DIALOGUING

DIALOGUING (full text here; use links to individual dialogues on the side-bar):

Muammar Qaddafi, “The one-state solution”

Thomas L. Friedman, “This is not a test”

Michael Meyer-Resende and Jan Künzl, “Unlocking Palestinian Politics”

Ghassan Michel Rubeiz, “Post script to readers of my article”

Shelley Ostroff, “It’s not about symmetry; it’s about being locked in the same paradigms”

Rashid Shahin, “Seeking an end to the international double standard”

Marc Gopin, “Non-cooperation can bring a revolution to the Holy Land“

Ziad Asali, “It’s now or nothing for Palestine peace”

Alon Ben-Meir, “Netanyahu’s Second Chance”

Prince Godwin, “The Africa Peace Ambassador: Noah’s Ark International”

WHAT WE READERS ARE ABOUT

THE ONE STATE SOLUTION

Muammar Qaddafi*

Source: International Herald Tribune, January 22, 2009, (http://www.iht.com>www.iht.com). This article is distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) with permission for republication

The shocking level of the last wave of Israeli-Palestinian violence, which ended with this weekend‚s cease-fire, reminds us why a final resolution to the so-called Middle East crisis is so important. It is vital not just to break this cycle of destruction and injustice, but also to deny the religious extremists in the region who feed on the conflict an excuse to advance their own causes.

But everywhere one looks, among the speeches and the desperate diplomacy, there is no real way forward. A just and lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians is possible, but it lies in the history of the people of this conflicted land, and not in the tired rhetoric of partition and two-state solutions.

Although it‚s hard to realise after the horrors we‚ve just witnessed, the state of war between the Jews and Palestinians has not always existed. In fact, many of the divisions between Jews and Palestinians are recent ones. The very name „Palestine‰ was commonly used to describe the whole area, even by the Jews who lived there, until 1948, when the name „Israel‰ came into use.

Jews and Muslims are cousins descended from Abraham. Throughout the centuries both faced cruel persecution and often found refuge with one another. Arabs sheltered Jews and protected them after maltreatment at the hands of the Romans and their expulsion from Spain in the Middle Ages.

The history of Israel/Palestine is not remarkable by regional standards ˜ a country inhabited by different peoples, with rule passing among many tribes, nations and ethnic groups, a country that has withstood many wars and waves of peoples from all directions. This is why it gets so complicated when members of either party claim the right to assert that it is their land.

The basis for the modern State of Israel is the persecution of the Jewish people, which is undeniable. The Jews have been held captive, massacred, disadvantaged in every possible fashion by the Egyptians, the Romans, the English, the Russians, the Babylonians, the Canaanites and, most recently, the Germans under Hitler. The Jewish people want and deserve their homeland.

But the Palestinians too have a history of persecution, and they view the coastal towns of Haifa, Acre, Jaffa and others as the land of their forefathers, passed from generation to generation, until only a short time ago. Thus the Palestinians believe that what is now called Israel forms part of their nation, even were they to secure the West Bank and Gaza. And the Jews believe that the West Bank is Samaria and Judea, part of their homeland, even if a Palestinian state were established there. Now, as Gaza still smoulders, calls for a two-state solution or partition persist. But neither will work.

A two-state solution will create an unacceptable security threat to Israel. An armed Arab state, presumably in the West Bank, would give Israel less than 10 miles of strategic depth at its narrowest point.

Further, a Palestinian state in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip would do little to resolve the problem of refugees. Any situation that keeps the majority of Palestinians in refugee camps and does not offer a solution within the historical borders of Israel/Palestine is not a solution at all.

For the same reasons, the older idea of partition of the West Bank into Jewish and Arab areas, with buffer zones between them, won‚t work. The Palestinian-held areas could not accommodate all of the refugees, and buffer zones symbolise exclusion and breed tension.

Israelis and Palestinians have also become increasingly intertwined, economically and politically.

In absolute terms, the two movements must remain in perpetual war or a compromise must be reached. The compromise is one state for all, an ‘Isratine’ that would allow the people in each party to feel that they live in all of the disputed land and they are not deprived of any one part of it.

A key prerequisite for peace is the right of return for Palestinian refugees to the homes their families left behind in 1948. It is an injustice that Jews who were not originally inhabitants of Palestine, nor were their ancestors, can move in from abroad while Palestinians who were displaced only a relatively short time ago should not be so permitted.

It is a fact that Palestinians inhabited the land and owned farms and homes there until recently, fleeing in fear of violence at the hands of Jews after 1948 ˆ violence that did not occur, but rumours of which led to a mass exodus. It is important to note that the Jews did not forcibly expel Palestinians. They were never „un-welcomed‰. Yet only the full territories of Isratine can accommodate all the refugees and bring about the justice that is key to peace.

Assimilation is already a fact of life in Israel. There are more than one million Muslim Arabs in Israel; they possess Israeli nationality and take part in political life with the Jews, forming political parties. On the other side, there are Israeli settlements in the West Bank. Israeli factories depend on Palestinian labour, and goods and services are exchanged. This successful assimilation can be a model for Isratine.

