NSP (the interfaith Network of Spiritual Progressives that is also welcoming to atheists and secular humanists) has placed ads in major magazines calling on elected officials to reject the “Inside-the-Beltway” pragmatism and “being realistic” that has led Democrats in power to policies that conflict with the desires of their own liberal/progressive base and do not address the real fears that have given life to a racist and quasi-fascist mass movement in the U.S.

The Network of Spiritual Progressives (NSP), chaired by Rabbi Michael Lerner and co-chaired by Cornel West and Benedictine Sister Joan Chittister, is inviting secular liberals and progressives to join spiritual and religious progressives at a national strategy conference for the coming Obama years – at the Lutheran Church of the Reformation on Capitol Hill June 11-14. We are reaching out to you to come, whether you be a militant atheist or a practitioner of some spiritual or religious path.

We invite you to register for our conference if you already know you want to come. Please go to www.spiritualprogressives.org/conference. Or else, read the rest of this below, please! even pretty please!

Calling upon secular progressives to overcome their religio-phobia (which has, according to the NSP, crippled the Left by alienating major sections of the population whose economic interests are better served by the Left but whose religious aspirations are often scorned by a liberal culture that demeans religious believers), Rabbi Lerner has invited secular humanists and atheists to form a “united front” against what he calls a “quasi-fascist” revival of know nothingism, racism, anti-immigrant hatred, homophobia, and militarism that is scarily resembles the dynamics of the 1920s Weimar Republic in Germany just before the Nazis came to power.”

Because Lerner believes that the Tea Party movement, already influencing the direction of the Republican Party, may lay the foundation for an outright fascist movement in the U.S., he calls upon secular progressives to unite with spiritual progressives to develop a strategy for progressives during the Obama years.

The NSP is calling its conference “The Caring Society.” Rabbi Lerner calls for Congress and the Obama Administration to adopt those words as a unifying theme, and to overcome their antipathy to a shared worldview or ideology. “Spiritual and political wisdom in the 21st century,” according to Rabbi Lerner, “starts with Americans acknowledging to ourselves and the world that our well being as citizens of the United States, Canada, UK, Australia, France, Germany, Spain, Israel, Jordan, (and yes there are even Tikkun readers in China and India and Japan and South and Central America) depends on the well-being of everyone else on the planet, and the well-being of the planet itself.”

In calling for A Caring Society to replace the “look out for number one” mentality generated by capitalism and what Rabbi Lerner calls “its inevitable consequence-the globalization of selfishness,” the NSP is asking us to support changes in the economic and political arrangements of our society so that support and encourage the very opposite character and personality traits and behaviors, namely those that manifest love for our neighbors, love for the strangers (the Others, the immigrants, the powerless, the poor), and love for the earth in all its physical and spiritual beauty.

In the ads which are appearing now, the NSP puts forward a spiritually based analysis of contemporary American politics. “The 2008 elections,” Lerner contends, “revealed the great yearning of a majority of Americans for a world based on peace, social justice, generosity, environmental sanity, and recognition that our well-being is tied to the well-being of everyone else on the planet.

“That yearning is in danger of being discredited as disillusionment and despair is generated by the Obama Administration’s failure to fight for that vision. We are all too aware of the way that people in both par-

ties have sabotaged much of the Obama agenda, but we also know that the Administration needs to stop listening to the Inside-the-Beltway pragmatists and realists.

“Our message to the political establishment in Washington DC is, “Stop being ‘realistic’ and instead tell Americans what is actually needed to end global and domestic poverty, war, and environmental destruction. Fight boldly to make America a society based on love, generosity and caring for each other, on social justice, peace and non-violence, on an end to domestic and global poverty, on gratitude, for

giveness, and awe and radical amazement at the grandeur and mystery of the universe, on strengthening families and challenging the selfishness and materialism that has led to our economic and environmental meltdown.”

Tikkun Magazine bought a full page ad in the Washington Post 3 months into the Obama Administration’s first year in office, urging it to adopt a unifying theme like “the Caring Society” and then showing how each legislative decision flowed from that worldview. Tikkun Editor Rabbi Lerner argues that the most important thing a President can accomplish is to win the country to his or her worldview. Legislative victories have only limited value if they are not based on a worldview that the President, the Congress and the political party all share and all enthusiastically use to educate the public.

Lerner reminds “the realists” who rejected ideology that President Roosevelt and Reagan were most successful in shaping the country to their worldview. Reagan’s worldview predominated for the next thirty years, right to this moment (“government is the problem, not the soluton-the unrestricted capitalist market and private enterprise is the solution”).

The legislation that was passed under Clinton, and the regulations he put in place, were all quickly dismantled under the Bush Administration because Clinton had won his legislative victories by articulating them in terms of the values that Reagan had introduced, thereby reinforcing those values and making it easy for Democrats to capitulate when those same values were the basis of George W. Bush’s subsequent dismantling of the Clinton regulations and his policies.

So it would have been far more consequential for Obama to have articulated the value of “The Caring Society” and then put forward legislative and regulatory policies that fully embodied those ideas, even if they could not yet receive the support they’d need from the Congress. Not only would the Obama Administration have won the admiration rather than the skepticism of the American people by sticking to the values they thought they heard him articulating during the 2008 campaign, but Obama and the Dems would also have had a much better chance of picking up more seats in the 2010 election.

While spiritual progressives do not endorse any particular party or candidate for office, we do enthusiastically support a worldview that we think would help America and would have provided (and still can) provide an alternative to the racist and selfish policies that we hear being discussed in public life in 2010. Instead of us now having to deal with a public wallowing in cynicism and despair, we could have had a social movement and elected officials in the Administration and Congress whose advocacy for The Caring Society would have strengthened the very idealism that had led to Obama’s 2008 victory.

Perhaps that path might not have produced legislative victories in the short run. But it would have shaped a public discourse that opened to the highest ideals of secular humanism and spiritual and religious love/generosity/caring for others/ethical/ecological sensitivity and awe and wonder at the grandeur and mystery of the universe! Instead, by choosing to make “passing something, anything” the major priority of the Administration and its friends in Congress, we’ve seen the Democrats get legislative “victories” that actually strengthened the hold of health care insurance companies and pharmaceuticals and other health care profiteers without restraining rising costs, an environmental policy based on selling indulgences to allow some companies to continue to pollute while meanwhile encouraging nuclear power and offshore drilling, pouring trillions into the coffers of the banks and Wall Street investment firms, escalating the war in Afghanistan, continuing and justifying the human rights violations that Obama himself critiqued while he was running for office, and much else that would inevitably generate anger and doubts about the moral compass of our government.

In fact, many of those in the Tea Party set have legitimate complaints about the way our government has functioned–but they ally themselves (for some unintentionally) with racists, homophobes, and those who in seeking to defund our government actually end up weakening the very democratic institutions that ordinary people fought to create for the past 240 years as a counter to the arbitrary power of the rich and the financial and corporate elites. Yes, that government has been frequently coopted and even under Obama operates more in the interests of the wealthy than in the interests of everyone else, but it still is the only mechanism that we have to potentially constrain arbitrary and hurtful power coming both from the government and perhaps more importantly from the corporate elites themselves and through their control of the media and their ability to endlessly finance candidates for public office (to be dealt with below in the ESRA).

We refuser to trash Obama-we know that he must be defended against the racist and quasi-fascist forces that confront him daily in DC, but we can’t protect liberals and progressives unless we are able to acknowledge what it is about their programs and approach to politics that has contributed to the already-existing anger and hate in some sectors of our society. And some of us still retain hope that the vision that Obama elicited in Americans during the campaign could eventually reappear and shape his remaining years in the presidency.

