Hello Euphrates fans!
This will be the last post on this site. You can find our new blog on the Euphrates Institute site.
http://www.euphratesinstitute.org/blog
Come check it out!
Thanks to all and hope to read your comments soon...
--Janessa Gans
Friday, March 06, 2009
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
"World Peace Game"--exposing kids to world problems and their solutions
I thought this was such a great idea, a board game called the "World Peace Game" developed by an elementary school teacher, Jim Hunter, link to article.
The World Peace Game assigns different leadership roles to kids and it's a great way to get kids direct exposure to solving problems, making tough choices, and working together for universal good. The only thing I would change about the game is involving more non-state or IGO actors into the mix. In today's globalized world, a Bill Gates has just as much influence on the world stage as does a national leader. And the power of individuals is increasing exponentially...we can't afford to leave them out of the mix or discount their voices. That idea should start early--ideally with kids!
Here's a snippet of the article:
"Some leaders get along better than others, but everyone gets a say. From a distance, it looks like chaos, but the hard, important work of negotiation is always going on.
At first, players might wonder whether the fun will ever begin. Once they get the hang of it, though, they can't wait to get back. But how can you win when so many different things come at you from so many directions and all at once? There's really only one way – by working together for peace and prosperity for all.
This job is even harder than it sounds. You have to be flexible. To succeed you have to give up some things you really want so you can accomplish things that are important for everyone.
Throughout the game, reports keep coming in about spy satellites, weather disasters, and stock markets booming and crashing. Nothing ever stays still."
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Obama on al-Arabiya
Obama's first televised interview
Our President truly "gets" it, that the old school ways of dictating to others and painting the world in Manichean terms only leads to more violence, division, and insecurity. The fact that his first televised interview was with an Arabic news station appears to highlight his prioritization of the region and an understanding of the importance of this critical relationship between Middle East and West that Euphrates Institute is working hard to improve.
Here are some of my favorite quotes from the interview. (The full transcript of the interview follows those.)
"And that is that the language we use matters. And what we need to understand is, is that there are extremist organizations -- whether Muslim or any other faith in the past -- that will use faith as a justification for violence. We cannot paint with a broad brush a faith as a consequence of the violence that is done in that faith's name."
"...start by listening, because all too often the United States starts by dictating -- in the past on some of these issues --and we don't always know all the factors that are involved. So let's listen."
"And so what I want to communicate is the fact that in all my travels throughout the Muslim world, what I've come to understand is that regardless of your faith -- and America is a country of Muslims, Jews, Christians, non-believers -- regardless of your faith, people all have certain common hopes and common dreams."
DUBAI (AlArabiya.net)
In his first interview since taking office, President Barack Obama told Arab satellite station Al Arabiya that Americans are not the enemy of the Muslim world and said Israel and the Palestinians should resume peace negotiations.
“My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy,” Obama told Al Arabiya’s Hisham Melhem in an interview broadcast Tuesday morning.
During the presidential election campaign last year, Obama vowed to improve U.S. ties with the Muslim world and after he won promised to give a speech in a Muslim capital in his first 100 days in office. The President repeated this pledge in the interview but did not give a time or specify the venue.
Obama pointed out that he had lived in the world’s largest Muslim nation, Indonesia for several years while growing up, and said his travels through Muslim countries had convinced him that regardless of faith, people had certain common hopes and dreams.
In the interview, Obama called for resumed negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians and said his administration wanted to begin by listening and talking to all parties involved in the conflict without prejudging their concerns.
He also praised Saudi King Abdulla for putting forward an Arab peace plan and said his administration would adopt a more extensive and regional approach in its relationship with the Muslim world.
“[W]e are ready to initiated a new partnership based on mutual respect and mutual interest,” said Obama, noting that only then can progress be achieved.
I think it is possible for us to see a Palestinian state – I’m not going to put a time frame on it – that is contiguous
President Barack Obama
Obama, who took office a week ago, said he had already begun to fulfill the promises he made during his campaign by naming former U.S. Sen. George Mitchell as his Middle East peace envoy and sending him to the region within days of becoming president. Mitchell arrived in the region Monday evening on the start of a nine day tour.
Although Obama expressed support for a contiguous Palestinian state, he hedged on specifying when or with what borders.
“I think it is possible for us to see a Palestinian state – I’m not going to put a time frame on it – that is contiguous,” the president told Al Arabiya.
Obama reiterated America’s support to Israel and the “paramount” importance of the Jewish state’s security, making no mention of the suffering of Palestinians, the Gaza war, or the continuing Israeli blockade of the beleaguered territory.
Prior to his Jan. 20 inauguration Obama had remained silent about his views on the 22-day Israeli offensive in Gaza that left more than 1,300 Palestinians dead.
He also reiterated his promise to withdraw troops from Iraq, close the infamous Guantanamo prison and respect the rule of law.
Breaking with his predecessor George W. Bush, who had a penchant for adopting terms like Islamofacism and crusade that heightened tensions with the Muslim world, Obama underscored the importance of language and repeated the importance of listening as a part of communication.
“[M]y job is to communicate the fact that the United States has a stake in the well-being of the Muslim world that the language we use has to be a language of respect,” he said.
“[T]he language we use matters,” he continued. “We cannot paint with a broad brush a faith as a consequence of the violence that is done in that faith’s name.”
Yet his continuing silence on the enormous amount of civilian casualties during the Israeli offensive and accusations by the U.N. and humanitarian organizations that Israel committed war crimes also spoke volumes to an audience that has waited for America to take a more balanced approach to the conflict.
TRANSCRIPT
The following is a full transcript of Hisham Melhem's interview with President Obama on Al Arabiya TV:
Q: Mr. President, thank you for this opportunity, we really appreciate it.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you so much.
Q: Sir, you just met with your personal envoy to the Middle East, Senator Mitchell. Obviously, his first task is to consolidate the cease-fire. But beyond that you've been saying that you want to pursue actively and aggressively peacemaking between the Palestinians and the Israelis. Tell us a little bit about how do you see your personal role, because, you know, if the President of the United States is not involved, nothing happens – as the history of peace making shows. Will you be proposing ideas, pitching proposals, parameters, as one of your predecessors did? Or just urging the parties to come up with their own resolutions, as your immediate predecessor did?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think the most important thing is for the United States to get engaged right away. And George Mitchell is somebody of enormous stature. He is one of the few people who have international experience brokering peace deals.
And so what I told him is start by listening, because all too often the
United States starts by dictating -- in the past on some of these issues --and we don't always know all the factors that are involved. So let's listen. He's going to be speaking to all the major parties involved. And he will then report back to me. From there we will formulate a specific response.
Ultimately, we cannot tell either the Israelis or the Palestinians what's best for them. They're going to have to make some decisions. But I do believe that the moment is ripe for both sides to realize that the path that they are on is one that is not going to result in prosperity and security for their people. And that instead, it's time to return to the negotiating table.
And it's going to be difficult, it's going to take time. I don't want to prejudge many of these issues, and I want to make sure that expectations are not raised so that we think that this is going to be resolved in a few months. But if we start the steady progress on these issues, I'm absolutely confident that the United States -- working in tandem with the European Union, with Russia, with all the Arab states in the region -- I'm absolutely certain that we can make significant progress.
Q: You've been saying essentially that we should not look at these issues -- like the Palestinian-Israeli track and separation from the border region -- you've been talking about a kind of holistic approach to the region. Are we expecting a different paradigm in the sense that in the past one of the critiques -- at least from the Arab side, the Muslim side -- is that everything the Americans always tested with the Israelis, if it works. Now there is an Arab peace plan, there is a regional aspect to it. And you've indicated that. Would there be any shift, a paradigm shift?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, here's what I think is important. Look at the proposal that was put forth by King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia --
Q: Right.
I might not agree with every aspect of the proposal, but it took great courage
President Obama on the Saudi peace plan
THE PRESIDENT: I might not agree with every aspect of the proposal, but it took great courage --
Q: Absolutely.
THE PRESIDENT: -- to put forward something that is as significant as that.
I think that there are ideas across the region of how we might pursue peace.
I do think that it is impossible for us to think only in terms of the
Palestinian-Israeli conflict and not think in terms of what's happening with Syria or Iran or Lebanon or Afghanistan and Pakistan.
These things are interrelated. And what I've said, and I think Hillary Clinton has expressed this in her confirmation, is that if we are looking at the region as a whole and communicating a message to the Arab world and the Muslim world, that we are ready to initiate a new partnership based on mutual respect and mutual interest, then I think that we can make significant progress.
Now Israel is a strong ally of the United States. They will not stop being a strong ally of the United States
Now, Israel is a strong ally of the United States. They will not stop being a strong ally of the United States. And I will continue to believe that Israel's security is paramount. But I also believe that there are Israelis who recognize that it is important to achieve peace. They will be willing to make sacrifices if the time is appropriate and if there is serious partnership on the other side.
And so what we want to do is to listen, set aside some of the preconceptions that have existed and have built up over the last several years. And I think if we do that, then there's a possibility at least of achieving some breakthroughs.
Q: I want to ask you about the broader Muslim world, but let me – one final thing about the Palestinian-Israeli theater. There are many
Palestinians and Israelis who are very frustrated now with the current conditions and they are losing hope, they are disillusioned, and they believe that time is running out on the two-state solution because – mainly because of the settlement activities in Palestinian-occupied territories.
Will it still be possible to see a Palestinian state -- and you know the contours of it -- within the first Obama administration?
I think it is possible for us to see a Palestinian state
THE PRESIDENT: I think it is possible for us to see a Palestinian state -- I'm not going to put a time frame on it -- that is contiguous, that allows freedom of movement for its people, that allows for trade with other countries, that allows the creation of businesses and commerce so that people have a better life.
And, look, I think anybody who has studied the region recognizes that the situation for the ordinary Palestinian in many cases has not improved. And the bottom line in all these talks and all these conversations is, is a child in the Palestinian Territories going to be better off? Do they have a future for themselves? And is the child in Israel going to feel confident about his or her safety and security? And if we can keep our focus on making their lives better and look forward, and not simply think about all the conflicts and tragedies of the past, then I think that we have an opportunity to make real progress.
But it is not going to be easy, and that's why we've got George Mitchell going there. This is somebody with extraordinary patience as well as extraordinary skill, and that's what's going to be necessary.
Q: Absolutely. Let me take a broader look at the whole region. You are planning to address the Muslim world in your first 100 days from a Muslim capital. And everybody is speculating about the capital. (Laughter) If you have anything further, that would be great. How concerned are you -- because, let me tell you, honestly, when I see certain things about America -- in some parts, I don't want to exaggerate -- there is a demonization of America.
THE PRESIDENT: Absolutely.
Q: It's become like a new religion, and like a new religion it has new converts -- like a new religion has its own high priests.
THE PRESIDENT: Right.
Q: It's only a religious text.
THE PRESIDENT: Right.
Q: And in the last -- since 9/11 and because of Iraq, that alienation is wider between the Americans and -- and in generations past, the United States was held high. It was the only Western power with no colonial legacy.
THE PRESIDENT: Right.
Q: How concerned are you and -- because people sense that you have a different political discourse. And I think, judging by (inaudible) and
Zawahiri and Osama bin Laden and all these, you know -- a chorus --
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I noticed this. They seem nervous.
Q: They seem very nervous, exactly. Now, tell me why they should be more nervous?
Now, my job is to communicate the fact that the United States has a stake in the well-being of the Muslim world that the language we use has to be a language of respect
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think that when you look at the rhetoric that they've been using against me before I even took office --
Q: I know, I know.
THE PRESIDENT: -- what that tells me is that their ideas are bankrupt. There's no actions that they've taken that say a child in the Muslim world is getting a better education because of them, or has better health care because of them.
In my inauguration speech, I spoke about: You will be judged on what you've built, not what you've destroyed. And what they've been doing is destroying things. And over time, I think the Muslim world has recognized that that path is leading no place, except more death and destruction.
Now, my job is to communicate the fact that the United States has a stake in the well-being of the Muslim world that the language we use has to be a language of respect. I have Muslim members of my family. I have lived in Muslim countries.
Q: The largest one.
THE PRESIDENT: The largest one, Indonesia. And so what I want to
communicate is the fact that in all my travels throughout the Muslim world, what I've come to understand is that regardless of your faith -- and America is a country of Muslims, Jews, Christians, non-believers -- regardless of your faith, people all have certain common hopes and common dreams.
Sending George Mitchell to the Middle East is fulfilling my campaign promise that we're not going to wait until the end of my administration to deal with Palestinian and Israeli peace, we're going to start now
And my job is to communicate to the American people that the Muslim world is filled with extraordinary people who simply want to live their lives and see their children live better lives. My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy. We sometimes make mistakes. We have not been perfect. But if you look at the track record, as you say, America was not born as a colonial power, and that the same respect and partnership that America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years ago, there's no reason why we can't restore that. Andthat I think is going to be an important task.
