Common Ground News Service

Jewish respect and admiration for Muslim religiosity

by Zvi Zohar — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 00:00:00 -0500

JERUSALEM - Within Jewish tradition there are sources that express not just a tolerance towards aspects of Muslim religiosity, but a real admiration and positive intellectual and religious respect. It is important for both Jews and Muslims to become acquainted with these sources, and to consider their implications. Here I consider one such source, found in the writings of Rabbi Yitzhak Farhi of Jerusalem (1782-1853). It tells of a relationship between two outstanding men in late 18th century Damascus: a great Sufi sheikh and the Chief Rabbi of Damascus.

One of the two heroes of Farhi�s tale, the Sufi sheikh, attained great mastery of the Seven Wisdoms, i.e., the body of universal human knowledge. Since a person�s perfection is contingent upon mastery of these wisdoms, the sheikh was more perfect than all the Jews of his generation, with the exception of the rabbi of Damascus, who was his equal and even slightly his superior in the realm of universal wisdom.

But the Seven Wisdoms are of course only one aspect of religious perfection: the highest form of religious accomplishment is the encounter with God and closeness to Him. In this realm, the realm of religious-mystical experience, it emerges quite clearly from Rabbi Farhi�s account that the sheikh was on a higher level than the rabbi. In that account, it was the sheikh who guided the rabbi along the paths of mystical experience, by way of the garden and the pool, until their joint entry into the Holy of Holies to encounter the Divine Reality reflected in the holy name YHVH. The words on the golden tablet they gazed upon were: �I envision YHWH before me always�. This formula is to be found in every synagogue. Yet as related by Farhi, the one who actualised the promise born by this verse, the person who was indeed able to envision in his consciousness �He Who Spoke and the universe was created�, was not the Jewish rabbi but the Muslim sheikh.

At the end of their joint journey, the rabbi shed copious tears, acknowledged the sheikh�s advantage in this crucial realm, and concluded: �It is becoming upon us to do even more than that�.

Rabbi Yitzhak Farhi, addressing his audience in Jerusalem and the Ottoman Empire in the fourth decade of the 19th century, presented the Sufi sheikh as an ideal spiritual figure reaching the greatest heights of awe of God. Incidentally, it becomes apparent to the reader that the Sufi sage exceeded his Jewish counterpart also in his personal qualities: he loves the truth for its own sake; he develops a relationship with his Jewish colleague out of an intellectual attraction and without a utilitarian agenda; he is not jealous of another whose intellectual accomplishments are greater than his own; he shows genuine admiration for the rabbi as a man of wisdom, regardless of the lower religious-communal status of the group to which the rabbi belonged.

From this story it is clear that at the highest levels of individual religious spirituality, there is a great deal of overlap and similarity between Judaism and Islam. This overlap is clearly expressed already in the first section of the story, when the reader discovers that there is a realm of universal intellectual discourse�the Seven Wisdoms�that is a highly regarded field of knowledge shared by the sheikh and the rabbi. Further on, it becomes clear that what these worlds share is not limited to the �neutral� intellectual dimension, but extends to the practices of preparing for mystical experience: fasting, repentant thoughts, immersion and change of garments. And above all else, there are shared elements and a partnership in the mystical experience itself�and in the joint focus of this experience: �He Who Spoke and the universe was created�. Not a Muslim God, and not a Jewish God, but the God of all existence, the Creator of all.

Rabbi Yitzhak Farhi conveys to his Jewish audience in Jerusalem the possibility that a person who was born, raised and educated as a Muslim, who is a product of elite religious Muslim training, can as a result be no less capable (and perhaps even more so) of �connecting� to the universal Divine than a person who is a product of a parallel Jewish path. To some, it might seem inappropriate for a religious leader to show such respect and admiration for the achievements of a person rooted in a tradition that is not his own. To others, such as the current writer, Rabbi Farhi�s attitude expresses a greatness of spirit that all of us would do well to contemplate�and to internalise.

###

* Zvi Zohar is a professor of Sephardic Law and Ethics at Bar Ilan University, where he also heads the Rappaport Center for Assimilation Research and the Strengthening of Jewish Vitality, and is a Senior Research Fellow at the Shalom Hartman Institute of Advanced Judaic Studies in Jerusalem. A full translation, analysis and discussion of rabbi Farhi�s account will soon be published in Jewish Studies Quarterly under the title �The Rabbi and the Sheikh�. 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), 11 March 2010, www.commongroundnews.org
Copyright permission is granted for publication.

The sorrow and hope of Abraham: Public memory and conflict in the Holy Land

by Daniel Noah Moses — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 00:00:00 -0500

JERUSALEM - The flare-up over the Israeli government�s decision to put Rachel�s Tomb along with what Jews call the Cave of the Patriarchs and Muslims call the Ibrahimi Mosque on a list of Israeli heritage sites again puts history and memory at the centre of this conflict.

Again we are reminded that those who want a better future must do a better job at dealing with the past. A series of recent encounters has placed the question of how the past is represented in the present to the forefront of my mind.

While in Cairo visiting friends early this year, I joined a tour of Egyptian high school students at the �Panorama�, a museum that the Egyptian government built to commemorate the 1973 War between Egypt and Israel.

