Common Ground News Service - Middle East

Using Qur�anic narratives in pursuit of peace

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

###

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

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

Can Muslim and Jewish narratives co-exist?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

###

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

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

The language of leaders: Lincoln as a model

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

###

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

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

Muslim right to the Jewish past

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

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

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

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

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

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

###

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

###

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

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

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.

Young Palestinian leadership at the helm of state building

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

###

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

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

Policing and the Arab minority: from alienation to cooperation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

###

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

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

Europe, the missing key to Mideast peace

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

###

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

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

Hard Mideast truths

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

###

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

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

Syria must be a top priority

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

###

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

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

Sheikh Jarrah, Jerusalem, on a Friday afternoon

by Yaron Ezrahi — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 00:00:00 -0500

JERUSALEM - Sheikh Jarrah, an Arab neighbourhood, is gradually becoming a symbol of the struggle over the character and future of Jerusalem as a city of diverse neighbourhoods, religions and communities who strive to live side by side in dignity and peace.

Recently a group of right-wing nationalist Jews effectively exploited legal documents in a bid to start taking over this neighbourhood, evict its residents and raise the Israeli flag over its houses.

Their Israeli flag isn�t our Israeli flag � the flag of the Declaration of Independence that extends an open hand to our Arab neighbours. Instead, it is a flag of domination, dispossession and humiliation; not a symbol of identification with the wonderful human mosaic of our unique city � but a symbol of regression and a destructive coercion.

I have been a citizen of this city for 50 years. During this time, Jerusalem has known good times and hard times. Today, the future of this city depends on whether or not we begin to understand that Sheikh Jarrah represents a problem which is, in the words of outgoing Attorney General Menachem Mazuz, �not a legal one�. It is, rather, a moral and political problem and has therefore become our responsibility as citizens of the capital and the state. Yes, it is true that the settlers also have an ideal of Jerusalem. But it is not possible to realise their ideal without undermining all the precious assets that make up this city.

The solution depends on how determined we are to prevent the destruction of the unique experience that characterises Jerusalem � the daily human encounter between Jews, Muslims, Christians and others � an encounter that takes place under the auspices of this glowing city, in the rare beauty of its skies, its buildings and its houses of prayer.

There is nothing that threatens this city more than the weakness of the government and citizens vis-�-vis this group of settlers� determination to shrink the grand human dimensions of Jerusalem to the narrow confines of their reclusive world, a world which is blind to the Other. We must safeguard Jerusalem as the place where one day the angel of peace will be born and perhaps even the place from where the Messiah � patiently awaited by my grandfathers in their graves on the Mount of Olives � will one day emerge.

A zealous Jerusalem which lacks compassion, an occupied city which banishes everything that is sacred (as one of the slogans in the demonstration read), such a city in which the residents are becoming enemies to one another, will deteriorate before long to bloodshed. And if this is indeed what will happen, if Jerusalem is a lost city which this generation will not succeed to rescue, build and glorify � it will become a another sad layer of ruins for future archaeologists.

I am standing here amongst about 400 demonstrators. The police prevents us from walking to the houses that have been �conquered� by the settlers. Across the way, the police, the fist of the state, line up in perfect assembly. This is the fist which is meant to safeguard freedom of expression within the framework of law and order and not order and law at the expense of freedom of expression, something that the judges from the Jerusalem Magistrate�s court no doubt understood when they ruled that the weekly demonstrations in Sheikh Jarrah were not unconstitutional as the police has claimed.

Are the soldiers of the police�s special reconnaissance unit aware that we the citizens are the ones who have given them the powers that they now hold? Are they aware that we are not the enemy and that as an arm of the government they are our emissaries? Does the tough looking officer with the stern face who leads them recognise that it is our duty and obligation as citizens to protect the moral and social fabric of our city? That we are the ultimate source of legitimacy for the power that he wields? And beyond this, will the Israeli public begin to understand who is really dividing Jerusalem and tearing it apart?

The demonstrators are lit by the dappled sunlight of a wintery Friday afternoon. Amidst the crowd, Palestinian children walk around carrying trays of coffee cups and biscuits. Perhaps they understand that those congregated here are demanding the chance to make a choice about the kind of city we will live in � all of us, with our children and grandchildren. Next to me are a group of student drummers creating a circle of rising percussion beats in a rhythm which focuses but also purifies the anger.