But ultimately, people are going to judge me not by my words but by my actions and my administration's actions. And I think that what you will see over the next several years is that I'm not going to agree with everything that some Muslim leader may say, or what's on a television station in the Arab world -- but I think that what you'll see is somebody who is listening, who is respectful, and who is trying to promote the interests not just of the United States, but also ordinary people who right now are suffering from poverty and a lack of opportunity. I want to make sure that I'm speaking to them, as well.
Q: Tell me, time is running out, any decision on from where you will be visiting the Muslim world?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I'm not going to break the news right here.
Q: Afghanistan?
THE PRESIDENT: But maybe next time. But it is something that is going to be important. I want people to recognize, though, that we are going to be making a series of initiatives. Sending George Mitchell to the Middle East is fulfilling my campaign promise that we're not going to wait until the end of my administration to deal with Palestinian and Israeli peace, we're going to start now. It may take a long time to do, but we're going to do it now.
We cannot paint with a broad brush a faith as a consequence of the violence that is done in that faith's name
We're going to follow through on our commitment for me to address the Muslim world from a Muslim capital. We are going to follow through on many of my commitments to do a more effective job of reaching out, listening, as well as speaking to the Muslim world.
And you're going to see me following through with dealing with a drawdown of troops in Iraq, so that Iraqis can start taking more responsibility. And finally, I think you've already seen a commitment, in terms of closing Guantanamo, and making clear that even as we are decisive in going after terrorist organizations that would kill innocent civilians, that we're going to do so on our terms, and we're going to do so respecting the rule of law that I think makes America great.
Q: President Bush framed the war on terror conceptually in a way that was very broad, "war on terror," and used sometimes certain terminology that the many people -- Islamic fascism. You've always framed it in a different way, specifically against one group called al Qaeda and their collaborators. And is this one way of --
THE PRESIDENT: I think that you're making a very important point. And that is that the language we use matters. And what we need to understand is, is that there are extremist organizations -- whether Muslim or any other faith in the past -- that will use faith as a justification for violence. We cannot paint with a broad brush a faith as a consequence of the violence that is done in that faith's name.
And so you will I think see our administration be very clear in
distinguishing between organizations like al Qaeda -- that espouse violence, espouse terror and act on it -- and people who may disagree with my administration and certain actions, or may have a particular viewpoint in terms of how their countries should develop. We can have legitimate disagreements but still be respectful. I cannot respect terrorist organizations that would kill innocent civilians and we will hunt them down.
But to the broader Muslim world what we are going to be offering is a hand of friendship.
But I do think that it is important for us to be willing to talk to Iran, to express very clearly where our differences are, but where there are potential avenues for progress
Q: Can I end with a question on Iran and Iraq then quickly?
THE PRESIDENT: It's up to the team --
MR. GIBBS: You have 30 seconds. (Laughter)
Q: Will the United States ever live with a nuclear Iran? And if not, how far are you going in the direction of preventing it?
THE PRESIDENT: You know, I said during the campaign that it is very important for us to make sure that we are using all the tools of U.S. power, including diplomacy, in our relationship with Iran.
Now, the Iranian people are a great people, and Persian civilization is a great civilization. Iran has acted in ways that's not conducive to peace and prosperity in the region: their threats against Israel; their pursuit of a nuclear weapon which could potentially set off an arms race in the region that would make everybody less safe; their support of terrorist organizations in the past -- none of these things have been helpful.
But I do think that it is important for us to be willing to talk to Iran, to express very clearly where our differences are, but where there are potential avenues for progress. And we will over the next several months be laying out our general framework and approach. And as I said during my inauguration speech, if countries like Iran are willing to unclench their fist, they will find an extended hand from us.
Q: Shall we leave Iraq next interview, or just --
MR. GIBBS: Yes, let's -- we're past, and I got to get him back to dinner with his wife.
Q: Sir, I really appreciate it.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you so much.
Q: Thanks a lot.
THE PRESIDENT: I appreciate it.
Q: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
A very different inauguration
The last change of administration I was on the Mall in Washington, DC, watching Bush get sworn in first-hand. The weather was miserable--freezing rain, icy cold. I had just moved to Washington a couple weeks earlier from Northern California, after having completed graduate school at Stanford. It was a new era in Washington and in my life. I was in a brand new city; I had just started a new job with the government, and George Bush was now our president. Looking back at that day and the sense of excitement I felt about the future, nothing could have prepared me for what happened later that year, 9/11 and the subsequent eight years.
This inauguration day I watched the proceedings of the sunny, brisk day in Washington via big-screen TV, surrounded by my students in a hall at my alma mater, Principia College, where I now teach. It was a similar feeling of a new beginning but one grounded in a much more fervent hope, a deeper understanding of what is at stake, and a sense of my own role to play.
In class directly after President Obama's speech, my students brought up their awe and pride in our country and in our new President. They remarked on Obama's reaching out to others in a spirit of friendship, combined with his realistic acknowledgement of our own need for security--without "sacrificing our ideals". The students mentioned Obama's comfort with the old and the new--the timeless principles of truth espoused by our founding principles, our religious faiths--and his commensurate embracing of the new, the future, and of progress.
To me, Obama is the anti-fundamentalist, the bridger of gaps, the appreciator of both sides, the fearless moderate. I think our founding fathers would be smiling down on us today as we pledge as a nation to live up to their ideals of equality, justice, liberty, and freedom for all.
I'm sure many ages have hoped and aspired for the realization o these ideals. I know that eight years ago on the Mall I wished for these same things. This time it's just that there are fewer storms and less freezing rain to cloud the path. It's a clear day in Washington, after all.
Thursday, January 08, 2009
Two must-read opinions on Gaza in today's WaPo & NYT
I just had to share these two articles from today's WaPo and NYT, from Jimmy Carter and Rashid Khalidi, respectively. They are must reads about the situation in Gaza, providing personal experience and a primer on Gaza itself that few people know.
An Unnecessary War
By Jimmy Carter
Thursday, January 8, 2009
I know from personal involvement that the devastating invasion of Gaza by Israel could easily have been avoided.
After visiting Sderot last April and seeing the serious psychological damage caused by the rockets that had fallen in that area, my wife, Rosalynn, and I declared their launching from Gaza to be inexcusable and an act of terrorism. Although casualties were rare (three deaths in seven years), the town was traumatized by the unpredictable explosions. About 3,000 residents had moved to other communities, and the streets, playgrounds and shopping centers were almost empty. Mayor Eli Moyal assembled a group of citizens in his office to meet us and complained that the government of Israel was not stopping the rockets, either through diplomacy or military action.
Knowing that we would soon be seeing Hamas leaders from Gaza and also in Damascus, we promised to assess prospects for a cease-fire. From Egyptian intelligence chief Omar Suleiman, who was negotiating between the Israelis and Hamas, we learned that there was a fundamental difference between the two sides. Hamas wanted a comprehensive cease-fire in both the West Bank and Gaza, and the Israelis refused to discuss anything other than Gaza.
We knew that the 1.5 million inhabitants of Gaza were being starved, as the U.N. special rapporteur on the right to food had found that acute malnutrition in Gaza was on the same scale as in the poorest nations in the southern Sahara, with more than half of all Palestinian families eating only one meal a day.
Palestinian leaders from Gaza were noncommittal on all issues, claiming that rockets were the only way to respond to their imprisonment and to dramatize their humanitarian plight. The top Hamas leaders in Damascus, however, agreed to consider a cease-fire in Gaza only, provided Israel would not attack Gaza and would permit normal humanitarian supplies to be delivered to Palestinian citizens.
After extended discussions with those from Gaza, these Hamas leaders also agreed to accept any peace agreement that might be negotiated between the Israelis and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, who also heads the PLO, provided it was approved by a majority vote of Palestinians in a referendum or by an elected unity government.
Since we were only observers, and not negotiators, we relayed this information to the Egyptians, and they pursued the cease-fire proposal. After about a month, the Egyptians and Hamas informed us that all military action by both sides and all rocket firing would stop on June 19, for a period of six months, and that humanitarian supplies would be restored to the normal level that had existed before Israel's withdrawal in 2005 (about 700 trucks daily).
We were unable to confirm this in Jerusalem because of Israel's unwillingness to admit to any negotiations with Hamas, but rocket firing was soon stopped and there was an increase in supplies of food, water, medicine and fuel. Yet the increase was to an average of about 20 percent of normal levels. And this fragile truce was partially broken on Nov. 4, when Israel launched an attack in Gaza to destroy a defensive tunnel being dug by Hamas inside the wall that encloses Gaza.
On another visit to Syria in mid-December, I made an effort for the impending six-month deadline to be extended. It was clear that the preeminent issue was opening the crossings into Gaza. Representatives from the Carter Center visited Jerusalem, met with Israeli officials and asked if this was possible in exchange for a cessation of rocket fire. The Israeli government informally proposed that 15 percent of normal supplies might be possible if Hamas first stopped all rocket fire for 48 hours. This was unacceptable to Hamas, and hostilities erupted.
After 12 days of "combat," the Israeli Defense Forces reported that more than 1,000 targets were shelled or bombed. During that time, Israel rejected international efforts to obtain a cease-fire, with full support from Washington. Seventeen mosques, the American International School, many private homes and much of the basic infrastructure of the small but heavily populated area have been destroyed. This includes the systems that provide water, electricity and sanitation. Heavy civilian casualties are being reported by courageous medical volunteers from many nations, as the fortunate ones operate on the wounded by light from diesel-powered generators.
The hope is that when further hostilities are no longer productive, Israel, Hamas and the United States will accept another cease-fire, at which time the rockets will again stop and an adequate level of humanitarian supplies will be permitted to the surviving Palestinians, with the publicized agreement monitored by the international community. The next possible step: a permanent and comprehensive peace.
The writer was president from 1977 to 1981. He founded the Carter Center, a nongovernmental organization advancing peace and health worldwide, in 1982.
What You Don't Know About Gaza
by Rashid Khalidi, New York Times
NEARLY everything you’ve been led to believe about Gaza is wrong. Below are a few essential points that seem to be missing from the conversation, much of which has taken place in the press, about Israel’s attack on the Gaza Strip.
THE GAZANS Most of the people living in Gaza are not there by choice. The majority of the 1.5 million people crammed into the roughly 140 square miles of the Gaza Strip belong to families that came from towns and villages outside Gaza like Ashkelon and Beersheba. They were driven to Gaza by the Israeli Army in 1948.
THE OCCUPATION The Gazans have lived under Israeli occupation since the Six-Day War in 1967. Israel is still widely considered to be an occupying power, even though it removed its troops and settlers from the strip in 2005. Israel still controls access to the area, imports and exports, and the movement of people in and out. Israel has control over Gaza’s air space and sea coast, and its forces enter the area at will. As the occupying power, Israel has the responsibility under the Fourth Geneva Convention to see to the welfare of the civilian population of the Gaza Strip.
THE BLOCKADE Israel’s blockade of the strip, with the support of the United States and the European Union, has grown increasingly stringent since Hamas won the Palestinian Legislative Council elections in January 2006. Fuel, electricity, imports, exports and the movement of people in and out of the Strip have been slowly choked off, leading to life-threatening problems of sanitation, health, water supply and transportation.
The blockade has subjected many to unemployment, penury and malnutrition. This amounts to the collective punishment — with the tacit support of the United States — of a civilian population for exercising its democratic rights.
THE CEASE-FIRE Lifting the blockade, along with a cessation of rocket fire, was one of the key terms of the June cease-fire between Israel and Hamas. This accord led to a reduction in rockets fired from Gaza from hundreds in May and June to a total of less than 20 in the subsequent four months (according to Israeli government figures). The cease-fire broke down when Israeli forces launched major air and ground attacks in early November; six Hamas operatives were reported killed.
WAR CRIMES The targeting of civilians, whether by Hamas or by Israel, is potentially a war crime. Every human life is precious. But the numbers speak for themselves: Nearly 700 Palestinians, most of them civilians, have been killed since the conflict broke out at the end of last year. In contrast, there have been around a dozen Israelis killed, many of them soldiers. Negotiation is a much more effective way to deal with rockets and other forms of violence. This might have been able to happen had Israel fulfilled the terms of the June cease-fire and lifted its blockade of the Gaza Strip.
This war on the people of Gaza isn’t really about rockets. Nor is it about “restoring Israel’s deterrence,” as the Israeli press might have you believe. Far more revealing are the words of Moshe Yaalon, then the Israeli Defense Forces chief of staff, in 2002: “The Palestinians must be made to understand in the deepest recesses of their consciousness that they are a defeated people.”