The tour culminated with a rotating view of a battlefield diorama depicting what Egyptians consider to be their great victory over �the enemy�. The clear impression: �we� fought bravely and liberated our land. There is nothing about negotiations between Sadat and Begin. There is no mention of Egypt�s recognition of Israel, which is what made the return of the Sinai possible. Egypt�s decision to exchange peace for land turned it temporarily into a pariah in the Arab world; it also set the stage for subsequent peacemaking. On all of this, the Panorama is silent�even though it is in walking distance from where Sadat was assassinated.

More recently, I sat in Jerusalem across the table from a Jewish couple in their sixties from the American Midwest. The man told a story about a friend of his who visited Jenin, a city in the northern West Bank.

The visit, arranged at an official level, was part of an initiative to encourage economic cooperation between Israelis and Palestinians in adjacent areas of the north. The delegation stopped outside the city where the Haddad Tourist Village emerges from the lush rural landscape. In addition to a garden cafe, where families sit and eat together, an amphitheatre, a hotel and amusement park, there is a new museum of Palestinian culture and history.

The Palestinians led the visiting delegation into the museum. The Jewish visitors became upset: at least some, including the friend of the man sitting across the table, walked out.
This past week I asked the Haddad�s manager, the son of the owner, about the visiting delegation. He nodded his head sadly. �Yes�, he said, �they came here�. He did not understand why the visitors walked out. I toured the museum, which is in the last stages of completion. It�s beautifully done. Mostly, the dioramas focus on folkways, on Palestinian culture. The museum, which also depicts Palestinian dislocation and suffering, includes something on Baruch Goldstein, the Jewish Israeli who massacred Palestinians at the Cave of the Patriarchs/Ibrahimi Mosque. Perhaps the visitors reacted to the implication that Goldstein represents them, for the overwhelming majority of Israelis and Jews worldwide reject such violence. Whatever the reasons, those who walked out missed a precious opportunity to engage with an authentic Palestinian perspective.

After telling the story about the Haddad museum, the man across the table spoke about a visit that he and his wife took to where her parents lived in Europe before narrowly escaping the Nazis. He told this story with such empathy, such tenderness towards the plight of his wife�s family and his people. There were no Arabs at the table to listen, or to see the expression on this man�s face, just as he has never seen the sorrow on the face of the Haddad manager�so proud of the museum his family has built�when the Jewish visitors walked out. With the experience and the humanity of the �other� blocked from view, people too often limit empathy and understanding to their own side.

In such a context, initiatives such as Project Aladdin, which provides Holocaust education in the Arab world, or PRIME, which presents the Palestinian and Israeli narratives side by side�are critical for the future. Unlike the Panorama museum in Cairo which represents a blatant manipulation, Project Aladdin, PRIME, and the Haddad museum outside of Jenin are serious efforts to represent public memory and history. They are opportunities to tell one�s own story, to engage with the story of the �other�, and to share memories in ways that enlarge the scope of empathy and understanding.

We need to introduce such initiatives on a larger scale. A recent USIP (United States Institute of Peace) report proposes a formal education track to ensure that the Israeli and Palestinian governments and societies engage with one another on this critical subject. Let�s extend this track to reach the public memory beyond school buildings.

Along with the other patriarchs and matriarchs, Abraham is revered by Jews, Christians and Muslims who are his spiritual children. The Cave of the Patriarchs/Ibrahimi Mosque�a site of intense primordial memory that somehow must be shared�could be a good place to start.

###

* Daniel Noah Moses, Ph.D., formerly a lecturer on social studies at Harvard University, is currently Director of the Delegation Leaders Program at Seeds of Peace. He recently published his first book, The Promise of Progress: The Life and Work of Lewis Henry Morgan. He lives in Jerusalem. This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).

Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 11 March 2010, www.commongroundnews.org
Copyright permission is granted for publication.

�Apartheid week� or �weakness�

by Ray Hanania — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 00:00:00 -0500

CHICAGO - There is one important fundamental about truth: Genuine truth gives one the power to tolerate even the most heinous criticism. Tolerance of criticism is a sign of confidence. Intolerance is a symptom that what you believe may not really be true. So throw the toughest, harshest argument against what I believe, because I have faith in my own truth. Do you?

The Middle East is ripe with intolerant views that reflect the insecurity of people who refuse to see the truth. And the first truth assaulted is existence. By denying one�s existence, it becomes easy to respond to provocations with violence. It�s easy to kill something that doesn�t exist. Easy to deny something that doesn�t exist. And easy to explain to your own people when things don�t go your way that it�s their nonexistence that is the problem, rather than your own failure.

Palestinians and Israelis have been denying each others� existence for years.

The late Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir declared: �There was no such thing as Palestinians.� Israelis still argue that Palestinians don�t exist.

Arabs do the same, insisting Israel does not exist. They refer to it as �the Zionist entity�. Well, if Israel doesn�t exist, how can it be an entity? Why are so many people afraid of something that doesn�t exist? When denying existence doesn�t work, people turn to denying the celebrations of existence.