Moreover, we do not want to deny that each of the major programs passed by the Obama Administration has some positive elements as well, and that in thinking about the Obama years ahead we need to give credit for what is positive in the health care and other programs passed! But you are not doing Obama any favor by refusing to critique the way the Dems have been perceived as abandoning the needs of American working people, or ignoring the part that is true in that perception! But refining these positions on Obama is not the main focus of our conference. Our goal is the further development of programs that can unify secular and religious progressives and can speak to the needs of Americans and provide a foundation for a vision of a different kind of society–one based on our highest values!

And at the conference we hope to find those people in different parts of the country who can begin to organize to get support for the programs we develop, like those listed below. Major Theme: Resist the Corporate Takeover of American Society–Make America Safe for Love, Kindness, Generosity (i.e. The Caring Society).

The Strategy Conference will discuss a variety of specific programs that secular and religious progressives can work on together. Among them: • ESRA: The Environmental and Social Responsibility Amendment to the U.S. Constitution- Corporations are not persons. Spending money on an election is not “free speech.” The planet and all of its people deserve to be protected against the power, influence, and environmental destructiveness of the large corporations, banks, and insurance companies, and from the concentrated power and ability to control information and shape public opinion that now resides in the hands of the super-wealthy (the top 1 percent of wealth-holders in the world). The ESRA will require corporate environmental and social responsibility and require corporations with incomes of over $100 million per year to get a new corporate charter every five years which will only be granted to those that can prove to a jury of ordinary citizens that they have a satisfactory history of environmental and social responsibility. AND the ESRA restricts the role of money in elections in a serious and powerful way. Info on ESRA: www.spiritualprogressives.org/article.php/20100427162647109.

• A Global Marshall Plan (developed by the Network of Spiritual Progressives and just introduced into Congress as H.Res 1016 by Congressman Keith Ellison) to end global and domestic poverty, homelessness, hunger and inadequate health care and education as well as to repair the global environment (www.SpiritualProgressives/GlobalMarshallPlan). • End the War on Terror and Replace the Dept. of Homeland Security with a Department of Global Well-being. * End the War on Immigrants. Don’t let being “politically realistic” become the excuse for “reforms” which tie slightly less repressive treatment of illegal immigrants to new policies of violence and repression against newer illegal immigrants or those seeking asylum in the U.S. or a way to make a living.

Organizations that are co-sponsoring the conference with Tikkun and the NSP include: Common Cause, United Religions Initiative, Peace Action, The Nation Magazine, Public Citizen, the Fellowship of Reconciliation, The Institute for Policy Studies, Progressive Democrats of America, the Shalom Center, the Washington Peace Center, and Yes magazine. Among the presenters June 11-14: Congressmen Keith Ellison and Dennis Kucinich, Bill McKibben (author, The End of Nature), Sister Joan Chittister (co-chair the Network of Spiritual Progressives, and author, Welcome ot the Wisdom of the World & The Gift of Years,) Rev. Brian McLaren (author, A New Kind of Christianity & Everything Must Change: Jesus, Global Crisis, and a Revolution of Hope) Medea Benjamin (Code Pink and founder, Global Exchange), Rev. Noemi Parrilla-Mena (Pastor of Hispanic Ministries to the National City Christian Church Disciples of Christ), Robert McChesney (author, The Political Economy of Media), Marianne Williamson (author, Healing the Soul of America, A Return to Love, The Gift of Change), Rev. James A. Forbes (Pastor emeritus of The Riverside Church, director of Healing of the Nations Foundation), Margaret Flowers MD (Physicians for a National Health Program), Robert Thurman (author, Inner Revoluiton & The Jewel Tree of Tibet: The Enlightenment Engine of Tibetan Buddhism), Riane Eisler (author, The Chalice and the Blade & The Real Wealth of Nations: Creating a Caring Economics), Gary Dorrien (Reinhold Neiburh Professor of Social Ethics at Union Theological Seminary and professor of religion at Columbia U, and author of The Making of American Liberal Theology), John Dear S.J. (activist Jesuit priest, author, A Persistent Peace & Put Down Your Sword), Rev. Jim Winkler (General Secretary of the General Board of Church & Society of the United Methodists of America), Jonathan Granoff (President of the Global Security Institute, and a Senior Advisor of the American Bar Association’s Committee on Arms Control and National Security), Sharon Welch (provost of Meadville Lombard Theological School, author, A Feminist Ethic of Risk & Real Peace, Real Security: The Challenges of Global Citizenship), Rabbi Arik Aschemann, chair, Rabbis for Human Rights in Israel, Rev. Graylan Hagler ( Senior Minister of Plymouth Congregational United Church of Christ), Jeremy Ben Ami (president, J Street), Bill Moyer (chair, The Backbone Campaign), Svi Shapiro (author,Educaiton and Hope in Troubled Times: Visions of Change for our Children’s World & Losing Heart: The Moral and Spiritual Miseducation of America’s Children), David Loy (author, Money, Sex, War, Karma: Notes for a Buddhist Revolution & The Great Awakening: A Buddhist Social Theory), Rabbi Arthur Waskow (chair, The Shalom Center, author, Godwrestling & Down-to-Earth Judaism: Food, Money, Sex, and the Rest of Life), Peter Gabel (Associate Editor, Tikkun Magazine, a founder of Critical Legal Studies, and author The Bank Teller and Other Essays on the Politics of Meaning), Rabbi Michael Lerner (Editor, Tikkun Magazine and author, The Left Hand of God: Taking Back our Country from the Religious Right, The Politics of Meaning, Jewish Renewal & Healing Israel/Palestine), Paul Wapner (Director, Global Environmental Politics Program, American University and author, Living Through the End of Nature: The Future of American Environmentalism), David Korten (author, When Corporations Rule the World, Agenda for a New Economy: From Phantom Wealth to Real Wealth & The Great Turning), Sherry Shapiro (professor of dance and director of Women’s Studies at Meredith College, Raleigh North Carolina, author, Pedagogy and the Politics of the Body: A Critical PRAXIS), John Nichols (edits The Beat blog column for The Nation), Shaul Magid (Professor of Jewish Studies and Religious Studies, Indiana University & author, Hasidism on the Margin), Rev. Ama Zenya (a co-chair of this conference and of the NSP Bay Area chapter), John Cavanagh (director, The Institute for Policy Studies), Josh Weiner (poetry editor of Tikkun magazine, and author of The World’s Room (2001) and From the Book of Giants (2006), Nanette Schorr, (lawyer and Tikkun author), Gary Peller (Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law School and Tikkun author), and more.

For more information: Contact James Lee, Conference Coordinator at (410)262-8365, or call Natalie@tikkun.org 510 644 1200 Monday to Friday, from 9:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Pacific Daylight Time, or go to: www.spiritualprogressives.org/conference. Our offices are 2342 Shattuck Ave, #1200, Berkeley, Ca. 94704, info@spiritualprogressives.org.

*!!!!!!!!!!!!*

Uri Avnery, February 20, 2009

From time to time I ask myself: what would happen if the world’s governments decided to abolish all their spy agencies simultaneously? True, it would be a great blow to the authors and movie producers who make their living from secret service stories. Their products would lose their appeal. It would be a disaster for the huge army of fans which gobbles up spy adventures, the enthusiastic consumers of books and movies about superhuman heroes like James Bond and super-devious geniuses like John La Carre’s Smiley.

But what would be the real damage if Washington stopped spying on Moscow and Moscow stopped spying on Washington, and both on Beijing? The result would be a draw. Immense sums of money would be saved, since a large part of the efforts of every spy agency is devoted to obstructing the intrigues of the competition. How many diseases could be overcome? How many hungry people fed, how many illiterates taught to read and write? The popular books and movies celebrate the imaginary successes of the intelligence agencies. Reality is much more prosaic, and it is replete with real failures.

