Nonviolent Change Journal

Vol. XIX, No. 3, Spring, 2005

Nonviolent Change Journal helps to network the peace community: providing dialoguing, exchanges of ideas, articles, reviews, reports and announcements of the activities of peace related groups and meetings, reviews of world developments relating to nonviolent change and resource information concerning the development of human relations on the basis of mutual respect.

We live in groups, "not islands unto ourselves." We learn from each other. And most, importantly, we pay heed to those who have come before us; especially, if we come from a group-oriented culture, where ancestors and elders are respected and revered.

In times of war and turmoil, safety is a concerned of parents and elders for their children and their communities.
Psychosomatic shocks experiences develop coping skills to keep both the individuals and their communities or groups from being annihilated. Never again! The cry goes out to remember and to remember it well. The fear of becoming historical footnotes, forgotten, with larger lessons of safety and betrayal forgotten or minimized.

What are the best ways and best advice to pass down to our children to keep them safe and to keep the community from being hurt, from dying? What words and behaviors of wisdom can one generation say to another to help them go forward into the present?

Mix in the historical fears, biases, traumatic minds, and fear of the future and we may not get the best advice that would allow flexibility and a peaceful and loving vision for the future. Rather, perhaps a garrison mentality with coping skills for "fight or flight or freeze" may occur. Vengeance and an allegiance to the dead may be the theme of the collective memory. Asking the human beings of the present to sacrifice their bodies and shed new blood to carry on that memory may be another way to pass on that collective memory. Perhaps 'fear stories' of old are refreshed and packaged for today's generation to be newly consumed. Traumatic memories are stirred to life as fresh tea or freshly made coffee for the day's energetic lift.

One sees 'successful themes' being replayed and spin-off in television. The same theme played out in different ways. And if a particular theme was successful in grabbing the attention of the viewer, spin-offs are inevitable in the world of imagination and commercialism. In the United States, one reality show was so popular that now it seems that half of the shows on television are 'reality' shows. In actually, they are not real; they are manufactured and tailored for a particular audience to consume.

Such is the case of the 'collective memory' of a nation or a community. A particular painful time in history or a particular event can be revived and renewed as a new rallying cry. The spin-offs are alas freshly new episodes created in today's present and new participants to sacrifice their own lives in the name of the theme. New spin-offs, with the promise of more for the future.

The manipulation to take away the critical thinking of those who are inadvertently put into freshly mint "fight, flight, or freeze" body-mentality can be all too successful. The use of the 'flashbulb' memory of vividly associating circumstances which surrounds a particular emotionally-charged event can be combined with the selection of what particular 'collective memory' to use to drum a theme home. Add the fear that "there is no time to think", therefore, allowing those who are 'knowledgeable' to do our thinking on our behalf, then we start to see a recipe of oppression revisited. Those who have the means to create, to mass produce, and to mass distribute their perspective as 'the Reality' show holds the advantage over the audience, whose minds and physiology are being manipulated by the stories presented and how they are being presented.

Who is the audience? Mainly targeted to the impressionable growing minds and physiology of the youth as well as to those who are being further put into a state of stress - human beings who by in large are struggling to survive economically, physically, and emotionally, and those who view Time as a Master or Enemy in their lives.

In lands where peace is a concept, where wars and skirmishes have kept their 'audience' at the edge of their seats, with the anticipation of more adrenalin-pumping, cortisol driven events yet to come their way, the promise for peace is a land untouched. For generations after generations who have never felt peace underneath their feet or inside their bodies, peace is a non-experiential concept. Trauma and wars which are the daily bread and visions of the sore eyes run through the veins and minds as their breath and Reality show that never changes. Coping skills, behaviors, customs, myths, and stories develop revolving around this Reality show as though there is nothing else that can be experienced.

When leaders and those who influence are marked in their hearts by traumatic tales, those who are captivated in playing this Reality show, where audiences are encouraged to call in and state which are the winners and losers, and where points are won as in a game play, it may be seen by them not in their best interest to stop playing the game. They do not want lose their power given to them by their adoring fans and the ratings so critical to those who provide the support to these leaders and influence-makers. They who came to the rescue of the oppressed find themselves in the cycle of oppression. Consequently, the audience or the people lose.