Every year, Palestinians and Israelis mark 14 May in different ways. For Israelis, who mark Israel�s creation using the Jewish calendar, it�s a celebration. For Palestinians, the date is one of mourning.

Both sides take the reaction of the other as an offence rather than with understanding. Arabs see Israelis celebrating their victory in anger. Israelis watch as Palestinians commemorate their failure as a tragedy. So Jews are prohibited from celebrating Israel�s existence in Arab countries, and Israel is moving to adopt laws prohibiting Palestinians from celebrating the nakba [the Arabic term for the events of 1948, meaning �catastrophe�]. When banning the words that address existence doesn�t work, people turn to using words that hurt.

One word that hurts Jews is apartheid. Many Jews refuse to even speak the word itself, referring to it as the A-word in much the same way that Americans revile the pejorative racist description of black people, as the N-word. The word apartheid has more power to hurt than its actual meaning, which is why Palestinians seem to have glommed on to it.

What is the word apartheid and why are we fighting over it?

The word apartheid surfaced in, of all years, 1948 as the name of a political party in South Africa that symbolised the official policy of segregating blacks from whites.

In the 1950s, �60s and �70s, apartheid evoked a sinister meaning and became a bludgeon the world used to strike down South Africa�s separation of the races. South Africa�s racist white regime fell and the man it had imprisoned for 25 years, Nelson Mandela, became the new South Africa�s first black president.

I can understand how Israelis fear the word. It invokes the issue of separation�a word Israelis have used to describe the wall. It plays to Arab claims that Israel is a racist country that discriminates against non-Jews.

Its first victim was Jimmy Carter, who while president ushered in the first peace accord between Israel and Egypt. He wrote a book that used the A-word in the title.

I think Carter is one of the most reputable people in the world: the most caring, genuine human being who ever became a leader. But like many Arabs, Carter exaggerated the problem by using the word. Carter tried to explain he wasn�t talking about Israel, but about how Israel�s occupation of the West Bank evoked images of apartheid.

Israelis and Jews around the world recoiled in anger and responded with punitive attacks against his character. Although Carter has backed down, the rejectionist Arabs have not.

Rejectionist and extremist Palestinians and their Arab allies have launched �apartheid week� to attack Israel. Although they are a minority they have built up a mirage of public support by exploiting the unanswered anger of the majority in the Arab world.

The word apartheid does not really apply accurately to the Palestinian-Israel conflict. The word occupation does. But the rejectionists no longer like the word occupation. Apartheid symbolises the creation of one state, while occupation fuels the movement to create two.

In misusing the word apartheid, the rejectionists and their angry, blind followers are pushing toward re-enacting the transformation of South Africa in Israel and Palestine.

Palestinians who support �apartheid week� do so either out of sinister hatred of Jews, or out of blind, unreasoning anger that simmers because they can�t properly vent. The inability to release pent up anger empowers the rejectionist minority but stems from the failures of Palestinians and Arab leadership.

When Arabs couldn�t defeat Israel, they turned toward demonization. And when demonization didn�t work enough, they simply exaggerated the truth. Exaggeration is a common trait among Arabs and Israelis both.

It�s not easy for Israelis to deal with. Israelis also come in two categories, those who hate Arabs and those who are angry with Arabs but don�t know how to deal with the issue of justice and compromise.

Most Israelis simply denounce anyone who uses the word apartheid as anti-Semitic - another abused word used as a bludgeon for those who criticise Israel.

The word anti-Semitic is to Palestinians what apartheid is to Israelis.

I could ask Palestinians, �Won�t it make the creation of a Palestinian state that much harder to achieve if they put all their bets on the word apartheid?� I could ask Israelis, �Doesn�t it show a weakness in your beliefs if you are so afraid of one simple word?�

Maybe the answer is that both Palestinians and Israelis live in the dark shadows of one real truth�that they have done terrible things to each other over the years.

What frightens me more than the violence that has wracked the region over the past century is when people start attacking the use of words.

Is it anti-Semitic to criticise Israel? No. Tolerance of criticism of Israel or Palestine is a sign of strength and hope.

Is it �apartheid week?� Or is it really �apartheid weak�? Rather than hold celebrations that fuel a hatred of Israel around an exaggerated word like apartheid, Palestinians should instead organise rallies and conferences that call for compromise based on peace and the creation of two states.

But Palestinians have to ask themselves the same question that Israelis must face: Do we release our anger against each other, or do we control it, and focus it on peace?

Peace and compromise are words I feel very comfortable living with, even in a backdrop of anger.

###

* Ray Hanania is the 2006 winner of the New America Media�s �Best Ethnic American Columnist�. He is a political analyst, satirist and former national president of the Palestinian American Congress. This article is distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) with permission from The Jerusalem Post.

Source: The Jerusalem Post, 10 March 2010,
http://www.jpost.com
Copyright permission is granted for publication.

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

Declare a Palestinian state

by Jerome Segal — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 00:00:00 -0500

COLLEGE PARK, Maryland - France�s foreign minister, Bernard Kouchner, has alarmed the Israeli government with his recent statement that �one can envision the proclamation soon of a Palestinian state, and its immediate recognition by the international community, even before negotiating its borders�.