Rashid Khalidi, a professor of Arab studies at Columbia, is the author of the forthcoming “Sowing Crisis: The Cold War and American Dominance in the Middle East."
An Unnecessary War
By Jimmy Carter
Thursday, January 8, 2009
I know from personal involvement that the devastating invasion of Gaza by Israel could easily have been avoided.
After visiting Sderot last April and seeing the serious psychological damage caused by the rockets that had fallen in that area, my wife, Rosalynn, and I declared their launching from Gaza to be inexcusable and an act of terrorism. Although casualties were rare (three deaths in seven years), the town was traumatized by the unpredictable explosions. About 3,000 residents had moved to other communities, and the streets, playgrounds and shopping centers were almost empty. Mayor Eli Moyal assembled a group of citizens in his office to meet us and complained that the government of Israel was not stopping the rockets, either through diplomacy or military action.
Knowing that we would soon be seeing Hamas leaders from Gaza and also in Damascus, we promised to assess prospects for a cease-fire. From Egyptian intelligence chief Omar Suleiman, who was negotiating between the Israelis and Hamas, we learned that there was a fundamental difference between the two sides. Hamas wanted a comprehensive cease-fire in both the West Bank and Gaza, and the Israelis refused to discuss anything other than Gaza.
We knew that the 1.5 million inhabitants of Gaza were being starved, as the U.N. special rapporteur on the right to food had found that acute malnutrition in Gaza was on the same scale as in the poorest nations in the southern Sahara, with more than half of all Palestinian families eating only one meal a day.
Palestinian leaders from Gaza were noncommittal on all issues, claiming that rockets were the only way to respond to their imprisonment and to dramatize their humanitarian plight. The top Hamas leaders in Damascus, however, agreed to consider a cease-fire in Gaza only, provided Israel would not attack Gaza and would permit normal humanitarian supplies to be delivered to Palestinian citizens.
After extended discussions with those from Gaza, these Hamas leaders also agreed to accept any peace agreement that might be negotiated between the Israelis and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, who also heads the PLO, provided it was approved by a majority vote of Palestinians in a referendum or by an elected unity government.
Since we were only observers, and not negotiators, we relayed this information to the Egyptians, and they pursued the cease-fire proposal. After about a month, the Egyptians and Hamas informed us that all military action by both sides and all rocket firing would stop on June 19, for a period of six months, and that humanitarian supplies would be restored to the normal level that had existed before Israel's withdrawal in 2005 (about 700 trucks daily).
We were unable to confirm this in Jerusalem because of Israel's unwillingness to admit to any negotiations with Hamas, but rocket firing was soon stopped and there was an increase in supplies of food, water, medicine and fuel. Yet the increase was to an average of about 20 percent of normal levels. And this fragile truce was partially broken on Nov. 4, when Israel launched an attack in Gaza to destroy a defensive tunnel being dug by Hamas inside the wall that encloses Gaza.
On another visit to Syria in mid-December, I made an effort for the impending six-month deadline to be extended. It was clear that the preeminent issue was opening the crossings into Gaza. Representatives from the Carter Center visited Jerusalem, met with Israeli officials and asked if this was possible in exchange for a cessation of rocket fire. The Israeli government informally proposed that 15 percent of normal supplies might be possible if Hamas first stopped all rocket fire for 48 hours. This was unacceptable to Hamas, and hostilities erupted.
After 12 days of "combat," the Israeli Defense Forces reported that more than 1,000 targets were shelled or bombed. During that time, Israel rejected international efforts to obtain a cease-fire, with full support from Washington. Seventeen mosques, the American International School, many private homes and much of the basic infrastructure of the small but heavily populated area have been destroyed. This includes the systems that provide water, electricity and sanitation. Heavy civilian casualties are being reported by courageous medical volunteers from many nations, as the fortunate ones operate on the wounded by light from diesel-powered generators.
The hope is that when further hostilities are no longer productive, Israel, Hamas and the United States will accept another cease-fire, at which time the rockets will again stop and an adequate level of humanitarian supplies will be permitted to the surviving Palestinians, with the publicized agreement monitored by the international community. The next possible step: a permanent and comprehensive peace.
The writer was president from 1977 to 1981. He founded the Carter Center, a nongovernmental organization advancing peace and health worldwide, in 1982.
What You Don't Know About Gaza
by Rashid Khalidi, New York Times
NEARLY everything you’ve been led to believe about Gaza is wrong. Below are a few essential points that seem to be missing from the conversation, much of which has taken place in the press, about Israel’s attack on the Gaza Strip.
THE GAZANS Most of the people living in Gaza are not there by choice. The majority of the 1.5 million people crammed into the roughly 140 square miles of the Gaza Strip belong to families that came from towns and villages outside Gaza like Ashkelon and Beersheba. They were driven to Gaza by the Israeli Army in 1948.
THE OCCUPATION The Gazans have lived under Israeli occupation since the Six-Day War in 1967. Israel is still widely considered to be an occupying power, even though it removed its troops and settlers from the strip in 2005. Israel still controls access to the area, imports and exports, and the movement of people in and out. Israel has control over Gaza’s air space and sea coast, and its forces enter the area at will. As the occupying power, Israel has the responsibility under the Fourth Geneva Convention to see to the welfare of the civilian population of the Gaza Strip.
THE BLOCKADE Israel’s blockade of the strip, with the support of the United States and the European Union, has grown increasingly stringent since Hamas won the Palestinian Legislative Council elections in January 2006. Fuel, electricity, imports, exports and the movement of people in and out of the Strip have been slowly choked off, leading to life-threatening problems of sanitation, health, water supply and transportation.
The blockade has subjected many to unemployment, penury and malnutrition. This amounts to the collective punishment — with the tacit support of the United States — of a civilian population for exercising its democratic rights.
THE CEASE-FIRE Lifting the blockade, along with a cessation of rocket fire, was one of the key terms of the June cease-fire between Israel and Hamas. This accord led to a reduction in rockets fired from Gaza from hundreds in May and June to a total of less than 20 in the subsequent four months (according to Israeli government figures). The cease-fire broke down when Israeli forces launched major air and ground attacks in early November; six Hamas operatives were reported killed.
WAR CRIMES The targeting of civilians, whether by Hamas or by Israel, is potentially a war crime. Every human life is precious. But the numbers speak for themselves: Nearly 700 Palestinians, most of them civilians, have been killed since the conflict broke out at the end of last year. In contrast, there have been around a dozen Israelis killed, many of them soldiers. Negotiation is a much more effective way to deal with rockets and other forms of violence. This might have been able to happen had Israel fulfilled the terms of the June cease-fire and lifted its blockade of the Gaza Strip.
This war on the people of Gaza isn’t really about rockets. Nor is it about “restoring Israel’s deterrence,” as the Israeli press might have you believe. Far more revealing are the words of Moshe Yaalon, then the Israeli Defense Forces chief of staff, in 2002: “The Palestinians must be made to understand in the deepest recesses of their consciousness that they are a defeated people.”
Rashid Khalidi, a professor of Arab studies at Columbia, is the author of the forthcoming “Sowing Crisis: The Cold War and American Dominance in the Middle East."
Gaza and Warriors for Peace
The fact that I'm so worked up about the Gaza conflict and some of the statements I read are making me realize that I need to focus on the one aspect of this conflict that I can immediately control, which is my own thinking about it. I'm not going to defeat the Israeli military or Hamas. Heck, I'm not even in the Middle East, but at a small, liberal arts college in the Mid-West! But my thoughts can have a powerful impact. Irving Tomlinson wrote that "the way to universal peace must begin in the consciousness of the individual." If we are fighting for peace within, we are, by extension, part of the solution without.
At Euphrates Institute, we are developing a Warriors for Peace initiative, soon to be unveiled, that will provide a deeper explanation of this idea and foster a community around it. But, here's a sneak peek of the steps each of us can take to be a warrior for peace, to truly be part of the solution, and to bring about peace in our world.
#1: Inform yourself—and then others.
Learn more, become well-versed in the topic and share the knowledge you gain with others.
#2: Meet the “other”.
Don’t take our word for it; go to a mosque, meet your neighbors. Or, you might even take a trip to the Middle East and learn about the issues and meet people firsthand. Yitzhak Komem, an Israeli high school teacher, wrote that a lack of “genuine human dimension of the Other is the greatest barrier to a realistic teaching of the Arab-Israeli conflict”. The flip-side to this statement is that exposing the human dimension of the Other is the greatest boon to a thorough understanding of the conflict and opens up paths for resolution.
#3. Press your leaders to act in accordance with our values.
We must decide if liberty, justice, equality are just nice words on paper, or are meant to be practiced. Or if they’re just for Americans, or for all peoples. Living in accordance with them might mean pressing our leaders for even-handedness on issues, such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict ,and not turning a blind eye when either side deprives the other of those rights.
#4. Heal divides in your own community.
It all begins at home. We can not expect to be peacemakers in a conflict “out there” if we are not practicing what we preach in our daily lives. Healing divides within ourselves, our families and our communities, has a powerful ripple effect and will create more efficient practitioners of peace and a wider circle of effort.
#5. Pray.
Some may think, if all else fails, pray, right? But prayer can be effective and powerful in situations that seem utterly hopeless. And prayer may be the only way conflicts centered on religion can be solved.
At Euphrates Institute, we are developing a Warriors for Peace initiative, soon to be unveiled, that will provide a deeper explanation of this idea and foster a community around it. But, here's a sneak peek of the steps each of us can take to be a warrior for peace, to truly be part of the solution, and to bring about peace in our world.
#1: Inform yourself—and then others.
Learn more, become well-versed in the topic and share the knowledge you gain with others.
#2: Meet the “other”.
Don’t take our word for it; go to a mosque, meet your neighbors. Or, you might even take a trip to the Middle East and learn about the issues and meet people firsthand. Yitzhak Komem, an Israeli high school teacher, wrote that a lack of “genuine human dimension of the Other is the greatest barrier to a realistic teaching of the Arab-Israeli conflict”. The flip-side to this statement is that exposing the human dimension of the Other is the greatest boon to a thorough understanding of the conflict and opens up paths for resolution.
#3. Press your leaders to act in accordance with our values.
We must decide if liberty, justice, equality are just nice words on paper, or are meant to be practiced. Or if they’re just for Americans, or for all peoples. Living in accordance with them might mean pressing our leaders for even-handedness on issues, such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict ,and not turning a blind eye when either side deprives the other of those rights.
#4. Heal divides in your own community.
It all begins at home. We can not expect to be peacemakers in a conflict “out there” if we are not practicing what we preach in our daily lives. Healing divides within ourselves, our families and our communities, has a powerful ripple effect and will create more efficient practitioners of peace and a wider circle of effort.
#5. Pray.
Some may think, if all else fails, pray, right? But prayer can be effective and powerful in situations that seem utterly hopeless. And prayer may be the only way conflicts centered on religion can be solved.
Wednesday, January 07, 2009
ATFP Pres: Mideast political conundrum
I had the opportunity to meet this article's author, the President of the American Task Force on Palestine this summer in DC. His article in the Washington Times is dispassionately and intelligently argued, and makes an excellent case for what needs to move forward and who needs to be involved to secure peace and stability.
Mideast political conundrum: Settlement expansion is a threat to peace negotiations
Ziad J. Asali
The Washington Times, Opinion
January 6, 2009
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jan/06/mideast-political-conund...
The renewed violence between Israel and Hamas, in which 1.5 million innocent Palestinians are caught, is yet another definitive demonstration that there is no military solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Israel will not be able to secure its future, normalize its relations with the region and live in peace without an agreement with the Palestinians; Palestinians will not achieve liberation and independence without an agreement with Israel.
The fundamental conundrum is that the Palestinians and Israel cannot completely bridge the gaps that separate them on their own. To achieve an agreement, both parties require an outside intervention, and that can only come from the United States.
Beyond the violence, there is a critical problem that renders the status quo unmanageable: this is the expansion of the settlements, which erodes the physical possibility of a two-state solution. Settlement expansion threatens the meaningfulness of future negotiations about the establishment of a Palestinian state and poisons the political atmosphere. It creates political problems in Israel by empowering a passionate and belligerent constituency opposed to necessary territorial compromises. The responsible leadership in the Palestinian Authority, and the whole Arab world, is largely defenseless against the accusation that they have failed to deliver as long as settlements grow.
Along with securing a lasting cease-fire in Gaza, freezing the settlements will be the main issue the incoming administration must deal with in its early days. There is an urgent need to buy time to prepare the political groundwork for a successful round of negotiations, bolster moderates on both sides, establish an effective framework, and perform the other necessary tasks that would have to precede an agreement, without continuing to lose ground and credibility.
