Tikun Olam-תקון עולם: Make the World a Better Place

A few weeks ago, David Grossman gave a stunning speech at the rally marking the 11th anniversary of Yitzhak Rabin’s death. I felt the speech was quite memorable and historic and thought it deserved special treatment here and throughout the world. But I couldn’t find visual images which conveyed the full spirit of Grossman or the speech. In situations like this in the past, I’ve found that a cartoon adds a dimension to a blog post that few other media can. First, there is humor if it is a satire or ironic cartoon. Second, there is a powerful visual element often missing from many blogs. Third, cartoons can be pungent and biting in ways that are difficult to muster with mere words.

In the course of my search for visual aids in representing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict here, I happened upon Benjamin Heine’s graphic blog. His drawing is bold, vivid and visually arresting. He is also political engaged. Of course, as a student of Jewish literature one of the first things that came to mind is his last name, Heine. It is the same as the renowned German Jewish author, Heinrich Heine. It turns out that Ben is not related and not even Jewish. But I like a man who shares a last name with such an august artist.

I asked Ben if he’d consider drawing a cartoon of Grossman that I could use. He graciously agreed and today he e mailed me his effort. As I wrote above, it is stunning. The colors are vivid. It perfectly captures Grossman’s soulfulness. I feature it here with pride.

I should add that Ben’s politics and mine are probably not fully aligned regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I am a progressive Zionist who is critical of Israeli policy. Ben would probably not sympathize with the Zionist aspect of my identity. Though I think both of us are mature enough to realize that both sides of this debate can have reasonable things to say to the other. Otherwise, he would not have had the graciousness to create this beautiful image.

Perhaps because of some discomfort with Grossman’s liberal Zionist perspective on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Ben drew an alternative image of Grossman which you can see at his site. He also features two harshly critical critiques of Grossman’s speech by Jonathan Cook and Gilad Atzmon first published at Antiwar.com. I should make clear in my own blog post about the speech I was critical of it in some ways. But I do not share the harshness of the objections raised by anti-Zionists.

To further illustrate Ben’s ecumenism, he features at his blog the same image displayed here. And it accompanies the full English translation of Grossman’s speech. I think it’s admirable for Ben to allow his readers to read both sides and make up their own minds about Grossman’s perspective.

tags ben-heine-portrait-of-david-grossman, israeli-palestinian-conflict, political-cartoons, yitzhak-rabin-memorial-rally

Those of us who are progressive Zionists believe that Israel can be a light unto the nations; and that at the very least creating a peaceful resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict represents Israel’s self-interest. The goal of this blog is to suggest ways in which Israel can fulfill its highest values.

But what in heavens name can you do or say when a crime of such magnitude is committed in the name of the Israeli people? Let’s start from the beginning. According to the IDF, Palestinian militants had been planning to launch Qassam rockets from a site 400m from a Gaza beach which was full of beachgoers on a hot afternoon. Apparently, at least one errant shell hit the beach killing seven civilians including six members of the Ghalia family (this from the NY Times account):

The Ghaliya family, husband Ali, wife Raisa, and three children, ages 1, 3 and 10, were having a picnic on the northern Gazan beach on a hot afternoon and were all killed in the shelling.

We’re killing babies and mothers now. Is there no decency? At long last has Israel lost all sense of common decency??

Haaretz reports the same family suffered an earlier tragedy at the hands of the IDF:

Less than two years ago, four members of the family were killed when IDF shell hit the family farm in the northern Gaza town of Beit Lahia. The military had been targeting the area in response to Palestinian mortar fire.

At times like this I wish I was Jonathan Swift so I could sublimate my fury in savage, artful political satire. But I am blazing with anger and cannot manage the sublimity of Swift’s extraordinary literary achievement. I can only rage at the injustice. Rage at the terrible toll Israeli civilians will have to pay for this blunder.

You must read the testimony of the victim, Wiham Ghaliya. She bears witness as no one else can. Can anyone be so heartless as not to weep at this outrage?

“There was a big boom and screams when the shells landed and I started running. I remember my father lying nearby, and now he is waiting for me. I saw everyone running away and I ran away too. I searched my family and I ran to find mum and dad. Then they took me to hospital. They told me I am a little ill. But I want to return to my family. My parents and my brothers are home waiting for me. I want to return to them,” she told Ynet.