The two classic intelligence disasters occurred during World War II. In both, the intelligence agencies either provided their political bosses with faulty assessments, or the leaders ignored their accurate assessments. As far as the results are concerned, both amount to the same. Comrade Stalin was totally surprised by the German invasion of the Soviet Union, even though the Germans needed months to assemble their huge invasion force. President Roosevelt was totally surprised by the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, even though the bulk of the Japanese Navy took part in it. The failures were so fantastic, that spy aficionados had to resort to conspiracy theories to explain them. One such theory says that Stalin deliberately ignored the warnings because he intended to surprise Hitler with an attack of his own. Another theory asserts that Roosevelt practically “invited” the Japanese to attack because he was in need of a pretext to push the US into an unpopular war.

But since then, failures continued to follow each other. All Western spy agencies were totally surprised by the Khomeini revolution in Iran, the results of which are still hitting the headlines today. All of them were totally surprised by the collapse of the Soviet Union, one of the defining events of the 20^th century.  They were totally surprised by the fall of the Berlin wall. And all of them provided wrong information about Saddam Hussein’s imaginary nuclear bomb, which served as a pretext for the American invasion of Iraq.

Ah, our people say, that’s what’s happening among the Goyim. Not here. Our intelligence community is like no other. The Jewish brain has invented the Mossad, which knows everything and is capable of everything. (Mossad – “institute” – is short for the “Institute for Intelligence and Special Operations”.)

Really? At the outbreak of the 1948 war, all the chiefs of our intelligence community unanimously advised David Ben-Gurion that the armies of the Arab states would not intervene. (Fortunately, Ben-Gurion rejected their assessment.) In May 1967, our entire intelligence community was totally surprised by the concentration of the Egyptian army in Sinai, the step that led to the Six-Day war. (Our intelligence chiefs were convinced that the bulk of the Egyptian army was busy in Yemen, where a civil war was raging.) The Egyptian-Syrian attack on Yom Kippur, 1973, completely surprised our intelligence services, even though heaps of advance warnings were available.

The intelligence agencies were totally surprised by the first intifada, and then again by the second. They were totally surprised by the Khomeini revolution, even though (or because) they were deeply imbedded in the Shah’s regime. They were totally surprised by the Hamas victory in the Palestinian elections. The list is long and inglorious. But in one field, so they say, our Mossad performs like no other: assassinations. (Sorry, “eliminations”.)

Steven Spielberg’s movie “Munich” describes the assassination (“elimination”) of PLO officials after the massacre of the athletes at the Olympic Games. As a masterpiece of kitsch it can be compared only to the movie “Exodus”, based on Leon Uris’ kitschy book. After the massacre (the main responsibility for which falls on the incompetent and irresponsible Bavarian police), the Mossad, on the orders of Golda Meir, killed seven PLO officials, much to the joy of the revenge-thirsty Israeli public. Almost all the victims were PLO diplomats, the civilian representatives of the organization in European capitals, who had no direct connection with violent operations. Their activities were public, they worked in regular offices and lived with their families in residential buildings. They were static targets – like the ducks in a shooting gallery.

In one of the actions – which resembled the latest affair – a Moroccan waiter was assassinated by mistake in the Norwegian town of Lillehammer. The Mossad mistook him for Ali Hassan Salameh, a senior Fatah officer who served as contact with the CIA. The Mossad agents, including a glamorous blonde (there is always a glamorous blonde) were identified, arrested and sentenced to long prison terms (but released very soon). The real Salameh was “eliminated” later on.

In 1988, five years before the Oslo agreement, Abu Jihad (Khalil al-Wazir), the No. 2 in Fatah, was assassinated in Tunis before the eyes of his wife and children. Had he not been killed, he would probably be serving today as the President of the Palestinian Authority instead of Abu Mazen (Mahmoud Abbas). He would have enjoyed the same kind of standing among his people as did Yasser Arafat – who was, most likely, killed by a poison that leaves no traces.

The fiasco that most resembles the latest action was the Mossad’s attempt on the life of Khalid Mishal, a senior Hamas leader, on orders of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu. The Mossad agents ambushed him on a main street of Amman and sprayed a nerve toxin in his ear – that was about to kill him without leaving traces. They were caught on the spot. King Hussein, the Israeli government’s main ally in the Arab world, was livid and delivered a furious ultimatum: either Israel would immediately provide the antidote to the poison and save Mishal’s life, or the Mossad agents would be hanged. Netanyahu, as usual, caved in, Mishal was saved and the Israeli government, as a bonus, released Sheik Ahmed Yassin, the main Hamas leader, from prison. He was “eliminated” by a hellfire missile later on.

During the last weeks, a deluge of words has been poured on the assassination in Dubai of Mahmoud al-Mabhouh, another senior Hamas officer. Israelis agreed from the first moment that this was a job of the Mossad. What capabilities! What talent! How did they know, long in advance, when the man would go to Dubai, what flight he would take, in what hotel he would stay! What precise planning!

The “military correspondents” and “Arab affairs correspondents” on screen were radiant. Their faces said: oh, oh, oh, if the material were not embargoed…If I could only tell you what I know…I can tell you only that the Mossad has proved again that its long arm can reach anywhere! Live in fear, oh enemies of Israel!

When the problems started to become apparent, and the photos of the assassins appeared on TV all over the world, the enthusiasm cooled, but only slightly. An old and proven Israeli method was brought into play: to take some marginal detail and discuss it passionately, ignoring the main issue. Concentrate on one particular tree and divert attention from the forest.

Really, why did the agents use the names of actual people who live in Israel and have dual nationality? Why, of all possible passports, did they use those of friendly countries? How could they be sure that the owners of these passports would not travel abroad at the critical time?

Moreover, were they not aware that Dubai was full of cameras that record every movement? Did they not foresee that the local police would produce films of the assassination in almost all its details?

But this did not arouse too much excitement in Israel. Everybody understood that the British and the Irish were obliged, pro forma, to protest, but that this was nothing but going through the motions. Behind the scenes, there are intimate connections between the Mossad and the other intelligence agencies. After some weeks, everything will be forgotten. That’s how it worked in Norway after Lillehammer, that’s how it worked in Jordan after the Mishal affair. They will protest, rebuke, and that’s that. So what is the problem?

The problem is that the Mossad in Israel acts like an independent fiefdom that ignores the vital long-term political and strategic interests of Israel, enjoying the automatic backing of an irresponsible prime minister. It is, as the English expression goes, a “loose cannon” – the cannon of a ship of yore which has broken free of its mountings and is rolling around the deck, crushing to death any unfortunate sailor who happens to get in its way.

From the strategic point of view, the Dubai operation causes heavy damage to the government’s policy, which defines Iran’s putative nuclear bomb as an existential threat to Israel. The campaign against Iran helps it to divert the world’s attention from the ongoing occupation and settlement, and induces the US, Europe and other countries to dance to its tune.

Barack Obama is in the process of trying to set up a world-wide coalition for imposing “debilitating sanctions” on Iran. The Israeli government serves him – willingly – as a growling dog. He tells the Iranians: The Israelis are crazy. They may attack you at any moment. I am restraining them with great difficulty. But if you don’t do what I tell you, I shall let go of the leash and may Allah have mercy on your soul!

Dubai, a Gulf country facing Iran, is an important component of this coalition. It is an ally of Israel, much like Egypt and Jordan. And here comes the same Israeli government and embarrasses it, humiliates it, arousing among the Arab masses the suspicion that Dubai is collaborating with the Mossad. In the past we have embarrassed Norway, then we infuriated Jordan, now we humiliate Dubai. Is that wise?  Ask Meir Dagan, who Netanyahu has just granted an almost unprecedented eighth year in office as chief of the Mossad.