Paolo Friere once said that if the cycle of oppression was to be broken, we needed to strive to be fully human. Both the oppressor and the oppressed need to take the step to be fully human. It is not enough for the oppressed to leave the cycle; so must the oppressor. If new roles are to be created that live not in hierarchy but in consensus, safety must be revisited for both parties as well as the physiological effects of playing the adrenalin-cortisol pumping game call the Reality show, generated by the past.

• One approach is to dismantle the 'collective memory' of pain and select those memories that inspire hope and courage of the heart, not through wars and fears but one that expands critical thinking of the populace and healing of the hearts of the leaders of all parties concerned.

"The historian's challenge is to explore, first, how major events, under particular conditions, have widely induced such a syndrome in people of the time; second, what situations or cultural traits have aided or inhibited recovery from trauma in past milieux; and third, what the long-range effects of such traumatizations have been for the societies, cultures, and polities concerned." (Struve, L., 2004)

Stories are powerful forces. In group oriented cultures and those whose customs include storytelling know how powerful images can hold our imagination and it can literally affect our physiology and our ability to think and reflect.

Ultimately, all stories are about safety and adventure with the persons involved overcoming some obstacles. The ends of such adventures promise the heroes and heroines, praise and thanks from those whom they have helped. The heroes and heroines grow from being the innocent, brave hearts to wizen warriors who die or leave this lands or they transform to mentors and healers for the new generations.

Today we are experiencing the Jungian Shadow and Trickster archetypes common to all cultures. The Shadow beckons us to bring our Good to the forefront; to do battle, not by becoming a cousin or sibling of the Shadow but by being its opposite. By looking inside ourselves at our own Shadows, acknowledging their existences in us all, do we then take the first step that all of us have the seeds of being the oppressed and oppressors inside of us. It is our choice to fight 'fire with our fire.' Or take the plunge into fighting the Shadow's fire with water. It is also our choice to see the Trickster for it is and to use our critical thinking and wiles to set our internal world and our world at large on a journey of peace to becoming more fully human.

By claiming our humanity and seeking it experientially to the fullest, we alter our own stories which will eventually create new "collective memories" for our children and their descendants, as well as for ourselves. We free ourselves and those who come after us to create stories and adventures of our own making to create and experience our own adventures of love, passion, and peace.

Friere, Paulo (2004) The Pedagogy of the Oppressed, 30 th Edition, New York: Continuum
Huffman, Karen (2005) Psychology in Action , New York: Wiley and Sons Publishing,
Struve, Lynne (2005) A Brief Historical Introduction from History and Memory Volume 16, No. 2,
Summer, 2004 From world wide web: March 19, 2005 http://iupjournals.org/history/ham16-2.html
Villena-Mata, Darling (2001) Walking Between Winds: A Passage Through Societal Passage and Its Healing

Top

The world economic order is changing rapidly due to advancement of science & technology. The world has been transformed into a global village. Due to the process of globalization there are many opportunities as well as threats to the human society. The selfish and ego-centric life of people is destroying the environment, generating poverty , widening the gap between rich & poor and fomenting nuclear wars threatening human life as well. Human values are eroding very fast resulting in declining the quality of life at much faster rate. At the dawn of new millennium, what is required most is 'Peace and Humanism' .

We are living in world of crisis - crisis of poverty, economic crisis , crisis of environmental degradation, cultural crisis and crisis of human values i.e. crisis of peace & human rights violation. In total sum - we are facing 'Crisis of Peace' . Humanity today finds it self in a crisis at the new crossroad. This is an extraordinary world we live in, but if we are not careful, we are going to destroy it. At the very least we will terribly disrupt, if not completely end, life as we know it. Humanity is facing a terrible challenge of its own existence. The whole human life is in a state of turmoil. We are living in a violent consciousness because modern civilization is based on violence. There are constant repetitions of wars; the ceaseless conflict between classes, between peoples; the awful economic & social inequality, the gulf between the rich & poor, and between the developed & developing countries. The present day cycle is known as cycle of violence where violence, war and poverty are cumulatively growing.

The crisis humanity is facing is not a political crisis, it is not an economic crisis, and it is not a military crisis--yet we continue to try to solve it with political, economic, and military means. The crisis humanity faces today is a spiritual crisis, and it can only be resolved by spiritual means. ... We will find our way to peace on earth, goodwill to humans everywhere--and we will find our way because we will make our way. For what the world needs now is 'Peace consciousness' i.e. Peacekeeping force of people who have transformed themselves into peace consciousness. A profound transformation is required in our thought system, value system & consciousness system.