Baby trams, tables, and ripped umbrellas stained with blood, were evidence of the horror that took place on the beach.

“All the people started running away as they looked in all directions for their relatives. It was an upsetting scene. Screams and bodies were everywhere. I wanted to reach my father, who was badly injured. I tried to get close to him to tell what we Muslims say in a moment of death. I tried to tell him, ‘There is no God but Allah, Muhammad is his prophet,’ but he couldn’t breathe or open his mouth,” Wiham said.

“I saw my father dying in my arms and the bodies of my brother and sisters dispersed everywhere. They took me to hospital, thank God, I am lightly injured, but I lost everything. My family was around me but no one was alive. Four sisters and a brother, my father and a stepmother, but no one was alive. The Israelis ruined my life and my future. I have nothing to say and I have no energy to speak. They said they didn’t fire. I don’t know what to say. They kill and lie.”

Wiham sat in the family’s mourning tent in Beit Lahiya when he spoke to Ynet. “I hope Allah will have mercy on them and avenge their death. In a moment we became nothing, with no taste for life. We were by the beach and we tried to find a little happiness and rest and this doesn’t happen to us a lot, and until we had the chance to live in this atmosphere; everything was blown away because of the Israelis who don’t let us breathe and live. There is no point in living.”

In past public statements, the IDF has warned that it was “closing” the range between shelling target sites and civilian areas to as little as 100m. Critics of this escalation noted that shrapnel from Israeli shells can land as far away as 200m from the target. So it seemed only natural that the IDF was indeed announcing that they didn’t care if they killed innocent civilians who were in the margin or error. But now the IDF, by its own admission, sent a deadly shell 400m off course causing this disaster.

This tragedy is not just horrible on its face because of the innocent life snuffed out. But it will have much greater collateral damage as Hamas, which had been pursuing a studied and careful strategy of honoring a 16 month ceasefire against Israeli targets has felt compelled to break the hudna. Its representatives have declared Israeli targets fair game once more for terror attacks. This is nothing short of a disaster of the first magnitude.

To read in Haaretz that the IDF has “apologized” for, and called a halt to the shelling is nothing short of gruesome irony. Once the golem is let loose how do you call it back? You remember the story of Rabbi Yehuda Loew of Prague who called a Golem into existence to save the Jews of Prague who were under attack. The Golem had the word emet inscribed on his forehead. After the Golem ran amok, Rabbi Loew was forced to destroy the monster which he did by erasing the aleph in emet leaving letters which spelled meyt or “death.” The IDF has let loose shells from hell all inscribed with the word meyt. And now, there is no way or erasing the word or the deed.

Of course, along with the so-called IDF “apology” comes a heinous veiled suggestion that Palestinians themselves might’ve been responsible:

In addition to the more likely scenario that a shell strayed from its path, the army was also exploring whether the explosion might have been caused by a “work accident.” [an IDF euphemism for Palestinian bombmakers who accidentally blow themselves up while assembling bombs].

Didn’t Malcolm X once say about American racism, “the chickens are coming home to roost?” Well, with this grisly news we can equally say that the fruits of a brutal Israeli policy of retaliation for Qassam rocket launches has also come home to roost. Now, not only Israeli civilians but all of Israel and Palestine will have to pay the price in blood.

It gives me no joy or pleasure in writing these words. I want only what is good and just for Israel (and the Palestinians). But how can you have sympathy for Occupation policies like these which bring such death and devastation to innocents (and I include Palestinian terror attacks in this denunciation)? Today’s news only reinforces the need for Israel to end the Occupation NOW. Undertake final status negotiations with Mahmoud Abbas NOW. Don’t wait a minute longer. How many more innocent lives must be taken from us before both Israelis and Palestinians will get this message through their goddamn thick skulls???

I usually try to write a more tempered style about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But in times like these when reality takes leave of its senses (if reality can be said to have any sense), caution and temerpateness are thrown to the winds just as body parts were scattered on the beach in Gaza. For the love of God and humanity, end this carnage now before it is too late.

