Interfaith Peace Initiative

Our View

The Answer Lies with Us
Aug 13, 2009 - 06:37:00 PM
Two peoples live in the land between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River. One group has freedom, mobility and control over natural resources. The other group has seen its freedom taken away, its mobility limited, its access to resources and farmland denied. One group has water to drink, nourish lawns and irrigate crops. The other group cannot reach wells that have sustained their families for hundreds of years. One group drives unhindered on lighted, segregated roadways that bypass the ghettos they create; the other learns to do without the sunset and the breeze as giant grey walls rise around them.

A monumental crime is taking place on our watch. Yet this is not some distant conflict over which we have no control. We are deeply involved, through our taxes that arm Israel, through our investments in companies that profit from the persecution of Palestinians, and through our silence, which allows this to continue.

Every person reading this has a role to play in ending the occupation and bringing peace to the region. As long as we make money off the persecution of Christians and Muslims, and ignore the voices of Jews calling for change, we cannot claim to want peace. As long as our tax dollars support the building of settlements and the theft of Palestinian land, we are responsible.

Many people of every faith are calling for an end to Israel’s displacement of Palestinians, which for 60 years has lain at the heart of the instability in the Middle East. This affects America’s security, and our failure to respond endangers us all.

Other Views on Israel & Palestine

Resisting Temptation - Curtis Doebbler
Aug 21, 2010 - 07:44:11 PM
Perhaps more than any other time in this holy month of Ramadan, the Palestinian negotiators must find the courage to reject the false temptations of the West and to act in the best interests of the Palestinian people. If they cannot do it now, they may never be able to.
Negotiations must be about substance, not form
Jul 28, 2010 - 06:31:14 AM
Palestinians view the latest Israeli push for direct talks as an attempt to shift the focus from the issues that must be resolved to the form of discussions. While Israelis want to appear more open to progress by agreeing to direct negotiations, Israel's positions on core issues have not moved, and the spread of settlements, along with demolition of Palestinian homes, continues.
Washington's state of denial claims yet more casualties - The National ...
Jul 12, 2010 - 10:59:06 AM
"Where once it was deemed prudent for the US to mediate between Israel and its Arab neighbours, today the requirements of political survival appear to require a parroting of Israel’s own positions – as President Barack Obama’s capitulation to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu last week demonstrated."
Michael Oren's curious understanding of friendship
Jul 02, 2010 - 06:42:26 PM
US support for Israel is indeed unshakeable, but friendship goes both ways. Rather than wasting time lamenting the supposed shifts and rifts in the US-Israel relationship, the Netanyahu government should stop the provocations and the political machinations and start acting like a real friend and ally. It can do this by demonstrating a real commitment to the Obama Administration's efforts to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Netanyahu's visit to the White House next week is a good place to start.
A Special Place in Hell / Tea Party Jews: Betraying U.S. and Israel at ...
Jul 02, 2010 - 02:52:32 PM
Ever wonder what a future America might look like if the Tea Party took over? Try today's Israel. That distinctive brew of left-baiting, Obama-hating, poorly veiled racism, clergy-driven jingoism, clergy-fanned derision of the Supreme Court, the Luddite insertion of anti-government bile where an ideology should go, a majority which feels victimized and discriminated against and threatened by minorities of indeterminate legal status – it's all here. It just speaks Hebrew.
A bi-delusional state
Jul 02, 2010 - 02:47:31 PM
This land will either be home to two nation-states for two peoples, or one nation-state - a Palestinian Arab state. The concept of a nation-state is not going to disappear from here; it would behoove us to make sure that Israel doesn't disappear.

Common Ground News Service - Middle East

CGNews-Middle East distributes articles to media outlets and individual subscribers which offer hope, promote dialogue and propose solutions to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

One Solution: Two States
Sep 01, 2010 - 09:00:00 PM
WASHINGTON, DC - The steady march of settlements, the rightward shift in Israeli politics, the growing sense that a conflict-ending peace agreement is impossible – all these things are feeding some pundits’ impulse to declare the death of the two-state solution as a means of ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

But what are the alternatives?

Some support a “one-state” solution. Anti-Zionists and some post-Zionists imagine a Palestinian-majority, secular, democratic state; some Israeli right-wingers envision Israel annexing the West Bank, using ploys to disenfranchise its Palestinian residents and finally getting rid of Gaza.

Both visions are illusions. No Israeli government will dissolve the State of Israel. And Israel will never be able to justify, even to its closest allies, formalising its own version of apartheid in the West Bank while turning Palestinians in Gaza into a futureless, stateless people imprisoned on the edge of the Sinai.

Others want to revive interest in the “make-the-Palestinians-someone-else’s-problem” scenario, popular in Israel in the 1970s and 1980s with slogans like “Jordan is Palestine” and “Gaza is Egypt.”

But this, too, is an illusion. Neither Egypt nor Jordan will willingly collude in killing the dream of Palestine. Neither will take on Palestinian populations that would almost certainly be destabilising, domestically and regionally. Neither will agree to Israel annexing East Jerusalem. And any effort by Israel to force the issue – by trying to dump Gaza in Egypt’s lap and force parts of the West Bank on Jordan – would likely cost Israel its peace treaties with both countries.

Still others are adopting a “variation-on-the-status-quo” approach. They suggest that the current situation can be tweaked to be bearable for both sides, until Israelis and Palestinians evolve to the point where a permanent, conflict-ending agreement is possible.

This idea is disconnected from reality. The occupation cannot be neutered by clever arrangements. Any continuation of the status quo, however tweaked, will lead inevitably to more settlement expansion and a deepening of Israel’s hold on East Jerusalem – to the point that even if the hoped-for sea changes someday occurred in both societies, there would be nothing left for the newly enlightened peoples to negotiate.

And finally, a growing number of Israelis are advocating the “no solution” paradigm. This is the view that there is simply no way of resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Like the others, the “no solution” paradigm is an illusion – the product of the fact that the status quo is generally quite bearable for most Israelis. It reflects an almost child-like belief that the situation is static – that the status quo will endure even if Israel signals that it has no intention of ending the occupation. It assumes that Palestinians denied even the hope of a political horizon, will not abandon restraint and fight harder and more violently for their freedom. It assumes that the de facto détente that Israel has achieved with the Arab world won’t crumble.

Because things generally seem to get worse in the Middle East, we often forget that they can also change for the better. Today, 32 years after Egyptian President Anwar Sadat’s 1978 visit to Jerusalem, which heralded the beginning of the land-for-peace era, and 17 years after the Oslo Accords, which signalled the birth of the two-state paradigm, there are those who argue that the land-for-peace and two-state paradigms are as fantastical as the others. They are wrong.

The two-state solution is still possible, even if it becomes harder to imagine – and to implement – with each passing day. And it is the only option that holds the promise of anything other than a permanent state of conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, and between Israel and the Arab world. Israelis and Palestinians seem to recognise this – polls show that majorities of both populations still support the two-state solution, even as each doubts the seriousness of the other side’s commitment to achieving it. Recent polling shows that majorities in the Arab world feel the same and recognise that if the two-state solution is gone, the most likely result will be intense conflict.

Those of us who care about the future of Israel and the Palestinians should be doing everything we can to capitalise on this realism and to realise the two-state solution, before the opportunity is truly lost. And we should be pushing back hard against casual talk about post-two-state paradigms – because the “alternatives” are just illusions.

###

* Lara Friedman is director of policy and government relations for Americans for Peace Now. This article is distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) with permission from the author.

Source: The Forward, 18 August 2010,
www.forward.com
Copyright permission is granted for publication.
Hope for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
Sep 01, 2010 - 09:00:00 PM
JERUSALEM - There many reasons to be pessimistic and at times to despair about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Yet even when things look hopeless, hope has a way of appearing, offering a vision of what can be rather than what is. Recently, I caught a glimpse of this hope in an unlikely place – the Israeli health care system.

In December, I went for a routine check-up with my family doctor in east Jerusalem and received the news everyone fears – I had cancer. What had seemed like a small lump in my neck was in fact thyroid cancer – devastating news for someone in his late 20’s. I was quickly scheduled for surgery and given a date of May 17.

I immediately called my close friend Dr. Adel Misk, a Palestinian neurologist from east Jerusalem. Misk works in both Israeli and Palestinian hospitals, treating Palestinians and Israelis alike. He referred me to his colleague, Dr. Shila Nagar, a Jewish Israeli endocrinologist.

When Misk referred me to Nagar, he was not thinking in terms of Palestinians and Israelis, but rather in terms of which specialist could best treat me. He was not concerned about her religious practices or political opinions. He was only concerned about her track record as a doctor.

In the waiting room outside Nagar’s office, I could not help but notice how many Palestinians were there. It did not bother them that she was Jewish, just like Misk’s Jewish patients do not mind that he is Palestinian. All the stereotypes and fences of nationalist fervour were replaced with basic survival instincts.

I shared my thoughts about Israeli-Palestinian medical cooperation with Nagar, who told me a story of a Jewish friend of hers who had prostate problems. One night he was suffering from a painful blockage and went to the emergency room. The doctor on duty was an Arab woman. He was not pleased: It is doubly bad, he thought, an Arab and a woman. At first he refused to let her treat him; however, as the pain increased he changed his mind and called her in. Years later this Arab woman is his permanent doctor and a close friend. This personal experience was Nagar’s example of how humanity (and physical necessity!) can overcome nationalism.

Fast forward to the day of my surgery. In an ironic twist of fate, here I was, a Palestinian journalist, draped in a hospital gown covered in Stars of David. I was stressed and fearful. Yet none of these emotions had to do with the nationality of my doctors or the pattern on my hospital gown. I was afraid of the surgery, and the possibility of not waking up again. However, when I was brought to the operating room, I was again given another dose of hope.

I had two surgeons, a Palestinian Arab and an Israeli Jew. The anaesthesiologist was an extremely experienced and competent Russian who joked with me until I fell asleep. My life was in the hands of an ideal team.

Meanwhile, my family waited outside. My wife and mother were both in tears, and later told me that a Jewish woman waiting for news of her relative’s surgery comforted them.

In the midst of the hatred, anger and bitterness of the conflict, you can still find glimpses of goodness. Unfortunately this light often passes unnoticed. Yet it offers a practical example of the dream we all share, of a future where we can live safe and full lives without fear of injury.