Consciousness is as central to life as the ecosystem is to the earth. We can't live without it, nor can it be escaped. It is home. Neglect consciousness -- denigrate it, violate it -- and like the earth, the individual suffers, and often causes suffering too. On the other hand, nurture consciousness -- understand its nature, inhabit it wisely -- and we flourish, and elevate society too.

Albert Einstein said it this way: "A human being is part of the whole called by us universe, a part limited in time and space. They experience themselves, their thoughts, and feelings as something separated from the rest, a kind of optical delusion of their consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of love and compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty.

The consciousness of mind, which is heavily conditioned, is not the individual creation, rather it is a creation of society. We have created a barbarous and violent society, so in principle, we have dehumanized life. As the human behavior patterns of the whole community are identical, so to recondition or to purify human psyche is a global problem.

The consciousness of human mind can be divided into three main categories according to its levels:

1. ANIMAL CONSCIOUSNESS (or Violent Consciousness) this constitutes aggression, anger, greed, hateredness, jealousy and violence.

2. HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS - consists of selfless service to the people, consideration for others and welfare for all.

3. SPIRITUAL CONSCIOUSNESS OR PEACE CONSCIOUSNESS - constitutes Love, Truth and Compassion for all. This is the highest state of consciousness which means oneness to nature and oneness of humanity.

Our culture, our society have fragmented man "within", and this is reflected in our "without". The internal fragmentation manifests as conflicts and chaos, so human characteristics- such as striving, becoming, aggression , violence, ambition, greed, Hate, envy, jealousy, pain are -constructs of the mind. The internal fragmentation is due to our ignorance of the structure and dynamics of human mind. The profound imbalance in our culture is due to our fragmentary living , and giving up holistic attitude to life. Man has become conscious that he is living a disorderly world, and this disorder is going deeper in every aspect of life, individual and collective. The disorders of man are his own creations of mind. This is known as 'Dehumanization of Life. '

The present crisis is a signal for humanity that warns us of the need for transformation of consciousness. A profound transformation is required in our thought system, value system & consciousness system. We must gradually free ourselves from our materialistic attitude of life to holistic attitude of life. This will lead to a new stage in human development.

The new paradigm 'Peace Paradigm' is required for developing a nonviolent Global Harmonic Society based on common values for humanity's future.

The 21 st century will not be a century of violence and conflict but of a century of peace and religion which will set the standards of life how we live with nature, what kind of society we develop, and how to make united world. People will be the nerve centers with cosmic (peace) consciousness. They will set the cultural norms for oneness of humanity. They will create the advances in civilization that determine how we respond to the human conditions over the next century and beyond.

Seven words uttered by President Bush in Brussels have not been paid the attention they deserve.

He called for the establishment of "a democratic Palestinian state with territorial contiguity" in the West Bank, and then added: "A state on scattered territories will not work." It is worthwhile to ponder these words. Who did he point the finger at? Why did he say this in Brussels, of all places? Nobody warns of a danger without a reason. If Bush said what he said, it means that he believes that someone is causing this danger. Just who might that be?

For years now I have been warning that this is the intention of Ariel Sharon, the basis of the whole settlement enterprise planned and set up by him. The lay-out of the settlements on the West Bank map is designed to cut the territory up from North to South and from West to East, in order to forestall any possibility of establishing a really viable and contiguous Palestinian state, a state like any other.

If the settlement blocs that have been created are annexed to Israel, the Palestinian territory will be sliced up into a number of enclaves - perhaps four, perhaps six. The Gaza Strip, an isolated ghetto by itself, will be another enclave. Each enclave will be surrounded by settlements and military installations, and all of them will be cut off from the world outside.

The American intelligence agencies are familiar with this picture, of course. They can see it with their satellites. But that did not deter President Bush from promising Sharon last year that Israeli "population centers" in the West Bank will be annexed to Israel. These "population centers" are the very same settlement blocs that were defined by the US in the past as "illegal" and "an obstacle to peace". During the presidency of the first President Bush, the American administration even decided to deduct the costs of new settlement projects from the financial benefits accorded to Israel.

So why did the second Bush suddenly make a declaration whose practical meaning is that some of these settlement blocs must be dismantled? And why did he make it in Brussels? It is clear that he wanted to gain favor with his European hosts. The European Union opposes the annexation of West Bank territory to Israel. Bush said what he said in order to reduce his differences with Europe.