The reality is that no Israeli political leadership has been able to take the bold step of enacting a comprehensive settlement freeze, even during the Oslo period, nor is one likely to be able to do so on its own and survive. Israeli leaders need help, even though doing this is in their country's own interest. Only the American president can give the vital and necessary political cover to an Israeli prime minister and cabinet for this step to be adopted. This cannot take the form of pressure but should instead reflect strategic understandings and interests.
Along with the United States, the Arab states have an important role to play in this equation. While expanding the dialogue and even negotiations at the appropriate level with all parties, we need to work on a strategic partnership with responsible Arab leaders committed to ending the conflict. Israel's freeze of settlement activity needs to be coupled with significant incentives provided by the Arab world. These could take the form of public movement towards operationalizing the Arab Peace Initiative that could serve as a reasonable quid pro quo for Israel's settlement freeze.
Many political issues in the Middle East are interconnected and interdependent. A comprehensive regional strategy is needed in which the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is prioritized. Even though dealing seriously with this issue with view to resolving it will not solve all the other problems, it would be uniquely helpful across the board. Acknowledging that no other achievable goal in the Middle East would have as many benefits to the United States, we must abandon any thoughts about managing this conflict and proceed with a serious strategy to resolve it.
Palestine is the ultimate political symbol in the Arab and Muslim world. Whoever is perceived as the authentic champion of that cause gains enormous, possibly unassailable, credibility. Permanently losing the issue to radical religious extremists would very likely pave the way to an unstoppable wave of revolts and even revolutions. The forces aligned with Iran could not wish for a more powerful weapon in their campaign to destabilize Arab regimes and the Arab state system, to promote domestic radicalism and regional rejectionalism.
The United States, Israel and the Arabs have much to fear from such a scenario, and all need to move quickly to defuse this ticking bomb. The strategic partnership must move public perceptions from a zero-sum game to a win-win scenario through a conflict-ending agreement.
Equally, and urgently, closer attention needs to be paid to damage inflicted on moderate and realistic policies, and their advocates, by a toxic public discourse being peddled in the Arabic-language media that puts pragmatism and realism itself on the defensive.
It should be clearly understood that the radical religious forces' main appeal is to the sense of injured dignity that the Palestinian, Arab and Muslim peoples feel intensely. Military defeats, daily humiliation, and gruesome images and accounts of suffering under the occupation, enhance rather than weaken their appeal.
The lack of a palpable improvement on the ground in the daily lives of the people of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, with continued humiliation and hardship, continues to be a serious failing of the present policy: It weakens the moderate leadership, strengthens radicals and breeds a toxic public political discourse.
Improvement of the quality-of-life for the Palestinians requires the further development of the Palestinian security system based on a nation-building doctrine rather than one perceived as serving to enforce the Israeli occupation; improving access and mobility; economic improvements and institutional development, including good governance - all of which will take time./ The Bush administration launched initiatives on some of these fronts since Annapolis that have begun to bear fruit and need to be expanded.
All the criticism notwithstanding, Annapolis has yielded several positive trends that must continue:
1) It reaffirmed the indispensible world commitment to a two-state solution.
2)It launched several channels of formal and serious negotiations between the Palestinians and Israelis dealing with all outstanding issues.
3) It was followed by the indispensible, and the unquestionably successful, rebuilding of the Palestinian security system.
4) It placed a premium on Palestinian economic development but was short on delivering sustainable vehicles for development.
5) It identified good governance as a major objective. The global instruments designated to achieve this goal have fallen far short and need to be reassessed. The twin policy of isolating Hamas and empowering moderates as implemented, has meant very little to the Palestinian people.
While the quality of life plummeted in Gaza under Hamas, the anticipated improvement in the quality of life for the Palestinians of the West Bank and Arab Jerusalem has simply failed to materialize. Failure to rectify that now would be political malpractice.
The two-state solution, as Winston Churchill once said about democracy, is the worst solution except for all the others. And, to make matters worse, it has an expiry date.
The Palestinians and Israelis have their futures, and even their survival - perhaps not just as states but as peoples - at stake. Decision makers who procrastinate may come to discover that their inaction has yielded the future to the advocates of paranoid delusions and primordial fears.
Just as the economic global crisis is offering an opportunity to rebuild the global economic system, the current crisis in the Middle East offers the opportunity to resolve the Palestine Israel conflict and to transform the political landscape, not just in the Middle East, but across the world.
Ziad J. Asali is president and founder of the American Task Force on Palestine.
Mideast political conundrum: Settlement expansion is a threat to peace negotiations
Ziad J. Asali
The Washington Times, Opinion
January 6, 2009
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jan/06/mideast-political-conund...
The renewed violence between Israel and Hamas, in which 1.5 million innocent Palestinians are caught, is yet another definitive demonstration that there is no military solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Israel will not be able to secure its future, normalize its relations with the region and live in peace without an agreement with the Palestinians; Palestinians will not achieve liberation and independence without an agreement with Israel.
The fundamental conundrum is that the Palestinians and Israel cannot completely bridge the gaps that separate them on their own. To achieve an agreement, both parties require an outside intervention, and that can only come from the United States.
Beyond the violence, there is a critical problem that renders the status quo unmanageable: this is the expansion of the settlements, which erodes the physical possibility of a two-state solution. Settlement expansion threatens the meaningfulness of future negotiations about the establishment of a Palestinian state and poisons the political atmosphere. It creates political problems in Israel by empowering a passionate and belligerent constituency opposed to necessary territorial compromises. The responsible leadership in the Palestinian Authority, and the whole Arab world, is largely defenseless against the accusation that they have failed to deliver as long as settlements grow.
Along with securing a lasting cease-fire in Gaza, freezing the settlements will be the main issue the incoming administration must deal with in its early days. There is an urgent need to buy time to prepare the political groundwork for a successful round of negotiations, bolster moderates on both sides, establish an effective framework, and perform the other necessary tasks that would have to precede an agreement, without continuing to lose ground and credibility.
The reality is that no Israeli political leadership has been able to take the bold step of enacting a comprehensive settlement freeze, even during the Oslo period, nor is one likely to be able to do so on its own and survive. Israeli leaders need help, even though doing this is in their country's own interest. Only the American president can give the vital and necessary political cover to an Israeli prime minister and cabinet for this step to be adopted. This cannot take the form of pressure but should instead reflect strategic understandings and interests.
Along with the United States, the Arab states have an important role to play in this equation. While expanding the dialogue and even negotiations at the appropriate level with all parties, we need to work on a strategic partnership with responsible Arab leaders committed to ending the conflict. Israel's freeze of settlement activity needs to be coupled with significant incentives provided by the Arab world. These could take the form of public movement towards operationalizing the Arab Peace Initiative that could serve as a reasonable quid pro quo for Israel's settlement freeze.
Many political issues in the Middle East are interconnected and interdependent. A comprehensive regional strategy is needed in which the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is prioritized. Even though dealing seriously with this issue with view to resolving it will not solve all the other problems, it would be uniquely helpful across the board. Acknowledging that no other achievable goal in the Middle East would have as many benefits to the United States, we must abandon any thoughts about managing this conflict and proceed with a serious strategy to resolve it.
Palestine is the ultimate political symbol in the Arab and Muslim world. Whoever is perceived as the authentic champion of that cause gains enormous, possibly unassailable, credibility. Permanently losing the issue to radical religious extremists would very likely pave the way to an unstoppable wave of revolts and even revolutions. The forces aligned with Iran could not wish for a more powerful weapon in their campaign to destabilize Arab regimes and the Arab state system, to promote domestic radicalism and regional rejectionalism.
The United States, Israel and the Arabs have much to fear from such a scenario, and all need to move quickly to defuse this ticking bomb. The strategic partnership must move public perceptions from a zero-sum game to a win-win scenario through a conflict-ending agreement.
Equally, and urgently, closer attention needs to be paid to damage inflicted on moderate and realistic policies, and their advocates, by a toxic public discourse being peddled in the Arabic-language media that puts pragmatism and realism itself on the defensive.
It should be clearly understood that the radical religious forces' main appeal is to the sense of injured dignity that the Palestinian, Arab and Muslim peoples feel intensely. Military defeats, daily humiliation, and gruesome images and accounts of suffering under the occupation, enhance rather than weaken their appeal.
The lack of a palpable improvement on the ground in the daily lives of the people of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, with continued humiliation and hardship, continues to be a serious failing of the present policy: It weakens the moderate leadership, strengthens radicals and breeds a toxic public political discourse.
Improvement of the quality-of-life for the Palestinians requires the further development of the Palestinian security system based on a nation-building doctrine rather than one perceived as serving to enforce the Israeli occupation; improving access and mobility; economic improvements and institutional development, including good governance - all of which will take time./ The Bush administration launched initiatives on some of these fronts since Annapolis that have begun to bear fruit and need to be expanded.
All the criticism notwithstanding, Annapolis has yielded several positive trends that must continue:
1) It reaffirmed the indispensible world commitment to a two-state solution.
2)It launched several channels of formal and serious negotiations between the Palestinians and Israelis dealing with all outstanding issues.
3) It was followed by the indispensible, and the unquestionably successful, rebuilding of the Palestinian security system.
4) It placed a premium on Palestinian economic development but was short on delivering sustainable vehicles for development.
5) It identified good governance as a major objective. The global instruments designated to achieve this goal have fallen far short and need to be reassessed. The twin policy of isolating Hamas and empowering moderates as implemented, has meant very little to the Palestinian people.
While the quality of life plummeted in Gaza under Hamas, the anticipated improvement in the quality of life for the Palestinians of the West Bank and Arab Jerusalem has simply failed to materialize. Failure to rectify that now would be political malpractice.
The two-state solution, as Winston Churchill once said about democracy, is the worst solution except for all the others. And, to make matters worse, it has an expiry date.
The Palestinians and Israelis have their futures, and even their survival - perhaps not just as states but as peoples - at stake. Decision makers who procrastinate may come to discover that their inaction has yielded the future to the advocates of paranoid delusions and primordial fears.
Just as the economic global crisis is offering an opportunity to rebuild the global economic system, the current crisis in the Middle East offers the opportunity to resolve the Palestine Israel conflict and to transform the political landscape, not just in the Middle East, but across the world.
Ziad J. Asali is president and founder of the American Task Force on Palestine.
Tuesday, January 06, 2009
Gaza: a light shining out of darkness
Like many others I've heard from, I have been deeply dismayed by the conflict in Gaza and the media coverage surrounding it. I think this op-ed in the Washington Post gets at the fundamental reason why this war is pointless, because it will not actually achieve the security Israel needs, nor the rights and justice the Palestinians deserve.
Here is a quote from the article that was written by an Israeli woman living on the border with Gaza.
But I know the answer to our conflict will not come with this war. We will know peace only when we accept the fact that the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip have every right to lives of dignity. We will know peace only when we recognize that we must negotiate with Hamas, our enemy, even if we are devastated that the Palestinians did not elect a more moderate party to lead them. We will know peace only when our leaders stop considering our lives cheap and expendable, and help us create a beautiful, green Negev, free of fear and despair.
Darkness in Qassam-Land
By Julia Chaitin
Wednesday, December 31, 2008; A15
In the winter, the Negev becomes quite beautiful. Though it rains very little here, the rain we get turns everything green, and there is a cleanness in the air that we don't have during the dry summer months. But since Saturday, when a major Israeli offensive began in the Gaza Strip, less than 20 kilometers from my home and less than two kilometers from the college where I teach, all we have had is darkness, despair and fear.
This war is wrong. It is wrong because it cannot achieve its manifest goals -- long-term "normal" life for the residents of the Negev region. The war is morally wrong because most of the victims are Palestinian and Israeli civilians whose only "crime" is that they live in Negev or Gaza. This war is wrong because it is not heading toward a viable solution of the conflict but is instead creating more hatred and greater determination on the part of both peoples to harm one another. It is wrong because it is leading to stronger feelings that we have nothing to lose by striking further, with greater force. This war is wrong because, even before the last smoke rises from the rubble and the last ambulance carries the dead and wounded to hospitals, our leaders will find themselves signing a new agreement for a cease-fire.
And so this is an unnecessary, cruel and cynical war -- a war that could have been avoided if our leaders had shown courage during the months of the cease-fire to truly work toward creating better lives for people whose only crime is that they live in the south.
Since the Israeli air force began bombing Gaza, it has been almost impossible to speak openly against the war. It is difficult to find public forums that welcome a call for a new cease-fire and for alternative solutions to the conflict -- ones that do not rely on military strength or a siege of Gaza. When people are in the midst of war, they are not open to voices of peace; they speak (and scream) out of fear and demand retribution for the harms they have suffered. When people are in the midst of war, they forget that they can harness higher cognitive abilities, their reason and logic. Instead, they are driven by the hot structures of their brains, which lead them to respond with fear and anger in ways that are objective threats to our healthy survival. When people are in the midst of war, voices calling for restraint, dialogue and negotiations fall on deaf ears, if their expression is allowed at all.
