not violate a specific law � a distinctly American tenet currently upheld by the aptly titled �tea partyers� actively opposed to US President Barack Obama. While Muslim Americans who criticise American policy on whatever grounds, religious or otherwise, are as protected as their outspoken compatriots, Muslims may fear their dissent will be mischaracterised as indicia of unlawful radicalization.

Rather than hastily proclaim widespread radicalisation and demand youth who have no direct link to those accused of engaging in terrorism be targeted for counter radicalisation initiatives, we should be training youth of all backgrounds how to express dissent.

These are difficult times for the American people. Americans of all stripes are frustrated with, if not disenfranchised by, their government. Our country is spending billions of dollars on wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The unemployment rate is the highest in decades, most profoundly among youth. Many Americans, including Muslims, oppose our military involvement abroad on political or religious grounds while others oppose it because they believe the money is better spent on our economy and job creation. However, unlike their compatriots, many Muslim Americans may not feel at liberty to express their grievances in light of suspicions of their collective radicalisation.

Hence community leaders concerned with the alleged terrorist activity of a handful of Muslim youth in America should focus their efforts on teaching youth to channel their grievances into legitimate dissent. Encourage them to speak out and speak freely about their views on the war, the economy and other policies. Teach them how to legally organise, protest, contact elected officials and participate in grassroots campaigns.

And when they do, the government should not misinterpret their dissent to create a 21st century version of the Red Scare.

###

* Sahar Aziz (saziz@bordc.org) is a civil rights lawyer with the Bill of Rights Defense Committee in Washington, DC. This abridged article is distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) with permission from the author. The full text can be found at www.altmuslim.com.

Source: altmuslim.com, 10 February 2010, www.altmuslim.com
Copyright permission is granted for publication.

Eliminating the US-Muslim world trust deficit

by Huma Yusuf — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 00:00:00 -0500

Karachi, Pakistan - Gathered around a table with Karachi-based bloggers one evening last week, Farah Pandith, the US Special Representative to Muslim Communities, asked, �Can�t a person do more than one thing at a time?�

The question was raised as a way to get around the fact that most conversations about America�s relations with Muslims around the world are held hostage by contentious issues arising in the context of the so-called �war against terror�. She was trying to make the point that even while governments wrangle about drone attacks and the actions of the private military company Blackwater, Americans and Muslims around the world can begin to engage on a grassroots level.

Pandith�s optimism about people-to-people relations strengthening ties between the United States and global Muslim communities is a cornerstone of US President Barack Obama�s foreign policy. Indeed, Pandith�s very position is a testament to the US government�s commitment to reaching out to the Muslim world. She is the first special envoy to Muslim communities ever appointed.

But over a year into Obama�s term in office, relations between the United States and Muslims the world over remain strained. The reasons for strain are several: the Afghan troop surge; the spread of Al Qaeda into Yemen; the Transportation Security Administration�s heightened security requirements for US-bound travellers from many Muslim-majority countries, etc.

On campuses, on streets and online, young Muslims are increasingly complaining that Obama can talk the talk, but balks when it�s time to walk the walk.

That�s where Pandith enters the picture. Talking to Dawn.com, she argued that Americans and Muslims can connect beyond the ambit of security issues and, more importantly, that they can engage at a people-to-people, rather than political level. She imagines an increasing number of collaborations between Americans and Muslims in the fields of education, science and technology, and through entrepreneurial initiatives.

In Pandith�s opinion, the United States can help build networks of like-minded people across the Muslim world. The US government can act as a �convener, facilitator and intellectual partner,� she said, and help forge partnerships on the basis of common ideas and common goals.

�We want to mobilise people from the grassroots up. We are telling our embassies to connect deep and wide within their communities.�

Pandith�s goal of grassroots engagement relies heavily on harnessing the power of social media to traverse boundaries � geographic, social and cultural. That�s why she met with bloggers during her trip to Karachi. By being attentive to blogs and social networks, Pandith also hopes to better understand the needs and aspirations of different Muslim communities.

She emphasises the need to understand the circumstances of each Muslim community separately. She points out that since 11 September 2001, hundreds of studies examining how Muslims think and identifying what they want have been commissioned and circulated in the United States.

�But when did we ask Muslims themselves what they think and what they want?� she asked.

If social media holds the key to better understanding, entrepreneurship, in the opinion of the Obama Administration, is the concrete way to establish long-term partnerships between Americans and Muslims. This spring, about 150 entrepreneurs from Muslim communities have been invited to a two-day Presidential Summit on Entrepreneurship in Washington, DC. The summit is an initial attempt to deepen ties between business leaders and social entrepreneurs in the United States and the Muslim world.

But for real engagement � particularly of a long-term, entrepreneurial variety � to work, the Obama administration has to overcome the trust deficit that currently exists in Muslim communities with regard to the United States. To truly succeed, Pandith�s vision of frequent people-to-people interactions and collaborations will have to unfold in an environment in which the United States is seen as a superpower that genuinely respects Muslims.