If the present interdependence and the historical fact of Jewish-Palestinian coexistence guide their leaders, and if they can see beyond the horizon of the recent violence and thirst for revenge toward a long-term solution, then these two peoples will come to realise, I hope sooner rather than later, that living under one roof is the only option for a lasting peace.

*Muammar Qaddafi is the leader of Libya.

<>++++++<>++++++<>

THIS IS NOT A TEST

Thomas L. Friedman*

Source: International Herald Tribune, January 25, 2009 (http://www.iht.com). Distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) with permission for repulication.

Stop me if you’ve heard this one before. “Guy walks into a bar …” No, not that one ˆ this one: “This is the most critical year ever for Palestinian-Israeli diplomacy. It is five minutes to midnight. If we don’t get diplomacy back on track soon, it will be the end of the two-state solution.” I’ve heard that line almost every year for the last 20, and I’ve never bought it. Well, today, I’m buying it.

We’re getting perilously close to closing the window on a two-state solution, because the two chief window-closers ˆ Hamas in Gaza and the fanatical Jewish settlers in the West Bank ˆ have been in the driver’s seats. Hamas is busy making a two-state solution inconceivable, while the settlers have steadily worked to make it impossible.

If Hamas continues to obtain and use longer- and longer-range rockets, there is no way any Israeli government can or will tolerate independent Palestinian control of the West Bank, because a rocket from there can easily close the Tel Aviv airport and shut down Israel’s economy.

And if the Jewish settlers continue with their “natural growth” to devour the West Bank, it will also be effectively off the table. No Israeli government has mustered the will to take down even the “illegal”, unauthorised settlements, despite promises to the U.S. to do so, so it’s getting hard to see how the “legal” settlements will ever be removed. What is needed from Israel’s 10 February elections is a centrist, national unity government that can resist the blackmail of the settlers, and the rightist parties that protect them, to still implement a two-state solution.

Because without a stable two-state solution, what you will have is an Israel hiding behind a high wall, defending itself from a Hamas-run failed state in Gaza, a Hizbullah-run failed state in south Lebanon and a Fatah-run failed state in Ramallah. Have a nice day. So if you believe in the necessity of a Palestinian state or you love Israel, you’d better start paying attention. This is not a test.

We’re at a hinge of history. What makes it so challenging for the new Obama team is that Mideast diplomacy has been transformed as a result of the regional disintegration since Oslo ˆ in three key ways. First, in the old days, Henry Kissinger could fly to three capitals, meet three kings, presidents or prime ministers and strike a deal that could hold. No more. Today a peacemaker has to be both a nation-builder and a negotiator.

The Palestinians are so fragmented politically and geographically that half of U.S. diplomacy is going to be about how to make peace between Palestinians, and build their institutions, so there is a coherent, legitimate decision-making body there ˆ before we can make peace between Israelis and Palestinians.

Second, Hamas now has a veto over any Palestinian peace deal. It’s true that Hamas just provoked a reckless war that has devastated the people of Gaza. But Hamas is not going away. It is well armed and, despite its suicidal behaviour of late, deeply rooted.

The Palestinian Authority led by Mahmoud Abbas in the West Bank will not make any compromise deal with Israel as long as it fears that Hamas, from outside the tent, would denounce it as traitorous.

Therefore, Job 2 for the U.S., Israel and the Arab states is to find a way to bring Hamas into a Palestinian national unity government.

As the Middle East expert Stephen P. Cohen says, “It is not enough for Israel that the world recognise that Hamas criminally mismanaged its responsibility to its people. Israel’s longer-term interest is to be sure that it has a Palestinian partner for negotiations, which will have sufficient legitimacy among its own people to be able to sign agreements and fulfill them. Without Hamas as part of a Palestinian decision, any Israeli-Palestinian peace will be meaningless.”

But bringing Hamas into a Palestinian unity government, without undermining the West Bank moderates now leading the Palestinian Authority, will be tricky. We’ll need Saudi Arabia and Egypt to buy, cajole and pressure Hamas into keeping the cease-fire, supporting peace talks and to give up rockets ˆ while Iran and Syria will be tugging Hamas the other way.

And that leads to the third new factor ˆ Iran as a key player in Palestinian-Israeli diplomacy. The Clinton team tried to woo Syria while isolating Iran. President George W. Bush tried to isolate both Iran and Syria. The Obama team, as Martin Indyk argues in “Innocent Abroad: An Intimate Account of American Peace Diplomacy in the Middle East”, “needs to try both to bring in Syria, which would weaken Hamas and Hizbullah, while also engaging Iran”.

So, just to recap: It’s five to midnight, and before the clock strikes 12 all we need to do is rebuild Fatah, merge it with Hamas, elect an Israeli government that can freeze settlements, court Syria and engage Iran ˆ while preventing it from going nuclear ˆ just so we can get the parties to start talking. Whoever lines up all the pieces of this diplomatic Rubik’s Cube deserves two Nobel Prizes.

*Thomas L. Friedman won the 2002 Pulitzer Prize for commentary, his third Pulitzer for The New York Times. He became the paper’s foreign-affairs columnist in 1995. Previously, he served as the chief White House correspondent. This article is from International Herald Tribune.