Jewish and Arab drivers slow down as they pass us so that they can read our signs and listen to the sounds. Are these the first signs of an awakening of the dormant civic conscience or an illusion and another disappointment? Is this a bitter cry or a ray of hope that the few who have congregated here will become many?

###

* Professor Yaron Ezrahi is a political philosopher at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).

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

A renewed Zionism � a new case for peace

by Alick Isaacs — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 00:00:00 -0500

JERUSALEM � �Peace� and �Zionism� are two powerful concepts with histories that are inextricably tied up in the Arab-Israel conflict. In trying to resolve the conflict, we tend to avoid talking about both peace and Zionism...and for understandable reasons. However, I want to suggest that their unification in the form of a new peace ideology, committed to fulfilling the historical and indeed prophetic vocation of the Jewish people as a voice for peace in the world, might create the positive motivation for peace inside Israeli society for which the Middle East has been waiting.

Peace is a value espoused by Jewish prophets and philosophers from Isaiah and Ezekiel, to Rabbi Nachman of Breslav, Rav Kook and Martin Buber who writes, �Our purpose (i.e. of the Jewish People returning to Zion) is the great upbuilding of Peace.� According to Kant, perpetual world peace is the very purpose of the modern state. Everyone seems to want peace. And yet, people go to war over peace all the time and Israeli society seems unable to garner a consensus that peace is in its best interest. Since the heyday of the peace movements in the 90�s, so much blood has been spilt and so many homes have been destroyed that it should come as no surprise that people in the Middle East have lost their faith in peace. The word �Shalom� has become a turn-off; when I tell people I have written a book about it they ask, �Is it a horror story or science fiction?�

Zionism has a shorter but similar track record. It is responsible, perhaps more than any other modern Jewish idea, for reinvigorating Jewish life. And yet, only a few decades after the State of Israel�s establishment, being a Zionist has become problematic. Zionism today has proven itself unequal to the challenge of generating passion and commitment among many of the world's Jews. But, more poignantly perhaps, it seems that the inspirational plan of the Jewish people to return to the land of its ancestry has lost its luster in the eyes of many Jews inside Israel itself. More poignantly still, for many people around the world (and to the chagrin of many Jews) Zionism is unquestioningly associated with such horrors as racism, colonialism and apartheid.

And yet, what I wish to propose is that Peace and Zionism are two Jewish values of lasting and crucial importance to Israeli society and the world that are waiting for renewal. Combined they provide each other with a new lease of life. First, the debate about Zionism today has stalled because the purpose of the Jewish State is no longer clear to many. I suggest that we broadly redefine Zionism as the ideological framework or context for a renewed discussion of Israel�s purpose. Second, let's consider peace, not as a strategic concern of the state of Israel, but as a rich and deep Jewish idea that might play a central role in defining the ideological purpose of the Jewish State.

My experiences inside Israel have taught me that this reframing of the idea of peace is very constructive. By opening a discussion that explores the actual meaning of peace within an ideological and religious framework, my colleagues and I have been able to engage and bring together both religious leaders from the settlements and secular liberals who are constructively debating their respective commitments and concerns for Israel, peace and the Middle East.

I believe the successes of these discussions underline just how crucial it is that we move the discussion of peace away from the language of interest-based compromise and into the realm of Jewish Zionist ideological purpose. If we do this, we can include in our discussions about peace those visions of peace that flourish in the teachings of rabbis in the settlements whose convictions about it are rooted in a deep Jewish tradition and whose voices have yet to be heard on this issue. We can bring them into the discussion that, at the same time, engages and acknowledges the visions of peace articulated by liberals, secular humanists, labour Zionists, post-Zionists, Haredim, Ashkenazim, Mizrachim, Palestinians and everyone else with a stake in shaping Israel�s future.

Ultimately, my case for peace is that � if we frame it correctly � peace can become the new horizon, the new platform for ideological debate and the new Zionism. There is indeed hope that an Israeli society engaged constructively in building an ideology of peace is an Israeli society that � united � will find the way to actually make peace.

###

* Dr. Alick Isaacs is a scholar at the Shalom Hartman Institute and teaches at the Hebrew University's Melton Centre for Jewish Education in Jerusalem. His forthcoming book �A Prophetic Peace� deals with the meaning of peace in Jewish thought. This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).