My surgery went extremely well, and I recovered quickly. Moreover, through this painful experience, I caught a glimmer of hope in what seems like a hopeless environment. I have many criticisms of Israeli policies and politics, but the functioning universal health care system in Israel and its ability to separate politics from medicine earns my praise.

This is not to say that the system is perfect. Like any future Israel and Palestine might share, there is the possibility of getting distracted by issues of insurance and bureaucracy. However, when it matters most, Israeli and Palestinian doctors share a commitment to human life regardless of ethnicity, religion or nationality. Moreover, when it comes time to choose doctors, we base our choice on who is mostly likely to promote human life. If only we voted on the same basis!

Unfortunately, I had to experience the health care system personally before being able to appreciate this example of what Israelis and Palestinians can achieve. Despite the pain and suffering, I am grateful to have discovered such a hidden treasure of humanity at its best.

###

The writer is director of Middle East projects at the Centre for World Religions, Diplomacy and Conflict Resolution at George Mason University, and a winner of the Eliav-Sartawi Award for Common Ground Journalism. His blog can be found at http://azizabusarah.wordpress.com

Source: Jerusalem Post, 23 August 2010,
www.jpost.com
Copyright permission is granted for publication.
Environment first
Sep 01, 2010 - 09:00:00 PM
JERUSALEM - Every few years, the idea of establishing one state between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea rises and falls like a phoenix; a dream of a state where both Palestinians and Israelis live in peace with no borders, no barriers, cultural autonomy and equal citizenship for all.

In the 1940’s this idea was endorsed by leftist Jewish circles; in the 1980’s the PLO called for the establishment of a secular democratic state on the entire land, in the 1990’s it was championed by Palestinian intellectuals who had given up on the two-state solution and most recently this same idea has been articulated with some nuances by people on the right of the Israeli political map like former Defence Minister Moshe Arens.

The stagnated “peace process” and despair over the prolonged conflict challenge us all to think of other creative solutions. It is easy to dismiss off-hand the likelihood that after a hundred years of brutal and bloody conflict the two peoples could live together and collaborate within the same political structure. Palestinian longing for independence and sovereignty is understandable as is the desire by Jews to preserve self-determination as a nation in the framework of the state of Israel. But – even if they reach an agreement on partition and the establishment of a Palestinian state in the West Bank – this would not be the end of the conflict. Severe problems like the settlements, Gaza, equal rights for the Palestinian citizens in the Jewish state would still remain to be solved. So despite its low feasibility at present, one should explore in depth the idea of the one state in all its aspects. Even if the one state solution is not realised soon, important elements of this idea could be incorporated into any future agreement on two states, particularly those which address the abovementioned problems.

One such element that can best be addressed within a joint framework is the critical issue of environment and water. Environment and sustainability are becoming central in the global discourse on the fate of humanity. It’s time we looked more seriously at our land in this regard. The fact that water sources in the country are drying up poses a big threat to all its residents, regardless of nationality, religion, age or gender.

Environmental dangers threaten both peoples equally. The mutual effect of contamination and other cross-border hazards demands close coordination and joint management between all responsible bodies. Effective utilisation of natural resources, their fair and equal allocation and the development of alternative sources of energy, food, and drink, are all vital and urgent needs that can be addressed professionally and efficiently only within a joint framework, which would be either one state or in its absence at the very least, a shared framework set up between the two sides engaged in excellently coordinated and mutually beneficial relations.

One of the major advantages of dealing with the environment first is that it forces the parties to ignore political boundaries and put aside historical disagreements. An additional advantage is the necessity for long-term planning as opposed to the kind of ad-hoc achievements demanded by politicians. As a result, environmental issues create bridges and links between opposing sides, serve as a way to build trust, while depoliticising the conflict and decreasing its intensity.

I would like to argue here that those who believe in the one state solution should explore the possibility of using the environment as a platform to promote such a plan. The urgent need for preserving the environment across the country and developing water sources could yield an unpredictable by-product – the realisation and recognition that the framework of one state, is a necessity for sustaining this land, saving its limited resources and securing the future of its inhabitants in the long term. But in the short term, and even before any political agreement is reached, it is urgently necessary to set up a joint body that will oversee the environmental situation and work on immediate solutions to cope with the dilemmas and challenges it poses.

###

* Dr. Sarah Ozacky-Lazar is the head of the Forum on Environment and Regional Sustainability at the Van Leer Jerusalem Institute. This article represents her personal opinion only. This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).

Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 02 September 2010, www.commongroundnews.org
Copyright permission is granted for publication.
Love in times of conflict
Sep 01, 2010 - 09:00:00 PM
BRUSSELS - As Romeo and Juliet learned the hard way, love and friendship in times of conflict is rarely a simple story of boy meets girl (or whatever other combination suits your orientation). At such times, the personal so often becomes public, and the romantic, political.

Although this is a common feature of conflicts, in some ways, the barriers separating Arabs and Israeli-Jews may be especially high owing to the long duration of their conflict and the bitterness of the feud. In the minds of many Arabs and Israeli-Jews, the idea of normal human contact between the two sides, especially of the intimate physical or emotional variety, is tantamount to a betrayal of their people’s cause. Such relationships do not only suffer from social disapproval, they can sometimes carry legal consequences.

Take the case of Saber Kushour, a 30-year-old Palestinian from Jerusalem, who was recently convicted of “rape by deception” for having allegedly lied to an Israeli-Jewish woman about his religious identity in order to sleep with her, although he only admits to having lied about his marital status.

Although most would agree that dishonesty is not the best policy, deception is a fairly common tactic in the dating game, and had Kushour been lying about his profession, wealth, education, age, social class, or his longer-term intentions, the incident would have passed into the obscurity of personal disappointment. Instead, because he, at the very least, was not entirely truthful about his religious and ethnic identity it became an issue of public concern with legal repercussions.

“The court is obliged to protect the public interest from sophisticated, smooth-tongued criminals who can deceive innocent victims at an unbearable price – the sanctity of their bodies and souls,” said one of the three judges on the case and, in so doing, set a dangerous precedent.

The verdict raises the question of whether such amorous deception is actually an issue of “public interest”, rather than one of individual integrity, and, if so, how far should the state go in protecting citizens from “sophisticated, smooth-tongued criminals”?

For instance, another woman may have found Kushour’s lying about being single far more distressing than his religious affiliation. Would such a woman, had she also submitted a private claim, have had the same reaction from the judge in question?

Needless to say, the court case has caused an uproar, not only internationally, but in liberal Israeli circles, and the verdict is already being appealed. “What if this guy had been a Jew who pretended to be a Muslim and had sex with a Muslim woman? Would he have been convicted of rape? The answer is: of course not,” observed Gideon Levy, a liberal Israeli commentator.

But it is not just Israel which is guilty of double standards when it comes to sleeping with – or falling in love with – the enemy. To many Palestinians and Arabs, the idea that they or someone they know could get intimate with an Israeli-Jew, and sometimes even simply a Jew, is often viewed with anathema.

In some instances, this “social crime” can carry legal consequences, as was recently demonstrated in Egypt. After rejecting a government appeal of an earlier verdict, an Egyptian court ruled in June that all Egyptian men married to Israeli women (however few they may be), and their children, should be stripped of their citizenship.

The verdict has sparked controversy in Egypt, with many applauding the court’s “patriotism”, while Egyptian liberals and human rights activists are up in arms. “Egyptian law says citizenship can only be revoked if the citizen is proven to be spying on his country, [so] this verdict considers marrying an Israeli [to be] an act of spying,” said Negad al-Borai, a Cairo-based lawyer and human rights activist.

What these two court cases clearly illustrate is the level of mutual distrust, paranoia and hatred between Arabs and Israeli-Jews which has intensified with the worsening situation in recent years. At another level, it is a convenient tool in perpetuating the conflict. Restricting, and even forbidding, interactions with the other side makes it a whole lot easier to hate and demonise your “enemy”. Seen from this angle, the fact that most Arab countries do not allow or discourage their citizens from travelling to Israel, not to mention the ban on Israelis travelling to Palestinian cities in the West Bank and Gaza, is partly founded on the fear that individual love will undermine collective hate.

The tragedy that befell Romeo and Juliet eventually brought their feuding families together, but the tragic cases above are unlikely to have a similar consequence. Despite what romantics may naively believe, love certainly does not conquer all, and it can do little to resolve the very real issues fuelling the conflict.

Nevertheless, all friendships, love affairs and marriages between Israeli-Jews and Arabs challenge the destructive “us” and “them” dichotomy. Though they may at heart be personal affairs, private relationships between Arabs and Israelis demonstrate that people living across supposed enemy lines may share more in common with one another than with their own side, and provide hope for a future of greater understanding.
###

* Egyptian by birth, Khaled Diab is a Brussels-based journalist and writer. He writes on a wide range of subjects, including the EU, the Middle East, Islam and secularism, multiculturalism and human rights. His website is www.chronikler.com. This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).

Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 02 September 2010, www.commongroundnews.org
Copyright permission is granted for publication.
Reflections on the Mideast peace talks
Sep 01, 2010 - 09:00:00 PM
VERMONT - As the direct Israeli-Palestinian peace talks in Washington begin, the US mediation team will need to be attentive to several invisible elements. Even as the parties are talking about specifics – boundary lines, water rights, and such – there’s more going on under the surface that, if ignored, can derail a successful conclusion.

Everyone already knows the basic elements of a two-state solution. There are bitter pills and unfulfilled dreams for both parties in this settlement, and pockets of resistance to it – sometimes violent – in both populations.

To manage that successfully, the leaders on both sides need to articulate a positive future vision so compelling as to make the sacrifices worthwhile. This vision needs to be framed from a big-picture perspective: a just, viable, and sustainable peace that also brings regional stability and prosperity. Every concrete item under discussion should be referred back to that goal: how will agreeing or not agreeing on any one matter contribute to that ultimate outcome?

Parties in deep-rooted conflicts will often develop recognisable patterns. They will accuse each other of being the roadblock; set up the other side to fail so it can be blamed for lack of progress; or try to convince outsiders that the other side is at fault. In fact, this conflict is a mutual dance, where actions and reactions are completely intertwined. Taking responsibility for one’s own contributions to the spiraling enmity is harder than blaming the other, but necessary.

Another pattern involves competing victimhoods, as if one side’s suffering is bigger or more important than another’s. What is true, here and in all violent conflicts, is that the loss of life, homes, loved ones, hope, land, and way of life in each individual’s experience is immeasurable.