I live in the Negev and teach at the Sapir Academic College -- the school located next to Sderot -- in the heart of what is called "Qassam-land," after the rockets that fall on us. I know the fast beating of your heart and the awful pit in your stomach that comes when a tzeve adom -- red alert -- is sounded, heralding a rocket attack. I know what it is like to comfort students and colleagues when the rockets strike very, very close -- and to wish that someone was there to comfort you as well. I know what it is like to be afraid to get into the car and drive to work because you are not sure you will make it from the parking lot to your classroom alive.
But I know the answer to our conflict will not come with this war. We will know peace only when we accept the fact that the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip have every right to lives of dignity. We will know peace only when we recognize that we must negotiate with Hamas, our enemy, even if we are devastated that the Palestinians did not elect a more moderate party to lead them. We will know peace only when our leaders stop considering our lives cheap and expendable, and help us create a beautiful, green Negev, free of fear and despair.
The writer is a senior lecturer in the Department of Social Work at the Sapir Academic College and program developer at the Negev Institute for Strategies of Peace and Development.
Here is a quote from the article that was written by an Israeli woman living on the border with Gaza.
But I know the answer to our conflict will not come with this war. We will know peace only when we accept the fact that the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip have every right to lives of dignity. We will know peace only when we recognize that we must negotiate with Hamas, our enemy, even if we are devastated that the Palestinians did not elect a more moderate party to lead them. We will know peace only when our leaders stop considering our lives cheap and expendable, and help us create a beautiful, green Negev, free of fear and despair.
Darkness in Qassam-Land
By Julia Chaitin
Wednesday, December 31, 2008; A15
In the winter, the Negev becomes quite beautiful. Though it rains very little here, the rain we get turns everything green, and there is a cleanness in the air that we don't have during the dry summer months. But since Saturday, when a major Israeli offensive began in the Gaza Strip, less than 20 kilometers from my home and less than two kilometers from the college where I teach, all we have had is darkness, despair and fear.
This war is wrong. It is wrong because it cannot achieve its manifest goals -- long-term "normal" life for the residents of the Negev region. The war is morally wrong because most of the victims are Palestinian and Israeli civilians whose only "crime" is that they live in Negev or Gaza. This war is wrong because it is not heading toward a viable solution of the conflict but is instead creating more hatred and greater determination on the part of both peoples to harm one another. It is wrong because it is leading to stronger feelings that we have nothing to lose by striking further, with greater force. This war is wrong because, even before the last smoke rises from the rubble and the last ambulance carries the dead and wounded to hospitals, our leaders will find themselves signing a new agreement for a cease-fire.
And so this is an unnecessary, cruel and cynical war -- a war that could have been avoided if our leaders had shown courage during the months of the cease-fire to truly work toward creating better lives for people whose only crime is that they live in the south.
Since the Israeli air force began bombing Gaza, it has been almost impossible to speak openly against the war. It is difficult to find public forums that welcome a call for a new cease-fire and for alternative solutions to the conflict -- ones that do not rely on military strength or a siege of Gaza. When people are in the midst of war, they are not open to voices of peace; they speak (and scream) out of fear and demand retribution for the harms they have suffered. When people are in the midst of war, they forget that they can harness higher cognitive abilities, their reason and logic. Instead, they are driven by the hot structures of their brains, which lead them to respond with fear and anger in ways that are objective threats to our healthy survival. When people are in the midst of war, voices calling for restraint, dialogue and negotiations fall on deaf ears, if their expression is allowed at all.
I live in the Negev and teach at the Sapir Academic College -- the school located next to Sderot -- in the heart of what is called "Qassam-land," after the rockets that fall on us. I know the fast beating of your heart and the awful pit in your stomach that comes when a tzeve adom -- red alert -- is sounded, heralding a rocket attack. I know what it is like to comfort students and colleagues when the rockets strike very, very close -- and to wish that someone was there to comfort you as well. I know what it is like to be afraid to get into the car and drive to work because you are not sure you will make it from the parking lot to your classroom alive.
But I know the answer to our conflict will not come with this war. We will know peace only when we accept the fact that the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip have every right to lives of dignity. We will know peace only when we recognize that we must negotiate with Hamas, our enemy, even if we are devastated that the Palestinians did not elect a more moderate party to lead them. We will know peace only when our leaders stop considering our lives cheap and expendable, and help us create a beautiful, green Negev, free of fear and despair.
The writer is a senior lecturer in the Department of Social Work at the Sapir Academic College and program developer at the Negev Institute for Strategies of Peace and Development.
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
"Prayer this Christmas"
A dear friend of mine, Jill Gooding, recently returned from a trip to Israel and the West Bank, which included a visit to Bethlehem. She wrote this inspiring and uplifting poem that has very special meaning at Christmas. Enjoy and Merry Christmas!
Written after seeing the wall in Bethlehem, dividing Israel and Palestine,
November 2008
They come in teeming busloads
To Bethlehem today
To see the spot of Jesus birth
To find out where he lay.
But -
A wall divides that little town;
Bethlehem’s not the same
As when those shepherds and the flocks
In awe and wonder came.
A wall is there to separate
Brother man from brother;
It tries to say in concrete form
That God is not “our” Father.
A wall just speaks of hate, not love;
A wall is built on fear;
A wall says yes, we are at war;
And shouts, “God is not here.”
But the Bible tells us clearly:
“For He is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in Himself of twain one new man (nation) so making peace.”
Ephesians 2:14,15
So may our prayer this Christmas
Be to see our world ‘unwalled’;
Graffiti-less, unbounded, free,
Where everyone is called
To be the royal child of God,
Not hemmed in by a wall,
But one united family
Kneeling at Bethlehem’s stall.
May your Christmas be filled with
the SIMPLICITY of the first Christmas,
the JOY of the angels at that time,
the LOVE that the shepherds brought,
the ABUNDANCE given by the three kings,
and the RADIANCE of that guiding star:
and may true UNITY be felt at your firesides
and in the world.
--Jill Gooding
The pictures are from my past trips to Bethlehem. They include the Church of the Nativity, Jesus' manger inside the church, and various pictures of the wall surrounding Bethlehem. See my previous Bethlehem blogpost for details on my last trip there.
Merry Christmas to all!
Thursday, December 18, 2008
NYT: Iraq May Ban Blackwater
Despite the uproar my Oct. 07 Blackwater op-ed in the Los Angeles Times produced, I am not an anti-Blackwater ideologue. I simply questioned operations like Blackwater whose practices undermine the whole reason for our being in Iraq in the first place. Especially when there were other security firms who were doing the same job but with less of an adverse impact on the daily lives of Iraqis.
There's really no need to ban Blackwater from Iraq, just a definite need to amend its tactics so as not to undercut the "winning the peace" effort. And it seems this is already happening...see the part in bold in today's NYT article below. I'm heartened to learn this, and hope that all current and future security companies will act similarly.
December 18, 2008
Report Says Iraq May Ban Blackwater
By SCOTT SHANE
WASHINGTON — The State Department’s inspector general has warned in a new report that Blackwater Worldwide, the security contractor, may not be licensed by the Iraqi government to continue to protect American diplomats in Baghdad next year, forcing the Obama administration to make new security arrangements.
The report says that if State Department contractors lose their immunity from criminal prosecution under Iraqi law, as many officials expect, employees of Blackwater and other contractors may choose to leave Iraq or demand higher pay. Five Blackwater guards were indicted this month in a 2007 shooting in Baghdad that killed at least 17 Iraqis.
Unlike some American contractors in Iraq, Blackwater does not have a license, but it has applied for one. Iraqi authorities have allowed it to operate while officials consider the application.
The inspector general’s findings were first reported Wednesday by The Associated Press, and The New York Times obtained a copy of the report.
The report says the State Department “faces a real possibility” that no license will be granted and that the Iraqi government will ban Blackwater. The American Embassy in Baghdad would then face a major challenge; officials said Blackwater’s services would not be easily replaced.
State Department officials have said they will decide whether to renew Blackwater’s contract in April only after the F.B.I. completes its inquiry into the contractor’s role in the shooting.
The report by Harold W. Geisel, the acting inspector general, finds that changes since the 2007 shooting “have resulted in a more professional security operation and the curtailment of overly aggressive actions” by contractors toward Iraqi civilians.
In response to its findings, Senator John Kerry, the Massachusetts Democrat who will take over the Foreign Relations Committee next month, again urged the State Department to drop Blackwater as an Iraq contractor.
A Blackwater spokeswoman, Anne E. Tyrrell, declined to comment because the report had not been officially released.
There's really no need to ban Blackwater from Iraq, just a definite need to amend its tactics so as not to undercut the "winning the peace" effort. And it seems this is already happening...see the part in bold in today's NYT article below. I'm heartened to learn this, and hope that all current and future security companies will act similarly.
December 18, 2008
Report Says Iraq May Ban Blackwater
By SCOTT SHANE
WASHINGTON — The State Department’s inspector general has warned in a new report that Blackwater Worldwide, the security contractor, may not be licensed by the Iraqi government to continue to protect American diplomats in Baghdad next year, forcing the Obama administration to make new security arrangements.
The report says that if State Department contractors lose their immunity from criminal prosecution under Iraqi law, as many officials expect, employees of Blackwater and other contractors may choose to leave Iraq or demand higher pay. Five Blackwater guards were indicted this month in a 2007 shooting in Baghdad that killed at least 17 Iraqis.
Unlike some American contractors in Iraq, Blackwater does not have a license, but it has applied for one. Iraqi authorities have allowed it to operate while officials consider the application.
The inspector general’s findings were first reported Wednesday by The Associated Press, and The New York Times obtained a copy of the report.
The report says the State Department “faces a real possibility” that no license will be granted and that the Iraqi government will ban Blackwater. The American Embassy in Baghdad would then face a major challenge; officials said Blackwater’s services would not be easily replaced.
State Department officials have said they will decide whether to renew Blackwater’s contract in April only after the F.B.I. completes its inquiry into the contractor’s role in the shooting.
The report by Harold W. Geisel, the acting inspector general, finds that changes since the 2007 shooting “have resulted in a more professional security operation and the curtailment of overly aggressive actions” by contractors toward Iraqi civilians.
In response to its findings, Senator John Kerry, the Massachusetts Democrat who will take over the Foreign Relations Committee next month, again urged the State Department to drop Blackwater as an Iraq contractor.
A Blackwater spokeswoman, Anne E. Tyrrell, declined to comment because the report had not been officially released.
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
UN passes Middle East Resolution
The UN Security Council has adopted a resolution aimed at giving fresh momentum to the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, according to yesterday's BBC News report. The text of the article is below.
The resolution describes US-brokered talks between Israelis and Palestinians as "irreversible" and urges greater diplomatic efforts to secure a deal.
The resolution is the first on the Middle East issue adopted by the 15-member council in almost five years.
It passed by 14 votes to zero. One council member, Libya, abstained.
The draft calls on both parties to "refrain from any steps that could undermine confidence or prejudice the outcome of negotiations".
It also urges an "intensification of diplomatic efforts" to build lasting peace in the Middle East.
The US-brokered negotiations were launched at Annapolis, Maryland, in November 2007, with the goal of achieving a peace deal before President George W Bush leaves office on 20 January 2009.
This is not going to happen but, says the BBC's Laura Trevelyan at the UN, the resolution gives the security council's backing for the talks to continue.
Diplomats say the resolution is America's attempt to carry over any progress to Barack Obama's administration.
Polls suggest the hawkish Binjamin Netanyahu could be elected Israeli prime minister in February, however, and he does not want to carry on with the negotiations in their current format, our correspondent adds.
The resolution describes US-brokered talks between Israelis and Palestinians as "irreversible" and urges greater diplomatic efforts to secure a deal.
The resolution is the first on the Middle East issue adopted by the 15-member council in almost five years.
It passed by 14 votes to zero. One council member, Libya, abstained.
The draft calls on both parties to "refrain from any steps that could undermine confidence or prejudice the outcome of negotiations".
It also urges an "intensification of diplomatic efforts" to build lasting peace in the Middle East.
The US-brokered negotiations were launched at Annapolis, Maryland, in November 2007, with the goal of achieving a peace deal before President George W Bush leaves office on 20 January 2009.
This is not going to happen but, says the BBC's Laura Trevelyan at the UN, the resolution gives the security council's backing for the talks to continue.
Diplomats say the resolution is America's attempt to carry over any progress to Barack Obama's administration.