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

Clearing the hurdles

by Bill Glucroft — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 00:00:00 -0500

BERLIN � The last few years of the Israeli-Palestinian saga have seen a shift from talking about peace to talking about talking about peace. The means have become the end, and wanting (or claiming to want) has replaced doing. The status quo has been so ongoing that it may have entrenched itself in the very narratives Israelis and Palestinians use to define themselves. Without the conflict, who are they? What�s left of their societies?

These are questions best taken up by philosophers. But achieving peace may not be as difficult as we have been told, if the key issues are seen as a matter of perception rather than fact.

Word choice is the cause of one of the major stumbling blocks. Most of the Arab leaders who signed the Arab Peace Initiative, and some voices within Hamas are ready to accept Israel's existence, and say so publicly and in writing. But they are wary about taking the extra step of recognising Israel�s existence as a Jewish state. The Israeli government wants an unequivocal endorsement of its Jewishness before it commits to further talks.

A feasible Arab solution, however, could be a readiness to call Israel �a state for Jews�, rather than �a Jewish state�. The difference may appear superficial, but within the sliver of difference lies an important distinction. A �Jewish state� connotes one designed exclusively for Jews and no one else, owing more to an idea than reality. A �state for Jews�, however, is more tangible and less ideological in nature. It defines a place with a Jewish majority, founded on Jewish values and shaped by Jewish thought and customs.

The latter phrasing may be not only more palatable for Arabs, but also more accurate. With more than one in five Israelis being non-Jewish (mostly Muslim and almost entirely Palestinian-Israeli), defining Israel as a �Jewish state� is an objectively troubling thing to do. Better to call it a �state for Jews�, a description closer to Israel's actual political, cultural and ideological composition, and a definition that both Israel and its neighbours could more easily agree on.

Another major hurdle, Jerusalem, appears insurmountable. Israel wants it unified; Palestinians want a part for their capital. But really we may be talking about a completely different Jerusalem and just do not know it.

Jerusalem is not a �one size fits all�. Depending on whom you talk to and when, the boundaries of this holy city change. There are Ottoman maps of Jerusalem, British maps of Jerusalem, UN maps, Israeli maps, Arab maps, pre- and post-1967 maps and modern-day municipal maps. Chances are, if looked at carefully enough, both Israel and the Palestinians could claim they got what they wanted without either side having to relinquish anything.

How can Jerusalem, so often the death of past peace processes, possibly be win-win? Today, Israel maintains a broad definition of Jerusalem in an effort to bolster its position in future negotiations which includes dozens of outlying villages that have very little to do with what makes Jerusalem the hotly contested place that it is. Pointing to different maps, then, both the Israeli and the Palestinian leaderships can establish the perception of victory for their people. Israel can say it kept Jerusalem unified, cutting off from its jurisdiction only those areas that threaten its Jewishness. Palestinians can say it gained a tract of land, called East Jerusalem, for its capital. Neither would be wrong. Both could be satisfied.

The maps become complicated, however, in light of Israeli construction in East Jerusalem. As Jewish homes push further and further into once-exclusively Arab areas, the two become harder to delineate. But this is a challenge Israelis must grapple with internally, just as Palestinians must debate the vision and values of their state if one is to ever materialise.

The holy sites, comprising a minuscule fraction of a tiny part of all the land in and around Jerusalem, which Israel captured from Jordan in 1967, would be an essential sticking point in the win-win map proposal but when seen within the broader context, this too can be resolved. Regardless of the arrangement made to ensure equal access and safeguards, the point here is simply to underline that �East Jerusalem� is not necessarily synonymous with �Old City�, and when Palestinians talk of a capital in East Jerusalem, they are not necessarily looking to take the Western Wall away from Jews.

It is often said that if peace were easy, it would have happened by now. However, it may just be that a small change in definition and perception, on all sides, is all that�s needed to make a big change in how we talk about, and ultimately achieve, peace in the Middle East.

###

* Bill Glucroft writes extensively on Middle East issues and has worked for both Arab and Zionist causes. He teaches English in Berlin and blogs at mediabard.org.