So he said it. And what is happening on the ground in the meantime? Last Sunday the Israeli government decided for the second time to implement the disengagement plan, a decision that was hailed by the media as "historic". With all the hullabaloo, hardly any attention was paid to a second resolution adopted at the same meeting: to continue building the wall in the West Bank.

At first sight, that is a routine decision. After all, the government argues that this is nothing but a "security fence". It does indeed have a certain security function, and Israeli public opinion accepts it as such. But by now, informed people must know that this wall is intended as the future border of Israel. Therefore, this week all government spokespersons took pains to stress that the new path of the wall cuts off only 7-8% of the West Bank.

The word "only" deserves attention. President Bill Clinton's last peace plan spoke about the annexation of 3-4% of the West Bank to Israel, in return for the transfer of 1% of Israeli territory to the Palestinian state. Seven percent of the territory of the Federal Republic of Germany is much more than the whole state of Saxony. Seven percent of the territory of the United States of America is more than the whole giant state of Texas. (Imagine: Mexico conquers Texas, builds a wall between it and the rest of the US and fills it with Mexican settlements.)

But the percentage game is misleading. It is not only the size of the territory that is important, but also its location. In this respect, the controversy between Israel and the US remains. It concerns mainly two places, where the path of the wall causes the dismemberment of the West Bank. If the wall is to include the settlement town of Ariel, it will send a finger deep into the West Bank. This finger will connect with a second one, coming from the opposite direction - the two fingers together will cut through the whole width of the West Bank south of Nablus. Another finger will extend from Jerusalem to the enlarged Ma'aleh Adumim settlement bloc, also cutting practically the full width of the West Bank.

The Americans do not yet agree. So Sharon is using one of his typical methods: in those two places he leaves a gap in the wall. He will build there in due course, after using a future opportunity to wrap President Bush - so to say - around his little finger.

But the percentage account is also wrong in another respect. Nowadays one speaks only about the wall that will separate the West Bank from Israel proper. Nobody is talking now of the "Eastern" wall. It is no secret that Sharon plans to build this wall in order to complete the encirclement of the West Bank and cut it off from the Jordan valley and the Dead Sea shore. That is a big slice of territory, about 20% of the West Bank, and would cut the West Bank off from any contact with the world. Sharon knows that he cannot build this wall at the moment, because of the opposition of the US and the whole world. Also, there is no budget for it. Therefore, he is leaving it for the future.

The government decision does formally include the southern border of the West Bank, where the planned path of the wall runs almost completely along the Green Line. That looks really nice. But this, too, contains a trick: Sharon does not intend to build this part of the wall in the near future. He is postponing it for another time - and then he will propose a different path altogether, including a finger thrust deeply into Palestinian territory, so as to annex the South Hebron settlement bloc, up to Kiryat Arba. By way of deception shalt thou build settlements.

In the meantime, Sharon is keeping himself occupied with building on the 7% of the territory that has been approved by the government decision. All this area between the wall and the Green Line - the territory already annexed in practice - is being filled with new settlements. Among others:

* A new town called Gevaoth that is to be built west of Bethlehem, in what is called the "Etzion Bloc". That is a mendacious name: the original Etzion Bloc consisted of a small group of settlements near the Green Line. It was occupied by the Arabs in the 1948 war and re-conquered by Israel in 1967, when the former settlements were also re-built. But then a whole new town (Efrata) was added to the East, and beyond that a number of new settlements, until the original few settlements had expanded into a massive settlement bloc almost surrounding Bethlehem. Now Sharon is going to fill it with even more settlers.

* A big new settlement called "North Tsufim" that is to be built north of Qalqilia. This, too, will reach the proportions of a town.

* Giant housing projects, that will be set up in order to connect the Ma'aleh Adumim bloc to Jerusalem, and just about reach the Jordan river.

Also in the Jerusalem Area, the new (Labor) Minister for Housing, Yitzhak Herzog, promises to build big housing projects from Har Homa to Ma'aleh Adumim, while another one is going to be built east of a-Ram. The aim is to cut Jerusalem off completely from the West Bank.

All this is happening while Israel and the world are waxing lyrical about the "disengagement" plan - which, in essence, is nothing but a plan to consolidate the Gaza strip as one of the enclaves in "a state of scattered territories". (The Gaza Strip constitutes only 6% of the occupied territories.) The Labor party is a full partner in this scheme. As far as Sharon is concerned, the disengagement plan plays with the dismantling of some small settlements in a remote corner of the occupied territories for the fulfillment of his grand design to take over most of the West Bank.