George Bush and Condoleeza Rice–get off your asses and get things moving between these two parties. Work with the EU and the Quartet to put pressure on them to sit down and talk–Now. How can you do anything less?? The following, I’m sorry to say, is more like the “leadership” of which the U.S. is capable regarding this conflict:

The State Department on Friday night called for Israelis and Palestinians to show mutual restraint and avoid actions that could increase tensions following the IDF shelling of Gaza beach that killed seven Palestinian civilians.

The United States expressed regret for the killing and wounding of the Palestinians in Gaza and noted that the Israeli government had also issued a statement of regret and had launched an investigation, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said in a statement.

“We call on the Palestinian Authority to prevent all acts of terrorism, including the firing of missiles and rockets from Gaza,” McCormack said.

The United States has been in contact with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and the government of Israel and will continue to monitor the situation closely, McCormack said.

Surely, they jest! They call on the PA to prevent terrorism when the IDF sends Palestinian body parts flying on a beautiful summer day on a Gaza beach?? What planet are they on?? And if they think Qassams are bad, just wait to see what else is in store.

This will also be a test for Amir Peretz, Israel’s defense minister. His hometown of Sederot is one of the areas targeted in Qassam attacks. But this disaster must deeply offend his sense of justice. Will he intercede and change IDF policy regarding the rocket firings? Can he do anything at all to make this sorry situation a little less horrible? I wish I was sure the answer might be ‘yes.” But this statement from him doesn’t bode well:

“We don’t seek to fight against the Palestinian people, only against terror,” Peretz said.

After you’ve just blown seven Palestinian civilians all to hell is NOT the time you say we don’t seek to fight against the Palestinian people. That is the time you call a permanent end to the shelling of densely populated Gaza urban areas. Peretz considered doing this a month ago and backed down. I hope he’s regretting his mistake. I hope he’s tossing and turning in his bed tonight. I hope he’ll get off his ass and do something.

tags gaza-massacre, idf, israeli-palestinian-conflict, israeli-shelling-kills-gazans-at-beach, qassam-rocket-attacks

Bradley Burston, Haaretz columnist, is a real dragon-slayer when it comes to putting the lie to cherished notions of the anti-Palestinian camp within Israel and the anti-Israel camp within Palestine. He’s written another masterful column, The Lie of Victory, which eviscerates ten sacred principles that right and left lives by regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict:

10. The lie of ‘We Were Here First’

What Palestinians tell themselves: We are the descendants of the Canaanites, we were here before you. We are the heirs of Ishmael…Your claims to be the descendants of the Hebrews are specious. You are Russians, Americans, Khazars. We were here before you. We have been here forever. Nothing can make us leave.

What Israelis tell themselves: We are the direct and genuine heirs of Abraham…whose son took the name Israel. Your claims to be Canaanites are specious. Many of you came from neighboring Arab lands a few generations ago. We were here before you. We have been here forever. Nothing can make us leave.

9. The lie of ‘the State They Don’t Deserve’

Right-wing Israeli version: There is no such entity as a Palestine, and no Palestinian people, as such. They are artificial constructs, to serve the aim of ousting the Jews from their land. Moreover, terror has shown them undeserving of a state.

Militant Palestinian version: The Jews are a foreign growth in the body of Palestine. They came here from Europe and America, expelling Palestinians in the process, and it is time for both to return to their respective homes. The state of the Zionists is illegal, it is build on land that was part of the nation of Islam, and will not endure.

The truth:…The principle of self-determination and the history of national movements, to say nothing of the development of Zionism and the Palestinian statehood movement, suggest that peoples themselves are empowered to decide if they constitute a people, and if that people legitimately aspires to independence.

This lie is close to, but not the same as:

8. ‘We don’t recognize them’ [ed., or "They don't recognize us"].

But we do, of course. Hamas talks about Israel incessantly. Israel talks about Hamas in nearly every breath. Then sides have an endless array of go-betweens managing every conceivable aspect of indirect contacts.

This lie is, in turn, similar to but not the same as:

7. ‘There is no partner’

The fact is that the lack of a partner serves the needs of both Ehud Olmert and Ismail Haniyeh…Olmert has given indications of a preference for unilateralism, a position made much easier by an internationally shunned Hamas government.