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

Build a partnership for peace, right here in America

by Ziad Asali — Thu, 11 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 President George W. Bush, and it is today seen as a national security priority under President Barack Obama. It has been adopted internationally by the United Nations, the Middle East Quartet, the Palestine Liberation Organisation, the Arab League and by successive Israeli governments. It 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 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 delegitimisation 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, 03 February 2010
www.forward.com
Copyright permission is granted for publication.

The campaign against the New Israel Fund

by Yariv Oppenheimer — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 00:00:00 -0500

JERUSALEM � Last Saturday night, tens of impassioned right-wing activists dressed as Hamas members gathered outside the home of former MK and New Israel Fund (NIF) Chairwoman Naomi Chazan and shouted that Chazan and the NIF were behind the Goldstone Report. These activists are part of the Im Tirtzu movement, a small group active mainly on university campuses, which claims to represent the Israeli centre. Recently founded, Im Tirtzu claims that the NIF, an organisation which has for years assisted hundreds of non-governmental organisations to improve Israeli society and fight for human rights, women's rights and social justice, is anti-Semitic and aids Hamas and other terrorist groups.

Im Tirtzu�s campaign of persecution is part of a systematic and dangerous move aimed at silencing the voices and positions of Israeli people and organisations which oppose policies of the IDF and the Israeli government regarding the conflict with the Palestinians.

The national consensus, and fears of international criticism, are creating in Israel a dangerous atmosphere of shutting out voices, making it impossible to air questions and raise doubts about Israel�s activities in the territories.

In outright military confrontations, such as Israel�s Operation Cast Lead, the phenomenon becomes even more acute; the media and political establishment take over the public discourse in an even more blatant fashion, and any oppositional thought is immediately construed as attempted treason.

The consensus in Israel during the war in Gaza and in its aftermath, eagerly and without dispute, accepted the IDF Spokesman's statements regarding everything that happened during Operation Cast Lead. No mainstream media outlet really tried to investigate whether the IDF's rules of engagement had changed, or whether non-conventional weapons were in fact used against civilians during the conflict. There was no in-depth media report on who gave the order to use phosphorus munitions, nor the circumstances that lead to the deaths of many innocent people (according to the IDF Spokesman�s Unit data).

Indeed, there is nothing easier than to stand beside the IDF and its officers and hide behind the slogan �The most moral army in the world�, with no real desire to investigate, examine and understand how Israel actually conducted its war against Hamas.

The difficult questions about policy, the limits in the use of force, battlefield ethics and the validity of our ways are replaced with unrestrained accusations against the groups and individuals who bravely oppose the establishment, posing fundamental question marks with regard to the government and the military.

Despite the impossible difficulty of taking on the entire establishment, there exists in Israel a small number of organisations that seek an investigation into the truth, and call for a probe into whether the government of Israel and the military brass continue to preserve the IDF as a humane and ethical army not only in times of peace, but also in times of war. These organisations are motivated first and foremost by concern for human life and the desire to maintain Israel as a humane, human, law-abiding nation, which knows how to deal with moral and ethical battlefield dilemmas.

Contrary to the campaign of lies and incitement being waged by Im Tirtzu and other right-wing elements, human rights organisations have never justified the actions of Hamas, have never agreed with the firing of missiles at Israel and have condemned all violent struggle against Israel. At the same time, the Israeli organisations have called on the government to investigate, in an independent and impartial manner, the fighting policy of the IDF, to determine whether actions were taken which have no place in a democratic nation which considers itself a member of the family of nations, taking into consideration the circumstances of fighting against a terrorist organisation.

The brutal attempt to silence, combined with the campaign of incitement with hints of anti-Semitism against the New Israel Fund, is merely a part of the phenomenon of silencing and delegitimising the Left in general in Israel. The public and media are focusing not on the validity of the path, laws of war and the morality of the occupation and settlements, but rather on the rights of people and groups within Israeli society to level criticism and ask questions without being perceived as the enemy.

Despite the campaign of incitement and hatred, Israeli democracy can take pride in the dozens of brave and uncompromising organisations which continue to raise question marks about the validity of the way, about the state�s modus operandi, and which are ready to pay a high price to turn Israeli society into a more moral one.

###

* Yariv Oppenheimer is Peace Now�s Secretary General. This article is distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) with permission from the Jerusalem Post.

Source: Jerusalem Post, 04 February 2010
www.jpost.com
Copyright permission is granted for publication.