::….:….::

UNLOCKING PALESTINIAN POLITICS

Michael Meyer-Resende and Jan Künzl*

Source: Common Ground News Service (www.commongroundnews.org), February 19, 2009, Distributed by common Ground News service with permission to republish.

With the world’s focus on the recent war, a less-noticed aspect of the current Palestinian malaise is the expiry of President Mahmoud Abbas‚ term this January. While the two-state peace solution with Israel is premised on an emerging Palestinian state with functioning institutions, the constitutional legitimacy of the Palestinian Authority is dwindling. Without a political process between Hamas and Fatah, the territories will become two statelets run by de-facto rulers.

There are two scenarios for overcoming the Palestinian stalemate. One option would be to form a government based on national unity, bringing the two groups together to administer Palestinians‚ affairs. The second option is to hold Presidential elections as soon as possible. Fatah promotes a combination of both options: Forming a government of national unity in order to hold new elections, not only for President, but also for parliament, even though parliament‚s term only expires in January 2010.

The problem with both options, however, is that they require Hamas and Fatah to cooperate closely. Presidential elections would be meaningful only if both sides could campaign freely across the Territories. However, such cooperation looks unlikely after the brutal Hamas takeover of Gaza in 2007 and Hamas’s repression in the West Bank by Fatah security services. The relationship between the two groups has never been worse.

There is a third option: Palestinians could hold a referendum on whether Abbas‚ term should be extended for one year, with the mandate to engage in genuine peace negotiations with Israel. A referendum could be a confidence-building measure between Fatah and Hamas, as both would have to cooperate in implementing it. At the same time, it would lower the stakes by avoiding the “winner takes all” outcome of a presidential election and possible parliamentary elections.

Both parties would benefit: Fatah would gain an extension of Abbas‚ term and Hamas could re-engage politically. There would need to be an agreement that any peace deal would be put to another referendum, to avoid ˆ from Hamas‚ point of view ˆ giving carte blanche to the president. In addition, Hamas may want assurances that parliamentary elections would be held in 2010 according to schedule, along with the postponed presidential elections.

Among recent hints of Hamas‚ pragmatism, its leader Khaled Meshaal, who is considered to be a hardliner, suggested in an April 2008 statement that Hamas would respect a peace deal if it were supported by a majority of Palestinians. A referendum would allow Hamas to gradually shift its positions in a face-saving manner. The underlying message of incentives for Hamas would need to be that in the context of a genuine peace process, the movement will be engaged politically to the same degree that it sheds its military and absolutist positions. Support of a referendum process would be considered Hamas’ first step in that direction. Hamas would thus be indirectly bound to a peace process, thereby reducing incentives to spoil it.

A referendum would allow Palestinian voters to turn their wish for a just peace into a political mandate. According to opinion polls, the majority is consistently in favour of a peace deal with Israel, though this majority has waned over the last few years. Palestinians may view this solution favourably, since most of them resent the division of the West Bank and Gaza and would welcome any rapprochement between Fatah and Hamas.

Of course, the referendum has potential problems. Currently there is no explicit legal basis for a referendum so the two parties would have to agree on a referendum law or decree. The Palestinian Election Commission, however, has demonstrated its ability to manage a democratic electoral process ˆ in 2005 and 2006 ˆ and would be able to do the same in a referendum. A referendum is not a great solution, but it may be the best in a range of bad options.

In Palestine, the situation can always go from bad to worse, as the recent war has shown. A referendum may arrest further division between the West Bank and Gaza, while giving impetus to the peace process with Israel, yet without expecting too much mutual cooperation from the two main Palestinian groups.

*Michael Meyer-Resende is coordinator of Democracy Reporting International, a Berlin-based group promoting political participation (www.democracy-reporting.org). This is his personal opinion. Jan Künzl is a freelance writer based in Berlin. This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).

>-{=::::::+::::::=}-<

POST SCRIPT TO READERS OF MY ARTICLE

Ghassan Michel Rubeiz*

This article is a response to the article Ghassan Michel Rubeiz wrote for CGNews called, “Palestinians have the key”, published 8 January 2009. Source: Common Ground News Service (www.commongroundnews.org). January 22, 2009. Distributed by Common Ground News Service with permission to publish.

Israelis and Palestinians see in each other the negative magnified. Palestinians view Israelis to be ‘colonising occupiers’; correspondingly, Israelis consider Palestinians to be living a „culture of violence‰.

Neither side sufficiently appreciates the source of suffering of the other. One key element in the conflict is that Israelis do not consider Gaza to be under occupation. They argue that Israel evacuated the strip in 2005. But in desperation, Palestinians passionately argue that Gaza in fact remains occupied: its borders controlled tightly, air space not free; seashore blocked; export/import controlled externally, tax revenues flow to Israel; economy depressed by the blockade, and the Shekel remains Gaza‚s currency.

But there is also another side to the problem. Palestinians unfairly trivialise or justify their rocket shelling on civilian communities in southern Israel as they compare its impact with the carnage they suffer and the suffering of the wider occupation. But Israel‚s disproportional punitive action should not dull the Palestinian conscience. This disadvantage in power should also not dull their partial responsibility for exposing their own civilians to war slaughter, regardless of the circumstances.