Perhaps the impact of the operation on our standing in the world is even more significant. Once upon a time it was possible to belittle this aspect. Let the Goyim say what they want. But since the Molten Lead operation, Israel has become more conscious of its far-reaching implications. The verdict of Judge Goldstone, the echoes of the antics of Avigdor Lieberman, the growing world-wide campaign for boycotting Israel – all these tend to suggest that Thomas Jefferson was not talking through his hat when he said that no nation can afford to ignore the opinion of mankind.

The Dubai affair is reinforcing the image of Israel as a bully state, a rogue nation that treats world public opinion with contempt, a country that conducts gang warfare, that sends mafia-like death squads abroad, a pariah nation to be avoided by right-minded people. Was this worthwhile?

Alon Ben-Meir,* March 4, 2010

It is time for the Israeli government to be realistic with the changing political conditions in the Middle East. The national security paranoia that has defined its policy toward the Arab world is dated, and no longer helps Israel in dealing with its regional threats: in fact, this paranoia is serving only to obstruct what is left of a lagging peace process. The current conditions on the ground are ripe for the establishment of a just and sustainable peace: The Arab League is endorsing renewed efforts by the United States to facilitate a peaceful two-state solution with normalization of relations with Israel through the Arab Peace Initiative, the Palestinian Authority’s Salam Fayyad has begun implementing a non-violent plan to build successful state institutions in the West Bank, and the US and EU are both invested in a direct path toward a secure and viable two-state solution. These reasons, coupled with Israel’s unquestioned military ability to defend itself in any future confrontation, make Israel’s continued argument for national security less valid. Israel must sooner than later chose between either continued occupation, which is bound to explode time and again and paradoxically undermine Israel’s national security interests.

Whereas incessant Arab hostilities and violence from Palestinian militant groups has justified the occupation for many Israelis on the grounds of national security, the Arab states’ position has dramatically changed in the past decade, a fact which is not reflected in current Israeli policy. Moreover, Israel has failed to demonstrate, especially since 2000, how the occupation has in any way enhanced its national security, when in fact it has promoted further enmity, instability and violence, not to mention the astronomical cost in treasure and blood. Despite the relative socio-economic and security improvements in the West Bank, recent low-level violent clashes between Israel and the Palestinians in East Jerusalem and Hebron are feared to constitute a forerunner of another major violent outbreak that could torpedo any prospect for a peaceful solution in the foreseeable future. For this reason, 43 years later, the international community recognizes no correlation between occupation and national security, and views Israel’s continued occupation not only as a security liability for Israel but the single most serious impediment to peace and regional strife.

Immediately after the 1967 Six Day War, Israel offered to return the vast majority of the territories captured in exchange for peace but the answer from the Arab states was a resounding no: no peace, no recognition and no negotiations.  While the Arab League has now come around to support in full a two-state solution, it is unrealistic to suggest that any Arab body will accept anything less than the land-for-peace deal that was offered more than four decades ago. In lieu of Arab rejection, almost immediately after the end of the war the Labor government decided to build settlements on the outskirts of Jerusalem to protect the city from all angles. In subsequent years, successive

Israeli governments- especially those right-of-center-have propagated systematic entrenchment in the territories under the guise of national security, which has given rise to a powerful settlers’ movement anchored in two extraordinary sentiments: reconstituting Jewish life in ancestral land (Judea and Samaria) at any cost and a movement based on socio-economic conditions and cheap cost of living. For these reasons, past and present Israeli governments have been hard pressed not to impede the growth of the settlements. But in recent years, these incentives counter the desire of the Israeli majority for peace and a Palestinian state, and the occupation has become nothing less than a liability. While many Israelis understand the repercussions of occupation, they are generally persuaded by the government rhetoric which uses the near daily Palestinian violent provocations as a proof for the need to sustain the occupation, rather than portraying the violence as a reaction to the occupation. After more than four decades and years of peace negotiations, one thing has become abundantly clear: the only remaining value to the occupation is that it can be used as a bargaining chip to secure a better peace deal with the Arab

states, and subsequently with the rest of the Muslim world.

This is not to say that Israel doesn’t have legitimate security concerns, which it faces daily. These national security concerns have been reinforced by decades of Arab enmity and violence that has exacted a heavy psychological toll on the Israelis. To protect its interests and sovereign rights, Israel has built over the past six decades one of the most powerful and sophisticated conventional military establishments in modern history that has and will continue to deter any Arab country or a combination of countries from attacking Israel. This military deterrence is further augmented by Israel’s supposed nuclear deterrence, which will make it suicidal for any country, including Iran, to credibly threaten Israel as it maintains a second strike nuclear capability that could inflict unimaginable damage on any attacker. Surely this does not mean that extremist Arab groups such as Hamas, Hezbollah or Islamic Jihad will stop harassing the Israelis, but none can pose existential danger to Israel. The growing global perception since the Gaza war though is that instead of using its military might to make the necessary territorial compromises to make peace, Israel maintains such a capability in order to preserve the occupation, as neither the Palestinians nor the Syrians will dare to challenge Israel militarily to regain their territory by force. How else can Israel explain its insistence on continuing the building and the expansion of settlements?

Israel is justified to argue that it has in fact taken several such risks in the past. It evacuated territories in the West Bank in the late 1990′s, it withdrew its forces from Lebanon in 2000 and it unilaterally relinquished the Gaza strip in 2005. Hamas, Fatah and Hezbollah, on the other hand, instead of building bridges for peace have used the evacuated territories as a staging ground to attack Israel. As a result of the second Intifada which erupted in 2000, Israel retook most of the areas from which it had withdrawn in the West Bank, waged war against Hezbollah in Lebanon in 2006 and against Hamas in 2008-2009, inflicting large-scale damage and causing tremendous economic dislocation and hardship as well as loss of life. What happened subsequent to the Israeli retaliations on all three fronts, however, offers instructive lessons that many Israelis have all but ignored. In the West Bank, the Palestinian Authority has officially committed itself to a non-violent strategy (the Fayyad Plan) to realize the Palestinian national objective of building the infrastructure of a state living side-by-side with Israel in peace. And since the end of the hostilities in Lebanon and Gaza in 2006 and 2009 respectively, there has been hardly any violent provocation against Israel coming from either Hezbollah or Hamas.

The Israeli message to the Palestinians and to Hezbollah was loud and clear: Israel has and will continue to have the capacity to enter any of the evacuated territories at will and only a total and permanent cessation of hostilities will end future Israeli incursions. Moreover, not withstanding international condemnation, Israel’s future retaliations will inflict ever increasing devastation and loss of lives as long as violent resistance continues. But if Israel wants to avoid future international condemnations, should it be compelled, once again, to retaliate violently, it must first end the occupation. The argument that Israel does not occupy Gaza is only a technicality as Israel has full and total control over Gaza from the sea, land and air and continues to occupy much of the West bank. If Israel does not ease the burden of occupation and daily humiliation, and commit itself to ending the occupation under a calm atmosphere, which is prevalent now, why would the Palestinians continue to adhere to a non-violent resistance? The Palestinians are duty bound to continue to resist the occupation and Israel will never be able to claim the high moral ground as long as the occupation persists.

Finally, it must be clear that under any circumstances, there will always be certain risks that Israel must take to secure peace. Any nation that seeks to attain absolute security, as Henry Kissinger once observed, renders its enemies absolutely insecure. Under such a scenario very little progress can be made as the Palestinians and the Syrians for that matter, will never relinquish land they feel is inherently theirs and will attempt to regain it by whatever means and however long it may take. Moreover, the Arab states are ready to coalesce around Israel to deal with the Iranian nuclear threat; Israel must capitalize on this changing intra-Arab dynamic and look to the north to forge peace with Syria as well.