At the same time, the last thing Palestinian Prime Minister Haniyeh needs is to be viewed as a collaborator with Israel. “There is no partner,” may have a different meaning when Hamas says it, but the advantage is mutual.

6. The lie of ‘National Socialism.’

Palestinian version: They are as bad as the Nazis.
Israeli version: They are as bad as the Nazis.

5. The lie of ‘the Only Language’

Both versions: Force is the only language they understand.

4. The lie of ‘will.’

Both versions: Our will is stronger than theirs, our cause more rooted, our stubbornness more pronounced, our endurance more bottomless, our tradition more timeless, our defiance more directed, our rage more justified, our presence more entrenched.

3. The lie of ‘revenge’

Arguably the hardest lie of all to resist. The lie that suggests that we alone have been wronged, that we have a duty - as well as a gut drive - to avenge that wrong, and that in so doing, we will somehow put an end to the injustice. The lie that masks the fact that the need for revenge is the engine of escalation, the breeder fuel of perpetual war.

2. The lie of ‘victim monopoly’

Both versions: WE…are the victims. We kill in self-defense, our enemy kills innocents in cold blood. The moral high ground is clearly ours. The news media are demonstrably biased toward our enemy.

1. The lie of ‘victory’

In the Middle East, there is no such thing as victory. Ask George Bush. Ask the victors of the Six Day War. There is no such thing as Mission Accomplished, clear-cut triumph, a simple win.

We want to believe in victory, because the prospect of no hope for triumph, for some meaning to all the suffering, is beyond unbearable. Nonetheless …

In the Mideast, today’s victory is tomorrow’s nightmare. In a situation pitting Western concepts of defeat and victory against the Islamist view of martyrdom, no one can win.

Next time you hear any of these “old chestnuts” dragged out in an argument, you have only to point your opponent to this post or Burston’s column to put it to rest (not that a right-winger will accept Burston’s as the last word on this).

tags bradley-burston, haaretz, israeli-palestinian-conflict, Mideast Peace

It appears that the U.S. is not the only country with a failed defense secretary/minister. Sol Salbe turned me on to Akiva Eldar’s latest Haaretz column: Hammer Blows. In it, Eldar appraises Shaul Mofaz’s abysmal tenure as defense minister (Olmert has just bestowed the ministry on Amir Peretz and Mofaz will be leaving soon). Along the way, the Israeli journalist makes some telling observations about the lack of intelligence of Israeli military intelligence:

Mofaz sowed evil and is bequeathing ruins to the next government, and not only to the new defense minister. He is leaving behind him the serious damage caused by two mistaken strategic theories - theories that were wrong for Israel and for the entire Middle East. Both attributed to Arab leaders with very limited military strength the actual intention of destroying the State of Israel.

Th[e first] theory was that Saddam Hussein would turn his weapons of mass destruction against Israel when he had “his back against the wall.” Gilad and Mofaz assessed that the American invasion of Iraq would improve Israel’s strategic situation - but instead it led to an increasingly close relationship between the Shi’ite regime in Iraq and its Iranian neighbor.

The second theory was that Yasser Arafat entered the Oslo process and began the intifada in order to bring about the establishment of “Greater Palestine,” which would include Israel and Jordan. This conspiracy theory regarding the Palestinians led the security services to adopt a one-dimensional, shortsighted, aggressive approach.

In this [their mistakes], there is no consolation for the tens of thousands of innocent victims of the military conflict, including the 1,200 Israeli dead. The children of the upcoming third intifada will not come into a better world.

Poor Mofaz, after such a scathing attack it’s a wonder he’ll be asked to be dogcatcher by Olmert in the next government.

In the following section, Eldar takes Mofaz and the defense establishment to task for violating two fundamental tenets of Clausewitz’s rules of war:

Carl Maria von Clausewitz…claimed that war is “nothing but the continuation of policy by other means.” The success of a war is measured by the maneuverability that it grants the political echelon no less than by the degree of security it brings to its citizens. This maneuverability allows the military victory to be translated into a political arrangement. The chaos in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, and the terror attacks in Iraq and Israel, prove that military superiority is neither a guarantee of political achievement nor a recipe for security. The unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza Strip and the unilateral “convergence plan” in the West Bank, the separation fence, Hamas’ victory and the ensuing severance of relations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority - individually and cumulatively - are testimony to the fact that five and a half years of military conflict have reduced the political echelon’s room for maneuver to a nadir not seen since the Yom Kippur War.