On the other hand, Israelis conveniently ignore the burden of a growing and worsening occupation, beyond Gaza. Western powers have shied away from putting serious pressure on Israel to end the occupation. In focusing on the excesses of Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran and other extreme players in the region, the U.S. has left Israel free to build illegal settlements and tighten its occupation.

Then again Palestinians shoot themselves in the foot at close range. Their leaders are painfully divided on the character of their liberation. Palestinians have to review their strategy of reckless use of force, especially against enemy civilians, regardless of how unsymmetrical that force is. When Palestinian shell rockets indiscriminately they convey to the world the false impression that they do not value life; this negligence weakens their voice.

This senseless war requires firmer international mediation than is displayed today. The incoming American president is aware that his administration must try a new and bold approach in dealing with the Arab-Israeli conflict.

When Israelis and Palestinians start appreciating the source of suffering of the adversary they are more than half way along the road to peace. The people on either side of this conflict should realise the futility of one-sided advocacy.

*Dr. Ghassan Michel Rubeiz (grubeiz@comcast.net) is an Arab American commentator and 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)..

!!!!!!!!

IT’S NOT ABOUT SYMMETRY; IT’S ABOUT BEING LOCKED IN THE SAME PARADIGMS

Shelley Ostroff*

Source: Common Ground News Service (www.commongroundnews.org), February 26, 2009. Distributed by Common Ground News service with permission to publish.

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. ˜Albert Einstein

There is no symmetry or equality in the situation in Israel and Palestine – not in terms of power, resources, privilege or the lived experience of each side. There are, however, shared paradigms and emotions that fuel the endless, tragic conflict.

In order for liberating perspectives to emerge, the parties must be willing to question the basic assumptions that underlie the definition of the problem itself. When will Israelis and Palestinians be ready to question some of the concepts that underlie both of their stories? When will they be able to move beyond the dualistic right-wrong, good-bad, us-them paradigms? When will they be willing to acknowledge the limitations of their particular view of the story and take the leap towards a more complex, nuanced meta-perspective of the system as a whole, and in so doing liberate themselves towards a different, more life-enhancing narrative?

“There is no parity between us!” insists the Palestinian. “There can be no justification for Israel‚s horrific abuse of its military might, the flattening of homes and the killing of innocent Palestinians who are hostages in the war between Hamas and Israel. There is no limit to their cruelty! They will not stop until they destroy us completely.”

“There is no parity between us!” insists the Israeli. “They intentionally kill civilians, blowing themselves up on buses and in malls. In Gaza they shoot from behind the skirts of women, knowing that we do all we can to avoid harming innocent people. There is no limit to their cruelty! They will not stop until they destroy us completely.”

“All we want is our land, the freedom for self-determination and the recognition of our right to exist as an independent people in our own land” cry both the Palestinian and the Israeli to the world.

“We are only responding to their actions – it is their fault, their injustices, their inhumanity. How can you not see that we are right and they are wrong? Why do you only see their perspective? How can you support them against us?” cry both the Israeli and the Palestinian to the world.

“We won!” shout the Palestinians. “They have not managed to kill our spirit. The world has now seen the true, cruel face of the Zionist monster with which we have to contend!”

“We won!” shout the Israelis. “We have shown we will not tolerate the constant attacks on our citizens. The world has now seen the true, cruel face of the Hamas and its Iranian connection!”

‘We have no choice!’ insists the Palestinian. “They have taken our land and deprived us of our basic human rights. No one hears our plight other than when we use bombs and rocket attacks. We have no choice but to fight oppression with violence.”

‘We have no choice!’ insists the Israeli, “We have given land for peace; we withdrew from Gaza and subsequently suffered years of rocket attacks and terrorism sponsored by Iran. We have to ensure the safety of our citizens. We have tried all diplomatic solutions. All they understand is force.”

It is precisely the difficulty in seeing a choice of a different narrative that binds Palestinians and Israelis in this loop of suffering. In seeing no choice one can avoid the pain of introspection and of discovering one‚s own shadows, responsibility and accountability. There is comfort in feeling that all goodness and justice lies with oneself and that the source of the problem and of all evil is conveniently located in the other.

So what different paradigm can be offered as a pathway through this impasse? To start with, it would help to move beyond the focus on ‘us’ and ‘them’ and address the dimension of the system as a whole. For the Israeli-Palestinian system to be healthy it necessitates the health of all parts of the system. One part cannot thrive for long at the expense of the other. It is in the self-interest of all parts of the system to invest in the well-being of all other parts. Well-being is not financial prosperity alone but entails also a deep sense of safety, justice, recognition and hope. Without these there will inevitably be discontent, rage and uprising. It is clear that those in power have a greater burden of responsibility for the health and prosperity of the system as a whole, but this does not exempt the disenfranchised from their own authority and accountability.

The time is ripe to recognise choice in the face of threats. It is time to have the courage to look critically at one‚s own contribution to the escalation of conflict and to the state of the system as a whole. Despite our differences, we are inextricably interconnected as one. As long as we deny our interconnectedness and mutual accountability and hold onto partisan interests and politics, we will dig ourselves and our children deeper and deeper into the same tragic divisiveness that spawns the ongoing enmity and war.