It’s important to recognise the deep trauma on both sides. Each side has inflicted harm on the other, and has experienced its own pain within the context of its history and collective narrative. Clearly the road to peace will need to involve the building of trust, the healing of wounds, and ultimately - reconciliation.

These current peace talks are an opportunity for the parties to stop the cycle of violence before it escalates even further. Each missed opportunity only makes the healing journey that much harder, and with decades of broken bodies, agreements, and dreams, that road is already difficult enough.

So the combination of a compelling vision, acknowledging mutual responsibility, and a commitment to stop the violence and start the healing are the true components of a successful peace process, regardless of any specific details of an agreement. Yet there is one more critical element if this peace is to be sustainable – transforming the essential story of the relationship.

After decades – some would say centuries – of a feud that has infected the whole world with its deadly consequences, it’s time to change the core story of the relationship between Arabs and Jews from the rabid ‘us’ against ‘them’ narrative to one about ‘we.’

‘We’ are in this relationship together and always will be, and can choose to take each other down or raise each other up. ‘We’ are more than just ourselves; ‘we’ are also our neighbours in a larger regional story. ‘We’ are our ancestors through whose courage and anguish we came to this point, and our grandchildren who will bear the consequences of what we create. Forging a partnership of ‘we’ can and must be the lynchpin of this peace journey.

There is a difference between signing a peace accord and securing a lasting peace. The US mediation team will be concerned primarily with the former in this current round of talks. I hope they will also keep in mind the latter, and the invisible elements at play in the process. Secretary Clinton speaks of moving from a multi-polar world to a multi-partner world. These peace talks are a unique opportunity in that direction.

###

* Louise Diamond, Ph.D., is the president of Global Systems Initiatives in Washington DC, which exists to foster systems thinking on complex global issues within the policy community. She is also president emeritus of The Institute for Multi-Track Diplomacy, where she was an international peacebuilder for many years. diamond@globalsystemsinitiatives.net; www.globalsystemsinitiatives.net. This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).

Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 02 September 2010, www.commongroundnews.org
Copyright permission is granted for publication.
Indefensible borders
Aug 18, 2010 - 09:00:00 PM
JERUSALEM - Harvard law professor and noted Israel advocate Alan Dershowitz has said that the best way to win over the ‘undecideds’ when he’s speaking in universities on ‘the case for Israel’ is to show that the ‘pro-Israel’ crowd are also in favour of a two-state solution to the conflict, whereas the ‘pro-Palestinian’ supporters are not. In other words, whereas the Jewish students are willing to see a Palestinian state established alongside Israel, the collection of far-leftist, (allegedly) liberal and Muslim students who support the Palestinian cause cannot reconcile themselves to Israel’s existence.

Having been involved in Israel advocacy in universities in Britain (a country where the campus anti-Zionism makes the average US university look like an AIPAC conference), I broadly agree with Dershowitz. There is no question that the best “hasbara” (Hebrew for public relations) tool Israel has is the Arab world’s history of rejectionism and its repeated preference for continuing the fight to eliminate the Jewish state, rather than compromising and finally giving the Palestinians a state of their own alongside Israel.

However, what happens if it’s Israelis who are the rejectionists? What happens in a debate if the Palestinian speaker says he accepts Israel’s right to exist but that the Palestinians should be freed from Israeli occupation, and the speaker on behalf of Israel says that he thinks Israel should remain in control of the entire West Bank? This scenario is not far-fetched. Mahmoud Abbas and Salam Fayyad are both on record as supporting a two-state solution. And even if you don’t believe they are genuine, this Israeli government is full of ministers – not to mention other MKs – who don’t even try to hide their opposition to it.

It is relatively straightforward to argue that a military operation against Hamas in Gaza is legitimate – it is a terrorist organisation committed to Israel’s destruction. The same goes for Hizbullah in Lebanon. It is also possible – and, I believe, right – to justify refusing to withdraw to the pre-1967 borders. They were never a formal border, just an armistice line, and even the drafters of the relevant UN Security Council resolutions understood that the “green line” is not a defensible border for Israel.

So yes, Israel can say it will keep Ma’aleh Adumim and Gush Etzion, and that it will require some kind of military arrangement in the Jordan Valley, and the Palestinian state must be demilitarised. All these demands are fully justifiable, given that the Palestinians’ historic hostility to Israel’s very existence, and the experience of withdrawal from southern Lebanon and Gaza – both resulted in a huge upsurge in rocket attacks and the abduction of Israeli soldiers.

There are sound security arguments for keeping anything from five to 30% of the West Bank (depending on your school of thought), but the building of dozens of settlements on the hilltops of Judea and Samaria was fuelled by a messianic religious ideology, not a dispassionate assessment of Israel’s security requirements. And it is an ideology that will not wash in the democratic West to which Israel professes to be a part. No Israeli will persuade an American or a European that it is OK to control a territory in which the Jews have full democratic rights and Arabs do not, just because (his version of) Judaism says so, especially as Israel defines itself as a democratic state.

Listen the next time an Israeli leader holds a press conference with an American official. It is guaranteed that he will stress the shared democratic values of the two countries. Similarly, at an American Jewish Committee conference or any large gathering of American Jews, the visiting Israeli VIP will talk about the love of democracy and liberty that unites Israel and the United States.

Let us be clear. Israel is a democracy. With free elections, a free, (hyper-) critical press, and frequent public dissent. But there is no getting away from the fact that a democratic state cannot permanently rule over another people who are denied the basic rights of citizenship.

It can’t be spun and it can’t be brushed under the carpet.

Yes, Netanyahu has said he supports two states for two peoples. And he has talked euphemistically about being willing to make “painful concessions,” but the freeze on building in settlements ends in September, and the signs are that it will not be continued.

If he renews construction in the settlements beyond the blocs, the very existence of which would make a contiguous Palestinian state impossible, the occupation which threatens the Zionist dream of a Jewish democratic state, will just become further entrenched.

Hasbara is important. Fears about the de-legitimisation and demonisation of Israel on university campuses, in newspapers and, of course, in Orwellian bodies like the UN Human Rights Council are all too justifiable. But pro-Israel activists and diplomats should not be expected to defend the indefensible.

###

* Paul Gross worked for two years in the Hasbara (public relations) Department of the Embassy of Israel in London, and as the Ambassador’s speechwriter, before moving to Israel. This article is distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) with permission from the author.

Source: The Jerusalem Post, 15 August 2010
www.jpost.com
Copyright permission is granted for publication.
The human element
Aug 18, 2010 - 09:00:00 PM
EAST MEREDITH, NY - During a historical visit to Jerusalem in 1979, late President Anwar Sadat of Egypt proclaimed that the Arab-Israeli conflict is largely psychological.

Inherited notions about history and deeply felt convictions about the injustices are so strong that when an Arab-American meets a Jewish-American socially they tend to avoid politics at all cost. Discussing differences might spoil a relationship between an Arab and Jew who may share a neighbourhood, a business, a classroom or a workplace.

However, though the majority swims with the current, there is a significant minority on each side of the Mideast divide, which challenges extremist views and works hard to promote understanding and a justice-based peace. There are people who endeavour to break through the barriers between the communities and engage in an open-minded exchange.

Examples are easy to find. I have a personal story to tell about our family’s meeting with a creative and peace-loving Jewish family. I am an Arab-American of Lebanese descent, and my wife, Mary, is an American who has lived a few years in Lebanon.

It started in late May, when Bruce Roter, a Jewish reader expressed appreciation for an article in which I appealed to the Arabs and Jews of America to work together for peace in the Middle East. Responding to my appeal, Bruce Roter said “I hear you”. He added, “I am the composer of a symphonic work… ‘A Camp David Overture (Prayer for Peace)’” and he shared with me the YouTube link.

Bruce is a professor of music at The College of Saint Rose in Albany, NY. The late Prime Minister Menachem Begin and Mrs. Jihan Sadat (Sadat’s wife) praised his 1996 composition. This work has been performed for the promotion of peace in several US cities over the last 14 years, in the hope, as Bruce puts it “that this music can foster cultural ties among all the people of the region”. When it was played in Washington three years ago, official representatives from Israel, Egypt, France and Canada attended the concert.

After hearing an excerpt of this inspiring work, I arranged a meeting with Bruce and his family, including his wife Monique, and three children.

The Roter family has had ample exposure to life in the Middle East. Monique’s parents emigrated from Egypt in the 1950s. Growing up in a Sephardi family, Monique has an inbuilt taste for Middle East food and the Levantine culture.

On a sunny day, in late July, Bruce and his family shared a meal with ours: “lubie blahmeh” over rice, a green bean stew with beef. We talked about all sorts of Mideast dishes with nostalgia: “Bamie”, “Mulukhia”, “Wara inab”. Over lunch, Monique told us that her parents were expelled from Egypt during the Nasser regime. I saw no anger on Monique’s face. I did not offer my perspective for the departure of so many talented communities from Egypt during the revolutionary period of Nasser; commentary on history to interpret a sensitive personal story may sound callous.

The meal provided an easygoing setting to share sensitive ideas. The Roters are strong advocates for Israel, but they see this state’s future security strengthened through the creation of a viable Palestinian state.

Afterwards, we invited a small group of friends to listen to Bruce introduce and play the CD of his “peace overture”. We asked many questions and Bruce was glad to explain his approach to teaching music and creating it. He also talked about his latest work, a children’s peace opera, “The Classroom.” The setting of the opera is a classroom composed of two ethnic groups. The debut will take place this fall in an Albany elementary school, where the Roter children are enrolled. In the premier performance, the two groups will be Palestinian and Israeli children.

The Rubeiz and Roter families have established a new friendship born out of a common appreciation for coexistence of a secure Israeli state and a future Palestinian state. The two families feel strongly that conflict could either divide or bring people together. People unite when there is a common will to avoid war in solving problems. We hope that this friendship will deepen with time, regardless of how the political situation develops.

The Mideast has millions of stories – some sad, some happy, some of mixed affect. Yet it is the human element, I find, to be a key to understanding, explaining and solving the conflict in the Middle East.

###

* Dr. Ghassan Rubeiz (grubeiz@comcast.net) is an Arab-American commentator on issues of development, peace and justice. He is the former Middle East Secretary of the Geneva-based World Council of Churches. This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).

Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 19 August 2010,
www.commongroundnews.org
Copyright permission is granted for publication.
Wallaje in the balance
Aug 18, 2010 - 09:00:00 PM
JERUSALEM - It is hard to describe a more absurd event than the one which took place on a Tuesday at the end of May, on a dirt road in the outskirts of the village of Wallaje in southern Jerusalem. Israel has recently renewed its construction of the separation barrier that will leave the village almost completely surrounded by a fence or a wall. That Tuesday, IDF officers and officials working for the ministry of defence, arrived at the house of Ahmed Bargut, a resident of the village, to tell him that the barrier will be built on his land, near his home.

The conversation was a dialogue of the deaf at best and at worst a discussion between an accused man and his judges minutes before the verdict. Bargut refused to tell the officers where he would like to replant his soon-to-be-uprooted olive trees, “You will not move them anywhere. Run them over,” Bargut said. “I don’t want to cut down the trees, I am very considerate, let me know where you want us to move them to,” said the engineering corps officer whose name was Robert. “You will not uproot a single tree. Take one and I will become a terrorist, I will kill,” said Bargut. “The goal is to build a fence, not to steal trees,” answered Robert.

Next, negotiations moved on to the family’s burial plot, which the fence is supposed to cross through, separating Bargut from his family members. “I was considerate,” said Robert, “we moved the route (of the fence) so that it will not be built on top of the grave.” “I know that you are the ruler, you are the army, you are the boss, I am asking you to have mercy. I want to have free access to the grave, without restrictions,” said Bargut. “What you can get is a gate in the fence that will allow you to go to the grave,” said Robert. “Explain to him that there will be a gate,” he asks another officer from the Civil Administration named Nabil to translate. But Nabil, who probably knows what comes of these promises - said to officer: “don’t make any promises.”

This theater of the absurd is but a small example of how extremely difficult life has become for Palestinian residents of the neighbourhoods on the outer edges of Jerusalem, who have been cut off from the city by the separation barrier. Israel must reconsider the necessity of the separation barrier, and assess the benefits it represents as oppose to the damage it causes to Palestinians, and to their relations with the Israeli authorities.

The residents of Wallaje can go and see what their future will look like (provided they will be allowed to cross the check point) in northern Jerusalem, in the village Akeb and the Shalom neighbourhood, and in other places which have been artificially severed from the city by the barrier. The barrier has made life in these places impossible. Due to the agreements between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, the PA is not allowed to operate services in these neighbourhoods, but due to security concerns, the Israeli services are not available in the neighbourhoods beyond the barrier. This has created areas which lack the rule of law, where infrastructures are falling apart and civil and public security is deteriorating.

In the face of continued harm to the lives of tens of thousands of people, those who support the barrier argue that it has been preventing suicide bombers from entering Israel in recent years. It is difficult to argue with the claim that the barrier has been somewhat effective in obstructing terror, but it is impossible to argue with the claim that the fence is not the main cause for the decrease in attacks. In fact, not one suicide bomber has crossed over into Israel in the past four years from the area of Wallaje, where there has been no barrier. Yet the separation barrier will certainly cause serious harm to the lives of the residents, will push them to poverty, and perhaps radicalise them politically.

It seems like when it comes to the barrier, the Israeli government operates on “automatic pilot” without stopping to consider its benefits, the damage it causes, and not even taking time to re-assess the route which was determined four years before the bulldozers arrived at the scene.

A unique coalition has formed since the start of the works that opposes the barrier in this area. The Palestinian residents have been joined by environmental groups who are upset by the terrible damage the barrier will cause to the natural landscape, an Israeli property development company which owns lands in the area where it plans to build a new settlement and feels the barrier could undermine these plans, as well as a group of settlers from Gush Etzion who are protesting the unreasonable harm the barrier would inflict on their neighbours from Wallaje. All these groups have raised their voices in protest against the barrier. The Palestinians and the Nature Reserve Society, the largest environmental organisation in Israel, have taken the matter to the Supreme Court. Now we can only hope that the Court will decide to intervene and stop the bulldozers.

That same day at the end of May, the conversation with Bargut ended with a promise by one of the Defence Ministry officials to ask the army to consider Bargut’s requests regarding the burial site and the trees. “Don’t give them a death sentence yet,” Bargut said. Two weeks later the bulldozers came and started to uproot his trees.

###

* Nir Hasson is a reporter for the Hebrew daily Haaretz. This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).

Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 19 August 2010,
www.commongroundnews.org
Copyright permission is granted for publication.
Environmental hazards know no boundaries – Jewish and Arab local councils cooperate to save the environment in the Galilee
Aug 18, 2010 - 09:00:00 PM
NEVE ILAN - The Central Galilee is known for its expansive open spaces, nature reserves and breathtaking views, but these won't last long if action isn’t taken to organise proper waste removal and upgrade outdated sewage pipes that overflow into rivers. The severe environmental hazards caused by lack of proper waste removal do not conform to municipal boundaries and as a result, residents of both weak and affluent towns – Jewish and Arab – suffer alike.

Yet the degradation of the Galilee offers Jews and Arabs an opportunity to work together towards diminishing local environmental hazards and improving the quality of life for all of the residents in the area.

A recently published survey of hazards in the Galilee which appraised both Jewish and Arab towns in the region, noted that Jewish and Arab municipalities differ widely in terms of economic, social and other capabilities. In the Arab municipalities the hazards have been ongoing for many years due to lack of infrastructure, funding for maintenance, public awareness, and law enforcement. These differences have a direct impact on the state of environment protection in each municipality and the number and types of hazards found.

For many years, the government has turned a blind eye to Arab municipalities’ inability to deal adequately with environmental hazards. One case to look at is that of Shaghur – an Arab city comprised of 3 villages; Majd al-Krum, Deir al-Asad and Bi’ina. The infrastructure in the area is outdated and insufficient for the amount of people living there, and in some places there has been no adequate planning. The consequence of this lack of infrastructure is the largest sewage hazard in the area, running through the Shaghur stream. A solution for this hazard was found, but the work wasn't carried out because in 2008, after a failed attempt to merge the 3 villages, the Shaghur municipality was broken up and there was no-one to take responsibility for executing the job. In addition, a debt had been incurred and there was no funding to implement the solution. Consequently, noxious odors, mosquitoes, diseases and water pollution continue to plague the area, affecting not only the residents of Shaghur, but also those of Karmiel and Misgav.

Jewish and Arab local councils must now join together to compel the central government to take responsibility and resolve the critical situation in the area. Without joint action, pressure will be insufficient and problems will only deteriorate and become more difficult and expensive to deal with.

Initial steps are underway. In the last few months, officials from Arab and Jewish municipalities in the Central Galilee attended a seminar on the findings of the aforementioned survey. The Forum for Environmental Justice, an organisation active in the Central Galilee that works with Jewish and Arab municipalities, plans to implement the solutions suggested, which include sorting and grinding of construction waste and removal of non-recyclable waste to authorised underground sites.

The responsibility for solving these environmental problems rests with both the local authorities and central government and there are several ways to improve their performance in this regard. One possibility is the establishment of regional forums where local governments can develop collaborative efforts based on a regional approach to environmental responsibility. This would reinforce ties between the municipalities and promote joint solutions. Since a large proportion of the problems stems from a lack of funding in Arab municipalities, until the situation is improved it may be better to transfer the authority to enforce and maintain environmental infrastructure to an external, specifically designated regional entity which would be funded directly by the central government.

It is vital when addressing environmental hazards that attention is paid not only to the measurable aspects of environmental issues, but also to the community’s perception of these issues, and the social, historical, political, economic, and logistical factors affecting their resolution.

Regarding the obvious issues of responsibility and enforcement, the government can take responsibility for the current waste removal and secondly, police officers should be instated to pursue anyone who breaks the law and dumps waste outside of dumping grounds.

To address issues of perception and develop an appreciation for the importance of preserving the environment we recommend setting up an environmental educational programme and engage both Jewish and Arab communities in activities dedicated to caring for the shared environment. This would not only stem the environmental hazards, but could create a much needed platform for improving Jewish-Arab relations in the Galilee.

###

* Amnon Be’eri Sulitzeanu currently serves as the Co-Executive Director of the Abraham Fund Initiatives, a non-profit organisation that works to promote a shared future between Israel’s Arab and Jewish citizens. This article is published by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).

Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 19 August 2010,
www.commongroundnews.org
Copyright permission is granted for publication.
Palestinians turn to educational reform
Aug 18, 2010 - 09:00:00 PM
WASHINGTON, DC - In an important new move, the Palestinian Authority has recently begun highlighting education as one of the main centrepieces in the next phase of the state and institution building programme. Under the leadership of President Mahmoud Abbas, the PA understands that an effective and progressive educational system is essential for economic and social development, building a functional state, and laying the groundwork for peace with Israel.

On August 8, Prime Minister Salam Fayyad gave a speech emphasising the importance of improved education in combating fanaticism, promoting culture, and developing analytical capabilities in Palestinian society. He called educational improvement a “key priority” of the state and institution building programme and “one of the most important criteria for measuring its success.”

In his speech, Fayyad singled out three essential aspects of education that need special attention. These were bold observations that are striking, not only in the Palestinian context, but in the Arab context at large.

First is the crucial need to respond to the decline of language skills and competency, particularly in Arabic. What this rightly suggests is that while in the early decades after 1948 much of Palestinian society responded to their predicament and the creation of the refugee problem by turning to education, the level of education among Palestinians has been in a kind of freefall in the last couple of decades, especially in the Occupied Territories. The turning point was probably the outbreak of the first Intifada in which energies began to be channelled away from education in favour of political activism.

Second, the PA believes there is an “urgent need” to promote analytical capabilities and critical thinking among Palestinian youths and students. Palestinian education, as with much of the rest of the Arab world, relies too much on the rote memorisation and the simple ingestion of raw data or received wisdom rather than the cultivation of critical thinking and analytical skills. The PA is clearly concerned about the need for the future Palestinian state to focus on its human capital as a key resource for development and prosperity. Without analytical and critical abilities promoted by an effective educational system, human capital is reduced simply to highly structured labour rather than a modern, creative, dynamic society that can thrive without major natural resources or luxurious arable lands for agriculture.