Israel fears that this will develop into a full blown European Union initiative and has warned that with this approach the Palestinians will have no motivation to resume negotiations. But this argument is not convincing. Were the international community to recognise the State of Palestine, it is likely that it would do so without specifically recognising the claimed borders of that state, just as the international community does not recognise Israel�s claimed borders.

For instance, the United States has never accepted Israeli claims to sovereignty over any part of Jerusalem. Moreover, international recognition does not end the occupation, nor does it solve the refugee issue, nor the problem of Jerusalem. All of these issues will require negotiations, but early statehood would put such negotiations on a state-to-state basis, and this would be valuable in a variety of ways.

Of most importance in future negotiations is the issue of security, whether Palestinian forces can prevent attacks on Israel, either suicide terrorists, or rockets fired from the West Bank. If they cannot, then Israel will not withdraw from the West Bank, regardless of what the international community says.

Over the last year, praise has been heaped on the performance of Palestinian security forces, trained under US auspices, and operating under the authority of President Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Salam Fayyad. However, without progress toward genuine statehood, what is today viewed as �successful security cooperation�, will in time dissolve as it comes to be viewed as Palestinian collaboration, with its security forces having become �the police of the occupation�.

Under early statehood, Israel�s refusal to allow non-state actors to operate militarily from the West Bank is on a much stronger footing. A government�s maintenance of a monopoly of force within the area of its claimed sovereignty is one of the basic requirements of statehood.

Early statehood will also contribute toward the resolution of the issues of refugees, Jerusalem and borders. On refugees, it is clear that very few of the six million Palestinian refugees will ever return to Israel. This however, is extremely difficult for the Palestinians to absorb politically. Within the context of statehood, this difficulty is somewhat eased as it is largely untenable for any state to demand that millions of its citizens should be allowed to become citizens of another state.

With respect to borders and security issues, the Israelis have often been tone-deaf in previous negotiations, failing to realise how demeaning to Palestinian dignity were their demands to control Palestinian airspace, or to have land swaps on an unequal basis.

In the context of state-to-state negotiations, there will be some natural evolution toward the symmetries that typified Israel�s negotiations with Jordan and Egypt. Similarly with Jerusalem, the state-to-state context will also be supportive of the need to find a way to share control of the holy sites and to make Jerusalem the capital of both states.

In addition, early statehood offers a way to reduce the likelihood that Hamas will undertake steps to derail negotiations. This can be attained if Hamas is assured that the international community will respect the results of Palestinian democracy, unlike 2006, when following its victory in legislative elections, Hamas was denied the ability to govern. Instead the international community laid down conditions that Hamas rejected. So far there has been no resolution.

Fortunately, the state-to-state context offers a way to deal with the problematic conditions of the Quartet�the United States, Russia, the European Union and the United Nations. Thus, the demand that Hamas provide prior recognition of Israel becomes instead one of mutual state-to-state recognition, and the demand that Hamas accept previous agreements negotiated by its PLO rival becomes the standard requirement of continuity of international treaties between state entities, when new governments are elected.

With early statehood there is a chance that the Palestinians will be able to put their house in order and have a government with sufficient legitimacy to bind the Palestinian people through negotiations.

Finally, it should be noted that for the Palestinian leadership, achieving international recognition of the State of Palestine, without Israeli permission, will be an act of assertiveness that will enhance their ability to make difficult concessions in the negotiations.

For all of these reasons, while international recognition of Palestinian statehood prior to an agreement with Israel is not a magic solution, it is a highly constructive idea that may make successful negotiations a genuine possibility.

###

*Jerome M. Segal directs the Peace Consultancy Project at the University of Maryland School of Public Policy. He is co-author of Negotiating Jerusalem. This article is distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) with permission from the International Herald Tribune.

Source: The International Herald Tribune, 23 February 2010,
http://global.nytimes.com/?iht
Copyright permission is granted for publication.

Israeli Arabs ask Mubarak to help Shalit

by Aviel Magnezi — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 00:00:00 -0500

TEL AVIV - Dozens of Kfar Kassem residents protested in front of the Egyptian Embassy in Tel Aviv Wednesday for the release of kidnapped soldier Gilad Shalit.

The protestors carried a letter addressed to Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak asking him to aid the release of Shalit as well as the Palestinian prisoners demanded in return, and the opening of the Rafah crossing. �Who else can do it - Lieberman?� they asked in the letter.

Those present were equipped with signs in Hebrew, English and Arabic, some of them plastered with pictures of the kidnapped soldier and Israeli flags, or faceless prisoners and Palestinian flags.

Malik Faraj, founder of the Candle for Peace and Harmony organisation, which organised the demonstration, told Ynet that Israeli Arabs were tired of the state's politicians.

�There are no foreign relations here because there is no foreign minister. No one in the Arab world recognises Lieberman, and only Mubarak has the ability to execute this move,� Faraj said.