I trust that Prime Minister Netanyahu believes in and seeks peace, but he cannot lead a coalition government along with Israel Beiteinu and Shas, two extremist parties that tie his hands behind his back and then place blame for the current paralysis. He has an obligation and historic opportunity to answer the national call and forge a new coalition government with Kadima and Labor along with Likud, representing the left, center and right of center–a government with a solid majority that can rise above party politics which the Israeli public is yearning for. It is time to put an end to the self-delusional policies in support of the occupation that will not only undermine the peace process but severely backfire against Israel’s core national security interests.

Now that Israel has fought and finally won the Arab states’ acceptance, it too must come around and face, in the words of Yehoshafat Harkabi (former head if Israel’s military intelligence between 1955-1959) its fateful hour: Israel must choose between becoming a garrison state with fences and walls and gradually isolating itself from the international community, or make the bold decision to end the occupation and secure its destiny as a free, strong and prosperous nation.

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

-+—‹›—+-

Alon Ben-Meir,* March 24, 2010

The last few weeks have looked like a crash course in Middle East diplomacy, replete with the grandeur of talks and lofty speechmaking, and the lows that shamed even those most committed to the peace process. As the media frenzy played out, the public watched as Israel and its closest ally celebrated proximity talks, clashed over the untimely announcement of new construction in Jerusalem, and worked through their differences during the AIPAC conference in Washington and Prime Minister Netanyahu’s subsequent meeting with President Obama. Through all these ups and downs-and the criticisms that have ensued-one thing remains clear: the dynamics of the US-Israeli-Palestinian axis have shifted and a new momentum has been generated as a result. It is now incumbent upon all sides to take this momentum and translate it into concrete actions on the ground.

Secretary Clinton should be commended on all accounts for an honest and thorough presentation to AIPAC, outlining a US position which is willing to prod and pressure Israel when needed while still allaying Israel’s ultimate concern: national security. Clinton was right to proclaim that “Staying on this course means continuing a conflict that carries tragic human costs. Both sides must confront the reality that the status quo of the last decade has not produced long-term security or served their interests. Nor has it served the interests of

the United States.” Clinton’s point here, which distinguishes this administration from the previous two, is that the US is finally willing to

acknowledge that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is inextricably linked not only to US strategic interests, but also to the complex power structures throughout the greater Middle East. For the US to support Israel’s security, especially when it comes to garnering support against Iran’s nuclear advancements, it must continue multilateral tracks to make progress on a political level, a security level, and a people-to-people level.

The US must continue to put pressure against the continued expansion of Israeli settlements without making the entire peace process beholden to the inevitable ups and downs of these activities. The settlements agenda is a highly contested issue within Israel itself, with myriad opinions coming from diverse political parties and ministers in and outside Netanyahu’s fragile coalition. The US  should enforce the continued moratorium in the West Bank, and pressure Israel to refrain from public construction announcements like the recent one in East Jerusalem, yet understand that Netanyahu has to appease his coalition in some respects in order to deliver needed concessions for the time being. For this reason, the US should ensure that proximity talks, continued institutional and economic development in the West Bank, and an easing of the humanitarian situation in Gaza are all tended to regardless of the latest settlement uproar.

One of the most promising ways that the US can actively support the peace process without subjecting itself to the vicissitudes of Israeli domestic politics is to reinforce the Fayyad Plan. Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, a moderate economist and technocrat whose vision for the Palestinian people is a state with viable institutions and economic opportunity-all achieved through non-violent means-should have the unequivocal support of the Obama administration at every step. Fayyad has started a movement where in lieu of any political progress, Palestinians can still move forward with the development of infrastructure, institutions, and even a central bank. Beyond helping with security training and economic aid, the US should up the ante on its support of this plan, and lean on Israel to allow for more land to be devoted to industrial zoning so that moderate Palestinians can feel the rewards of non-violence. A 7% growth rate in the West Bank is one of the surest ways to draw a stark reality between violent resistance and moderation. By championing the Fayyad Plan, and encouraging Israel to be cooperative in these efforts, the US can see to it that progress continues for Palestinians even when negotiations are stalled.

The Arab states too should not shirk from their responsibilities or sit back as spectators while the US attempts indirect mediation between Israel and the Palestinians. The Arab states have taken a huge step toward moderation by willing to recognize Israel and normalize relations with it in a land-for peace agreement outlined in the historic Arab Peace Initiative. Yet by and large, they have watched as their plan for peace has languished for years without doing any substantial legwork to promote it. What the Arab league must understand is that whatever political and economic maneuvering is being done by the US, EU, Quartet, or Turkey to solve this crisis will only benefit if the collective Arab states can muster the will to promote their plan for how the future of their own region should look. Redoubling efforts to promote the Arab Peace Initiative as proximity talks ensue should be top of the agenda for the upcoming summit in

Libya. Syria in particular should be vocal in this effort, as the US has started normalizing relations with it while ensuring its claim on the Golan is addressed.

In the context of these deliberations, a player like Turkey should not be dismissed, even as official ties between the Turkish and Israeli governments have been tense since Israel’s offensive into Gaza. While Turkey’s official role as a mediator in the Arab-Israeli conflict has waned, people-to-people development continues as the Turkish Chamber of Commerce has pushed for expanding private sector development in industrial zones throughout the West Bank. Turkey has asserted its interest in seeing an end to the Arab-Israeli crisis, and in lieu of a sound political process has continued to push for development in the future Palestinian state without seriously compromising its close military and trade ties with Israel.

Lastly, Israel needs to start delivering concessions on the ground or it will find itself increasingly more isolated as the international community coalesces around the push for a two-state solution. Although Netanyahu has emphasized Israel’s willingness to enter direct and unconditional negotiations, this suggests that the accomplishments and agreements of prior negotiations can be ignored. The US should be abundantly clear that the parameters of a solution have been established time and again; proximity talks should focus on dealing with core issues where progress has been made and back such agreements so that they will not be subject to renegotiations time and again. While the Jews’ historical and biblical ties to Jerusalem must be respected, this Israeli government cannot use that as a crutch to sabotage talks or prohibit it from moving forward with concessions. Netanyahu should brace himself for the pressure and persistence that President Obama will put on Israel when it comes to settlements, a subject that even General Petraeus has listed as a threat to US interests and security abroad. If Netanyahu’s current center-right coalition is preventing him from making the necessary concessions, he has every obligation then to bring Kadima back in as a strategic partner in peace. With a major domestic victory under his belt, President Obama will have more time and energy to see that Israel is making progress on the Palestinian track.

On the security front, Obama, Biden Mitchell, and most recently Clinton have all made it profusely clear that “for this entire Administration, our commitment to Israel’s security and Israel’s future is rock solid, unwavering, enduring, and forever.” The US has gone above and beyond to prove to Israel its commitment when it comes to national security, which should dispel any of the concerns about the nature of the current US-Israeli relationship. Nonetheless, this does not mean that the US will or should back down from pressuring Israel to make necessary concessions for peace, as this is directly related to Israel’s ultimate security needs and American strategic interests.