Ultimately, grassroots mobilisation of Muslim communities will have to be accompanied by grand gestures from the top as well so that Muslims, especially young ones, become confident that engagement is an administrative priority, not just a talking point.

For instance, in Cairo last year, Obama stated that he rejected �the view of some in the West that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal.� At the time, the comment was understood to be an implicit rejection of French President Nicolas Sarkozy�s initiative to ban the burqa � a garment that fully covers a woman�s body, head and face � in France. Now that the ban is about to be implemented, Obama has been silent.

�The US government has to respect the decisions of a sovereign country,� explained Pandith. That may be true. But it is on these sorts of hot-button issues that Muslim communities would welcome American engagement. After that, people-to-people interaction may just flourish organically.

###

* Huma Yusuf is a freelance journalist based in Karachi, Pakistan. This abridged article is distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) with permission from the author. The full text can be found at www.dawn.com.

Source: Dawn.com, 10 February 2010, www.dawn.com
Copyright permission is granted for publication.

What would Muhammad do?

by Asma Uddin — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 00:00:00 -0500

Washington, DC � Scholar and author Omid Safi is best known to many Muslim Americans as being at the forefront of the Progressive Muslims movement, which finds in Islamic spirituality a powerful voice for social justice and pluralism. In his latest book, Memories of Muhammad: Why the Prophet Matters (Harper Collins), Safi explores the origins of that spirituality: the character and being of the Prophet Muhammad.

For Muslims, the book is a refreshing call to return to our spiritual roots, an element of faith that these days seems to be lost in the constant social commentary we are forced to engage in about Islam. For non-Muslims, Safi�s explanation of Muhammad as the bridge between humanity and the Divine, insofar as emulating him brings one closer to God, helps explain the connection Muslims have to their Prophet. It helps others feel as devout Muslims feel. In a time when the Prophet is so deeply misunderstood, such an emotional bond can go a long way in healing inter-religious wounds.

What makes Safi�s prose ingenious � indeed, what makes it especially relevant � is the way it moves back and forth between biographical details of the Prophet to the ways these historical points have been interpreted and emulated by Muslims. For instance, the Prophet�s journey from Mecca to Jerusalem and his journey from Jerusalem to the Heavens to meet his Maker � considered by some to be a physical journey in one night and others to be a dream or vision � signifies first his connection to Jesus� and Moses� message and then his ultimate communion with the Divine.

The first part of this journey, along with the Prophet�s meeting with Adam, Jesus, John the Baptist, Joseph, Enoch, Aaron, Moses and Abraham during the latter part, underscores the commonality of the Abrahamic faiths and the sanctity of each. Some Muslims reject this reading of Scripture, choosing instead to believe that the Qur�an supersedes rather than affirms previous revelations. While it may be true that there are theological details that the three monotheistic faiths cannot ever agree on, there is ample Qur�anic proof of the essential connection among Islam, Judaism, Christianity and a wide scope of spiritual traditions.

The Qur�an refers to the Prophet as a messenger to all of humanity and emphasises time and again that each prophet brings the same message and that one should not be favoured over the other. The Prophet�s message at its core is about spiritual submission to the Divine, designating as �muslim� (one who submits to God) anyone who adheres to such principles.

Proper behaviour becomes central to one�s religiosity, as submission to the Divine is about what you do and how you do it. Being a Muslim ceases to be an identity; instead, it is a way of being and doing. The search for Truth becomes a process that requires effort � a process that is rooted in submitting to God by, among other things, working for social justice.

Safi�s biography of the Prophet serves to do precisely that � to refocus the reader�s attention on the person through whom the Qur�an was revealed. As Safi says, quite rightly, the modernist Muslim understanding of the Prophet�s role is little more than that of a �UPS delivery man, dropping off the divine revelation of the Qur�an at the doorstep of humanity, maybe pausing long enough to obtain a signature to ensure that the item has been received, and then departing, never to be seen again.�

But lost on these modernists is the �tradition of Islamic piety, learning and spiritual practice� that developed around memories of Muhammad. Lost also is the fact that spiritual purification can happen only through implementing the Prophet�s larger message of socially conscious action. Safi�s book digs back into these memories of Muhammad in order to revive them, the traditions constructed around them, and their call to embrace Islam through refined character.

The concluding chapter of Safi�s book thus appropriately focuses on the question, �What Would Muhammad Do?� It is a question that brings the Prophet into the present, making his memory a living one. As Safi notes, in the modern landscape, many Muslims find themselves fighting stereotypes and misconceptions by defining what Islam and its Prophet are not. But this question is about digging into the Prophet�s core message of mercy to discover what Islam is, has been, can be and should be.

###

* Asma Uddin is Associate Editor of altmuslim.com and Editor-in-Chief of Altmuslimah. This article is distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) with permission from the author.

Source: On Faith, 5 February 2010, newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith
Copyright permission is granted for publication.