�This is the message coming from the Arab people in Israel. We want peace and for all prisoners on both sides to be released. This way we can turn a new leaf over. We are sorry for Noam (Gilad Shalit�s father) �Gilad is like a son to me and Noam is like a father. Enough with the comments about blood on the hands; there was a war, but now let�s say enough!�

Faraj added that the demonstration had received support in Gaza. �The Gazans are happy that the Arabs in Israel have woken up and we want to convey to them the message that there are good people here who want peace,� he said.

As the protest went on, many passers-by on the street in Tel Aviv clapped their hands and called out encouragement to the Kfar Kassem residents.

Ahmed Hataha, 26, explained that he was protesting in order to show that the Israeli-Arab youth also care about what happens to Shalit. �We speak about it a lot in the village, among us guys, and everyone wants the deal to go through,� he said. �The bottom line is that Shalit is our age and we want him to live his life.�

Ismail Badir, father of 11, explained that he sees Shalit as his son. �I believe Mubarak can make this deal happen. Many Israelis are originally from Arab countries. We are cousins, so let's give each side back its people and start over on a new path,� he said.

The Egyptian ambassador did not deign to come down and receive the letter, so the protestors gave it to his aide. They now plan to protest in front of the Knesset in order to affect Israeli politicians.

###

* Aviel Magnezi writes for Ynetnews. This article is distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) with permission from Ynetnews.

Source: Ynetnews, 03 March 2010,
www.ynetnews.com
Copyright permission is granted for publication.

Celebrating extraordinary Muslim women

by Salma Hasan Ali — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 00:00:00 -0500

Washington, DC - On 10 March, three Muslim women will be honoured alongside philanthropist Melinda French Gates and human rights activists Panmelo Castro from Brazil and Rebecca Lolosoli from Kenya, by Vital Voices Global Partnership, a Washington, DC-based organisation that works to empower women around the world.

The need to recognise the work of Muslim women is important. Type the search terms "Muslim women" or "women in Islam" online and chances are that a majority of English-language hits will consist of stories relating to what Muslim women wear on their heads or how women in Muslim-majority countries are subjected to physical abuse, or subjugated under the false pretext of religious principle.

But there is another side to Muslim women that is too infrequently recognised, reported or discussed. The Vital Voices Global Partnership awards ceremony, taking place two days after International Women's Day, provides an opportunity to celebrate this not uncommon, yet too frequently overshadowed, side to Muslim women.

Andeisha Farid grew up in a refugee camp outside Afghanistan. As a teenager, she lived in a Pakistani hostel for six years, where she studied and tutored others. In 2008, at the age of 25, she started her own non-profit organisation, the Afghan Child Education and Care Organization (AFCECO), in Kabul. Today, AFCECO runs ten orphanages in Afghanistan and Pakistan for over 450 children of diverse ethnic backgrounds.

In a country where non-governmental organisations that work with women and girls are frequently targeted by religious extremists, Andeisha is constantly on guard. But she remains committed to providing Afghan children not only with food and shelter, but with a sense of mutual respect, regardless of ethnic differences, a feeling of khak � connection to the earth as their homeland � and a sense of empowerment to shape their own future, and that of their country.

"The happy faces of these children give me hope," she says. "It helps me conquer fear."

Afnan Al Zayani is a wife, mother, social activist, television personality and CEO of a multi-million dollar business. It's no wonder that Forbes and Arabian Business magazine call her one of the most powerful women in the Middle East. In addition, she helped ensure the first written personal status law that protects the rights of Muslim women in cases of divorce and child custody was passed in Bahrain.

She attributes her ability to juggle so many responsibilities to her strong faith. "God will judge us on whether we use our gifts of life and health towards good or evil," she says. Immaculately dressed in her hijab, or headscarf, she shatters the Western stereotype of the downtrodden Muslim woman. Her guiding philosophy: "Live your life as if you will live forever; live your day as if you will die tomorrow."

Then there is Roshaneh Zafar. While studying development economics at Yale University in the United States, she came across the story of Khairoon, a woman in Bangladesh who owned only one sari. Khairoon borrowed $100 from the microfinance organisation Grameen Bank to invest in a business, and now owns a sweetshop, a poultry farm, a call centre � and a collection of colourful saris.

Roshaneh met Khairoon many years after her initial loan, and saw firsthand the miracle of microfinance in changing women's lives. She decided to start a microfinance organisation in Pakistan called Kashf, which means "miracle". It is now the third largest microfinance organisation in Pakistan, with 300,000 clients and a goal to reach more than half a million in the next four years.

Roshaneh's message encapsulates the sentiment of many: "Women matter to the world. We need not accept the status quo. Freeing the world of poverty and disenfranchisement of women is possible. But it will only happen when 50 per cent of the world's population is allowed to recognise its latent strength."

It is these stories that must be reported, not only to herald the achievements of remarkable women, but to dispel falsely created perceptions of the role of Islam in defining the fate of Muslim women.

###

* Salma Hasan Ali is a Washington, DC-based writer focusing on promoting understanding between the West and the Muslim world. This article first appeared in Washington Post/Newsweek's On Faith and was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).

Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 9 March 2010, www.commongroundnews.org
Copyright permission is granted for publication.