Beyond that, as Israel continues its campaign to get widespread support against Iran’s nuclear agenda, President Obama must make one thing clear: if the US is to confront Iran with sanctions or a military threat, both which will require international cooperation, there must be significant progress, if not a full agreement, on the Arab-Israeli track. With the war in Afghanistan and continued instability in Iraq, the United States simply cannot and will not confront Iran, especially militarily, before it can secure a real calm on the Israeli-Palestinian track. The Iranian regime, Hamas, Hezbollah and al-Qaeda all in some shape or form gain support for their causes through the fact that Israel is still an occupying force and the US supports it as a staunch ally. Trying to separate the rise in power of these groups from the progress on the Israeli-Palestinian front is a futile exercise, and Israel should know that if it wants full support from the US, EU, Arab states, and Security Council against the Iranian threats, it must prove its commitment to seeing out the peace process. The regional alliances that balanced the ambitions of Iran, Iraq, Syria and other leading states drastically changed with an aggressive US military and foreign policy in the Middle East during the Bush era. The last thing the US wants is another regional conflagration where it will need to mobilize support for an unpopular effort. Israel should be well aware of this, as progress on the Arab front will make it much easier for the US to resort to even greater coercive actions against Iran should it become necessary.

Because of the unraveling balances of power that have shifted immensely this past decade-which have played out on political, military and religious fronts-security has been globalized in such a way that the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians is no longer just regional. Benjamin Netanyahu has some serious soul searching to do if he is going to get his coalition to act in Israel’s long term interests instead of presumed short term gains. This includes reigning in his coalition ministers and presenting a unified Israeli public voice as well as taking the necessary risks for peace needed to reach an agreement.

Netanyahu should know that while he now has a partner in the US, EU, and Arab League, this may not last, nor will the current lull in violence. The recent scuffle over settlements started as a disaster for Israel’s public image, but can end in such a way that Israel could be seen as a country willing to govern constructively for the future instead of hiding behind the perilous status quo.

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

Ghassan Michel Rubeiz*

Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews: www.commongroundnews.org), February 18, 2010, who has distributed the article with permission to publish.

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).

M.J. Rosenberg*

This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews – www.commongroundnews.org), 22 April 2010, who distributed it with permission for publication.

The Washington Post reported last week that the Obama administration is considering abandoning its support for indirect Israeli-Palestinian negotiations in favour of direct negotiations based on a plan the United States would lay on the table.It’s a great idea. Indirect negotiations are a good device for achieving nothing. They would also constitute a step backward from the direct negotiations which have been the norm for 15 years.

According to the New York Times, the Obama plan would track the so-called “Clinton Parameters”, the plan devised by President Clinton during his last days in the White House. He believed that his parameters represented the positions with which both sides could live. He believed (and still does) that his parameters offered the basis for a peace treaty which, following negotiations, could be implemented.

Despite the prevalent pessimism, an examination of the parameters and the positions of the parties highlights that there is actually more proximity than distance between the parties. According to the NYTimes report, the plan comprises the following:

Palestinian officials would have to accept that there would be no right of return for refugees of the 1948 war that established the Israeli state, or for their millions of descendants.

Agreement is not far on this issue. Palestinians understand this and have no expectation that millions of refugees would return to Israel. Palestinians in the West Bank, Gaza and east Jerusalem would become citizens of a new Palestinian state. Those outside would have the option of becoming citizens of that new state. A symbolic number (a few thousand) would be allowed to return to Israel itself, with Israel having a veto over any and all applicants for citizenship in Israel. The Obama position is identical to the Israeli position. The parameters include the stipulation that Palestinians would have to accept some kind of compensation. Again, this is the Israeli position too.

On other seemingly intractable problems, the two sides would have to share Jerusalem-Palestinians locating their capital in the east and Israelis in the west, and both signing on to some sort of international agreement on how to share the holy sites in the Old City.

Yet this is not hard to accomplish. Israel unilaterally expanded the size of Jerusalem by 300 percent after the 1967 war to include dozens of Palestinian villages. These should return to the Palestinians. The Old City, holy to three faiths, would be shared with outside (probably American) monitors making sure that Jerusalem remains one city, open to all.

This would be acceptable to some Palestinians, though major players such as Hamas have shown much hesitancy. It would also be strongly opposed by the hardcore Israeli right including the settlers, and perhaps even some Israeli centrists. Yet, projects such as the Sari Nusseibeh – Ami Ayalon platform, which garnered over 400,000 Israeli and Palestinian voters in the midst of the intifada, champion a similar platform. The parameters also stipulate that Israel would return to its 1967 borders-the borders before it captured east Jerusalem and the West Bank in the Six-Day War-give or take a few negotiated settlements and territorial swaps.

In other words, Israel would get to keep the settlement blocks adjacent to Israel but would compensate Palestinians with territory elsewhere so that the Palestinians would maintain Arab control of 22 percent of what is seen as historic Palestine prior to the 1967 war. Israel would retain 78 percent of historic Palestine prior to the war, which represents land allotted to Israel under the 1947 United Nations Partition Plan plus the lands Israel won in the subsequent war for independence. It appears that the Palestinian Authority supports this stance too, as seen in various declarations on its part, as do a majority of Israelis.

On the security issue, the United States or NATO would have to give Israel security guarantees, probably including stationing troops along the Jordan River, to ease Israeli fears that hostile countries could use the Palestinian state as a springboard for attacks.

As seen during Oslo, the Palestinians have not agreed to an Israeli presence along the Jordanian border, which is seen as a clear infringement on Palestinian sovereignty-as is the requirement that the Palestinian state be disarmed. Israelis insist on both and the Obama administration agrees. One glimmer of hope is that recent years have seen much security cooperation between Israelis and Palestinians, and many Palestinians do in fact agree to a demilitarized state. And finally, Arab neighbours like Saudi Arabia would recognise Israel.

This principle has already been accepted by the Saudi Peace Initiative, though recently the Saudis have not shown much enthusiasm towards normalisation. According to this, every Arab state in the world would sign a peace treaty and normalise relations with Israel in exchange for the establishment of a Palestinian state in the occupied territories.

At this point, there is no proof that the President will go ahead with this plan. But it is telling that he would consider putting it forth before resolving the conflict with Prime Minister Netanyahu over settlements.

In fact, this plan is a way of end-running the settlement issue and getting right to negotiations that will end the whole conflict. The settlement issue-the current cause for US-Israeli tensions-is important. Yet, by definition, a comprehensive agreement solves it along with everything else. The President should go for it.

*M.J. Rosenberg, former director of policy at Israel Policy Forum, is Senior Foreign Policy Fellow at Media Matters Action Network, and a member of Search for Common Ground’s Middle East Advisory Board.

___+___=___+____

Josh Simon*

Source: Ynetnews (www.ynetnews.com), April 14, 2010, Distributed by Common Ground News service with permission for republication.

Rioting in Jerusalem has illuminated the tenuous state of Jewish-Arab relations in Israel. The popular misconception is that this issue is an isolated incident resulting from the opening of a new synagogue. If we can extrapolate anything from recent unrest, it is that the “Rage Day” events and the demonstrations in Sakhnin are a logical trend representing the steadily deteriorating relationship between Arabs and Jews in Israel.

Polls have shown that almost half of Israeli Jewish high school students don’t believe that Arabs should have the same rights as Jews, and a report released recently indicates a 28 percent rise in racist incidents in 2009. On the other hand, moderate Arab elements within Israeli society have joined the fray. We have seen bulldozer attacks, foiled attempts by Arab citizens at abetting terrorism and glorification of Israel’s enemies. Whether Israel’s Arab citizens are being hijacked by an extreme political movement or are being pushed by a hostile majority is uncertain, but this phenomenon will certainly jeopardise the state’s internal stability.

However, there are ways to reverse this trend and create a society where conflict and hatred do not come so naturally. Israel recently decided to invest NIS 800 million (roughly $220 million) into a stimulus package for Arab, Druze and Circassian communities. Unfortunately, this outstanding initiative leaves out the educational component. As the source of cultural development, education is the arena in which youth can be moulded and influenced for the better.