*Shelley Ostroff PhD is a consultant living in Jerusalem. This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).

>>>—–+——<<<

SEEKING AN END TO THE INTERNATIONAL DOUBLE STANDARD

Rashid Shahin*

This article is an abbreviated version of an article that first appeared in Ma’an News (http://www.maannews.net/), March 6, 2009, and is distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) with permission Republication.

The international community employs a double standard in its reaction to Palestinian and Israeli extremism. While the democratically elected Hamas government in Palestine is shunned for its refusal to live up to one set of standards, extremists in the Israeli government are largely tolerated and judged according to another set of standards. The Palestinian Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) won 74 out of 132 seats in the Palestinian Legislative Council elections of January 2006, winning the right to form a government. Although observers universally hailed the election as fair and democratic, the international community refused to recognise and engage with the new government.

This treatment of the Hamas-led government by the international community meant it could not translate its election success into any sort of practical policy implementation. The Middle East Quartet (the United States, European Union, United Nations and Russia) issued conditions for recognising the Hamas movement in an attempt to fix what had become an impossible situation. The Quartet pledged to refuse any contact with Hamas unless it recognised Israel’s right to exist, renounced violence and agreed to abide by all previous agreements between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). Hamas rejected these conditions.

There is no doubt that Western countries have strongly supported Israel since its establishment more than 60 years ago. We as Palestinians cannot oppose this. Western countries are free to support any country they wish. However, this support should not cost Palestinians the loss of their rights and lands. It is often forgotten that the UN decision that ultimately founded the state of Israel included a condition that a state for the Palestinian people should also be established.

When the world refuses to recognise organizations like Hamas on the grounds that they do not recognise the state of Israel, it is only fair that the same standards should be applied to Israeli parties and politicians that do not recognise the Palestinian right to a state, or who hold other extremist views. Such a move would include politicians such as Benjamin Netanyahu and Avigdor Lieberman.

In his latest interview with the Washington Post, Israeli Prime Minister-designate and leader of the right wing Likud party Benjamin Netanyahu avoided any mention of a Palestinian state. This omission has been understood by many analysts as a refusal to recognise the right of the Palestinian people to their own state.

Expected to join Netanyahu‚s government is Avigdor Lieberman, who, during the recent war between Israel and Hamas, asserted: “We must continue to fight Hamas just like the United States did with the Japanese in World War II∑ Then, too, the occupation of the country was unnecessary.” (During World War II, a ground invasion of Japan was planned but was not implemented, because the Japanese surrendered to the United States unconditionally following two atomic bomb attacks.)

While the next government of Israel appears to be unwilling to recognise Palestine, the Hamas movement is taking steps in the opposite direction.

In an April 2008 statement, the Damascus-based Hamas leader Khaled Meshal said that his organization would agree to accept a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders, with Jerusalem as its capital. Although this statement did not explicitly accept Israel‚s right to exist, it was nevertheless seen by many as implicitly accepting an Israeli state as its neighbour. Hamas leaders are also discussing a long-term truce indirectly with Israel. In this way, Hamas is moving toward meeting the stipulations set out by the Quartet in 2006.

Although the international community continues to put pressure on the Palestinians, its response toward Israeli extremism has been muted. The reaction of the international community is unfair, immoral and hypocritical. The time has come for the world to support the Palestinian right to statehood and pressure Israeli extremists to do the same, ending the international double standard.

*Rashid Shahin is a Palestinian writer and journalist based in Bethlehem.

-#####-

NON-COOPERATION CAN BRING A REVOLUTION TO THE HOLY LAND

Marc Gopin*

This article was written, March 26, 2009, for, and distributed by, the Common Ground News Service (CGNews: www.commongroundnews.org) with permission to publish.

It is time for a mass movement of nonviolent non-cooperation and resistance amongst Palestinians˜because everything else has failed. I have hopes that the Obama Administration will be the best yet in moving the parties toward resolution, but in my heart I have always felt that there is one path to peace that has never been adopted, and that is the path of nonviolent non-cooperation ˆ but with love ˆ the way of Gandhi and Martin Luther King.

This is something that a number of Palestinians within Israel and Palestine have tried through nonviolent marches, protests, and food boycotts, but it has never received full backing because it only works when it is adopted as the only means of resistance.

This is not about fairness or whether Palestinians should take on the burden of reaching out to Jews. In a fair world, the Jews of Israel, the victors of 1948, would have had the courage and good sense to recognise their victory and respond with generosity. Some Israelis did, but most did not. The need for a mass movement of resistance is not about fairness, it is about what may still work.

The Palestinian leadership has chosen two paths in the last fifty years: Extreme violence against civilians; and recognition of Israel, negotiations, accommodation, and an alliance with Israeli authorities, which has ended up discrediting Fatah amidst widely-believed evidence of overwhelming corruption. Neither path has worked. The Palestinians were dismissed by most Israelis as barbarians for the former and weak for the latter.