Lebanese march for secularism

by Alexandre Medawar — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 00:00:00 -0500

Beirut - Launched by a small group of non-partisan civic-minded citizens called La�que (Secular) Pride, the March for Secularism will bring Lebanese together on 25 April in support of secularism, and to bring attention to the letter and spirit of the Lebanese Constitution. Participants will walk from the Beirut neighbourhood Ain El Mraiss� on the Mediterranean Sea to the Lebanese Parliament buildings.

All too often, Lebanon is represented as a collection of diverse faiths in delicate balance, engaged in an ongoing power-sharing negotiation. One forgets that the Constitution is the only text recognised by all. And, as a social contract, it is the basis for all Lebanese to live together "without discrimination", irrespective of religious affiliation, gender, ethnic origin or personal beliefs.

The preamble to the Lebanese Constitution states: "Lebanon is a parliamentary democratic republic based on respect for public liberties, especially the freedom of opinion and belief, and respect for social justice and equality of rights and duties among all citizens without discrimination." Article 7 affirms that "all Lebanese are equal before the law. They equally enjoy civil and political rights and equally are bound by public obligations and duties without any distinction." And Article 9 guarantees "� the free exercise of all religious rites � and religious interests of the population."

Contrary to current practice based on the National Pact of 1943 which established Lebanon as a multi-confessional state, and the later Taif Agreements in 1989 which led to the end of the civil war, there is no mention in the Constitution of religious apportionment of parliamentary seats or sectarian distribution of administrative employment. Nor does it mention allocating high-level government positions by religion, for example, designating the role of President for a Maronite Christian, the role of Prime Minister for a Sunni and the role of the Speaker of the House for a Shi�ite.

Article 9 of the Constitution clearly determines the secular character of the Lebanese state and consequently the secular character of Lebanese citizenship. Lebanon is a republican and secular state in which all citizens are equal. In theory, that is.

In practice, however, Lebanon is controlled by a political oligarchy composed of businessmen, community leaders, descendents of feudal families and former militia chiefs who, from the first days of independence, used their influence to allocate state positions through confessional haggling. Renegotiated whenever a major political crisis occurred in Lebanon's short history, this horse-trading system is now well encamped outside the democratic sphere and worse yet, is in blatant violation of the text of the Constitution.

In fact, the nation's legislators never established a civil status that would distinguish Lebanese citizens from their religious status. Citizenship is contingent on religion first and foremost, since all personal legal acts (birth, marriage, death and inheritance) are recorded in separate official records established along religious lines.

However today, many Lebanese citizens endorse the stated values of the republican, secular and equalitarian Constitution. Religious or not, practising or not, they do not identify with the sectarian and unconstitutional practices put in place by the political oligarchy. These Lebanese claim the right to enjoy their civic rights and carry out their civic duties irrespective of any religion, in keeping with the letter and spirit of the Constitution � no more, no less.

Thus, the principle of "social justice and equality of rights and duties among all citizens without discrimination" laid down in the preamble to the Constitution should clearly apply to such issues as the civil status of marriage; the right for all citizens to be elected and represent voters irrespective of religious criteria; and the right for all Lebanese to apply for government positions based strictly on professional merit.

As such, the civic movement behind La�que Pride is neither a syncretic movement nor an attempt at pacifying interreligious relations. Essentially areligious and apolitical, this movement demands the re-establishment of the civic rights guaranteed by the Constitution and broadly ignored by Lebanon's political representatives.

The march has received the green light from the Ministry of Interior and Municipalities. It is the first step in bringing together the individuals and groups in civil society that support a secular Lebanon. For now, its goal is to make all Lebanese aware of the text that lays down the foundations of their state and to strive for its application through legal means and the media.

###

* Alexandre Medawar is an editor of l'Orient Litt�raire, a monthly literature supplement of the Lebanese daily, l'Orient-Le Jour. This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).

Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 9 March 2010, www.commongroundnews.org
Copyright permission is granted for publication.

Independent Jordanian civil society: opportunity not panacea

by Sameer Jarrah — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 00:00:00 -0500

Amman - At the end of 2009, King Abdullah II of Jordan dissolved Parliament halfway through its four-year term, claiming that it was handling legislation poorly. Prime Minister Samir Rifai assured local media that parliamentary elections would take place no later than the end of 2010. In the midst of this controversy, key findings of Freedom House's latest "Freedom in the World" report were released � with Jordan in the "not free" category, due to the regression of political and civil rights in the country.

In the past decade, Jordan has strived to overcome the political, legislative and social obstacles preventing full democratisation and the emergence of a strong civil society. However, the emergence of a genuinely influential and politically independent civil society still remains a distant � though not unachievable � goal.

In the 1980s, Jordan faced an acute economic crisis when declining oil prices in the Arab Gulf States resulted in reduced remittances and foreign aid to Jordan. By the end of 1980s, the economic situation deteriorated with the devaluation of the Jordanian dinar, rising unemployment and popular unrest. To resolve the economic crisis, the country agreed to accept a loan from the International Monetary Fund (IMF). In return, a number of political reforms had to be implemented, including building a more active civil society. As a result, the number of civil society organisations (CSOs) grew.

Although the concept of civil society is relatively new in Jordan, the history of CSOs dates back to the country's beginnings. Throughout much of Jordan's 64-year statehood, CSOs have focused mostly on charity and development. Currently, there are over 1,600 of them across the country.