Polls suggest the hawkish Binjamin Netanyahu could be elected Israeli prime minister in February, however, and he does not want to carry on with the negotiations in their current format, our correspondent adds.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
"Very Shameful" Shoe-throwing incident
I was stunned by yesterday's news report about an Iraqi journalist throwing his shoes at President Bush, during his press conference in Baghdad. I was chatting with an Iraqi friend online last night and asked for his thoughts. Here's his viewpoint...
Me: Did you hear about the shoe-throwing incident at Bush? What do you think?
Iraqi friend: Very shameful! All decent people are ashamed of it. You should read the Iraqi press and the internet
Me: Well, the demonstrations on the street in support of the shoe-thrower are getting a ton of press, too..
Iraqi friend: The few Sadris? (supporters of Muqtada al-Sadr) Come on...
Me: What's the Iraqi press saying about it?
Iraqi friend: Read the comments from thousands of people on the internet. They are very embarassed and ashamed that a guest has been treated like this. Look at sites like SotalIraq and elaph.com
Me: Why are decent people embarassed? Because it wasn't appropriate? Aren't a lot of Iraqis mad at Bush?
Iraqi friend: Many people are calling Bush a liberator and it was his work and the freedom he brought that allowed this guy to do what he did. Plus, he was a guest of the people of Iraq. Many people are saying that they hated Bush until the incident and now they are embarrassed because this was simply bad manners towards a guest.
Monday, December 15, 2008
Walking from Nazareth to Bethlehem for Christmas
This is so neat. A friend just forwarded me this link to a BBC reporter's online diary, starting today, of his walk from Nazareth to Bethlehem, intending to make it by Christmas. He'll be traveling through military checkpoints and disputed territory in the Israel and West Bank. You can follow along on his daily adventures via video and text here.
Why is he doing it?
(This from the BBC article.) BBC correspondent Aleem Maqbool explains his motivation for retracing the Christmas journey made by Joseph and Mary in the New Testament.
For all the sacred places in this region - Jerusalem, Bethlehem, Nazareth, Jericho - it is the land in-between where you can often feel most connected to history.
The hills and valleys have played a part in so many of the stories that still shape the lives of millions around the world today.
Whether you believe Mary and Joseph's walk ever took place or not, most of us became familiar with the story at a young age.
Many of us are even scarred by embarrassing moments acting in school nativity plays - or perhaps that is just me... I once played a sheep.
If it did happen, the journey of around 150km (93 miles), along Roman roads and dirt tracks, is likely to have been an arduous one, particularly for a heavily pregnant woman.
What does not get included in the nativity plays, is the probability that the couple also faced hostility from Samaritans who lived in what is now the northern West Bank.
Complex land
Of course, there are new difficulties today. The supposed route goes through areas of continued conflict between Israelis and Palestinians.
Army incursions, militancy, and checkpoints manned by soldiers are commonplace, and all have the potential to interrupt my journey.
Still, the notion of a walk from Nazareth to Bethlehem is, for me, a romantic one.
When I have told people here what I intend to do, they have generally seemed quite amused, but understand that it is a vehicle to tell modern day stories along this ancient route.
It will hopefully help me to get to know at least a little bit more about this complex land through getting to hear people's stories on the way.
For carrying daily provisions and equipment, a donkey seemed as practical a solution now as it might have done two millennia ago, and will, of course, be an added connection to the tale that inspired the journey.
Sunday, December 14, 2008
"Life is Good" comes full circle
I often marvel at life's coincidences. Two of my students are currently vacationing in Lake Placid, New York, and they were walking through a shopping center and popped into a Life is Good store. If you don't know Life is Good, they are the laid-back t-shirt and paraphernalia store with the infectiously optimistic mantra and the ubiquitous smile of Jake, their logo.
My students, Hillary Austin and Alyson Wright, pictured left and right, respectively, were browsing the store and came across a notebook of various letters to Life is Good. To their surprise, they noticed one of them was from me while I was living in Baghdad. They sent me this picture holding the notebook with my letter that reads,
Hi “Life is good” crew,
I thought you all would enjoy the attached picture taken in Baghdad, Iraq where I have been for over a year. Playing Ultimate Frisbee with local Iraqis (teaching them the game has been a hoot!) and subscribing to the motto “life is good”, even amidst falling mortars and rockets, have kept us going.
My dear friend sent me a bunch of your stickers, the disc, and a few other things. They are a huge hit here as you can imagine how much people are thirsting for reminders of life (rather than death) and even more so, reminders that life is good. Here we have even started a daily report, the “good news goose”, where we can note good things that have happened to us during the day. It’s all a part of keeping the right focus.
Thank you so much for all you’re doing and for your infectious optimism and enthusiasm. It is felt in all corners of the world!
Cheers,
Janessa
I find it so amazing how things come full circle...that students of mine with whom I'm sharing my passion for the Middle East would remind me of the time in which my own passion was cultivated. What a cool world. Thanks Hillary and Alyson! :-)
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Carter's op-ed in WaPo, "Obama's Human Rights Opportunity"
Carter is the man. He is one of my greatest heroes and I so hoped I would fatefully bump in to him during my trip to the Carter Center earlier this year in Atlanta, GA. Oh well. I at least proudly sport my Carter Center t-shirt and hat. Here's a guy who took "retirement" to a whole new level, embarking on peace-keeping missions, democratic reforms, and health care worldwide. If you haven't checked out his book Our Endangered Values: America's Moral Crisis, it's a must-read. And I've mentioned his Palestine, Peace not Apartheid book before.
Here is his latest op-ed in yesterday's Washington Post, in which he takes his usual clear stand for our values over fear tactics in the name of "security".
Obama's Human Rights Opportunity
By Jimmy Carter
Wednesday, December 10, 2008; A25
The advancement of human rights around the world was a cornerstone of foreign policy and U.S. leadership for decades, until the attacks on our country on Sept. 11, 2001.
Since then, while Americans continue to espouse freedom and democracy, our government's abusive practices have undermined struggles for freedom in many parts of the world. As the gross abuses at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay were revealed, the United States lost its mantle as a champion of human rights, eliminating our national ability to speak credibly on the subject, let alone restrain or gain concessions from oppressors. Tragically, a global backlash against democracy and rights activists, who are now the targets of abuse, has followed.
The advancement of human rights and democracy is necessary for global stability and can be achieved only through the local, often heroic, efforts of individuals who speak out against injustice and oppression -- endeavors the United States should lead, not impede. If the early warnings of human rights activists had been heeded and tough diplomacy and timely intervention mobilized, the horrific, and in some cases ongoing, violence in Bosnia, Rwanda, Sudan's Darfur region and the Democratic Republic of the Congo might have been averted.
Today marks the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. With a new administration and a new vision coming to the White House, we have the opportunity to move boldly to restore the moral authority behind the worldwide human rights movement. But the first steps must be taken at home.
President-elect Barack Obama has pledged to shut down the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay and end torture, which can be accomplished by executive orders to close the prison and by enforcing existing prohibitions against torture by any U.S. representative, including FBI and CIA agents. The detention of people secretly or indefinitely and without due process must cease, and their cases should be transferred to our courts, which have proved their competence in trying those accused of terrorism. Further, a nonpartisan expert commission should be named to conduct a thorough review of U.S. practices related to unwarranted arrest, torture, secret detention, extraordinary rendition, abandonment of habeas corpus and related matters. Acknowledging to the world that the United States also has made mistakes will give credence to our becoming "a more perfect union" -- a message that would resonate worldwide. Together, these actions will help us restore our nation's principles and embolden others abroad who want higher moral standards for their own societies.
By putting its house in order, the United States would reclaim its moral authority and wield not only the political capital but also the credibility needed to engage in frank but respectful bilateral dialogues on the protection of human rights as central to world peace and prosperity. Human rights defenders around the world, whose annual conference began at the Carter Center this week, are eagerly awaiting the Obama administration. In Pakistan, they look for our help in restoring the rule of law that was undermined when the United States sided with Pervez Musharraf as he debilitated an independent-minded Supreme Court. Defenders of the struggling democratic movement in Egypt seek a tough U.S. stance supporting free and fair elections and ending the abuse of opposition political candidates. Throughout the Middle East, there is hope that the United States will move more aggressively and persistently to help orchestrate a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the prism through which the region measures the U.S. commitment to human rights.
In the war-ravaged Democratic Republic of the Congo, rights defenders under daily threat hope the United States will pressure its allies in Rwanda and Uganda to withdraw support from proxy forces that continue to wreak havoc there. All agree that the United States should reengage with agencies of the United Nations to make that body a more effective tool to protect human rights, knowing that this must be a global effort.
The moral footprint of the United States has always been vast. Our next president has an unprecedented opportunity to lead through example by inspiring and supporting those who would reach for freedom and by being tough and effective with those who would impede freedom's march. All Americans must give him full support.
The writer, the 39th president, is founder of the Carter Center, a not-for-profit organization advancing peace and health worldwide.
Here is his latest op-ed in yesterday's Washington Post, in which he takes his usual clear stand for our values over fear tactics in the name of "security".
Obama's Human Rights Opportunity
By Jimmy Carter
Wednesday, December 10, 2008; A25
The advancement of human rights around the world was a cornerstone of foreign policy and U.S. leadership for decades, until the attacks on our country on Sept. 11, 2001.
Since then, while Americans continue to espouse freedom and democracy, our government's abusive practices have undermined struggles for freedom in many parts of the world. As the gross abuses at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay were revealed, the United States lost its mantle as a champion of human rights, eliminating our national ability to speak credibly on the subject, let alone restrain or gain concessions from oppressors. Tragically, a global backlash against democracy and rights activists, who are now the targets of abuse, has followed.
The advancement of human rights and democracy is necessary for global stability and can be achieved only through the local, often heroic, efforts of individuals who speak out against injustice and oppression -- endeavors the United States should lead, not impede. If the early warnings of human rights activists had been heeded and tough diplomacy and timely intervention mobilized, the horrific, and in some cases ongoing, violence in Bosnia, Rwanda, Sudan's Darfur region and the Democratic Republic of the Congo might have been averted.
Today marks the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. With a new administration and a new vision coming to the White House, we have the opportunity to move boldly to restore the moral authority behind the worldwide human rights movement. But the first steps must be taken at home.
President-elect Barack Obama has pledged to shut down the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay and end torture, which can be accomplished by executive orders to close the prison and by enforcing existing prohibitions against torture by any U.S. representative, including FBI and CIA agents. The detention of people secretly or indefinitely and without due process must cease, and their cases should be transferred to our courts, which have proved their competence in trying those accused of terrorism. Further, a nonpartisan expert commission should be named to conduct a thorough review of U.S. practices related to unwarranted arrest, torture, secret detention, extraordinary rendition, abandonment of habeas corpus and related matters. Acknowledging to the world that the United States also has made mistakes will give credence to our becoming "a more perfect union" -- a message that would resonate worldwide. Together, these actions will help us restore our nation's principles and embolden others abroad who want higher moral standards for their own societies.
By putting its house in order, the United States would reclaim its moral authority and wield not only the political capital but also the credibility needed to engage in frank but respectful bilateral dialogues on the protection of human rights as central to world peace and prosperity. Human rights defenders around the world, whose annual conference began at the Carter Center this week, are eagerly awaiting the Obama administration. In Pakistan, they look for our help in restoring the rule of law that was undermined when the United States sided with Pervez Musharraf as he debilitated an independent-minded Supreme Court. Defenders of the struggling democratic movement in Egypt seek a tough U.S. stance supporting free and fair elections and ending the abuse of opposition political candidates. Throughout the Middle East, there is hope that the United States will move more aggressively and persistently to help orchestrate a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the prism through which the region measures the U.S. commitment to human rights.
In the war-ravaged Democratic Republic of the Congo, rights defenders under daily threat hope the United States will pressure its allies in Rwanda and Uganda to withdraw support from proxy forces that continue to wreak havoc there. All agree that the United States should reengage with agencies of the United Nations to make that body a more effective tool to protect human rights, knowing that this must be a global effort.
The moral footprint of the United States has always been vast. Our next president has an unprecedented opportunity to lead through example by inspiring and supporting those who would reach for freedom and by being tough and effective with those who would impede freedom's march. All Americans must give him full support.
The writer, the 39th president, is founder of the Carter Center, a not-for-profit organization advancing peace and health worldwide.
Monday, December 01, 2008
"Why am I for Obama?" published in Iraqi news weekly
Happy belated Thanksgiving to all! I just had an article published in Arabic in a leading Iraqi news weekly, called Al Esbuyia, or Iraq Weekly, entitled "Why am I for Obama". Al Esbuyia recently made other news by publishing a political cartoon depicting female suicide bombers that provoked the ire of Iraqi parliamentarians.