In his third and closely related point, Fayyad spoke about the need to use education to combat the growing prevalence of narrow-minded rigidity, enforcement through spurious appeals to supposed religious or cultural traditions, in both Palestinian thinking and social conduct. As an example he cited the increasingly widespread practice of avoiding handshaking between men and women which he said was not related to any real religious doctrine or traditional mores but nonetheless was becoming “not only accepted but expected”. Obviously, this handshaking taboo is only one example of many manifestations of the kind of reactionary tendencies he wants Palestinian education to combat and is a symptom of the overall constriction in Palestinian culture and attitudes he rightly finds alarming. Hamas, the primary enforcer of such attitudes among Palestinians, was predictably enraged and said Fayyad is seeking to corrupt the youth of Palestine and destroy its culture.

Obviously the education sector is of key strategic and political importance. It not only helps shape social attitudes, it's an essential function of government that must be carried out as effectively as possible. And, of course, it is precisely through providing education and health services over the years that extremist groups like Hamas in Gaza have won political support and spread its ideology among people who need those services. The Palestinian leadership seems well aware that it must urgently do more to provide these services themselves, and more importantly do it in the right way to create a Palestinian society that can thrive in the modern world.

This new plan for intervention is exceptionally important to lay healthy foundations for a successful, viable Palestinian state that could live in peace with Israel. But more importantly, it is impressive and unusual in the Arab context to find a serving prime minister, with the support of the president, openly attacking what might be called the closing of the Arab mind, and to find a government proposing concrete plans to combat reactionary trends and promoting analytical skills and critical thinking. It's not just the Palestinians who need to learn such lessons, it’s the entire Arab world.

###

* Hussein Ibish is a Senior Fellow at the American Task Force on Palestine and blogs at www.ibishblog.com

Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 19 August 2010,
www.commongroundnews.org
Copyright permission is granted for publication.
Palestinian suffering crossing the bridge continues
Aug 04, 2010 - 09:00:00 PM
AMMAN - Once again the summer heat is upon us. And once again, people’s anguish, and appeals at the overcrowded King Hussein Bridge are melting as quickly as an ice cream cone in the Jordan Valley’s high temperatures.

The King Hussein Bridge is the only crossing point available to the 3.5 million Palestinians of the West Bank. It is officially open from 8:00am till midnight, but in reality the last bus leaves at 10:00pm and people are often turned back on the Jordanian side after 9:00pm because of the summer congestion. More people are leaving the West Bank than visiting it, according to statistics issued by the Palestinian side. The Palestinian Authority reported that the traffic was moderate in first week of June. It saw the departure of 17,473 people from Jericho and the entry of 9,411 into the West Bank. This doesn't include East Jerusalemites who cross the bridge directly without going to the Jericho crossing. Estimates of Jerusalemites who end up at the same terminal on the Jordanian side are about 3,500 a week. No published statistics have been issued by the Jordanian authorities.

Since those statistics were released, the number of Palestinians leaving (for visits, work or travel) has increased considerably, forcing many Palestinian families to spend the night at the border.

Pilgrims seeking to perform Umra (the lesser pilgrimage) are adding to the swollen numbers at the already overstretched terminals on Sundays and Wednesdays, causing even further chaos and delays. Even after one's turn to get on the bus is secured, hours of delay have been reported, often up to 4-6 hours just to cross the three kilometres from one side to the other. Few or no facilities are available as people wait under the blazing Jordan Valley sun. Buses are air-conditioned, but no water or basic facilities are available.

Some measures have been introduced to ease the problem such as providing numbers to those waiting like in bank or supermarket queues. The air-conditioning on the Jordanian side was not fully functional for a few weeks, leaving passengers and terminal staff drowned in perspiration.

Travellers are not allowed to use their own cars and need to change buses three times to make the crossing. Their luggage, which is thrown around rather carelessly, is separated from them upon departure or entry to the Israeli controlled terminal.

Except for individuals and families who suffer at the bridge, the issue is rarely discussed in any official capacity. The Palestinian president’s entourage drives through without any trouble, and senior Palestinian Authority officials use taxpayer money to pay the exorbitant fees for the VIP service. This is a monopoly given to a Jordanian and an Israeli company and each charges $46 for transporting a passenger. Senior businessmen also have their companies pay the fee. Foreigners and international staff use another terminal and are often unaware of the troubles and hours of waiting that the “locals” have to endure.

Little is being done to try and solve the short-term summer problem or the long-term one. Jordan would like to build a new terminal, but lacks the funding. Without a political solution, The Kingdom still considers this a temporary crossing point and not an international one. While Jordan has no objection to keeping the bridge open around the clock, the Israelis object. No one is talking, or thinking, of creating a second or even a third crossing point.

One effort to respond to the needs of the travellers crossing the bridge has been the Karama International Campaign for the Movement of Palestinians; a Facebook group for the movement has gathered 1,490 members.

Karama, which in Arabic means dignity, attempts to find ways to allow people to cross the bridge with dignity. Set up a year ago, the organisation has made some progress on the Palestinian side (merging exit points), but has achieved no major breakthroughs or reduction in waiting periods. Karama's founder Hazem Kawasmeh, who held a press conference this week describing his organization's accomplishments, revealed that members of his movement met with the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights in Ramallah and handed her a request for intervention to ease the suffering at the crossing.

It is natural for Palestinians from the occupied territories to spearhead this effort. But it is high time that regional and international players are involved in this daily human catastrophe. Jordan, which has signed a peace treaty with Israel, needs to give this issue a much higher profile. Israel also must be aware of the suffering that happens on its watch. Agreeing to a 24 hour round the clock opening of the bridge could do wonders in alleviating the suffering.

###

* Daoud Kuttab is a Palestinian journalist and former Ferris Professor of Journalism at Princeton University. This article is distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) with permission from the author.

Source: The Huffington Post, 29 July 2010,
www.huffingtonpost.com
Copyright permission is granted for publication.
From Ramallah to Yad Vashem
Aug 04, 2010 - 09:00:00 PM
JERUSALEM - Among the groups who visited the Yad Vashem Holocaust Museum in Jerusalem recently was one unusual group: Twenty-seven Palestinian youths from the West Bank who came on their own initiative in order to learn about the Holocaust.

The person behind the initiative is A., a 28-year-old from the Ramallah area.

“I know Israelis,” he said. “I attended several meetings between Israelis and Palestinians, but wanted to know more about the Holocaust. I e-mailed some of my friends and wrote about the idea on Facebook. I was surprised by the response. I got more than 60 positive responses from people I didn't know from Ramallah, Hebron and other places.”

As expected, not everyone liked the idea. “People had a hard time accepting it,” A. said. “Some told me, ‘The holocaust is happening now in Gaza.’”

Nevertheless, A. assembled a group and approached Yad Vashem for a tour and received a positive reply. Ultimately, only 27 people arrived due to technical reasons, but A. is convinced it won't be the last Palestinian group.

The group's members were mostly students in their 20s and 30s. The others are wage earners, some working for the Palestinian Authority. The group even included a former security prisoner who served 12 years in an Israeli prison.

“I believe that when it comes to people, the pain is the same pain,” A. said. “Most Palestinians and Arabs don’t even believe there was a Holocaust. Most Palestinians know Israelis as occupiers and nothing beyond that. Israelis don't know Palestinians and their suffering. I hope this visit will help both our peoples to think ahead. We need to build a common future.”

Despite these statements, A. claims he wasn’t surprised by the tough images he saw in the museum. “I saw the difficult imagess from Auschwitz, but ‘I’m used to images of violence from our reality here,” he said.

D.is a female resident of Hebron in her early 20s who joined the group in order to learn more about the Holocaust.

“As a Palestinian I feel that many of my rights have been stolen from me – just take for example the restrictions on movement and the road blocks I had to endure on my way here. I lost many friends in the last ten years. But I think that if one wants to achieve peace one has to understand the Israelis and their need for an army and security,” she said.

The members of the group held a tour of the Holocaust history museum, and took part in discussions at the School for Holocaust Studies.

“They came with an enormous baggage of lack of knowledge and prejudices,” their guide Yaakov Yaniv said. “They knew nothing of the Nazi ideology, and they spoke of the Holocaust in terms of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.”

Yaniv talked to the group extensively about the Nazi ideology. He also told them his personal story, as someone who had lost most of his family in the Holocaust and about his wish as a boy to have had the chance to sit on his grandfather’s lap and play with his beard. It was important to him to explain to them that this was not just another political conflict. Yaniv concluded that he “didn't know what effect the visit had on the group but that they all left in an extremely pensive mood”.

###

* Zvi Singer writes for the Hebrew daily “Yediot Aharonot”. As a veteran journalist with Yediot, and previously for Maariv, Singer has covered many aspects of Israeli-Palestinian relations including settlements, party politics, education and religion and state. This article is distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) with the permission of the author and Ynetnews.

Source: Ynetnews, 23 July 2010,
www.Ynetnews.com
Copyright permission is granted for publication.
Searching for Common Ground in Acre
Aug 04, 2010 - 09:00:00 PM
JERUSALEM - Recently a joint Jewish-Arab youth delegation from Acre, a Northern Israeli town, visited Poland and Holocaust sites. Such joint endeavours have taken place in Israel, at times even initiated by Arab educators. However this particular effort is significant in that it was undertaken as part of attempts to mend relationships in this mixed Jewish-Arab city that has experienced high levels of intra-communal conflict in recent years, culminating in the clashes on the eve of Yom Kippur 2008. While there was an immediate chain of events which sparked this violent episode, the explosion was the result of long simmering tensions between the Jewish and Arab communities in the city.

The tensions in Acre are in many ways a microcosm of Jewish-Arab relations in Israel as a whole and highlight the very difficult demands each side is making of the other. While day-to-day living and interactions between Israeli Jews and Israeli Arabs are generally peaceful, these communities are divided by a variety of fundamental issues that go back to the roots of the conflict and the differing narratives concerning the very establishment and significance of Israel as a Jewish state. One of the longest standing Arab grievances has been that state resources are not fairly allocated to their community.

As a reflection of these divisions, public discourse in Israel has focused on the demands of many in the Jewish sector that unity in Israel must be achieved through a reassertion of the “melting pot model.” According to this view, the Arab sector must explicitly conform to the Jewish-Zionist vision of a renewed Jewish homeland in the land of Israel. On the other hand, many within the Arab sector demand that Israel surrender its essential character as a Jewish state and declare itself a “state of all its citizens” or a bi-national state even if a Palestinian state is established.