However, the proliferation of CSOs was not a bottom-up process or the result of pressure from civil society groups, but part of Jordan's obligation to implement political reforms in exchange for international aid. Therefore, CSOs were not created for the purpose of strengthening a functioning society independent of the state, as is theoretically their goal.

As such, their role as active players able to make a social and political impact in Jordan is yet to be realised. And they will not be able to achieve this role without the necessary institutional and legal framework.

Jordanian law is not conducive to the independent functioning of non-governmental organisations (NGOs). In July 2009, the government passed a law strengthening administrative control over establishing, operating and funding NGOs. Under this new law, groups receiving foreign funding must notify the government of the sources, conditions and purpose of funding. The government also has the power to dissolve the leadership of any organisation and appoint a temporary Board of Directors.

This is not to suggest, however, that the state is solely responsible for the weaknesses of Jordanian CSOs.

CSOs in Jordan suffer from a number of internal weaknesses, including limited organisational capacity, lack of funding and lack of mass support. As such, these organisations must conduct internal reforms. At the same time, the monarchy and the Jordanian government must also recognise that opening up the public arena is in everyone's best interests as it creates avenues for grassroots participation and reduces the incentive for citizens to act clandestinely and circumvent restrictive laws.

The monarchy should work to remove legal impediments to the independence of CSOs. In addition, the government should establish an independent constitutional court, which would decide on the constitutionality of laws, check the power of the executive branch and effectively curtail the direct control it has on various CSOs.

CSOs should not be seen as a panacea for all of Jordan�s problems, but their emancipation is crucial for political development. The Jordanian case demonstrates that the mere existence of CSOs is not sufficient for the creation of a burgeoning civil society. What matters is their effective functioning, responsiveness to people's needs and the ability to exert pressure on the government. They must be given opportunities to organise peacefully and advocate for their needs and priorities to increase Jordan's overall security and stability, as well as its prospects for effective democratic reform.

###

* Sameer Jarrah is a Jordanian international lawyer with extensive experience in democracy and human rights, as well as Project Director of the New Generation Program in the Middle East and North Africa at Freedom House. This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).

Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 9 March 2010, www.commongroundnews.org
Copyright permission is granted for publication.

Iranian women rally against polygamy

by Sahar Sepehri — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 00:00:00 -0500

Washington, DC - Iranian women's groups and other organisations are fighting a much discussed proposed law which they say would encourage polygamy by allowing a man to take a second wife without the permission of the first under certain circumstances. The proposal comes at a time when the country has been rocked by protests, in which women have played a major part, following the disputed re-election last June of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Although Islamic law permits a man to marry up to four wives (with strict restrictions), polygamy is not widely practiced in Iran. At present, an Iranian man needs his wife's permission to take a second wife.

A so-called Family Protection Law, proposed by the government in 2008, said a man could marry a second wife on the condition that he could afford both wives financially. The Parliament dropped that clause following a wave of opposition from women, but is now reconsidering a different version of the provision.

The spokesman for the Parliament's Judicial and Legal Commission, Amir Hussein Rahimi, announced recently that the commission has now approved Article 23 of the proposed Family Protection Law that states, "A man can marry a second wife under ten conditions."

The new version still requires the first wife to give her husband permission, though controversially this permission would not be required under certain conditions, such as if she is mentally ill, suffers from infertility, does not cooperate sexually or has a chronic medical condition or drug addiction.

Iranian women still oppose the legalisation of polygamy, saying it weakens their role and status at home and in society.

The original plan was dropped after a group of intellectuals, religious, social and human rights activists created a movement to voice their opposition to the law. In September 2008, a group of 50 well-known women, including poet Simin Behbahani, politician Azam Taleghani and lawyer and Noble laureate Shirin Ebadi, met representatives from the parliament to express their concerns about what they called "an anti-family protection law".

Islamic organisations such as the Zeinab Association and the Women's Organisation of the Islamic Revolution also supported the movement. And the One Million Signatures campaign, which opposes discrimination against women, played a significant role in mobilising public opinion.

The law was also controversial among government officials. Several reformists protested against it openly. Iran's former president, Mohammad Khatami, called it "persecution". And a leading cleric, Grand Ayatollah Yousef Sanei, stated, "If the first wife does not permit her husband to take another wife, the marriage will not be legitimate, even if a man can support both wives financially."

Nevertheless, the Speaker of the Parliament, Ali Larijani, has declared that it will consider a slightly amended version of the controversial article.

To which a young member of the Centre for Iranian Women, Taraneh Bani Yaghoub, replied, "The women's movement will not remain quiet."

Iran's first law recognising polygamy was passed when Reza Shah, who ruled between 1925 and 1941, was in power. In 1970, female activists demanded the secular government of Mohammad Reza Shah outlaw polygamy, but despite the government's positive reaction to their demand, clerics prevented it. In 1975, an alternative law was adopted, stating that polygamy was permitted under certain conditions, such as obtaining the first wife's permission.