The Prussian military man also stated that no sensible person goes to war before clarifying his goals. The great success of chief of staff Mofaz…conducting an all-out war against the Palestinian rival [during the first Intifada]. And what was the goal? To make the “price of losing” clear to the Palestinians. To etch in their awareness that the price of violence is far greater than the benefits. And what would happen after the “victory”? Who would fill the vacuum left by Arafat and his senior Palestinian Authority colleagues after they were eliminated? What political arrangement would replace the disorder in the territories resulting from the destruction of infrastructure? Who would replace a relatively moderate Hamas political leader [Rantisi] who was sent to the heavens in a whirlwind by the air force?

There you have the fatal flaw of Israeli military strategy in a nutshell. They use their military might not to advance a political agenda. Rather, force itself IS the agenda. There is hardly a political agenda behind the use of force.

Eldar notes that Israeli intelligence handed Mofaz an issue of the Hamas magazine, Falastin al-Muslama, which detailed the organization’s strategy of attrition against Israeli forces in the Territories during the Intifada:

Magazine contributors define the next political goal based on the model of Israel’s unilateral withdrawal from Lebanon. They point out that as in the case of Lebanon, their goal is to convince the Israeli public, by means of the intifada, that “Zionist security” comes with such a unilateral withdrawal…Escalation on Israel’s side could be expected to lead to escalation on the Palestinian side, and thus making it clear to everyone that only Hamas “can deliver a blow to the enemy, establish a balance of terror, exhaust its strength and sow confusion in its political considerations and influence its internal situation.”

Chief of staff and defense minister Mofaz regularly supplied Meshal with proof that Hamas can in fact achieve by military means what the PA did not succeed in getting from Israel by political means. “The high point was the decision to harm [Fatah security chief] Jibril Rajoub,” says Dr. Mati Steinberg, who was at the time a special adviser to the Shin Bet head of Palestinian affairs. “His security establishment did not fire at us [and] did not operate against us…,” says Steinberg…

Steinberg blames Mofaz for the grave outcome of the policy that did not differentiate between the Palestinian forces [Hamas and Fatah] and punished the population indiscriminately. “The policy of ‘the price of losing’ was what gave legitimacy to the suicide attacks…This is the unavoidable price of the only choice the aggressive [Israeli] policy left them [Palestinians] - the choice between unconditional surrender and an uprising until death.”

The Haaretz columnist notes that former foreign minister (under Barak), Shlomo ben-Ami describes in his new book how the military echelon did all in its power to undermine the stated policy of the civilian government:

Shlomo Ben-Ami was…a member of the security cabinet at the start of the intifada. In his book Scars of War, Wounds of Peace, Ben-Ami wrote that minister Amnon Lipkin-Shahak, who coordinated the efforts to achieve calm, expressed to him his anger and frustration at the behavior of Mofaz and at the spirit with which he inspired the forces in the field. “Goods that were supposed to reach the population were stuck at checkpoints - bulldozers uprooted hothouses, nurseries and other crops, ostensibly for security reasons, in a manner that raised the level of Palestinian fury to unprecedented heights. The policy of collective punishment and inflicting economic hardship, which clearly did not serve the intentions of the political leadership to try to achieve calm, was an agenda led by the military leadership, which turned its back on the instructions and intentions of the political leadership and ignored them.”

The vision of Mofaz…never exceeded that expected of a mediocre brigade commander (Mofaz failed the officers’ tests three times). In the IDF, they customarily call that the “shoemaker’s syndrome” - every problem can be solved with a hammer. If a half-ton hammer does not solve it, use a one-ton hammer. At the end of 2000, when the Barak government wanted to adopt Clinton’s proposals in the hope of returning to a channel of rapprochement, chief of staff Mofaz claimed that the political leadership was endangering the country’s security.