“Coexistence Education”, according to Daniel Bar-Tal, is the “process through which society members acquire the beliefs, attitudes and behaviours that are in line with the ideas of coexistence”. Coexistence vis-à-vis Israel is defined as two geopolitical groups living together peacefully without hostility despite differences. Coexistence generally has come to represent a political process preceding integration in multicultural societies prone to conflict. Unfortunately, as Bar-Tal illustrates, the longer the process lasts in Israel, the more it will be discredited by the Arab sector as it is perceived as a means of “eternalising Jewish dominance and discrimination over the Arab population”.

Coexistence itself does not guarantee full equality and rights, which are prerequisites in modern democracies. Nonetheless, it does represent an urgent step that will one day lead to an integrated and therefore stable society. Therefore, Israel must commit to a comprehensive coexistence education policy. Such a policy would allow civil society professionals to develop a course of action that the government could later institutionalise.

In order to initiate educational reforms it is incumbent upon the political leadership to commit to both symbolic and practical policy measures. For example, the government takes certain actions that “recognise” the importance of issues. These are symbolic policy initiatives-like the appointment of an Arab minister or establishing a committee that explores pedagogical methodologies for coexistence education. On the other hand, balancing the budget in the education system, the aforementioned stimulus package and actually implementing recommendations of said committee are examples of practical policy steps.

The Public Committee for Coexistence Education (a group comprised of professors and civil society professionals), was established by former Education Minister Yuli Tamir with the purpose of making informed and educated recommendations regarding coexistence education policy in Israel. When Gideon Sa’ar entered office, he decided to cease the activity of the committee. Even if the recommendations of the committee are not implemented, squashing it only closes doors unnecessarily. Reviving the public committee and its work is a nominal political move that could become a realistic policy plan. This is an example of a negative symbolic step that should be reversed in order to demonstrate that Israel is working toward creating a shared society.

The current administration must also explore cooperation opportunities between civil society and government. Municipalities and the Ministry of Education could initially “outsource” coexistence education programs to professionals in the field. For example, The Abraham Fund Initiatives works closely with the Ministry of Education and local municipalities to promote the teaching of Arabic in elementary schools throughout the country. This program has been proven by independent evaluators to combat racism and negative stereotypes amongst Jewish children. Peace Players International uses the game of basketball to unite and educate Arab and Jewish youth, subsidising extracurricular sports programs that build life skills and change negative perceptions.

Although these are but two examples, any coexistence curriculum with the “mandatory” stamp from the Ministry of Education would serve as a positive indication of practical efforts by the government.

Support from the political leadership is the most important factor in easing minority-majority tensions in Israel. Without it, the system will continue to support an environment of hatred and racism to flourish. Political acknowledgment of the importance of coexistence education followed by practical policy steps for its implementation would commence the reversal of the negative trend that plagues Israeli society. Ultimately, the future and stability of Israel depends on a shared society and the next generation must be educated accordingly.

*Josh Simon writes for Ynetnews.

Louis Kriesberg*

Source: The Post Standard (http://www.syracuse), April 4, 2010. This article is distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) with permission for republication.

Although the clash between the US and Israeli governments about the Israeli government’s planned housing expansion in east Jerusalem may be abating, the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is no closer. President Barack Obama’s peacemaking strategy is focused on reviving direct negotiations between the Palestinian Authority and the Israeli government. Obama has taken some actions to improve the environment for such negotiations, but they are proving inadequate. Even if indirect mediated negotiations begin, the prospects of reaching a peace agreement through this process are quite dim.

A fresh approach is needed. The conflict must be transformed and conducted in a mutually acceptable nonviolent manner. Elements of the transformation have begun. The United States should enhance them to help bring about changes in the realities on the ground so that peace agreements will be attractive. The profound problems about the location of Jewish settlements, the control of Jerusalem and the rights of Palestinian refugees in the Diaspora may then become soluble.

Two ongoing developments can be given more support, and several constructive new actions should be undertaken. Doing that would demonstrate that a peaceful transformation is under way. Benefits for both sides need not await a final end-of-conflict agreement.

For example, Obama is continuing the programme begun four years ago for training Palestinian troops to serve in the West Bank. The programme is led by US. Lt. General Keith Dayton and is intended to thwart criminal groups and Hamas actions in the West Bank. The trained troops have been deployed and they have improved everyday security in Nablus and other West Bank areas. This has also helped improve local economic conditions.

Palestinian and Israeli nonviolent resistance and legal challenges to Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Jerusalem are growing. Americans can increase their aid to such efforts, which raise the cost of the settlements and at times check their expansion.

The United States should support and initiate new actions to foster mutual respect and reduce humiliating relations. For example, US consultation might be offered to assist Israeli soldiers in the West Bank to enforce the law when Jewish settlers harass Palestinians. The United States could stress the high economic and political costs to Israelis and Palestinians of the checkpoints in Palestinian territories. They should be greatly reduced and implemented in ways that allow for speedy and respectful passage, and eliminated very soon.

The asymmetries in the relations between Palestinians and Israelis can be reduced to improve the chances of reaching equitable and sustainable agreements. The recent improvements in the West Bank economy, promoted by the Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, are significant in building more cooperative relations. An additional important step in this regard would be for the US Congress to rescind legislation banning direct assistance to the Palestinian Authority. Channelling some funding through it would bolster its capacities and legitimacy and convey US confidence in it. Obama should begin using his authority to waive the restrictions for national security reasons, which would allow some direct assistance.

The United States should work more with other governments and international organizations to ensure the security and welfare of Palestinians. Such international progress would also improve Israel’s international standing and security. For example, efforts should begin now to establish an international fund for Palestinian refugees and their families. International planning for meeting their needs should be negotiated. Claims for compensation and resettlement would then be processed and programs for the integration of Palestinians in the Diaspora begun.

In another example, Palestinian economic efforts in the West Bank would benefit by preliminary membership of the Palestinian Authority in the World Trade Organization. The US government should not oppose this, but rather support it, since the organization’s rules would be safeguards for Israel and other countries.

The United States should provide greater encouragement and support to peacemaking efforts and potential contributions of other states in the Middle East. This would include recent Egyptian mediating efforts between Hamas and the Palestinian leaders in the West Bank. Fifty percent of Israelis support talks with Hamas if needed to reach a compromise agreement and 62 percent support talks with a unified Palestinian government including Hamas.

In addition, recognition should be given to the effectiveness of the Jordanian military forces in securing the Israeli-Jordanian border to prevent arms or militants from crossing into Israel. Planning on that would obviate the need for an Israeli presence there.

Most of the Jews and Palestinians in Israel and the occupied territories have come to accept a two-state solution as preferable to any likely alternative. But they despair of achieving it. The United States can help raise the expectations of its attainment, and thereby help negotiators reach agreements. The US government, and American citizens, can take numerous actions that help build mutual trust and help create the environment in which negotiations can be successfully conducted and peace agreements sustained.

* Louis Kriesberg is Professor Emeritus of Sociology, Maxwell Professor Emeritus of Social Conflict Studies, and founding director of the Program on the Analysis and Resolution of Conflicts, all at Syracuse University. from the author.

Louis Kriesberg*

Source: The Post Standard (http://www.syracuse), April 4, 2010. This article is distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) with permission for republication.

Although the clash between the US and Israeli governments about the Israeli government’s planned housing expansion in east Jerusalem may be abating, the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is no closer. President Barack Obama’s peacemaking strategy is focused on reviving direct negotiations between the Palestinian Authority and the Israeli government. Obama has taken some actions to improve the environment for such negotiations, but they are proving inadequate. Even if indirect mediated negotiations begin, the prospects of reaching a peace agreement through this process are quite dim.