Principled nonviolent non-cooperation that also extends a hand to Jews in friendship is the only answer. It presents the Israelis with Palestinians who are tough but fair, generous, peaceful, uncorrupted, but determined to persist and fight. The fight will be taken to the place of greatest Israeli weakness: its sense of moral superiority over Arab society. What Hamas members need to understand is that their embrace of extreme violence against women and children is already a defeat. They are behaving like Nazis inside the Jewish psyche. Instead of targeting children with rockets or suicide bombs, Hamas can put its best people in harm‚s way, saying to Israel, „Here, kill me, I will not move, I am walking to Al Aqsa; I am walking to Jerusalem. You can kill me by the thousands with the world watching so that you can be the barbarians. I will not give you an excuse anymore to steal my land or kill my children.

This will work only with absolute nonviolence, with a hand of friendship extended to all Jews who will join. This is the only way that Gandhi and King changed civilisations. Nothing less than a revolution in Israeli consciousness is required right now, and so the gestures and actions must be organised, massive and disciplined. They must constitute an intimate conversation between enemies. The movement must say to the Israeli Jew:

I am going to sit down at this checkpoint, in this airport, because I am waiting for you to treat me with dignity and equality. I know you can as a child of Abraham, as a survivor of injustice and cruelty yourself, as a scion of a noble civilisation. I know your laws demand that you follow orders, that you point your weapons at my children and terrify them, that you force me to strip naked and violate my body. But your laws are unjust, and you can break them and join us∑ I know that you put up your wall for security and I too want your children to be safe. But you cannot use it as an excuse to steal more of my land, as an excuse to avoid apologising to me for the harm you have done to me for sixty years. Join me and we will fight for peace and justice together, we will negotiate, but I will not allow you anymore to corrupt me, buy me, divide me, or humiliate me. Shoot me if you want to follow orders, or join me if you want to rediscover your Jewish beliefs and values. I will be generous as the prophet Mohammed was; I will be just as he was; I will welcome you to my home, as he did, but it is time for you to see me as equal, as a brother, and then everything else will work out. You can have your Israel and we can have our Palestine, and God will show us the way to do this in peace and justice.

*Dr. Marc Gopin is the principal author of www.marcgopin.com, Director of the Center for World Religions, Diplomacy and Conflict Resolution, George Mason University, and also a rabbi.

&&&&&&&&

IT’S NOW OR NOTHING FOR PALESTINE PEACE

Ziad Asali*

Source: The Daily Star (http://www.dailystar.com.lb), March 24, 2009. This article is distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) with permission to republish.

The recent Israeli attack on Gaza made little strategic difference, leaving Hamas still in charge of the strip, diminished militarily but arguably strengthened politically. Israel’s use of disproportionate military force yielded political and public relations setbacks, with the captured Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit still in captivity and occasional rockets still being fired from Gaza.

A politically weakened Palestinian Authority (PA) continues to be in charge of the West Bank, and the independent government of Prime Minister Salam Fayyad has resigned. There is no sign that the misery of the people of Gaza will be relieved, or that serious reconstruction will begin anytime soon. The territory’s crossings are closed and the siege continues.

The PA, despite years of diplomacy, has yet to secure any meaningful concessions from Israel, which is veering to the political right – away from accommodation. Hamas offers only bloody resistance that appeals to the Palestinian and Arab sense of dignity, while also piling up a record of deaths, injuries and destruction.

Israeli leaders cannot find the minimal political courage needed to halt the settlement expansion that undercuts their stated age-old goal of securing a Jewish state. Despite strenuous Egyptian and Arab efforts, direct negotiations between the Palestinian factions to establish a national-unity government, as well as indirect ones between Hamas and Israel on prisoners and crossings, have yielded no agreements.

The prospects of a negotiated agreement over a new Palestinian unity government are minimal, the optimistic rhetoric notwithstanding. It flies in the face of Palestinian and regional power realities and ideological divides. This impasse cannot even be resolved by force because both the PA and Hamas are entrenched in their separate geographic areas.

The rest of the world ˆ including the Arabs, Muslims, Israel and the West ˆ cannot resolve this impasse. It is up to the Palestinian people to do so by an act of choice. The world can help by seeing to it that the Palestinians have an opportunity to exercise that choice by holding open, fair and transparent elections.

Of five Palestinian negotiations committees designed to discuss the outstanding issues between the PA and Hamas in Cairo, the only one that seemed to reach an agreement was the committee on elections, which recommended a vote in January 2010. Nothing could be more appropriate, or legitimate, than having the Palestinian people cast their ballots, with their eyes wide open, to make their choices and live with the results. The world now seems to have a Palestinian target date and a mechanism for elections.

Protracted Palestinian negotiations to square the political circle must not be allowed to delay dealing with the reality of irreconcilable factional differences. Barring another Israeli attack, for the remainder of this year, Hamas will in all likelihood maintain its hold over Gaza while the PA will be in charge of the West Bank. Decisions dealing with these realities have to be taken without delay. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas should proceed forthwith to form a new PA government acceptable to the international community.