Now President Bush has declared that he does not accept this design. His European hosts smiled politely. Perhaps they believed him, and then, maybe they did not.

Many years ago, I read a book called The Quiet American by Graham Greene. Its central character is a high-minded, naive young American operative in Vietnam. He has no idea about the complexities of that country but is determined to right its wrongs and create order. The results are disastrous.

I have the feeling that this is happening now in Lebanon. The Americans are not so high-minded and no so naive. Far from it. But they are quite prepared to go into a foreign country, disregard its complexities, and use force to impose on it order, democracy and freedom.

Lebanon is a country with a peculiar topography: a small country of high mountain ranges and isolated valleys. As a result, it has attracted throughout the centuries communities of persecuted minorities, who found refuge there. Today there are, side by side and one against the other, four ethno-religious communities: Christians, Sunnis, Shiites and Druse. Within the Christian community, there are several sub-communities, such as Maronites and other ancient sects, mostly hostile to each other. The history of Lebanon abounds in mutual massacres.

Such a situation invites, of course, interference by neighbors and foreign powers, each wanting to stir the pot for its own advantage. Syria, Israel, the United States and France, the former colonial master, are all involved.

Exactly 50 years ago a secret, heated debate took place among the leaders of Israel. David Ben-Gurion (then Minister of Defense) and Moshe Dayan (the army Chief-of-Staff) had a brilliant idea: to invade Lebanon, impose on it a "Christian major" as dictator and turn it into an Israeli protectorate. Moshe Sharett, the then Prime Minister, attacked this idea fervently. In a lengthy, closely argued letter, which has been preserved for history, he ridiculed the total ignorance of the proponents of this idea in face of the incredibly fragile complexity of the Lebanese social structure. Any adventure, he warned, would end in disaster.

At the time, Sharett won. But 27 years later, Menachem Begin and Ariel Sharon did exactly what Ben-Gurion and Dayan had proposed. The result was exactly as foreseen by Sharett.

Anyone who follows the American and Israeli (there is no difference) media, gets the impression that the present situation in Lebanon is simple: there are two camps, "the supporters of Syria" on the one side, the "opposition" on the other. There is a "Beirut Spring". The opposition is a twin sister of yesterday's Ukrainian opposition, and loyally imitates all its methods: demonstrations opposite the government building, a sea of waving flags, colorful shawls, and, most importantly, beautiful girls in the front row.

But between the Ukraine and Lebanon there exists not the slightest similarity. The Ukraine is a "simple" country: the east tends towards Russia, the west towards Europe. With American help, the west won.

In Lebanon, all the diverse communities are in action. Each for its own interest, each plotting to outfox the others, perhaps to attack them at a given opportunity. Some of the leaders are connected with Syria, some with Israel, all are trying to use the Americans for their ends. The jolly pictures of young demonstrators, so prominent in the media, have no meaning if one does not know the community which stands behind them.

Only thirty years ago these communities started a terrible civil war and all of them massacred each other. The Christian Maronites wanted to take over the country with the help of Israel, but were defeated by a coalition of the Sunnis and Druze (the Shiites played no significant role at that time). The Palestinian refugees, led by the PLO, who formed a kind of fifth "community", joined the battle. When the Christians were in danger of being overrun, they called on the Syrians for help. Six years later, Israel invaded, with the aim of evicting both the Syrians and the Palestinians and imposing a Christian strongman (Basheer Jumail).

It took us 18 years to get out of that morass. Our only achievement was to turn the Shiites into a dominant force. When we entered Lebanon, the Shiites received us with showers of rice and candies, hoping that we would throw out the Palestinians, who had been lording it over them. A few months later, when they realized that we did not intend to leave, they started to shoot at us. Sharon is the midwife of Hizbullah.

It is difficult to foresee what will happen if the Syrians accede to the American ultimatum and leave Lebanon. There is no indication that the Americans are concerned with the creation of a new fabric of life for the Lebanese communities. They are satisfied with babbling about "freedom" and "democracy", as if a majority vote could create a regime acceptable to all. They do not understand that "Lebanon" is an abstract notion, since for almost all Lebanese, belonging to their own community is vastly more important than loyalty to the state. In such a situation, even an international force will be of no help.