Can common ground be found between these differing agendas and visions in Israel in general and in Acre in particular? A seminar course held in the city, sponsored by the Konrad-AdenauerStiftung, (a prominent German international foundation) which is part of a unique conflict management course at Bar-Ilan University, attempted to come up with constructive ideas. Central to the conflict management perspective which guided the course was the concept of “federalism” which, according to its main advocate Professor Daniel Elazar, has been based upon the Jewish Biblical idea of “Brit” or covenant and envisions unity within diversity (or as he put it “thinking federally”). This approach emphasises the importance of interactions between different communities as a basis for social peace as opposed to requiring agreement on common definitions, which are frequently absent.

One of the speakers in the seminar, the city’s deputy mayor Adham Jemayel, represents the Arab sector. Although actively affiliated with the Islamic party of Israel which formally opposes the Jewish character of Israel, Mr. Jemayal stressed the importance of practical cooperation between the different groups for the betterment of Acre. He provided the example of his work with the other deputy mayor of the city, Zev Neuman who represents the city’s sizable Russian speaking population and is affiliated with the Israel Beitenu party headed by Avigdor Lieberman.

While background tensions continue to exist in Acre, other initiatives continue to be advanced. These include intercultural mediation on the neighourhood level during times of crisis when misunderstandings caused by different cultural backgrounds can lead to clashing perspectives and conflict. There have even been channels of communication between Jewish and Muslim religious leaders.

Moreover, cooperation to promote the welfare of all communities across the Jewish-Arab divide is being advanced by relevant bodies such as the municipality and NGOs. There is also a dedicated core of young Jewish activists who have formed an “urban kibbutz” (organic community run on collective principles) to promote the welfare and educational achievement of both Arab and Jewish youth in Acre.

Some commentators, including students at the abovementioned course, say that Israel is already a “multicultural society” and that a view of Israel as a Jewish and multicultural society has strong potential to serve as a new paradigm for Israel, in contrast to the earlier melting pot model. This will however, require a certain change of mindset in Israel in favour of “thinking federally". Other mixed Jewish-Arab cities in Israel might also find useful elements in this model to promote stability and social cohesion.

While relations remain complex in Acre and there is no guarantee that tensions will not escalate once again, the efforts of many who try to strengthen centrifugal forces in the city leave hope that common ground can be found.

###

* Dr. Ben Mollov teaches political science and conflict management at Bar-Ilan University, Israel and runs the University’s Project for the Study of Religion, Culture and Peace.

Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 05 August 2010, www.commongroundnews.org
Copyright permission is granted for publication.
Did Arabs contribute to saving lives during the Holocaust?
Aug 04, 2010 - 09:00:00 PM
EAST MEREDITH, NY – The current hard-line legislation considered by Israeli lawmakers to ensure “loyalty” of Arab citizens reflects tensions and mistrust on both sides of the Arab-Israeli divide. The climate is leading many to believe that maintaining equality between Arab and Jewish citizens of Israel is unsafe or unnatural.

But this conclusion ignores the past.

Arab anger towards Jews has not always been there. Likewise, Jewish hostility towards Arabs is rather new. Muslims and Jews – both Semitic peoples – coexisted in relative peace for twelve hundred years. Many activists on both sides who work to bridge the widening gap between Jews and Arabs inside Israel and in the West Bank draw encouragement from positive stories of co-existence throughout history.

Most people are now unaware of this legacy. Stories of Muslims who have shown compassion towards Jews during the Holocaust should be more widely known but for some reason remain hidden. In a recent booklet titled “The Role of the Righteous Muslim Persons,” Fiyaz Mughal proudly documents stories of Muslims who sheltered Jews in their homes, their farms and their workplaces during the Holocaust. The heroes described in the book were from Arab North Africa and Eastern Europe. One example given by Mughal is that of Si Ali Sakkat: “In Tunis, 60 Jewish internees escaped from an Axis labour camp and knocked on the farm door of Si Ali Sakkat, who took the risk of hiding them until they were saved by the Allies.”

This should not come as a surprise, bearing in mind that there had been a thriving Jewish community in the Middle East up until the 1940’s and 50’s, when contemporary tensions eclipsed a history of co-existence.

In 2006, researcher Robert Satloff published a book entitled “Among the Righteous: Lost Stories from the Holocaust in Arab lands,” which placed the good news about Arab compassion in a sobering context. In an article in the Washington Post, he stated that “the Arabs in these lands were not too different from Europeans: With war waging around them, most stood by and did nothing; many participated fully and willingly in the persecution of Jews; and a brave few even helped save Jews.”

Acknowledging those “brave few” is important. Although limited, such acts of heroism are inspirational and circulating them is an expression of hope. Stories depicting acts of moral courage across the religious divide are bound to promote good will among all people, particularly amongst Arabs and Jews.

Unfortunately, like any other Middle East issue, the behaviour of Muslims in the Holocaust is perceived through the distorting prism of the current Arab-Israeli conflict. Western media distorts the record further by incessantly highlighting the rhetoric of provocative Arab and Iranian politicians who deny or downplay the Holocaust. This creates a message that Muslims are anti-Semitic, thereby adding to an Islamophobic socio-political climate. As a result, many in Israel and the West conclude that reports of Arab moral bravery during the Nazi reign are mere distractions in today’s extra-charged political context.

Distractions such reports are not. According to the Jewish as well as the Islamic holy books, in saving one life, the entire humanity is saved. Moreover, inviting Arabs to think of the Holocaust outside the context of the Arab-Israeli conflict can be an act of healing for both Arabs and Jews.
We must remind ourselves that it was only in the past century that competitive state building and a heightened nationalism situated the Arabs and Jews in a deadly political conflict. Colonial manipulation of the two sides has also played a part.

Arab antagonism toward Jews is largely political; it is mainly the result of Palestinian suffering and political humiliation. Similarly, Jewish and Christian antagonism towards Arabs and Muslims has been fuelled by acts of terror of a few who affect the image of millions.

Both Arabs and Jews express their fears of the enemy to add credibility to their moral narratives with inappropriate and exaggerated references to the Nazi era. Some Jews rationalise their elaborate structures of occupation and build exclusionary walls and checkpoints to avoid an alleged future Holocaust. For their part, some Arabs rationalise acts of violence by claiming that they live in a Nazi-like occupation.

Yet there is another way to see the application of the Holocaust narrative to the present day. Stories of Muslims saving Jews in the Holocaust serve the peace process. The sceptic who challenges the significance of these stories is missing the point: these true stories are moral examples that have the potential to bring down some of the walls that have been erected between Arabs and Jews.

The moral heroes of today are those Arabs who forego pride to recognise Israel’s existence, Israelis who sacrifice settlements in the West Bank for a final settlement of the conflict, Jews who advocate territorial withdrawal to honour Palestinian national aspirations, and Palestinians who limit their dreams of unlimited rights of return to contribute to regional stability.

Stories of courage which occurred seven decades ago are comparable to the bravery of contemporary Arabs and Israelis who have learned to forgive and are toiling hard to make peace.

###

* Dr. Ghassan Rubeiz (grubeiz@comcast.net) is an Arab-American commentator on issues of development, peace and justice. He is the former Middle East Secretary of the Geneva-based World Council of Churches. This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).

Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 05 August 2010, www.commongroundnews.org
Copyright permission is granted for publication.
“Business is business”: A practical path to justice and an independent Palestine
Aug 04, 2010 - 09:00:00 PM
WASHINGTON, DC – The creation of an independent Palestine has been a dream dashed many times, but there may be a practical path forward emerging from a surprising place. I often heard the phrase ‘business is business’ growing up in the 1960s among gritty American Jewish immigrants; my father said it all the time. It reflected old Jewish instincts to do whatever it takes to survive and feed ‘the family’, even when it meant dealing with people who disliked you – a lot.

What floored me is when my Palestinian partner, Aziz Abu Sarah, with whom I recently founded MEJDI, a social enterprise (business designed for a social goal), told me exactly the same words from his father! Aziz’s family and mine are not involved in our new business venture, but every innovation has implications for the political situation in Palestine, and we seek advice and reactions. I have been shocked by the positive reception in my right wing family to the idea of honest business as a bridge. And every time I asked Aziz, “Are you sure your family is ok with Jews and Arabs doing business given their terrible troubles? They know how Jewish I am?” The answer came, “Business is business.”

I feel very much at home with people who love their families, who see the virtue of work, who when facing an unjust situation recognise that practical and ethical people sometimes prevail. Sometimes honest work eases the way to a sane political vision that overwhelms self-destructive patterns of enemy systems and wounded peoples.

There is a lot of good news on the business front. There is a Palestinian prime minister, increasingly popular, who is revolutionising the infrastructure of Palestine, preparing for prosperity and statehood. Saudi Arabia, the most conservative state in the region, has just announced a 400 million dollar project for Ramallah. Many Western countries are pouring in huge funds for the private sector.

Will these investments benefit most Palestinians? We are all haunted by ‘the last time’, by the Oslo years of large funds – and large corruption. But thankfully a recent economic conference in Palestine, which included an American presidential delegation headed by Senator George Mitchell, slated $950 million for small and medium sized businesses.

My partners and I at MEJDI want more, however. We argue that more is needed to place justice at the centre of Palestine’s future, and to discourage an investor tendency to make a few wealthy and most miserable. All the incoming funds are good but we should explicitly support socially responsible business in Palestine.

Although there is no ultimate solution for Palestine without an end to the Occupation, small businesses are needed to form the backbone of a viable state. Small businesses generate a middle class that depends on the rule of law and democratic values, whereas countries supported only through large corporations and government control rarely emerge as democracies. Palestinians deserve a democracy at the end of their long struggle.

Here is an example of what we are doing as a social enterprise. We are pioneering both tours and academic seminars where almost every dollar spent is going to support and patronize businesses with a clear reputation for fair wages. Profits are also re-invested in lecturers and tour guides who are well known activists for positive social change.

This is just one example of the intersection of small business empowerment and social change. Our other major innovation is the distribution in the West of products made by poor but innovative Palestinian small businesses paying only fair wages. I have learned after 27 years of peace activism that ignoring inequality and poverty is disastrous and it violates every tenet of the region’s religious traditions and values. The un-sustainability of the average Palestinian family makes old ways of coexistence work inadequate. Serious attention to fair wages, however, and financial support for Palestine’s social change activists help engender support for Palestine’s nascent non-violent struggle.