Even if the present reality precludes the PA government’s ability to govern Gaza, the PA should not abandon its mandate but pursue its private aid program of reconstruction as it works diligently to lift the siege on Gaza. The new PA government must continue building on the solid foundation laid down by the Fayyad government to erect the infrastructure of the future Palestinian state. It should work diligently and methodically to hold elections on time and prevent others from derailing it.

The de facto Hamas government in Gaza will have to deal with all internal, regional and international political and economic realities and demands. It has to bear the consequences of its decisions and actions, knowing that the Palestinian people will vote come January and that elections cannot be avoided or postponed.

Through the policies that it pursues in the occupied West Bank, Israel will have a powerful role in determining who will govern its future neighbour, the state of Palestine. It has to decide, and to demonstrate, whether it can work with a Palestinian partner in order to bring the conflict to an end. It can, of course, opt to block the emergence of this Palestinian state and allow those who prefer to continue the conflict indefinitely to prevail.

*Ziad Asali is president of the American Task Force on Palestine, and serves on Search for Common Ground’s Middle East Advisory Board.

******

NETANYAHU’S SECOND CHANCE

Alon Ben-Meir,* April 7, 2009

The new Israeli government led by Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu has raised many conflicting feelings among those concerned about the fate of the Arab-Israeli peace process. Will Netanyahu scuttle the little progress that was made under his predecessor Olmert, or will he engage the Palestinians anew? Questions about whether he will resume negotiations with Syria, how he will tackles Iran’s nuclear threat, and if he will get along with President Obama remain unanswered. Yet given the right political environment created by the Obama administration and supported by the leading Arab states and the Palestinians, Netanyahu has the potential to advance the peace negotiations significantly, and may end up surprising everyone in the process.

On the positive side, those who know him well suggest that Netanyahu has matured considerably since he was first prime minister (1996-1999). He is well aware that he may never be given another opportunity as prime minister and that he now stands before an historic crossroad. Netanyahu understands the requirements for peace from being at the negotiating table many times before. He appreciates the Israeli public sentiments and is certainly not oblivious to what the Obama administration expects from any Israeli prime minister at this juncture in a region laden with multiple crises. Moreover, the eyes of the international community are fixed on him and he is only too aware of the burden he has just assumed and the limited time he has to demonstrate sound policies. Netanyahu has said he wants peace with security for his country. He argues for strengthening the Palestinian economy and engaging in the peace process, while not excluding making progress on the Syrian front. Iran still poses the largest security threat to Israel, and Netanyahu insists that it must be neutralized.

There is nothing from his tough campaign rhetoric that precludes the establishment of a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace. While the appointment of the right-wing Avigdor Lieberman as foreign minister may have signaled to many a shift away from any peacemaking efforts, it is likely that Netanyahu will use Lieberman strategically for his tough rhetoric to satisfy the more hawkish Israeli constituency. When it comes down to the bargaining table though, once Netanyahu feels he has an honest shot at peace with security he will not let Lieberman get in his way. Persuading Labor to join his coalition government and Ehud Barak as his Defense Minister also shifts the balance of power toward moderation. His coalition may well signal that the future peace process will be anchored in tight security arrangements, and that he and Barak can offer the toughness and leverage needed to secure such a peace. Netanyahu and Barak are capable of negotiating simultaneously with both Syria and the Palestinians. Though the peace negotiations with the Palestinians will be painstaking and take much longer to conclude, a steady progress can still be made aggressively while pursuing the Syrian track.

Alternatively, left to his own ideological convictions and without American pressure, Netanyahu can easily retreat back to his old ways. Palestinian disunity and internal struggle within the Arab states will make finding a partner for peace extremely difficult. He will likely expand the settlements, respond harshly to Hamas’ violent provocations, and focus exclusively on Iranian

threats while relegating the Israeli-Palestinian peace process to the back burner. He might even ignore Syria’s overtures for peace, especially because Damascus is not in a position to regain the Golan by force. It is possible Netanyahu will only attempt to pay lip service to the Obama’s political agenda in the Middle East, and will cooperate only on matters of national security.

These are the two sides to Netanyahu, though they are not necessarily contradictory. He can lean either direction depending on the level, intensity and consistency of the American involvement not only in trying to mediate an Israeli-Palestinian peace but engaging all other regional players in conflict resolution. To enlist Netanyahu as a partner for peace, President Obama must be specific and clear about what must and can be done to advance the peace process while addressing Israel’s main national security concerns, starting with Iran.

The Obama administration needs to heavily cooperate with Israel over Iran’s nuclear program, and must demonstrate greater sensitivity to Israel’s concerns over this existential threat. Whereas a diplomatic course with Tehran must be fully explored by the US, it must commence immediately so that any possible resolution to the nuclear impasse can be found within 2009, a timeframe that is considered safe before Israel contemplates taking matters into its own hands.

While President Obama must support Netanyahu’s plan to build a strong economic base for the Palestinians, he must at the same time insist that a political progress is also being made especially in the West Bank. In that connection, George Mitchell and the Obama administration must be clear with Netanyahu that all illegal outposts are dismantled and a temporary freeze on all settlement activity is enforced. These actions have almost no security implications for Israel, but they create conditions that must exist for the Palestinians and Arab states to take the negotiations seriously.