Here's the link to the article in Arabic, Why am I for Obama?, and the original pasted below in English. Unfortunately, I don't think the poem made it through the final edit, but I thought I'd leave it here for you to read.
As the article points out, most Iraqis I knew supported McCain, and it was helpful to get this note back from an Iraqi friend after he read the article. "Your perspective gives me hope because I hoped McCain would win, but your article shows that Obama will understand Iraq better and hopefully help it while serving the American people. By the way, congratulations on such amazing elections and groundbreaking outcome."
Why am I for Obama?
Unlike for Republican candidate John McCain, Iraq was never President-elect Barack Obama’s lodestar. Obama opposed the US invasion into Iraq in 2003 as well as the troop “surge” in 2007. Even during his campaign, Obama preferred to focus attention on what he considered the real fight in Afghanistan, from which Iraq was just a distraction, and a costly one at that. We “took our eye off the ball” with our myopic obsession of winning the war in Iraq at the expense of catching Osama Bin Ladin, Obama proclaimed in the first presidential debate with McCain.
Does Obama’s lackluster consideration of Iraq make Iraqis nervous? From my informal canvassing of my Iraqi acquaintances, it seemed to. Many preferred McCain because of what they perceived to be his iron-clad determination to stay put until democracy is shored and security restored.
But recent events seem to poke holes in my theory that Iraqis are wary of Obama. The Iraqi cabinet just signed the elusive security pact with the United States, in part because members believed that an Obama administration would actually respect the timetable because it more closely coincided with, and even elongated, his own stated plan of 16-months. There was some distrust as to whether a Republican administration would stick with the notion of pulling out of a country on which it had staked its entire foreign policy (not to mention its grand plans to remake the Middle East)—especially if that country were descending into chaos, disorder, and left an image of leaving with our tail between our legs. An opposition administration would have no problem deeming the whole operation a failure, proclaiming how badly the previous government screwed it up, and making a public vow that they never would have or never would in the future make such poor decisions.
It is true, however, that McCain had visited Iraq many times and took on the issue with much passion and fervor. One could say that he cared much more deeply about the situation in Iraq; he saw Iraqi success and security as inseparable from American success and security, versus Obama’s more flippant attitude. However, prioritization does not ensure right decision-making, or even intelligent policy. Obama, though less knowledgeable and experienced on Iraqi issues, is, as many pundits have pointed out, a very “quick study”, and very comfortable with nuance and complexity, without which one could not even hope to grasp the labyrinth of Iraqi politics and history. McCain, on the other hand, despite his experience, has often confused “Sunnis” and “Shias” and has been criticized as similar to President Bush in his tendency to avoid fine distinctions.
Another reason why Obama might be good for Iraq is his stated penchant for “talking” before fighting. This helps especially with Iran, whose Ahmedinejad already sent Obama a conciliatory overture in a letter of congratulations after his election. Obama’s election—and the prospect of a less hostile administration occupying its neighbor— also might have softened Iran’s opposition to Iraq’s security pact with the United States, according to political analysts. The notion a rising regional power and the world’s superpower engaging in more diplomatic exchanges rather than proxy wars inside Iraq is a heart-warming outlook for Iraqi security indeed.
It’s probably becoming clear where my biases lie, with my intent extolling of Obama’s virtues. But, in truth, I have two biases—I am staunchly pro-Iraq and pro-Obama, (and I’ve been pro-Iraq for longer). After witnessing (and sometimes participating) in the incredible mistakes committed during the first two years of the American program in Iraq, I believe the best thing for Iraq is to have an America in its midst that understands that it has taken a wrong turn somewhere in the past years and that change must happen. This view has been the mantra of Obama’s campaign. He has also stressed that we must not only talk about, but live up to, and act on our ideals, whether that involves repairing frayed friendships, talking to our enemies, closing an ignominy like Guantanamo prison, or leaving a country that asked us to.
Along with the prospect of a changed America that Obama brings with him, the election itself also brought home the example of something so wonderful about America that doesn’t change—the power of democracy. This month’s election showcased the peaceful transition of power and a transparent process that involved real choice, real accountability, and fairness. And the election of the first African-American candidate showed that anything is possible.
This thrilling election reminded me of another election just as powerful—in Iraq on January 30, 2005. At the polling center I visited that day and the Iraqis with whom I spoke, I saw the faces lit up with glee at the “feeling of freedom” and of the opportunity to have a personal say and stake in the future of their country. It was an incredibly moving sight to witness voters who were braving dire and grave terrorist threats to cast their ballots and demonstrate their freedom. As Iraq heads into this tense period before its upcoming provincial elections, I hope the recent American elections remind the Iraqi people of their own in 2005, during which Iraqis banded together to defeat fear, intimidation, and violence. You truly showed the world that anything was possible, and reminded us of that most powerful force—freedom. Allow me to share the poem I wrote on that day.
Badge of Honor
My finger is still purple,
My tears are still wet,
With the feeling of freedom.
My heart is overwhelmed by their joy,
Their hope, their courage.
I am humbled, bowed before them.
They are the lights shining in darkness.
They are the river, the lifeblood of the world!
This is their gift to us, their purpose.
They have not only changed themselves and their country.
Their fight is for the world,
Tipping the balance on the side of freedom.
What could express the depth of our gratitude?
They say we saved them from the maniacal regime;
We gave them democracy.
Little do they know they are giving it back to us,
Giving us their example of freedom from fear,
Of the rewards of courage.
True warriors,
Each ballot a sword brandished against evil,
Each purple finger a
Badge of honor.
Here's the link to the article in Arabic, Why am I for Obama?, and the original pasted below in English. Unfortunately, I don't think the poem made it through the final edit, but I thought I'd leave it here for you to read.
As the article points out, most Iraqis I knew supported McCain, and it was helpful to get this note back from an Iraqi friend after he read the article. "Your perspective gives me hope because I hoped McCain would win, but your article shows that Obama will understand Iraq better and hopefully help it while serving the American people. By the way, congratulations on such amazing elections and groundbreaking outcome."
Why am I for Obama?
Unlike for Republican candidate John McCain, Iraq was never President-elect Barack Obama’s lodestar. Obama opposed the US invasion into Iraq in 2003 as well as the troop “surge” in 2007. Even during his campaign, Obama preferred to focus attention on what he considered the real fight in Afghanistan, from which Iraq was just a distraction, and a costly one at that. We “took our eye off the ball” with our myopic obsession of winning the war in Iraq at the expense of catching Osama Bin Ladin, Obama proclaimed in the first presidential debate with McCain.
Does Obama’s lackluster consideration of Iraq make Iraqis nervous? From my informal canvassing of my Iraqi acquaintances, it seemed to. Many preferred McCain because of what they perceived to be his iron-clad determination to stay put until democracy is shored and security restored.
But recent events seem to poke holes in my theory that Iraqis are wary of Obama. The Iraqi cabinet just signed the elusive security pact with the United States, in part because members believed that an Obama administration would actually respect the timetable because it more closely coincided with, and even elongated, his own stated plan of 16-months. There was some distrust as to whether a Republican administration would stick with the notion of pulling out of a country on which it had staked its entire foreign policy (not to mention its grand plans to remake the Middle East)—especially if that country were descending into chaos, disorder, and left an image of leaving with our tail between our legs. An opposition administration would have no problem deeming the whole operation a failure, proclaiming how badly the previous government screwed it up, and making a public vow that they never would have or never would in the future make such poor decisions.
It is true, however, that McCain had visited Iraq many times and took on the issue with much passion and fervor. One could say that he cared much more deeply about the situation in Iraq; he saw Iraqi success and security as inseparable from American success and security, versus Obama’s more flippant attitude. However, prioritization does not ensure right decision-making, or even intelligent policy. Obama, though less knowledgeable and experienced on Iraqi issues, is, as many pundits have pointed out, a very “quick study”, and very comfortable with nuance and complexity, without which one could not even hope to grasp the labyrinth of Iraqi politics and history. McCain, on the other hand, despite his experience, has often confused “Sunnis” and “Shias” and has been criticized as similar to President Bush in his tendency to avoid fine distinctions.
Another reason why Obama might be good for Iraq is his stated penchant for “talking” before fighting. This helps especially with Iran, whose Ahmedinejad already sent Obama a conciliatory overture in a letter of congratulations after his election. Obama’s election—and the prospect of a less hostile administration occupying its neighbor— also might have softened Iran’s opposition to Iraq’s security pact with the United States, according to political analysts. The notion a rising regional power and the world’s superpower engaging in more diplomatic exchanges rather than proxy wars inside Iraq is a heart-warming outlook for Iraqi security indeed.
It’s probably becoming clear where my biases lie, with my intent extolling of Obama’s virtues. But, in truth, I have two biases—I am staunchly pro-Iraq and pro-Obama, (and I’ve been pro-Iraq for longer). After witnessing (and sometimes participating) in the incredible mistakes committed during the first two years of the American program in Iraq, I believe the best thing for Iraq is to have an America in its midst that understands that it has taken a wrong turn somewhere in the past years and that change must happen. This view has been the mantra of Obama’s campaign. He has also stressed that we must not only talk about, but live up to, and act on our ideals, whether that involves repairing frayed friendships, talking to our enemies, closing an ignominy like Guantanamo prison, or leaving a country that asked us to.
Along with the prospect of a changed America that Obama brings with him, the election itself also brought home the example of something so wonderful about America that doesn’t change—the power of democracy. This month’s election showcased the peaceful transition of power and a transparent process that involved real choice, real accountability, and fairness. And the election of the first African-American candidate showed that anything is possible.
This thrilling election reminded me of another election just as powerful—in Iraq on January 30, 2005. At the polling center I visited that day and the Iraqis with whom I spoke, I saw the faces lit up with glee at the “feeling of freedom” and of the opportunity to have a personal say and stake in the future of their country. It was an incredibly moving sight to witness voters who were braving dire and grave terrorist threats to cast their ballots and demonstrate their freedom. As Iraq heads into this tense period before its upcoming provincial elections, I hope the recent American elections remind the Iraqi people of their own in 2005, during which Iraqis banded together to defeat fear, intimidation, and violence. You truly showed the world that anything was possible, and reminded us of that most powerful force—freedom. Allow me to share the poem I wrote on that day.
Badge of Honor
My finger is still purple,
My tears are still wet,
With the feeling of freedom.
My heart is overwhelmed by their joy,
Their hope, their courage.
I am humbled, bowed before them.
They are the lights shining in darkness.
They are the river, the lifeblood of the world!
This is their gift to us, their purpose.
They have not only changed themselves and their country.
Their fight is for the world,
Tipping the balance on the side of freedom.
What could express the depth of our gratitude?
They say we saved them from the maniacal regime;
We gave them democracy.
Little do they know they are giving it back to us,
Giving us their example of freedom from fear,
Of the rewards of courage.
True warriors,
Each ballot a sword brandished against evil,
Each purple finger a
Badge of honor.
Thursday, August 21, 2008
WaPo's Editorial on Egyptian Professor: "Still a Fellow Dissident'?
Today's Washington Post editorial page provides exactly the kind of example of double-speak and lack of consistency I pointed out in my most recent CSMonitor opinion piece. My favorite part is the last line, quoting Egyptian dissident Saad Ibrahim in a recent interview, "Don't give dictators money to oppress us." Our oft-repeated but seldom acknowledged policy of aiding tyrants in the Middle East does not stand in line with our favorite and oft-brandished buzz words of supporting freedom and democracy.
Still a 'Fellow Dissident'?
As Egypt's Hosni Mubarak continues to hound an advocate for democracy, the administration is nearly silent.
Thursday, August 21, 2008; A14
Today, we repost an opinion piece by Egyptian professor and dissident Saad Eddin Ibrahim that first appeared on our op-ed page one year ago. This month, Mr. Ibrahim was convicted of seditious libel or "tarnishing" the image of Egypt. For this transgression, the ailing, 69-year-old scholar was sentenced to two years in jail, with hard labor, and ordered to pay a fine equivalent to about $1,500. The prime piece of evidence against Mr. Ibrahim: The opinions he expressed in this newspaper.
Mr. Ibrahim, a dual Egyptian and American citizen, has for some time been living in exile in the Middle East and so may escape this sentence and other potentially draconian punishments. He is still subject to some 20 other legal actions brought against him by allies of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. He is accused, among other things, of grand treason, in part for organizing a forum for Arab democracy advocates and for meeting briefly with President Bush last year after a conference in Prague. A conviction on these charges could subject him to death by hanging.
The fact that Mr. Ibrahim faces imprisonment -- or worse -- if he sets foot in Egypt speaks to the tightening grip of tyranny in that country. It is also testament to the Bush administration's failure to hold Mr. Mubarak to his commitment to further freedom and democratic institutions there.
