Common Ground News Service - Middle East

Jewish respect and admiration for Muslim religiosity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

###

* Zvi Zohar is a professor of Sephardic Law and Ethics at Bar Ilan University, where he also heads the Rappaport Center for Assimilation Research and the Strengthening of Jewish Vitality, and is a Senior Research Fellow at the Shalom Hartman Institute of Advanced Judaic Studies in Jerusalem. A full translation, analysis and discussion of rabbi Farhi�s account will soon be published in Jewish Studies Quarterly under the title �The Rabbi and the Sheikh�. This article is part of a special series on Jews and Muslims in each other�s narratives and was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

###

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

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

�Apartheid week� or �weakness�

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

###

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

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

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

Declare a Palestinian state

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

###

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

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

Israeli Arabs ask Mubarak to help Shalit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

###

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

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

Using Qur�anic narratives in pursuit of peace

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

###

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

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

Can Muslim and Jewish narratives co-exist?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Palestinian and Jewish/Zionist narratives must eventually exist side-by-side; less difficult, I believe, would be to reconcile the Jewish and Muslim narratives. In both traditions there are texts that support the idea of religious diversity. Perhaps best-known is Sura 49, 13 in the Qu�ran, in which Allah states that he has created humankind in various groups and tribes, �so that you may know one another�.

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

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

###

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

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

The language of leaders: Lincoln as a model

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

###

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

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

Muslim right to the Jewish past

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

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

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

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

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

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

###

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

###

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

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

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.