Generations, even centuries, of Muslims and Jews, built mutually prosperous and equal relationships; we are merely recovering their legacy. There have been many times of misery in the long history of the Christian, Jewish, Muslim relationship, but there were also many good times, golden ages. Honest business based on good wages and equal relationships may be one glue that has bonded Middle Eastern cultures before, and may help make inevitable the political path forward toward a just and equal two-state solution.

###

* Rabbi Dr. Marc Gopin, author of www.marcgopin.com, and To Make the Earth Whole, is a principal of MEJDI LLC (www.mejdi.net), and Director of CRDC, George Mason University, crdc.gmu.edu.

Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 05 August 2010, www.commongroundnews.org
Copyright permission is granted for publication.
The Other Day: A Palestinian feels
Jul 21, 2010 - 09:00:00 PM
JERUSALEM -

The other day
I met my Jewish neighbour just across the street and his face looked just exactly like my face
I saw him play with his children just exactly as I would play with my children
I heard him speak tenderly to his wife just exactly as I would speak tenderly to my wife
I witnessed as he opened with reverence his Holy Book just exactly as I would open my Holy Book
I noticed how he takes care of his home just exactly as I would take care of my home
I observed as he communicated warmly with his neighbors as I would with mine

And yet
My Jewish neighbour does not see me nor does he think
That I play with my children the way he does with his
That I speak tenderly to my wife as he does
That I open my Holy Book with reverence as he does his Holy Book
That I care about my home the way he does about his
That I communicate warmly with my neighbours as he does with his

And More
My Jewish neighbour does not know my pain
When I am denied entry to my city through checkpoints and Separation Wall
When the identity cards of my children are taken away from them
When I cannot be with my wife because she is from the West Bank and I am from Jerusalem
When my home is demolished because I cannot get a building permit
When my neighbours are evicted from their homes and they have no place to go

My Jewish neighbour and I live so close to each other yet worlds apart
His world is one with a semblance of normalcy
Mine is one with threatening transition from one status to another
He feels filled with the dreams of his forefathers
I feel inspired by the dreams of my forefathers
He won't let go
I won't let go

My Jewish neighbour and I share the geographic space
Can we be like each other in our hopes and dreams?
Can he recognise my face which is exactly like his face?
Can he touch my pain?
Can we share the future with the dignity of people whose faces are so much like each other?

###

* Dr. Bernard Sabella is Associate Professor of Sociology at Bethlehem University and was elected to the Palestinian Legislative Council in January 2006. This article is distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) with permission from the author.

Source: Arab Media Internet Network, 16 July 2010,
http://amin.org/
Copyright permission is granted for publication.
Encountering Peace: Settlements and the anti-Zionists
Jul 21, 2010 - 09:00:00 PM
JERUSALEM – November 6, 2012 – that’s the date when Barack Obama will stand for election for a second term. By November 2011 he will already be deeply involved in campaigning and most of his attention will be focused on Middle America and not the Middle East. On November 2, midterm elections will be held in the US in which members of Congress (including all 435 in the House of Representatives and 34 of the 100 in the Senate) stand before the electorate.  
The US political calendar is a map of the window of opportunity which might exist for advancing Israeli-Palestinian peace.
There is no chance of an agreement without direct and decisive US presidential engagement. After November 3, Obama will be able to free up time and political space on his agenda for getting directly involved in negotiating a peace agreement. He will have about one year in which he can devote his time and political collateral to that mission. After that, he will be back on the campaign trail and he will either place his Middle East success at the top of his campaign or he will have to bury his failure and explain why it is a hopeless cause, but that “I did everything humanly possible to help them to resolve their conflict.”  
But even before we reach November 3, one other date jumps off the calendar with flashing red lights – September 26 – the end of the 10-month moratorium on new settlement building. If the government launches a new settlement building drive, as promised by senior cabinet members, the barely living peace process will die. Obviously the efforts of US mediator George Mitchell are currently focused on providing a life-giving dose of adrenaline in the form of moving to direct negotiations.
The idea is that if direct negotiations begin, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu will be able to extend the building moratorium for several more months to give the talks a chance of success. Even if he buys into this formula, he will try to reach an understanding with Obama that building within the settlement blocks can resume because they will be annexed to Israel within the framework of an agreement.
The Palestinians will most definitely reject any such understanding, stating that the freezing of all settlement building is a requirement for direct negotiations because without it there is no real demonstrated intention to ever withdraw from the West Bank and allow for the creation of a Palestinian state.
The time frame for negotiations is set. There is a window of about one year to reach an agreement. By the end of 2011 the Fayyad plan for creating the institutions of the Palestinian state will have reached its end.
The Palestinians will be more anxious than ever to become independent and recognised by the international community as a full-fledged member of the community of nations. They will expect and work toward full membership in the UN and sanctions against Israel if, as a result of continued settlement activity, there is no real peace process in advanced stages of reaching an agreement.
At the same time, they will also probably turn to their own electorate. Without progress on the diplomatic front, it is unlikely that the current practical and moderate leadership will sustain itself. President Mahmoud Abbas has already stated his intention not to run for reelection. With the exception of Salam Fayyad, who has no political party or movement of significance backing him, the arena of perspective candidates is far less promising for reaching a possible agreement than the current leaders.

The time factor for reaching peace has never been clearer and more urgent. The clock is ticking and time is running out. In the 32 years I have been involved in advancing peace, I have never spoken about a deadline.

But today, it is there and time is not on our side.

If it makes anyone feel better, I can also say that time is not on their side either. Time is running out for us both.

There is no solution to the conflict other than “two states for two peoples”. There is a great likelihood that when the window of opportunity closes at the end of 2011, there will no longer be a real possibility to reach a negotiated agreement. There may no longer be a moderate and practical Palestinian leadership with which we can negotiate and there may no longer be a majority of Palestinians who accept this solution.

Right now it is all in the hands of Netanyahu. He is the man who can make it happen. The settlement issue has become the number one factor in determining if there can even be a credible negotiation. Netanyahu is the only Israeli leader who can say that the primary goal of Zionism today is to consolidate the State of Israel within recognised and negotiated borders. That means that the Zionist enterprise must focus its attention on strengthening what we have, and on transforming Israel into the exemplary state that Theodor Herzl dreamed about. To achieve this, it will even be necessary to say loud and clear that those who wish to continue to build settlements are anti-Zionist, working against the Zionist vision and leading the Zionist movement toward national suicide. A true Zionist today is the one who works for peace and the anti-Zionist is one who seeks to prevent peace by building more settlements. True Zionism is about the sustainability of the State of Israel, and the greatest threat to its sustainability is the continuation of the conflict with the Palestinian people.

###

* The writer is the co-CEO of the Israel/Palestine Center for Research and Information (www.ipcri.org) and an elected member of the leadership of the Green Movement political party.

Source: The Jerusalem Post, 19 July 2010,
www.jpost.com
Copyright permission is granted for publication.
In the midst of an environmental calamity in Gaza lies an opportunity
Jul 21, 2010 - 09:00:00 PM
CAIRO - Beyond the most obvious hardships brought about by the Gaza blockade, there is another less commonly discussed environmental calamity in the making that could have terrible long-term implications. According to a report by the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), the Israeli-Egyptian blockade on the Strip is causing severe water shortages and preventing farmers from tilling their land, leading to environmental damage that could take decades to repair.

For farmer Yussif Ghaffar who grows wheat outside Khan Yunis, the blockade has meant that he has been unable to replace old equipment, and without the aid of the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), his fields would likely have rotted in the summer sun. Others, he says, are not so lucky. Under the blockade, many farmers cannot access their lands or lack the tools to work it, causing massive soil depletion.

Since the 2008 war, an estimated one-fifth of all cultivated land in the Strip has been lost due to environmental degradation, the UNDP said. Soil pollution is now at its highest levels in history, salinity causing massive erosion; sewage and agriculture run off have left much of the land infertile, with long term consequences, including an increase in children’s nitrate poisoning. In addition, water shortages have worsened over the past few years. The Strategic Foresight Group reported earlier this year that per capita annual renewable water availability is expected to drop from 750 cubic metres to 500 cubic metres by 2025. Sewage is also being dumped into the Mediterranean Sea in Gaza, which according to numerous environmental groups could have lasting effects on marine life. This could curtail another Gazan livelihood, fishing, if action is not taken.

Yet, despite the overall pessimism about the environmental state of Gaza, there is still an opportunity to turn things around.

Ending the blockade is the first step. Beyond that there are new grassroots efforts, by Israeli and Palestinian environmental activists, to bring the environment to the forefront of the discussions. Environmentalism has become the great unifier in today’s world. Look at Sri Lanka, where former enemies in the post war country have joined forces to make clean water available to the population at large.

When talking about the environment, suddenly, the Israeli and Palestinian lexicon is the same. The political disagreements seem less important when the topic shifts to environmental calamities. Water shortages are water shortages. The death of the Dead Sea is the death of the Dead Sea. International NGOs such as Friends of the Earth Middle East, which comprises Israelis and Palestinians, issue joint statements using one language to address environmental dangers such as the Jordan River’s future. The same should happen with regards to Gaza. For once, supposed enemies can share the same threat analysis. This is one of the achievements of the environmental movement.

I recently spoke to Ari Adelsmann, a New York-based activist, whose independent project involves teaming up with Jewish communities across the globe to end the Gaza blockade and combining Israeli technology with Palestinian needs on the ground. It is a project that brings activists together without getting bogged down by organisational structures at present, but one Adelsmann hopes will create an umbrella for independent activists to work together. Israel, Adelsmann says, has been able to “green the desert” through its technological superiority, so “why can’t this be done to save the ground in Gaza?” He argues that Israel acknowledges that environment is an essential component to any sustainable peace effort with Gaza. His Palestinian counterpart, Adel Hassan agrees: “The environment is something we all have to take care of because it crosses borders and affects all people,” he says. Together, Hassan says, new technology and manpower can help shift the idea that Israelis and Palestinians cannot work together.

In the end, Hassan and Adelsmann believe that through environmental discussions and negotiations, Israelis and Palestinians will be able to build a common ground that can become an important impetus for peace. Hassan says that there are a number of Israelis who are ready and willing to work together with Palestinians on environmental issues because “it is both our futures at stake if we do nothing”. It is a win-win situation: save the environment, take steps towards Palestinian-Israeli peace.