Ben-Ami writes that Mofaz ignored the fact that the alternative to an agreement, even an agreement that did not fulfill all of Israel’s security wishes, was a rebellious Palestinian nation, raging terror, a return to occupation, international ostracism and a conflagration in the Arab and Muslim world. He did not know how right he was. Hamas control of the territories has acted as a bridge between the Iranian Shi’ites and the Sunnis of the Muslim Brotherhood, bringing the conflict to a more fundamentalist and global level.

The suit and tie [of the defense minister] did not change Mofaz’s way of thinking…This time as well, the only alternative he has proposed is more assassinations, closures and checkpoints. Since the withdrawal, he has done everything in his power to prevent the PA under the leadership of chairman Abu Mazen (Mahmoud Abbas) from presenting the disengagement as part of a bilateral political step.

Incoming defense minister Amir Peretz is being warned by dissident intelligence analysts that the IDF and Shin Bet make the same mistake as the CIA during the Cold War: they deliberately overestimate the power and strength of the enemy. The effect of such a mistake is to raise the level of fear among the general populace and thereby causing it to resort to ever greater escalations of the conflict in order to vanquish the allegedly powerful enemy:

A former senior member of MI suggests to Peretz that he beware of the habit that has become common at MI in recent years - overestimating the rival’s strength. He says that in light of the general staff’s damaging dominance in national-level decision making, this tendency has become one of the great obstacles to that process. It is also liable to lead to another escalation in the Palestinian arena, and perhaps even to wars in other sectors, he says. Among the intelligence community there are those who warn of a conceptual freeze and are recommending that the new defense minister conduct a thorough investigation of the mistaken theory that dictated policy toward the Palestinians under Mofaz…

“Since we enjoy absolute military superiority,” says Steinberg, illustrating the general’s words, “the new minister must be careful not to be tempted into thinking that we also have the power to conquer the minds of the Palestinians in expecting them to accept our interpretation of the road map or the Clinton proposals.

Steinberg says the Iranian threat, the increased power of the Muslim Brotherhood and the global jihad movement provide convenient circumstances for consolidating a pragmatic axis in the region. “Our conflict has become a black hole in the core of the Islamic world. Only a political agreement, even a partial one, and a proper balance between security considerations and broader needs, can rescue the Palestinians from Hamas and us from a war of religions.”

Shaul Mofaz has taken Israeli policy into a dead end of escalating violence and bloodshed. Amir Peretz has an opportunity (to the extent that Olmert allows him to do so) to break out of this cycle and breathe some fresh air into Israeli relations with the Palestinians. Let us see if he can succeed.

tags amir-peretz, idf, israeli-defense-minister, israeli-military-intelligence, israeli-palestinian-conflict, rules-of-war, shaul-mofaz, von-Clausewitz

There is no end of those who criticize Islam and its imams for their supposed hatred against Israel and the west. One look at Little Green Footballs or even the comments threads at this site will provide a plethora of such attacks: “Show me an imam who’s ever denounced an Islamic terror attack. And even if you find one, I don’t trust him because they say one thing to a western audience and another to a Muslim one.” That’s the tenor of the attack.

Such attitudes toward Islam are unfair and anti-Muslim. I’ve argued here against such individuals saying that Islam is as varied a religion as Judaism or Christianity. It has its share of hateful extremists zealots as does our own religion. No religion should be entirely judged based on the views or actions of a minority (as the Islamic fundamentalists are).

That is why I was delighted to read at the Common Ground News Service about the 2nd Annual Conference of Rabbis and Imams, sponsored by Hommes de Parole which concluded on March 22nd in Seville, Spain. This is an excerpt from the closing statement and it should be read and pondered by anyone who doubts the sincerity of Muslims in denouncing terror and embracing tolerance:

We…affirm that contrary to widespread misrepresentation, there is no inherent conflict between Islam and Judaism, on the contrary. While modern politics has regrettably impacted negatively upon the relationship, our two religions share the most fundamental values of faith in the One Almighty whose name is Peace, who is merciful, compassionate and just; and who calls on us human beings to manifest these values in our lives and to advance them in relation to all persons whose lives and dignity are sacred. Therefore we…deplore bloodshed or violence in the name of any ideology everywhere. Especially when such is perpetrated in the name of religion it is a desecration of religion, itself and the gravest offense against the Holy Name of the Creator.