As Mr. Obama recently embraced the Arab Peace Initiative when he met with the Saudi King Abdullah in London, he must now lean heavily on the leading Arab states, especially Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Syria as well (now that Washington and Damascus are talking) to exert whatever pressure necessary on Hamas to moderate and join the political process. They must resolve now to rein in Hamas and establish a Palestinian unity government with the Palestinian Authority that can speak in one voice. Moreover, the Obama administration must take every measure necessary to prevent future smuggling of weapons to Gaza. Otherwise, as long as Hamas has weapons and continues to violently resist Israel’s existence, it will provide Netanyahu with a valid excuse to freeze the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations.

President Obama must also openly call on Netanyahu to put the Israeli-Syrian negotiations on the fast track and be prepared to become directly involved in the process. By engaging Syria, the Obama administration can re-contextualize the peace process and give it the comprehensiveness that has been lacking. Peace between Israel and Syria is within reach and could have broad regional security implications serving both the United States’ as well as Israel’s national security interests. Moreover, without Israeli-Syrian rapprochement, the task of dealing with Iran will be simply insurmountable.

To be sure, Netanyahu knows that this is his second and likely final chance to advance the Arab-Israeli peace process, but he is not prepared to undermine Israel’s legitimate national security concerns for the sake of claiming the peace. As long as President Obama discerns those genuine national security issues and addresses them effectively with Netanyahu, he may find the new Israeli Prime Minister a willing partner for sustainable peace.

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. He can be contacted at: alon@alonben-meir.com, www.alonben-meir.com.

>>>>—-+—-<<<<

THE AFRICA PEACE AMBASSADOR: NOAH’S ARK INTERNATIONAL

Prince Godwin,* princegodwin1967@yahoo.com

I am sending this e-mail to you in which I explain briefly our work as Noah’s Ark – International peace  project. Noah’s Ark is basically a PEACE PROJECT for creating better and STRONG RELATIONSHIPS of FRIENDSHIP AND COOPERATION between societies or countries doubt they will increase their friendship relationships between them.

Africa 2025 – Africa with no refugees Noah’s Ark had lunched this Idea inside Africa and the idea itself has been very well accepted inside all African community .In the achievement of this goal, it’s necessary the instruction or education no only  in the childhood but in all African society as well with  a massive culture of PEACE AND NOT VIOLENCE, introducing ands strengthening the custom  of resolving problems and differences between them by the way of the negotiation and agreements and DEFINITELY NOT BUT THE USE OF VIOLENCE. Peace -Cooperation – development my directors are in Israel, we need possibilities of working together in favor of this abandoned Third WORLD – AFRICA NEEDS HELP. Peace -Cooperation – Development

Please I have seen your website and believe that we can work in collaboration, to help Africans. We really have to thank you for your wonderful work and the attention which you have given to humanity. May God continue to bless you and any order thing you may wish to do? Keep your faith up for a great Africa. We need to work hard for the achievement of peace in Africa, when you have peace in Africa the world will be a batter place for all of us to live.

We need to show that this world can be a batter place for all with peace. In Africa counties, like most other countries in West Africa, the youths are a marginalized set of the population struggling to gain prominence not only in their localities but also at national level in such matters as decision-making. Consequently, it has been extremely difficult for governments of African and order states to give ears to the calls of the young people with regards issues of poverty, rape, suffering, huger, Seeds Soils, Water, Markets, Agricultural, Education ,African Farmer Knowledge Policies Monitoring , Evaluation and HIV.AIDS ETC.Young people should be given platforms to participate in decision making processes at all levels. Nigerian government and other Africans leaders should give youths a choice.

Equally sir, with your organization experience we can establish the school for peace in Nigeria with your help. And government will like it. One of the greatest problems which have made it impossible for to work well is funds. At the mean time we get an office. With you we can make a change. Please get back to me.

*Prince Godwin Korieocha, princegodwin1967@yahoo.com, korieocha@gmail.com, Tel 009234014310358, 0092348023136481 0092348052102280; The Africa Peace Ambassador NOAH’S ARK INTERNATIONAL, UNOY United Nations Peacebuilders Affiliate member, Peace and Collaborative Development Network Member, Universal Ambassador of Peace.

<><><><><>

WHAT WE READERS ARE ABOUT?

Please share with us what you are doing relating to nonviolent change. If you send us a short report of your doings, learnings, ideas, concerns, reactions, queries,… we will print them here. Responses can be published in the next issue.

Steve Sachs: I note, that with the Obama administration, some things are beginning to change. But are they changing enough? In the U.S. we have a stimulus package, including for creating green jobs and energy – but is it enough to turn the economy around and also to fight global warming? The administration is much more about diplomacy, based upon respect, than was Bush, while moving to be more engaged with Israel and the Palestinians – But will Obama insist on the Israelis (and also the Palestinians) doing enough to get to peace? Obama is taking a new approach to Afghanistan – but will it be enough of a community organizers approach (see my article below) to solidify Afghanistan, and avoid another deadly quagmire? The answer to those questions is largely up to us, to move the administration where it needs to go, and giving it the political leverage, to go where it and we want it to go.

=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=