Much has changed in Iran since 1976, when only 36 per cent of women were literate. Now, according to the Statistical Centre of Iran, 80 per cent of women are educated, and almost 1.6 million are university graduates � compared to 46,000 in 1976.

Despite government restrictions on women, the number of female professionals has increased to around six per cent a year, or 2.5 million women in 2006, according to official statistics. A large group of educated women has shaped today's Iranian society. For years, these women have demanded legal and social rights and equal treatment with men. They have resisted any law that weakens their rights or degrades their position in society.

Women are angry with the proposed law, and they have been disappointed by the reaction of key figures of the opposition movement. A recent statement signed by a group of women activists accused defeated presidential contenders Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi of ignoring women's rights and even their existence in their political manifestos, claiming that "women's issues are a major part of the current crisis and no solution will be achieved unless this issue is included."

###

* Sahar Sepehri is a journalist and media analyst based in Washington, DC. This abridged article is distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) with permission from the Institute for War and Peace Reporting. The full text can be found at www.mianeh.net.

Source: Institute for War & Peace Reporting, 2 March 2010, www.iwpr.net
Copyright permission is granted for publication.

Islamic principles versus Islamic state in Indonesia

by Blake Respini and Herdi Sahrasad — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 00:00:00 -0500

San Francisco, California/Jakarta - A critical component of Indonesia's democratic future involves recognition of the special role of Islam in the state. Because most Indonesian Muslims want their government to respect Islamic customs even if they do not support the creation of an Islamic state, the line between support for and opposition to Islamic law is often blurred.

Many Indonesians, including those who are only nominally Muslims, hold conservative values and support strict moral laws without necessarily seeing them as purely religious or based on sharia, or Islamic principles. It is easy to mistake support for a conservative moral law as support for political Islam when it is more simply a reflection of basic conservative values.

By the same token, many Muslims in Indonesia reject some social arrangements and norms that are commonly associated with democracy in the West, including our style of pluralism and secularism. But this too makes them neither theocrats nor anti-democratic.

While the political debate is often framed by pitting Islamists against non-Islamists, the lines are really much more subtle than this and democratic negotiation will require all parties to recognise this so that they can find common ground.

In this regard, Dr. Ahmad Shboul, Chair of the Department of Arabic and Islamic Studies at the University of Sydney, reminds us that keeping religion out of politics is not the same as keeping it out of society in general and that even the most secular governments of the Western world have not attempted to do this.

Shboul suggests that US attempts to secularise Arab politics may have even resulted in a backlash that has contributed to the growth of political Islam. Westerners would do well to remember that there is not only one form democratic society can take.

In fact, we would do well to remember that even in the West, notions over what a democracy is remains in flux and have changed over time.

As Robert W. Hefner, Professor of Anthropology and Director of the Institute on Culture, Religion, and World Affairs (CURA) at Boston University, points out, whereas family was once seen as the central base of Western culture, today individual freedom is often elevated above family unity. Additionally, the very notion of family is being redefined as Americans consider a variety of arrangements, including domestic partnerships, civil unions and gay marriage.

Despite our consensus on many central values, there is constant stress in Western societies over the proper balance of individual rights and the needs of the community, equality and freedom, and even the proper role of religion and morality in politics. Just as various Western democratic societies define each of these somewhat differently, Muslim democracies are likely to have their own brand of pluralism.

The debate over the passage of sharia-based legislation reflects an interest in Indonesia to continue to map out the most central questions concerning the basic shape of its democracy. The debate is less a debate about whether sharia is good or bad, but more about the proper meaning of sharia and its relationship to the state, and thus its relationship to the national ideology of Pancasila, the embodiment of Indonesia's basic pluralism, influenced by Islamic, Hindu, Buddhist and Western thought.

Ultimately, it reflects a deep debate over the very meaning of the Indonesian nation and what it means to be Indonesian. All of us have multiple identities. We may define ourselves as students, scholars, husbands, wives, athletes or musicians from an array of images that form our composite selves. However, for a nation state to succeed it is essential that one of the embedded images that a country's inhabitants hold of themselves is their national identity.

But it is not enough to simply be an American, German, Indonesian or Turk. For a nation to function it is necessary that one's national identity represent some shared sense of community, and thus shared values.

Most nations develop out of a long history with a shared past. In most of Western Europe these shared histories have been bound together by common languages, religions and cultural norms. Thus, while Italian and French populations were largely Catholics, the growing awareness of their differences became an expression of nationalism.

Indonesians similarly may share Islam with others across the globe, but Islam can fulfil only part of the nationalist vision. Of course this is especially true in light of the tens of millions of Indonesians who are not Muslims.

The challenge for Indonesia is to find a place for sharia that neither subverts the uniqueness of Indonesia from rest of the Islam, nor undermines non-Muslim Indonesians.

###

* Blake Respini is a lecturer in the Department of Political Science at San Francisco State University. Herdi Sahrasad is Associate Director at the Center for Islam and State Studies at Paramadina University in Jakarta. This abridged article is distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) with permission from the authors. The full text can be found at www.thejakartapost.com.

Source: The Jakarta Post, 5 February 2010, www.thejakartapost.com
Copyright permission is granted for publication.

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 49, 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.