If a civil war breaks out in Lebanon, it will not be the only one in the region. In Iraq, such a war - if almost secret - is already in full swing.

The only effective military forces in Iraq, apart from the occupation army, are the Kurdish "Peshmerga" ("Those who face death"). The Americans use them whenever they are fighting the Sunnis. They played an important role in the battle of Faluja, a big town that was totally destroyed, its inhabitants killed or driven out.

Now the Kurdish forces are waging a war against the Sunnis and Turkmens in the north of the country, in order to take hold of the oil-rich areas and the town of Kirkuk, and also to drive out the Sunni settlers who were implanted there by Saddam Hussein.

How can such a war be practically ignored by the media? Simple: everything is swept under the carpet of the "war against terrorism".

But this small war is nothing compared to what may happen in Iraq, once the time comes for deciding the future of the country. The Kurds want complete autonomy, or independence by another name. The Sunni would not dream of accepting the rule of the Shiite majority, which they despise, even if came about in the name of "democracy". The outbreak of a full-fledged civil war may only be a question of time.

If the Americans succeed, with our discreet help, in breaking the ruling Syrian dictatorship, there is no assurance at all that it will be replaced by "freedom" and "democracy".

Syria is almost as splintered as Lebanon. There is a strong Druze community in the south, a rebellious Kurdish community in the north, an Alawite community (to which the Assad family belongs) in the west. The Sunni majority is traditionally divided between Damascus in the south and Aleppo in the north. The people have resigned themselves to the Assad dictatorship out of fear of what may happen if the regime collapses.

It is not likely that a full-scale civil war will break out there. But a prolonged situation of total chaos is quite likely. Sharon would be happy, though I am not sure that it would be good for Israel.

The main American objective is, of course, the overthrow of the Ayatollahs in Iran. (It is a little bit ironic that at the same time the Americans are helping to install the Shiites in power in neighboring Iraq, where they insist on introducing Islamic law.)

Iran is a much harder nut to crack. Unlike to Iraq, Syria and Lebanon, this is a homogenous society. Israel is now openly threatening to bomb the Iranian nuclear installations. Every few days we see on our TV screens the digitally blurred faces of pilots boasting of their readiness to do this at a moment's notice

The religious fervor of the Ayatollahs has been flagging lately, as happens with every victorious revolution after some time. But a military attack by the "Big Satan" (the US) or the "Little Satan" (us) may set fire to the whole Shiite crescent: Iran, South Iraq and South Lebanon.

Israel, too, has recently witnessed a tiny civil war. In the Galilean village Marrar, where a Druze and an Arab Christian community have been living side by side for generations, a bloody incident suddenly erupted. It was a full-fledged pogrom: the Druze fell upon the Christians, attacking, burning and destroying. By a miracle, nobody was killed. The Christians say that the Israeli police (many of whose members are Druze) stood aside. The immediate reason for the outbreak: some doctored nude pictures on the Internet.)

It is easy to ignite a civil war, whether out of fanaticism or out of intolerable naivete. George Bush, the (not-so-)Quiet American, runs around the world hawking his patent medicines, "freedom" and "democracy", in total ignorance of hundreds of years of history. Hard to believe, but he draws his inspiration from a book by our own Nathan Sharansky, a very small genius, to say the least.

Every human being and every people has a right to freedom. Many of us have shed their blood for this aim. Democracy is an ideal that every people has to realize for itself. But when the banners of "freedom" and "democracy" are hoisted over a crusade by an avaricious and irresponsible super-power, the results can be catastrophic.

Source: CGNews, http://www.commongroundnews.org February 25, 2005.
Distributed by CGNews with permission to publish.

Jerusalem - Taking up the metaphor of "a window of opportunity," one might point out that someone bent over in pain will be hard-pressed to see any light from the window, or even believe it exists. This applies to a large segment of the Israeli and Palestinian populations, which, even if not suffering directly from the violence of the last four and a half years, has been substantially traumatized by it.