###

* Joseph Mayton is the founder and Editor-in-Chief of the Bikya Masr News Organization. This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).

Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 22 July 2010, www.commongroundnews.org
Copyright permission is granted for publication.
Our Jerusalem
Jul 21, 2010 - 09:00:00 PM
JERUSALEM - Jerusalem is revered worldwide as the cradle of the three monotheistic religions. Moslems, Jews and Christians – all view it as a holy ground. Thus, full respect for the rights of all three – one that is based on mutual understanding and recognition – is an inevitable requirement on the road to peace.

Until each of the parties arrives at the realisation that the city cannot be solely “his” the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will remain irresolvable. The past has proven that no one nation or one religion can claim sole ownership over Jerusalem and receive international recognition for it. Jordan failed to get such recognition when it ruled over East Jerusalem and the Old City between 1948 and 1967. Now Israel faces a similar response. In other words, international recognition will not be granted to one side at the expense of the other and will be given only to an arrangement whereby the local parties mutually agree to share this sacred city.

The late Feisal Husseini, perhaps the most important Palestinian leader of our age, scion of the Moslem Husseini family of Jerusalem, coined the term ‘Our Jerusalem’. “A day will come when a Jew speaking about ‘our Jerusalem’, will mean Israelis and Palestinians, and an Arab speaking about ‘our Jerusalem’ will mean Palestinians and Israelis,” he said. Husseini sought to tell Palestinians and Israelis that the claims of both nations should be fully recognised in this Holy City in order to reach a resolution to the conflict.

Despite extreme segregation of Jews and Arabs in the city and 43 years of efforts by consecutive Israeli governments to create a Jewish majority there is still scope for Palestinian sovereignty over East Jerusalem. But with Israel continuing to create facts on the ground that would pre-empt the possibility of Jerusalem serving as capital to two states, time is running out. This is the reason why the Palestinian Authority (PA) has been insisting on freezing Israeli settlement building in East Jerusalem during the current proximity talks.

In a series of closed roundtable discussions conducted by the Israel/Palestine Center for
Research and Information (IPCRI) a group of Palestinian and Israeli experts on Jerusalem – many of them well-known public figures – was brought together for an in depth discussion on the future of the Old City within its historical walls.

The group arrived at the following conclusions: Israelis must recognise Palestinian sovereignty over the Moslem and Christian quarters, and the Palestinians must recognise Israeli sovereignty over the Jewish quarter. The only area of dispute within the walls of the Old City for the group was the fate of the Armenian Quarter. Due to its unique population and its sensitive location near the Jewish quarter – both sides claim jurisdiction over it.

The competing claims to the Armenian quarter are, in my opinion, a challenge which is also an opportunity. The best compromise solution to it could be joint sovereignty. Whereas the rest of the city would be divided between Israeli and Palestinian rule, the Armenian Quarter would be ruled by a joint Israeli-Palestinian entity with both countries having equal rights in the quarter. Joint sovereignty over the Armenian Quarter could potentially facilitate opportunities for both sides to learn how to build trust and cooperation, essential ingredients for a stable future relationship.

Another conclusion reached by the Israeli and Palestinian experts had to do with maintaining the status quo with respect to Moslem and Jewish holy places. This means the Haram Al-Sharif, the Noble Sanctuary compound, known in the Jewish world as the Temple Mount, will fall under the sovereignty of the Arab nations and Palestinian administration. Until this moment Haram Al-Sharif has been administered by the Jordanian government Moslem trust (Jordanian Waqf) and this is recognised by Israel. The Western Wall (the Kotel in Hebrew) and the plaza facing it are under the Israeli sovereignty of the Kotel rabbinate and are administered by it. This status quo has been in place for the past 43 years and accords with mainstream Jewish Halacha. Perhaps only the will of God or the arrival of the Messiah can change the present set-up.

Beyond the Old City walls, the expert panel agreed that settlements around East Jerusalem, like Gilo, Pisgat Zeev, Neve Yaacov, Givat Zeev and others could be part of the agreed upon land swap that will compensate the Palestinian Authority with land of equal size and quality in the Jerusalem district.

Despite split sovereignty over the city, Jerusalem as a whole should be an open undivided city for all its citizens. Checkpoints, if needed, should be on the periphery of the city and not within the city’s boundaries.

Feisal Husseini felt strongly that the rights of both nations should be recognised in Jerusalem. His expression, “our Jerusalem” encapsulates his uniquely fair and humane approach. “Our Jerusalem”: one city split between two sovereignties yet geographically undivided with open borders.

Time is running out for making this vision a real possibility. The Israeli leadership must stop submitting to pressure by settler groups and realise that a two state solution with joint sovereignty in Jerusalem is the desired preference of both peoples and the international community.

###

* Hanna Siniora is publisher of the Jerusalem Times, Chairman of the European Palestinian Chamber of Commerce, and co-CEO of the Israel/Palestine Center for Research and Information (IPCRI). This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).

Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 22 July 2010, www.commongroundnews.org
Copyright permission is granted for publication.
Why Jerusalem? The politics of poetry
Jul 21, 2010 - 09:00:00 PM
JERUSALEM – Jerusalem: one of the most ancient and richly-imagined cities in the world, and also the city that seems most intractable to peaceful resolution.

At least since the time of King David, Jerusalem has been a city claimed by more than one people or religious community, and conquest has been the preferred mode of resolution—from the ancient Israelites to the Babylonians and the Romans, from the Crusaders to Saladin and the Mamluks, from the Ottomans to the latter-day Israelis.

Nevertheless, there is some evidence for an alternative model even in the Hebrew Bible. Take, for example, the enigmatic verses that comprise the story of the Jebusites who may have yielded their ancient city to King David’s forces rather peaceably. Josephus Flavius’ Antiquities of the Jews elaborates on the biblical intimations that David’s conquest of the town of Jebus may have been relatively nonviolent, without massacre or expulsion, and may have allowed for peaceful coexistence with the original inhabitants, who are referred to variously as the “inhabitants of the land” or the “inhabitants of Jerusalem” (see II Sam. 5: 1-10; Judges 1:21).

In modern times, Iraqi Kanan Makiya’s book The Rock, a quasi-fanciful retelling of 7th century Jerusalem based on a reconstruction of the layers of claims, physical and textual, to the Temple Mount, represents the Dome of the Rock first and foremost as a tribute to the Temple of the Jews and to the Foundation Rock of the God of Abraham and Muhammad—a gesture to the Hebrew layer of the early Muslim religious imagination.

Beneath the rubble of war and the blood of sacrifice, you might say, there is a thick layer of imagination that suggests alternative realities and posits inclusive alternatives to exclusive ownership and the threat of annihilation of the Other. And perhaps most important, though lost in the noise of political debate, is that quirk of human imagination that engages in acts of substitution or exchange.

Substitution was (or should have been) the essence of Abraham’s lesson on “one of those hills” in the Land of Moriah (Gen.22) where the old man was sent to sacrifice his son Isaac to an implacable God. In the Muslim version, it is Ishmael who is to be sacrificed; the Christians see the scene as foreshadowing the crucifixion of Jesus. But in all three versions, the story’s basic and often overlooked frame is a death-defying, covenantally-necessary act of substitution: in the Jewish and Muslim versions, it is animal for human sacrifice and in the Christian version, Christ is viewed as the sacrificial lamb standing in for humankind.

The principle of exchange is demonstrated most dramatically in a much-later biblical text, the Song of Songs. Although Christian and Jewish exegetes insisted on attributing allegorical meaning to the rich evocative imagery, a “plain reading” of the Hebrew text unencumbered by the layers of interpretation exposes the world-embracing, compassionate engine of metaphor that forms the medium of the Shulamith’s instructions to her lover. Although the classical Rabbis and the Church Fathers would have us believe that the Song is an elaboration of the relationship between God and Israel, or between Christ and the Church, the “bare text” actually effaces exclusive religious claims. Love’s labours carve out a series of increasingly improbable, hyperbolic similes in which the beloved’s body parts are likened to or interchangeable with the agriculture, architecture and geology of Jerusalem, with no references to Solomon’s Temple or other sacred sites. The self-conscious production of literary imagery, in which every element in the created world is interchangeable and therefore expendable, is the exercise of both human dominion and humility.

You might say that I am tracing a psycho-literary impulse in which the substitution of the lamb in Gen. 22 laid the foundation for acts of exchange and substitution as a more inclusive way of relating to Jerusalem in later texts. It turns out that imagining Jerusalem in her many forms is as natural as fighting for her, or as pledging vengeance for ancient wrongs to be exacted in the time of return. During two thousand years of distance from the sacred centre, Jews learned to live in symbols. The ethical dimension of potentially endless acts of substitution and exchange, of metaphor-making and poetic inclusion, cannot be exaggerated.

Jewish return in recent times to the city which has been the source of its imagination has resulted in a politics that attempts to literalise metaphor, reclaiming the long-imagined city as Real or as Real Estate, claiming the Temple Mount as place of sacrifice and not of substitution, of one story and not of multiple narratives, of one chosen son and not two—or three.

In the idiom of the late 20th century, with its late 20th century municipal and human opportunities and challenges, poets like Yehuda Amichai continue to stand guard at the gates of Jerusalem, reminding us that “in Jerusalem everything is a symbol”. If everything is a symbol, then everything is negotiable, except human dignity.

I will go so far as to claim that it was poetry – which posits alternative realities—that saved the ancient Hebrews in Jerusalem, and poetry—or more precisely, metaphor—that could save the modern Hebrews and their neighbours. What will defeat us is the literalisation of what had remained in a state of metaphoric suspense for thousands of years. If we lose the city, then, it will be for having turned a deaf ear to poetry.

###

* Sidra DeKoven Ezrahi is a Professor at the Dept. of Comparative Literature, Hebrew University of Jerusalem. A more elaborate version of this argument can be found in Sidra DeKoven Ezrahi, “‘To what shall I compare thee?’ Jerusalem as Ground Zero of the Hebrew Imagination,” PMLA [Publications of the Modern Language Association], January, 2007, 122:1, pp. 220-234. This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) and is part of a special series on Jerusalem.

Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 22 July 2010, www.commongroundnews.org
Copyright permission is granted for publication.

Interfaith Peace Initiative

Our View

Other Views on Israel & Palestine

About these Opinions

Common Ground News Service - Middle East