Thus, in addition to calling upon all our co-religionists to respect all human life, dignity and rights, to promote peace and justice; we call upon them and the governments of the world and international institutions to show respect for the attachments and symbols of all religions, as well as their holy sites, houses of worship and cemeteries, particularly in the Holy Land, due to its special sensitivity.

Accordingly, we condemn any negative representation of these, let alone any desecration, Heaven forbid. Similarly, we condemn any incitement against a faith or people, let alone any call for their elimination, and we urge authorities to do likewise.

We recognize that there is widespread misrepresentation of our religions, - one in the other’s community as well as in the world at large.

We affirm therefore the urgent need for truthful and respectful education about each other’s faith and tradition in our respective communities and schools; and call upon those responsible to promote such essential education for peaceful co-existence.

Solemnly we pledge ourselves to…continue to seek out one another to build bridges of respect, hope and friendship, to combat incitement and hostility, to overcome all barriers and obstacles, to reinforce mutual trust, serving the noble goal of universal peace especially in the land that is holy to us all.

According to the authors of the Common Ground report, the co-executive directors of Children of Abraham, there was some tension between the Palestinian and Israeli delegations at the urgent request by the former to place the question of Israel and Palestine at the top of the group’s agenda. The “black hats” (their words, not mine) were opposed to this and wished the conference to address solely religious matters. While I wasn’t there, I’d say that a middle ground position is necessary here. To omit the political question is to pretend the 900 lb. gorilla is not sitting in the room right next to you. But to get mired in political debate alone on this question risks forfeiting the great good that could come from such meetings. As the writers state:

…Just as most Muslims have their passion for Palestine and most Jews have their passion for Israel, so we all have a complex religious identity that is severely skewed in the conversations between our two communities that focus solely on the political situation in Israel/Palestine.

tags children-of-abraham, common-ground-news-service, hommes-de-parole, imams-and-rabbis-for-peace, islamic-extremism, israeli-palestinian-conflict, religious-tolerance

Gershon Baskin says "only Hamas can do it" [make peace] (photo: Justvision.org) Gershon Baskin, co-CEO of the Israel/Palestine Center for Research and Information and a long-time expert on Palestinian affairs writes in the Jerusalem Post that the prevailing view among Palestinian, and even among Israeli analysts he speaks with is that Hamas will likely moderate its views regarding Israel: Almost all of my Palestinian colleagues tell me that Hamas will change. They say that once Hamas has the burden of governing they will have to become more pragmatic. They speak of the process of change that they themselves went through. And further, because of its former rejectionist positions that Hamas ...

Ehud Olmert has revealed one of the worst-kept secret of Israeli politics--that he proposes that Israel's final international border would essentially run along the route of the Separation Wall: "The course of the fence, which until now has been a security fence, will be in line with the new course of the permanent border," Mr. Olmert told Haaretz. "There may be cases in which we move the fence eastward, there may be cases in which we move the fence westward, in line with what we agree upon." For him, the beauty of this proposal as the New York Times reports, is that it is: an opportunity to set their own future borders without needing to negotiate with a Palestinian government... The Times ...

The New York Theater Workshop may've chickened out of producing My Name is Rachel Corrie but Brooklyn's Irondale Ensemble has stepped up to the plate. Now New York has an opportunity to learn more about this brave soul. While I am not always in accord with the International Solidarity Movement and might've disagreed with Corrie while she was alive, I think she represents something courageous and true. It is worthwhile for anyone who cares about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to hear what she had to say even if you may disagree. Irondale plans to present an evening of Rachel's words on March 16th. Here's a promotional blurb from ...

I was always under the impression that theater at its best was meant to provoke, challenge and even shock its viewers. In some of the greatest plays to grace the stage, we are presented with controversial, even outrageous ideas. That is what we expect. But apparently, the New York Theatre Workshop got more than it bargained for when it agreed to mount the Royal Court's smash play, My Name Is Rachel Corrie for its New York debut this month. Rachel Corrie just before, and after being run down by IDF bulldozer (photo: ISM/AP) Given, International Solidarity Moviement activisit Rachel Corrie, despite her tragic ...