Personally, however, I have no doubt that we are at a remarkable turning point. No less significant than the impressive democratic Palestinian support for Mahmoud Abbas (aka Abu Mazen) is the remarkable political turnabout of Ariel Sharon. One has to grasp the almost metaphysical meaning of "settlement" in Zionist mythology in order to appreciate that the advocacy of dismantlement of even one of the settlements - and led by the man who symbolized their establishment - is a development of enormous positive significance toward a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is of course possible that the vagaries of Israeli politics may postpone implementation. However, there is no doubt in my mind that even if lamentably delayed, this Rubicon will be crossed and an inevitable and inexorable dynamic will ensue. Already, security cooperation has advanced with rapidity, and the likelihood is that Israel's unilateral disengagement will increasingly be bilateral and cooperative. As events on the ground begin to change, the populations' skepticism will change as well.

The greatest danger, of course, comes from extremists on both sides. To my great distress as a religious person, such extremist violence usually occurs under the pretext of religious duty. Indeed, the Oslo Peace Process was torpedoed substantially on both sides by the use of religion as justification for violent actions. We have to do our best to neutralize such extremists, and while this requires effective security and legal action, this is not enough.

For better and worse, religion is inextricably bound to the identities of the parties involved in the conflict, and it is exploited even by those who are far from the spiritual and ethical values of its heritages. For this reason, there has been a tendency on the part of politicians and others, while pursuing a peace agenda, to avoid religious institutions and their representatives, viewing them as an obstacle. In the shadow of all the terrible things that have been done in the name of religion, this is understandable. However, I believe it to be a tragically counterproductive approach.

If we don't want religion to be part of the problem, we must make it part of the solution. During the last four and a half years of violence, the territorial conflict has increasingly been presented as a religious one. Not only was the last Intifada portrayed in religious terms (in the name of Al-Aqsa), but propaganda has increasingly used religious terminology to de-legitimize and even demonize the other. This "religionization" of the conflict is extremely dangerous. As long as the conflict is perceived as a territorial one it can be resolved through territorial compromise. If, however, it is seen as a struggle between the Godly and the godless, then we are doomed to an eternal cycle of bloodshed.

Galvanizing the religious leadership to support peaceful reconciliation, to oppose incitement and prejudicial misrepresentation on all sides, is thus an urgent imperative - and it is possible, especially if political leadership supports it. In addition, to really combat extremists, and not just contain them, we need to give the moderates (whom I am convinced are the majority) more visibility. Because their voices are not sensational or bloodthirsty, they are hardly heard at all in the media, leading to a distorted public perception and a destructive cyclical process.

There is already positive movement in this regard. Three years ago, when violence between Palestinians and Israelis was at its height, fifteen religious leaders and representatives of the three main Faiths in the Holy Land - including the Sephardic Chief Rabbi of Israel, the President of the Palestinian Sharia Courts, the Latin Patriarch, and deputies of the Greek Orthodox and Armenian Patriarchs - were all hosted in Alexandria by Sheikh Mohamad Sayyed Tantawi, the Grand Imam of Al Azhar. The initiator of this gathering was the then Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord George Carey. This historic gathering (the first ever summit of leaders and representatives of the three main religions of the Holy Land) issued an important declaration condemning violence in the name of religion as desecration of religion, and calling for peace and reconciliation, as well as education towards those goals. The effect of this declaration was substantially lost by the ongoing violence on the ground. However, the signatories did go ahead with the establishment of a committee to help implement educational initiatives for the promotion of peace and mutual religious respect. Centers in Israeli and Palestinian societies have now been established under the auspices of this committee to promote these goals.

In addition, recent interfaith meetings involving notable Israeli and Palestinian religious figures, as well as those from the wider Middle East and beyond, reflect the increasing desire of religious leaders to be part of a process of peace and reconciliation. Arguably the most remarkable of these was the successful gathering of some one hundred and fifty leading rabbis and sheikhs that took place in Brussels last month under the auspices of King Mohamad VI of Morocco and King Albert II of Belgium. The meeting, which received widespread coverage, especially in the European media, sought to emphasize both the past historic legacy of interfaith cooperation, as well as the central shared values of the religious traditions. Sheikh Talal Sidr of Hebron (who is also one of the key protagonists of the Alexandria committee) declared in his remarks on the opening evening that only when the three religious traditions live in mutual respect will there be real peace in the Middle East.

Recognizing the limitations of institutional religion, especially in our part of the world, it would be more than naïve to expect it to spearhead any political breakthrough. However, when there is a political window of opportunity, as there is now, it is essential that religious voices and leadership are actively involved in its support. While religion may not be able to initiate a political resolution of the conflict, it is an essential component for a successful political process, providing the psycho-spiritual glue for long-lasting and effective peace.