A fresh approach is needed. The conflict must be transformed and conducted in a mutually acceptable nonviolent manner. Elements of the transformation have begun. The United States should enhance them to help bring about changes in the realities on the ground so that peace agreements will be attractive. The profound problems about the location of Jewish settlements, the control of Jerusalem and the rights of Palestinian refugees in the Diaspora may then become soluble.

Two ongoing developments can be given more support, and several constructive new actions should be undertaken. Doing that would demonstrate that a peaceful transformation is under way. Benefits for both sides need not await a final end-of-conflict agreement.

For example, Obama is continuing the programme begun four years ago for training Palestinian troops to serve in the West Bank. The programme is led by US. Lt. General Keith Dayton and is intended to thwart criminal groups and Hamas actions in the West Bank. The trained troops have been deployed and they have improved everyday security in Nablus and other West Bank areas. This has also helped improve local economic conditions.

Palestinian and Israeli nonviolent resistance and legal challenges to Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Jerusalem are growing. Americans can increase their aid to such efforts, which raise the cost of the settlements and at times check their expansion.

The United States should support and initiate new actions to foster mutual respect and reduce humiliating relations. For example, US consultation might be offered to assist Israeli soldiers in the West Bank to enforce the law when Jewish settlers harass Palestinians. The United States could stress the high economic and political costs to Israelis and Palestinians of the checkpoints in Palestinian territories. They should be greatly reduced and implemented in ways that allow for speedy and respectful passage, and eliminated very soon.

The asymmetries in the relations between Palestinians and Israelis can be reduced to improve the chances of reaching equitable and sustainable agreements. The recent improvements in the West Bank economy, promoted by the Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, are significant in building more cooperative relations. An additional important step in this regard would be for the US Congress to rescind legislation banning direct assistance to the Palestinian Authority. Channelling some funding through it would bolster its capacities and legitimacy and convey US confidence in it. Obama should begin using his authority to waive the restrictions for national security reasons, which would allow some direct assistance.

The United States should work more with other governments and international organizations to ensure the security and welfare of Palestinians. Such international progress would also improve Israel’s international standing and security. For example, efforts should begin now to establish an international fund for Palestinian refugees and their families. International planning for meeting their needs should be negotiated. Claims for compensation and resettlement would then be processed and programs for the integration of Palestinians in the Diaspora begun.

In another example, Palestinian economic efforts in the West Bank would benefit by preliminary membership of the Palestinian Authority in the World Trade Organization. The US government should not oppose this, but rather support it, since the organization’s rules would be safeguards for Israel and other countries.

The United States should provide greater encouragement and support to peacemaking efforts and potential contributions of other states in the Middle East. This would include recent Egyptian mediating efforts between Hamas and the Palestinian leaders in the West Bank. Fifty percent of Israelis support talks with Hamas if needed to reach a compromise agreement and 62 percent support talks with a unified Palestinian government including Hamas.

In addition, recognition should be given to the effectiveness of the Jordanian military forces in securing the Israeli-Jordanian border to prevent arms or militants from crossing into Israel. Planning on that would obviate the need for an Israeli presence there.

Most of the Jews and Palestinians in Israel and the occupied territories have come to accept a two-state solution as preferable to any likely alternative. But they despair of achieving it. The United States can help raise the expectations of its attainment, and thereby help negotiators reach agreements. The US government, and American citizens, can take numerous actions that help build mutual trust and help create the environment in which negotiations can be successfully conducted and peace agreements sustained.

* Louis Kriesberg is Professor Emeritus of Sociology, Maxwell Professor Emeritus of Social Conflict Studies, and founding director of the Program on the Analysis and Resolution of Conflicts, all at Syracuse University. from the author.

Walid Salem*

This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews – www.commongroundnews.org), who distributed it for publication, April 22, 2010, with permission for publication.

Much has been written about the plan proposed by the 13th Palestinian Government headed by Prime Minister Salam Fayyad for establishing the Palestinian state within two years. However, little has been written about one of the most significant implications of this plan, namely the fact that it brings together, for the first time ever, development and political goals in Palestinian politics. How did this come about?

Over the period of more than forty years of occupation, the Palestinian leadership repeatedly contended that ending the occupation should come first, and that development is a process that can be postponed, to be addressed only after the occupation has ended. Palestinian civil society organisations, on the other hand, argued that ending the occupation requires building the state’s democratic institutions and economic structures first, to enable the Palestinians to govern themselves once the occupation comes to an end. These calls, however, were rejected until Salam Fayyad became Prime Minister and adopted a path that is more or less consistent with that proposed by civil society organisations.

Now not a day passes when Fayyad does not personally inaugurate several new projects, with approximately 1,000 having been initiated since the launch of the plan in August 2009. These span from construction of schools to improving water and sanitation. Although these projects have been limited to the West Bank’s Areas “A” and “B”(under Palestinian civil control), Fayyad plans to extend them in the next few months to Area C (under complete Israeli security and civil control), including Jerusalem.

To complete such projects in Area C and in east Jerusalem, there is need for extensive cooperation on the part of Israel, the Palestinians and the international community. It goes without saying that completing this project would constitute a strategic support for another track, namely the building of a peaceful and sound relationship between two viable states, Israel and the Palestinian State, where one state’s vitality would not come at the expense of the other, as is the case today.

The plan in the West Bank is complemented by another plan of the Salam Fayyad government to rebuild the Gaza Strip after the destruction left by the latest war. It was presented at the Sharm El-Sheikh conference for rebuilding Gaza in March 2009 and donour countries pledged $4.7 billion, though there is still a need to find means for its implementation that would preclude the de facto government in Gaza from benefiting from it. Meanwhile, the Fayyad government spends $1.5 billion annually in the form of salaries to Palestinian Authority employees who were appointed in Gaza prior to the Hamas coup in 2007 through banks in the West Bank, in addition to providing for other services and operational expenses, including the Electric Power Company. Such initiatives help create the building blocks for a functioning bureaucracy, as necessary in state building endeavours.

All this constitutes a comprehensive plan for the West Bank, Jerusalem and Gaza, with development well placed at the core. Establishing these facts on the ground will generate bottom-up growth as the means for building the state. According to this vision, the completion of the development projects will in fact be tantamount to the establishment of state institutions.

Prime Minister Fayyad’s plan is, however, facing a number of obstacles, most significantly high levels of resistance from those who continue to believe that ending the occupation should come before development. Such parties are not restricted to factions from the Palestine Liberation Organization, but also include Hamas and other Islamist groups. Given the severe political rift in the Palestinian political arena since 2007, their opposition to Fayyad’s plan ironically constitutes a rare case of agreement. Obviously, the lack of Israeli cooperation regarding the plans for zone C is significant as well.

Yet despite all this, the plan is moving forward. It enhances optimism that the Palestinians are on track to governing themselves-with effective institutions and a vibrant economy. Such progress will hopefully push the international community to increase its efforts to establish the Palestinian State by August 2011, the date when Prime Minister Salam Fayyad’s plan will reach fruition.

*Walid Salem is the Director of the Center for Democracy and Community Development and Coordinator of the Middle East Citizen Assembly. He is also the author of books and articles on such issues as democracy, citizenship, youth rights, civil society development, Israeli-Palestinian peace-building and the right of return. Together with Paul Scham and Benjamin Pogrund, he is author of Shared Histories: A Palestinian-Israeli Dialogue, Left Coast Press, 2005.

Roger Cohen*

Source: International Herald Tribune (www.iht.com), February11, 2010). This article is distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) with permission for republication.

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.