There was a time when President Bush spoke openly, eloquently and forcefully about his sense of solidarity with Mr. Ibrahim, so much so that the president referred to himself as a fellow dissident. There was a time, only a few years ago, when he withheld millions of dollars in aid to Egypt until the country released Mr. Ibrahim from an unjust incarceration. Now, the administration can only muster an official, feeble "expression of disappointment" through an organ of the State Department as it continues to funnel billions to Egypt, enabling Mr. Mubarak to run an increasingly repressive police state.
A strong relationship with Egypt and continuing financial assistance to the country are most likely in the interest of the United States. But the relationship need not be exclusively with a regime that is on the wrong side of history; the United States should support those many Egyptians who believe in reform. At the very least, it should not continue to freely subsidize a regime that abuses its bravest citizens. Or, as Mr. Ibrahim succinctly put it in an interview this week: "Don't give dictators money to oppress us."
Still a 'Fellow Dissident'?
As Egypt's Hosni Mubarak continues to hound an advocate for democracy, the administration is nearly silent.
Thursday, August 21, 2008; A14
Today, we repost an opinion piece by Egyptian professor and dissident Saad Eddin Ibrahim that first appeared on our op-ed page one year ago. This month, Mr. Ibrahim was convicted of seditious libel or "tarnishing" the image of Egypt. For this transgression, the ailing, 69-year-old scholar was sentenced to two years in jail, with hard labor, and ordered to pay a fine equivalent to about $1,500. The prime piece of evidence against Mr. Ibrahim: The opinions he expressed in this newspaper.
Mr. Ibrahim, a dual Egyptian and American citizen, has for some time been living in exile in the Middle East and so may escape this sentence and other potentially draconian punishments. He is still subject to some 20 other legal actions brought against him by allies of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. He is accused, among other things, of grand treason, in part for organizing a forum for Arab democracy advocates and for meeting briefly with President Bush last year after a conference in Prague. A conviction on these charges could subject him to death by hanging.
The fact that Mr. Ibrahim faces imprisonment -- or worse -- if he sets foot in Egypt speaks to the tightening grip of tyranny in that country. It is also testament to the Bush administration's failure to hold Mr. Mubarak to his commitment to further freedom and democratic institutions there.
There was a time when President Bush spoke openly, eloquently and forcefully about his sense of solidarity with Mr. Ibrahim, so much so that the president referred to himself as a fellow dissident. There was a time, only a few years ago, when he withheld millions of dollars in aid to Egypt until the country released Mr. Ibrahim from an unjust incarceration. Now, the administration can only muster an official, feeble "expression of disappointment" through an organ of the State Department as it continues to funnel billions to Egypt, enabling Mr. Mubarak to run an increasingly repressive police state.
A strong relationship with Egypt and continuing financial assistance to the country are most likely in the interest of the United States. But the relationship need not be exclusively with a regime that is on the wrong side of history; the United States should support those many Egyptians who believe in reform. At the very least, it should not continue to freely subsidize a regime that abuses its bravest citizens. Or, as Mr. Ibrahim succinctly put it in an interview this week: "Don't give dictators money to oppress us."
Tuesday, August 05, 2008
NYT Op-ed: Tough Love for Israel by Nicholas Kristof
I really enjoyed this Kristof article from NYT's July 24th edition, especially the way he responded to the various critiques he received about the blog he kept from his time in Hebron. You may have read my own earlier blog posting about my harrowing and disturbing experience in Hebron. It is such a tense, divided place, and here it is remembered for Abraham, the chief patriarch, and the elder whom all Jews, Christians, and Muslims look to as the first prophet. As such, he and the town that is dedicated to his remembrance should be a place around which to find common ground rather than division. We can only work to that end...
Op-ed on NYT site.
Kristof's blog in Hebron
Tough Love for Israel?
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
On his visit to the Middle East, Barack Obama gave ritual affirmations of his support for Israeli policy, but what Israel needs from America isn’t more love, but tougher love.
Particularly at a time when Israel seems to be contemplating military strikes on Iranian nuclear sites, the United States would be a better friend if it said: “That’s crazy” — while also insisting on a 100 percent freeze on settlements in the West Bank and greater Jerusalem.
Granted, not everybody sees things this way, and discussions of the Middle East usually involve each side offering up its strongest arguments to wrestle with the straw men of the other side. So let me try something different.
After I wrote a column last month from Hebron in the West Bank, my blog, nytimes.com/ontheground, was flooded with counterarguments — and plenty of challenges to address them. In the interest of a civil dialogue on the Middle East, here are excerpts from some of the readers’ defenses of Israel’s conduct in the West Bank and my responses:
Jews lived in Hebron for 1,800 years continuously ... until their community was murdered in 1929 by their Arab neighbors. The Jews in Hebron today — those “settlers” — have reclaimed Jewish property. So I don’t see what makes them illegitimate or illegal. (Irving)
True, Jews have deep ties to Hebron, just as Christians do to Jerusalem and Bethlehem, but none of these bonds confer any right to live in these places or even visit them. If Israel were to bar American Christians from Jerusalem, that would not be grounds for the United States to send in paratroopers and establish settlements. And if Israel insists on controlling the West Bank, then it needs to give citizenship to Palestinians there so that they can vote just like the settlers.
One side is a beautiful, literate, medically and scientifically and artistically an advanced society. The other side wants to throw bombs. Why shouldn’t there be a fence? (Mileway)
So, build a fence. But construct it on the 1967 borders, not Palestinian land — and especially not where it divides Palestinian farmers from their land.
While I do condemn this type of violence, it pales in contrast to Palestinian suicide bombers, rockets and other acts of terror against Jews. (Jay)
B’Tselem, the Israeli human rights organization, reports that a total of 123 Israeli minors have been killed by Palestinians since the second intifada began in 2000, compared with 951 Palestinian minors killed by Israeli security forces.
To withdraw from the West Bank without a partner on the Palestinian side will find Israel in the same fix it has once it withdrew from Gaza: a rain of daily rockets. Yes, the security barrier causes hardship, but terrorist attacks have almost disappeared. That means my kids can ride the bus, go to unguarded restaurants and not worry about being blown up on their way to school. Find another way to keep my kids safe, and I’ll happily tear down the barrier. (Laura)
This is the argument that I have the most trouble countering. Laura has a point: The barrier and checkpoints have reduced terrorism. But as presently implemented, they — and the settlements — also reduce the prospect of a long-term peace agreement that is the best hope for Laura’s children.
If Israel were to stop the settlements, ease the checkpoints, allow people in and out more freely, and negotiate more enthusiastically with Syria over the Golan Heights and with the Arab countries on the basis of the Saudi peace proposal, then peace might still elude the region. But Israel would at least be doing everything possible to secure its long-term future, rather than bolstering Hamas.
If there is no two-state solution, there will be a one-state solution — and given demographic trends, that will mean either the end of Israeli democracy or the end of the Jewish state. Zionists should be absolutely clamoring for a Palestinian state.
Laura is right about the need for a sensible Palestinian partner, and the failures of Palestinian leadership have been legion. At the moment, though, Israel has its most reasonable partner ever — Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas — and it is undermining him with its checkpoints and new settlement construction.
Peace-making invariably involves exasperating and intransigent antagonists and unequal steps, just as it did in the decades in which Britain struggled to end terrorism emanating from Northern Ireland. But London never ordered air strikes on Sinn Fein or walled in Catholic neighborhoods. Over time, Britain’s extraordinary restraint slowly changed attitudes so as to make the eventual peace possible.
I hope Mr. Obama, as a candidate or as a president, will be a true enough friend of Israel to say all this, warmly but firmly.
I invite you to comment on this column on my blog, www.nytimes.com/ontheground, and join me on Facebook at www.facebook.com/kristof.
"Obama's Opportunity in the Middle East" in Christian Science Monitor
Hello Euphrates fans,
I just wanted to share my article that was recently published in the Christian Science Monitor, entitled "Obama's Opportunity in the Middle East". The link and the text are below. Comments are welcome as always!
Best,
Janessa
Article on CSM site.
Obama's opportunity in the Middle East
To strengthen ties, he should not ask 'Why do they hate us?' but 'Why don't they believe us?'
By Janessa Gans
from the July 21, 2008 edition
Elsah, Ill. - Sen. Barack Obama is visiting with leaders in Europe and the Middle East this week to "deepen important relationships and exchange views with nations vital to the country's national security," said a spokeswoman. In short, Senator Obama will seek to repair friendships that have frayed in the past seven years.
It won't be easy, especially in the Middle East, where a thick coat of skepticism and cynicism has dulled the reflection of American aspirations.
I saw this firsthand in May, when President Bush spoke to the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt. He preached the virtues of democratic reform to an audience of English-speaking, pro-Western businesses; NGOs; and political leaders. The effect? More grating than gratitude.
If Obama seriously aspires to the title Leader of the Free World, he must speak with a different tone. But more important, perhaps, he must listen for a different answer.
The prevailing question Americans have been asking since 9/11 – "Why do they hate us?" – is the wrong one. The better question is, "Why don't they believe us?"
The good news is that the next president – whether Obama or Senator McCain – won't be speaking from beyond a yawning philosophical divide. When he repeats America's familiar mantra of freedom, democracy, and fighting terrorism, he will be preaching to the choir.
The bad news is that he should expect cynicism; Arab leaders claim that our actions do not live up to our rhetoric. At the WEF I attended, they pointed to our use of the war on terror as an excuse to curtail civil rights and to squelch democracy in the Arab world. When Mr. Bush asserted, "Terrorist organizations … create chaos and take innocent lives in an effort to stop democracy from taking root," Arabs wondered aloud who had created chaos; who was visiting death and violence upon the people of Iraq and Afghanistan.
To improve relations with the Arab world, Obama should strike a markedly different tone from Bush, who came across the WEF participants as disingenuous, biased, and arrogant.
Just days before he addressed the WEF, Bush spoke to the Israeli Knesset and extolled democracy as "the only way to guarantee the God-given rights of all people." He got a standing ovation. Then, at the WEF, he told the mostly Arab audience that Middle Eastern politics too often consists of "one leader in power and the opposition in jail." Some participants, having seen the text in advance, walked out.
Bush's remark wasn't inaccurate. But it was incomplete and, to the audience, hypocritical.
In 2006 the US insisted on elections in the Palestinian territories, then refused to accept the outcome when Hamas, the Islamic militant group, emerged with a surprising, but undisputed, victory. Audience members also noted how many of these "one leader in power and the opposition in jail" autocracies – Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan, to name three – enjoy unwavering US political, military, and economic support!
The next president should also not dismiss the reforms and significant progress already taking place. "We are improving at a steady, stable pace," Egypt's Al-Ahram Weekly's editor told me at the WEF. He contended that press and political freedom had increased substantially in the past decade and stressed, "We do not need pressure from outside to reform."
During his travels to the Middle East Obama must walk a fine line on Iran, treading between Israel's hawks and Arabs' cautious pragmatists. High-ranking officials at the WEF especially disapproved of Bush's strategy of isolation.
Finally, Obama must bear in mind something so obvious that it often goes unrecognized: the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the massive cloud that overshadows all life in the Middle East.
Egyptian Foreign Minister Aboul Gheit bluntly declared, "The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the cause of everything. Everything bad that happens in the region is a direct result of this issue." And nearly all Arabs see the US as rubbing salt in the wound with its consistent pro-Israel bias.
To Bush's statement that "freedom is a universal right – the Almighty's gift to every man, woman, and child," officials asked me wryly whether this freedom extended to Palestinians as well. Did they not deserve to be free from oppression and occupation? How can the US in good conscience claim to support freedom and human rights, while uncritically backing a government that deprives millions of Palestinians of those rights?
Tough talk from the crowd, indeed, but let's not forget these are not reactions from our foes in the region but from our closest allies. This disparity between US rhetoric and US policies on the ground is alienating the base of Arab moderates we so desperately need.
If the next president also emphasizes the buzzwords of democracy, freedom, and human rights while supporting undemocratic regimes or essentially nullifying unfavorable elections, he, too, will be greeted with aversion.
Perhaps it's time to ensure that our words match our deeds. Do Americans care more about stability and pro-US regimes, or democracy and freedom? If the former, we should not pretend otherwise. It is better to be accused of realist pragmatism than hypocrisy.
But if we believe that democracy and freedom are absolute American values, we should insist upon their consistent application. If we can't convince even our friends of our commitment to these values, how could we possibly convince them to join with us to defeat our enemies?
Janessa Gans teaches political science at Principia College, and is the founder and executive director of the Euphrates Institute, a nonprofit dedicated to improving relations between the Middle East and the West.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)